Republicans in the Senate did what their billionaire overlords wanted them to do – block the Buffet Rule

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

On Monday evening – a majority of Senators voted in favor of the Buffet Rule requiring people like Mitt Romney to pay at least the same tax rate as working Americans.  But the bill failed – because a near-unanimous Republican filibuster stopped Democrats from getting the 60-vote supermajority they need to pass anything in the Senate nowadays. 

A recent CNN poll found that 72% of Americans – including a majority of Republicans – support the Buffet Rule.  Unfortunately – those 72% of Americans don’t have multi-millionaire lobbyists like Grover Norquist working on their behalf and therefore can’t get bought-out lawmakers to listen to them.  And now that a millionaire can walk up to a Member of Congress and threaten to give their opponent ten million dollars in the next election if he or she doesn’t vote the way the millionaire wants – then don’t expect the oligarchs’ grip on power to loosen. 

We need a constitutional amendment right now to overturn Citizens United and explicitly say that corporations are not people and money is property – not speech.  Go to MoveToAmend.org

Comments

Capital
Capital's picture
Or Democrats didn't put forth

Or Democrats didn't put forth a convincing argument in favor of the Tax.  

workingman
workingman's picture
the buffet rule will not

the buffet rule will not affect buffet or romney because they do not pay income taxes they pay capital gains taxes.  the buffet rule according to the white houses web page will tax house holding making more than a million dollars in INCOME.  Because Buffet pays capital gains taxes and not income he will not be affected

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Capital gains is still

Capital gains is still income.  It's UNEARNED income.  Income none the less.  Do you really think that they would be that stupid to attach a name to a rule that isn't effected by that rule.  If they are then we are in worse trouble than I thought.

Rodger97321
Rodger97321's picture
It's past time to invoke the

It's past time to invoke the New-Clear Option.

Step 1 has already been done.  This Administration has already established a three-year-plus precedent of not investigating or prosecuting crimes of torture (regardless of pseudo-name).

So we are ready for Obams's crew to perform the next step, which is:

Collect all the Senators and Representatives and take them on holiday to Gitmo.  When they are brought back, make sure to be New-Clear and remind them that future holidays are always possible and that they can even bring along family members in subsequent tirps (same offer all the Gitmo guests get).

If there are any objections (which should be very limited since most of them never objected to the holiday fare before), remind them that we are Looking Forward - not back and their holiday experiences were already in the past before their flight even landed.

Then maybe we will see some progress in the congress on this and other bills.

workingman
workingman's picture
Rodger97321 wrote: It's past

Rodger97321 wrote:

It's past time to invoke the New-Clear Option.

Step 1 has already been done.  This Administration has already established a three-year-plus precedent of not investigating or prosecuting crimes of torture (regardless of pseudo-name).

So we are ready for Obams's crew to perform the next step, which is:

Collect all the Senators and Representatives and take them on holiday to Gitmo.  When they are brought back, make sure to be New-Clear and remind them that future holidays are always possible and that they can even bring along family members in subsequent tirps (same offer all the Gitmo guests get).

If there are any objections (which should be very limited since most of them never objected to the holiday fare before), remind them that we are Looking Forward - not back and their holiday experiences were already in the past before their flight even landed.

Then maybe we will see some progress in the congress on this and other bills.

Putting congressmen in jail will not help if they are not doing what you want try to vote them out.

Where are you trying to progress to?

Choco
Choco's picture
The rich make the rules,

The rich make the rules, select candidates, finance campaigns and get their media to cover their candidates. Just to be sure that they've got complete control, they fix the elections and own and tamper with the electronic voting machines. When their candidates are in office they block bills that help working class people and pass laws that make previous criminal activity legal. So the rich don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. That's one issue.

The other issue is that well over fifty percent of income tax goes to the military which largely is at the beck and call of big oil and other resource extraction industries. http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm So in that sense I don't want to pay taxes that support our PNAC imperialism. I don't want to pay taxes that go to the CIA and I don't want to pay taxes to Israel without some accountability. So asking people to pay their fair share of taxes is somewhat misleading. Let's have a review of the IRS in conjunction with the Federal (private) Reserve, these symbiotic institutions were both created in 1913 and are at the heart of the corruption. Let me control the money and I care not who makes the laws. Rothschild.

So when these cretins overreach so far that it's obvious that they are murdering, lying, cheating, exploiting and manipulating everything then the public needs to be outraged enough to provide the final measure of oversight and do whatever it takes to get justice. This failure to understand the depth of corruption and the failure of the American people to provide oversight of our government and political process is the problem. You can't fix a political problem with the same or like minded politicians that created the problems in the first place. Pretending it's a party problem is buying into the facade of democracy. We are not free, we are not brave, we are willing pawns. You can't work within a system that is corrupt to its core.

