GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

[Ausm]

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.

From a Political standpoint ,Isn't it refreshing seeing the Democrats on the offensive for once? Time and time again the Republicans have beat them to the punch it's about time we bitch slap them back.

From a Policy standpoint, I agree with you but I doubt we will see any reform whatsoever in the near or distant future because all of the GOP lawmakers are owned by the wealthy special interest groups and the majority of the Dems are too.

 

[CPA]

Good for the Republicans, and lol to all the libs in this thread defending 20B in revenue by saying "it's a start", but not touch spending because "it won't impact deficits and debt significantly".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

From a Political standpoint ,Isn't it refreshing seeing the Democrats on the offensive for once? Time and time again the Republicans have beat them to the punch it's about time we bitch slap them back.

From a Policy standpoint, I agree with you but I doubt we will see any reform whatsoever in the near or distant future because all of the GOP lawmakers are owned by the wealthy special interest groups and the majority of the Dems are too.

I have to tell you that the first part is what bothers me. Things are all about beating the other guy and I'm not saying that Democrats are the only one playing, in fact it's the only game that everyone is. When you consider the real problems that people face, like the black crime thread or the "game" thread about Romney who suggested day care for poor women to work, it's ridiculous. Consider that last one. We hear a lot of arguments "there aren't any jobs" being one. That's not entirely true. It depends on local conditions. If a woman who has children wants to work the cost of day care is prohibitive so she doesn't even try. No she isn't going to walk into a 6 figure job but few do. In her case the opportunity is never there. If Obama came up with this one and Romney spoke against it you know very well we'd have a "Romney wants to keep women down" thread or something very like it. That the idea has merit or not isn't considered, it's about bitch slapping the other party. Does that seem like a good way to allow societies to fruitfully progress to you? Doesn't to me. If half the effort spent in getting an eye for an eye was instead put towards solutions and positive reform we'd be far better off.

Which path seems better to you?

 

[Jhhnn]

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

Funny how Righties can ignore the fact that cutting spending on those most directly impacted by the recession is even worse, and that top tier incomes aren't actually spent, anyway. Raising taxes on the Rich just means they get to buy fewer govt bonds.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Out of sheer curiosity, can you tell us a time in which it would be okay to raise taxes?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good for the Republicans, and lol to all the libs in this thread defending 20B in revenue by saying "it's a start", but not touch spending because "it won't impact deficits and debt significantly".

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.

 

[rudder]

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.

It does give the OP something to bitch about. And in reality with obama in office... that extra $46.7 billion would just be spent rather than going towards deficit reduction.

 

[fskimospy]

It does give the OP something to bitch about. And in reality with obama in office... that extra $46.7 billion would just be spent rather than going towards deficit reduction.

Federal spending is not constrained by tax revenues.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Out of sheer curiosity, can you tell us a time in which it would be okay to raise taxes?

I'll volunteer an answer and that is when government becomes familiar with the concept of stewardship and applies it as a day to day principle. This legislation accomplishes nothing other than to get votes for November. This is entirely about beating the Republicans. Do something constructive.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Federal spending is not constrained by tax revenues.

Nothing restricts that. It's like income and heroin use.

 

[PokerGuy]

Nothing but a dimlib stunt to appeal to the irrational "tax everyone who has more money than me!" idiots. Obviously the amount this new tax would have brought in would not amount to more than a drop in the bucket, but good to see the gop stand up and reject the stupidity.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll volunteer an answer and that is when government becomes familiar with the concept of stewardship and applies it as a day to day principle. This legislation accomplishes nothing other than to get votes for November. This is entirely about beating the Republicans. Do something constructive.

I believe we should be running significantly larger deficits than we are now, which would be the most constructive thing we can do. You don't know how much I wish people would do something constructive by joining me in promoting this. The idea that we would tie tax rates to some nebulous concept of 'stewardship' is of course simply a way to dodge the question.

