Republican opposition to The Buffett Rule has Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks fired up! As you may know, the Buffett Rule (which failed Monday in the Senate) is the tax plan proposed by President Obama that would apply a minimum tax of 30 percent to individuals making more than a million dollars a year. The clip below features Cenk discussing the Republican's stance on The Buffett Rule interspersed with comments made by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Fox.
17 comments:
Cenk's talking out of his ass on this one.
Roughly 5 billion per year gained from this, and he's supporting it to the point of a brain aneurism because it's more than Solyndra or what the GSA blew? Because it's "fair" for someone making over a million to pay a higher rate?
Here's a novel idea: Stop spending so much! That way, you don't have to tax more to begin with. Stop funding outfits like Solyndra.
He said about those who Cornyn said don't pay taxes: "They pay the payroll tax; they pay the sales tax. And it’s a much larger portion of their income than it is for the rich, even if they’re paying this Buffett Rule, because you’re taking such a huge chunk out of the money that they have to spend to actually live."
Does Cenk know that most of them get all of that money right back, minus the sales tax? Most average working Americans in that percentage receive tax refunds for a large portion of--if not all of--what they pay in to both the federal and state level. If you have a kid, you get even more! New windows? Even more! Type of car the gov likes? Even more! On and on...
That 50% pay gross tax but little net tax.
Want REAL revenue? Close the loopholes, you loopy gits. Get away from this eat-the-rich plan of attack.
$1 million seems like a lot. If you factor in employees, insurance, electric, shipping, mortgages, and other business expenses, however, it becomes a lot less.
This Buffett Rule doesn't deal with people making $1 million in pure profit does it?. It's just income. It doesn't factor in expenses of the businesspeople that I'm aware. You still pay expenses with income.
We're not talking about only a bunch of Warren Buffetts.
I don't agree with most of the "class warfare" rhetoric. But this tax-and-spend solution to every problem under the sun needs more substance than going after people because they make more money. It's feel-good fodder for the OWS type.
Close loopholes. Flat tax. No cushy shelters. No more free rides for FAKE tax-exempt businesses.
Solve problems to bring in more revenue. This Buffett Rule is just campaigning bullshit. This is just so people can be seen as promoting their idea of "fair."
Close to $50B over 10 years.
I wonder how much more we'd save net to drop 50% of government over that same span?
Good article...I just posted something similar on my blog as well. The million dollar question: Why do so many conservatives vote against their interest? http://harveysglobalpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-do-so-many-conservatives-vote.html
As a matter of fact, one of my fraternity brothers wants to create a t-shirt design that states "Vote Your Interest"
Ben
"Why do so many conservatives vote against their interest?"
The answer is not them voting against their interests, but you knowing little of their lives and situations. People vote conservative because it is in their interest. Just like people vote liberal because it is in their interest. It is arrogant to assume otherwise.
Good answer, dmarks. I couldn't have said it better myself. We are all entitled to vote what we want and yes, it has a lot to do with our interests, morals and so forth.
Josh: Your defense of the rich was fantastic! While I agree that spending is out of control in some areas, GOP supporters seem to have collective amnesia on this topic. After all, it's not like government spending suddenly became an issue once President Obama took office.
As for those who receive federal income tax refunds, I'm sure Cenk is aware of this fact. However, this "large portion" you refer to that people get back isn't going to allow them to live the high life. In fact, the IRS reported that the average person got back $3,000 last year. That's not to say this isn't a nice chunk of change for the average American, but let's not get carried away.
Although the right-wing noise machine is selling it as such, The Buffett Rule isn't designed to pick on rich people just for the sake of it. Unless one is a millionaire, I don't see how they can be opposed to the rich paying their fair share.
In answer to your question, The Buffett Rule pertains to people with adjusted gross incomes of more than $1 million.
Healthy Souls: You posed a good question. I stumbled upon an article this morning about how Republicans get people to vote against their own best interests. I plan on posting the article here. By the way, I'll be by to check out your post today.
dmarks and Leticia: People are entitled to vote how they want. However, if they are being misled into voting against their best interests, there's a problem.
