1 Feb

Don’t like Romney’s “unfair” tax rate? Blame Obama. [Reader Post]

                                       

He and Pelosi and Hoyer and Waxman and the rest of the execrable democrats.

Much has been made about Mitt Romney’s income tax rate and it’s all the same. Sure he’s done nothing illegal but shame on Romney for paying what he owes. It’s his fault. He’s hiding something.

Romney’s tax rate unfair

Mitt Romney’s taxes make him the poster boy for unfair ‘carried interest’ rates

The NY Times cannot resist dunning Romney

The 1% and That 15%

Mr. Romney does not have to apologize for his wealth. But he cannot keep trying to conceal just how much the tax code has been tilted in his favor.

“in his favor”- and in no one else’s favor.

Mitt Romney, Tax Loophole Exploiter-in-Chief

Romney wealth puts him in top 1%

The notorious tax cheat Al Sharpton criticizes Romney:

YouTube Preview Image

You’d think Romney wrote the tax code himself.

But it’s not his fault. It’s Obama’s fault, along with all the democrats.

This tax rate was never an issue for democrats when John Kerry paid 13.9% in 2003. No democrat stood up and said Kerry’s tax rate was unfair.

How about Romney’s “off shore” money?

How about John Kerry’s off shore money?

Documents obtained by the Globe detail John Kerry’s 1983 investment of between $25,000 and $30,000 in offshore companies registered in the Cayman Islands. The document below, signed by Kerry, shows his pledge to purchase 2,470 shares of Peabody Commodities Trading Corp. through Sytel Traders, registered in the Caymans.

How about Apple’s off shore money?

Apple may have enough cash on hand to make Scrooge McDuck’s money vault look like a kiddie pool by comparison, but according to SeekingAlpha, most of that cash is effectively trapped overseas. US$54 billion of Apple’s overall $82 billion in cash is in offshore accounts, and Apple cannot repatriate that money to the States unless it wants to pay a huge 35 percent corporate tax on it.

If Apple attempted to bring that money into the States, right off the bat through the magic of taxes that $54 billion would transform into $35.1 billion, with the other $18.9 billion disappearing down the federal money hole. With that much cash at stake, it’s no wonder that Apple hasn’t been in any hurry to repatriate its huge foreign cash reserves.

But never mind all this odious hypocrisy. Who’s fault is this tax rate?

It’s Barack Obama’s fault.

It’s Nancy Pelosi’s fault.

It’s Harry Reid’s fault.

For the first two years of the Obama Presidency, democrats controlled all three parts of the government. democrats owned a supermajority from June 2009 to February 2010. Obamacare was passed via reconciliation.

democrats were too busy trying to destroy health care and finding green energy companies who would lose billions of taxpayer dollars to be concerned with Romney’s tax rate.

They owned Congress. They could have fixed this. They didn’t.

So shut up.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Deception and Lies, Economy, Harry Reid, Law, Liberal Idiots, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Obamanomics, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 8:13 am
| 562 views

31 Responses to Don’t like Romney’s “unfair” tax rate? Blame Obama. [Reader Post]

  1. Nan G says: 1

    Romney paid MORE than he OWED!
    From the NYTimes:
    “…….the return filed by one of the Romney trusts overstated capital gains realized by nearly $300,000, causing Mr. Romney and his wife to pay about $44,000 more in taxes than they owed. ”

    Also Obama’s much touted aid to employers who hire long-term unemployed?
    How did THAT affect the Romney taxes?
    “That section saved Mr. Romney and his wife exactly $1 in taxes in 2010. ”
    Whoop-de-doo!

    SOURCE:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/business/economy/mitt-romney-paid-more-taxes-than-he-owed-high-low-finance.html

    ReplyReply
  2. MataHarley says: 2

    Nan G, I’ve got no clue what good news you think you’re spreading here. Ever heard of tax refunds? If Romney overpaid because of accounting errors, he’ll be getting a refund check.

    Will he cash it? You betcha. Said so himself. From the horse’s mouth at the Tampa debate…

    WILLIAMS: So, across this country tomorrow, when people learn the details of the tax return you release — and, of course, you`ll be under pressure to release more years after that — nothing will stick out, nothing will emerge that will be talked about by this time tomorrow night?

    ROMNEY: Oh, I`m sure people will talk about it. I mean, you`ll see my income, how much taxes I`ve paid, how much I`ve paid to charity. You`ll see how complicated taxes can be. But –but I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more.

