Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The President's own words: "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes

Posted 2 years ago on April 12, 2012, 6:54 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. They sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary – and that's crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver?"


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/08/t1larg.prioritiesreaganad.jpg

62 Comments

62 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

I wouldn't worry to much, he's only going to be saying that until November 2012... then if he successfully cons his way into the white house a second time his staff will put a new spin on it and say he meant something different than he said.

[-] 2 points by j91488 (14) from Menlo Park, CA 2 years ago

Obama said alot of things. thats why i voted for him. now i regret it.

[-] 2 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Me too.

[-] 2 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Me 3.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh this is about the Reagan Rule

I thought it was Obama

Well everybody knows Reagan was a communist.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what loopholes ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

interesting article

static wealth might be easier to tax

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), an alleged moderate, explained late last week why he'll side with the far right against closing the tax loophole.

"We're in the middle of a three year recession," said Sen. Brown. "To raise taxes on anyone is a jobs killer."

"bread, jobs and freedom" was on the on all Nazi propaganda posters

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

WOW! If you can send me a link on that, I'd love it.

When Mass elected a Con for Kennedy's office, I "cursed" them with losing Socks and Celtics until a Dem or a Ken is returned to that office. Mark my words.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

good job, have you got any curses you could toss the GOP in AZ, they are kicking the people's asses out here

BTW they have been closing those loopholes for at least forty years

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Working on it, just don't have a target besides Brewer. What about that fucking sheriff??

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think you're being too kind to our fine sheriff, OWS has marched serveral times against Sheriff Joe, I've met him in person, and the guy reeks evil, I don't get how he gets elected, except that maybe he reperest all the hate those who vote for him feel.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

WILD WEST! Wyatt Earp! Knuckle Heads.

When I was a kid, I was abandoned by my parents on a Tucson or Tombstone shooting range. Bad vibes.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

holy crap! I guess we're lucky to have you still around.

In the AZ desert don't worry about rain, it's the fallin lead to got to watch for.

[-] 1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Get out the Vote!!

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Like a MX birthday party, lol

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yea hah!

James we haven't met I don't think, read your bio, I think I get the jest, anyway you made me laugh, see you around.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Great link!

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Could they really be listening to us, John? Could such a thing be possible?

[-] 3 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 2 years ago

NO! That's the point. Reagan said that. And then there was Reaganomics. Trickle down capitalism. The rich get richer, the poor demand change, the president promises it to them and then the rich get even richer.

The point is that currently, Obama is saying the same thing, while the income inequality is increasing exponentially, and the so-called JOBS Act does nothing for workers or small businesses, but it does make investment fraud a hell of a lot easier. Obama maintained and expanded the Bush tax cuts. He has done NOTHING for the average person.

Stimulus act benefits top 1%: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html

Health Care Act benefits insurance and pharmaceutical companies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

Obama traded away the Public Option in secret while still rallying public support for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Soooo... No. They're really not listening to us. And they haven't been for 30 years.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Of course their not. It's an election year, those bastards will say anything. However, the fact that OWS points are being incorporated into the political dialog does suggest they're hearing us. But, that doesn't mean they plan on following our advice.

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 2 years ago

No, it suggests that they realize that the key to a complacent citizenry is the belief that if we do nothing, the people we vote for will do it for us.

It's worth pointing out that the number one way to defuse an argument is to make the other person feel heard. It's exactly what Obama did with the public option. He went around portraying himself as the friend of the common man, but in reality he had already sold out the common man in a secret deal to profit these predatory businesses that absolutely refuse to let the public have a choice.

He made us feel heard, and so we were pacified.

The fact that OWS points are being incorporated doesn't mean they have heard us, it means they have singled us out as being most in need of pacification.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Don't mean to nit-pick, but you last sentence is contradictory. If Obama, and the elite in general, aren't hearing us, they wouldn't even know we existed. There's a big difference between hearing the words and actually listening. Big difference. Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely zero faith in politicians actually doing the right thing for the citizens.

[-] 0 points by uconn2004 (-29) 2 years ago

That is the case until we get the money out of politics.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That would be a great start.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Well said. Glad to see some have their eyes open :)

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

'Gates' responding to 'hippie.' Hmmm . . . ;-)

Keep up the good work, Rich. Your site is coming along rather nicely, I must say.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Senate GOP poised to kill Buffett Rule By Steve Benen - Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:45 AM EDT

There's a strange loophole in the federal tax code. Those Americans who become wealthy thanks to private-equity funds -- hedge-fund managers, vulture capitalists -- get to pay a special, lower tax rate. The result is a tax policy dynamic that's obviously unfair: some millionaires end up paying a lower rate than most of the middle class.

