McConnell: If Buffett Feels Guilty About His Taxes 'He Should Send in a Check'
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) doesn't think the President's new "Buffett Rule" to create a higher tax rate for millionaires makes sense.
Speaking on Sunday's "Meet the Press," McConnell said, "With regard to his tax rate, if [Warren Buffett's] feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DAVID GREGORY, HOST: What’s unfair though about making richer Americans pay the same tax rates as middle income Americans?
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KENTUCKY): Well, look, you know, if Warren Buffett would like to give up some of his benefits, we’d be happy to talk about it. I mean, I think that means testing benefits is one of the ways that we’re going to have to solve at least the Social Security and Medicare problems long-term for the next generations. With regard to his tax rate, if he’s feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check.
Much as what MSNBC's Pat Buchanan said in August when Buffett wrote his pathetic op-ed in the New York Times complaining about how low his tax burden is.
Of course, it was revealed days later that Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway might owe the IRS as much as $1 billion.
I highly doubt that as America's media gush and fawn over Obama's "Buffett Rule" they'll bring that up.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Awwwwwwwwwwh, poor Buffett.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:18pm.
Why doesn't he just pay what he owes?
Can I get on his tax plan, and just not pay up?
Typical liberal. When they talk about "more money to the government," they're talking about your money; not theirs!
Guess
Submitted by grammajane on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:23pm.
our questions run along the same line. we were probably writing our comments at the same time.
Great minds, Jane. Great minds.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:25pm.
.
Owe??
Submitted by grammajane on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:19pm.
Wasn't it reported that Buffett owes the IRS millions? Appears he can't keep his finances straight and does he have plans of paying it back? If he were to "give" his cash to the Gov. is it deducted from the money he already owes?
Class warfare at its ugliest
Submitted by kata on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:19pm.
I will be curious what this will do to Mr Buffett since he only pays himself 100K a year in actual salary.
Actually...
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:36pm.
He takes home enough each year in dividends and capital gains that his tax last year was (i heard reported) about 7 million dollars, at about 17% rate.
However, that's not really the point. Keep in mind, this guy is so wealthy that he could triple his rate and not live a different lifestyle. But a person who makes the bottom of the new tax bracket? It will have a much more profound affect on them.
Buffet wants these taxes not because it will hurt him, it won't. He wants them to help bar entry into businesses where he rules. While a few percent won't hurt him, it will damage smaller businesses and investors who are on or near their "millionaire" threshold, and probably even some larger investors.
Regulation and taxation work FOR the biggest players in every field, and against smaller competitors. They can even be barriers to entry. Especially regulation.
Now, i think the law should be simple. If you are a billionaire and you complain about not paying enough tax, you should immediately be subject to a 50% net worth tax. And that should be applicable once a year, based on how often you open your mouth.
Hey, none of this affects me, i have a middle income salary, but i do want to see this country flourish. Buffet, Obama, and others in the "elite class" want to hamper this country and extend the divide to keep themselves in "power." Which is what they are really after, and it is different than wealth.
retrocon nails it with "barriers to entry"
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 12:05am.
No better said.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Bravo Retro, bravo.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:16am.
I couldn't say it any better, so I won't try.
Nice job.
Every time o'bama opens his
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 1:37pm.
Every time o'bama opens his mouth and says "Rich people like me don't need the money we make", I keep waiting for his check to clear the Treasury. He said it again today. But -- no check has been written, as far as I know.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Don't we already have
Submitted by inquiringmind on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:55pm.
Don't we already have something called AMT alternative minimmum tax that starts phasing out deductions and exemptions for wealthier people? It was put in place to make sure those that do make more money don't get deductions meant to help lower income earners.
At least I thought we already had it in place.
IRS Check Off Box
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:20pm.
When they have the necessary power, the Republicans should get the IRS to put a check-off box on Income Tax Forms. The box should ask if the filer would like to pay more in federal income tax, and provide a way to increase the filer's tax rate by 1%, 5%, or 10% or fill in whatever percent.
This would be a great argument whenever the libs propose a tax increase. "Over 99.9% of federal income tax filers do not want their taxes increased!"
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
We should also have "Do you
Submitted by Dan Diego on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:10pm.
We should also have "Do you want your taxes to fund..." check boxes for
Cultural programs
Homosexual programs
Green programs
_____________ programs (fill in the blank).
What is so appaling about....
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:24pm.
Warren Buffet's claims is that he's not even paying income tax. He pays capital gains tax. So Obama's Buffet tax is so hypocritical because it won't make Buffet's tax go up a penny.
Obama's Buffet Tax
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 2:23pm.
What he's attempting to do is to move that capital income, at the "million" dollar level, over into ordinary income. With Obama's already increased rate at the upper level, that's somewhere about 45%!
Furthermore, capital gains are taxed twice.
It's merely more of the same, class warfare.
The whole notion is dumber than dirt.