    I don`t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes. So I`ll — I`ll point out that that`s the case.
    And will there will discussion? Sure. Will it be an article? Yeah. But is it entirely legal and fair? Absolutely. I`m proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.
    And the fact is, there are a lot of people in this country that pay a lot of taxes. I`d like to see our tax rate come down and focus on growing the country, getting people back to work. That`s our problem in this country right now. We`ve got a lot of people out of work. Let`s let them start paying taxes because they got jobs again.

    Personally I thought that “you don’t want a candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes” line was yet another Romney dweeb gaffe. Philosophically, conservatives don’t care how anyone chooses to spend their earnings. So why would we care if they decided to gift the IRS? In fact, I think that a GOP candidate who does sets a stellar example for all those other millionaire/billionaires who insist they’d be happy to pay taxes, but only if it’s a mandate. Instead, Romney shows he’s just another George Soros who, while able to pay more, chooses not to unless there is an IRS regulation. There’s another bulleted talking point for the O’campaign… that millionaires/billionaires require mandates, and will be happy to pay it.

    This approach as some sort of redemption for Romney is a real loser, Nan G. Romney will get, and be happy to keep, his refund check.

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    @MataHarley:
    As are we all.
    When it comes down to a disagreement between two bookkeepers or one accountant and someone at IRS, damn right you overpay!
    Then you continue to look into it until it gets settled….one way or the other.
    Most of the time, when we err on our taxes, it is to the side of overpaying, too.
    And, yes, we accept a full refund for over payments every time.

    ReplyReply
  4. johngalt says: 4

    I completely understand your point, Dr. J. However, the question really shouldn’t be about the tax rate at all.

    What I mean is that Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the rest of the liberal/progressives, during the time they ruled everything, were RIGHT, even if it was by omission.

    Everybody wants to talk about Buffet’s tax rate vs. his secretary, or Romney’s low tax rate, and they completely miss the fact that they are discussing apples and oranges here. While they are both fruits, one is a citrus fruit and the other is, well, an apple. A non-citrus fruit. Of the Malus genus. Similar, but different.

    If they wanted to consider arguments of apples to apples, or oranges to oranges, then they should compare the actual INCOME alone, and subsequent tax rate. Or, conversely, the additional capital gains that they earned, and subsequent tax rate. But they don’t. And the generally under-informed American public doesn’t get the full story. Instead, they get the headline, “Billionaire Buffet Pays Less In Taxes Than His Secretary”. And the people believe then that Buffet is somehow getting away with something.

    Idiots. The general public doesn’t understand that the majority of Buffet’s, and Romney’s, and other very wealthy individuals’, income is subjected to the Capital Gains Tax Rate, a much lower percentage than general income. And guess what? That isn’t a bad thing. Not at all. That money earned that way is due to investments and the selling off of assets. Investments are what helps businesses gain the fuel to expand their business. The selling off of assets is what allows a business to gain cash for expansion, or another business to gain land or assets for it’s own expansion. In other words, the low rate of Capital Gains do much to prevent stagnation within an economy.

    Personally, I don’t give a damn if Buffet, or Romney, pay a lower overall tax rate than I do. That is because I understand that the majority of their “income” doesn’t come from income like mine, but rather, that kind of income that helps fuel the economy. The fact that they end up paying a lower rate than I do because of that helps me, and everyone else in this country, much more than if they were paying rates like the liberal/progressives would like them to pay. That people cannot see this is due to the lack of effective and truth in the MSM, and the general public’s own laziness at learning, or demanding, truth in reporting.

    ReplyReply
  5. Greg says: 5

    @johngalt, #4:

    Personally, I don’t give a damn if Buffet, or Romney, pay a lower overall tax rate than I do. That is because I understand that the majority of their “income” doesn’t come from income like mine, but rather, that kind of income that helps fuel the economy.

    The income of the wealthy fuels the economy and should be taxed at lower rates, while the wages of working people–who actually produce useful goods and services directly–are to be kept as low as possible, and taxed at higher rates?

    I fail to see any justice or fairness in treating one type of income differently from another. Differing treatment–i.e., tax rates–should be entirely a matter of earnings level, which relates to one’s ability to pay.

    Higher tax rates for the wealthy never kept people from creating jobs before, nor did they ever keep the rich from getting richer. Progressive tax schedules included much higher top end rates through most of the 20th Century. The national debt didn’t spiral out of control until top end rates were cut. Every time that’s been done again, debts and deficits gone up even faster. What is it about this perfectly obvious cause and effect relationship that people don’t understand?

