Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate (51 to 45)
latimes ^ | April 16, 2012, 4:18 p.m. | Lisa Mascaro

Posted on 04/16/2012 4:37:19 PM PDT by Red Steel

Reporting from Washington—

Republican-led opposition blocked the 'Buffett rule' from advancing in the Senate, turning back an election year effort by President Obama to slap a new tax rate on those earning beyond $1 million a year.

Nearly all Republicans voted against the measure, a potentially risky move at a time when 60% of voters support the measure, according to a recent Gallup poll, as a way to ensure wealthy Americans pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats are likely to revive the effort in coming months.

“Continuing to allow some of the wealthiest Americans to use special tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share simply cannot be justified,” the White House said in a statement before the vote.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; buffetrule; buffett; buffettrule; classwarfare; election2012; kenyanbornmuzzie; mittromney; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last
To: All

I glad it failed, the tax on margaritas and flip-flops is too high already


51 posted on 04/17/2012 3:39:41 AM PDT by Einherjar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

No, the Republicans have 47 seats and the Dems have 53 to include 2 Independents.


52 posted on 04/17/2012 3:44:52 AM PDT by corlorde (Drone strikes: the preferred method of killing by Nobel peace prize winners since 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Pay Fair Share?

WTF is a fair share? I have never heard any of the geniuses running the government quantify that amount.

53 posted on 04/17/2012 4:41:34 AM PDT by dearolddad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: conservaKate

Like every other piece of statist, big government crap they try and pass, if they had incorporated some conservative ideals into the bill it’d probably pass. Instead, they chose to go leftist the whole way through and then act surprised when none of the sane republicans vote for it.


54 posted on 04/17/2012 5:05:54 AM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Obama 2012: Dozens of MSNBC viewers can't be wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Perhaps you make a case for completely defunding the beast.


55 posted on 04/17/2012 5:20:27 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Republicans don’t control the Senate.


56 posted on 04/17/2012 5:28:07 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
You are obviously not familiar with the rules of the senate...which is why the GOP can kill a bill with just 41 votes...or 45...

It's also a way of being able to charge you opponent of being for something and while at the same time he says he was against it. The vote FOR cloture and then vote against the bill.

So...you need 60 votes to end the filibuster...and the dems could only muster 51. Of course...I have always been of the opinion they ought to REALLy make them filibuster. This "psuedo"-filibuster stuff they do now is silly.

57 posted on 04/17/2012 5:56:34 AM PDT by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Eat it, Dingy.


58 posted on 04/17/2012 6:51:53 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (Yay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Millions of Americans pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. How fairs is that.

If there are 50,000,000 million Americans paying NO federal income taxes, the same amount of money the Buffet Tax would generate could be had by taxing these deadbeat, something for nothing, Americans $83 per month.

If you pay nothing toward the system why should you receive the benefits the system offers. EVERY American should pay something. That is FAIR.


59 posted on 04/17/2012 6:53:18 AM PDT by LeonardFMason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I wish there were 51 pubbies in the Senate.

I'm hoping for 60+ come November.

60 posted on 04/17/2012 6:56:23 AM PDT by b4its2late (Patience is not a virtue, it is a waste of time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Okay, I'll get blasted for this, but I think the GOP is wrong.

The Buffett Rule is a cheap political gimmick to make the Democrats look good. It has a negligible effect on the deficit, and is simply being used to paint the GOP as favoring the rich. By opposing it, the GOP just hands the Democrats a huge political victory on a completely inconsequential issue.

What the GOP should do is publicly call this out for being a meaningless gimmick. Say that it is a serious attempt to address the deficit, but rather just playing politics so they can avoid addressing the tough issues.

So, call their bluff. Announce you'll pass the Buffett rule (as we all know, the effect is tiny anyway), then say that now that we've gotten the stupid political gimmick out of the way, let's get serious and talk about some real cuts in spending, and real deficit reduction. But you have to do that with some blunt, confrontational language on what the Buffett Rule really is.

All we do by opposing this is let Obama and the Democrats claim that they are the only ones willing to address the deficit. It is a false, ridiculous claim, but it will play well.

The mistake the Dems have made is playing this card with a bill that is so small. If you're going to play class-warfare politics, you need to be pushing something you know the other side won't support. Because if we do support it, it destroys the "GOP favors the rich" narrative, and puts the ball back in their court for some real deficit reduction. And more realistically, makes our claim that the Democrats aren't serious about reducing the deficit that much stronger for the election.

