Obama gets top conservative backing for ‘Buffett rule’

“We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver, or less?”

By the way, President Reagan made the above remarks in a June 6, 1985 speech at Atlanta’s Northside High School, while campaigning for a broad tax-reform proposal that ended up passing in 1986.

A few weeks later, in Chicago Heights, Illinois, Reagan expounded on his belief that tax reform was needed because it was wrong to let millionaires and corporations pay taxes at lower rates than working people. He also tells a story about a letter from a business executive that may sound familiar:

“The result is that workers sometimes find themselves paying higher taxes than the giant corporations they work for, and hardworking families have to struggle under a growing tax burden while the special interests get a free ride. Now, we’re not against big corporations—they provide many of the jobs, goods, and services that keep America strong. It’s the system that’s unfair, and that’s what we’re going to change.

Just a few moments ago, I told some people inside the building here of a letter that I just received the day before yesterday. It’s a letter from a man out here in the country, an executive who’s earning in six figures—well above $100,000 a year. He wrote me in support of the tax plan because he said, “I am legally able to take advantage of the present tax code—nothing dishonest, doing what the law prescribes—and wind up paying a smaller salary than my secretary gets — or I mean, paying a smaller – I’m sorry, paying a smaller tax than my secretary pays.” And he wrote me the letter to tell me he’d like to come to Washington and testify before Congress as to how that’s possible for him to do and why it is wrong. So, this is the kind of spirit that is going on throughout the country.”

One more point about that Illinois speech. Reagan complained about the fact that “the lobbyists are out in force again; they’ve dug in around the Capitol building in Washington, trying to keep the special interests in and the people’s interests out.”

“But they’ve forgotten one thing—this time they’re going to have to contend with the allied forces of the President and Chicago’s own Dan Rostenkowski, (Democratic) chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. And if they think that things have been hot so far, Ron and Rosty have got news for them— [laughter] —you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Now, this issue goes beyond Democrat or Republican—it’s simply a matter of doing what’s right for America. And if we work together with good faith and determination, the people can win this time, and they will win.”

Once more, history offers compelling evidence of just how fanatical and extreme the conservative movement has become in this country. They have moved so far beyond what Reagan himself advocated that they threaten to turn “the Gipper” into a RINO if not an outright liberal. As his son, right-wing talk-show host Michael Reagan, conceded on Fox recently, Reagan today would be attacked as a moderate and “he would have trouble getting his own nomination.”

– Jay Bookman
(h/t to Think Progress)

777 comments Add your comment

Jm

October 3rd, 2011
11:26 am

Whatever

The personal cap gains and dividends rates are too low

But the corporate tax is too high

It’s a wash

But the blind can only understand 1/2 the equation

Reagan also increased the “regressive” SS tax to fix SS

Libs won’t do anything to fix anything now

The “do nothing” party begins with a “D”

poison pen

October 3rd, 2011
11:26 am

I have stated that several times also, close the loopholes, and a lot of the subsidies for oil companies & farmers.

USMC

October 3rd, 2011
11:26 am

“Once more, history offers compelling evidence of just how fanatical and extreme the conservative movement has become in this country….”

Says the High Priest of Socialism, JAY BOOKMAN. :-)

Extreme??? What about your comrades at the “Occupy Wall Street” protest, Jay???
They are the true example of EXTREME: Liberals/Progressives/Socialists are.. :-)

getalife

October 3rd, 2011
11:27 am

The radical con movement will be flushed in 12.

poison pen

October 3rd, 2011
11:28 am

” Once more, history offers compelling evidence of just how fanatical and extreme the conservative movement has become in this country ”

Yesiree Bob! The cons are just terrible, and the dems are saints, Puke!

TaxPayer

October 3rd, 2011
11:29 am

Republicans are the party of no unless there’s money and power in it for them. Pass the jobs bill NOW.

Soothsayer

October 3rd, 2011
11:29 am

Gosh! I think I’m getting a little misty-eyed seeing Saint Ronnie lookin’ so young and all. Where the all the years go? Come to think of it: where did all the jobs go?

