The Buffett rule will get a vote in the Senate today....

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

7 posts / 0 new

- but likely won’t be able to overcome a unified Republican filibuster. President Obama’s proposal will force millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney to pay at least the same tax rate as working Americans. Currently – America’s super rich take advantage of loopholes created by the Bush tax cuts – and pay far lower rates than even a lot of middle class Americans.

Making the rich pay their fair share in taxes has been a rallying call by both Democratic and Republican Presidents in history – from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan to now Barack Obama. Unfortunately – now that the rules of the Senate have been changed by the Republican minority to require 60-votes to pass anything – and now that the most-corporate friendly House of Representatives elected by over $300 million in corporate spending in 2010 – refuses to consider any sort of tax increases because multi-millionaire lobbyist Grover Norquist won’t let them – then it looks like America’s oligarchs will be let off the hook again.

Republicans are more focused on a $600,000 GSA scandal and whether or not Secret Service Agents cavorted with prostitutes, than actually making our economy work for the middle class again.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am


Again, here is a comment about Obama and the Buffett rule that is right on the mark!,0,6742049.column

mauiman58's picture
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm


DRC's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

When I saw "krauthammer" in the link, I already knew exactly what type of garbage OPINION would be in it

Dominic C
Jun. 27, 2011 9:39 am

So because the amount of the increase of this single item won't close the deficit, and Krauthammer says the deficit is the biggest hurdle facing America, that is proof that Krauthammer has his head stuck up his own ass.

We are still mired in the worst recession since the great depression. And, in some respects, this is worse. If Krauthammer wanted to see the deficit shrink, then he should be pushing for more jobs in the US, tarrifs, direct govt hiring, or trade restrictions, and those jobs then result in higher wages, and more taxes paid.

Slashing govt spending will only lead to fewer workers, fewer taxes paid, and more homelessness and hopelessness.

Phaedrus76's picture
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

From the article:

"50 years of economic history show that raising the capital gains tax backfires: It reduces federal revenues, while lowering the tax raises revenues."

I don't know what makes the last 50 years special. We have the tax code going back to 1916. It looks like the first attempt to increase the tax rate on long term capital gains happened in 1968, so at best he has 43 years of data... So something smells at the start...

From 1942 to 1967 there was no change in the tax rate on long-term capital gains. (Note this does not count changes to the definition of "long-term" which used to be 2-years, now it is 1-year, or changes to other aspects of items sold as gains, e.g. sale of personal residence, small company stock, etc.)

From 1968 to 1978 these tax rates were raised and lowered. The highest rate was 39% in 1978 and lowered in 1979 and forward.

In 1986 Reagan raised the rate. I don't think tax revenues fell in 1986-1988. In 1993 Clinton raised the rate. I don't think tax revenues fell in 1993-1996.

Oh wait a minute maybe he's talking about tax revenues only on capital gains...

Revenues in 1988 were higher than 1987, and revenues increased steadily from 1991 to 2000.

So the message is crap, ergo the messenger is a douchebag.

Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

As expected that vote is dead in the water.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Trump Is Using Racist White People To Make The Rich Richer

There is this whole mythology that Donald Trump came to power because 53% of white women voted for him, because 66% of white working men who didn't have a college degree voted for him.

That may be, but those are not his constituents. Those are his suckers. Those are his rubes.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system