To Republicans, there will never be a time to raise taxes even though tax revenues as a % of GDP are much lower than their historical averages.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing but a dimlib stunt to appeal to the irrational "tax everyone who has more money than me!" idiots. Obviously the amount this new tax would have brought in would not amount to more than a drop in the bucket, but good to see the gop stand up and reject the stupidity.

I'll be sure to note that any spending program you wish to cut in the name of deficit reduction should be ignored if it generates savings of $40B over 10 years or less, as it's no more than a drop in the bucket.

 

[airdata]

$20B is nothing to sneeze at.
I am fine with just letting Bush tax cuts finally expire. No need to pass anything.

It is when Ron Paul has a plan to cut $1 Trillion.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'll be sure to note that any spending program you wish to cut in the name of deficit reduction should be ignored if it generates savings of $40B over 10 years or less, as it's no more than a drop in the bucket.

The reason for rejecting it is not simply that it's a drop in the bucket. Every little bit helps. The problem is that it's a political stunt and yet another move in the never ending attempt to raise ever more money to waste, sticking it to the wealthy to gain some political points with the class warriors while achieving next to nothing in the way of actually fixing anything.

As long as spending is not cut, EVERY tax increase should be filibustered if needed to prevent passage.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe we should be running significantly larger deficits than we are now, which would be the most constructive thing we can do. You don't know how much I wish people would do something constructive by joining me in promoting this. The idea that we would tie tax rates to some nebulous concept of 'stewardship' is of course simply a way to dodge the question.

To Republicans, there will never be a time to raise taxes even though tax revenues as a % of GDP are much lower than their historical averages.

Stewardship defined as I think of it is using whatever money in a way that gives the greatest benefit, which can be considered as nebulous also so I'll give you an example.

Medicaid is the government program I deal with on a day to day basis. I also occasionally work in the inner city and see and hear a good deal from those who use it and those who live there and do not. Now much of medicaid is state specific and I am aware of that but it's also mandate driven.

There is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of that program and that is there is no incentive to move off it. Why would one? It provides everything one could want assuming that one is content to live within it's means. If not then some resort to crime or unreported jobs or other sources of income. Children have babies and in turn they do as well and the "solution" which is the problem is to put them on it. Now you can invoke "anecdotal" or admit this happens and it creates a culture which is self reinforcing. There needs to be a serious attempt at wrestling with this beast which might in the short run cost more, not less. My response would be that if a serious attempt at providing opportunity which requires accountability and may break this artificial chain of dependency, then I'll support it. Major change is needed.

Unfortunately major change is what we're going to get which is an expansion of the same policies to include more people. Where is the legitimate attempt to tackle the problem inherent with what we have? It's nowhere. That's poor stewardship. If one has a hole in the roof, then making the roof bigger doesn't fix the problem. Spending more money doesn't make things better, it makes them bigger and the two are not equivalent.

 

[Ausm]

Funny how Righties can ignore the fact that cutting spending on those most directly impacted by the recession is even worse, and that top tier incomes aren't actually spent, anyway. Raising taxes on the Rich just means they get to buy fewer govt bonds.

Don't forget to remind the Rightists that the Bush Tax cuts were suppose to stimulate job growth but in reality GWB had the WORST job creation record then any other President in the modern ERA. The so called "jerb creators" hoarded it and didn't do squat in terms of job creation.

 

[fskimospy]

Stewardship defined as I think of it is using whatever money in a way that gives the greatest benefit, which can be considered as nebulous also so I'll give you an example.

Medicaid is the government program I deal with on a day to day basis. I also occasionally work in the inner city and see and hear a good deal from those who use it and those who live there and do not. Now much of medicaid is state specific and I am aware of that but it's also mandate driven.

There is a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of that program and that is there is no incentive to move off it. Why would one? It provides everything one could want assuming that one is content to live within it's means. If not then some resort to crime or unreported jobs or other sources of income. Children have babies and in turn they do as well and the "solution" which is the problem is to put them on it. Now you can invoke "anecdotal" or admit this happens and it creates a culture which is self reinforcing. There needs to be a serious attempt at wrestling with this beast which might in the short run cost more, not less. My response would be that if a serious attempt at providing opportunity which requires accountability and may break this artificial chain of dependency, then I'll support it. Major change is needed.

