Unpleasant Truths: Reagan was for the Buffet Rule

brbr
Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Yes, I left off a t in the title. Stop snickering. Reagan liked arrays of food, too. He also supported the BUFFETT rule.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8IZ-t7Ih4



Ronald Reagan supported the rich paying their fair share. The Ronald Reagan the right remembers is not the Ronald Reagan who actually existed.



Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah...



It's similar to how many American Christians somehow think Jesus would be cool with them hoarding money and not helping the poor. The biblical stories about Jesus don't reflect what many American Christians think the about the stories about Jesus.



When life gives them reality, they CONSTRUCT A NEW REALITY. Unfortunately, reality does not work that way.
«13456712

Comments

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Mmm...buffet...
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes, I left off a t in the title. Stop snickering. Reagan liked arrays of food, too. He also supported the BUFFETT rule.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8IZ-t7Ih4



    Ronald Reagan supported the rich paying their fair share. The Ronald Reagan the right remembers is not the Ronald Reagan who actually existed.



    Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah...



    It's similar to how many American Christians somehow think Jesus would be cool with them hoarding money and not helping the poor. The biblical stories about Jesus don't reflect what many American Christians think the about the stories about Jesus.



    When life gives them reality, they CONSTRUCT A NEW REALITY. Unfortunately, reality does not work that way.





    Hilarious how you think that Reagan would have supported Obama's "plan" based on that clip. They are not even describing the same situation.
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Republicans c. 1980s/1990s = Democrats c. 2000s (see: health reform, taxes, immigration, global warming, transportation)



    Republicans c. 2000s? I dunno. Unprecedented. Off the deep end.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    I'm becoming increasingly confused. If Republicans were actually Democrats, and if Republicans like Reagan were actually a wealth re-distributing, open borders, global warming, universal health (mandate) care loving incredible centrists at a minimum, then why the heck didn't the Democrats jump on board the centrist train and pass all these wonderful measures that were supported by so many Republicans?



    If Republicans were basically centrist Democrats, then what the hell were the Democrats to not climb on board and pass all this stuff decades earlier at a minimum or with measures that would not require these evil milllenium version of Republicans address it later?



    I'm pretty sure it can't always have been about Republicans and whether they are more or less evil this decade or last decade. I think a few of those Democrats were elected and maybe even held high office.



    In other words, if Republicans were for mandates, then why didn't Democrats pass mandates when they held the House up until 1994, held the Senate at various times and held the presidency for 8 years?



    If they were for immigration reform, then how come it hasn't been touched since Reagan? Why is it that Republicans can get Democrats can co-author and even assist in the passage of extremist bills as George W. Bush did with Ted Kennedy helping with No Child Left Behind or with Hillary Clinton, Biden and Kerry all voting for the Iraq War, but nice centrist Democrats like Obama cannot find a single vote for his measures which are all reasonable per the claims.



    I'm sorry but the labels don't match the actions. Clearly it is DLC Democrats and also largely Catholics that have been tossed from the Democratic Party. There are no more Blue Dog Democrats. The Democrats may have grabbed labels but the bills themselves clearly carry poison pills that make them untenable. For example Republicans did support cap and trade but with companies trading pollution credits instead of the government taking the revenues and using them to help put said companies out of business.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    Republicans c. 1980s/1990s = Democrats c. 2000s (see: health reform, taxes, immigration, global warming, transportation)



    Republicans c. 2000s? I dunno. Unprecedented. Off the deep end.



    What's that you always say? Creating a false reality or narrative? Yeah...you're doing it now.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Since a very large proportion of Warren Buffett's income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the janitors who clean the toilets in his office block. In his own words...



    As Buffett says, this is generally true across the board.... the very rich to super rich economic brackets, on average, pay something between 0% and 15% (often towards the lower end). For the super wealthy, its easy to employ teams of skilled specialist tax accountants and lawyers to set up obtuse and complex schemes, just within the law, to avoid paying taxes... as opposed to evading tax... a subtle but legally significant difference.



    Should the richest 1% pay so little compared to the 99%? What we have happening is an inverted form of scaled taxation rates... where even Forbes' flat tax' concept seems relatively fair (!). Who would have ever thought that!



    Is it right and proper that the middle and working class do the nation's heavy lifting in terms of tax revenue? Is it possible for anyone to invent a "justification" for such a topsy turvy state of injustice?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Since a very large proportion of Warren Buffett's income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the janitors who clean the toilets in his office block. In his own words...



    As Buffett says, this is generally true across the board.... the very rich to super rich economic brackets, on average, pay something between 0% and 15% (often towards the lower end). For the super wealthy, its easy to employ teams of skilled specialist tax accountants and lawyers to set up obtuse and complex schemes, just within the law, to avoid paying taxes...



    As Warren Buffett undoubtedly (and hypocritically) does.



    Frankly, I'm tired of a guy who's almost dead and who's got his talking about raising taxes that will have negative effects long after he's dead.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Should the richest 1% pay so little compared to the 99%? What we have happening is an inverted form of scaled taxation rates... where even Forbes' flat tax' concept seems relatively fair (!). Who would have ever thought that!



