»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Go Home, Congress...
| The Alley |
|
Go Home, Congress... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Obama calls Congress 'increasingly dysfunctional' President Obama said today he will start issuing executive orders designed to improve the economy because "we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job." "Where they won't act, I will," Obama said during a housing speech in Las Vegas, which has the nation's highest unemployment rate -- 13.4% -- and one of its highest foreclosure rates. As he has in recent days, Obama also criticized congressional Republicans for blocking his proposed $447 billion jobs bill in the Senate. "Last month, when I addressed a joint session of Congress about our jobs crisis, I also said that I intend to do everything in my power to act on behalf of the American people," Obama said. " With or without Congress." Republicans said they don't think Obama's jobs bill will work, noting that the national unemployment rate is at 9.1% more than two-and-a-half years into his presidency. "Congress passed his stimulus bill, his health spending bill, his Dodd/Frank (financial regulation) bill, his state funding bill and his housing plans," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "And now," Stewart added, "the housing market's down, unemployment is up and the President is now acknowledging that all that didn't work by constantly pointing out how bad the economy is." [URL=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe ed%3A]http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=F eed%3A[/URL] +UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo So that's the story. If Obama can't get congress to passwhatever he wants, He will simply ignore them and do it anyway. This should come as no surprise, since he has done the same thing with regards ot illegal aliens and the offshore drilling ban. I wonder if he was throwing a hissy fit while speaking. These are first steps of the Brave New World, Obama style. |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Your link is as dysfunctional as Congress Mike. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
GW Bush - 288 executive orders (and he had control of Congress) BH Obama - 72 If you look at the entire history of executive orders someone did open the floodgates, but it wasn't Barry-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-calls-congress-increasingly-dysfunctional/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A +UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Right, better link Mike, thanks... and from your article quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, LR, Obama criticizes congress for not passing his jobs bill. ALso in the article is written... ""Congress passed his stimulus bill, his health spending bill, his Dodd/Frank (financial regulation) bill, his state funding bill and his housing plans," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "And now," Stewart added, "the housing market's down, unemployment is up and the President is now acknowledging that all that didn't work by constantly pointing out how bad the economy is." So, with all of the things congress DID pass, even the stimulus bill, the financial regulation bill, the state funding bill, the housing plan bill, ets...we are STILL ,not only in dire straits, but even worse off. What does that tell you about Obama's plans for fixing the country?....other than the fact they haven't worked, of course? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jesse Jackson Jr., the spawn of Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., thinks you ought to have your constitutional rights suspended if you don’t like Obama’s jobs plan. Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. told The Daily Caller on Wednesday that congressional opposition to the American Jobs Act is akin to the Confederate “states in rebellion.” Jackson called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed and said that Obama should “declare a national emergency” and take “extra-constitutional” action “administratively” — without the approval of Congress — to tackle unemployment. http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/jesse-jackson-jr-compares-obama-opponents-to-confederate-states-says-obama-should-take-extra-constitutional-action/ "extra-constitutional action".....catchy. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "and because the banksters are sitting on 2 trillion." and that's because, ( I think it's more corporate earnings but regardless)? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Corporate earnings can't possibly be up with a Kenyan, socialist, Islamic, Nazi president. That has to be wrong John. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ah, Mike, when I complained about constitutional rights being eroded [Edited Please stop talking ABOUT other posters, Bob - Ron] I specified Posse Comitas, search and seizure, expanded use of illegal wiretaps, increased presidential powers that allowed designation of individuals as essentially rightless enemy combatants and permitted detention. All of these were quite real and were voted into what I believe was an incredibly unconstitutional law thanks to a cowardly, politically pliant and, on the Republican side at least, triumphant, Congress. The adjectives prior to “triumphant” apply to my own party’s actions at the time. I was pretty specific about which rights were abridged by whom. In the case I was speaking about above, it was the post 9/11 congress six weeks after that event at the behest of President Bush. One of my criticisms of President Obama is that he hasn't made a concerted effort to reverse these abridgments of our civil rights. The ACLU has detailed some of the abuses of the PATRIOT ACT. Both President Bush and his congresses and President Obama and his have a lot to answer for in permitting these to continue. An analysis of the myths and realities of The PATRIOT ACT is offered in the following citation. I believe it indicts both administrations, President Obama’s administration more for its failure to repeal at least some of the more outrageous parts of that law. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-li berty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities Should you care to be similarly specific about which pieces of the Constitution President Obama has violated and what reasons you have for believing he has done so, I’d be happy to have a look. In the meantime, this simply appears to be one of those “everybody knows, so it must be right” assertions that really requires a bit of bolstering to distinguish it from flat earth society press releases. Obama not repealing things he should have, I buy that. Obama violating constitutional law wholesale, I pass on the KoolAid, thank you. Please given me neutral confirmation. [This message has been edited by Ron (10-26-2011 05:20 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Has Obama trashed the constitution? The jury is still out on several areas but he has done enough to raise the doubts in many minds that he hasn't. Why? He ignored court decisions on the lifting of the off-shore oil drilling. He has refused to go along with state immigration laws. The demand on private citizens to be forced to purchase insurance under Obamacare will go before the supreme court to determine it's constitutionality. He used a tactic to get Obamacare passed through congress which had never been used for such important legislation. He has been accused of not following the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In addition, we have.... Levin: Constitutional genius Obama can’t veto balanced budget amendment Posted by The Right Scoop on Jul 18, 2011 in Politics | 88 Comments Earlier today Obama threatened he would veto the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill if it reaches his desk. Levin says the only problem with this is that, while he can veto the Cut and Cap part, if the Balanced Budget Amendment passes both the House and the Senate it goes to the states, not Obama. He’s got nothing to do with it. One would expect a brilliant, ivy league Constitutional Law Professor to know these things http://www.therightscoop.com/levin-constitutional-genius-obama-cant-veto-balanced-budget-amendment/ By Devin Dwyer Apr 15, 2011 6:28pm President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/04/president-obama-issues-signing-statement-indicating-he-wont-abide-by-provision-in-budget-bill/ Add all that to his comments now that, if congress doesn't do what he wants, he'll go on without them, and perhaps, you can understand, even if not agree with, the mistrust. The proof will be in the pudding with the new executive orders he comes up with and what they will involve. Disregarding LR's unfamiliarity with mathematics, Obama is already setting records with executive orders and it appears those numbers will skyrocket, if he continues with his threats. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: quote: This is the best summary I have found this far: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/deepwater-drilling-offshore-oil-progress-delayed-under-slowmatorium I suspect that a more stringent review process of applications makes the process more difficult, and that the prior review process was not sufficient. An updated review process would likely take longer, especially with some of the liberties the oil companies have taken with the applications from time to time. You may feel differently, but I am unclear how this is unconstitutional behavior, and I am not aware of anybody taking legal steps that would suggest that much against him. This may be because the judge who issued the orders owned substantial amounts of oil company stock, and might properly have recused himself from sitting on the case in the first place. quote: States do not have the constitutional right to make immigration law; they are not national entities. They also do not have the right to make their own foreign policy or to declare war. Such things are reserved for the Federal government. I would argue that President Obama might, indeed, have been accused of behaving in an unconstitutional fashion if he had permitted any individual states to pursue individual immigration policy; and that the right wing has been pressuring him to do so in this case. quote: The fact that its constitutionality has not been tested is proof that it is not unconstitutional. It may prove to be, in which case, some alternative will need to be found. The idea is not to be unconstitutional, the idea is to fund the program. I am reasonably certain, on the other hand, that when an alternative funding source is found, the Republicans will find an objection to that as well. The Republican problem is not with the funding, it’s with the program and with the notion that it’s being proposed by Democrats, and that it cuts into the profits of one of the large funding sources for Republican backing, the financial industry. To be fair, the financial industry backs a fair number of Democrats as well. This is hardly a constitutional issue. There are no amendments being crossed off because of this, nor are there likely to be. If you believe there are, name them. quote: I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about things that President Obama was doing that were unconstitutional, such as illegal search and seizure, unauthorized wire taps, abuse of habeus corpus and the like, such as were put into place by The PATRIOT ACT and have not been repealed by the Obama administration. To me, these things are pretty clearly unconstitutional and do go against some of the amendments in the bill of rights. These are real abuses. When John Marshall expanded the use of the Supreme Court so that it was accepted as the arbiter of disputes between branches of the government and was able to interpret the constitution,that was putting a big one over on the rest of the government. There was no constitutional justification for it at all; and it was a good thing he got away with it, I think. Please, tell me what was unconstitutional about what President Obama did. The Constitution leaves it up to the Senate what their rules are going to be, and this one fit. You don’t have to like it, in the same way I don’t have to like the filibuster rules. I see lots of reasons to be upset in a partisan sort of way, and I sympathize, in a partisan sort of way. But I don’t see anything that rises to the level of the violations that both Republican and Democratic administrations have colluded in perpetuating in the form of The PATRIOT ACT for ten years now. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"The fact that its constitutionality has not been tested is proof that it is not unconstitutional."....BobK The Justice Department is expected to ask the court to overturn an August decision by a panel of three judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law’s requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. The suit was brought by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business, and several individuals. The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it’s going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama’s health reform law is constitutional. The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html#ixzz1bz3Rpw1I [This message has been edited by Balladeer (10-27-2011 09:13 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
