InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.

Learn More · Register Now
Welcome to Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore!. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


  Add ReplyCreate New TopicCreate New Poll

 Mr. Obama and the ‘Buffett Rule’, Editorial
JamesAquila
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 10:11 AM
Quote Post


GSC Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 4212
Member No.: 67
Joined: 18-June 04



QUOTE
Mr. Obama and the ‘Buffett Rule’

Editorial

President Obama accomplished two things when he made the case on Tuesday for the so-called Buffett Rule, which would require millionaires to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. He persuasively argued that it would be a step toward fairness in a tax code tilted in favor of the wealthiest Americans. Not incidentally, it allowed him to take an implicit shot at his virtually certain opponent, Mitt Romney, both personally and politically.

Mr. Romney disclosed in January that his tax bill last year came to about 14 percent of his $21 million income, roughly the same percentage faced by middle-rung taxpayers. Even more important, Mr. Romney is determined to continue slashing taxes for the rich, starving the nation of needed revenue, while deepening the deficit.

The Buffett Rule, which would raise an estimated $50 billion over 10 years, would not make an appreciable dent in the deficit or provide a lot more for essential programs. By comparison, letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for taxpayers making more than $250,000 a year, as the president has also called for, would raise $800 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Obama must ensure that the Buffett Rule does not become a substitute for ending those tax cuts.

The president is right that income inequality is a serious and growing problem and should be a central issue in this year’s campaign. On Tuesday, he said the big question for Americans is, can “we succeed as a nation where a shrinking number of people are doing really, really well, but a growing number are struggling to get by? Or are we better off when everybody gets a fair shot?”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/...e.html?_r=1&hp#


Send PM
Top
earthmother
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 10:47 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Co-Admin
Posts: 11967
Member No.: 209
Joined: 19-June 04



QUOTE (JamesAquila @ Apr 11 2012, 03:11 PM)
President Obama accomplished two things when he made the case on Tuesday for the so-called Buffett Rule, which would require millionaires to pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. He persuasively argued that it would be a step toward fairness in a tax code tilted in favor of the wealthiest Americans. Not incidentally, it allowed him to take an implicit shot at his virtually certain opponent, Mitt Romney, both personally and politically.

. . . and he further opened the door for accusations of running on a socialist platform. :rolleyes:

Of course it is only fair that big corporations and wealthy individuals not get breaks the rest of us schnooks don't get, but you can hear it all now . . . taking from the rich to give to the poor, taking money away from the "job creators" (as if trickle-down economics has ever been proven to work), perpetuating a welfare state, etc.

I don't know who ever decided that it was fair for lower- and middle-income people to pay taxes at a higher rate than the wealthy, but it has to stop. Good luck to Obama in pushing that through, though, when he's already been labeled a socialist because of health-care reform, etc. Good luck.
Send PMSend EmailMembers Website
Top
Wayne in WA State
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 12:21 AM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3834
Member No.: 1466
Joined: 14-September 06



And the reason Mitt Romney wants to be president is..

to make life better for all the poor suffering millionaires in this country. :!:
Send PMSend Email
Top
Texan for Gore
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 01:06 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4500
Member No.: 2253
Joined: 20-March 07



QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Apr 11 2012, 11:21 PM)
And the reason Mitt Romney wants to be president is..

to make life better for all the poor suffering millionaires in this country. :!:

It makes me sick. How he can look himself in the mirror is beyond me.

We we're talking about his wife here at work yesterday and about her talking about even though she didn't ever work outside the home, that raising kids at home was hard too. We guessed that she probably had a full-time nanny and housekeeper.

They are clueless about how real people live and I doubt they even care.
Send PMSend Email
Top
ALGOREismylife
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 01:20 PM
Quote Post


Super Moderator
Group Icon

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 7201
Member No.: 386
Joined: 22-August 04



Must be real hard to be a stay at home mom when you're a millionaire. The Romneys make me sick.
Send PMSend EmailContact YIM
Top
earthmother
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 02:24 PM
Quote Post


GSC Enforcer
Group Icon

Group: Co-Admin
Posts: 11967
Member No.: 209
Joined: 19-June 04



Not that I in any way want to defend the Romneys (they make me sick, too), but we do have to be aware that most of the people running for national office in this country have enough money to have other people raise their kids for them, at least part time. That's just reality. The problem is when they're so smug about it and try to make themselves appear to be "everyman," or in this case, "everywoman."

Romney's problem is that he shouldn't try to make himself appear to be something he's not. That's where he gets into trouble. He's a wealthy man, and no, quite frankly, he doesn't understand what it means to not be wealthy. He should just leave it at that.
Send PMSend EmailMembers Website
Top
JamesAquila
Posted: Apr 14 2012, 08:27 AM
Quote Post


GSC Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 4212
Member No.: 67
Joined: 18-June 04



QUOTE (earthmother @ Apr 13 2012, 02:24 PM)
Not that I in any way want to defend the Romneys (they make me sick, too), but we do have to be aware that most of the people running for national office in this country have enough money to have other people raise their kids for them, at least part time. That's just reality. The problem is when they're so smug about it and try to make themselves appear to be "everyman," or in this case, "everywoman."

Romney's problem is that he shouldn't try to make himself appear to be something he's not. That's where he gets into trouble. He's a wealthy man, and no, quite frankly, he doesn't understand what it means to not be wealthy. He should just leave it at that.

I think you nailed it.

This is one thing about the contraversy over the last few days has driven me crazy. There is no way that the Romneys can claim to an average family. They are not, they are super-rich and nothing they say shows that they understand what the average family has to deal with. Yet they try to dishonestly pretend that they are just like everyone else. Give me a break.
Send PM
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | President Barack Obama | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic Options Add ReplyCreate New TopicCreate New Poll



Paid for and authorized by the © Al Gore Support Center 2002-2005, Inc.
Please Read Our Disclaimer

A Stiles Design Creation © 2005

Site Meter
Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive