Rueters: Buffett rule fails Senate vote in tax fight

[Patricia M. McBride]

It's going to hard to blame this one on the republicans, but given this administration's propensity to blame all that happens on others and mostly republicans, I am sure they will try anyway!  I would guess some of the folks, of Mr. Obama party, are thinking about re-election just now or maybe are even bright enough to understand this tax increase would have hurt the economy by taking money away from small business owners.  Personally, I understand, not one dime of this proposed tax increase would have gone to the deficit and sadly, the $$ collected over 10 years would not have been enough to cover the deficit spending Obama does in 1 year.  This administration would have spent the small amount that did come in on more bureaucracy, regulation or give away programs.

From the Wall Street Journal article, you can tell Bill Nelson voted for it:  "The measure drew 51 votes, with 45 opposed, short of the 60 votes needed to advance.

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas was the only Democrat to oppose the measure; Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to support it."  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348221678...

..............................................................

By Kim Dixon

WASHINGTON | Mon Apr 16, 2012

(Reuters) - 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 general election.

Democrats, as expected, failed to garner the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to move to a full debate and vote on the bill aimed at getting more tax revenues out of the wealthy.

Obama and congressional Republicans are squaring off this week over the tax hikes for millionaires and a Republican plan to give new tax cuts for businesses.

"Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to block the Buffett Rule, choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class," Obama said in a statement.

Though scant changes to tax policy are expected ahead of the November 6 election, the skirmishes are giving voters a preview of debates they will hear over the next seven months.

Obama and his fellow Democrats argue that raising taxes on the rich will help reduce deficits and bring more fairness to the tax code. Republicans are pushing a much different narrative of tax cuts - even if they add to deficits - as a way of creating jobs.

Read more here:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/us-usa-congress-taxes-vot...

[Patricia M. McBride]

And now, Gov Scott has a task force looking at the Stand Your Ground Law, and there is also a new article about Zimmerman with pictures of his head 3 minutes after he shot Martin and he is a bloody mess from where Martin pounded his head into the pavement...............Zimmerman said he had no way of knowing how old the guy was or anything else about him except he was trying to kill him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/trayvon-martin-case-new-p_...

[Patricia M. McBride]

I know Roma, but this blog was about the Buffett bill and the vote on it.  I know you are very knowledgeable about the federal reserve and have a passion for it, but I have a passion for what is going on at all levels of government and a desire to share what is currently going on...............if you are interested, the senate passed the awful bill that forces us to all have little black boxes in our car today.....................that is unconstitutional!

[Patricia M. McBride]

John, the thing none of these folks are making clear is that Mr. Buffett already paid income tax on the money in question and now thinks people should continue paying at the same rate or higher even though it is not earned income that would qualify for "income tax" rates................they don't say, these folks already paid income tax and are now going to be asked to pay it again.  I believe that is called double taxation, and so no, the same rate of taxes should not be expected on the money gained from investing money that has already been taxed (if that is my understanding of what Mr. Buffett wants to see happen). 

[Patricia M. McBride]

In another Reuters article I found it said, the VOTE was 51-45 and the measure failed to garner the 60 votes needed to move forward.  That is pretty clear to me and they name those who crossed the line to vote for or against, so there was a VOTE............and not just a head count.  The 60 votes were needed to stop a fillibuster from happening after the vote.  Right now, the bill can not move forward because it would be fillibustered.  This is not evil or bad; it is the way the senate was set up to operate and in many cases (think of the health care bill they used manipulation to pass because they didn't have 60 votes), it stops bad legislation.  Now, it is said there may be some back and forth on the issue.............and we can hope that the Buffetts will have their money taken while small business owners will be left out of the mix.  And that is to say, not many of the leaches on our society give a darned where the money comes from as long as it isn't them.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. – Benjamin Franklin –


Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1311950...

[amanda choate]

John you get one shot to clarify my misinformation. You said the senate voted down the "Buffet Rule". I said that it had never been voted on. I said that minority rules in that only 41 votes were required to prevent legislation from being voted upon. So???

[Patricia M. McBride]

I didn't even look.  Did I say something awful again?

[Patricia M. McBride]

Heah Amanda.  I was aware of that as someone else pointed it out; however, that statement really has no bearing on what we were talking about.  The founders did not mean "socialism or communism" or redistribution of people's money when they wrote that (in fact, they would roll over in their graves over what Obama is doing).  Don't you think they were referring to our legal system.  I mean the federal government only has/had 17 duties and none of what they managed to usurp like social security and a tax system like we have is included, so it would refer to the duties they were assigned by the states.  By the way, it is aha time, I went back and reread what you wrote and I think I did that Amanda, but now I see you were just directing the comment at him about the proverb :).  Been a long day girl (and so was yesterday but longer for hubby who has been putting in 12 hour days)! 

[amanda choate]

And not to be picky, but the very first sentence of the Constitution says that it intends to "Establish justice".

[amanda choate]

Patricia, I can see why you assumed that I was referencing John, easy to do.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Thank you so much Amanda, but could you not call people idiots (I know you are better than that).  If the democrats don't have enough votes, they don't have enough votes, and rest assured, the democrats are not above a filibustered themselves (and if Nancy was still the leader over in the house, she would probably come up with some hook or by crook way to do it by bending some rule).  This really is not quite a earth shattering as you want to try to make it sound.........I mean Obama has been about raising taxes and raising taxes and raising taxes since the day he took office, so here we are again.