Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry_Miah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tqualey said:
Hi, Gilliam,

Well, that is what makes for a horse race - I think the House will kill it very quickly.

God bless
Click to expand...
Didn’t make it to the House. Now the GOP will get hammered that it is not the party of “fairness.” and the rich man’s party with the rich man leading the way… and all that sort of thing. We will see if the populism spin will be enough to move Obama’s poll numbers amongst likely voters. (really the ones who would matter here would be the Independents)
 
They (or someone) has already paid taxes on the capital gains money once. Why should they be double taxed?
 
gilliam said:
Didn’t make it to the House. Now the GOP will get hammered that it is not the party of “fairness.” and the rich man’s party with the rich man leading the way… and all that sort of thing. We will see if the populism spin will be enough to move Obama’s poll numbers amongst likely voters. (really the ones who would matter here would be the Independents)
Click to expand...
I think all they need to do is stay on message. What did Obama plan to do with these funds? He was talking about more “green energy” and other ill advised programs. They need to point out that the reason Democrats want to raise taxes is to continue down the path of bloated government spending, more nanny state largesse and crony capitalism.

Why would we trust Obama with MORE tax dollars? He hasn’t done well with what he already received (borrowed from China!).

I don’t think the American people will be as easily fooled this time. We’ve had three years of misery under this president. Why would anyone want four more?

Lisa
 
gilliam said:
Breaking: Senate vote on Buffett Rule fails

Senate Republicans on Monday blocked President Barack Obama’s “Buffett Rule” legislation, which would have put a 30-percent minimum tax on millionaires, in a debate that is likely to resonate through the November elections.

reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-usa-congress-taxes-vote-idUSBRE83F1AC20120416
Click to expand...
Perhaps somebody can explain how this debate has even began in the Senate. As Art. 1, Sec. 7 says: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Now, this 30% rule, isn’t it “for raising Revenue”? Thus, shouldn’t it originate in the House? Or is this argued as an amendment to existing legislation (i.e. this is an existing law, and the Senate is only proposing an amendment)?
 
We will see what happens. Romney and Obama are both very disciplined candidates.

One thing Obama has going for him that Romney doesn’t have is that in the last 4 years he has convinced the American public that is his personally likable.
 
Suudy said:
Perhaps somebody can explain how this debate has even began in the Senate. As Art. 1, Sec. 7 says: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Now, this 30% rule, isn’t it “for raising Revenue”? Thus, shouldn’t it originate in the House? Or is this argued as an amendment to existing legislation (i.e. this is an existing law, and the Senate is only proposing an amendment)?
Click to expand...
Because it never would have gotten past John Boehner or Eric Cantor in the House. Another way of circumventing the Constitution. Harry Reid is great at non-compliance. Note how he refuses to bring up legislation passed by the House, refuses to prepare a budget, pines for his pomegranate trees back home. Definitely not one of the shining stars in Washington is he?

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Because it never would have gotten past John Boehner or Eric Cantor in the House. Another way of circumventing the Constitution. Harry Reid is great at non-compliance. Note how he refuses to bring up legislation passed by the House, refuses to prepare a budget, pines for his pomegranate trees back home. Definitely not one of the shining stars in Washington is he?

Lisa
Click to expand...
That is the job of the Senate. They aren’t suppose to act at the bidding of the House. They are suppose to be the more deliberative body.

By setting the constitutionally-required minimum age for Senators at 30, as opposed to 25 for members of the House, the Founders hoped Senators would be more likely to consider the long-term effects of legislation and practice a more mature, thoughtful and deeply deliberative approach in their deliberations. Setting aside the validity of this “maturity” factor, the Senate undeniably does take longer to consider bills, often brings up points not considered by the House and just as often votes down bills passed easily by the House.

A famous (though perhaps fictional) simile often quoted to point out the differences between the House and Senate involves an argument between George Washington, who favored having two chambers of Congress and Thomas Jefferson, who believed a second chamber to be unnecessary. The story goes that the two Founders were arguing the issue while drinking coffee. Suddenly, Washington asked Jefferson, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” replied Jefferson. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm
 
gilliam said:
That is the job of the Senate. They aren’t suppose to act at the bidding of the House. They are suppose to be the more deliberative body.

By setting the constitutionally-required minimum age for Senators at 30, as opposed to 25 for members of the House, the Founders hoped Senators would be more likely to consider the long-term effects of legislation and practice a more mature, thoughtful and deeply deliberative approach in their deliberations. Setting aside the validity of this “maturity” factor, the Senate undeniably does take longer to consider bills, often brings up points not considered by the House and just as often votes down bills passed easily by the House.

A famous (though perhaps fictional) simile often quoted to point out the differences between the House and Senate involves an argument between George Washington, who favored having two chambers of Congress and Thomas Jefferson, who believed a second chamber to be unnecessary. The story goes that the two Founders were arguing the issue while drinking coffee. Suddenly, Washington asked Jefferson, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” replied Jefferson. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm
Click to expand...
Yes well great in theory but the “great deliberative body” held no hearings, had no debate, provided no opportunity for public comment. This was obviously a gimmick to help push Obama’s election mantra…soak the rich. They did none of the steps you mentioned as being the whole point of having such a chamber.

Lisa
 
What about the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax at all? What are we going to do about them? 🤷
 
Bklynguy said:
What about the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax at all? What are we going to do about them? 🤷
Click to expand...
999 (or a national sales tax to completely replace the income tax). Everybody pays taxes that way: pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, mafiosi, etc, etc.
 
gilliam said:
That is the job of the Senate. They aren’t suppose to act at the bidding of the House. They are suppose to be the more deliberative body.

usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/whyhouseandsenate.htm
[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
BTW just heard an interview with John Kyl. He said they used a procedure that is allowed but even had they passed the Bill in the Senate it could NOT become law unless initiated by the House. Totally contrived political theater. Unfortunately most of America isn’t aware of these rules and will just interpret it as “Republicans hate poor people.”

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top