USMC

October 3rd, 2011
11:29 am

I guess if we want to play JAY’S game today we can show how EXTREME and socialistic the Liberal movement in the U.S. has become…

JFK on TAXES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAEp0J_hzU

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:30 am

You know, it’s looking more and more like Obama is doing what Reagan did with his time in office. Except for the health care thing. Which is very very odd to me. Does this mean I’m actually a Reagan supporter?

poison pen

October 3rd, 2011
11:30 am

Jay’s last two poor blogs didn’t get the hysteria that he was hoping for so now he hopes this one will get the juices flowing, and he wonders why there is so much discord in our country.

Union

October 3rd, 2011
11:31 am

i am all for closing the loopholes.. funny thing is i see people expounding the fact that ge pays very little income tax as a company… actually.. they pay billions.. just in another country where the tax rate is less.

poison pen

October 3rd, 2011
11:31 am

” Does this mean I’m actually a Reagan supporter?”

Nah, I’d say a Jay supporter.

getalife

October 3rd, 2011
11:32 am

Truth hurt much cons?

carlosgvv

October 3rd, 2011
11:32 am

The Republicans are totally owned by Big Business today in a way they never were in Regan’s time. Keeping the special interests in and the people’s out is what they are paid to do and they do it well.

Normal

October 3rd, 2011
11:33 am

“Once more, history offers compelling evidence of just how fanatical and extreme the conservative movement has become in this country.”

True, so true. Anyone who thinks that the GOP has not been hijacked by the religious right should read Frank Schaeffer. The American Taliban is alive and getting stronger every day. Mullah’s Boehner and McConnell are helping things right along. A theocratic America, all white, all Christian, and with no rights for women. Turbans anyone?

USMC

October 3rd, 2011
11:33 am

How many Liberals/Progressives/Socialists are preaching this Democrats famous line???

John F Kennedy ‘Ask not’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc

Yes Jay, it you Socialists who are the EXTREME ones and tearing down this great country. :-)

ty webb

October 3rd, 2011
11:33 am

Ah yes…Jay’s daily “shout out” to “Think Progress”… I hope your comrades all compensating you well, Jay.

Matt

October 3rd, 2011
11:33 am

Oh my God… if you guys are going to think like that, you have to quit praising Reagan too. He was not one of you.

Union

October 3rd, 2011
11:36 am

cons.. dems.. what’s it all really matter? biggest issue is that we have someone in the wh that is floundering around with no idea of what to do.. until that is resolved.. nothing is going to go well..

Don't Tread

October 3rd, 2011
11:36 am

Here we go again…tax the evil rich :roll: (yawn)

md

October 3rd, 2011
11:37 am

Still doesn’t justify the blatant game being played when comparing apples to oranges as this admin is doing.

Even Buffet is calling them out on that one………it is very telling when they have to compare one type of tax with another to stir the masses………and it is done intentionally.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:37 am

Don’t Tread: Please find me anywhere that someone who supports this proposal said “evil rich” when referring to the rich.

Normal

October 3rd, 2011
11:38 am

Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country…Pay a little more in taxes, maybe?

But USMC,
you really need to read the whole quote. The last lines of a beautiful speech…

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what, together, we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.”

Puts a better light on things, I think.

poison pen

October 3rd, 2011
11:38 am

Union

” i am all for closing the loopholes.. funny thing is i see people expounding the fact that ge pays very little income tax as a company… actually.. they pay billions.. just in another country where the tax rate is less.”

So Union, do you want the companies in our country to pay less in taxes? GE is a prime example of what’s wrong with our tax loopholes.

Then there is people like Warren Buffoon who is old and made his Billions and now feels guilty that he used every loophole in the world and want’s others to pay more.

He should be railing against all the loopholes that made him filthy rich.

Jay

October 3rd, 2011
11:39 am

USMC, Kennedy cut the top marginal rate from 91 percent to 70 percent.

Today the top rate is 35 percent. I’d say that’s a very different landscape, wouldn’t you?

On the other hand, if you insist that Kennedy had it right, I suppose we could move the top rate back up to 70 percent. It’s not something I’d recommend, but again, if you think Kennedy had it right, maybe I should reconsider.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:39 am

Jm: But the blind can only understand 1/2 the equation

Seems a little dishonest to say the only two parts of the equation are tax RATES, doesn’t it?

