The Buffett Rule vs. Obama’s Budget

[lonestar]

The Buffett Rule vs. Obama’s Budget
Posted on April 17, 2012 by Conservative Byte


The Buffett Rule would impose a minimum 30 percent tax on businesses and families earning $1 million. That would bring in $47 billion in revenue over ten years. Next to the President’s budget, which adds $6.7 trillion to the national debt, you can see that Obama’s answer to America’s budget woes isn’t much of an answer at all. Do the math, and you’ll find that the Buffett Rule would cover just 0.7% of all of Obama’s debt and .1% of Obama’s spending.

http://conservativebyte.com/2012/04/...obamas-budget/


just more flim flam from the Dumos

[snowspot66]

Two entirely separate issues.

[Garcia Bronco]

It's a symbolic bill. Everyone with a brain knows it doesn't fix the spending problem that Congress has. Cut spending yesterday and leave taxes the **** alone.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

Two entirely separate issues.

Ahhh no.

[Garcia Bronco]

I also read the legalizing and taxing Pot is estimated at 13 billion annual revenue. hmmmm...me thinks the wrong bill is being vote on.

[Smiling Assassin27]

But, but, the Buffett Bill will fully cover what Obama spends in the next...17 hours! Budget balanced by 2526, baby!

[TonyR]

So Andrew Sullivan wrote this on his blog yesterday:

And so my heart sinks as I see Obama drifting to the left, offering the silly Buffett Rule instead of serious tax reform...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ch-repeat.html


Today he posted reader responses:

According to a CNN/ORC International survey, 72% favor the "Buffett Rule." So I have to disagree with your assessment of Obama "drifting to the left."

Another:

It's the tip of the damn spear, Andrew. It's the most obvious, publicly favored, contrast-drawing component of a larger tax plan. It alone would bring in $47 billion in the next ten years, and that's if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to sunset. Add a hundred billion if it doesn't. It also establishes a basic fairness that was advocated by Ronald Reagan himself. Yet today's GOP not only will not support it, they will filibuster it while the media casually reports that 60 votes are necessary for anything to pass.

Another:

Obama tried serious budget reform and you saw how far that got.

He has now tried two small tax code changes. The Republicans rallied to defend the massive and blatantly useless tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Now they've rallied to defend the wealthiest from paying historically low taxes, just higher historically low taxes than they do today.

The Buffett Rule was a very good piece of costless politics. The lines are now very clearly drawn between the parties, and the CBO is on Obama's side. This is not the time for a sinking heart. Serious tax reform was never going to happen during our economic rebuilding phase anyway.

Now if Obama is reelected and he still does not perform on serious tax reform, then MY heart will sink. But I always thought this wouldn't be touched until his second term. This is partly due to an influential writer and blogger who convinced me that Obama played "the long game" and was planning on two terms right from the beginning.

Another:

Sometimes all we need are simple, incremental tweaks. I'd think that a conservative would be 100% in line with this type of thinking. Raising taxes on the Buffett-level segment of population is a simple, fair-minded reform that nets billions in deficit reduction over the years. Incrementally adjusting Social Security and Medicare caps can push each system's solvency out for decades.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....epeat-ctd.html

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

It's a symbolic bill. Everyone with a brain knows it doesn't fix the spending problem that Congress has. Cut spending yesterday and leave taxes the **** alone.

I agree,instead worrying about passing the buffett rule,even though it should get passed,just wait until dec. 31st and our tax revenue problem will solve itself when the GWB tax cuts expire.

[pricejj]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

I agree,instead worrying about passing the buffett rule,even though it should get passed,just wait until dec. 31st and our tax revenue problem will solve itself when the GWB tax cuts expire.

The Democrat super-majority renewed the "Bush" tax rates 2 years ago, why wouldn't they do it again?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

I agree,instead worrying about passing the buffett rule,even though it should get passed,just wait until dec. 31st and our tax revenue problem will solve itself when the GWB tax cuts expire.

It really won't. The problem is the spending. Plus your taxes and everyone else's taxes go up. Compound that with rising fuel costs and the the cost of goods and we have a big obstacle for our economy.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

It really won't. The problem is the spending. Plus your taxes and everyone else's taxes go up. Compound that with rising fuel costs and the the cost of goods and we have a big obstacle for our economy.

spending does need to be addressed,but your lying to yourself if you think that spending by itself solves it. yes GB all our taxes need to go up.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by pricejj

The Democrat super-majority renewed the "Bush" tax rates 2 years ago, why wouldn't they do it again?

lol except we didn't have a super-majority when they got extended. If we had a "super-majority" we would've split the tax cuts,extending them for the middle class & not for those making over $250,000 which is exactly what Obama was trying to do.since we DID NOT..I REPEAT DID NOT HAVE A SUPER-MAJORITY we extended the GWB tax cuts.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

spending does need to be addressed,but your lying to yourself if you think that spending by itself solves it. yes GB all our taxes need to go up.

