Skip to main content

Here's a priceless stroll down memory lane from Think Progress. It's President Ronald Reagan, talking about a letter he received from a highly paid executive. Watch:

"He wrote me in support of the tax plan, because he said, 'I am legally able to take advantage of the present tax code, nothing dishonest, doing what the law prescribes, and wind up paying a smaller […] tax than my secretary pays.' And he wrote me the letter to tell me he'd like to come to Washington and testify before Congress as to how that's possible for him to do and why it is wrong."
Well, that's slightly inconvenient for Republicans, isn't it? Maybe their favorite president can change their minds about next week's "Buffett Rule" vote, the one that would make sure that highly paid executives paid a higher rate in taxes than their secretaries. Because, as Reagan said back in 1985, it's just a matter a basic fairness, the theme Democrats hearken back to.
Sen. Chuck Schumer defended proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy as an issue of fairness Monday ahead of President Barack Obama’s trip to Florida this week to tout the “Buffett rule.”

“This is such a bogus argument,” the New York Democrat said on CBS “This Morning” when asked to comment on Republican charges that Democrats are taking up the issue only because of the fall election. “We have believed, as a country, that higher-income people should pay a higher percentage of income since the 16th Amendment, which was 1912. It came in with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.”

“There’s no class warfare involved; it’s a question simply of fairness,” he said.

If it wasn't class warfare when Ronald Reagan was calling for it, why is it class warfare now?

The Senate will hold a cloture vote on the "Buffett Rule" on tax day, April 16. E-mail your Senators and tell them to vote "yes." Tell 'em Ronald Reagan sent you.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:48 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (31+ / 0-)

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:48:50 AM PDT

  •  Just saw this on Twitter (6+ / 0-)

    I love it!

    St. Ronald supports the Buffet Rule.  St. Ronald support tax fairness.

    So, GOP... hope that feels like some barbed wire up your ass!

    •  So does this mean that Reagan WAS great? (0+ / 0-)

      I know he ain't the left's idea of a great president, but at least he was right (correct) sometimes.

      I think it's the centrists who win history. And Obama is trying to be one.

      We can continue to argue about that . . .

      "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

      by New Jersey Boy on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 07:28:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whoa... (0+ / 0-)

        Let's not get carried away...lol.

        Seriously, what is shows is just how insane today's Republicans are.

        Reagan was quite far to the right, but he understood- at least to a point- the need for compromise in government.  

        Today's GOP is just about how fast can they burn the nation down.

      •  More like this show just how far... (0+ / 0-)

        to the extreme right the current GOP has moved.

        St. Ronny would be a flaming liberal subject to the vile pronouncements of Limbaugh and Colter.

        "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

        by Candide08 on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 04:13:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He had plenty of flaws, but compared to (0+ / 0-)

        the truly cruel, rabid, TP feet-kissing crowd we have now, he was a model of reasonableness.

        That's not a comment on his having good points. It's a comment on their insanity.

        Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

        by Sirenus on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 06:21:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The "contact your rep" form has a spelling error. (0+ / 0-)

      It's headed "The Buffety Rule."

      Thought I should mention that. I not only signed, I added my own comments to the letter.

      Thanks for making contacting our reps easier for us!

      Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

      by Sirenus on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 06:18:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They don't care what "Ronald Reagan" said (8+ / 0-)

    They only care what "Saint Ronnie of Reagan" is believed to have said/did. Reagan would've been drummed out of the Tea Party in a femtosecond. Saint Ronnie is their patron. Delusion, they have it.

    "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

    From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:57:30 AM PDT

    •  Yeah (8+ / 0-)

      they're awfully good at ignoring the inconvenient stuff Reagan did and said. Particularly on taxes. I just loved that this is the exact same example as Buffett uses (maybe the letter writer was Buffett!).

      "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

      by Joan McCarter on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 11:02:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Warren has been around a looooong time (4+ / 0-)

        so maybe he was. That would be doubly entertaining.

        "What profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" Paul 8:36

        From the Gospel of St. Ron Paul in the Teachings and Misunderstandings of the Words of Adam Smith

        by ontheleftcoast on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 11:04:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Joan - the real differnce was that (0+ / 0-)

        under Reagan the top marginal rate was lowered from 70% to 28% as part of the package to close the loopholes. So while the top 1% could no longer lower their federal income tax to near zero, the rates were made flatter. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the last major change in the IRS code and did in fact eliminate nearly all the loopholes for high income earners and in fact raised the effective tax rate for many of them. The average effective rate on the 1% dropped from about 35% (recall the top rate was 70%) to about 25% (post TRA86 the top rate was 28%).

