The initiative, calling for a minimum tax of 30 percent on those earning more than $1 million a year has no chance of quickly becoming law, but it anchors Obama's vow to forge an economy where everyone has "a fair shot."
How does taking more money from the rich make everyone get a fair shot? I'm not saying we should not raise taxes, even on everyone, but let's not be delusional that the rich are just going to roll over. Wouldn't a fair shot mean lowering taxes on the Lower and Middle Class so that they have more money to use as they please?
Maybe he is suggesting that a tax on the rich will allow for the FedGov to provide all the myrid multiple services that the Lower and Middle Class can ever want? Personally as a individual citizen, I'd like to keep more of what I earn and then spend it as I see fit, but that is just me. I don't especially trust the FedGov to take care of me.
But Democrats want to force Republicans to cast a vote to oppose the tax, which Obama and party allies can then use to castigate their foes on the campaign trail ahead of November's election.
Republicans argue that Obama's tax plans would hamper job creation and growth by forcing many small business owners to pay more money to the government -- cash which could be used to expand their businesses.
They also say the Buffett rule is a bid to deflect attention from Obama's failure to ignite a strong rebound and would do nothing to fix problems haunting the recovery, including the bloated deficit and high gas prices.
I feel sorry for Obama. He came into 2008 saying he was going to fix the economy, or at least his fanatical fans said so. And yet, here we are in 2012 and we're not much better off then 2009. Housing is still down. Unemployment is still Up. National Debt and Deficit are still WAY up. In 2009, we were told we'd be back to 2002 levels of Deficit, and that the Debt would be under control. Well it isn't and now Obama is going to have to eat that sandwich.