. . . why didn’t he submit legislation to the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a majority in the House and a super-duper majority in the Senate (filibuster-proof for six months)?
And why aren’t our friends in the legacy media asking him about this oversight?
Question came to mind as I was reading Rush’s response to Obama using Warren Buffet’s secretary as a prop: “There’s something inherently unfair about the Republican tax code, as though Warren Buffett’s secretary is eating pork and beans while sitting in the sewer grate, while her boss is flying around on his NetJets planes. And, lo and behold, she was up there!” Read the whole thing.
Republican tax code? Democrats had full power for two full years and didn’t try to reform it. So, shouldn’t we be calling it a Democratic tax code?
FROM THE COMMENTS: chad writes:
Republicans need to do a better job explaining double-taxation with dividends and capital gains. The way it is now, people hear about how so-and-so made all this money and only paid 15% while some much poorer person paid 20% or more, never getting the explanation as to how this is an apples-to-oranges comparison so long as we have high corporate income taxes that take a huge cut of profits before they become dividends or capital gains.
Indeed.
Mr. Blatt, do you know why he and the Dems did not press hard to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” while he had the super majority in both houses of Congress?” It always seemed odd that the President didn’t push for amnesty. After all, ObamaCare passed without a single Republican vote.
Thanks
Warren Buffet’s poor, oppressed overtaxed secretary Just bought a second house.
BTW, why aren’t the Republicans harping on the inconvenient fact that tax increases on the wealthy won’t solve the deficit and, in fact, would barely make a dent in it?
Republicans need to do a better job explaining double-taxation with dividends and capital gains. The way it is now, people hear about how so-and-so made all this money and only paid 15% while some much poorer person paid 20% or more, never getting the explanation as to how this is an apples-to-oranges comparison so long as we have high corporate income taxes that take a huge cut of profits before they become dividends or capital gains. What’s really stupid is how they use such examples as a reason to raise the top income rate to soak the rich when so many rich people make a lot more from capital gains and dividends than ordinary income and would be basically unaffected by increases in the income tax rate. What’s also stupid is the idea that raising tax rates on the the small minority of rich people who somehow pay almost nothing will somehow cause them to finally pay their “fair share.” If they’ve been able to legally avoid paying much in taxes, the problem is obviously with loop holes than tax rates. For instance, a lot of rich people avoid paying much by investing in municipal bonds. Would Democrats say we should end the tax-free nature of municipal bonds? If they care so much about how certain rich people pay seemingly low amounts in taxes, they should address the real reasons why this is rather than thinking raising income tax rates is somehow going to hit these particular rich people.
The republican leadership is not up to the task of winning the debates of our time. They are afraid to say a word about any of these topics mentioned, they are afraid of what the legacy media will say about them and they think they will lose the moderate voters.
We need more young conservatives like Rubio and West who are not afraid to engage the debate.
Can I get a people’s microphone on this?
Raising taxes on the productive
Raising taxes on the productive
Will not reduce the deficit in any meaningful way
Will not reduce the deficit in any meaningful way
You can’t close the deficit
You can’t close the deficit
Unless you reduce spending
Unless you reduce spending
and reform entitlements
and reform entitlements
which the SCOAMF refuses to do
which the SCOAMF refuses to do
Let’s assume that this is not a fancy statement full of unmentioned conditionals. Let’s take it at face value: One million in; $300,000 out to the government and not less. (More maybe, but not less.)
That is $300,000 not available for charity, not available for investment in the economy, not available to hire people to give pedicures or build a yacht or whatever. It is money that will be sunk into the giant maw of overextended and obese government where accounting is a nuisance and pipe dreams are currency.
If the money comes to a person as capital gains, that means the person is already a multimillionaire. That means that the millionaire has already had the snot taxed out of the money at rates (likely) much higher than 30% and he is being nibbled at for saving any part of the money. Currently, the government takes a 15% bite out of the multimillionaire’s invested savings. Now, Obama wants to double the bite and take “not less” than 30%.
So. Note to multimillionaires: Convert the money to gold and sit on it like Scrooge McDuck.
So, here comes the miserable, judgmental liberal. “When is a lot of money enough? If you can’t make it on a $700,000 a year on top of the multimillions you already have, what is your problem?”
That, of course, is entirely true. It is especially true if you make money faster than you can spend it on the trinkets of consumption. And, if that is your view of how incredible wealth is handled, then the millionaire bozos perhaps deserve to be steamrollered by the petulant socialism of redistributionists.
But where, pray tell, does investment capital come from? Surely not the government which makes great choices like Solyndra and canceling the bonds at Chrysler and GM while allowing the unions to walk away from inheriting the ownership. Like creating the housing bubble and permitting the derivatives and favoring Goldman Sachs and kissing other investment houses goodbye.
The issue is this: When did the government, bankrupt and going deeper and deeper into debt, cross the invisible line and become the better agent of venture capitalism, investment in the economy, and general all around money manager?
Hating the rich, because you are not among them is a tired old “Demagogue 101” tactic. The Communists play it for all it is worth. You get the scraps of immediate gain under their plan. All other plans require you to earn what you get and learn to husband your resources. Who wants that?
nd
The scraps of immediate gain are just that. If you take away all the money from the millionaires and cut a check to each person in the United States (including the millionaires you just wiped out) how much money would each person get? And remember, it would only be a one time payment. Also remember that we are not putting any of it against the debt.
So, shall we talk about Michelle’s $2400 cocktail dress she wore to the SOFU? We have all seen that one. Can she wear it again? What business is it of ours what she wears or how much she paid for it? Maybe she can auction it off for a profit like Judy Garland’s ruby slippers. Couldn’t she have worn poor, but honest clothes? How much did Warren Buffets secretary spend on her outfit? Why does Warren Buffet drive old cars? Did you know Mitt Romney started from near scratch on the fortune he built? Is John Kerry on an allowance? Why do people pay Bill Clinton to speak? When will Chelsea Clinton get a job? Is Chelsea’s husband a kept man? Did Steve Jobs ever do anything good with his money? Shouldn’t the Koch brothers be imprisoned for being Neanderthals? And so forth………
We need Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, and Montel Williams to take over as the redistribution czars and put the whole thing on television. They could have Rachel Maddow play the role of Madame Lafarge. Heck, they could even have Dr. Phil do cult calming exercises when the pitchforks and torches begin to threaten the “civil” order.
Among Mittbot’s many, many failures is his failure to connect his business acumen to his ability to solve the country’s problems by putting out a plan. Right now, there’s a certain “Underpants Gnomes” quality to the way he makes his case.
1. I was successful in business.
2. ???
3. Economic recovery.
#6 – “They could have Rachel Maddow play the role of Madame Lafarge.”
*Sprays the monitor again*
The MadCow is the Madame laFarge of our day.
If raising the taxes of the
Oppressors“wealthy” One-Percenters was so-important to the Democrats…why did they agree to carry-forwards the Bush tax reductions?