Flame away.

61 posted on 04/17/2012 7:00:10 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
Rather, it is not a serious effort to address the deficit.
62 posted on 04/17/2012 7:07:44 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Continuing to allow some of the wealthiest Americans to use special tax breaks to avoid paying their fair share simply cannot be justified,” the White House said in a statement before the vote.


Did the White House have anything to say about tax cheat Buffett’s fight to avoid paying back taxes? Didn’t think so.


63 posted on 04/17/2012 7:08:08 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer
"That's not the only lie in the article because according to that recent Gallup survey, Republicans opposed the 'Buffett Rule' 54% to 43%! Those are the voters that voted them in, so it would have been much more risky to vote against them, which is not what the article implied."

Which in turn, brings up the even bigger point, that the Bluff-It Rule -- which even Bobo has admitted is a "gimmick" -- was actually merely an attempt to demoralize the Tea Party. It was advanced in the hopes of attracting enough RINOs to go along and pass it. That the Bluff-It Rule appeals to overpaid Beltway Leftists is beside the point. The only useful thing to come out of this is how much a simpering sycophantic douchebag Warren Buffett really is.

64 posted on 04/17/2012 7:10:15 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (Yay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dearolddad
" I have never heard any of the geniuses running the government quantify that amount. "

EVERYTHING you've got.

65 posted on 04/17/2012 7:17:43 AM PDT by evad (STOP SPENDING, STOP SPENDING, STOP SPENDING. It's the SPENDING Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

First thing that occurred to me, as well.
There aren’t 51 Republicans in the Senate.

The left is using this to advance the meme that Republicans favor the rich.


66 posted on 04/17/2012 7:19:49 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
"So, call their bluff. Announce you'll pass the Buffett rule (as we all know, the effect is tiny anyway), then say that now that we've gotten the stupid political gimmick out of the way, let's get serious and talk about some real cuts in spending, and real deficit reduction"

Libtards have an unlimited supply of stupid political gimmicks.

The takeaway from the Bluff-It Rule kabuki was meant to sucker just enough GOP RINOs into doing just what you advocated, and thusly enrage/turn off the Tea Party for this election cycle.

67 posted on 04/17/2012 7:23:48 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (Yay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


68 posted on 04/17/2012 7:24:59 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (Yay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I am so sick of the term "fair share" that the libs/socialists keep promoting. I think I will hurl the next time I hear it.

FAIR SHARE is when everyone contributes the same amount for the same services by fed, state, and local governments.

I find it demoralizing that no one ever talks about the lower-class using more services than the middle and upper class. Yet, some 49% of the populace don't even pay income taxes, while some of them get a tax credit and a check, not to mention welfare and food stamps, and DO use more services (think ER's closing down).

SO WHAT IF THEY PAY SALES AND OTHER TAXES - EVEYONE DOES! Again, some 49% don't pay income taxes which is the main source of fed and state income.

This is what's wrong with the GOP establishment. They won't get off their rears and explain the above to the voting public when obama pushes his class warfare. Where the hell is Boehner? He had his mandate in the turnover in 2010 and has done little with it. Where are the TEA PARTY freshmen? What the hell happened?

Obama WILL get 4 more years, now that Mittens is the GOP boy of choice. I've become so fed up with the GOP, I'm going to re-register as an Independent.

Sure I will catch hell from the GOP faithful. Rah, rah, shish boom bah! - it's our team no matter whaat!. Pfft.

69 posted on 04/17/2012 7:54:11 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath Is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
Libtards have an unlimited supply of stupid political gimmicks.

True enough. But they've spend months on this one, and have put so much effort and PR into it, that you take the wind completely out of their sails by calling their bluff. If the response to passing it is another stupid little gimmick, that'll be about the last one they can fit in before the election, and you call them on it again.

The problem for the GOP here is that I don't think the vast majority of Americans know how little money this will raise. It sounds to most people like if you do this, it should raise tons of money to close the deficit, and so how can you reasonably oppose it? Of course, the truth is that it only raises a tiny amount of money, but I'll just bet that most people don't know that. So if you pass it, and force it to stand on its own tiny merits in the light of day, it actually exposes how petty and unserious the Administration really is about the deficit. It turns their own political weapon against them.

