Q+A: The 'Buffett Rule,' a minimum tax on the rich

Where's Vera Baker?

Obama's stupid buffet rule would cost middle-class American Billions in investment gains. I think he's been "wasting away in Marguarittaville" way too long!

HEY POS OBAMA,

Why Aren't YOU learning to Balance a Budget, Moron!






YOU promised to reduce the deficit by 1/2 and instead you've consistently Tripled It!

This is unnecessary pander and beneath President Obama, simply allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire and firmly reestablish the Clinton tax rates that paved a path to prosperity for all Americans.

It's not as if the American Electorate has forgotten the primary reason behind the explosion in debt, it's borrowing from China to finance those historic Tax Cuts that benefit the wealthy.

Bush and the Republicans were fools to pass a Tax cut that had to be financed by borrowed funds from China.

That was a strategy to bankrupt the Nation. Mission Accomplished!

In Jan 2009, America was a Failed State. President Obama is to be commended for saving the Nation and restoring the dignity and pride of America.

65% of the American Electorate supports the Buffet Rule, the 35% that are opposed represent a loud Mob. Fiscal discipline and a fair Tax Rate has to be the order of the day!

Curtis Lowe wrote:

Obama's stupid buffet rule would cost middle-class American Billions in investment gains. I think he's been "wasting away in Marguarittaville" way too long!

Curious....

On the one hand liberals support tax legislation to 'reward' employers who bring jobs back to America, while at the same time favor additional taxes to jobs investors.

Redistribution of wealth, taxes, or both?

Curtis Lowe wrote:

Obama's stupid buffet rule would cost middle-class American Billions in investment gains. I think he's been "wasting away in Marguarittaville" way too long!

LOL How about Romney's Buffett Rule. He plans to tax second homes of the rich to pretend he cares. Don't worry, he'll probably flop before he flips on that one. Romney of national ROMNEYCARE doesn't have a chance.

The only people who have savings in this country are the elderly.

Those hit by this depression do not have savings. They are struggling to find a shovel ready job, to pay their monthly bills.

How can the housing market turn around when people have no savings for a downpayment on a home?

They can't unless Obama pushes for more lending to those who can not afford homes.

You have to have savings and right now Obama has us spending money on gas and groceries.

The vanishing Middle Class won't invest it's hard-earned money until the government passes laws to stop the cyclical rape and pillage by the vulture capitalists that thrives on fabricated bubble economies and government bailouts. The Romney way is a recipe for constant disasters, corporate welfare, increased debt, decreased quality of life for the 99.99% of Americans.

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Curious....
On the one hand liberals support tax legislation to 'reward' employers who bring jobs back to America, while at the same time favor additional taxes to jobs investors.
Redistribution of wealth, taxes, or both?

LOL Like vulture capitalists, investing in jobs in China??? How unAmerican!

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL Like vulture capitalists, investing in jobs in China??? How unAmerican!

(D) Kucinich: Obama’s job czar expert at creating foreign jobs


Posted on 08.30.11
By David Edwards


Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said Tuesday that it’s time for the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to resign or be fired because he’s sending jobs to China.

In a press release last week, Kucinich noted that in his role as the CEO of General Electric, Obama job czar Jeffrey Immelt was sending advanced technology and U.S. jobs to China.

“Jeffrey Immelt has a conflict of interest,” the Ohio congressman said.“He cannot ethically advise the President on how to create American jobs and promote American competiveness, while at the same time leading a company that is exporting American technology and, along with it, American jobs.”

Kucinich told CNN’s Ali Velshi Tuesday that it did not make sense for Immelt to continue working for the president.

“He has expertise in job creation, but, unfortunately for the United States, seems to be creating jobs in other countries. One-fifth of the U.S. work force has been eliminated since that gentleman had taken the helm of GE,” Kucinich explained.

“If the White House doesn’t have a jobs policy and they go to somebody who is not only moving his jobs out of the country, but also off-shoring profits so he is not paying a share of the taxes GE ought to be paying, look, the White House has to get a grip on its jobs policy.”

Watch this video from CNN’s American Morning, broadcast Aug. 30, 2011.



- OUCH!-



http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/kuc...

Hey 1%, Romney's coming after your second home! LOL

ALEC -- Look it up!

how bout a minimum tax on the poor? Let them forgo just one days booze, cigs, lottery tickets and section 8 housing, and pay a couple bucks taxes. Currently they consume all the resources paid by others (taxes paid by others) while contributing nothing themselves (taxes they pay)

There are too many poor people, we need more rich people.

Makes sense wrote:

ALEC -- Look it up!

Have you been drinking again?

Obama refused to PAY HIS FAIR SHARE of Taxes!




That Piece of Filth only paid 20% Taxes!




What a Hypocrite!!

Obama the Tax Hypocrite

By Kevin McCullough
April 24, 2011


The President Barack Obama has been proven a hypocrite.

He is unwilling to practice for himself what he wishes to demand of others. And in so doing, he is exposing for all to see the lack of importance his own agenda is--even to himself.

Let me lay it out for you.