Sprinklerfitter
Sprinklerfitter's picture
Choco wrote: The rich make

Choco wrote:

The rich make the rules, select candidates, finance campaigns and get their media to cover their candidates. Just to be sure that they've got complete control, they fix the elections and own and tamper with the electronic voting machines. When their candidates are in office they block bills that help working class people and pass laws that make previous criminal activity legal. So the rich don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. That's one issue.

The other issue is that well over fifty percent of income tax goes to the military which largely is at the beck and call of big oil and other resource extraction industries. http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm So in that sense I don't want to pay taxes that support our PNAC imperialism. I don't want to pay taxes that go to the CIA and I don't want to pay taxes to Israel without some accountability. So asking people to pay their fair share of taxes is somewhat misleading. Let's have a review of the IRS in conjunction with the Federal (private) Reserve, these symbiotic institutions were both created in 1913 and are at the heart of the corruption. Let me control the money and I care not who makes the laws. Rothschild.

So when these cretins overreach so far that it's obvious that they are murdering, lying, cheating, exploiting and manipulating everything then the public needs to be outraged enough to provide the final measure of oversight and do whatever it takes to get justice. This failure to understand the depth of corruption and the failure of the American people to provide oversight of our government and political process is the problem. You can't fix a political problem with the same or like minded politicians that created the problems in the first place. Pretending it's a party problem is buying into the facade of democracy. We are not free, we are not brave, we are willing pawns. You can't work within a system that is corrupt to its core.

Great post!

Karolina
Karolina's picture
I think Sprinklefitter's

I think Sprinklefitter's compliment of your calling-it-like-it-is post is echoed by many others. Certainly by me.

Choco
Choco's picture
  Citizen's United was passed

 

Citizen's United was passed by a Reich wing SCOTUS. They got that far right because George W. Bush was artificially inserted as president by the right wing SCOTUS after the Florida recount debacle. Bush later appointed and seated Alito and Roberts. Bush is illegitimate and so are Alito and Roberts. Scalia went pheasant hunting with Cheney while Cheney's secret energy meeting was before the Supreme Court.

It's all a facade. We don't have three branches of government that check each other and we don't have two parties. We have a hybrid oligarchy/plutocracy. We constantly lose at the game of democracy because we continue to play their game with their rules with their referees.

oligarchy

1.    small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes

2.    entity ruled by oligarchy: a nation governed or an organization controlled by an oligarchy

3.    government by small group: government or control by a small group of people

plutocracy

1.the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.

2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.

3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

 

 

 

chilidog
Obama and the GOP will pass

Obama and the GOP will pass something similar after the election, because 30% is less than 39.6% which will be effective next year.

WhitemoonG
WhitemoonG's picture
CBO analysts indicate that

CBO analysts indicate that the Buffett rule, if enacted, would realize approximately 4.3 Billion extra tax revenue ( ignoring  some marginal basis jobs that would be likely lost) for the government.

Just think of the lost opportunity!   That would have paid for 3  HOURS   of   1    DAY of Obama's colossal rapidly expanding federal government   budget and ever gargantuan deficits.

 

As for the rich controlling EVERYTHING,  I guess that explains candidate Steve Forbes assuming the Presidency in 1996.

 

As for the Supreme Court  "appointing"   the "illegitimate"   Bush President in 2000,  leftist religion and mythology lives eternal!    All independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election (with the sole exception of ONE that used ridiculously lopsided criteria)   confirmed that even if he'd gotten all the re-re-recounts he wanted,  Gore  STILL  LOST.                       Sorry,  return to reality when ready.

anti-Republicon
WhitemoonG wrote:        All

WhitemoonG wrote:

 

 

   All independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election (with the sole exception of ONE that used ridiculously lopsided criteria)   confirmed that even if he'd gotten all the re-re-recounts he wanted,  Gore  STILL  LOST.                      

I must have missed the publication of all these re-count results you speak of, Care to provide some links? 

Art
Art's picture
Quote: All independent,

Quote:
 All independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election (with the sole exception of ONE that used ridiculously lopsided criteria)   confirmed that even if he'd gotten all the re-re-recounts he wanted,  Gore  STILL  LOST.                       Sorry,  return to reality when ready.
That's not what the New York Times said.

If that was the case, I wonder why the Supreme Court stopped the recount.

edcat01
edcat01's picture
There is a law on the books

There is a law on the books about truth in advertising.  This law states that a company can not falsely claim something as fact if it is not.  Why not have the very same rule for government, elected officials. those running for elected office and those appointed to office?  If they lie or willfully mislead in statement or action, then they not only are removed from office (or can not be elected) but pay a hefty fine and go to prison (not a "country club" federal prison, but at least a medium security).

Government is in place to serve the people and not rape them or grow richer along the way.  The constitution says the government will give compensation for service, but nowhere does it say they should be paid more than the average wage, nor that this compensation should be for life as a retirement.  AND, nowhere does it say they are above the law set forth for the average citizen. (other than a few limited things set forth for while they are in session or coming or going to/from a session of congress.

Sorry I was off subject.  The "Buffet Rule" is not a fix all, but it is a step.  All travels start with a first step.

polycarp2
The Millionaires Club (the

The Millionaires Club (the U.S. Senate) didn't  need billionaires to tell them to vote in their own personal interests.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
Capital wrote: Or Democrats

Capital wrote:

Or Democrats didn't put forth a convincing argument in favor of the Tax.  

MY GOD! YOU ARE RIGHT!

Buffet's secratary SHOULD pay a higher tax. She is unworthy!

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
WhitemoonG wrote:..CBO

WhitemoonG wrote:
..CBO analysts indicate that the Buffett rule, if enacted, would realize approximately 4.3 Billion extra tax revenue...Just think of the lost opportunity!   That would have paid for 3  HOURS   of   1    DAY of Obama's colossal rapidly expanding federal government   budget and ever gargantuan deficits.

So that is why you should vote against it, because it wasn't enough of a tax increase?

Why was it so important to make cuts to head start of a few billion then?

Why can't you cut defnense 3.4 billion, it that's not a lot of money?

Capital
Capital's picture
Dr. Econ wrote: MY GOD! YOU

Dr. Econ wrote:

MY GOD! YOU ARE RIGHT!

Buffet's secratary SHOULD pay a higher tax. She is unworthy!

Was that suppose to be convicing argument.  Sounds a bit trite

DRC
DRC's picture
Cap, do you support the

Cap, do you support the permanent filibuster in the Senate?  There was a majority in favor of the measure.

Help me understand why billions are insignificant, but cuts that save only hundreds of thousands are great steps toward fiscal responsibility if they hurt the poor instead of the rich.

Ready to do big War Department cuts?  Ready to end the give-aways to big oil?  Or are they just drops in the bucket compared to what all those slobs on food stamps cost us?

Choco
Choco's picture
WhitemoonG wrote:   Just

WhitemoonG wrote:

 

Just think of the lost opportunity!   That would have paid for 3  HOURS   of   1    DAY of Obama's colossal rapidly expanding federal government   budget and ever gargantuan deficits.

 

 

 

As for the Supreme Court  "appointing"   the "illegitimate"   Bush President in 2000,  leftist religion and mythology lives eternal!    All independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election (with the sole exception of ONE that used ridiculously lopsided criteria)   confirmed that even if he'd gotten all the re-re-recounts he wanted,  Gore  STILL  LOST.                       Sorry,  return to reality when ready.

Read this analysis before preening too much: http://www.bushwatch.net/gorebush.htm This is to say nothing about the counties that used republican owned voting machines http://www.everything2.com/title/Who+owns+the+voting+machines%253F and that these machines were easily hacked;

 http://www.wesh.com/r/5542983/detail.html

Voting machines used in four Central Florida counties might be flawed.

 

There's new evidence that computer hackers could change election results without anyone knowing about it, WESH 2 News reported.

 

The supervisor of elections in Tallahassee tested voting machines several times over the last several months, and on Monday, his workers were able to hack into a voting machine and change the outcome. He said that same thing might have happened in Volusia County in 2000.

 

The big controversy revolves around a little black computer card that is smaller than a floppy disk and bigger than a flash drive. The card is inserted into voting machines that scan paper ballots. The card serves as the machine's electronic brain.

 

But when Ion Sancho, Leon County's Supervisor of Elections, tested the Diebold system and allowed experts to manipulate the card electronically, he could change the outcome of a mock election without leaving any kind of trail. In other words, someone could fix an election and no one would know.

 

"The expert that we used simply programmed it on his laptop in his hotel room," Sancho said.

 

Sancho began investigating the problem after watching the votes come in during the infamous 2000 presidential election. In Volusia County precinct 216, a memory card added more than 200 votes to George W. Bush's total and subtracted 16,000 votes from Al Gore. The mistake was later corrected during a hand count.