Soothsayer

October 3rd, 2011
11:39 am

“funny thing is i see people expounding the fact that ge pays very little income tax as a company… actually.. they pay billions.. just in another country where the tax rate is less.”

Not to mention the fact that wages are $0.50 an hour.

This is a common theme among posters on the Right that somehow if we lower corporate taxes rates to zero that all those nice corporations will close up shop in China, India, Malaysia, Vietnam and Mexico and move those jobs back to the United States. After about the 100th time hearing it, it has worn a little thin.

Swami Dave

October 3rd, 2011
11:39 am

Well……

“…sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary…”.

In reality, neither today’s millionaires are paying “nothing” and the bus driver is likely getting an earned income tax credit meaning he is net receiving via the tax code! Likewise, the business owner is not paying “a smaller tax” than his secretary.

Net result – Claims that Reagan would be “backing” the Buffet Rule is questionable at best.

-SD

TaxPayer

October 3rd, 2011
11:40 am

The Koch crooks are the Republican’s heros. Republicans do whatever the Koch crooks tell them to do.

Kamchak

October 3rd, 2011
11:41 am

St. Ronnie-of-the-RayGun had wealth envy.

Who knew?

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:41 am

Reducing corporate tax to zero = a ploy by the right to get that tax rate down so that it can never be raised again. Will it create jobs? Nope. Those companies that went overseas for labor will stay there.

1811/0311

October 3rd, 2011
11:41 am

Jay:

Times change and we have changed …………….. just like you libs.

Kennedy would be a super-conservative today.

Get used to it.

retired early

October 3rd, 2011
11:42 am

I think Obama has finally found something with enough traction to expose the GOP as the party of the rich. The T Party and the GOP presidential hopefuls both have their feet dug in on this issue. They can’t back down now and it will be their collective undoing in the next election.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:44 am

Scout: I find it laughable that you would say you have “changed.”

poison pen

October 3rd, 2011
11:45 am

Jay, What was the dollar worth in Kennedys time compared to now? Yes 70% would be bad now but back then maybe not.

If out tax rate followed inflation and the value of our dollar, the govt would probably owe all of us money. That was a joke..

Paul

October 3rd, 2011
11:46 am

Big difference? One of the main Democrats, Rostenkowski, was willing to work to pass Pres Reagan’s agenda. Now any Republican taking such a stance would be vilified.

Democrats back then had way more character than Congressional Republicans do today.

Peadawg

October 3rd, 2011
11:46 am

We need to reform a lot of things…not just loopholes for millionaires. Raise Medicare age to ATLEAST 67 would be another good one. Legalizing online poker and taxing the withdrawals would be one more. Oh and don’t forget legalizing ‘ol mary jane and taxing that as well…that would save on having to put so many people in jail for smoking pot.

Strawman

October 3rd, 2011
11:46 am

So, Jay, when did you become a Reagan fan-boy? ;-) Regarding the so-called Buffet rule, there seems to be a difference (judging from Buffet’s own remarks this past week) between what Obama is proposing and what Buffet thinks ought to happen. Do you think the current tax system is fine as it is or would you be amenable to overhauling it?

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:46 am

poison pen: If out tax rate followed inflation and the value of our dollar,

….then taxes would have gone up following the recession.

MightyRighty

October 3rd, 2011
11:47 am

Jay, times change. If you want to go back in time you might mention our founders would never have approved a graduated tax rate and JFK would have told the moochers to “ask what you can do for your country?”

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:47 am

Peadawg: Raise Medicare age to ATLEAST 67 would be another good one.

Show me life expectancy among the poor has increased by two years, and you’ve got a deal.

getalife

October 3rd, 2011
11:48 am

cons can’t handle the truth.

cons are the radical right and it is time to purge them from politics.

End the tea party and join the new movement.

Kamchak

October 3rd, 2011
11:48 am

St. Ronnie-of-the-RayGun hated the “evil” rich.

Who knew?

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:49 am

Strawman: The difference is in your mind. What Obama is proposing and what Buffet is saying are the same. You just think otherwise, so I’d like to see whatever info you are using to make this opinion.

Scooter

October 3rd, 2011
11:49 am

Closed loopholes will be reopened until the people demand the intrinsically transparent FairTax!

