GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

[Matt1970]

People just don't get it. We are overspending to the tune of $1.2 Trillion/Year and this Buffet Rule, if it were to even work, would only generate $20 Billion/year. Clinton era Tax rate restored is $50 billion/year. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

 

[fskimospy]

People just don't get it. We are overspending to the tune of $1.2 Trillion/Year and this Buffet Rule, if it were to even work, would only generate $20 Billion/year. Clinton era Tax rate restored is $50 billion/year. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

I think I'm still waiting on you to tell me when you think an appropriate time to raise taxes would be.

Our spending levels are a correct reaction to a widespread economic depression. Evidence from Europe is all you need in order to see the effects of cutting spending in a depression, which is utter failure.

 

[Matt1970]

I think I'm still waiting on you to tell me when you think an appropriate time to raise taxes would be.

Our spending levels are a correct reaction to a widespread economic depression. Evidence from Europe is all you need in order to see the effects of cutting spending in a depression, which is utter failure.

If you are going to raise taxes then you do when times are prosperous. The problem with our spending levels is our national debt is higher than our GDP and we are going to have to keep spending an increasing percentage of our revenue just on interest alone. If you think spending levels will go down when the economy recovers then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[Lithium381]

Is that like when we "temporarily" raise taxes? We have a spending problem. and it's not recent, i'm not going to try and play the partisain card because it's both sides.

the need to spend every dollar in the budget or risk loosing funding for the subsequent year is silly. if you don't need it this year, don't spend it!!!!!

 

[fskimospy]

If you are going to raise taxes then you do when times are prosperous. The problem with our spending levels is our national debt is higher than our GDP and we are going to have to keep spending an increasing percentage of our revenue just on interest alone. If you think spending levels will go down when the economy recovers then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

It's odd that you believe federal support for unemployment and such will remain at the same levels when unemployment decreases. Of course spending in certain areas will decrease when the economy improves. If you believe otherwise I have a bridge to sell you. The increases in spending on those programs are due to automatic, non discretionary spending increases that exist entirely independently of the legislative process. If the economy improves, fewer people qualify, spending goes down. This isn't really arguable.

So you believe we should increase taxes when times are prosperous. Can you give me rough unemployment/GDP growth figures for when that would be? (just ballpark ones)

 

[fskimospy]

Is that like when we "temporarily" raise taxes? We have a spending problem. and it's not recent, i'm not going to try and play the partisain card because it's both sides.

the need to spend every dollar in the budget or risk loosing funding for the subsequent year is silly. if you don't need it this year, don't spend it!!!!!

The US government expends a significantly lower portion of GDP than most other 1st world countries. Our spending levels are fine, and are in fact quite low in comparison to the rest of the industrialized world. This is particularly evident when you remove our bloated defense sector.

 

[IGBT]

call it what it is. The buffett rule is nothing more then liberal SPITE tax under the guise of "fair" . When liberals talk about "fair" you know they are lying. They are simply promoting envy.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Envy of people that earn more and pay less net taxes?

Is there something wrong with Envy? I thought that was the American Way! 😕

 

[Ausm]

call it what it is. The buffett rule is nothing more then liberal SPITE tax under the guise of "fair" . When liberals talk about "fair" you know they are lying. They are simply promoting envy.

LMAO...Yeah I wish I could getaway with making multi-millions and only paying half of what I do in taxes.... 🙄

 

[PokerGuy]

I think I'm still waiting on you to tell me when you think an appropriate time to raise taxes would be.

This is not difficult. The appropriate time to raise taxes would be when waste has been reduced and spending has been brought under control (ie, growing at a slower pace than the economy for starters). Until then, adding new taxes makes no sense, it's using a spoon to bail water out of a boat with a big leak in the bottom. Step 1: close leak. Step 2: remove water. Arguing about using a teaspoon or tablespoon to bail the water out is pointless until the leak has been fixed.

 

[FerrelGeek]

You could cut defense by 50%, tax the evil rich like you want, and we'd still be in the red every year. What part of that are you unwilling or incapable of understanding?

The total defense spending for the next year is over $900billion.

I love your snide comment about what role the govt should play. I am taking that as we should stop "socilist" "entitlements". Thats funny because the US debt its higher than the EU's debt and the EU is "socialist". That FYI is both in aggregate and per capita. Not to mention several EU nations are in much better economic situations than the US.

One of the US's biggest problems is we spend so god damn much on being the world police. The problem with the republicans, is they want to cut funding for NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood, Social Security, Medicare, etc etc. But are fine with increasing spending on farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, spending more on defense, going to war with Iran. IE: Republicans only support cutting certain programs, but certainly not their own. Fact of the matter, as proven time and time again they would rather cut other programs they dislike and use that money to increase spending on programs they like. The republicans view of what govt should be doing is, assisting their buddies in the corporate world, the american people be damned. Plain and simple.

 

[lotus503]

because taxation is institutionalized theft!

I'll remember that next time you need to use a public road, call a cop or fireman.

 

[lotus503]

Now for the other side of the coin.

What you say is very true however it has been the tendency of the Republicans to spend a great amount of effort opposing, but not coming up with solutions and there is some legitimacy to the criticism that those of lesser incomes are held hostage to the interests of those at the very top. Considering the real increased costs of living there can be a good argument made for AMT changes. That was intended to hit those who were "rich" at the time, however while costs of living have increased that hasn't changed. How about health care reform? I don't mean Obamacare, but I constantly argue for reforms which will facilitate changes beneficial to the system which in turn will benefit the patient. Where are those proposals? Where is the will to do anything?

Instead the Republicans wish to oppose and frankly some of the things passed should never have seen the light of day but find an issue which will resonate with people, a genuinely good idea free from the "protect the board room " mentality and drive it home.

Do something constructive.

AMT has never been adjusted for inflation, just a few last minute expections to try and stop the AMT overreach.

Its time they actually adjust AMT and track it with inflation.

While were at it this whole Idea that long term capital gains should be taxed at %15 is insane. Its income and should be taxed as such.

 

[fskimospy]

This is not difficult. The appropriate time to raise taxes would be when waste has been reduced and spending has been brought under control (ie, growing at a slower pace than the economy for starters). Until then, adding new taxes makes no sense, it's using a spoon to bail water out of a boat with a big leak in the bottom. Step 1: close leak. Step 2: remove water. Arguing about using a teaspoon or tablespoon to bail the water out is pointless until the leak has been fixed.

Give me numbers. How much waste? What kind of waste? How much less spending than GDP growth? I've seen this game played far too many times. Taxes are cut to historically low levels, people say we can't raise them because it's a spending problem. If you reduce spending far enough, then suddenly there's no need to raise taxes. Rinse, repeat.

Nobody is fooled.

 

[fskimospy]

call it what it is. The buffett rule is nothing more then liberal SPITE tax under the guise of "fair" . When liberals talk about "fair" you know they are lying. They are simply promoting envy.

I love how a rule to make millionaires pay the same effective tax rate as the rest of us is somehow spiteful and envious.

Then again, you're IGBT. I'm not surprised. Do you see the hand of the eco-KOOKS in this?

 

[Lithium381]

AMT has never been adjusted for inflation, just a few last minute expections to try and stop the AMT overreach.

Its time they actually adjust AMT and track it with inflation.

While were at it this whole Idea that long term capital gains should be taxed at %15 is insane. Its income and should be taxed as such.

how is it income? income is guaranteed. i work 40 hours and get paid.

investements are a RISK, and the government doesn't offer to mitigate that risk . . . . .

 

[lotus503]

You could cut defense by 50%, tax the evil rich like you want, and we'd still be in the red every year. What part of that are you unwilling or incapable of understanding?

if you cut defense %50 you would gain about 340b a year or 3.5t over 10 years. endign the Bush tax cuts would increase revenue by at least another 100b a year.

thats 440b per year, then tax capital gains at income rates vs %15

there is even more.

shit just cutting defense decreases spending by over %15

 

[lotus503]

how is it income? income is guaranteed. i work 40 hours and get paid.

investements are a RISK, and the government doesn't offer to mitigate that risk . . . . .

When I have a short term gain I still have risks and its taxed as income.

Just because someone has the money to let it sit for a year doesnt mean its not income.

 

[Ninjahedge]

This is not difficult. The appropriate time to raise taxes would be when waste has been reduced and spending has been brought under control (ie, growing at a slower pace than the economy for starters). Until then, adding new taxes makes no sense, it's using a spoon to bail water out of a boat with a big leak in the bottom. Step 1: close leak. Step 2: remove water. Arguing about using a teaspoon or tablespoon to bail the water out is pointless until the leak has been fixed.