        I don't think that President Obama is contemplating cutting the current top rate of 35% in half but rather is looking to raise rates across the board for the 1%. While it is true that they both identified the same problem, it's really not a very valid comparison as President Obama's approach to the problem is the exact opposite of Reagan's.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:26:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, ontheleftcoast

      The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

      by a2nite on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:50:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  !! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, parsonsbeach

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    by bubbanomics on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:58:38 AM PDT

  •  What do you expect? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ginny in CO, kyril

    I've heard the guy was old and semi-senile by the time he became president.  If not sooner.

    •  So it was really Nancy who was a socialist? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, kyril

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 11:10:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, that was a trip down memory lane. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      On how BAD his memory was. Made me think of a joke then about how he was going to act again in a movie sequel. "Partial Recall"

      "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

      by Ginny in CO on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:20:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ronald Reagan, socialist and practitioner (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Juarez Traveller, gramofsam1, kyril, deha

    of the politics of envy. Who knew?

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 11:09:09 AM PDT

  •  The Buffet Rule is symbolic at best, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Juarez Traveller, VClib

    and a distraction at worst.

    It would raise, according to estimates, something less than $3 billion a year.  See here -- $31 billion over 11 years.  In an annual budget of about $3.5 trillion, that's a rounding error.    

    If Republicans were smart politically, they'd say, ok, you can have your Buffet rule and your extra $3 billion a year. NOW what are you going to do about the annual deficit, the unsustainable long-term debt, and the unsustainable projections for the growth of Medicare and Medicaid?

    •  Symbols matter... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Panbanisha, KMc

      ...which is why the Republicans won't do that.

      Because they recognize that once they give in to the Buffet rule, they're acknowledging the concept of progressive taxes.  And they don't want to do that, since it runs counter to their narrative about wealthy "job creators" and lower class dead weight.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:03:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  $3 billion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deha, KMc

      is roughly 35% of the entire budget of the National Science Foundation. 30% of the budget of the EPA. 17% of the entire NASA budget. 30% of the Department of Commerce budget (which includes, but is not limited to, NOAA).

      You know, all those programs that we just have to keep cutting because we supposedly don't have enough money? The Buffett tax would raise money equivalent to cutting all federal non-military science and science-related spending by around 7%.

      "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

      by kyril on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:33:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Down the Memory Hole (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, a2nite, gramofsam1, kyril

    There seems to be a collective loss of memory over what happened to taxes during the Reagan years. The tax rate for high incomes was cut, but the revenue losses were offset because tax rates on capital gains were raised to the same level. The rationale, embraced by Reagan, was that a "coupon-clipper" (as they were called in those days) should not get to pay a lower rate on unearned income than the rate paid by someone who worked for a living. But then subsequent legislation kept cutting and cutting the capital gains tax rate, and then cutting the tax rate on high earned incomes as well. Result: serious loss of services, record deficits, and the job creation promised by cutting taxes on the rich never happened.

    Democracy - Not Plutocracy!

    by vulcangrrl on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 11:22:06 AM PDT

  •  It would be nice if Obama supported it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, kyril

    He certainly says that he does, but he keeps fighting to keep the tax cuts for the rich. and RR never would have dared to try to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Reagan may have been a corporate stooge and the one who gave the initial shove to push us toward plutocracy, but many of his policies were farther to the left than what we see today.

    •  there is a tax (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasTom, gramofsam1, KayCeSF, KMc, Timeslayer

      increase on rich people for the HCR.

      obama supports the buffet rule.

      •  Oh, sure, he says he does. (0+ / 0-)

        It's kinda convenient for him to say so now, isn't it? The Buffet Rule doesn't have a chance of getting through the House. It would have been nice if he hadn't begged Republicans to let him to extend the tax cuts for the rich.

        TWICE!

        •  well there is (0+ / 0-)

          a medicare payroll tax increase for people making 250,000 dollars or greater. that starts next year.

          when juxtaposed with the bush tax cuts expiring this year, we are on a path to economic sanity :)

          that bush tax cut extension was ONLY temporary and we all got a lot of good things out of that deal such as DADT repeal.

          we are going to have nancy pelosi as speaker next congress so we do not have to worry about republicans placing obama in another december hostage situation.

          •  You're confusing taxes. (0+ / 0-)

            The increase in the Medicare tax does not affect income taxes. The Buffet Rule and what you're talking about are apples and oranges. He needed one so that it would look like his health care finance reform package was financially responsible, even though insurance companies have been able to raise their rates more than even the most observant cynic could have predicted.

            Also, it's surprising that people keep thinking that the Bush tax cuts and the Social Security payroll tax cut will be allowed to expire at the end of this year.  I mean, please. Even GWB was smarter than that: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice.. er ..uhm ..ya can't get fooled again!"

            This will be the THIRD time that the tax cuts will be extended, and next year, you'll be talking about how they'll expire at the end of 2013.

            There's a reason that McConnell is applauding Obama in those photo ops when Obama signs tax bills. He's happy, and when McConnell is happy, it's very bad news for our country.

