The math and politics behind the Buffett Rule

The U.S. Senate will vote today on the so-called Buffett Rule, which attempts to ensure that Americans with millions of dollars of income at least pay taxes at the same or higher rate as do most middle-class taxpayers.

The first question to be asked is whether the proposed solution addresses a real-life problem. Is the Buffett Rule some liberal fantasy dreamed up to feed class warfare, or do a significant percentage of wealthy Americans really pay a lower tax rate than do their secretaries?

Here’s what the Congressional Research Service found in a study last year:

“Interestingly, 65% of rich taxpayers (i.e., taxable income over $1 million) — about 200,000 taxpayers — face a tax rate lower than the median tax rate of moderate-income taxpayers. The primary reason for this is the higher-income taxpayers with low tax rates receive a very high proportion of the income from long-term capital gains and qualified dividends, which are taxed at low tax rates and not subject to payroll taxes. Lower-income taxpayers with relatively high tax rates receive most of their income from wages, which are subject to payroll taxes.”

So within the very small group of people with annual incomes of more than a million dollars, the situation is far from rare. The classic example of that phenomenon is Mitt Romney, who in 2010 paid an effective total tax rate of 13.9 percent and in 2011 paid an estimated 15.4 percent.

The next question is how much additional revenue the Buffett Rule might be expected to generate. There are at least two different ways of answering that question.

If you believe that the Bush-era tax cuts will be allowed to expire as scheduled at the end of the year, then passing the Buffett Rule would raise an additional $47 billion over the next 10 years. Not a lot, but something.

However, if you believe as most experts do that the Bush-era tax cuts will NOT be allowed to expire, then the Buffett Rule would raise a more substantial $160 billion over the next 10 years.

Third, would such a tax increase on some of the richest of Americans have a negative impact on the economy? Republican critics of the proposal argue strenuously that it will hurt small businesses and reduce employment.

Analysis by the Congressional Research Service says that is untrue. First, just 1 percent of taxpayers who report business income also report income of greater than a million dollars. Of that tiny number, most would not be affected by the Buffett Rule because they already pay a relatively high tax rate. The Buffett Rule would mainly affect those whose major source of income is capital gains and dividends.

“The small share of taxpayers with small business income in the millionaire category suggests that tax reform policies designed to ensure adherence to the Buffett rule will affect few small businesses” and also would not affect employment levels, the CRS found.

Republicans also complain that the Buffett Rule is little more than political grandstanding because it will never become law and is no substitute for a serious, concerted effort to bring our deficit and debt under control.

On that point, they are absolutely, 100 percent correct.

Bringing our deficit and debt under control would require compromise. It would require substantial spending cuts from defense, entitlements and other programs, along with across-the-board tax increases. Focusing on the rich and only the rich cannot solve this problem for us.

In fact, the single biggest driver of our current deficit remains the Bush-era tax cuts. If we simply returned to Clinton-era tax law, the projected deficit in 2015 would be cut by more than half, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But as we know, that isn’t going to happen, and the likely defeat of the Buffett Rule illustrates why. In a political environment in which it is impossible to approve a tax hike on one tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers — the richest one tenth of 1 percent — it would be political suicide to champion a broader tax hike.

As a result, we are left to choose between Democrats who propose to raise taxes slightly on those already doing quite well and Republicans who propose to cut taxes even further, especially for those already doing well. While passing those tax cuts, the GOP would also gut programs that provide a modicum of economic security for the rest of America.

Put another way, it’s a choice between those who want to put a Band Aid on a gaping wound and those who reject the Band Aid and want to bleed the pallid patient even more.

– Jay Bookman

810 comments Add your comment

mm

April 16th, 2012
9:47 am

Go ahead, you trailerpark wingnuts, side with the millionaires. The millionaires and the GOP are laughing at you.

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
9:51 am

One small step for
Democrats, One giant
leap for Republicans.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 16th, 2012
9:51 am

GOP as leeches?

Well that sucks.