The takeaway from the Bluff-It Rule kabuki was meant to sucker just enough GOP RINOs into doing just what you advocated, and thusly enrage/turn off the Tea Party for this election cycle.

Then that's the fault of those Tea Partiers who can't see more than two inches in front of their noses. Like it or not, elections are about politics, and whoever plays politics the best usually wins. Handing the Dems an issue that likely will play well in purple states, involving a bill whose real impact is negligible, is simply foolish. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face.

70 posted on 04/17/2012 7:55:20 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
So, call their bluff. Announce you'll pass the Buffett rule (as we all know, the effect is tiny anyway), then say that now that we've gotten the stupid political gimmick out of the way, let's get serious and talk about some real cuts in spending, and real deficit reduction. But you have to do that with some blunt, confrontational language on what the Buffett Rule really is.

Sounds like something that Romney the RINO would do -political expedience trumping principle.

Get a clue.

71 posted on 04/17/2012 7:58:03 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head; Cen-Tejas; sport; MWS; seekthetruth; Liz; ForGod'sSake; ...
President Obama released this statement: "Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to block the Buffett Rule, choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class. The Buffett Rule is common sense."

Sorry Mr. President,
The Buffet Rule is not common sense; it is insane. Click here for the proof.

72 posted on 04/17/2012 8:01:52 AM PDT by Vintage Freeper (We have it in our power to begin the world over again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head; Cen-Tejas; sport; MWS; seekthetruth; Liz; ForGod'sSake; ...
President Obama released this statement: "Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to block the Buffett Rule, choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class. The Buffett Rule is common sense."

Sorry Mr. President,
The Buffet Rule is not common sense; it is insane. Click here for the proof.

73 posted on 04/17/2012 8:03:35 AM PDT by Vintage Freeper (We have it in our power to begin the world over again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
In case you haven't figured it out, our best issue in November -- and forget the Presidential race -- is the deficit. We have to convince voters we're more serious about controlling the deficit than are the Democrats.

The Democrats survive on that issue because most voters aren't aware of how bad the problem really is. Anyone who looks at the issue objectively knows that you simply cannot raise taxes enough to solve it. We must cut spending. Yet, the Democrats are convincing people that raising taxes really is the way to go.

The best way to prove them wrong on this issue is to point out that even if you give them what they've been begging for, it is less than one half of one percent of the annual deficit. It is a perfect way of demonstrating that cuts are the key to solving the deficit.

So am I willing to compromise "principle" for the purpose of making clear to voters an even more important principle, critical to the GOP success in Congress? Absolutely.

74 posted on 04/17/2012 8:07:53 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

I have a bridge you would be interested in buying.


75 posted on 04/17/2012 8:25:36 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it and the law is what WE say it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

We don’t need a Buffett Rule. We need a Buffett’s Secretary Rule, in which the taxpaying working stiff pays as low a marginal tax rate as the millionaire.


76 posted on 04/17/2012 8:41:48 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

At least that one is willing to play for gumbo. Warren never would.


77 posted on 04/17/2012 8:45:30 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
"We don’t need a Buffett Rule. We need a Buffett’s Secretary Rule, in which the taxpaying working stiff pays as low a marginal tax rate as the millionaire."

Love it and would make a great soundbite if the GOP had any nerve. Although I would replace millionaire with billionaire.

78 posted on 04/17/2012 8:53:15 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath Is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper
Thanks for the ping VF.

What we have, and what everyone better get a clue about and remember history (or learn it!), is Communism on display. Why Harry Reid himself was pontificating about the virtues of ‘fair’ and shouldering/’sharing’ the burden etc etc.

Anytime the words fair and share are continually spouted you rich people better bend over and spread because you're about to take it.

It's good that this failed but has anyone considered how that happened? And if the senate ‘republicans’ (gag) can achieve this, how is it Obama can continue to ramrod marxist policies through with barely a murmur? Why is it that in certain instances the Marxist madman can circumvent the Congress altogether when clearly, if they stand together, as shown here, something can be done. /rant off

79 posted on 04/17/2012 9:11:27 AM PDT by Outlaw Woman (The biggest Hate group in America is located in the White House, Congress & DOJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All
We don’t need a Buffett Rule. We need a Buffett’s Secretary Rule, in which the taxpaying working stiff pays as low a marginal tax rate as the millionaire.