Paul Ryan just did a beautiful job of taking down the whole idiot scheme on FNS.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Ahh Buffett, No alleged good deed goes unpunished
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:24pm.
hay your pal O'bama, as placed your name on a proposed tax law.
Bust out the engraving tools and have this carved in granite:
Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett,
the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people
like him pay a smaller share of their income
in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.
Hurry send in a check for 50 million, the way things are done down there in DC, your pals will write-off the billion you owe IRS.
You Didn't Build That.
This is a jobs creator how exactly Ms. Pelousy?
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:30pm.
Can someone ask a Lib, "How will this create jobs"?
Sounds like Sotero is simply playing "Party before country".
Class warfare - the Republicans should tell him to push this through by any means other than Congress, LET EM'.
Then when nothing changes (best case) or gets worse (worst case), BLAME HIM.
Based on Obama's criticism of
Submitted by moonjohn on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:42pm.
Based on Obama's criticism of Buffett and Buffett's own admission of him not paying taxes, Congress should pass a law ordering Buffett's arrest and the seizure of his personnel fortune.
DAVID GREGORY, HOST:
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 12:53pm.
DAVID GREGORY, HOST: What’s unfair though about making richer Americans pay the same tax rates as middle income Americans?
Richer Americans have a higher tax rate than middle income Americans, so, are you calling for a tax cut for the rich, David?
A better use
Submitted by mrsinger61 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:11pm.
Or he could just use that money to hire more people, expand one of the many businesses...
Expanding and Hiring
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:28pm.
If the business conditions warranted, then Buffet would be expanding and hiring.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
And those business conditions are...
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:42pm.
drum roll please...
Less regulation and lower/predictable taxation!!!
Really, i work for a huge company. They are frozen from hiring, even though they have gigabucks in the bank. Why? Unpredictability of the US Federal Government!
No one knows what Obama will regulate or tax next. No one knows final impact on the things he's already regulated and taxed. The only people with a guaranteed job right now are the corporate attorneys. Wow, guess which group always supports tax and regulate libs? Amazing, isn't it?
Precisely
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 3:22pm.
Well stated.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Dittos!
Submitted by pockets64 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 8:42pm.
The economy started to really tank when Obama started talking about how he's going to make unspecified changes to the tax code in November after he was elected.
So, you said it very well!
mrsinger61, Sounds good on the surface, however...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:57pm.
The Trojan horse for trial lawyers in Obama’s jobs bill...
"So if you're unemployed, and you go to apply for a job and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer," Gohmert said on the House floor. "You might be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you're unemployed."
He said this provision would only discourage companies from interviewing unemployed candidates, and would "help trial lawyers who are not having enough work," since there are about 14 million unemployed Americans.
This is nothing more than a payoff for trial lawyers and a pander to those unfortunate people who have been out of work for a long time. The latter might think that Obama’s protecting their interests, but he’s really just guaranteeing that they won’t ever see the kind of job creation that would put them back to work.
Things are just great over at taxpayer funded GM... $5,000 gifts for all...
You Didn't Build That.
Buffet already showed us what he really thinks of taxes
Submitted by G L on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:35pm.
... when he took almost all of his wealth and slapped it into a trust, effectively shielding his future income from it from any taxation at all. Yes, he believes so much in the federal government's ability to get things done and to do the right thing, that he decided to keep his money away from the feds entirely.
Wise move Warren, you don't mind if we just don't believe anything you say now, do you? Pay attention to what he does, folks, not to what he says.
As for McConnell, the check comment was a little late, but it's still nice to hear. The rest of his comments were horrible. Means testing for Social Security? Seriously? SS is not a handout, Mr. McConnell, and contributions into it are not a tax. It's a retirement savings program. The contributions into it belong to us, not to the government to play with and redistribute as they like.
Sorry, but McConnell is just another establishment Republican that needs to go.
Considering buffoon
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 3:18pm.
has been dodging over a billion dollars for over a year now in his tax debt, he needs to have that money taken out of that trust and all his assets frozen until he pays a "reasonable" fine for withholding those taxes.
At that point, you should take 50% of buffoon's assets and apply them to the national debt. We know that will make ol' buffoon happy. Bet he's wearin' his satin depends as we speak.
Reality check
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 8:40pm.
Actually, Social Security IS a handout. It IS a transfer payment. The taxes you pay now for Social Security are GONE by the end of the month, to support the current crop of recipients. No contributions are made to Social Security; it most certainly IS a tax. It is NOT a retirement savings program in any way, shape, fashion, or form. There is not an account in DC with your Social Security number that the government is saving for you out of the kindness of their hearts. Absolutely nothing in Social Security belongs to you, or to me, or whoever.
Now, having dispensed with that myth, words of wisdom. I operate, because of the way Social Security actually works, under the assumption it will not be there for me when I retire. So I stuff as much as I can into my IRA, because that's the only retirement contribution I make.