Paul

October 3rd, 2011
11:49 am

USMC

Three posts, three diversions.

You are consistent.

Kinda reminds me of a recon unit spotting an enemy formation and the USMC commander directs an attack – five miles to the east.

Jm

October 3rd, 2011
11:50 am

When liberals call for raising taxes on those making under $100k and increasing the retirement age, then they can criticize conservatives

Until then, it’s all a bunch of BS

Jimmy62

October 3rd, 2011
11:50 am

The Buffet thing isn’t true, though. He doesn’t pay less than his secretary, and never did.

The best thing we can do for our economy is to get China to follow the economic policies Obama advocates for us. Within 3 years we’ll be destroying China in every economic arena.

Kamchak

October 3rd, 2011
11:50 am

St. Ronnie-of-the-RayGun wanted to steal what rightfully belong to someone else.

Who knew?

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:52 am

Jm: When liberals call for raising taxes on those making under $100k and increasing the retirement age, then they can criticize conservatives

Until then, it’s all a bunch of BS

That makes no sense. That’s what conservatives advocate for. So are you saying that any time a liberal says something a conservative disagrees with, he must then also advocate for the conservative’s position or else he is not allowed to criticize the conservative for that position?

Peadawg

October 3rd, 2011
11:52 am

“Show me life expectancy among the poor has increased by two years, and you’ve got a deal.”

Life expectancy has increased steadily every year for Americans (not sure where poor come into play) since 1900. I think we’re up to like 79 yrs now.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:53 am

Jimmy62: The Buffet thing isn’t true, though. He doesn’t pay less than his secretary, and never did.

Proof please!

Jay

October 3rd, 2011
11:53 am

Swami, 7,000 households with incomes of more than $1 million paid no federal income taxes.

Twenty-two thousand households with incomes of more than $500,000 paid no federal income taxes.

Five-hundred thousand households with incomes of more than $100,000 paid no federal income taxes.

Source:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3056

Also, in 1995 the 400 highest-earning American households paid an average income tax rate of 29.9 percent. In 2008, the most recent data available, they paid an average income tax rate of 18.8 percent.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf

stands for decibels

October 3rd, 2011
11:53 am

On the other hand, if you insist that Kennedy had it right, I suppose we could move the top rate back up to 70 percent.

I’ve suggested that to the “JFK CUT TEH TAXESSS!!!!” crowd a few times myself. They always get real quiet after that.

Speaking of quiet, retiring times–USMC, got any examples of Jay’s “outside the mainstream” positions he’s taken?

Paul

October 3rd, 2011
11:55 am

Regarding Michael Reagan on Fox: there’s a pattern developing, noted in Jay’s earlier column when Romney told Hannity the individual mandate was begun by conservatives.

Hannity ignored the point. Slid right past it. Wouldn’t acknowledge it.

If you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist, right?

Jm

October 3rd, 2011
11:55 am

Adam That makes no sense

Because u don’t understand politics. And u have some reading comprehension issues

Kamchak

October 3rd, 2011
11:55 am

St. Ronnie-of-the-RayGun was a socialist.

Who knew?

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
11:55 am

Peadawg : It’s the poor that need to be the baseline. If their life expectancy has not improved, then the best way to cut medicare costs is means testing, not raising the age.

Strawman

October 3rd, 2011
11:56 am

“On the other hand, if you insist that Kennedy had it right, I suppose we could move the top rate back up to 70 percent. It’s not something I’d recommend, but again, if you think Kennedy had it right, maybe I should reconsider.”

Have you never heard of the Laffer curve? Once you add on potential city, county, state and sales taxes to a 70% rate, people will be moving to Canada or elsewhere. Then who are we going to tax? Since you seem to know what is an inappropriate tax rate, you must have some idea of what an appropriate one is. Do tell. And you do realize, I hope, that ALL taxes and government revenue ultimately comes form individuals (not corporate entities).

stands for decibels

October 3rd, 2011
11:56 am

It’s a letter from a man out here in the country, an executive who’s earning in six figures—well above $100,000 a year.

Class warrior.

Now, we’re not against big corporations—they provide many of the jobs, goods, and services that keep America strong. It’s the system that’s unfair, and that’s what we’re going to change.