    Is it right and proper that the middle and working class do the nation's heavy lifting in terms of tax revenue? Is it possible for anyone to invent a "justification" for such a topsy turvy state of injustice?









    What needs to happen first is for spending to be reduced. Period. Spending is the problem not tax rates. The second problem is tax rates...that they should be lowered or even eliminated (at least for income).



    It needs to be said: The governments (federal, state and local) of this country about about 5-10 times bigger and better funded than they should be. Period. Spending and taxes need to be cut significantly.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Since a very large proportion of Warren Buffett's income is from dividends, his tax rate is less than that of the janitors who clean the toilets in his office block. In his own words...



    It isn't just in his own words. This is well understood by anyone who seeks out investment income instead of just earning salary.



    Quote:

    As Buffett says, this is generally true across the board.... the very rich to super rich economic brackets, on average, pay something between 0% and 15% (often towards the lower end). For the super wealthy, its easy to employ teams of skilled specialist tax accountants and lawyers to set up obtuse and complex schemes, just within the law, to avoid paying taxes... as opposed to evading tax... a subtle but legally significant difference.



    It isn't just true of the rich. It is true of everyone who invests. If you own a single share of any stock that pays a dividend, then you will pay that tax on it. You'll also pay tax on interest from savings accounts, maturing bonds, etc.



    Likewise it isn't just the super rich who use tax accountants. It is anyone with a business, anyone who has numerous investments and pretty much anyone who doesn't have the time to dig into the ever more complex tax code.



    Flat tax proposals with rebates back for certain levels of income have been proposed and would dramatically simplify all this but Democrats hate them because they'd rather declare that paying double but having a team of specialists help you pay less than double is "fair" while everyone paying the same rate isn't "fair."



    Quote:

    Should the richest 1% pay so little compared to the 99%? What we have happening is an inverted form of scaled taxation rates... where even Forbes' flat tax' concept seems relatively fair (!). Who would have ever thought that!



    Is it right and proper that the middle and working class do the nation's heavy lifting in terms of tax revenue? Is it possible for anyone to invent a "justification" for such a topsy turvy state of injustice?





    Regardless of rhetoric, most taxes are paid almost exclusively by upper income earners. Most of our problems are related to spending and needing to stop paying credits to people who haven't earned them while also dramatically broadening the tax base. The biggest favor Obama could do himself would be to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire. He won't though because he'd rather mess with gimmicks and engage in class warfare.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    The biggest favor Obama could do himself would be to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire.



    Actually it might be the best favor he could do for the Republicans also because when everyone realizes that their tax bills are higher and that the Bush tax cuts were not just for the rich and that the Democrats have been lying to them to all this time they might get a little pissed off.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member


    It's been awhile since I've read the " Free Bacon... er......Beacon ".



    You've gotta admire a site that has a catagory like " Hypocrtical Democrat Donors "



    But I can see why with such good news sources ( that give such a balanced view ) allowing you to come to the conclusions that you ( and few of the rest of us ) do.



    Nothing biased about that site. Nah!
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member


    This is unsurprising of course. Democrats are some of the best tax avoiders and even tax cheats.



    I mean the fucking Treasury Secretary is a known tax cheat for goodness sake.



    Obama's hypocrisy in this regard is minor in comparison to his appointees and as compared to his other hypocrisies.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Yes, how evil.



    Quote:

    The Obama?s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter?s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.



  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes, how evil.











    Not evil. He's evil for other reasons. Merely hypocritical. This is the problem with leftists...you always want someone else to pay more taxes.



    But of course he's more hypocritical for other reasons.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    False equivalence.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    False equivalence.



    Of course it is, because you disagree with it.
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    MJ, I'm a little slow so I have to ask you to explain this to me: How does the posted story show hypocrisy by Obama?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    MJ, I'm a little slow so I have to ask you to explain this to me: How does the posted story show hypocrisy by Obama?



    It shows hypocrisy because it is a tax loophole used by the rich and well off to have the state "subsidize" their child's education per Obama's rhetoric and would not be available to Warren Buffett's secretary, Obama's secretary or anyone who doesn't hire a tax professional (or often an army of them per the rhetoric.)



    Thus Obama is using the same type of tax deductions that he claims to loath, calls loopholes and claims are used by others to "not pay their fair share."



    Since the average salary of most American households is around $50k, can they give $48k to their children tax free?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Yes, how evil.











    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    MJ, I'm a little slow so I have to ask you to explain this to me: How does the posted story show hypocrisy by Obama?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    It shows hypocrisy because it is a tax loophole used by the rich and well off to have the state "subsidize" their child's education per Obama's rhetoric and would not be available to Warren Buffett's secretary, Obama's secretary or anyone who doesn't hire a tax professional (or often an army of them per the rhetoric.)



    Thus Obama is using the same type of tax deductions that he claims to loath, calls loopholes and claims are used by others to "not pay their fair share."



    Since the average salary of most American households is around $50k, can they give $48k to their children tax free?





    Trump explains it perfectly. Obama's a hypocrite because he's avoiding taxes by giving his children a large sum.
Sign In or Register to comment.