If you are under the age of 50 and you don't have an IRA or 401(k) or both, you're an idiot. (Sorry, but take a look at the transfer payment program that is Social Security. Do you actually think it will be around for you when it's time for you to become a beneficiary?)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I noticed this morning on MTP that when...
Submitted by Rackie on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:47pm.
Republican Strategist, Alex Castellanos spoke, the volume on his mike was turned down. Well, I thought maybe it was inadvertent, but when it happened a second time I figured they were messing with him. Of course the volume was turned up for the Dems.
I'd also like to know why
Submitted by Scarlet on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 1:58pm.
I'd also like to know why every story on this subject doesn't include the fact that Buffett owes money under the current tax code and is fighting having to pay it! How many people who only listen to/watch/read the liberal MSM even know this? This whole "fair share" thing is a crock.
Yes, but that's different. Those are "corporate taxes."
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 2:02pm.
/sarc
Although I do not expect
Submitted by TE on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 2:21pm.
Although I do not expect idiotic leftists like David Gregory to know it, but the bogus and unsubstantiated allegation that Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary does is a complete lie. Warren Buffet's capital gains are not taxed at 15%, but are taxed at the corporate income tax rate PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 15%. Those capital gains are taxed TWICE, you freakin' idiots.
Here's What I Want
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 2:40pm.
We've heard enough about the tax rates of Warren Buffet and his secretary. He made this an issue, time and time again, spewing this crap out of his mouth as if him and his secretary have some equivalence.
So lets do this big mouth: produce your secretary; lets review her tax return and yours, and lets compare apples and apples. And yes, lets see how much actual income tax you pay on whatever monies you make. And also, lets be real fair here, since you've invested so much of b/s on the public, lets look at your income taxes for the last five years, so we have a real good picture of how you, and your accountants, may have used the tax code to your advantage.
And one other thing, lets see if you have ever, at any time, written a check to the goverment to help fund the debt of the country because you felt so bad. There is a way to that big mouth, and it doesn't take much.
I expect the country will not have received one extra dime from you; moreover, you're just like Obama, the millionaire, who thinks he makes too much money. I don't see him running to Boston to help pay for the free loading relatives he has living there. Why isn't he picking up their tab; after all, the need money from somewhere, why not him?
Does Obama understand the diff b/w a billionaire & a millionaire
Submitted by krendler on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 4:19pm.
Buffet was talking about Billionaires, but Obama's plan - which he's calling the "Buffet Rule" - will apply to Millionaires.
That's equivalent to lumping the guy that makes a 50 million dollars a year with the guy that makes $50K.
Somehow
Submitted by panzerakc on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 4:36pm.
That simple solution (write the IRS an addition check if you don't think you're paying enough taxes, you blithering idiot) never seems to occur to all those engaged in verbal hand-wringing about the nasty Rich People not paying enough taxes.
Maybe Buffet should pay his
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 5:23pm.
Maybe Buffet should pay his secretary in stock. Then she could have the same tax rate he does.
What's really funny though is if she's paying the tax rate he says she's paying, that likely makes her one of those evil rich people who Obama wants to tax more, lol.
Amen and amen. If Buffet, and
Submitted by Slyrr on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 5:33pm.
Amen and amen. If Buffet, and Matt Damon, and all these other filthy rich libutards find their mega-million dollar pocketbooks so galling, why don't they just give it to their precious government?
Then they can dress up in rags and go live under bridges like the trolls that they are.
But they won't - because they ARE everything they say they hate. They're rich, greedy fat-cats who would rather part with YOUR blood than their money. They'll clutch onto their Obama money, because despite their braggart words, even THEY don't trust their precious, precious government. They know that Demorats are as corrupt as the day is long, and that once Obama has his claws on their mega-millions, they WON'T get it back, and it won't improve the lives of 'the poor' one jot. All it will do is be funnelled into another slush fund to send Michelle Obama on another junket to the Taj Mahal so she can stuff herself with fries, steaks and bon-bons while everyone else goes hungry.
The difference between them and us is - Conservatives have no problem with people working hard, earning money, and keeping the fruits of their own labor. Liberals want the government to plunder and rob the people, take everything from everyone, and put themselves in charge of 'deciding' who is and is not worthy to be given crumbs and scraps from their beloved mother government.
But the rich libutards will exempt themselves from the government robbing and plundering. They're the 'good' people, and they get to keep their stash of 'Obama money'.
Guilt, is it, that Buffet
Submitted by michael lofrano on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:13pm.
Guilt, is it, that Buffet feels? Well, Warren, as I see it, guilt is unpaid contrition. If you are feeling guilty and contrite, send in the check. Seriously, what kind of man is it that feels he is doing something wrong--stealing?--and does nothing to remedy it? Either send in the check or shut that slobbering pie hole of yours.
Mitch McConnell - now if you
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:29pm.
Mitch McConnell - now if you can just stay on point with the rest of the game plan!!!
Ronald Reagan
Complaining in order to boast
Submitted by goldentoadster on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:32pm.