            •  for me, (0+ / 0-)

              the tax increase on the rich (medicare payroll tax)

              is enough proof for me that he does support tax increases for the wealthy and he won't extend the bush tax cuts again.

              He called it a temporary extension in 2010.

              •  Well,... (0+ / 0-)

                ...some people have to be beaten over the head repeatedly before the get the fact that they're being beaten over the head. How many times will you let him extend the Bush tax cuts before you decide that maybe possibly it might be that he's not going to end them? Five times? Six times?

                Obama will not let the Bush tax cuts expire. He'll "negotiate" to keep them as part of a deal to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

        •  i think begging (0+ / 0-)

          is stretching it too much by the way.

          Obama has called it a "temporary" extension.  

          he did not want it.

          •  Obama DID want to extend the tax cuts. (0+ / 0-)

            In December 2009, John Boehner said that he would vote for a bill that did not extend the tax cuts for the rich if it extended them for the middle class. Obama had won. Three days later, Obama went back to Republicans and asked them to extend all of the tax cuts. And did anyone really believe that the tax cuts would be allowed to expire at the end of 2010? Or 2011? Does anyone really believe that they'll be allowed to expire at the end of this year? If he's any kind of politician at all, Obama knew then and knows now that he can keep this up for five more years.

            C'mon.

    •  It wasn't Reagan, it was the country (0+ / 0-)

      that was "farther to the left than what we see today"....just as it isn't Obama but rather the country that is farther to the right today. Obama tried to raise taxes for the rich, but because he wanted to keep taxes low for the middle class he was unsuccessful at raising taxes on the rich...the Bush tax cuts were a single package, and the Republicans weren't about to allow Obama to maintain the lower rates for the middle class while ending them for the rich.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:01:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The country is farther to the right??? (0+ / 0-)

        The United States?

        The polls have shown throughout his Presidency that the public supports increasing taxes on the rich, yet each time he's had an opportunity to fight for it, he started negotiations by offering to Republicans to continue the tax cuts. Do you remember 2009, when John Boehner said that he would vote for a bill that didn't include extending the cuts for the rich but kept them only for the middle class? Two days later, just before negotiations with Republicans began, Obama said that he would offer to keep all of the tax cuts.

        The polls have shown that the public is unhappy with the health care finance reform bill because it doesn't include a public option. The polls show that the public is widely unhappy with the war in Afghanistan and with military spending. The polls show that people value their civil liberties vastly more than they fear terrorism.

        People may identify themselves as conservatives, but when it comes to actual policies, polls show that they support much more progressive policies than what Obama is offering us. Yet you say that the U.S. is conservative?

        What you believe is wrong.

    •  I watched the speech he gave last week to the AP (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KMc

      If you're interested, you can view it here.  In my view, this is the President "fighting" for what he's trying to accomplish.  Getting in front of the people, in this case the press, telling them what he wants to do, and why.  I think he makes a compelling argument.  He does this a lot.  He's been out pressing the idea of raising taxes on the rich repeatedly, and making his case.  The republicans in congress have refused to budge on the issue; so the President has taken it to the people.  In my view, he is "fighting" to raise taxes on the rich.  But that's just my view.  It is certainly understandable that people have different perspectives; and yours is certainly one of them.

      •  I listened to his pretty words in 2008. (0+ / 0-)

        They were why I knocked on doors for him. This year, I won't care what he says until I see some action to back up those pretty words. I'd try to tell him about it, but he's taken away my right to peaceably assemble in protest to seek redress for my grievances without being strip-searched and thrown in prison for up to ten years.

  •  I know! I know! Choose me! Professor! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, althea in il
    If it wasn't class warfare when Ronald Reagan was calling for it, why is it class warfare now?
    Have you seen what our president looks like? Not like any of those guys on our currency.

    Something different. Beyond French, beyond Socialist, something darker.

    "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

    by CitizenJoe on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:52:14 PM PDT

  •  here's an idea.............. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    let's send the text of this speech to all the right-wingers, not telling them who said it.  Then ask them if they agree.

    Then tell them who actually said it.


    may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:56:58 PM PDT

  •  Here's Reagan from the same year: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AllanTBG, gramofsam1, Panbanisha, kyril
    We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less? TP

    I'd much rather be a champion of the powerless than a lickspittle of the powerful. State Senator Rodney Ellis (D - TX)

    by blueyescryinintherain on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

    •  And note that when Reagan signed tax reform... (4+ / 0-)

      ...into law, it was reform that treated capital gains the same as any other income source.  Ditto for dividend income.

      While there were aspects of that reform that I didn't agree with, it does seem to be true that Reagan was not a fan of special tax treatment for investment income.  Which makes him very, very different from today's Republicans, many of who think that capital gains should be completely tax free.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is it Buffett or Buffet? Because the pre-written (0+ / 0-)

    letter only has one T in it.

    Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt

    by hungrycoyote on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:59:02 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps They'd Prefer a Flat Tax (0+ / 0-)

    A property tax. Flat. No loopholes.

    The group that owns 50% of the wealth should perhaps be paying 50% of the cost of the government.

  •  Ronald Reagan: New Dealer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    and labor union leader. hah

  •  Becuz today St. Ronnie of Hollywood (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    couldn't even get a primary funded, much less dream about being a contender.

    If it wasn't class warfare when Ronald Reagan was calling for it, why is it class warfare now?
    Seriously? I guess they need to talk to the Tea Partiers and remind then who that freaking airport is named for.  

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:04:55 PM PDT

  •  Actually, I think the Reagan reform (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    was actually more sensible than the convoluted "Buffet Rule" that is being promoted today...just tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. Even if the top rate for ordinary income was lowered a bit (not as much as under Reagan, though), that would bring in far more than the "buffet rule" (which I believe only applies to incomes >$1,000,000).

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:05:21 PM PDT

  •  Pretty sad that things have gotten (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    so bad that the Right can't even be dragged back to Reagan any more.


    may we not be strangers in the lush province of joy - Charles Wright

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:06:21 PM PDT

  •  Reagan--like Jesus in a way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Panbanisha, kyril

    Nobody cares what he actually said anymore, his name is only invoked by the right to keep people in line.

  •  The really sad part... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, tardis10

    is that for Democrats to find their political equivalent from the 1980s they have to look to Ronald Reagan. I think this says way more about the state of our country's Democratic party than our Republican party.

    -8.38, -7.38 "Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    by mcthatch on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:15:27 PM PDT

    •  Even sadder (0+ / 0-)

      is that Reagan's proposed rule was more progressive than the current Dem proposal.

      "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

      by kyril on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:50:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  kyril - not exactly (0+ / 0-)

        He did drop the top marginal rate on earned income from 70% to 28%. I don't see any progressive suggesting that we cut the top marginal rate by more than half.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:19:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  well it isn't THAT bogus of an argument (0+ / 0-)

    1) the wealthy DO pay more ' "higher-income people" do pay a pay a "higher percentage of income".  We are talking about capital gains. If this proposal were serious, rather than just political meat, it would simply raise the cap gains rate.

    2) It really is just a drop in the bucket.

    3) Nearly all "millionaires and billionaires" DO pay more than the middle class.  

    Without the Buffett rule, more than 99 percent of millionaires will pay more than the middle class rate 15% and only about 4,000 will pay less.
    •  I guess if $3 billion (0+ / 0-)

      is just a 'drop in the bucket,' then we should never have to hear about our 'wasteful' spending at the NSF, NASA, the EPA, and NOAA, right? Drops in the bucket, all of them. You could cut any one of them by 30%, or all four by 7%, and the result would just be a rounding error.

      But for some reason those 'drops' are terribly important when they're being spent on things Republicans don't like. They're only irrelevant when they're being spent on tax breaks for millionaires.

      "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

      by kyril on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:55:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So why not call it... (0+ / 0-)

    The Reagan-Buffett rule.

    If there were a way to capture the energy of right wing heads exploding, we wouldn't need to drill, baby, drill...

  •  "Where free unions and collective bargaining are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    forbidden, freedom is lost."

    Another gem from Reagan.

    What a socialist nitwit! ;-)

    If people would spend time working for justice instead of attacking other people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), we'd be in MUCH better shape.

    by ScottyUrb on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 06:19:49 PM PDT

  •  Call it the Reagan-Buffett Rule and see if that (0+ / 0-)

    picks up some Independents and Republicans.  There would be widespread appeal for this legislation if it wasn't associated with Obama and congressional Democrats.  Kind of like the insurance mandate and a host of other centrist policies recently proposed.  

  •  These Reagan positions would be too far left for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    420 forever

    today’s Democratic Party.

  •  Class warrior Reagan rails against the 1% (0+ / 0-)

    It's marvelous--Mitt Romney in flop-flop mode

  •  That leg weirds me out (0+ / 0-)
  •  So the Buffet Rule puts progressives (0+ / 0-)

    where Ronald Reagan was 30 years ago.

    Anyone still think "centrism/pragmatism" is a successful strategy?

    What's wrong under Republicans is still wrong under Democrats.

    by gila on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:42:51 PM PDT

  •  "Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives"??? (0+ / 0-)

    When the circles don't intersect....try to confuse the audience?

    Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

    by JesseCW on Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 10:45:28 PM PDT

  •  Darth Obama reaches down to Glenn Skywalker (0+ / 0-)

    "I AM your Reagan"
    "Nooooooooooooooooooo... (sob)"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site