Republican "conservatism" with its Democratic Party enablers, is nothing more than promoting the economic interests of the wealthy. This is why they must pander to the religious and moral prejudices of the lower class in order to move government regulation out of the boardroom and into the bedroom.
This so-called "conservatism" will trample our public services and the democracy we need to thrive as a nation. Government spending has been abused by both parties. It has nothing to do with the decline of the middle class and off-shoring of our jobs. Those are the results of policies by the politicians bought and controlled by Big Money.
They are winning. Look how the economic elites are doing better than ever. (They really are, thanks to FOX(R) and gullible and frightened voters.) The rest of us...sorry. Welcome to Republican "conservatism".
I know you and Cenk are simpatico, but I don't see it anywhere near defending the rich.
I'm just putting spending and taxing on blast.
I've read all different types of reports and polls about taxes. Most average that $3000 number by using over 75% of all tax returns. So that's not adjusted for the other 50% to begin with.
Many people, like me, only pay in and don't get a penny back, because we're not getting a paycheck that's been withheld. And I don't have kids. So someone's $6k return + my $0 return = $3000. Bunk, cooked numbers -- such is government.
People earning less money typically get back more in taxes, especially if they have claims and dependents. Those people are typically in the 50% that some say don't pay any tax, because it's essentially true; net tax is what needs to be looked at. Furthermore, you'd also have to take into account what that percentage gets back in SS and other benefits compared to what they pay in.
This is a system the government as a whole created. No secret why we're 15T in the hole. And it's not going to be solved by holding people up for more money simply because they have more money.
What is the Buffett Rule for? If it's for revenue, do what makes the most sense first: close the damn loopholes.
I do not expect a partisan to actually see this as an American issue. It's either the R or D to blame. That is what it is. But of all the things the Cenks of the world could rail on about it, this one is a loser. It's campaign rhetoric for the reelection of President Obama.
Want change? Stop spending.
Of course, if what's wanted is outright wealth redistribution and for earners to pay more so that the federal government can beef up programs, then, for the love for f'n Pete, why don't you guys just come right out and say it? It's a legitimate point of view. Own it.
The way it's framed by Mr. Uygur here is nonsensical.
Dave Dubya: The GOP has done a masterful job of waving the religious carrot in the faces of its base while using their other hand to rob these same voters blind. Because the Democratic party is generally the party of pro-choice, I've heard GOP supporters say they will never vote for a Democrat. Apparently, they don't care if their personal wealth is shrinking or at a standstill. Just so long as the GOP keeps preaching that good ol' time religion.
Josh: If the people who are getting federal income tax refunds had a choice, I'm willing to bet they'd switch places with the millionaires in this country.
Maybe part of your beef with the way Cenk framed his argument is the fact that he called you and others who vote Republican "jackasses". How do you feel about the way the politician in the clip below talked about how millionaires should pay their fair share?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mp1nuEVOoc&feature=related
What do I care what Reagan thought was fair vs. what Obama thinks is fair? What's the point of that clip as it pertains to me personally?
One: It was the 1980s.
Two: It's one thing to say you don't think something is fair. It's another thing entirely to institute what you think is fair -- what you're doing about it.
I'm also positive most people who aren't millionaires would switch places with millionaires. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? Are you implying it's "unfair" for people not to have as much as someone else?
The thing here is that you're completely missing my point. Before I used to think it was intentional. Now I know it's not. I've learned over time that it's just ideological.
My point: Tax EVERYONE less! Don't simply raise taxes on people earning money because it's somehow "fair" for people who have earned success in America to pay more.
If it's unfair for Warren Buffett's "secretary"--who earns in the top 5% of all Americans--to pay a higher tax rate, lower HER rate!
This is just ridiculous rhetoric to bring in revenue for more spending. If it was about "fairness," and also about something having a stimulative effect, you'd logically LOWER rates for those earning less.
The federal government does not need the amount of revenue it brings in. There's no call for it. Unless, of course, you fit the bill of the last statement of my last response and want redistribution.