By stirring up envy of "the more fortunate among us," liberals have made it taboo to brag openly about how much money you have. But some rich people yearn to brag anyway.
Rich liberals like Buffett get around the envy barrier by pretending to complain that they're not paying enough in taxes. It's a two-fer. They get to rub our faces in how mega-rich they are and at the same time sneer at us for being "greedy."
Pardon me, it's a three-fer. They'll never really have to pay more, because they've protected their assets from the taxman to the limit of their accountants' creativity.
Warren Buffet Tax
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:23pm.
If Obama really wanted the "Warren Buffet Tax", he could have passed it easily a year ago. Obama just wants a platform to run on against the Republicans.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:33pm.
The Dems offered the "millionaire" tax as an alternative to restoring the pre-Bush rates to only those earning over 200-250 grand. The Republicans blocked it.
Jer
Ah yes, the magical income figure of $250,000---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:41pm.
per annum; which then somehow morphed into $200,00 per.
How did that change come about again, Jer?
MD
Jer: You going to make me do your research again?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:50pm.
I state an opinion regarding the Buffet Tax. You state a "fact" with nothing to back it up. I'll try and do a little research on what you are talking about in an effort to see if you are right.
You could make this a little more friendly and tell the name of the legislation or at least the timing of the legislation, and how exactly the Republicans blocked it when the Dems controlled both houses of congress.
Follow up doing Jer's research: Is this the one you're talking about, Jer?
Democrats propose new tax brackets for millionaires, billionaires - Story dated March 2011
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Make you do my research AGAIN???
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 9:22pm.
After spending at least four or five hours over a couple of days researching (at your request) the previous issue we discussed, reading dozens of articles, and providing five sources--which was exactly five more than you supplied--you actually have the nerve to ask that question? I have to award you an "A" for sheer gall. ;-)
No, your linked source is not the one I had in mind.
I'll look for it when I log back on. I think I've cited it before.
Jer
Funny Stuff, Jer
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 10:16pm.
Regarding your previous discussion related to your "factual assertion" that the GOP somehow blocked the attempt of the Clinton Administration to track funding to terrorists: You did spend a ton of time producing numerous links that never provided any proof of your allegation. Just a bunch of links to sites that suggested the same. If there was legislation that the Republicans voted down, regarding the tracking of terrorist funding, then we could have had a decent discussion as to why the Republicans voted down, (or blocked in committee), the legislation, but you never produced any backup to your argument. (And I told you on numerous occasions to drop your pursuit of a link to any legislation, because I knew you would never find any, and I was genuinely sorry that you would be wasting your time. Yes, it was fun to throw your lack of proof in your face, but that's what happens when you come to web based argument with zippo to back up your contentions, when original sources are so easily linked and provided.)
Now, you're doing the same thing in this thread, and not just in responding to my posts, but to other posts as well. How about letting the rest of us know what you are referring to when you make your argument?
We can't discuss a position you have where you are stating a fact unless you give us a clue as to what you are actually talking about. I can't argue against your positions, and provide your sources for you, simultaneously, particularly if you don't provide us with any information regarding your actual position. And I can't provide links against your positions, if you never actually have any concrete position to refute in the first place.
And finally, if you cite something in a previous post on NB, I don't see how you can expect me, or anybody else for that matter, to somehow be able to read your mind and know what particular link on a previous post that you are referring to regarding a more recent post. That's my definition of gall!
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 12:23am.
UPDATE: The Senate Republicans have just blocked a proposal to extend tax cuts to those making $1 million or less per year. This second Democratic proposal, largely seen as a compromise, is the second measure today to be blocked by Republicans.
source.
Also here [fourth paragraph]
The above action occurred on December 4, 2010. There were four or five Democrats who joined the Republicans in voting it down, but it would have passed had not the GOP forced a 60-vote filibuster proof majority affirmation. Fifty-three senators voted in favor of the Democrat proposal.
Kingfish, you know very well what issue [tracking terrorist funding] I was referring to in the earlier post. Playing coy about it is absurd, disappointing, surprising, and beneath you.
The majority of posters here never or very rarely source their assertions and arguments. I not only frequently source my claims, but I am often challenged to provide corroboration and I do my best when asked to do so. [And just recently my spending several hours searching NB archives compiling and posting requested info was met with a "ha...just wanted to make you jump through the hoops and look silly."] On the other hand, I would estimate at least 80% of my requests for links are completely ignored. So, please, no more lectures about sourcing.
Jer
Stop the nonsene
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 3:17am.
The democats could have passed any tax increase they wanted(just like they did with Obamacare) from the day Obama was sworn in, and the republicans couldn't have done anything to stop it. If your guys couldn't get on the same page, that's on them.
ckc---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 3:30am.
I sometimes wonder why libs act like the info in your post is either a conservative prevarication, or pretend that the Dems never really had those numbers initially; and that kind of power.
Dodging reality, or responsibility?
MD
Jer and his high horse
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 8:47am.
My original comment that started all of this was that Obama could have easily passed his "Buffet Tax" a year ago, if he had really wanted a "Buffet Tax", instead of proposing the tax now so he could just have a platform to run on against the Republicans. The action that Jer points out was attempted by Obama after the November 2010 repudiation handed to the Democrats, so it's only natural that it had less of a chance to pass. And how many Dems do you need in the Senate to get a tax hike passed anyways? Seventy? Eighty? What's the point of that? And if they wanted a "Buffet Tax" that badly, they should have done it right after Congress was seated in 2009. (But maybe with a 60 vote veto proof margin in the Senate, they still knew it wouldn't have passed.)
Regarding your point about me knowing what issue you were referring to in your previous posts and me being coy. Of course I KNEW THE ISSUE YOU WERE REFERRING TO WAS TRACKING TERRORIST FUNDING. I MENTIONED IT IN THE POST YOUR ARE RESPONDING TO! I have no clue as to what you are talking about. How about you taking a look at what I wrote!
And regarding trying to make you jump through hoops. I asked you not to bother trying to post a link to any legislation, because I didn't want you to waste your time trying to track down something that you have never been able to come up with. Big Fing deal about you providing links to five liberal websites and liberal blogs as your proof.
Finally, if you state opinions I don't really care if you provide a link, it's just your opinion. But if you state a "fact", ie, "Republicans blocked an effort to track the flow of funds to terrorists!", if you aren't going to provide a link, how about backing it up with an approximate date or bill or specific committee action or something, like you finally did regarding this tax increase proposal. Something that may be considered "general knowledge" in the liberal blogosphere, may actually require a little sourcing in the real world.
But I have the feeling that I'm just spinning my wheels. If you accuse me of being coy and not knowing what you are talking about, when in fact I pointed out exactly what you were talking about in the very post that you just got done responding to, then what's the point of discussing anything with you? I'm starting to worry about you, Jer.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Kingfish...I'm beginning to worry about you, since you
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 12:49pm.
apparently are unable to distinguish fact from opinion:
Warren Buffet Tax
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:23pm.
If Obama really wanted the "Warren Buffet Tax", he could have passed it easily a year ago. Obama just wants a platform to run on against the Republicans.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/18/mcconnell-if-buffe...
Your second sentence is a statement of OPINION. Your first sentence is an assertion of FACT (...he could have passed it easily a year ago.). Inasmuch as you have demonstrated a meticulous devotion to corroboration, where is your link, or at least an explanation in support of your conclusion? Or do you just demand of others what you neglect to furnish yourself.
Also, please link authority for your factual assertion that the Dems enjoyed a "60 vote veto proof margin in the Senate" right after it was seated in 2009. Please link authority for your factual insinuation that only 60 votes are required to override a veto. Please link authority for the proposition that the Dems enjoyed a filibuster proof majority in the Senate right after it was seated in 2009.
I busted my ass for you the other day on the terrorist funding matter, and while I thought you were being conciliatory at the time, it now appears that you just want to carp about it and make an absurd remark concerning doing research for me AGAIN--when you didn't lift a finger before. [I know...you're lifting one now. :-)]
My "jumping through hoops" comment was an aside and was in reference to another poster, not you.
With respect to the blocking of the 1mil tax restoration proposal last December, I told you I would get the link for you when I logged back on last night. And I did.
Jer
edit. Despite your comments in the first paragraph of your post where you revisit the terrorist funding issue, I thought you were still leveling a complaint in your closing paragraph about my not specifically identifying the topic in my earlier post on this thread. I now understand that criticism dealt with a failure to link the 1mil tax proposal. In any event, it was my misunderstanding, and I take back what I said about "beneath you" etc. I was out of line.
Thanks Jer
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 1:15pm.
Jer, I appreciate your acknowledging your misunderstanding. It actually eases my mind that you see it as that, because for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about regarding me being coy. No worries, stuff happens, and you are good enough to respond to so many posts directed at you, that I can understand how you could very easily get things mixed up.
Regarding facts vs. opinions and posting links. If I sight a specific to back up an opinion of mine, and it's not "common knowledge", by all means ask for a link. You read my posts and I bet you would acknowledge that I link more then 95% of the posters on NB. My effort to get you to link something was never meant to put you through a lot of work, as I've said before. I enjoy the debate, and would like to know what you are talking about, with specificity, so I can have that debate.
Am I going to rib you about posting link after link and taking tons of time to do all that research that in the end actually never produced something I could get my hands on and ascertain exactly what you were talking about? Especially when I said not to bother! Of course I am.
And you didn't really need to link anything regarding the Dems proposal in December, you could have just mentioned the time of the proposal and what it was called, so I could know what you were talking about. That would have sufficed.