Democrats have proposed closing the loophole with something called the "Buffett Rule," which would require those who make $1 million or more to pay at least a 30% rate, and the Senate is scheduled to act on the proposal today. Is there any chance the measure might pass? Well, no -- Republicans have vowed to kill the proposal with a filibuster when Democrats try to bring it to the floor this afternoon.

When the Senate minority prevents an up-or-down vote today, they'll not only ignore the wishes of most members of the Senate, they'll also ignore the wishes of most of the country -- Gallup reported on Friday that Americans favor the Buffett Rule, 60% to 37%. (CONTINUED: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11224748-senate-gop-poised-to-kill-buffett-rule?lite)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And what about when he whispered to the Russian dude he wanted to do more toward disarmament, if he can get past the election, and little more support in the senate wouldn’t hurt him guys, if you want good things, do your part, I say.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

did you click the link

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I saw it

nuclear arms reduction is good

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

glad you saw it

compare this "hot mic" to the last guys bitchin' about people telling on 'em

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yes I did, I know this is about the tax problem, not war, ok i sunk this one end on the tanget that they are both things Obama wants to do, that we want to see get done, and maybe we can help with, i shouldn't have though too much like trying to steal the thread, mostly wanted to make sure matt thought about the "hot mic", and I see he did, my bad

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Actually, what he said was that he would be in a better bargaining position after the election. There's more than one way to read that statement though. I took it as meaning if he did it before the election, it could hurt his reelection chances, meaning his plan wouldn't fly with the voting public. I wonder why. Remember, that was considered an "open-mike" moment, meaning it wasn't for public consumption.

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

there is only one way to read it he doesn't want us to know what he is up to because it will be unpopular and cost him the election. More deceit on his own people.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That's exactly how I interpreted it.

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

funny how you are the only respondent to this gnomunny lol!

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Funny how we're the only ones who interpreted it that way. Seemed clear to me. See my questions to 'factsrfun' below this one.

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yea - factsarefun is crazy

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I think it's the inability to 'read between the lines.' Most people lack this. Plus, too many people take a politician's word at face value, not realizing all too often they're using doublespeak. Some of us are immune to this, however. I gave you a couple 'likes.' Not that those numbers mean much, tho.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yeah so the the public at large is very non war like, that would explain the Iraq War alright. Wait a minute, the "people" are always looking for somebody to blame or hate.

I would think a thinking person would read that exactly the opposite way that he wants to cut back on "missile defense" which is how pretty much everyone is reading it.

A big problem is that the "anti-war" crowd keep letting their votes be taken by people just trying to make money later on with all the free airtime they get for their books and whatnot.

So we keep making war.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

If all he wanted was to cut back on missile defense, why would he have to wait until after the election? It seems to me it would help his reelection chances. If his comment was to be taken at face value, why'd he wait until the mike was off (they thought it was)? I don't care how the general public interprets his words. I, personally, pride myself on the ability to 'read between the lines.' I've also been around long enough to know you can seldom take a politician's word at face value. I'm not saying what he said shouldn't be taken at face value, it may very well be sincere. Just call me a hard-core skeptic.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

look this is about Reagan wanting to raise taxes, but

either you haven't been paying attention to the "people's pulse" or something else is going on, but in general Americas like their bombs/bullets so you have to take them away quietly, like toys from the kids room

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Personally, I don't know too many people that think war is a good idea. Be careful how much faith you place in polls that happen to agree with the party line. "People's pulse" my ass.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago
[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Personally, I have no faith in OWS becoming an enlightened movement. Educated, informed, yes. Enlightenment cannot be learned.

That doesn't mean I don't have faith in OWS. I do.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I suppose I was referring to an unrelenting commitment to truth. This is not always convenient, there are many who would take the anger and energy of OWS and pull it toward "third party" politics, even though those at the top would have to tell some little lies, like that they had a chance, or that they could "build a party" these are lies, what they can do is sell some books after the election, so what's wrong with some small lies? I think if we stick to truth, even when it hurts, we really can "found" a new nation of sorts, it's a metaphor, but truth is a harsh taskmaster, but you may know that

I put it this way, if she asks "do these pants make my butt fat?'