So? If it's as politically charged as you believe, then the President has taken on the possibility of such a case, and, from your description it sounds like it will go against him. Your beef is exactly what? That he might damage his chances of re-election? Exactly how is that unconstitutional? The Supremes are big boys & girls. I suspect they can decide whether or not they have a case they want to take or not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you commented that it has not been tested. I showed you where it has been, where the 11th found it unconstitutional and where 26 states have filed suit against it.....and your response is..."So?" Have a nice day. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If the court declares it to be unconstitutional. then it will be unconstitutional. In that case, other funding methods will need to be found. If the case is accepted by the court, then the court will try it regardless of elections. If the case is as open and closed as you suggest, you should have no problems. Usually what happens, however, is that the loser makes some sort of an administrative adjustment to bring policy in sync with constitutional guidelines. To have this happen during an election doesn't seem to be a terrible thing to me in this case, unlike the decision about the outcome of the election itself in 2000. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough that the court will make the final decision but, contrary to your claim, it HAS been tested. That's what caused it to wind up in court in the first place. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Again, it hasn't made it's way to the Supreme court. If the Supremes take it or not will make the difference initially, then, if they do take it, what their decision is will decide. Lots of decisions go back and forth several times as they head up the the appeals ladder. If the previous judgement stands, then alternative funding arrangments will need to be found. I believe the "So" remains justified. If there is a big deal, I'm uncertain what it would be. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
ok, Bob....whatever. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Congress being "increasingly dysfunctional" may be a positive spin put on the current situation. I am not as friendly as President Obama. I believe the current Congress is purposely trying to stop the functioning of the government, and has been trying to do so since at least the early 1990s, and that the Republicans are attempting to prolong the current recession well beyond the amount of time that it would have taken by failing to pass the necessary legislation to get us out of it. I also believe that they have helped create the recession by dismantling many of the regulations that have protected us from economic downturns of such severity since the great depression. I also believe that this is why you see a movement like the OWS movement now. People from a wide variety of points of view seem to share this common viewpoint, this anger at the way the lack of regulation of the financial markets has affected us. I don't know that they have as yet a representative voice or set of voices in the Congress or in the White House. It appears to me that this may be shaping up, but I don't know the time frame. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So, as a democrat, you believe all of the ills for the past 20 years are the fault of the Republicans...is that supposed to be surprising? You also believe that is the impetus behind the OWLS. Peaceful tea party rallies -> bad. OWLS breaking the law and getting arrested by the hundreds -> good. Of course, one has to ask that, if your premise is true that the OWLS are protesting against Republican actions, why aren't they in front of government offices instead? Why do many of them hold signs and make comments against Democrats? ""Congress passed his stimulus bill, his health spending bill, his Dodd/Frank (financial regulation) bill, his state funding bill and his housing plans," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "And now," Stewart added, "the housing market's down, unemployment is up and the President is now acknowledging that all that didn't work by constantly pointing out how bad the economy is." So, with all of the things congress DID pass, even the stimulus bill, the financial regulation bill, the state funding bill, the housing plan bill, ets...we are STILL ,not only in dire straits, but even worse off. What does that tell you about Obama's plans for fixing the country?....other than the fact they haven't worked, of course? I asked that question earlier. It was ignored. Obama was given the stimulus. What did he do with it? Did he have the shovel-ready jobs he claimed? No. Did he bring down the unemployment rate as he assured us he would? No. Did he put a large part of it into companies that failed, even when we was warned by his own people they would? Yes. Did he waste a large part of it on non-job producing activities? Yes. Is he now claiming that, if given more money, he will do the same things he promised to do with the first stimulus? Yes. Should we believe him? Only if we are idiots. It's the old "Fool me once...." axiom set in motion. Some, like LR, claim that the stimulus didn't work because Obama wasn't given enough money. That's like gamblers going home from Vegas on a bus, saying, "If only we had had more money and could have made bigger bets, we would have won!" It wasn't the amount of money. It was how he squandered it and passed it out to friends and political supporters. It wouldn't be any different this time, I'm sure. He is what he is. SO blame Republicans all you like, Bob. It allows you to ignore the real reason why we are in the dumper and why Obama, the man without a plan, is not the person to bring us out of it. He can throw as many hissy fits as he wants. He can scream at congress, who have passed more of his bills than they should have. Democrats can all stand together and scream, "It's not us! It's those evil Republicans who won't let us do what we want to do!" until they are hoarse. People are wising up. Obama has done nothing to alleviate our problems and the majority of people don't believe that he will. He's in over his head with his inexperience and trying to double down instead of gambling with our money reasonably.....and, yes, he has referred to what he is doing as gambling. You want the true reason for the OWLS? It's there in a nutshell. People have no confidence the the current administration will do anything good for the country and their frustration has put them on the streets. Evil republicans? Thank God we have them. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Actually, I thought you were talking about congress here. It's what you called the thread" "Go Home Congress..." Maybe I need a very different pair of glasses. Last I saw, the approval rate of congress was running at about 9%. That's amazing. We probably differ as to why. One think that most of the public is clear about, even if they're clear about nothing else, is that the Republicans favor one group and one group only, and that's the wealthy. That's who the Republicans will support. They may do some other things, but when the wealthy call, the Republicans come a running. I wish it was more evident that the democrats were the party that served the poor and the middle classes. It ought to be clear, but a lot of Democrats simply aren't making that clear enough to convince the public. The nature of the Democratic brand has gotten confused, and the Democratic Party makes a huge mistake by allowing that to happen. As for trashing President Obama, why not pick one place to do it. Or at least raise new points if you're going to raise the subject in multiple threads. When I've already responded to criticisms in one venue, it gets boring to respond to the same criticisms in another. I feel that I need a decent response to my replies the first time around simply to show that what I've said has been read and digested. [Edited - Ron] None of this enters into any discussion from the Republican point of view in these pages. Not that II've seen. Nor has there been a response to my occasional raising of the issue. I don't mind talking about what I see as the President's failures. But having no recovery plan is not one of those failures. Having a viable recovery plan, even, is not one of those failures. Having the Republicans put the good of their party and the good of the very wealthy and the corporate class ahead of the good of the country is, to my mind, the cause of those failures; that and having the ruthlessness actually to pursue such a cruel nationally destructive agenda. Other than that, it's fine. [This message has been edited by Ron (10-28-2011 06:49 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Knowing this means you are aware that refusing to renew that aid package meant that states would feel a large and painful crunch about a year ago. Kbnowing that means you are aware that's what the Republicans were voting to have happen when they refused to allow bills renewing that aid package to go through. Bob, do you realize what you are saying? That's the point entirely! When Obama came out with his grandoise plans to help the states, to hir more police and firefighters, he didn't mention loudly enough for the public to hear, that it was only for a year, two at most. After that, when the money ran out, the states would either have to come up with money to pay all of the new officers or firemen, or lay them off. That's why some states refused his money. Now Obama is trying to pull the same routine, telling people how the Republicans are trying to stop the hiring of these same officers and fireman. The idiot Biden is out there talking of how republicans don't care if rape and robberies go up through lack of police protection, being refused by republicans. Does he say anything about it being a temporary fix that will leave the states in the same predicament when the funding gets pulled out next year? Oh, no, don't talk about that. So what exactly are you complaining about republicans now? Do you blame them for allowing Obama to have the bill in the first place, knowing it was nothing more than a temporary fix for political grandstanding? Do you blame them for not renewing it every time Obama says "I need more money?" It was all a grandstand play on Obama's part to make him look good, temporarily, so he could say, "Hey, look at all the jobs I created!!!" (just don't look for them next year). Obama got states to hire people they were going to have to lay off, got them to work on projects like roads and bridges, that they were going to have to abandon or come up will millions of their own to continue. It has been nothing but a dog and pony show and you can't even see it. Why? You don't want to. Please don't give me the party line about republican favoring the rich. I consider that to be so ludicrous and a mantra that has the millionaires like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore and all of the other fat cat democrats laugh about back in the congressional bar. Of course the public believes it. The democrats have spent millions of hours and billions of dollars to drum it onto everyone's head. They chant it like Jimmy Johnson did before passing out the kool-aid, hoping that no one will take a close enough look to see that they, themselves, do nothing for the middle class at all. They've tried to do the same thing with civil rights. Their tactics are nothing new. There are always more poor than there are rich. You want the votes or support of the poor? Tell them that your opponents favor the rich. Make the rich and their supporters the enemy and you have the vote. Are your opponents supporters of the rich? WHo cares? Say they are...simple enough. That's gone on since medeival times and why shouldn't it? It keeps working. BUffet talks about how the rich needs to pay mopre taxes while he fights the government not to pay the taxes he owes. Gore and Kerry talk about being for the middle class while they give pennies to charity. Michael Moore calls capitalism evil but avoids all questions about hiw own personal wealth that capitalism allowed him to have. I'm gonne NEED Obamacare because I'm getting sick to death of this double standard and sleight of hand garbage that democrats are performing on the public. You want to continue the chant? Knock yourself out. Say five "Republicans love the rich" before going to sleep each night and you'll be a good democrat. You know, I used to think that democrat leaders were just misguided. Now I fully believe that they are a bunch of eevil hippocrites with no regard for the country at all. Pelosi talks about republicans not caring if women fall down on the floors and die. Biden talks about how republicans don't care if women get raped in the streets. That's a real class group you have going for you, Bob...talk like that must really make one proud to be a democrat, right? They have no class, dignity or self- respect and I doubt they even care. You can have them.