Oscar

April 16th, 2012
9:55 am

If we don’t contiued to invest in education, government funded research and development, and in our infrastructure with tax money, we will quickly be reduced to the level of a second rate country, perhaps even break up into three or more separate countries. Not a pretty picture.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 16th, 2012
9:56 am

SOCIALISM, Communism, CLASS Warfare….just wanted to get it out the way

Sean

April 16th, 2012
9:57 am

But the job creators need money to create jobs * wink *
( they really just want to save that money )

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

April 16th, 2012
9:58 am

A band-aid it is….. and yet many will claim that the patient should continue to bleed and we should cut off the arm without even a tournique while hoping for a “cure”. :roll:

Republicans are not serious about the deficit despite their protestations otherwise.

scott

April 16th, 2012
9:59 am

If only you would pay as much attention to removing cost that you pay to getting such a small amount of money from the rich, maybe this country would actually make a dent in our every growing debt. Besides, who do you think will REALLY pay this increased tax burden if passed? If you think the rich are going to sit by and not pass it on down to the middle class, you need to get your head checked. They have more power and will just pass the buck on.
Let’s recognize this rule for what it really is and what Obama has already declared it to be….a “gimmick” to create a divided country. If passed, Obama wins because he gets to say “look at what I did.” If it doesn’t pass, he wins because he says” Well…i tried but those rich white guys just won’t get on board.” And yet you give him a free pass the whole time.
Two things that are conveniently excluded from the whole argument. 1. Why isn’t anybody persecuting Buffett for owing and litigating nearly 1 billion dollars in taxes? 2. Rather than saying the rich guy should pay more taxes, why isn’t anybody saying to Buffett “How come you don’t pay your poor old secretary that makes an estimated $300K+ more money to make up for your greed in exploiting the US tax code?

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:01 am

Why won’t Obama come out in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire Jay? He would at least be honest by doing this and letting them know he wants taxes raised for every working American…..

Oscar

April 16th, 2012
10:01 am

Raising the tax rate for those making over a million a year makes sense. Trickle down never worked and never will.

ragnar danneskjold

April 16th, 2012
10:01 am

Under optimal circumstances the Buffet Rule over the next ten years would not raise even 50% of this years budget deficit. More likely the Rule would lead to even lower tax collections. The only way you could effectively increase tax collections among the wealthy would be to implement the Fair Tax. Of course, the whole purpose behind the Buffet Rule has nothing to do with increasing revenues, but is merely an effort to fan the flames of envy, the most noble leftist sentiment known to man.

Curtis Rivers

April 16th, 2012
10:01 am

It is sad that so many people evidently either do not have the intellectual toools to understand the GOP’s twisting of issues to keep profit in the hands of the ultra-rich, or are too biased by the flallacious propaganda which plays on anger and fear to keep them faithful to the GOP causes. It’s sad that bumper-sticker mantras can sway so many folks. It speaks volumnes to the level of inability to think critically of so many people.

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:01 am

Now lets talk about Obama’s prostitutes!!!!

Lyman Hall

April 16th, 2012
10:01 am

Is the patient weak enough to drown yet?
.
If so…I’m there.

Oscar

April 16th, 2012
10:02 am

an effort to fan the flames of envy, the most noble leftist sentiment known to man

______

Who do Buffett and Bill Gates envy. They are in favor of the rule.

Cosby

April 16th, 2012
10:02 am

This is a perfect case for eliminating the 16th amendment and passing the FAIR TAX…this is none other than a sharade by politicians and you are buying into it big time…but that is typical Jay who is unable to think for himself. Tax the rich, tax big oil…hmm the pattern continues….but rid the USA of the 16th amendment..not even Republicans bring that one up..why…POWER, pure and simple

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:02 am

Raising taxs for no apparent reason other than to stoke the flames of class warfare… The dems should be ashamed…..

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 16th, 2012
10:02 am

“Obama wins because he gets to say “look at what I did.” If it doesn’t pass, he wins because he says” Well…i tried but those rich white guys just won’t get on board.”

Poor scoot just could write something that didnt involve race in an article that makes no mention of race. Quite telling of the individual you are.

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:03 am

Joe Cool. Not our words…look no further than your savior. He pretty much described the words you posted already.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/10/spread-the-weal/

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
10:04 am

The Buffett rule
emphasizes that the
rich have too much
influence on politics.

Peadawg

April 16th, 2012
10:05 am

GOP won’t compromise on tax cuts.

