Senate heads for procedural vote on Buffet Rule

[JimH52]

NBC Politics - Senate heads for procedural vote on 'Buffett rule'

So will the GOP vote down a proposed policy that over 60% of the country supports? Will they stick their necks out that far and give Obama and the Dems a rallying cry in the fall?

 

[Jackson]

What nonsense. How about a procedural vote on a budget? Oh, that's right. Reid says it's not time.

 

[JimH52]

NBC Politics - Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

 

[Rozman]

NBC Politics - Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

I think that number is a little low.
I think it's 97% - 98%

Also a poll that will be released soon shows that 99% of the American people want to work for nothing with all money earned be turned of to the Democrat Party to spend as they see fit.

 

[Trajan]

and want free scooter pies on 'no work' Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays....

 

[Trajan]

What nonsense. How about a procedural vote on a budget? Oh, that's right. Reid says it's not time.

agreed, at 51-45 they could have passed a budget but alas....

 

[hortysir]

NBC Politics - Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

From your own link, fumblehead:


The bill would raise $46.7 billion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, so it would in itself do little to reduce the long-term mismatch between revenues and spending

 

[Trajan]

NBC Politics - Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

From your own link, fumblehead:


The bill would raise $46.7 billion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, so it would in itself do little to reduce the long-term mismatch between revenues and spending

its just grass for the sheep

 

[old navy]

Nobody wants Buffett to pass. Not Obama. Not the Dems or Buffett himself. It is just another rallying cry for the uninformed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

NBC Politics - Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

Would you support it if 70% of voters wanted to raise taxes on the middle class?

 

[Navy1960]

46.7 Billion give me a break, you want to impact the budget that much over the next 10 years, here EPA Budget is 8.6 Billion, cut that by 2 Billion for 10 years, install a transaction tax of .003 percent for every stock transaction and thats another 150 Billion. Then you do a bottoms-up review of GSA and DOD purchasing on such things as the F-35 and other programs which is a cash cow. In short over a 10 year period of time your close to a Trillion. Now I know some will come back with the sky is falling job creators debate, however I will counter that with the following, the record speaks for itself. Those so called job creators have had over 10 years of of tax cuts, tax breaks, etc. and it has resulted in a mass exodus of US Jobs on a grand scale. The point here is that congress need not pass laws that point to one group of Americans and tell them , create jobs and at the same time, punish them, when they themselves are not willing to do the hard work needed to create the revenue needed to do so no matter where that might come from.

 

[Staidhup]

Nobody wants Buffett to pass. Not Obama. Not the Dems or Buffett himself. It is just another rallying cry for the uninformed.

Well stated, let me ask one little question and close with a comment, why don't they first remove the Soc Sec cap and save social security? If they raise taxes on the super rich, and the super rich are compensated from long term and short term capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate then earned income, then how would this proposed tax increase make a difference unless of course the target is not those fat cats but the middle class? Got to love the left they are tricky!

 

[Missourian]

CNN poll...

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%


So, the senate should pass it, right?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf
​

 

[hortysir]

NBC Politics - Senate rejects 'Buffett rule'

So the GOP has blocked a bill favored by 70% of the voter! Wonderful!

From your own link, fumblehead:


The bill would raise $46.7 billion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, so it would in itself do little to reduce the long-term mismatch between revenues and spending

its just grass for the sheep

Guees ol' Jim is allergic

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Senate Republicans Filibuster Buffett Rule

As usual, the pubs are very dishonest, won't allow a straight vote.

70% is in favor of this but the pubs are only in favor of their cronies.

 

[hortysir]

Senate Republicans Filibuster Buffett Rule

As usual, the pubs are very dishonest, won't allow a straight vote.

70% is in favor of this but the pubs are only in favor of their cronies.

How many days without a budget, Harry???

 

[Interpol]

The way it typically works when one party holds the Senate and the other the House is that the Senate basically becomes a rubber-stamp so that a bill can basically get to the President for him to sign off on.

Get the compromising done in the House and then have the Senate advance it to the President's desk.

But where we're at right now is that John Boehner is putting out bills that are Tea Party wet dreams; they're too uncompromising.

Harry Reid's values are that of old-time Republicans from just a few decades ago. He wants to get a bill from the House that basically proposes to cut corporate welfare, raise taxes modestly on those who did the best the last decade or so, cut some government waste, make some investments in things we simply need to invest in, and bring down the yearly deficits.