Exactly. This could be promoted the same way Obozo promotes the buffoon rule -let's make things "FAIR".

80 posted on 04/17/2012 9:13:23 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Impy; BillyBoy
Hope Mark Kirk gets back to work and fully recovered soon. He has been voting with us on everything. God we dodged a bullet last November. Could you imagine Alexi as our Senator?

What makes me more sick is that they indite Jim McMahon and everyone else at Broadway but not Alexi simply because Obummer needs a basketball buddy when he's in Chicago...

These bastards need to be sent packing out of the White House! Once Romney fires Eric Holder we'll get a AG who will have a lot of cleanup to do. He is going to have to hire a huge staff just to deal with all the crap that bastard EH has done. Let alone start prosecuting GSA, ACORN, Media Matters, Black Panthers, Eric Holder himself...

81 posted on 04/17/2012 9:15:58 AM PDT by Dengar01 (Go Bulls!!! Go Blackhawks!!! Go White Sox!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper
The Buffet Rule is not common sense; it is insane.

That depends on its purpose.

If the purpose is practical, to grow the economy or increase tax revenues, then yes, it's stupid.

But, if the reason is political, to appeal to the 'RAT base and their idea of "fairness"—which is more accurately termed jealousy, envy and/or covetousness—then the so-called Buffett Rule makes plenty of sense.

82 posted on 04/17/2012 9:19:49 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3

Wrong senator. Collins has the flat nose. Thinking of snowe


83 posted on 04/17/2012 10:01:24 AM PDT by personalaccts (Is George W going to protect the border?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dengar01; Red Steel; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; campaignPete R-CT; sickoflibs; ...
Mark Pryor must be thinking about reelection in 2014, he was the only rat to vote our way. The only GOP traitor was Susie Collins (also 2014). Even Yellow Snowe and Liza Mercowsky voted the right way. ForgetU Sue.
84 posted on 04/17/2012 10:04:27 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Mark Pryor must be thinking about reelection in 2014 and Susie Collins isn’t. She truly sucks.


85 posted on 04/17/2012 10:16:51 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (Has Mittens won one "Red State" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Applying the principle that: If you do your job, you get to keep it...it’s time to fire a government, isn’t it?


86 posted on 04/17/2012 10:51:18 AM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper; All
When Clinton was President, it was apparent that if his lips were moving, he was ling. This is true of the current President as well. Both have an agenda the American people would reject, if it were freely expressed and known. Some trust too much. . We are out numbered by the welfare recipients,, etc. If the voting process is true and clean (a HUGE, IF,) from being tampered with and stacked or stolen away, the voting people would change the leaders. The Senators and House Representatives are all co-opted and do not know any other way now. We need to clean House and Senate too.

God help America, let deception not rule, keep America the land of the free and the home of the brave... in Jesus name, amen.

87 posted on 04/17/2012 11:31:10 AM PDT by geologist (The only answer to the troubles of this life is Jesus. A decision we all must make.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
The truth is going to be harder and harder to discern for John and Jane Q. Public this election. The alphabet media has left behind any pretense of objectivity.

Any story that damages Obama and Co. you will have to search for if available at all.

Any story that can be used to hit republicans will be above the fold and all day lead-in news teasers.
88 posted on 04/17/2012 2:55:45 PM PDT by John 3_19-21 (More voices, more power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsinlady

Since your senate is based on our parliamentary rules of order, I can make a guess.

Two of the senators were unable to make it to the vote for whatever reason, so they paired, effectively nullifying each others vote.

According to legend, this rule was introduced after the Tories passed minority legislation while the Liberals were low on MPs thanks to a food poisoning epidemic. Don’t know if that is true, but it is widely accepted!


89 posted on 04/17/2012 5:48:51 PM PDT by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper

Thanks Vintage Freeper.


90 posted on 04/17/2012 6:17:14 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Socialist Susan Collins also voted to advance Obama”care” out of Committee.


91 posted on 04/17/2012 9:02:58 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Does anyone have a list of MILLIONAIRES who are also US Senators?

If so, please post it on this thread, as it would be interesting to compare the vote and the buck lists. Thanks.


92 posted on 04/17/2012 9:14:31 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Nearly all Republicans voted against the measure, a potentially risky move at a time when 60% of voters support the measure, according to a recent Gallup poll, as a way to ensure wealthy Americans pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats are likely to revive the effort in coming months. “

So the “buffet rule” flattens the Tax code so that every American Pays exactly the same amount for the same service? That is the only way to insure that every tax payer pays a fair share.

