GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

[Ausm]

It wouldn't fill in more than 5% of the deficit. No one in their right mind would just give 60% of their income to the federal government if they could afford not to.

Where is the data on this?

 

[glenn1]

You know, if every single year, someone holds you up and steals your wallet, you'd think you would move to some place where that doesn't happen ... every single year.

I find it odd that libertarians would voluntarily have their hard earned cash stolen rather than moving to, say, the libertarian paradise of Somalia.

Just like progressives are lining up to move to the long time Democrat-led paradise of Detroit? Hell, Mogadishu might be an improvement over that shithole.

 

[Ausm]

True, but it also doesn't matter much since it wouldn't have gone anywhere in the GOP-led House where filibuster rules don't apply anyway. Democrats get what pretty much what they expected out of the result in the Senate, which is a campaign issue for them to run on come Fall. Whether that helps them much is up for debate; personally I doubt it will move the needle much since in polls people support the idea of higher taxes for the rich but it's not a high-intensity issue for anyone but the most rabid partisans.

I love it when we put them on the spot. Hopefully they will make a campaign add illustrating the type of gridlock President Obama has been up against. If it isn't the a Republican abusing the Filibuster in the Senate then it's the Tea Party trying to rule the majority while being in the minority.

 

[Paul98]

This is only a very very small piece when trying to fix the deficit. But that is only one reason for the increase. The other is so that the top income earners who are paying much less than others pay similar to the rest of the top income earners. Plus in line with the progressive income tax structure.

 

[piasabird]

Rich people can afford not to sell stock for a while. Even the president on his tax return was recieving dividends. So let this bill go into effect so he can be taxed some more. I have yet to earn $100k even with both myself and my wife filing a joint return. Republicans are looking at this all wrong. The entire GOP should abstain from voting and let the democrats pass the bill on their votes alone. In fact they could just let the desperate liberal republicans vote against the bill that are in tough areas and just most of them abstain. Just let the democrats pass the bill and see what happens come election time when the public sees what happens. You think rich wall street types will donate to the democrats that increased their taxes???

 

[piasabird]

This is not about the taxes or the rich, it is all about forcing Republicans to defend lowering the tax rate for rich people. So Just let the democrats vote for it.

 

[Lithium381]

It's a start and when we couple this with the Bush tax cuts expiring we will start getting our Fiscal house in order. That's if we don't have ten more Wars down the road.

or, instead of taxing everyone more (OH THOSE EVIL MILLIONAIRES!!!!) how about spend less, that helps get your fiscal house in order, too.

 

[Lithium381]

Rich people can afford not to sell stock for a while. Even the president on his tax return was recieving dividends. So let this bill go into effect so he can be taxed some more. I have yet to earn $100k even with both myself and my wife filing a joint return. Republicans are looking at this all wrong. The entire GOP should abstain from voting and let the democrats pass the bill on their votes alone. In fact they could just let the desperate liberal republicans vote against the bill that are in tough areas and just most of them abstain. Just let the democrats pass the bill and see what happens come election time when the public sees what happens. You think rich wall street types will donate to the democrats that increased their taxes???

My wife and I have yet to file a joint 60k return . . . . we're not rich by any stretch but I think the Dems are looking at the problem the wrong way. I also don't think the Republicans are playing their cards right either. Make a flat federal tax @ 15% and then let the states they live in figure out the rest. Creates no loopholes and significantly reduces complexity. It reduces costs and increases the ability to predict income. Don't spend over budget. This also gives the states the go-ahead to bump up the tax rates a bit more and keep the money local!

 

[Fenixgoon]

WTF??? all of this smoke and mirrors crap for $46.7B over the next 10 years??

The bill would raise $46.7 billion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, so it would in itself do little to reduce the long-term mismatch between revenues and spending.

exactly. passing the "buffet rule" would do little to offset the current fiscal situation.

congress needs to enact meaningful cuts in spending. quite frankly, that's the only way. and you're not going to be able to do much if you take medicare/medicaid and defense off the table. yeah, you'll get a billion here and there. but at the end of the day, you'll still be hundreds of billions in debt until you tackle the real cost drivers.

 

[Throckmorton]

Let's tax the super wealthy at 0% then, since it does so little for the deficit... Imagine all the jobs they can create.

 

[woodie1]

I'm not surprised since they filibuster everything but it really shows you where they stand.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11229733-senate-rejects-buffett-rule?lite

Why would you be surprised. This has been a non-starter for a long time. The results are foregone. Seems like politicians wasting time instead of cutting spending.