    ReplyReply
  6. johngalt says: 6

    @Greg:

    The income of the wealthy fuels the economy and should be taxed at lower rates, while the wages of working people–who actually produce useful goods and services directly–are to be kept as low as possible, and taxed at higher rates?

    You completely missed the point, Greg, which isn’t surprising considering your reading comprehension skills.

    Income from capital gains SHOULD be taxed at an entirely different rate than traditional income, Greg. It helps fuel investment, helping companies expand, creating more jobs, and ultimately, fueling a better economy.

    I NEVER said that high income earners should be taxed less than everyone else. I specifically pointed out the differences in the types of income, Greg, which you have missed entirely.

    And, as for your “historical” references to higher tax rates and such, those happened to have happened in different times with different trade policies and different countries as players in industry.

    Try again, Greg, maybe with better reading comprehension applied.

    ReplyReply
  7. baseballguy says: 7

    Capital gain tax is on money earned in an investment. The money used for the investment comes from AFTER TAX dollars. You make $1 – you pay taxes (.20) – you take the remainder (.80) and invest it. IF you make money, you pay 15% on the capital GAINS. By the way, if you lose money it’s your problem – funny partner Uncle Sam – shares in your wins and runs for the hills on your losses. Heads government wins, tails government wins.

    ReplyReply
  8. Greg says: 8

    @baseballguy, #7:

    Capital gain tax is on money earned in an investment. The money used for the investment comes from AFTER TAX dollars.

    I’m not clear on what difference that makes.

    The state and the county both tax me on the same total income dollars that the IRS taxes. I’m taxed on it yet again, when I spend what remains, in the form of state sales tax. My bank interest is taxed as ordinary income, even though I’ve already paid full taxes on 100% of the money that I have on account there.

    Why should people who make their fortunes by investing be treated any differently?

    Hey, I don’t like taxes. Nobody likes taxes. But I understand why they’re necessary, and I understand that we aren’t collectively paying enough to cover the bills.

    That growing debt threatens the value of my dollar holdings–which is a fairly substantial amount. I want to see both spending cuts and revenue increases, because I know that’s the only way to fix the problem.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 9

    @Nan G, still don’t get your point. You point to something that says Romney overpaid, I point that he won’t be overpaying because he’ll get his tax refund, and be happy to cash it. So what the heck was your point in highlighting that Romney’s tax returns show an overpayment that he’ll be refunded?

    Sorry… not making a lick of sense to me. Help me out.

    Or was this sort of a “open thread” type of comment just to get the news of Romney’s returns into a thread?

    ~~

    I don’t have a problem with Mittens, like Soros, living off capital gains income instead of declared salary to have the best tax advantage. It would be hard to promote either of them as business savvy if they didn’t. Entrepreneurs and business types eye all factors – market, future potential policy and regulations – when running their businesses. Yippee on that, and I congratulate them on their personal success.

    What I don’t get is the headline and thrust of this post. “blame Obama” for the capital gains tax rate???

    Considering that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been advocating for increased capital gains taxes since each of their respective rises to power, how is it their supposed “fault” that Romney doesn’t pay more, and the capital gains taxes aren’t higher? It’s not like they haven’t been fighting for it since Obama seized office, and Pelosi/Reid since taking over Congress in 2007. Sorry.. not believable.

    I will also point out that during the years they held the sway of power with an Obama WH, the Bush tax cuts hadn’t expired. It was unlikely they would get a single issue bill thru to raise capital gains earlier than Dec 2010, when the whole enchilada would be addressed. They were busy shoving ARRA stimulus, seizing GM/Chrysler, constructing O’healthcare and Dodd-Frank in the darkened back rooms. Why bother with capital gains when you had the moment to reel in the larger fish?

    And as far as I’m concerned, this approach at “defense” for capital gains – Romney or anyone else – by “blaming Obama” is more liberal fodder for their campaign talking points. No sane person with an overview of legislation and political history can blame Obama, Pelosi, Reid- or the liberal Congress years – for Romney’s, or Soros’, tax rates because they’ve advocating changing them at the expiration deadline, and advertised such well in advance of that deadline.