Well, that's fine by me. I know many who hold that stance, and I'm sure many other liberals do; they just won't come out and say it. It's better to pretend things like "socialist" and "redistributionist" are somehow racially tinged.
What's more logical, if one can remove ideology:
Keep feeding a government system that habitually wastes money and mismanages damn near everything it controls?
Or stop feeding and fix the government system to promote efficiency?
I can't remember which is which, if you starve the fever or the cold. All I know is that government is that plant from the Little Shop of Horrors, and we need to bring out the chainsaw instead of offering up Steve Martin as a sacrifice.
As to Cenk calling me a jackass -- I've been called worse. Just yesterday I was called a "motherless fuck" and a "chadrool."
Devastating.
Josh: The reason I included the Reagan clip was to illustrate how the right has shifted further to the right over the last 25 years or so. It doesn't matter that Reagan made these comments in the 1980s. Hell, he could have made them in the 1880s and the sentiment would have been the same: the wealthy should pay their fair share. The point is, the man many on the right would love to see added to Mt. Rushmore was giving speeches which are eerily similar to President Obama's. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no one accused Reagan of being a socialist.
No, I'm not implying it's "unfair" for people not to have as much as someone else. The only reason I mentioned that is because you seem to resent the fact that people with smaller incomes get a tax refund.
As for you once thinking I was intentionally missing your point, that's a silly notion. I have much better things to do with my time.
Not sure how it comes across as resentment to state the fact that people with lower incomes pay far less net tax. I don't resent anyone for it. I want everyone to pay lower taxes. Government is cushiest career out there, producing nothing of value to recoup that money.
The entire thing is a sham. Buffett's secretary is hella wealthy. Nobody bothers to clarify the difference in capital gains and income taxes. So it's all just campaigning hogwash about "fairness" without any definition as to what fairness is.
Reagan and Obama seeing similar things as unfair is really pointless to me. I'm sure people could pull up countless clips of Republicans saying that we need to do something about unemployment, and then Democrats saying the same thing.
As to what the Reagan-worshiping right has to say about it, that's on them. Very few of them know their ass from a hole in the ground in the first place.
People can look back in hindsight and blame Carter for this, Regan for that, Bush for this, Clinton for that, or choose to give them credit, but it seems to me that everyone's policies have failed America. And in the past four years we have been spending our asses off like never before. What's to show? Oh, that's right -- we need to spend more and more before we can call it.
The new proposed taxes are about one of two things, could be a little of both: Revenue or fairness.
Why more money to spend instead of cutting spending? Why charge more money to make something fair instead of charging less?
My simple plea: Stop. I don't care which letter does it.
"Reagan and Obama seeing similar things as unfair is really pointless to me. I'm sure people could pull up countless clips of Republicans saying that we need to do something about unemployment, and then Democrats saying the same thing."
It's not a matter of the two parties simply saying the same thing.
Reagan made speeches about fairness, but to the best of my knowledge he wasn't demonized by the Left for it. President Obama is making the same argument but he's accused by the Right of engaging in class warfare, punishing success, etc. Either the Right has made an ideological shift even further right or they are engaging in partisanship. There's no 3rd option.
As for the alleged countless clips of Republicans and Democrats saying the same thing about unemployment, you'd have a point if the Dems went into "shift/demonize" mode in regards to their previous stance on the issue. Even still, all you'd be doing is deflecting by saying, "Hey, the Dems did it too!"
The fact that the hard right wants to attack Obama for any and everything is something you bring to me as if I hold the right's proxy on these issues.
I've put the "right" on blast on numerous occasions here. I've called them out for only caring about spending a lot of money once Obama started spending it. I consistently call them schmucks and worse.
So I'm not sure what your argument has to do with my particular comments.
I commented as to my personal feelings on the issue, to say that Cenk's out of his tree and that the whole "fair share" thing is just campaign rhetoric.
I still believe that to be the case. 100%.
