Comment

Comment by amanda choate on April 19, 2012 at 11:49am

John the old proverb says, "never get into an argument with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." Man do I know that feeling.

So John, was there ever a debate on the Buffet rule, were amendments offered, was there an up or down vote? No. Just as I stated. And why might that be? Because in the senate, you only need 41votes to prevent the American people from ever even having an issue heard.

And thanks for taking the time to read that aricle an provide us with those insightful comments.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 19, 2012 at 4:39am

Agree John. To proceed, there was a need for 60 votes and those in favor only had 51 votes. The senate is not about the minority winning at all. You are also right about the democrats trying to make social issues to the issues for the election because they can't run on failed and unpopular policies. Instead, they will try paying for votes and appeal to people baser instincts like jealousy or offering to give folks handouts. Sadly, most will buy into it and not give a rats rear end that our country is broke and our de facto dictator leader is borrowing money to do give away programs and far reaching extended unemployment (due to his failed policies destroying jobs in mass). Socialism was already tried in this country and failed miserably prior to the constitution. People did exactly what they do every time it is tried anywhere in the world. You have one group of people doing all the work, and the other group sits on their butts and waits for everything to be divided up (and usually they are at the head of the line with the biggest demands even though they did nothing to deserve anything). The solution in our country (even way back then) was to divide up plots of land and tell everyone they had to produce for themselves and their own families. It worked, and the first fall, they had the very first Thanksgiving, because there was plenty for everyone, and those who had not contributed during the forced socialism were in most cases the most generous and the largest producers. When you work for yourself and get to keep the fruits of your labors, it works wonders.............when you are not, people don't usually produce at all or certainly not to their full capacity (and that is what Obama will net by punishing those who are successful; it is human nature)

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 18, 2012 at 8:01pm

Establish justice was not intended to be meant for financial outcomes and you know it!  Establish justice I am sure by a liberal could certainly be taken to mean financial outcomes, but you know as well as I do that was not what it meant.

Comment by Paul Davis on April 18, 2012 at 7:41pm

Comment by Patricia M. McBride7 hours ago        

And our constitution does not say justice or fair anywhere. 

Did you miss the first sentance?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 18, 2012 at 6:33pm

Amanda, but along with the hedge fund operators, this tax also hits all the small business owners that file personal returns for their businesses.  As long as Obama wants to throw all under the bus, I couldn't possibly agree with you.  I also won't agree as long as everyone who has already paid income tax on their investment income is forced to pay it all over again on capital gains and that is what is being suggested.  If you don't like one group, that's fine, but this is going to slam everyone.  Buffet already paid income taxes on his money and now, he is pushing to force everyone to be taxed on their money twice basically.

Comment by amanda choate on April 18, 2012 at 5:57pm

John, there was no vote on the " Buffet Rule". It was filibustered, which prevented it from coming to the floor to be considered, debated, amended and voted on. Once it got to the floor, then it would only take a simple majority to determine whether it passed or not. As it was, a minority, 45, determined the outcome. Because in the senate, minority rules.

Since 2009, 92% of the increase in earnings in this country has gone to, you guessed it, the 1%, for an average of $105,000 per person. The bottom 99% saw their earnings increase by $171.  That is class warfare. And it has been both parties and everyone else.

Larry Bartels, a professor at Vanderbilt has a book out called "Economic Inequality" which looks at how elected officials vote as compared to their constituents, very enlightening.

Here is a link to an article that reviews part of the analysis:

http://ridgepoliticalreview.com/2012/01/14/income-inequality-plagui...

I am not interested one iota in rhetoric of class warfare, the job creators, war on women or any of the other hullabaloo.

I look at measurable outcomes. How did policy affect those outcomes? Are those outcomes in the best interest of all? Hedge fund operators certainly aren't job creators, they are hedge fund operators and they are only interested in their own personal wealth, yet they pay 15% rate on their income. How is that just? My labor is my investment in my income, it is worth every bit as much as the dollars they invest and should be taxed at equal rates.

...with liberty and justice for all. Not just the connected and influential. All.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 18, 2012 at 12:35pm

By the way Amanda, I want to thank you for pointing out a couple of the blogs that got posted had errors or were in error.  By doing that, you allowed me to remove something that would have had an impact on our credibility as a group.  Never hesitate to do it again.  I don't want to leave something up that is not totally what it should be!

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 18, 2012 at 12:21pm

John is right Amanda.  Obama knew it wouldn't pass but now, since he can't talk about all those wonderful things he did that were such a roaring success, he will have this, the mess down in Orlando, and women's rights etc (but think his little buddies might have spoiled that for him tsk).  The man is an unmitigated disaster and I pray he moves out of the white house on January 20th after getting tromped on November 6th.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 18, 2012 at 12:18pm

And our constitution does not say justice or fair anywhere.  It says there will be equality of opportunity with no guarantee of equality of outcomes.  And that is what has brought people here all over the world and made us the greatest country on the earth.  Everyone gets a shot at working hard and making a success of it.  The constitution does not say work your fanny off and then, the federal government will steal your property and giving to the folks who sat home on the couch watching TV.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 18, 2012 at 12:14pm

Actually, it was 44 republicans and 1 democrat and 50 democrats and 1 republican for it.  I don't like it Amanda, because it is class warefare and hits so many small business owners.  And the money collected will not go towards the deficit; it will go towards more spending by this wack job president.  If the economy was in great shape and folks all had jobs and it was going to truly go towards paying the deficit down, I might not be so apposed to it, but it will only be blown on more give away programs and the amount collected in a 10 year period isn't even enough to cover the deficit spending this president does in one year............... so it is worthless and causes more damage to our economy unnecessarily.  I think those who voted against it, chose wisely.  Just because Obama has convinced Americans socialism is great when it comes to something like this where they pay nothing for the most part (about 49% or so pay nothing) and they get to decide to steal more money from the small business owner?  Nope.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page