 

After watching his computer expert change vote totals this week, Sancho said that he now believes someone on the inside did the same thing in Volusia County in 2000.

 

"Someone with access to the vote center in Volusia County put it on a memory card and uploaded it into the main system," Sancho said.

 

Sancho has been raising red flags about the system for months after other hackers were able to change votes during earlier tests. But Sancho said he's gotten nowhere with the company or with the Florida secretary of state's office, which oversees elections.

 

"This raises serious questions as to the state of Florida's certification program," Sancho said.

Not to mention, ok to mention, the role of Gov. Jeb Bush and Secretary of State and Bush supporter Katherine Harris: Purge of voters

Harris has been criticized for what a New York Times editorial called "Katherine Harris's massive purge of eligible voters in Florida."[15] Harris, along with state division of elections director Clay Roberts, and Governor Jeb Bush used an inaccurate ineligible-voter list that eliminated a disproportionate number of non-felon African Americans from Florida voter rolls. According to journalist Jake Tapper, the problem went uncorrected for two years despite the warnings and complaints of elections supervisor Ion Sancho, and affected the 2000 presidential election.[16]

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/5542983/detail.html#ixzz1sXvfgImC

Also, how come conservatives and libertarians are constantly championing states rights (control) over federal rights (control) yet were very quiet when the federal court overruled the state court in the recount debacle?

 

chilidog
WhitemoonG wrote: CBO

WhitemoonG wrote:

CBO analysts indicate that the Buffett rule, if enacted, would realize approximately 4.3 Billion extra tax revenue ( ignoring  some marginal basis jobs that would be likely lost) for the government.

Just think of the lost opportunity!   That would have paid for 3  HOURS   of   1    DAY of Obama's colossal rapidly expanding federal government   budget and ever gargantuan deficits.

Where are all these numbers coming from?  I figure it would pay for 7 days at current levels of spending:

Total Federal expenditures excluding Social Security and Medicare are about $2.1 trillion.  $4.3 billion is 2% of 2.1 trilion.  2% of 365 is 7.3 days.

anti-Republicon
I often wonder why Al Gore

I often wonder why Al Gore gave up so soon after the SCOTUS decision. I was ready for a fight. I knew Bush was a disaster in the making.

Coalage1
I would think that the

I would think that the question Gore supporters should ask themselves is..."How did Gore manage to lose his home state of Tennessee in 2000?"

He wins Tennessee...doesn't matter what happened in Florida. 

 

Capital
Capital's picture
DRC wrote: Cap, do you

DRC wrote:

Cap, do you support the permanent filibuster in the Senate?  There was a majority in favor of the measure.

There is no such thing as a "permanant" Filibuster.   I do however support the Filibuster.  A filibuster is merely a battle of wills,  It continues till one side relents.  Longest Filibuster in US history was 57 days when Democrats tried and failed to scuttle US Civil Rights

chilidog
How long was the longest

How long was the longest filibuster since 1975?

Art
Art's picture
Quote:  All independent,

Quote:
  All independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election (with the sole exception of ONE that used ridiculously lopsided criteria)   confirmed that even if he'd gotten all the re-re-recounts he wanted,  Gore  STILL  LOST.          
I guess we'll never know now.    The SC did an end run around the 12th Amendment.

Capital
Capital's picture
chilidog wrote: How long was

chilidog wrote:

How long was the longest filibuster since 1975?

Post 1975 they no longer measure filibusters now they measure cloture votes (ending debate).  They had 112 cloture votes in 2008

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
WhitemoonG wrote:..  All

WhitemoonG wrote:
..  All independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election (with the sole exception of ONE that used ridiculously lopsided criteria)   confirmed that even if he'd gotten all the re-re-recounts he wanted,  Gore  STILL  LOST. 

And all independent, nonpartisan reviews, including some by left leaning publicatons,  of the ballot data for months after the election said that if the State Supreme Court's order for a full re-count had been undertaken, Gore  WON.

Gore actually did win a majority of both the popular and electoral votes that day.

Dr. Econ
Dr. Econ's picture
Capital wrote: Dr. Econ

Capital wrote:

Dr. Econ wrote:

MY GOD! YOU ARE RIGHT!

Buffet's secratary SHOULD pay a higher tax. She is unworthy!

Was that suppose to be convicing argument.  Sounds a bit trite

That's because I can't believe your serious. Shouldn't a person's tax rate either go up or stay the same the more income they make?