And finally, both my statements are my opinion. I don't see how anyone could think that my saying, "Obama could have done something.....", is a statement of fact. If I were to say: The earth is round! That's a statement of fact, and if necessary, I would provide a link.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
For the time being, a few words on fact and opinion.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:36pm.
Kingfish: I believe I can run a mile in six minutes. [Opinion]
Kingfish: Last December I ran a mile in under six minutes. [Assertion of fact]
Kingfish: Every day last December I ran a mile in under six minutes. On January 1, under the same conditions I could have easily run a mile in seven minutes. [Conclusory assertion of opinion supported by statements of fact which if corroborated tend to establish the credibility of the opinion rendering it more probable than not.]
Jer
Let's examine my original statement:
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 4:24pm.
Going back to my first statement on the subject: "If Obama really wanted the "Warren Buffet Tax", he could have passed it easily a year ago."
Nobody could possibly pretzel twist my conditional sentence into a statement of fact. Since you seem clueless as to the basis of a conditional sentence, here's a little background information for you. (See, I do link!)
If you follow that link, you get to an explanation of my statement. I'll copy and paste it for you to make things simple:
C. Imaginative conditional sentences are the most difficult for many learners of English because of the unusual relationship between form (the tenses used) and meaning.
In this type of conditional sentence, past tense refers to present or future time; past perfect tense refers to past time. Another problem for many learners of English is that were (not was) is used with singular subjects. Be is the only English verb with two past tense forms, but only one of them (were) is used in imaginative conditional sentences.
Imaginative conditional sentences can express hypothetical or contrary-to-fact events or states.
1. Hypothetical events or states are unlikely but possible in the present or future.
Imaginative conditional sentences expressing hypothetical events or states have a past tense verb in the if-clause and would + verb (or might or could + verb) in the result clause.
Examples of hypothetical conditional sentences (present and/or future time):
If George had enough money, he would buy a new car.
If I won the lottery, I would buy you a present.
If she knew the answer, she would tell us.
(George probably does not have enough money; I probably will not win the lottery; she probably does not know the answer.)
Clearly, my statement was an imaginative conditional statement, because:
So the next time your deadbeat uncle tells you, "Jer, if I win the lottery, I'll pay you back that fifty you lent me", he's not stating fact, he's stating an imaginative conditional sentence that just ain't going to happen. Sorry to break it to you.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
A little dishonest here Jer, ain't ya?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 7:50pm.
You know damn well the democrats didn't have enough democrat votes to pass it. They knew no republicans would vote for it, and they didn't want to be on the hook for a tax increase alone.
They could have passed it. Democrats blocked it as much as republicans.
Wait a minute, RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 9:28pm.
Kingfish says the Dems could have easily passed it. You say the Dems didn't have enough Dem votes to pass it, but could have passed it, but blocked it. And I'm being dishonest. You also get an "A" for sheer gall.
Jer
How so Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 10:22pm.
I'm not making the same assertion Kingfish is, so if you're conferring dishonesty on my part, how so?
Also, I believe that Kingfish is referring to the sizable democratic majority that president downgrade enjoyed his first two years as POTUS. Had he, or any democrat, had any real intention of passing his bill, or a budget for that matter, it surely could have been passed easily, without a single republican vote.
Do you disagree? If so, wherein lies the disagreement?
And I've never been lacking for gall. :)
Joke?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 11:02pm.
I'm guessing that Jer was trying to make a joke. It's obvious that we are talking about two different periods in time, one when the Dems controlled everything and another when they don't.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Well, RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 12:55am.
As I'm sure you are aware by now, the Democrats only enjoyed a theoretical filibuster-proof 60-vote majority for a little over eight months during the first two years of Obama's term.
That said, let me ask you a question. [I am unsure of the answer.] Can a tax package be passed as part of the budget reconciliation process [which is not subject to filibuster and was the procedure employed for getting the health reform bill through]? If so, then the Democrats would have had sufficient votes prior to the new Congress being seated in Jan, 2011. Since they did not or could not go that route on the 250k and 1mil proposals, the Republicans were able to block them via filibuster. As I mentioned in the reply to Kingfish, the 1mil plan failed by a 53-37 vote--a majority favored it, but it required a minimum of 60 yea votes.
Jer
It's not theoretical
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 3:22am.
60 votes is actually veto-proof.
It's only theoretical unless the majority party
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 12:28pm.
can actually marshal the votes necessary to successfully invoke cloture. And when you are dealing with 58 nominal Democrats plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats [totaling the bare minimum required]--and included within that group are senators of disparate philosophies and objectives and constituencies, the chance of cobbling together 60 votes to overcome any particular filibuster or the continuing threat of filibuster is not particularly strong.
Once again "veto-proof" is a misnomer in this context. "Filibuster-proof" is the applicable term. And, for the umpteenth time, the filibuster-proof period existed only from the date of Democrat Al Franken's seating to Republican Scott Brown's seating--less than nine months.
Jer
Wow, we really dodged a bullet there
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 12:43pm.