Since I'm to be the spokesperson here for the right, I tried to find Reagan's entire speech. It's tough! Most of what I found is just more highlights taken out of it to compare with Obama's speeches. And as one might imagine, Obama's speeches flood the net at a far greater rate. (Not a diss, in case your blood pressure was on the incline!)
But I was extremely curious as to how similar they were, as I was only a kid when Reagan was President.
This is the most complete Reagan speech I found on YouTube -- one of the ones Schultz uses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XUAk-PVJ0&feature=related
Obama does use a few Reagan lines. Very true. A machine that tight undoubtedly realized it'd be a good thing to channel Reagan just so USA Malcolm could link USA Josh on the BOOYAH tip.
But Mr. Reagan's tone overall is a bit different than Mr. Obama's.
To Obama's credit, he started out with wanting(?) to close loopholes. But once this "Buffett Rule" came along, it replaced all that, and now guys like Ryan are trampled underfoot by the administration and by both the right and left in Congress as they focus on the loopholes as a way to bring fairness without having to jack up rates on investments -- as some view invested capital different in 2012 than in the 1980s. Internet. Global market. Higher cost of living. Other shit.
Reagan's tone of starting small businesses and achieving in America with the help of your friends and neighbors is a tone that Obama has, to my knowledge, never taken. Obama's tone seems to me more government-centered; "we," the government and you, can do it.
So, yeah -- things like "fair share" are shared terms. Obama, like Fake Romney (or is it Mitt? I forget...), is trying to channel Reagan. Obviously. But there is a gargantuan difference in how "fairness" is instituted.
I was born in 1980. I don't recall if the left ate into Reagan's ass over the "fairness" bit. I'll take your word that they didn't, but I'll also assume they had plenty of other gripes with Reagan. He's not a popular President amongst the left, unless they want to use him in the same sentence as Obama to dismiss the right.
To date, I'm about 85% that I'll vote Ron Paul, just because. And I'm not really a big fan of him either.
"Why more money to spend instead of cutting spending? "
There's a near-record amount already, and it is being squandered on such pure waste as the number of Federal employees making more than $100,000 soaring a lot. (this started under Bush and has kept soaring under Obama)
It's a no brainer. Stop doing this, and you will have more money. No need to steal from the rest of us. That's greedy, and counter productive.
Josh: Although you were the token rightie for awhile during the "Diversity Ink" era, I've learned over the years that you are not in lockstep with the far right. With that being said, it sounds to me like you are taking their stance when it comes to the Buffett Rule.
By the way, you really should drop the running gag in which you assume I get upset over every slight (real or imagined) against President Obama. For one thing, I don't. Also, I'd never consider it a diss for anyone to say that Obama's speeches are more prominent on the net than Reagan's. It stands to reason that anyone who took the presidency in the Internet era would be more visible on the net than a prez from the 1980s.
In my experience, mentioning Obama's name in any context that is not either extremely flattering or that hearkens back to Bush or Republicans for purposes of blaming only one side for everything causes pit gut fury the likes of which I've never seen.
Not all folks get so distressed over it, but I've met plenty who blow their fuse.
And I can agree with the Republicans without agreeing for the same reasons. I would assume the majority of them want to stand at Obama's opposite and refuse to raise tax as a matter of principle, while Obama seeks to increase taxes in numerous ways on certain individuals.
My personal stance on taxing is a little of this and a little of that. Close loopholes. Lower capital gains even further! Lower rates for everyone across the board.
If states need to raise their rates individually to cover, that's one thing. A giant federal apparatus decreeing that thou earners shall fund thy livelihoods -- I don't think so.
I believe if everyone were honest about where they stood on the issue and why, instead of boxing people in and twisting and deflecting, we'd get a lot further. For example: What is the Buffett Rule even for? I still don't know even that much.
Josh: In regards to your opening paragraph about President Obama, I've seen the same reaction from the right when the slightest criticism has been leveled at people such as Bush 43 and Palin.
"For example: What is the Buffett Rule even for?"
I think the link I included in this post explains its purpose
Post a Comment