    But you can “blame Bush”… hey, that’s a popular Obama talking point. LOL

    About the worst you can accuse Obama and cronies of is compromising by *not* raising them during the lame duck midsweep (unimpressive) negotiations in Dec 2010… which you can hardly portray as a negative from a conservative “low taxes” perspective with any credibility.

    I agree with @johngalt that the tax rates as the tunnel-vision issue shouldn’t be the debate… mostly because we’ve hashed these arguments out over and over (tho Greg can’t seem to retain any of the documents, links, facts and historic statistics…). And if anyone attempts to “defend” Romney’s tax returns from the Obama campaign machine this way – hey, let’s just skip the cost of the election to the taxpayers, and just hand the keys to the WH today.

    ReplyReply
  10. liberalmann says: 10

    Romney is a sleaze ball, pure and simple.

    ReplyReply
  11. MataHarley says: 11

    liberalmann: Romney is a sleaze ball, pure and simple.

    Another “mark the calendar” moment. Don’t think I’ve ever agreed with a single word libman has uttered until this moment.

    ReplyReply
  12. Nan G says: 12

    Mata, the whole idea of tax rates and “fairness” is just Obama’s latest ploy.
    He is playing to the OWSers who pretend to be the 99% when they are really some of the Obama constituents from unions, teachers (who definitely would be fired if MERIT were the basis) students, freeloaders and other radicals.
    They aren’t even the 10%.
    When you have complex tax returns (like we do and like Romney does) you have to overpay.
    Yes, you can get it straightened out later.
    The feds get your money as an interest-free loan until you do get it straightened out, you realize.
    But it is better than an audit.
    BUT the point of the whole ”fairness” crap is that legal or not, overpaid or not, Romney (and those of us with complex tax situations like his) are STILL not paying their “fair” share.
    It is a pile, a steaming pile.
    If these rules are not ”fair” enough, change them!
    God knows we have 22 new tax forms JUST THIS YEAR!

    ReplyReply
  13. johngalt says: 13

    @MataHarley:

    Although some of us would agree with liberalmann, he just did another pigeon swoop-and-poop on the board. Too bad he missed the car and hit the neighbors cat instead. I don’t even have to try and clean up his mess this time.

    ReplyReply
  14. anticsrocks says: 14

    @liberalchild: Sleaze ball?

    Takes one to know one, liberalchild.

    ReplyReply
  15. Aqua says: 15

    @Greg:

    I’m not clear on what difference that makes.

    Here’s the difference Greg. Let’s say your taxable income is $200,000 and pay $70,000 in taxes. You now have $130,000 left. You decide to invest $40,000 into a company you really love. Next year, you have the same taxable income of $200,000 and the company you love is doing great and you end up with dividends of $10,000. You still have to pay 35% on your income, but not your capital gains, which is the $10,000 you made from the investment. There are two reasons for this. First, we want to encourage people to invest. Second, you already paid taxes on the money you invested. The capital gains tax is actually double taxation. You earned the money you invested and paid your taxes on it. If there must be a tax on the gains you make from money you have already been taxed on once, don’t you think it should be lower than the normal rate?

    ReplyReply
  16. SouthernRoots says: 16

    Apples to oranges. If Buffet’s secretary had capital gains income, her and Warren would have paid the same exact rate.

    Conversely, if Buffet had wage income, he would have had a higher tax rate, affected only by all of the congressionally passed, and presidentially signed laws (i.e. – legal) allowing gazillions of deduction opportunities.

    The hateful, envious sloths in society make me weary.

    ReplyReply
  17. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 17

    Dr. John–
    You should probably reread your own source: http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/

    ReplyReply
  18. Liberal1 (objectivity) says: 18

    @johngalt: These type of ad hominem attacks (denigration of another’s personal reading skills) are the possible reason why many liberals can’t take your call for a debate seriously.

    ReplyReply
  19. Missy says: 19

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    Who are the “many liberals” you speak of? I suspect you are projecting your own little fears and going back to your blanket by using “many.” You used ad hominem in the other thread when you dropped this bomb:

    “If conservatives had their way, the streets would be littered with the sick and hungry.”

    Projection, accuse and blame others for what you do.

    ReplyReply
  20. johngalt says: 20

    @Greg: #8

    Hey, I don’t like taxes. Nobody likes taxes. But I understand why they’re necessary, and I understand that we aren’t collectively paying enough to cover the bills.

    Conservatives also understand why taxes are necessary, Greg. None of us have ever said anything about doing away with taxes altogether.