Elizabeth Warren wannabe.

USMC

October 3rd, 2011
11:57 am

@JAY 11:39

Touche, Jay :-)

However, couldn’t we say the same and add that the landscape is quite different than that of the Reagan era???

Also, NO ONE paid 70% in individual income taxes, please tell us that you know that.
That 70% tax rate was MUCH easier to avoid and had way more deductions than our current rate, wouldn’t you say?

Also, you are surprisingly silent on your “Occupy Wall Street” brethren… :-)

stands for decibels

October 3rd, 2011
11:57 am

Have you never heard of the Laffer curve?

Straw, might want to look on the right side of the page? Under the blogroll?

Peadawg

October 3rd, 2011
11:58 am

“It’s the poor that need to be the baseline. If their life expectancy has not improved, then the best way to cut medicare costs is means testing, not raising the age.”

Are we talking about 2 different things? What does the poor have to do w/ mediCARE. Are you talking about mediCAID?

F. Sinkwich

October 3rd, 2011
11:58 am

Hey, Jay, if Obama’s soak-the-rich redistributionist “jobs bill” is such a panecea for all that ails the economy, why doesn’t Harry Reid and his merry band of bedwetter democrats in the US Senate bring it up for a vote?

Let me try to answer that for you.

Because it’s a POS, that’s why. And if Reagan was still around, he’d tell you that too.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:00 pm

Strawman: Once you add on potential city, county, state and sales taxes to a 70% rate, people will be moving to Canada or elsewhere.

It has been shown that raising tax rates on a state level does NOT cause people to leave in droves. Some do, but most don’t. Especially businesses, who stay more often. I cannot remember which article I read containing this info, but if I must I will find it for you.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:01 pm

Peadawg: You’re right, I got the two confused XD

Strawman

October 3rd, 2011
12:01 pm

“Strawman: The difference is in your mind. What Obama is proposing and what Buffet is saying are the same. You just think otherwise, so I’d like to see whatever info you are using to make this opinion.”

I’m not going to do your research for you, Adam. If you have looked at what Buffet said last week and still think he said nothing different, then I don’t know what to say.

1811/0311

October 3rd, 2011
12:01 pm

Adam:

Trust me Adam ……….. I have changed.

I used to see liberals as just naive, politically different, misinformed, brought up wrong, etc.

Now I see them for the danger to this Republic that they really are.

1811/0311

October 3rd, 2011
12:01 pm

Back this afternoon ………………..

Peadawg

October 3rd, 2011
12:02 pm

“Peadawg: You’re right, I got the two confused XD” – So do you agree that we should raise the age limit on medicare to atleast 67?

mm

October 3rd, 2011
12:02 pm

Jay,

Glad you posted a clip. Otherwise the dilutional righties would say you were lying to tarnish the great conservative creds of Reagan.

USMC

October 3rd, 2011
12:03 pm

It appears that Comrade Obama has already PIVOTED to his new career after 2012

It’s Obama Fried Chicken!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044016/Obama-Fried-Chicken-Is-President-giving-Colonel-Sanders-run-money.html?ITO=1490

stands for decibels

October 3rd, 2011
12:03 pm

Off topic, but am I supposed to know who this Amanda Knox person is?

Paul

October 3rd, 2011
12:03 pm

F. Sinkwich

Ummm…. you may want to reread Jay’s post. I don’t think it says ‘jobs bill’ anywhere….

Kamchak

October 3rd, 2011
12:03 pm

Have you never heard of the Laffer curve?

Is that the same Art Laffer that in 2006 and on national TeeVee said:

-”The United States economy has never been in better shape!”

-”Monetary policy is spectacular!”

-”This economy…is working beautifully!”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

md

October 3rd, 2011
12:04 pm

“What Obama is proposing and what Buffet is saying are the same.”

No they are not Adam…….maybe you should follow up on this prior to flinging crap out there as you do…….slow down and do the research before hitting the submit button.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:06 pm

Peadawg: Not unless data supports that the life expectancy has gone up by the difference (but now it doesn’t need to be on just the poor). Although, my argument may still apply to any situation in which medicaid is no longer provided because medicare is now available.

Strawman

October 3rd, 2011
12:06 pm

“It has been shown that raising tax rates on a state level does NOT cause people to leave in droves. Some do, but most don’t. Especially businesses, who stay more often.”

You seem to have missed the gist of my post entirely (given the almost universally accepted validity of the Laffer curve, a 70% federal tax rate increased by additional city, county, state and sales taxes would likely cause people to stop working entirely (because it’s not worth it to do so any longer) or move.

Mick

October 3rd, 2011
12:07 pm

1811

Paranoia will destroy ya…..progressive liberals have made america greater than the backward and opaque conservative principles ever have. Sleep easy….

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

October 3rd, 2011
12:08 pm

Well, tax, tax, tax. That’s all the libruls think about. Me, I think everybody should pay the same amount of taxes. Forget about how much dough somebody makes. That’s just Wealth Envy. Start thinking about how much each person would need to pay to keep the guvmint running. Just divide the total dollars we need to run the guvmint by the number of taxpayers. Let’s say each taxpayer would need to pay $30,000 to have enough money for the guvmint. Then send them the bill. If you don’t make $30,000 in a year, that’s tough tootsies. Go out and find a 2nd or 3rd job, you lazy bum. And none of this business of giving some taxpayers that don’t pay no tax a big guvmint check. They’ll need to come up with the 30,000 bucks too.

Anyhow, I’m sick of all this talk about piling on the Job Creators. If we’re all equal then we should pay a equal tax. It might could be a little hard at first for poor people, but the super-rich could pay their tax out of pocket change. We’d all have skin in the game and the rich people could hire more people for those 2nd and 3rd jobs some people would need.

And since I thought of it, don’t call it the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax. Call it the Redneck Tax.

Have a good p.m. everybody.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:09 pm

md: How are the two proposals different? This is what it is:

Obama: The millionaire shouldn’t pay a lower [effective] tax rate than his secretary. Proposal: close loopholes that the rich take advantage of, raise capital gains tax rate
Buffet: I should not pay a lower [effective] tax rate than my secretary. Solution: close loopholes that the I (Buffet) take advantage of, raise capital gains tax rate

The only thing I can think is you guys have taken misquotes and misunderstanding and created this:

The millionaire ALWAYS pays a LOWER tax rate than his secretary and therefore we must raise tax RATES on the rich (and by the way the rich are evil).

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:09 pm

Also Scout: A change in your beliefs about liberals is not “I have changed.”

Jay

October 3rd, 2011
12:10 pm

“(given the almost universally accepted validity of the Laffer curve, a 70% federal tax rate increased by additional city, county, state and sales taxes would likely cause people to stop working entirely (because it’s not worth it to do so any longer) or move.

Strawman, did rich people stop working in 1963? Did they move to Canada? Did they do either of those things when the top rate was 91 percent?

The problem with such statements is that we have extended periods of history with which to refute them.

Peadawg

October 3rd, 2011
12:10 pm

“Not unless data supports that the life expectancy has gone up by the difference (but now it doesn’t need to be on just the poor). ”

Dude, google “life expectancy in the united states”. The first 2 or 3 links will show life expectancy has gone up since Medicare came about. It’s common sense to raise the age limit in 2011.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:13 pm

Hmm according to what I am reading, Peadawg, the life expectancy numbers are skewed upward simply by having less infant mortality rates…. Looks like it’s not a simple addition/subtraction problem.

AmVet

October 3rd, 2011
12:15 pm

He doesn’t pay less than his secretary, and never did.

Hello? Is anybody home???

Holy moly.

Our self-destructive neo-cons apparently want to pay a higher rate than billionaires. Unbelievable, huh?

It’s not much of an exaggeration. They said and did absolutely NOTHING while this absurd scenario unfolded over the past three decades.

NOTHING.

In fact they’ve constantly cheered on the American plutocracy whereby more and more and more wealth is aggregated into fewer and fewer and fewer hands and the Middle Class has gotten decimated.

Maybe they feel that they themselves can’t be trusted with any of it. Or maybe they just think they are not in the Middle Class.

So in a demented effort to keep their paymasters happy, their best bet is in the desperate hope that they in return, get trickled on.

Stroke those checks on behalf of your billionaire buddies, connies.

But for gawdsakes, quit dragging the rest of us down along with you…

USMC

October 3rd, 2011
12:16 pm

Hey, let’s just do the TRULY fair thing and implement the FAIR TAX. :-)

Oh…. you don’t want fair???

Peadawg

October 3rd, 2011
12:17 pm

I don’t know what you’re looking but simply put, life expectancy in 1960 was roughly 70. Now it’s close to 80. Time to raise the age limit on Medicare to 67.

Or we can just keep it how it is :roll: .

stands for decibels

October 3rd, 2011
12:21 pm

“Most if not all of your views are so far out of the mainstream with what America is about.”

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/09/28/chris-christie-still-resists-that-lovely-sirens-call/#comment-736585

USMC, I am still waiting for an example of a “so far out of the mainstream” view from Jay.

md

October 3rd, 2011
12:21 pm

For starters Adam, both the secretary and Buffet pay the exact same capital gains rate……….

Then, the income tax rate is progressive, always has been………….

Now, compare the capital gains rate of one and the income tax rate of the other and we get a very distorted picture…………..by design.

Then adam, look up Buffets most recent quotes………”his program” (which doesn’t exist) is totally different than the one this admin is promoting as the “buffet” rule………………….

Paul

October 3rd, 2011
12:22 pm

AmVet

“Our self-destructive neo-cons apparently want to pay a higher rate than billionaires. ”

That is great. Sometimes just a slight rephrasing of a concept give a whole new insight.

Rather that ask in philosophical terms, the question now to ask our conservative friends ought to be “Why do you think you deserve to pay a lower rate of tax than someone making two thousand times what you make?”

A psychologist would have a field day. I can only imagine what the answers will reveal about feelings of inadequacy, inability, lack of success and not being as good as someone else, so their punishment is deserved,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ

RB from Gwinnett

October 3rd, 2011
12:23 pm

The giddiness of you liberals at the prospect of getting your hands on more of those evil rich people’s money is just plain disgusting.

And you morons who think all the loopholes in the tax code were put there by R’s at the request of corporate lobbyist should do your country a favor and stop voting. Youre too stupid for our collective good.

md

October 3rd, 2011
12:23 pm

See, even Am is confused by the distortion…………………

Don't Tread

October 3rd, 2011
12:23 pm

If Warren Buffett thinks he hasn’t paid his “fair share”, nothing is stopping him (or you liberals) from writing an additional check to the Treasury. Listen to Joe and do your patriotic duty like he told you. ;)

getalife

October 3rd, 2011
12:24 pm

cons are so far right of the mainstream, they have no chance to win 12.

They can’t even find a candidate to beat our President.

They lose every argument so they should show some humility and admit these facts.

Adam

October 3rd, 2011
12:27 pm

md: What part of this is wrong:

Obama: The millionaire shouldn’t pay a lower [effective] tax rate than his secretary. Proposal: close loopholes that the rich take advantage of, raise capital gains tax rate
Buffet: I should not pay a lower [effective] tax rate than my secretary. Solution: close loopholes that the I (Buffet) take advantage of, raise capital gains tax rate

Sure, it ignores that Buffet is paying mostly out of capital gains and his secretary is not, but I think that’s part of the point. Neither Buffet nor Obama think that is fair, because it still is a lower effective overall rate for Buffet than the secretary.

Jay

October 3rd, 2011
12:28 pm

In 1960, the average 60-year-old white American male could expect to live to 75.

Today, he can expect to live to 81.

However, you have to ask how much of that increase is due to Medicare, the program you’re debating here. LIfe expectancy for older Americans didn’t begin to really increase until the late ’60s-early ’70s.

getalife

October 3rd, 2011
12:28 pm

“The giddiness of you liberals at the prospect of getting your hands on more of those evil rich people’s money is just plain disgusting.”

Sow reagan some respect con.

getalife

October 3rd, 2011
12:28 pm

AmVet

October 3rd, 2011
12:29 pm

Don’t tread, Buffet and most intelligent people know the game is COMPLETELY rigged in his favor.

Hello?

You’re the one who wants to bail him out, YOU write that check.

md, do tell.

Please enlighten me as to your vast knowledge on this matter…