Truth says, no that's the cookies and ice cream the pants just show it off.

BTW truth has no friends.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I agree. Truth, as you well know, is hard to discern at times, especially with the information overload we have today. That's one of the problems I'm having with the 'third-party' option. I got disgusted with politics back in the '80's and opted out of the whole fiasco. Yeah, I'm one of the millions whose lack of participation in the process, however futile it may seem, is partly responsible for some of the problems we're having. I, sort of, regret that.

OWS is what got me back in. If nothing else, it has that to its credit, getting people like me back into the discussion.

Personally, I hate liars, thieves and hypocrites, although admittedly I've been guilty of all three at times in my past. But, I'm getting better. ;-)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

life is hard.....

It is when truth doesn’t fit our wishes, like when we blame the SCOTUS for Bush, even when we know millions voted for Nader, when Nader should have been barnstorming for Gore, given that he was the most environmental person we have ever seen so close, at a time when it would have really mattered. That fight is over, as far as I can see, climate change is a done deal now.

But if we suck it up, and stick to the truth, it becomes very simple it resonates in the soul, you can lie about truth, but you won't believe it.

I had thought that the whole wealth inequality would never be addressed, it seems people were completely blind to something I have been talking about for thirty years, but there was no force on the political front that seems posed to address this vital issue. Then OWS came along, after a few months, I thought I would come here to tell some truth, as best i could and see if anyone wanted to hear it, it seems a few do, sometimes that can be enough, anyway what else can I do? Sit here seeing what’s happening and say nothing? I care about people at least talking about this issue if we talk about it the truth will come out, that’s why the GOP don’t want us to talk about it.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

The internet has done an amazing job in disseminating information and reconnecting people. I'm a perfect example. Prior to last October, you'd think my head was in the sand. I'm no dummy, but I got so fed up during the Reagan years, I stopped paying attention. A year ago, I'd never heard of Romney, or Geithner, or any of these other clowns dominating the news. I stumbled onto the OWS website completely by accident. I was researching 'symbolism in art and architecture' of all things, and a couple links later here I was. I never did get back to that 'symbolism' thing. ;-)

So, for better or worse, OWS got me back into the public discourse. That alone is a very good thing. I hope there's more out there.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well I'm glad you've decided to get informed, and maybe involved, we may have too many people who are involved without being informed, at least it seems that way.

We kick up a lot of dust here, but several people don't get as into the debates as much as I do, and there are a lot of very serious pieces here, just not all of them, don’t feel left out though, I get fed up about once a day, at least, I think most folks do, a lot won’t even vote because it’s all this and that. I think it would be a lot better if they couldn’t fill the airwaves with the lies about each other, but it works so they won’t stop, there ought to be a law.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yeah, that's part of the problem, a lot of people on here start commenting without actually checking the facts. Especially the new ones. Of course, I'm sometimes guilty of that as well. Ah, the fallibility of us all! ;-)

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6647) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

What am I supposed to think of it? Sorry, facts, it's still early for me, trying to clear the cobwebs as we speak.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well you might be right, but in all the years I've been watching it we seem pretty quick to go to war, and damn slow to end them, so I just go by what I see, no need to believe lies that's what conservatives are for.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

And his idiot fans went nuts!!

He isnt going to change anything, its just campaign speech.

I should know, I helped him get elected in 08. Its all fluff.

The only thing you can count on is more war, more spending and more corruption.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

So he is for the Ryan plan - broaden & lower the tax rates & remove deductions. Great! We may be getting somewhere

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Another foxian liar - take the truth and twist it into a lie.


"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. They sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary – and that's crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver?"


He did not say Ryan
He said fair share
I know it is hard to do the math
But the new ryan plan ( net ) puts over $100,000 into every $1,000,000 earner

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

define fair share Bensdad?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I am not a tax expert, but why, if corporations are people, and people have an AMT - why don't corporations? Maybe 20%
Why has the stock market zoomed up under Obama?
because profits have zoomed up under Obama. Those profits are based - at least partly - on low taxes and corporate welfare.
Ask Exxon & GE

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

companies shrunk their size to fit the smaller market hence profits go up you have to look gdp. The stock market is not a good indicator of the health of the economy. 2% gdp growth is abysmal. It should be 5 - 6%. In fact - the deeper the downturn historically the bounce back is the steepest. Also look at gold prices thru the roof!