    The real issue concerning taxes, and whether one believes they are too high, or too low, or maybe even just about right, is the idea you included in your last sentence. That is, the revenue required to “pay our bills”. While you, and other liberal/progressives, may believe that the government either must spend as much as it does, or possibly even more, on social engineering programs, conservatives believe that the government spends far too much, and could do with a lot of cutting of their spending.

    I know, I know, you’ve stated elsewhere, in numerous other post topics, that you believe in a “balanced” approach that includes cutting spending and increasing revenue by higher taxes. However, it seems that nearly every time you discuss which items to cut, you zero in on defense budget numbers, and tend to leave the social engineering programs alone. Also, concerning the higher taxes, you only promote the increase on the higher income earners, as if it was they who caused the higher deficits. That is why you have been here recently, in post topics dealing with Buffet’s or Romney’s low overall tax rate, promoting increasing the rate on capital gains. Your warped view of the situation here has you believing that only the “wealthy”, who “makes fortunes on investing” are able to use that tax rate. And somehow, to you, that means they are getting away with something.

    The people who advocate increasing the capital gains tax rate do have a point, if one is considering solely the type of investments that Buffet and Romney engaged in. Many of the CEO’s and executive officers of corporations have their compensation geared towards taking advantage of the disparity between the capital gains tax rate and the normal income tax rates. And, once one has earned enough to play in this playground, like Buffet, being able to take a $100k salary from your company and have that supplemented by investment income taxed at 15% is the preferable way to go. The problem, though, is that by raising the capital gains tax rate, you also affect those with much smaller incomes who sell off their assets, like a small business, or investment property, that they have held for many, many years, and where most of the gain, or at least a large portion of it, is due to inflation. It is hardly fair to these people, then, that they end up paying taxes on that portion of gains attributable to inflation. In short, a raise in capital gains tax rate would affect those more closely associated with the middle-class much greater than the Buffets and Romneys of the country. Is that an acceptable downside for you?

    The left wishes to continue on with the current tax system in place, just changing numbers around here and there to make it more “fair”. What we get, then, is a continuing battle between lobbyists, for the left and the right, politicians from both sides, and the ignorant masses, such as those who make up the “Occupy” movements, changing tax rates, giving deductions and credits, taking them away, and adding to the mess of a tax code we already have. And every time there is a change made, the one group who gets shafted more than any other is the middle class.

    The poor, or lower income group, continues to get breaks, either through more and higher tax credits or due to larger numbers being included within those paying no income taxes. And the higher income earners just change their shelters, using what’s available, to avoid as much tax as possible. It is hardly a “fair” system, even if the tax rates themselves were set to what the liberal/progressives would wish them to be.

    A simplification of the tax system is needed, not changes in tax rates under the current system.

    ReplyReply
  21. johngalt says: 21

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    It is not an “ad hominem” attack on Greg. It was a situation, between him and I, where his reading comprehension failure caused him to make a wrong assumption. It has nothing to do with how I treat him or any other liberal/progressive poster. Greg gets it, and has acknowledged the mistake he made. It has nothing to do with you, so you can keep your opinions on it to yourself. As for engaging in debate, why don’t you ask Rich or Larry if I engage in such attacks with them. My guess is that they’d say no.

    Also as for engaging in debate, why don’t you actually try it here instead of your typical drive-by postings? You might find that you would actually learn something, instead of going through life being angry at the false stereotype of conservatives that you cling to.

    ReplyReply
  22. Nan G says: 22

    @johngalt:
    You responded to Greg’s , “I understand that we aren’t collectively paying enough to cover the bills.”
    But Rep. Paul Ryan already answered this question on Meet The Press back in October 2011.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/44835126#44835126
    “If you took all the income from every millionaire in America today, it would run the government for about four months.”

    Of course, then the game would be over.
    The ”rich” would never pay another penny.
    They would no longer be rich.

    Obama’s rhetoric about ”fairness” is just that; rhetoric.
    He has no interest in gutting the rich.
    He simply wants the votes of those who pay no taxes at all.
    So, he is using code words to imply that they might be in for more gov’t goodies IF only the ”rich” paid their ”fair share.”
    Obama wants those 47% non-taxpayer votes.
    That is all.

    We don’t have a revenue problem.
    We have a spending problem.