Harry Reid's been just sitting there waiting to sign off on a balanced proposal that makes both sides happy and somewhat upset over some items, but that's how democracy works, and then the President will sign off on it and we can say, okay, we just cut the 10-year outlook by $3-4 trillion. Not bad. Level off the spending, pass something that asks everyone to sacrifice a little something.

I think it's been mostly a missed-opportunity for John Boehner. Much better to be able to say that you got the President to enact some of your shit.

Boehner and Cantor aren't getting the President to enact anything because they absolutely will not send the Senate anything that resembles what majority public opinion is in favor of these days and that's just strange to me.

John Boehner knows better. In years past, the House Speaker used to be able to crack the whip and get something done, but unfortunately he's acquiescing with what I find to be a rather uncompromising wing of the Republican party.

It's time for oil subsidies to stop. It's time for modest tax increases on the very wealthy. Even Reagan's former economic advisers admit as much.

Now, conservatives already know that those two things alone will not solve the fiscal crisis, but taken together with many other things to be done it starts to add up to a portrait of a society that is taking steps to be more responsible.

I don't think that asking President Obama or Bill Clinton or Mitt Romney to pay a little bit more is waging any kind of war on them, and indeed, many super wealthy people don't see it as a burden but more as an opportunity to have their money be invested in pretty basic things like high-speed rail, which is an idea whose time has come.

The economics of having that in America would be amazing. It's a worthy investment.

President Reagan was giving the same speeches that Barack Obama gives only Reagan would relate the story in terms of a wealthy guy and a bus driver while Obama uses Buffett and his secretary as the example. And the public overwhelmingly agrees with this. There was a poll the other day that showed 60% were in favor of it, and I said to myself when I read that, "That's an outlier, the previous numbers were about 15% higher on average or more" and then we get that new poll today that showed support for it at 72%. with Republican voters out there favoring it as well.

I think it's kind of silly to be so lockstep in the idea that one entire budget needs to pass at once.

Who says?

Why can't it pass by piecemeal?

Sounds more logical and reasonable to me. Take one thing, pass it. Take another thing, hash it over, pass it.

There is a gap in America between where massive public opinion is and the totally non-existent things that have resulted out of that.

That's not how America used to be. The overwhelmingly popular stuff has always just ended up passing, but now it's like total gridlock on things like the highway bill and on the jobs plan, which was favored by more than 60% a few months ago when it didn't get passed.

I think that the conservative side of me says, "You give the President what he wants. You go in his overall direction, but temper it with some of the stuff you want. After that, if his direction isn't going well, that's when you can leverage your own argument and then beat him. But you can't oppose him the whole way because then the incumbent gets to build a narrative that you're the one holding the country back, and that makes it hard to stand on your own two feet and fight when he can just keep knocking you down with the accusation that you're uncompromising".

Unfortunately, it just feels at this point that John Boehner can't put forward anything moderate that the overwhelming majority wants because he doesn't want to have to face the wrath of that 30% of folks, all on the hard-right, who now believe it is sacrilege to even suggest that taxes be raised on the top 2% of income earners.

Tax reform is one of the big things I'm voting for this time and it's strange because I identify myself as fiscally conservative and it appears that the conservative party just isn't delivering on giving me any confidence that they would make the right moves to help trim the deficit. It isn't class warfare to suggest that capital gains should be higher and that the estate tax should be a little higher as well.

I support the success of the Waltons and the success of my country on equal terms and understand it to be constitutional that the Congress does indeed have the ability to secure additional revenue by asking for some rates to go up modestly.

Believing in ourselves means investing in ourselves at the same time that we find ways to cut waste. The Republicans are making it very difficult for themselves to get folks like me on board because I'm a fiscal conservative who doesn't see it as class warfare being perpetuated here, and neither do a lot of us, actually.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Of course the Senate minority supported the position of their corporate owners, against the desire for tax fairness supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. I guess Republicans will use this bidding to get enough money from limited liability corporate accounts to tell the American people it was for their own good. The sad thing is that most of the tea baggers will buy the narrative.

 

[Trajan]

CNN poll...

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%


So, the senate should pass it, right?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf
​

dude!! you dropped the big one

 

[hortysir]

CNN poll...

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

Favor 74%
Oppose 24%
No opinion 1%


So, the senate should pass it, right?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf
​

dude!! you dropped the big one