 

[Moonbeam]

Until the middle class and the poor realize that nothing can save them but a revolutionary constitutional convention, nothing will change. It will only get worse. And of course it will get worse because no such convention will ever occur.

 

[Lithium381]

Let's tax the super wealthy at 0% then, since it does so little for the deficit... Imagine all the jobs they can create.

why stop there, why not tax everyone at 0%. income has no correlation to spending when it comes to the government . . . there is no desire to pay down the national debt, run a surplus so why bother? lets just spend spend spend

 

[Zebo]

Until the middle class and the poor realize that nothing can save them but a revolutionary constitutional convention, nothing will change. It will only get worse. And of course it will get worse because no such convention will ever occur.

Never say never. when dollars are worthless and people cant buy stuff or eat you'll see big changes....happens like all the time for all time. Revolutions Arab springs etc. Another thing that happens is no matter what form govt comes out of it new rich will get richer because that happens naturally too due to way money and power works.

 

[Phokus]

Just like progressives are lining up to move to the long time Democrat-led paradise of Detroit? Hell, Mogadishu might be an improvement over that shithole.

I'm from TAXachusetts, which is a much better place to live than the Red State Shitholes that most conservatives live in.

 

[woodie1]

I'm from TAXachusetts, which is a much better place to live than the Red State Shitholes that most conservatives live in.

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. Shame, shame on you.

 

[fskimospy]

Just like progressives are lining up to move to the long time Democrat-led paradise of Detroit? Hell, Mogadishu might be an improvement over that shithole.

Nope, it sure isn't.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm from TAXachusetts, which is a much better place to live than the Red State Shitholes that most conservatives live in.

You sure? TAXachusetts seems to have turned you into a giant ass 😉

 

[Throckmorton]

I like how conservatives now not only favor a "flat tax" but also a regressive tax, because "it's only $20 billion dollars a year". Is that seriously your justification for obscenely wealthy people paying 15%? That if they were all taxed at the top bracket instead, it wouldn't get the government that more revenue? Seriously?

 

[Matt1970]

The latest in concern trolling- when somebody proposes a move in the right direction, pooh-pooh it, offer that we should do nothing instead.

You don't tax your way out of a recession. Everyone seemed to understand that untill now.

 

[Matt1970]

I like how conservatives now not only favor a "flat tax" but also a regressive tax, because "it's only $20 billion dollars a year". Is that seriously your justification for obscenely wealthy people paying 15%? That if they were all taxed at the top bracket instead, it wouldn't get the government that more revenue? Seriously?

Because even when the top rates were at 70-90% we still ran deficits. Progressives love to blame the Deficit on the Bush tax cuts but even the highest estimates on the revenue ending the cuts will bring is $90Billion/Year. Someone get back to me when $90Billion Revenue closes a $1.2Trillion Deficit.

 

[nageov3t]

it's pure political theater... the Buffet Rule wouldn't even affect Warren Buffet because it doesn't do a thing about capital gains.

 

[boomerang]

it's pure political theater... the Buffet Rule wouldn't even affect Warren Buffet because it doesn't do a thing about capital gains.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was going to post this. Now, if someone would hold Ausm's hand and explain that every vote against what he wants is not a filibuster, the thread could be put to rest.

Why devote our time and resources towards symbolic legislation that will do nothing to reduce the gargantuan spending and borrowing by our government? Why do we need to assuage the minds of those mired in petty jealousy over what other people have? To what end? When the dust settles we're still broke, still careening off the cliff, still destined for enormous changes that are just as devastating as any natural disaster of proportions that will eclipse anything Hollywood could ever dream up.

Why do we do this? Because we keep hoping we'll escape unscathed. That it won't affect us, that it won't happen until after we're dead, because something magical will happen to counter it - I guess.

Well, it's important to "win". One party will be victorious this November. But no matter who wins, we lose unless we're willing to take on the issue of our debt. I don't expect that to happen. The next guy can take care of that. Taxing the rich isn't the answer and anyone honest with himself knows this.

 

[Ausm]

or, instead of taxing everyone more (OH THOSE EVIL MILLIONAIRES!!!!) how about spend less, that helps get your fiscal house in order, too.

I covered that in the not having ten Wars comment.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's a start and when we couple this with the Bush tax cuts expiring we will start getting our Fiscal house in order. That's if we don't have ten more Wars down the road.

20 billion isn't but a third of what we pay in NY alone for Medicaid which no one will reform. I'm not bothered by the bill itself, but this isn't about fixing anything but getting even. Taking on reforms should be the goal, but we're too primitive a society it seems. Reversing tax cuts means more will be spent on bad ideas and again there's plenty of those, but we deserve it.