Lucky for us the democrats never enjoyed a huge advantage in Congress. Otherwise, we may have been stuck with government mandated healthcare, slowly filtering everyone into a government run health system, even though a majority of Americans, left and right, (albeit for differing reasons), didn't want it.
Whew!!! That was a close one.
A few things to consider, RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 1:12pm.
Universal health care was a central feature and core campaign pledge of Obama, and a program advocated by Democrats [Nixon, too] for the past sixty years. He was elected by a convincing margin.
Pre-election polling revealed that a clear plurality of Americans supported "significant reform" of the nation's healthcare system. [Yes, I'll find the link if you insist.]
The plan that passed was similar in many respects to the one the GOP had proposed back in the 90's as an alternative to Hillarycare.
Without a public option--which is the reason many progressives dropped their endorsement--the only feasible way to implement an equitable plan was to mandate coverage--as the conservative Heritage Foundation had proposed several years ago. Furthermore, when you scare the bejeesus out of the elderly with "death panel" demagoguery, the erosion of support is not surprising.
Speaking of proportionate support, a clear majority favored and still favor the Democratic position on ending the Bush-era tax breaks for the top earners. I'll eagerly await your joining the majority view on that issue.
Jer
WHOOSH!!!
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 4:36pm.
Calm down everybody. That loud Whooshing sound you heard was just my point going over Jer's head. No need to be alarmed.
RESTLESS...good buddy:
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 9:59pm.
I got your point loud and clear. It's not like it was hidden deep within a cleverly constructed riddle.
Jer
Well, Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:29pm.
One really can't dumb it down too much for a liberal.
Since we're derailed here anyway, how 'bout you try and become the first liberal to explain why we don't yet have a budget, after two plus years, and that overwhelming democrat majority you somehow missed?
Good lord, Alastaire...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:24am.
"...how 'bout you try and become the first liberal to explain why we don't yet have a budget, after two plus years, and that overwhelming democrat majority you somehow missed?"
Read more:
http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/50413/1564845#ixzz1YTUX1C9M
..for whom are you dumbing down that semantical mess? Clean it up--particularly the last part--and I'll try to answer. But, just a preliminary thought: I have no idea why a budget hasn't been passed, other than it apparently was a political stratagem to force the Republicans to show their hand which the Democrats could then presumably pick apart. But if that was the plan, it appears to have blown up in Obama's face.
Jer
Okay
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 8:01am.
Really slowly here.
The democrats ejoyed huge majorities in both houses of Congress. Eight weeks or eight months, doesn't matter. They had a filibuster proof majority long enough that they had plenty of time to PASS A BUDGET!!!! Surely, if they could find time to ram abysmalcare down our throats, they could have found time to PASS A BUDGET!!!
They DID NOT NEED ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE to get any of this done. There was NOTHING the republicans could have done to stop them. So, what were the democrats afraid of?
Why don't we have a budget? You can't blame republicans of obstructionism when there they didn't have enough members to stop anything, especially during the eight or nine months the democrats held 60 votes in the Senate.
Now, you say they wanted the republicans to show their hand. Maybe. I suspect they did not want to show theirs, as it includes a nice, healthy tax hike, one that would likely stagnate the economy even further. I doubt they wanted to be seen as the party of tax and spend, (of course they are, and everyone knows it), during the election seasons of 2010 and 2012. They wanted to get the 0 reelected, then all hell could break loose. Unfortunately for them, we caught on, and gave the House to the republicans in 2010. That kinda spoiled their plans.
But for anyone to claim that the republicans have obstructed the administration is certainly disingenuous. For at least eight or nine months, they could passed whatever tax hikes they wanted.
jer
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:14pm.
With the gov't. *all* problems require MORE gov't. to fix, hence support from both sides to push for universal health care in the past.
It always cracks me up when pundits say "The R's {or D's} supported x in the past, they are just playing politics by not supporting it now" When the past IS the past, and the playing field has changed.
Right now, there is a seismic shift in public perception due to access to info formerly withheld {the net facilitates this} and the naked partianship we've seen these last few years.
All the side and large issues become moot when people realize more of a bad thing {gov't.} is detrimental to us all, and with the whole world going through similar gyrations in their markets, more people are waking up to this truth.
This is why the TP has momentum - Pres. Obama will be lauded for his role in preserving the US by being the one to push too hard and too fast for a socialist/totalitarian/whatever the latest definiton is.
btw - since this is all my OPINION, based on observation, and basic critical thinking, I'll not bother with citing sources ;-P
Ronald Reagan
If I can pay for things I
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:35pm.
If I can pay for things I REQUIRE to live every single day on a pay-as-I-use basis, I can surely pay for my doctor that way. In fact, that is how I have been paying for my doctor for years now.
Just because you want the government to baby you does not mean I want the government to baby me. Leave me alone, Jer. I can figure out how to pay for my doctor all by myself.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Maybe YOU can, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:34am.
but a lot of folks can't or won't, which leaves the rest of us to make up for the shortfall.