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If the Samaratin had only helped the man on the side of the road for his own self- agrandizement in the scriptures of one of the world's largest religions, the man on the side of the road was still helped..... |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Could you clarify this statement Mike, as far as I understand the situation Buffet has in fact paid all his taxes. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR, your quote says it all. Too bad more people can't understand that... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year. But The Post doesn't focus on the issue of a major corporation not paying its correct amount in taxes in a timely manner. Instead, the newspaper criticizes Buffett's position that America's rich should be taxed at a higher rate, taking issue with Buffett's claim that he gave 17 percent of his income to the government in 2010. The Post contends that since the majority of his income comes from dividends and capital games -- taxed indirectly through the corporate income tax -- "his effective rate would really be well north of 40 percent for a big chunk of his income." "And if [Buffett's] firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right," The Post editors write. "But it would be nice if this 'pro-tax-hike' tycoon were a bit more honest about it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html Here's another very interesting article, uncas.... http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/15/warren-buffetts-very-strange-tax-argument/ |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
That's what I thought Mike, Buffet has paid all his personal tax liabilities. As you point out Berkshire Hathaway is currently in dispute with the IRS, not Buffet. The Company has lodged an appeal with the IRS and not for the first time I might add. Last time, after a lengthy appeal, the IRS admitted that they'd miscalculated Berkshire's tax liability. The chances are high the same thing will happen this time too. Perhaps your statement should read: Buffet, who pays all his taxes, talks about how the rich needs to pay more taxes while the Company he's CEO of is involved in an appeal regarding a possible overestimation of tax liability by the IRS. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Is Uncas correct, Mike? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
President Obamas' plan was not grandiose, Mike. It was standard John Maynard Keynes. Keynes seemed to work pretty well through the Depression, right up to the point when the Republican's began deregulating the economy. From that point on, we've been having frequent economic problems. Grandiose is when you start borrowing money to give to millionaires so that they can sock it away in banks and not put it back into the economy and call that a tax cut. Everybody but the rich seems to have to pay for it. Spending money to help states sustain services and keep people employed helps the economy at a minimum to gain an even keel until other pump priming measures can help get the thing functioning again. In fact, it did work that way until the Republican scuttled the renewal of the measure. Remember when people were saying that it looked like the recession was over? That's because those measures were working. Another renewal probably would have done it. Probably. Cutting those jobs and throwing those people out of work shrank the economy again and made the problem larger. Good for helping Republican election chances, bad for the country. It made the recession worse. Why would Republicans want the recession to be worse, for heaven's sake? What possible good could it do the country as a whole? Oh, well, yeah, for the Republicans themselves in particular. I guess you Republicans have got me there. The Republicans do fit the mold Ms. Pelosi set for them in your quote. Sometime when the thread is right, maybe we can talk about how and why. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Republicans do fit the mold Ms. Pelosi set for them in your quote. Thank you, Bob. Now that I see that you and Pelosi agree on making such statements, you make it easy to end the conversation. May the two of you enjoy your common decencies. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Uncas, Buffet still owes taxes for all those years while it is being debated. You may have me wrong with regards to my feelings about Buffet. I have never had anything against the man at all. He has always had my admiration for the accomplishments he has made. He took advantage of the American dream and made himself the richest man in the world at one point and I don't begrudge him a penny of it, nor do I think he doesn't deserve it. (I do find it interesting that he is a hero to democrats, being one of the "filthy rich". I guess perhaps they are giving him a little pass). The point that I, and the writer of the article I posted, is this: Buffet IS Berkshire Hathaway. His income basically comes from dividends and capital gains. Nothing wrong with that, either. Many of the rich and super-rich do the same thing to keep their taxes low. He has taken the proper steps allowed to him to pay less in taxes, according to the law of the land. That's fine. If that was all there is, then there would be no issue. What we have, however, is the man taking advantage of the tax breaks doing it that way instead of declaring his earnings as income and THEN delares that people like him should pay more in taxes. He is preaching doing what he does not do. He takes the steps to pay less and preaches on how he should be paying more. That is hypocritical to the nth degree. That's like saying, "I should give my ex-wife enough in child support to take care of the kids but first I'll see how much I can get taken off my earnings statement so I will have to pay less. Is that illegal? No? Is it immoral? You can answer that one for yourself. It did cause the article to say.. "And if [Buffett's] firm wants to keep its tax bill low, well, that’s its right," The Post editors write. "But it would be nice if this 'pro-tax-hike' tycoon were a bit more honest about it." ..and THIS was reported by the Huffington Post, a strong liberal ally. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Is Uncas correct, Mike? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Perhaps there is some problem among Republicans in telling the difference between Democrat and political points of view that are against Capitalism entirely. I myself admire people who are capitalists who manage to do it without exploiting other people. There are people who make a decent product at a fair price and treat their workers well in the process. This is different from predatory Capitalism. I suspect that a large number of Democrats are just fine with Capitalism as a method for running an economy, especially if it doesn't run rough-shod over everybody else in the process. For that Matter, I can't imagine a lot of Republicans who would be all that thrilled with Predatory capitalism, and I remember some of your postings, Mike, that suggested that you had reservations about companies that do business in a predatory way. I think that reservation is not a particularly political one, it's more of a human one, though there will be some distinctions about some areas of this. Health care is one of the areas where Capitalism has extended itself and the things some of us find predatory or evil, other people may not. Outside of Drugs and medical care, though, I suspect that you and I wouldn't be that far apart on the notion of being against most predatorty practices. Buffet and most other very rich people should be paying more, I think. "More" doesn't mean endlessly more, does it? It means a legally set amount more that is fixed by law and is generally agreed to be an appropriate amount. It doesn't mean a punative amount more, arbitrarily set by people who have political anger at the man or who disagree with him or who figure that they can tag him for more simply because they're goverment agents. It doesn't mean give up your right to due process more, does it? Yet, in the case of Mr. Buffet, this seems what the Right wing is pushing for. Is this what they would Urge The Koch brothers to do, or the folks at AT&T or at British Petroleum? As I recall, the Right supported British Petroleum right through its court fight around the EXXon Valdez and for twenty years thereafter until the court judgement was reduced to a tiny fraction of what was originally awarded. Same with the MacDonald's Hot Coffee Case. Suddenly, with Mr. Buffet, they're on the side of hanging the man out to dry. As a MacDonald's stockholder, I had mixed feelings. About Mr. Buffet, I'm fairly clear that the upset on the Right isn't about wanting to get the government its fair share, though. It's about wanting to punish one of the guys who should have been in the church choir for singing some of that sinful rock & roll, and about wanting to send him on a permanent vacation in a place where global warming is known as "air-conditioning." |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: No he doesn't Mike. In the first place Buffet isn't Berkshire Hathaway, he may have control of the Company but at the end of the day he's just another employee. The company is an independent entity Mike, the employees aren't liable for the liabilities of that entity. Even if they were liable the taxes in question aren't yet proved to be owed. As I mentioned earlier this isn't the first time that the company has appealed against the IRS assessment, last time they won, did they owe the tax in that case? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and the rest of my comment, Uncas? Agree or disagree? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Sorry Mike, I skipped over them because I didn't think they were relevant to the question of whether Buffet paid his taxes or not. I don't mind addressing them though. quote: Disagree. I hadn't even considered your feelings regarding Buffet Mike because your feelings don't alter the facts one way or the other. quote: Agree. But then again I'm not really interested in what democrats or republicans think when it comes to whether Buffet has paid his taxes or not. quote: Disagree. Berkshire Hathaway is an independent entity. quote: Almost agree. It does look hypocritical but the reality is paying more taxes isn't an option, he couldn't do it even if he wanted to. He fills in his tax return honestly (filling it in incorrectly is illegal), the IRS tell him how much he owes and he pays it. If he pays more than he should the IRS are legally obliged to refund the amount overpaid. If the system doesn't allow him to pay more you can't really criticise him for not doing so. What's he supposed to do? I guess he could donate the money to charity instead. http://www.ecorazzi.com/2011/07/09/warren-buffett-donates-1-78-billion-to-charity/ quote: Agree. Yes it was. I tend to take what the Huffington post says with a pinch of salt though, I don't know whether you've noticed but they tend to have a left leaning bias. In this case it doesn't really matter though because, regardless of what they say, it doesn't alter the fact that Buffet paid his tax. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If the system doesn't allow him to pay more you can't really criticise him for not doing so. What's he supposed to do? I guess he could donate the money to charity instead. No, there are a number of things he could do. There is a website that John posted where one can send in extra tax money over and above what is required by law. Also, if he feels that strongly about it, he could declare his income as earnings and pay the 40% instead of capital gains and dividends. Face it. The fellow talks a good game but won't put his money where his mouth is. He could send in a check to the government any time he likes, if he truly feels he should be paying more. If you are in a restaurant with your boss, or someone you admire, and he tells the waitress, "Gee, I see you have an automatic 15% gratuity added to the bill and your service was so excellent you deserve mopre than that"....and then pulls out his calculator to leave her exactly 15%, how would you feel about the fellow? That's Buffet. No, the right has nothing against him at all, with the exception of his hypocracy. There was never an unkind word about him before that. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: And how much has Buffet given using this method Mike? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Apparently, by his own words, none. Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government." Mr. Buffett is one of the great stock-pickers of his time, and we don't begrudge him a single dollar of his wealth. We only wish that, having already made himself rich, he weren't so intent on making it harder for others to become rich too. If he's worried about being undertaxed, we'd suggest he simply write a big check to Uncle Sam and go back to his day job of picking investments. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900 |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: And how much did he give to the Gates Foundation - his preferred option? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How is that relevant with his claim that he should pay more to the government? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
How is that relevant? Well it sort of explodes the lie you're promoting that Buffet doesn't put his money where is mouth is Mike. When asked why he doesn't give more money to the IRS Buffet explained that he'd rather donate the extra bucks to charitable foundations where, he believes, the money has greater impact. It seems a quite reasonable argument to me and, as you'd expect from Buffet, it happens to make perfect financial sense too. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The lie I'm promoting....I see. The question is why doesn't he give more money to the government if he claims he should. That has nothing to do with foundations, charities, or anything else outside of the government, which is his statement. No one has claimed he is not philanthropic or even stingy. The topic is him saying he should give more to the government....and doesn't. The question was not whether rich people should give more money. not to foundations, but to the GOVERNMENT. Your dance is why the Alley is little more than a failed experiment. The lie I'm promoting....ok, I see we are finished here. Have a nice day. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not only himself, but everybody in his financial situation. And not a rate defined by people who are attempting to make him appear foolish or who would not make that demand of other people in his tax bracket. Mr. Buffet was making the suggestion for everybody in his tax bracket. It was not only be unfair but it would be illegal to set a tax rate specifically for one man, and to do so because of what seems to be Republican animus for that one man seems to me especially troublesome. As I recall, tax rates have been that high and higher within living memory, my own included, and the prosperity nationwide seemed much higher. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It was not only be unfair but it would be illegal to set a tax rate specifically for one man, and to do so because of what seems to be Republican animus for that one man seems to me especially troublesome Bob, you never cease to amaze. You speak of a ficticious event like setting a tax rate for one man (which is pure fantasy and has never been mentioned) and then blame it on Republican animus. Incredible stuff..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Then why demand Mr. Buffet pay a rate that hasn't been set and that nobody else is obligated to pay, or call him names when he doesn't act like it's perfectly okay to assess him at a rate that nobody in his bracket is charged, or call him a hypocrite when he doesn't volunteer to pay the government money that it would be legally obligated to return? Sure sounds like somebody's making that demand. And the reason behind this behavior is exactly What? Pure pleasure in Mr. Buffet's success? I think not. Animus fits the bill far more accurately, doesn't it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You don't get it, Bob. Nobody is demanding that Mr. Buffet pay anything. Mr. Buffet himself is declaring he should be paying more...and isn't doing it. If you are not going to do something, why make the statement that you should be? Does that make any sense to you at all? No republican twisted his arm to have him make that statement. He did it of his own free will in support of Obama and even got a bill named after himself. When asked if he was going to pay more to the government he claimed that giving money to family foundations was much better than giving it to the government, who was not as capable at using it wisely. Then why make the statement that he and others of his range should be giving more to the government? He makes no sense at all. He talked the talk but that's all.....and no republican had anything to do with it....sorry to disappoint. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And Republicans can't tell the difference between Mr. Buffet saying that the tax rate for very wealthy people should be increased so that he and other very wealthy people would get and be expected to pay higher tax bills and the suggestion that he, in particular, should simply throw money at the government in large unspecified amounts in the hopes that they would simply accept it? And that the Republicans expect me to believe the same thing? Gosh, because the Republicans say it's true, then it must be true. We can put it in the bank, right with the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the Mushroom clouds rising over American cities from Iraqi atomic weapons. I have trouble enough sorting out the stuff from my own party, without this sort of disinformation. My understanding is that Republicans respected Mr. Buffet's business skills, not that they regarded him as a business buffoon. I think I understand just fine. I think the Republicans are pretending that Mr. Buffet said something that an idiot would say and not a well thought of businessman, and that they are pretending the statement of the idiot was the actual message instead of the businessman's message that he offered. Are Republicans actually thinking that Democrats are such idiots as to believe such a line of hooey, and that Democrats have no experience with business or with businesslike thinking? The whole set of Republican statements is issued to the sort of people that Republicans seem to imagine Democrats to be when they start talking about people stuck on welfare and jammed in helpless poverty without a clue. Jimminy Cricket! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know why rich people should have to pay a higher tax percentage rate anyway. 15% from a rich person is quite a bit more than 15% from me. Why does the 'percentage rate' have to go up the more you earn? I've never understood that nor thought that it was 'fair'. Have a single rate that everyone pays on the income that they earn or the profits that they make. That way everyone pays the exact same percentage on their respective incomes. Do away with the loopholes and tax shelters. Where I might have to pay $4,000 on my income, a wealthier person may pay $400,000, or more, at the same rate. How is that unfair to me or someone who earns even less than me? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What demands do people with very large amounts of money make on the country and its resources as opposed to people with very small amounts of money, Denise? I once had relatives who owned a meat packing plant. They employed a large number of people and they were personally very nice people and I loved them a lot. I still believe that having them pay the same, say, 15% in taxes would have been wrong. Their trucks caused a lot more wear on roads, for example, which meant the town was constantly repairing roads leading to and from their plant, and when you dump large amounts of animal waste down the sewers, which are meant for everybody, that makes the processing of that waste much more difficult and expensive. When you add to that the fact that the meat processing plant's solution was to flush the drains with large amounts of acid on a regular basis, you have a pollution problem on top of the other problems, and a much accelerated wear problem on the sewers which my relative's meat packing plant certainly didn't want to pay. They wanted to take money in, not pay it out. The fifteen percent business wouldn't have even come close. You can see this being replayed across the country for many businesses. On the other end of the spectrum, you have people whose incomes place them in extreme poverty, and to take 15% of that would put them in danger, or put their kids in danger. In fact, though it seems fair, a flat tax turns out to be a regressive tax in which the burden falls most heavily on the poor, who can least afford it. That is why it is unfair, and that is why it is almost always you will find the wealthy supporting it; it breaks heavily in their favor and it punishes the poor for being poor. In fact many of the poor work as hard as the rich. They're simply nowhere nearly as well rewarded. I suspect you've had people go over this material with you before, Denise, but I thought I'd give it a try. I hope I was at least a little helpful. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know. Bob. Are the 'rich' more of a burden financially on society than the 49% who pay NO Federal income tax yet also receive benefits from the Treasury? And yes, I know they pay other payroll taxes if they work, and also sales taxes, but so do the 'rich' and the rest of us non-rich who aren't among the 49%. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That might be worth discussion, Denise, but you haven't responded to what I said in reference to your last question about the 15% flat tax yet; and before I cooperate in changing the subject to something else entirely, I'd like some resolution on the first topic you brought up. I thought I'd given a fair response about why a flat tax was a bad idea — because it tended to take a higher amount of real income from the poor than the rich, and because it uses food and shelter monies to subsidizes investment and luxury items. If money is to be re-distributed, it should probably be taken from luxury items and at least some speculative investments to underwrite food and shelter — at least that's what our religions tell us. While flat taxes have the poor underwriting the rich. At least some of the rich are somewhat concerned about that, and I would suggest that more should be. You asked me to explain why this was a bad idea, and I did, but now I find the subject is no longer of interest. Was there something unclear about my explanation? Is the reasoning faulty? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for explaining it, Bob. I just don't agree with you on the issue. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9 I found the above articles very much to the point. The third article reviews the net effects of the Bush tax cuts and what they’ve done to the economy. If you want to compare the cost of those with the net cost of the welfare portioned out to the poor over that same period of time, I think you’ll see the figures are pretty straightforward. The economist who wrote the tax article suggests that Republicans simply don’t understand their economic and tax policy and keep pushing it anyway, despite the evidence that keeps coming in. He believes that it’s just coincidence that the policy seems to pay off in such a grand fashion for the Republican donors. Personally, I credit Republicans with a bit more on the ball than that. He also gives an actual figure for what Warren Buffet pays as a percentage of his income in state, local and Federal taxes. If my wife and I were able to do that, I can’t tell you how thrilled we’d be. If you could do that, at least a decent chunk of your financial worry would be lessened. Buffet’s famous secretary paid 22%, which suggests she was doing pretty well. Buffet’s rate was apparently one-one-hundredth of that. Anyway, have a look at these three articles and let us know what you think, if there’s anybody but the two of us talking here at this point. Thank you very much, by the way, for getting back to me on my last post. If you had to agree, I’d start to worry. Having the subject changed without notice, though, was simply disorienting; acknowledgement that you’d heard yet still disagreed was all that I needed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Had a chance to give these a look yet, Denise? Any thoughts? I did my best to answer your question. If you feel unclear about any of this, I'll have another look and see if I can give you more detail. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