They really don't. The tax rates are fine...The problem is spending. It's called a budget. I have one. I am sur eyou have one....our Governments do not.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

They really don't. The tax rates are fine...The problem is spending. It's called a budget. I have one. I am sur eyou have one....our Governments do not.

tax revenue is not fine, unlike your household or mine,the federal government can rase revenue which needs to be done.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

tax revenue is not fine, unlike your household or mine,the federal government can rase revenue which needs to be done.

No. Federal Government gets plenty from everyone that can pay.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

No. Federal Government gets plenty from everyone that can pay.

only in your dreams.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

It's a symbolic bill. Everyone with a brain knows it doesn't fix the spending problem that Congress has. Cut spending yesterday and leave taxes the **** alone.

The #1 spending problem is military. It consumes almost 100% of personal income tax revenue (when you factor in related expenses like VA costs). If you don't address that, nothing else will matter. Are you willing to make major cuts (35%+) to military spending to bring it back in line with spending from a decade ago?

SS and medicare are funded mandates, and have never contributed a single dime to the debt. They've actually run a surplus -- totaling over a trillion dollars -- for going on 40 years, but Reagan allowed that surplus to start being used for discretionary spending.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

The #1 spending problem is military. It consumes almost 100% of personal income tax revenue (when you factor in related expenses like VA costs). If you don't address that, nothing else will matter. Are you willing to make major cuts (35%+) to military spending to bring it back in line with spending from a decade ago?

SS and medicare are funded mandates, and have never contributed a single dime to the debt. They've actually run a surplus -- totaling over a trillion dollars -- for going on 40 years, but Reagan allowed that surplus to start being used for discretionary spending.

Total bull****.

All the military 'spending' you mention comprises about 25% of the budget. And much if not most of the veterans health expense would simply get shifted to other federal programs if you were going to eliminate them.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Total bull****.

All the military 'spending' you mention comprises about 25% of the budget. And much if not most of the veterans health expense would simply get shifted to other federal programs if you were going to eliminate them.

You're completely wrong:

Info from the President's 2012 budget request:

Individual Income tax revenue (requested): $1141bn

DoD/WAR Spending: $710bn
VA Spending: $130bn
HS Spending: $46bn
DoE Spending (nukes): $20bn (guess at 50%)
Department of the Treasury (pays out military pensions): $115bn
NASA Spending (NASA does a lot of military R&D): $9bn (guess at 50%)

Total Military/Defense (just what they disclose): $1030 bn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

So I was a little off, it only consumes around 90% of individual income taxes. My Bad.

As for SS/Med:

Social Security is currently running a small deficit for the first time in 30+ years ($20bn) due to unemployment and a reduction in the SS payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%.

Medicare is currently running a significant deficit but won't be officially in the red (meaning total outlays > total income over the life of the program) for another 15 years. Of course, that trust money was stolen to pay for other things, but that's not medicare's fault.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Total bull****.

All the military 'spending' you mention comprises about 25% of the budget. And much if not most of the veterans health expense would simply get shifted to other federal programs if you were going to eliminate them.

Also, I never said we should cut VA benefits. You're just doing the usual "oh look, he wants to take away soldier's health care, he hates veterans!) schtick.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

You're completely wrong:

Info from the President's 2012 budget request:

Individual Income tax revenue (requested): $1141bn

DoD/WAR Spending: $710bn
VA Spending: $130bn
HS Spending: $46bn
DoE Spending (nukes): $20bn (guess at 50%)
Department of the Treasury (pays out military pensions): $115bn
NASA Spending (NASA does a lot of military R&D): $9bn (guess at 50%)

Total Military/Defense (just what they disclose): $1030 bn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

So I was a little off, it only consumes around 90% of individual income taxes. My Bad.

As for SS/Med:

Social Security is currently running a small deficit for the first time in 30+ years ($20bn) due to unemployment and a reduction in the SS payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2%.

Medicare is currently running a significant deficit but won't be officially in the red (meaning total outlays > total income over the life of the program) for another 15 years. Of course, that trust money was stolen to pay for other things, but that's not medicare's fault.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

Problem is this is just the beginning of deficits when it comes to Medicare. It's all implosion from here on out. I'm happy that you're happy that "It's Not Medicare's Fault! that the trust fund is vapor.

But the fact of the matter is that money is gone. And ringing our hands over whether that's fair or not won't pay the bills.

And it's cute to only count Individual Income Tax revenue for some unknown reason, even though it's a minority of federal revenue. Unless the point is to emphasize numbers that don't effectively mean anything useful.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Also, I never said we should cut VA benefits. You're just doing the usual "oh look, he wants to take away soldier's health care, he hates veterans!) schtick.

No, I really want to look at budget items in dollars and cents. I'm just saying that cutting benefit spending there likely just means adding them back somewhere else, so you can't count it all as potential savings.