Fairness is not you paying 0 and me paying 10. Fairness is Me paying 5 and you paying 5.


93 posted on 04/17/2012 9:31:39 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

Obama and his “Democratic” bandit Regime knowingly violate the U.S.Constitution by originating a spending/tax bill in the Senate. All $$$$ bills are mandated to originate in the Congress.

Typical of the “Democratic” (aka the Socialist Fascist Party) Party to care nothing for legal process. Small wonder the “Democratic” Party has always loved leftist tyrants. A tyranny is their wet dream.


94 posted on 04/17/2012 9:41:45 PM PDT by OldArmy52 (Back to back winning ideas: McCain in 2008 & Romney in 2012! What winners!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okie01

“But what about the 48% who pay no income tax.”

Of course,if people are not working, you cannot expect them to pay income tax. For those people who are working, they are paying income tax in the form of “payroll taxes”, which are 15.3% from the first dollar earned. There is no exemption. If you only had $1500 of earned income in a year, you will still pay close to 15.3% on that income in payroll taxes (if you are an employee, your employer will pay half of the amount). These are not “income taxes”, but they are income taxes from the federal government in that they are used to pay the government’s bills, be they social security, medicare, or national defense, veteran’s benefits, or the national debt. 40% of the total federal taxes collected in America are in the form of payroll taxes.

The long and short of it is, everyone who has earned income in the US pays income taxes. Now if you are lucky enough to make your living from dividends, interest, capital gains, or rents, to name a few (that is, if you are not actually working) then you have “unearned income” and you do not have to pay the 15.3% payroll taxes that the ordinary working people have to pay.


95 posted on 04/18/2012 2:13:26 AM PDT by juno67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

I agree with you 100%. Why make the Republicans look like lackeys of the rich by saying that people earning multi-millions a year shouldn’t have to pay as high a tax rate as their secretaries who are earning 90k? Of course that strikes a majority of people as unfair. Why is it important to waste political capital defending it?


96 posted on 04/18/2012 2:21:35 AM PDT by juno67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: geologist; Jim Robinson; Jeff Head; Cen-Tejas; sport; MWS; seekthetruth; Liz; ForGod'sSake; ...
"We need to clean House and Senate too."

Step One Every member of Congress who believes participation in Social Security should be MANDATORY needs an opponent who believes participation in SS should be a matter of individual choice. It's the difference between freedom and becoming wards of the state who are serfs.

Step Two This is how we find and elect the candidates for step one.

The time for implementing some of these steps for the 2012 election has unfortunately passed. But there is a lot that can be done to have a HUGE impact on the 2012 election.

Americans have a chance to CHANGE the course of our country by defeating Obama in November. Defeating Obama would only be half the battle for changing the course of our country. Romney would shrink the deficits and be better for business, but in complete contrast to Ronald Reagan ("Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem"), Romney believes government is part of the solution to our country's problems rather than being the problem itself.

The other half of the solution for changing the course of the country is to convince Mitt Romney that Ronald Reagan was right. Who could do this and how? Jim Robinson and FreeRepublic could be the catalysts that jump start the process. If enough Freepers ask Jim Robinson to make this a FreeRepublic priority, convincing Romney to adopt Ronald Reagan as his role model would make Romney far more electable and the CHANGE WOULD BE REAL.

The solution for complex problems which can be so large as to be seemingly impossible can sometimes be amazingly simple if the right people decide to apply themselves and just do it.

97 posted on 04/18/2012 5:14:16 AM PDT by Vintage Freeper (We have it in our power to begin the world over again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: brooklin

Have you seen her?


98 posted on 04/18/2012 5:18:28 AM PDT by personalaccts (Is George W going to protect the border?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: brooklin

Thinking of Snowe. There attractiveness confused me


99 posted on 04/18/2012 5:19:25 AM PDT by personalaccts (Is George W going to protect the border?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Vintage Freeper
Every member of Congress who believes participation in Social Security should be MANDATORY needs an opponent who believes participation in SS should be a matter of individual choice. It's the difference between freedom and becoming wards of the state who are serfs.

Even for people 55+, there should be an option to get out of the system if you choose.

100 posted on 04/18/2012 5:33:06 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson