still deep divisions among members of both parties.
of maine announced she will back the proposal saying it doesn't infringe on second amendment rights but understands it's unpopular in her own state and i guess that was underlined by the governor of maine aggressively inviting gun makers to come to his state. on sunday, senator
went on seven or eight shows and said that actually a
would not make it harder for criminals to get guns.
they are highly accomplish in protecting the right of law abiding citizens to possess weapons which the second amendment guarantees and constitutional right and if the reason why we are doing this in essence spending our time talking about
as somehow criminals no longer get guns because they have to get a gun to go through a
we are lying to people. criminals will no longer get guns because they have to undergo a
we are lying to people. that is not true. the fact of the matter is we have a violence problem in america. guns are what people are using but violence is their problem and nobody is having a debate about the violence problem. i think this is a missed opportunity to have an honest and open conversation in the country about why these horrible and horrifying things are happen.
yes, senator rubio criminals will still get guns. the idea is to make sure fewer criminals get guns. to make sure members of
don't go on the internet and say to jihadists across the world come, to america because we don't have criminal
that are sufficient. so people can actually buy bushmasters and other military style weapons on the internet or at gun shows. i don't get the logic. congressman
is expected to introduce the house version of the bill as early as today. over the weekend backers of legislation picked up support from
citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms
. also richard feldman president of the independent firearms association and announced his group is backing the manchin/toomey
bill. so, senator, what does it look like? do we think that manchin/toomey has a chance of passing the senate?
it does but it's going to be close. 60, 61 votes. listen, senator rubio is just wrong, right? since the
went into effect, 2 million people who were legally prohibited from owning guns were stopped at the
when they went in because they tried to get a
and couldn't get it. the argument the criminals will obey the law law is ridiculous clus. any time you pass a law some people will not obey it so --
like the tsa checkpoints at the airports.
are still going to try to smuggle through drugs, too much cash, contraband, knives.
doesn't mean we stop doing it.
exactly. doesn't mean we shut down what the senator suggests we shut down all screening at airports tomorrow because criminals will still smulg things through there?
i think what has happened here you can't explain the opposition of
is powerful. what you have here today is a bunch of
darwinists, right some who just believe
will take care of this problem. you put guns in the good guys and
you hope the good guys stop the
. they say the only way to stop a
is a good guy with a gun. you can't stop the
by saying the
is powerful. i think a lot will vote against this and way to solve this is throw a mess of guns out and there let the folks shoot it out. it me a while to figure out there is a philosophy underlying this that allow people to justify being against
. not just that the
are telling these guys to vote the wrong way but they believe the streets will be safer if criminals have guns and it's ridiculous.
it's a 90/10 issue, ben. i'm not talking about
bans or high capacity magazines. i'm talking about criminal
. 90% of americans support this. in florida, where
is from, 90% of floridians in a very conservative state support criminal
. i hear a lot of people making noise and posturing. i've been in washington long enough to know that if something is 90/10 issue, it passes.
yeah. there's certainly a dozen or more republican senators feeling that right now and weighing relatively
of angry people who remember this versus a broader number of people who will support this. i think the question is whether they feel an intensity to their support whether they will be rewarded or who care are the
we showed earlier this morning, bob, something the president said in politico attacking
, saying that millionaires, obviously, think they only have to pay about, you know, 17%, 18% in taxes? the news came out overnight what the president paid in taxes. you just kind of wonder, right? right? where were the political advisers and who was his accountant? the president pays, after attacking
for a year, the president pays 18.4% in taxes!
. my sister's birthday also. and i generally say it's the only day where you think you made too much money over the course of the year, right?
can i read this quickly?
said during the campaign, my opponent thinks that someone who makes $20 million a year like him should make a lower
than a cop or a teacher who makes $50,000. i've heard estimates the president is worth $14 million. and he is paying less in taxes than a teacher.
yes, at some point -- it's good to get this attention put on the issue. at some point we have to look at
people and that sort of thing who shouldn't have to pay a much larger percentage of their income in taxes than folks who are very wealthy and the president is a very wealthy individual.
he is a very wealthy individual. senator, the president has been running around talking about how the rich have paid their
and getting a free ride off the rest of us and rich aren't contributing, the bush tax. i keep hearing billionaires on my show saying i don't need the
. they don't need the
because they never pay! they don't pay what i pay! they don't pay what you pay. they don't pay what any of us suckers that got a salary pay. th they get their
because they have the best accountants and best lawyers. it just seems unbelievably unfair.
18% is a pretty high rate to pay for people that are making that amount of money. you know? maybe the president should get another set of accountants.
18% is high? would you like to pay 18%? i'd love to pay 18%! if i could pay 18%, i mean, sign me up, brother? i need the president's accountants! it smacks at hypocrisy, doesn't it?
the fact is we can't run this country based on the amount of revenue we are collecting today. we can't collect 18% from people making that much money and be able to afford to build roads and bridges and educate kids and do the research we need to. we need to make the admission this nation can't run on collecting 17% of gdp and largely making out of the the people making that kind of cash.
you have hedge funders up in your state?
how did hedge funders who make billions of dollars, how do they get meese special deals? i'm just jealous, first of all, they got that money and secondly i can't pay 15% in
. how have we let that stay on the books as long as we have?
first of all, it's not just a carve out for
. this is an issue about broader pass-through income that
managers collect a lot of it. i think we have built up a mythology in this nation that
drives all economic
and not true and maybe not the extent it used to be. if a
manager pays more in income not change their
and not top them from making risks. they will still make billions of dollars. i think we have to step back and say that this millingoloythology of people only investing mon ining money is 15%
so not true.
you hear in the "times" story story --
they make money when they lose and when they win.
the game is rigged and, you know, you have to
about it until you get to a point where the mantjority of the country says we will not take it any more and we want a fairer deal.
, thank you for coming by.
ben and bob, stick around, please.