Jer
Sure, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:27am.
and taxpayers are most certainly in favor of giving up hard earned money to care for wastrels, lazy bums, and indigent nimrods.
MD
Well, md...I must regrettably call it a night...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:45am.
while you continue your nightly rounds of posting more samplings of snarky blather after every single comment I've made since your last mission was completed.
I'll check out the results tomorrow.
Jer
Au contraire, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:31pm.
as a liberal, you OWN snark, smarm, and blather.
Well, maybe you and Rachel Maddow are co-owners.
MD
p.s.
Flaunting your liberal bona fides and Clinton worship on a conservative is much like wearing Lady Gaga's meat dress into a lion cage; what kind of outcome were you expecting?
lol
Submitted by kata on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:49pm.
It's like Felix and Oscar all over again.
Good thing insurance came along
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 7:59am.
The human race might have died off or something. If fact, might none of us be here if not for insurance.
A huzzah for the insurance man!!!! HUZZAH!!!!
insurance
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:09am.
Insurance wasn't the problem. The problem was when insurance went from being a gamble to a government funded/insured/regulated entity which became too big to fail and acted with impunity.
The insurance companies used to gamble on statistics but once the government was involved their payday was guaranteed that just made them another cog in the government bureaucracy.
Same thing could be said of loans
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:22am.
Same thing happened in the lending industry, no? Government backing risky borrowers put us all on the hook.
In both cases, the free market no longer works as it should. Competiveness is taken out of the equation.
loans, insurance and businesses
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 8:45am.
anything the government props up with tax money is a drain against the economy. It is one thing to make laws that create a level playing field for business - it is quite another to create situations where tax money is being used to pick the winners and losers. That is Socialism by another name and though we are a mixed economy by necessity we have leaned too far over to socialist thought to ever come back without something extremely drastic occuring very soon.
regulation/strangulation
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:00am.
There's a fine line between regulation and strangulation.
With government, it always becomes a choke hold.
Perplexion -
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 10:00pm.
I simply cannot understand why we just can't pay for medical insurance the same way we do auto insurance.
I have switched jobs and never once thought "How am i going to keep my truck insured?" Or "What do I do for property insurance?"
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Leave me out of your guilt trip, Jer.
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:58pm.
Then YOU PAY FOR IT BY STARTING A CHARITY. That's THEIR problem.
I recently underwent a medical procedure, and because of it, I killed a trip to Europe I wanted to take. That is something called opportunity cost. My medical procedure was MY PROBLEM. NOT yours, NOT society's, NOT even my family's. MINE, and MINE ALONE.
I want nothing to do with babying people because YOU are overwehelmed with guilt.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 11:46pm.
Exactly what did I say that suggested to you I was overwhelmed with guilt? Please be specific, because in fact I'm not overwhelmed with guilt and I am interested in the words you read which gave you that impression.
Jer
Try this
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 8:36pm.
"...but a lot of folks can't or won't, which leaves the rest of us to make up for the shortfall." This tells me, along with your being a Leftist, that you are overwhelmed with guilt because some people can't, or won't, pay for a doctor.
I somehow managed to pay for a costly medical procedure on my meager income. In cash.
Now, if it bothers you so much that people can't comprehend the idea of saving money in case they might need a doctor someday, go start a charity, and leave me alone. I can pay my medical bills all by myself. My medical problems are MY issue, NOT society's. And I will NEVER expect it to be society's problem.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Not sure, Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:39am.
But I believe reconciliation can be used on budgetary legislation, and if abysmalcare qualified somehow, I don't see how the millionaire tax wouldn't.
"Theoretical" 60 vote majority? Was the filibuster-proof majority a figment of our collective imaginations? I know Kennedy was sick, but I'm sure he would have found the vigor to help pass legislation that would prevent entry into his wealth class. Hell, might have bought the old boy a month or two more.
ETA: One can only hope the conservatives can muster a filibuster proof majority for, hell eight weeks, much less eight months. We'd see who has a spine on the right, and might even reverse the dismal course presidente downgrade has us on. Is any of this his fault yet, BTW?
It's all about forging aristocracy
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 9:27pm.
"I know Kennedy was sick, but I'm sure he would have found the vigor to help pass legislation that would prevent entry into his wealth class."
No better said. This is the entire reason so many people like the Kennedys and Buffett, and so on, support the Left's war on the successful. It has NOTHING to do with helping anyone but themselves by allowing them to entrench themselves into an aristocracy.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
UMMMMMMMMM.....
Submitted by Ashrak on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 10:32pm.
"DAVID GREGORY, HOST: What’s unfair though about making richer Americans pay the same tax rates as middle income Americans?"
Why do none of the Establishment Republicans say back to the likes of Gregory;
What's unfair though about making poorer Americans pay the same tax rates as middle income Americans as richer Americans, you know, as a matter of equal protection under the law?