    ReplyReply
  23. johngalt says: 23

    @Nan G:

    While I agree that Obama, and the liberal/progressive politicians in DC are playing the class-warfare game in their disguised attempts to garner more voters, Greg, and those same liberal/progressive politicians, do have a point about capital gains tax rates and the normal income tax rates. However, where they fail is their “solution”, which is, to just increase the rate within the same convoluted tax structure we already have in place.

    What is pretty damn funny, though, is that the capital gains tax rate was, for much of Reagan’s and all of Bush 1′s, and part of Clinton’s presidencies, essentially the same as the top tax rate, or pretty damn close to it. In 1997 Clinton lowered the rate to 20%, and yet, the government was able to get as close to being able to pay it’s bills as it ever has in modern times. But Big Government proponents, like Obama, and the liberal/progressives in DC, and like Greg, want to push that tax rate to as high as the current top individual income tax rate, thinking that is the answer, and all in the name of “fairness”. In reality, they do not actually want “fairness”, but rather, to shift the dependance more and more upon the backs of the middle-class and highest income earners to pay for all the “goodies” they are promising the poor and lower income people, and simply to pander for their votes and remain in power.

    If Greg, and the other liberal/progressive true goal was “fairness”, then they would advocate a complete overhaul of the tax system, essentially throwing it out completely in favor of something more like the Fairtax, or even Cain’s 999 plan.

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 24

    libzero sez: Dr. John– You should probably reread your own source:

    Despite the fact I disagree that Obama is to blame for the current capital gains tax structure – that’s pretty much a stretch, and not such a bright idea attack path – one cannot discount the effective supermajority that the Senate had during the first two years of Obama’s Presidency.

    Not all liberals have a “D” behind their name, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins could be counted on for voting with the Dem caucus for the majority of issues. The only difference between them and Spector is that he officially changed his party affiliation, and the two women did not.

    In the house, the simple majority was easily attainable since the Dems had 237 from years 2007-2009, and 256 from 2009 to 2011. They were shy of the supermajority (290).

    While the Senate was relatively safe in assuming they’d get a supermajority vote in anything they wanted, the House was always the brick wall. Even the 2011-2013 House Republican majority of 242 wasn’t enough to get the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution thru in Nov (thank heavens, IMHO…) since they only could get 25 Dems to come on board, while four GOPers opposed. (Those would be Paul Ryan, Louis Gohmert, David Dreier, and Justin Amash. Ron Paul didn’t vote).

    Thus the reason why the Dems twisted rules, regs and pushed the limits on getting legislation thru in ways that only required a simple majority… a tactic that has also been used by the GOP in the past. Just less often because they’ve only had control of the House session 11 times in the past 7-8 decades.

    So the supermajority power in the Senate can only be considered a “myth” if you want to solely confine the argument to whether it’s a D or R behind a name, and not use effective voting records and performance of liberal Republicans that could always be counted on. Such a tactic is parsing reality, hoping you can get it by the foolish and under educated.

    ReplyReply
  25. drjohn says: 25

    @Liberal1 (objectivity):

    Special session, anyone? Hello?

    ReplyReply
  26. drjohn says: 26

    @MataHarley:

    Despite the fact I disagree that Obama is to blame for the current capital gains tax structure – that’s pretty much a stretch, and not such a bright idea attack path – one cannot discount the effective supermajority that the Senate had during the first two years of Obama’s Presidency.

    It’s his fault for not attempting to change it. So like I said- shut up. No whining now.

    And they DID have a supermajority for more than six months, not counting those two dimbulbs form Maine. They chose their own way to squander it.

    ReplyReply
  27. MataHarley says: 27

    He did attempt to change it… as has Pelosi and Reid… in the past. Tried tagging in on to bills, hit the media and campaign trails with it. Been an ol’ standyby talking point since 2007.

    So now you are going to blame them for compromising in the favor of a conservative issue, drj?

    Good luck with that one….

    ReplyReply
  28. liberalmann says: 28

    @MataHarley: Well, of course not. You’re a wingnut. You’re perpetually wrong.

    ReplyReply
  29. liberalmann says: 29

    Really? Obama started off shore accounts to evade taxes? Imagine that!

    ReplyReply
  30. MataHarley says: 30

    Talk about @ a half baked wingnut… you can actually agree with the dodo bird, and he says *I’m* “perpetually wrong”.

    Priceless… LOL

    ReplyReply
  31. johngalt says: 31

    @liberalmann:

    Kinda childish retort to Mata, isn’t it?

    Quite expected, though, from a liberal/progressive.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>