That does not work.

Sometimes you need to bail to get to the leak in the first place. The analogy is too loose, lets drop it now before it gets OOC.... 😉

Suffice to say, if all some legislators have are the spoons stuck up their own asses, I say let them start bailing. AT THE SAME TIME we look to cut spending and look for a bucket.

Oops, I continued the analogy.

Anyway, simply saying "well if we do one thing we can't do anything else" is not the way things work, but it seems to be the only way we operate in politics these days.

 

[PokerGuy]

Give me numbers. How much waste? What kind of waste? How much less spending than GDP growth?

Cutting waste is obviously hard to quantify, but I think we can safely say there's still plenty of waste left in the system that should be trimmed (GSA scandal anyone?). At a very minimum spending growth should not exceed GDP growth.

I've seen this game played far too many times. Taxes are cut to historically low levels, people say we can't raise them because it's a spending problem. If you reduce spending far enough, then suddenly there's no need to raise taxes. Rinse, repeat.

Reduce spending far enough? Could you please provide an example of federal spending actually reduced at all? Has there been an instance in modern times where federal spending was actually less in one year following another?

How can you claim you've seen this game played "far too many times" when there haven't been actual spending reductions?

Cut spending, cut waste, then talk about taxes. The leak in the boat has to be fixed before we start arguing about the size of the spoon we use to bail the water out of the boat.

 

[fskimospy]

if you cut defense %50 you would gain about 340b a year or 3.5t over 10 years. endign the Bush tax cuts would increase revenue by at least another 100b a year.

thats 440b per year, then tax capital gains at income rates vs %15

there is even more.

shit just cutting defense decreases spending by over %15

Actually you would probably gain more, depending on what you count as 'defense' spending. In recent years US total defense spending has frequently pushed $1 trillion.

 

[PokerGuy]

Anyway, simply saying "well if we do one thing we can't do anything else" is not the way things work, but it seems to be the only way we operate in politics these days.

You're absolutely right that both things need to happen, preferably at the same time (bail and plug the leak), but for some reason, ONLY increasing income is ever pursued, cutting spending simply never happens. In part because a lot of people simply believe more government is always a good thing, and in part because politicians are simply doing what their constituents are telling them to do ("more free stuff!"), the bottom line is that spending doesn't decrease. Ever. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that until that happens, we as a public should simply not accept any discussion of additional taxes.

 

[Matt1970]

It's odd that you believe federal support for unemployment and such will remain at the same levels when unemployment decreases. Of course spending in certain areas will decrease when the economy improves. If you believe otherwise I have a bridge to sell you. The increases in spending on those programs are due to automatic, non discretionary spending increases that exist entirely independently of the legislative process. If the economy improves, fewer people qualify, spending goes down. This isn't really arguable.

So you believe we should increase taxes when times are prosperous. Can you give me rough unemployment/GDP growth figures for when that would be? (just ballpark ones)

Either way right now is a BAD time to raise taxes. Gov has bad habit of not reducing spending. Mandatory spending aside under Bush's last budget and all of Obama's budgets discretionary spending is way up. We almost shut the country down last time trying to cut 33 billion from a 4 Trillion budget and we had a bipartisan committee give up trying to come to an agreement on cuts to make.

 

[fskimospy]

Either way right now is a BAD time to raise taxes. Gov has bad habit of not reducing spending. Mandatory spending aside under Bush's last budget and all of Obama's budgets discretionary spending is way up. We almost shut the country down last time trying to cut 33 billion from a 4 Trillion budget and we had a bipartisan committee give up trying to come to an agreement on cuts to make.

Actually it really isn't. If you exclude the stimulus, non security related discretionary spending isn't up much at all. Now I know that the stimulus is exactly that sort of spending, but it was a one time deal and so I think it's fair to discuss structural elements outside of it.

Mandatory spending is the true driver of our debt problems. Discretionary spending of the likes that everyone enjoys arguing about is simply not that significant a problem.

 

[lotus503]

Actually you would probably gain more, depending on what you count as 'defense' spending. In recent years US total defense spending has frequently pushed $1 trillion.

Yeah this years budget for defense label is around 690b, so I just used that ballpark