Megyn Kelly, Anthony Weiner Battle Over Obama's Tax Deal (VIDEO)

Megyn Kelly got into a heated argument with Rep. Anthony Weiner over President Obama's tax cut deal with Republicans.

The two kept talking over each other as they tried to make their respective points. Kelly kept asking Weiner -- one of many House Democrats to express deep dissatisfaction with the deal -- what, exactly, Obama could have done to get a better deal, besides "bang his head against the wall" that is the Senate Republican caucus.

Weiner, for his part, insisted that Obama could have attacked the tax issue in a much more aggressive political way than he did, and that he had made a grave mistake about an issue that the American public supported him on.

But it was the issue of the estate tax that really got the two going. Kelly asked why it was so unreasonable to want lower taxes on your estate.

"You aren't paying anything in that case because you'll be dead," Weiner replied. The conversation only went downhill from there. At one point, Weiner actually turned away from the camera and sighed, frustrated that he couldn't seem to get a word in edgewise. "Ready?" he said sarcastically after Kelly had finished her question.

WATCH:

Comments

[baileywick]

06:35 PM on 12/13/2010

Kelly, like Sarah and GWB, is simply a bully.

[Right2voice]

07:35 PM on 12/10/2010

I don't understand how the left can think that everyone paying at the same PERCENTAGE rate isn't fair. The rich ARE paying more in taxes because it's based on a PERCENTAGE. Why isn't that enough?

[noway lv]

12:53 AM on 12/11/2010

An equal percentage is NOT fair. Say the middle class earned $1 and the upper class earned $4, an equal 25% tax would leave the middle class with $0.75 and the upper class with $3 . . . do you see how little the middle class would have left to pay for necessities while the upper class would have more than enough for their needs?

[Right2voice]

02:43 AM on 12/12/2010

But then those who don't have enough to buy necessities could/ would/ are supplemented by govt. programs like food stamps. The higher amount that the rich are paying is already going towards helping those who don't have enough. It's not right to ask them for more... they are already paying their fair share.

[tedpikul]

04:35 PM on 12/10/2010

Yeah but she's so pretty!

Obama doesn't have enough folks on his side on the tax issue - like he would in a sane world - because so many folks still have a bad case of cr@cketitis.

[tedpikul]

04:36 PM on 12/10/2010

Sorry "cr@ckeritis".

[sfsoma]

03:57 PM on 12/10/2010

The purpose of the estate tax is to prevent concentration of wealth and the nation's assets in the hands of too few people, thereby giving them inordinate control of the economy and government. This is the basis for why it is a fair deal for the American people. It is a policy decision more than a revenue one. This has been the general policy for much of the life our nation. Yes, it is redistribution of the wealth for the public good to prevent our government deteriorating into something like what exists in Russia today.

[ruburnt]

02:58 PM on 12/10/2010

Call it what it is Redistribution of wealth........the progressive way.....

[Ken Maddox]

03:31 PM on 12/10/2010

Okay! Let's call it what you think it is. Now what?

[Nealb4Zodd2]

04:43 PM on 12/10/2010

You tell us, Ken. Now what?

[Clifford Zugay]

02:53 PM on 12/10/2010

The class envy found here is extremely disturbing. The notion that you should be entitled to take what others have earned has somehow become a virtue with our generation. I am ashamed to be born in this era, and can't figure out for the life of me how it has become the prevailing thought.
The idea that Weiner thinks this way is shameful. That he would shout it on television is worse. That so many of you are willing to applaud him is depressing to know about your character.

[Ken Maddox]

03:48 PM on 12/10/2010

This is not about class or envy. No one is entitled. Everyone is obligated. This thing call America, and all the things that America means, is expensive to maintain.
The fact that free enterprise rewards different people in different amounts, and that to be free and able to pursue your God given rights, there must be a means available to govern that allows all people to be free.
That was the thinking behind the progressive income tax that is the American way of paying for our government. The government does not redistribute wealth as a means to make all people the same. Our way is to redistribute wealth to maintain all people at a minimum level of well being. We strive to insure that everyone has at least enough to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and their families. This is not a path to comfortable living it is only a safety net to prevent our fellow Americans from sinking into an environment that will only bring about suffering, sickness, and death.
We tax to provide funds to insure our security, safety, health, and, as a point of last resort, a means to survive and live.
We are America, land of the free, home of the brave, and the richest nation on earth. We will not sit by and watch the powerful destroy the weak, for we are the protectors of the weak, and we will not change that philosophy.

[Mismindles]

02:50 PM on 12/10/2010

I don't understand why so many people are eager to give the gov't more & more money. When the 16th amendment was passed, the tax was about 3% & people weren't thrilled a/b paying THAT! Who among us really thinks the government spends our money wisely? Yet at the same time we scream how the wealthy need to give more money to the people who drove us into a ditch (government). Weiner says we need that tax money to pay off the debt-no, honestly, we need to live on a real budget in order to pay off the debt. The more money the gov't gets, the more they spend. right after Obama took office-there were commercials & mailers inviting people to please check out the food stamp program (S.N.A.P) I recall a commercial with 2 little old ladies talking & one explaining how cool & hip the new program is. Since when do we advertise welfare as a cool thing?

If we're going to require the rich to "pay their fair share" here's my proposal....require them to pay the normal amount in taxes (roughly20-25%) then all excess money has to be donated to charity-this would relieve the federal gov't of taking care of so many poor people & instead of rewarding laziness, the wealthy can donate their money to programs that teach the less fortunate skills in order to get jobs & reward productivity vs laziness.
What a CRAZY idea!

[BevfromNYC]

01:11 PM on 12/14/2010

The wealthy already DO donate billions to charity...

[joedawg88]

02:00 PM on 12/10/2010

She's such a d bag. And while he's no hot dog, he is on a roll...