Unfortunately major change is what we're going to get which is an expansion of the same policies to include more people. Where is the legitimate attempt to tackle the problem inherent with what we have? It's nowhere. That's poor stewardship. If one has a hole in the roof, then making the roof bigger doesn't fix the problem. Spending more money doesn't make things better, it makes them bigger and the two are not equivalent.

Sorry, but I will say anecdotal. I can't say I know many people who choose to remain in poverty because the benefits are so great. Medical care could be a unique example however if someone were to have a life threatening condition so severe that they couldn't risk going without medical insurance even for a moment, but that would just be yet another argument for universal health care.

I simply don't see how you could make a viable tax policy based on what you wrote there.

 

[nageov3t]

Funny how Righties can ignore the fact that cutting spending on those most directly impacted by the recession is even worse, and that top tier incomes aren't actually spent, anyway. Raising taxes on the Rich just means they get to buy fewer govt bonds.

would cutting military spending to pre-war levels really impact those more directly affected by the recession?

the Buffet Rule wouldn't really even impact "The Rich" all that much, because it doesn't touch capital gains income.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason for rejecting it is not simply that it's a drop in the bucket. Every little bit helps. The problem is that it's a political stunt and yet another move in the never ending attempt to raise ever more money to waste, sticking it to the wealthy to gain some political points with the class warriors while achieving next to nothing in the way of actually fixing anything.

As long as spending is not cut, EVERY tax increase should be filibustered if needed to prevent passage.

lol, your post is like a right wing mad lib. I am impressed however that you were able to somehow convince yourself that an effort to have the extraordinarily wealthy pay the same tax rates as everyone else is 'class warfare'. The mental gymnastics you must have gone through there to achieve that level of doublethink were probably very difficult, so I commend you on that.

Stockholm syndrome is tough to watch sometimes.

 

[xBiffx]

Don't forget to remind the Rightists that the Bush Tax cuts were suppose to stimulate job growth but in reality GWB had the WORST job creation record then any other President in the modern ERA. The so called "jerb creators" hoarded it and didn't do squat in terms of job creation.

Ausm, yet again making up partisan bullshit. But then that's all this issue is about, giving something for the left to have faux rage over. Good thing you drank up the Kool-aid once again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

This bill/issue has zero to do with reducing debt.

Since you brought it up, what exactly are the leftists in Congress and Bobo's plans for job growth again? Oh that's right, blame Bush, yet again.

 

[Fern]

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

Yes, exactly.

What it shows quite clearly that Harry Reid is more interested in useless 'show votes' like this, held merely for political games in anticipation of the upcoming election, than actually getting anything done. There are bipartisan bills from the House with the Admin's support that still haven't seen the light of the day in the Senate.

Where's the F'ing budget, Harry?

Fern

 

[corwin]

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

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...fett-rule?lite

So has anyone pointed out the blatant lie that this was a filibuster? Just curious...

 

[Fern]

It wouldn't give the Federal government more than $20Bn extra in revenue for this fiscal year.

So you want taxes on the middle class to go up too?

Restoring the Clinton tax rates against the wealthy would only bring in $50Bn this fiscal year. Again, less than 5% of the deficit.

Can you please stop posting incorrect stuff. This forum is full of people who can't check for themselves and they'll believe your erroneous stuff without a hesitation.

The damn article itself notes the Buffet tax would only raise $4.67 Bil per year according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Yet you write $20 bil?

Where do you get your "Clinton rate" numbers? They're wrong too.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sorry, but I will say anecdotal. I can't say I know many people who choose to remain in poverty because the benefits are so great. Medical care could be a unique example however if someone were to have a life threatening condition so severe that they couldn't risk going without medical insurance even for a moment, but that would just be yet another argument for universal health care.

I simply don't see how you could make a viable tax policy based on what you wrote there.

Well then explain why generation after generation of single women on welfare are having more and more children when contraception is free? I suspect you are isolated from the world these people live in.