In the 2008 campaign, then Senator Obama repeatedly scoffed at the tax rates for the majority of the small business class of our nation. He repeatedly chided those in the tax bracket that housed the biggest number of small business owners, that they would need to do "more," that everybody should, "do their share."

He also promised repeatedly that if elected President he would increase those tax rates, that he would force those in that bracket to do more, and that it would be the true measure of patriotism to do so.

He spoke in glowing terms of returning the tax rates in his administration to the levels of the Clinton era, and challenging those earning above $250,000 a year to embrace their dutiful responsibilities to pay 39% federal income taxes (not the then 35% under President Bush.)

Last week in his speech to the American people, where he released yet his fourth attempt at trying to define how he would reduce the deficit, he re-engaged these ideas of those in the top earnings bracket paying what he refers to constantly as "their fair share." He insisted that he personally didn't need "yet another tax cut." And he scoffed at the idea that any deficit reduction plan would include such things.

To hear him rail against those who earn big paychecks one could only come away convinced that this was a President who was as committed to this cause of taxation to reduce the deficit as any history had ever seen.

And then we saw his tax return.

For 2010 President Obama earned well more than $250,000 in total family income for the year. In fact the Obama household--after every loophole, donation, and tax exempt charitable donation had been subtracted--recorded a revenue earnings of $1,700,000 and change. To repeat, this wasn't gross earnings, this was adjusted earnings. This is what he was responsible to pay taxes on.

For those of you who could not do the immediate math that's $1,450,000 above the $250,000 that he wished to tax at the maximum level under the Clinton era--39%.

From the reports concerning the President's tax returns he paid roughly $454,000 and change in federal taxes. Sounds like a lot doesn't it?

It is... to most people. But on taxable income of $1,700,000 it only works out to be a tad more than 26%. Woah! Wait a minute... The President--who had a taxable income of $1,700,000--paid what?

Had he voluntarily paid the rate he wished everyone else in his own income bracket to pay (39%) in federal taxes, he SHOULD have paid $663,000.

But wait there's more... To top off the sundae with a cherry, President Obama got a refund back from the government of $12,000.

This week following his deficit reduction speech--or as I like to call it--the Obama 2012 kick-off event--the President made a series of additional stops across the country pitching the idea of taxing people in his own income bracket much more in taxes than they currently pay. I wonder how many of those in each audience even had a clue that what President Obama practices is about $200,000 less per year than what he preaches--with a $12,000 rebate on top?

Like the phony group of "millionaires" who came out to hold press conferences after the President's "deficit reduction" address and claimed they wished to be paying more in taxes, let me remind the President as I did them: the IRS does take donations.

In fact here's the address: "Internal Revenue Service, Washington DC, 20001"



http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmcculloug...

If the government took every penny from the rich it would be less then a trillion dollars. Not nearly enough to pay for Democrats. If they got their tax increase from the rich it would amount to $400 billion dollars over 10 years. The Obama people spend that much every 4 days. The only way to pay off the Obama debt is to create tax paying jobs. We need real growth, not 3% a year. We need a President that understands business. Obama never had so much as a lemonade stand

Cat74 wrote:

If the government took every penny from the rich it would be less then a trillion dollars. Not nearly enough to pay for Democrats. If they got their tax increase from the rich it would amount to $400 billion dollars over 10 years. The Obama people spend that much every 4 days.

The only way to pay off the Obama debt is to create tax paying jobs. We need real growth, not 3% a year. We need a President that understands business. Obama never had so much as a lemonade stand

BINGO!
Obama is clueless and LIES through his teeth as usual.




Let's look back to Bill Clinton's Last Budget which was $1.7 Trillion and COMPARE that to the Arse Wipe Obama's Budget's exceeding $3.7 TRILLION to see that HE is the Problem.


No One was starving in 2000 when Bill Clinton was president but now under Chairman Maobama, POVERTY has risen Every Year and so has his budgets!


Time to Take out the Trash.

Makes sense wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL How about Romney's Buffett Rule. He plans to tax second homes of the rich to pretend he cares. Don't worry, he'll probably flop before he flips on that one. Romney of national ROMNEYCARE doesn't have a chance.

DNC Chief Called on to Release Tax Returns...

NC Dem Party exec resigns over sexual harassment allegations...

Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years...

'Buffett' battle heads to Senate floor; bill won't dent deficit...

Taliban attack U.S. embassy, govt sites across Afghanistan...meanwhile…………
Obama: I'm Here 'To Scout Out' My Next Vacation With Michelle...where was sniper Obama when you needed him.

tax, tax, tax, we should all sign up on ssi&food stamps .
gas tax
hunting tax
fishing tax
telephone surcharge tax
limited call tax
car tax
boat tax
guzzler tax,
home tax, clothing tax
captial gain tax
car plate renewal tax
state tax
fed tax
city tax
parking tax
water tax
shyt house tax
insurance tax
acohol tax
cigrette tax
condom tax
building tax
911 tax
fuel surcharge tax for electric
employee county tax
dog tax
garbage tax
there are so many taxes i cant mention but the last tax thats paid on a person is the coffin tax and a plot of land thats 3x6 ft.