[ffa1234]

01:46 PM on 12/10/2010

Megyn Kelly says inherited money isn't "unearned income" . . . people worked hard to get into the will?

[MoeB]

11:36 AM on 12/10/2010

So, once again, it appears the wealthy have won out...here we are debating a tax that probably NONE OF US will ever incur. The estate tax. People are here defending the wealthy, and the reason is, ultimately, this whole idea that maybe, possibly, if we work harder and longer hours, that we too will have millions or billions to pass on to our family...the reality is that it is VERY unlikely to happen.

Meanwhile, millionaires/billionaires are somehow managing to do quite well in this horrible economy (well, horrible if you're poor, working poor, or middle-class...well, what's left of the middle-class). They aren't (for the most part) fighting for you...it's time we, the majority, fight for ourselves...we can no longer afford to wait on the rich to remember that we are JUST AS VITAL to the success of this nation as they are.

[RickyPoo]

11:33 AM on 12/10/2010

It was funny to watch Weiner school Kelly about how negotiations in DC are supposed to work.

Kelly's points were as phony as that si!!y cocktail dress picture she appeared in. She completely typifies Don Henley's "bubble-headed bleach blond".

[JanPoore]

09:53 AM on 12/10/2010

This is supposed to be the "fair and balanced" news hour on Faux NEws, not the commentary hour. Does anyone ever tell Megyan Kelly that?
 
Faux News - Fairly Unbalanced.

[GenXLiberal]

01:19 PM on 12/10/2010

This network would make Goebels proud. They can thank themselves for the dumbing down of this country. Lying has no consequences, and the press fails to stand up for the truth.

[Clifford Zugay]

02:55 PM on 12/10/2010

A sense of entitlement for you to take what others have earned is not a "dumbing down?" We need Gen X to become more self-reliant and proud than that.

[Nealb4Zodd2]

04:40 PM on 12/10/2010

and you calling FOX NEWS, Faux news . . what's that? - -If you're suggesting MSNBC with Rachel Maddow and when she brings on Republicans who disagree with her is fair, pleasant and cordial . . you're dilusional.

I, felt Kelly was more than patient with Weiner . .she asked questions . .he wouldnt answer it directly. - and then while doing so, he was a giant sized D-bag.

you people tossing out the "Faux News" title like you're clever and hilarious are the same tards that toss out "tea baggers" and then giggle like Beavis & butthead. - you're not interested in talking and compromising. its alllll about you being right. you people have a very unhealthy "us verses them" mentality. its gotta stop. its childish.

[statementOfIncensed]

02:32 AM on 12/10/2010

Nonsense, no? Such collections of capital are typically tax exempt, subject to capital gains at time of disbursal. And distribution to survivors counts as disbursal.

[tice]

12:15 AM on 12/10/2010

The distinction is whether or not you feel that familial gifted money is somehow different from other forms of windfalls: lottery winnings, casino winnings, etc.

I think both sides have strong arguments. On one hand it is unearned income to the person receiving it, this is true. On the other why does the gov't need to get involved when my dad bequeaths me the money he put his blood and sweat into earning?

[MoeB]

11:14 AM on 12/10/2010

Because your dad isn't being taxed...YOU are...for, like you correctly stated, "unearned income"...you didn't DO anything special to get it...you were just lucky enough to be born to the parent(s) you have (or had in this case). To me at least, this is the same as casino winnings, lottery winnings, etc. Throwing some dice or picking random numbers, to ME, is not earnings. So it should be taxed.

And let's be realistic...how many people in this country are really affected by the estate tax? I say we keep it at current levels (maybe even raise it), and move on to tax issues that actually affect the MAJORITY of americans. I'm tired of having our tax laws consistently catered to what the rich WANT.

[tice]

12:28 PM on 12/10/2010

I know I'm the one being taxed. I didn't say it was a double tax, I didn't say I did anything to earn it.

But if I save up $50,000 before I die, I should be able to give my kid $50,000, not $30,000 for him and $20,000 for the gov.

Now on the other hand if I want to leave my kid 50 million, I have no problem with him not getting 50 million. I guess I'm for leaving kids all of your hard earned money, within reason, but not passing on dynastic wealth.

Like Buffett does, give you kids enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.

Maybe you feel it's like winning the lottery but if you toiled for 30 years to leave your kid a modest sum I wouldn't think it unreasonable to feel that they are entitled to 100 percent of a modest sum. For many people the immediate family unit is seen as one entity, not a collection of individuals.

[JazzOrgan626]

09:41 PM on 12/09/2010

Weiner never answered Kelly's key point: If people work all their life and pay taxes on their income, why is it taxed again when they die??

[Danish5666]

10:07 PM on 12/09/2010

It's not taxed twice.

[ssp783]

10:12 PM on 12/09/2010

How do you figure the same money isn't taxed twice? It's taxed when the individual earns it and then taxed again when it's gifted on that person's death.

Listen, I'm all for taxing rich a-holes who don't deserve the money they earned and giving it to other people who didn't earn it. But that's pretty clearly double taxation.

[rickroland]

08:28 AM on 12/10/2010

Yes it is. Next!

[Nopinky]

11:12 PM on 12/09/2010

Same reason it's taxed as income to you, as payment under a sales tax, and as income to any employees you pay. It stops being this static thing in your account when you pass and the money goes on to another person. The person receiving the income pays the tax on the income. It's not sinister, it's not backwards, and it's not unfair. Any money or benefits you get from anywhere is income. Income is taxed. That's all there is to it. Estate taxes affect income you didn't do anything to get - it's a windfall to the recipient (and yes I realize that's pretty morbid, but it's a fact), so getting outraged by having to pay taxes on income YOU didn't work for is hard to really justify.