And w/ Decmorats blasting every proposal the Republicans make to cut entitlements and “hang Granny out to dry”, I don’t believe they will compromise on entitlements either.

TaxPayer

April 16th, 2012
10:06 am

Have all of you Republicans configured your income stream to take advantage of those Bush tax cuts. Remember, you and your spouse can have over $85,000 in capital gains and qualified dividend income this year and not owe a single penny in fed taxes. And as a bonus, there’s no AMT and no payroll taxes either. Isn’t that great!

mm

April 16th, 2012
10:06 am

“Raising taxs for no apparent reason other than to stoke the flames of class warfare… The dems should be ashamed”

See how ignorant these righties are?

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:06 am

How exactly will this improve the economy?

Oscar

April 16th, 2012
10:06 am

the fair tax is not fair, and it is a totally unworkable plan as to the prebates part of it. better to pass a sales tax or value added tax then the fair tax with the rebates. Just exempt food, drugs and other essentials from the sales tax so that it will not be a regressive tax.

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:07 am

mm:

Lets here your answer to my question… We’ll watch the intelligence flow like slop from a hogs mouth….

Chris

April 16th, 2012
10:07 am

$47 billion over 10 years, or 47 billion a year on average, or $160 billion over 10 years, an average of $16 billion a year. Budget deficit this year alone: $1.1 trillion, or 1100 billion. Kinda makes you wonder what all the fuss is about if it is not class warfare.

Oscar

April 16th, 2012
10:07 am

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:06 am
How exactly will this improve the economy?
___________

More tax money for education, govt. funded research and development and infrastructure.

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:08 am

joe cool…if you don’t think that will come out in one way or another, you are blind. Obama won’t say but you sure as hell expect his supporters to say it. He will of course just say it was wrong but never condemn them. They HAVE to get the black vote motivated to get out there and vote. Did Jay write anything about race in this? Nope….nor would he because he is complicit with the admin’s message. The whole rule is nothing more than a way to divide the country from a wealth envy and from a race perspective given that it is a fact that black people are poorer than white people.

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
10:09 am

As many said about GM,
bankruptcy is the best
option…

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 16th, 2012
10:09 am

used by Obama to “create” a divided country …..what a knuckleheaded thought.

as if we were all buddy-buddies and best pals just up until President Obama was elected.

that was the same day the grand canyon magically first appeared, right?

Ej Moosa

April 16th, 2012
10:10 am

The Fed keeping interest rates low to spur investment is good. To do this they manufacture money with a printing press. This will generate inflation down the road as these phony dollars fuel inflation. This unintended consequence will of course be blamed on something else.

The Federal Government keeping capital gains taxes low to spur investment is bad. This is real money saved, earned , and previously taxed by the Federal government.

As this money slows it’s velocity, the entire dollar amount of taxes collected will decline. Unintended consequences that of course will be blamed on something else.

You are already seeing the economy slowing drastically. Even the much ballyhooed revovery in the housing market is dead on arrival at the height of the spring markets…

Just another nail in the coffin known as the Obama Economic Disaster.

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:10 am

Oscar:

Great answer but of course its all fantasy….. Raising taxes will do absolutly nothing to help… Even most dems know that… Class warfare is all Obama has to run on… He’s accomplished nothing but division in almost four years….

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
10:10 am

“Now lets talk about Obama’s prostitutes!!!!”

Has Rush Limbaugh joined the Obama campaign???

There is a class war in this country. But it has turned into a mop up operation.

We lost.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 16th, 2012
10:11 am

“More tax money for education, govt. funded research and development and infrastructure.”

CONs dont care about stuff like that…. Obama should have tricked the GOP and said all monies raised from the Buffet tax goes str8 to the military..lol, and even then, they still would have balked.

Peadawg

April 16th, 2012
10:12 am

“passing the Buffett Rule would raise an additional $47 billion over the next 10 years. Not a lot, but something.”

Not a lot? That’s an understatement. After seeing that number the ‘Buffet Rule’ doesn’t make as much sense as it did.

$47 over 10 years on a $1.2 Trillion yearly deficit and $16 Trillion in debt…$47 Billion is a fart in the wind, Jay.

Darrell

April 16th, 2012
10:12 am

“In fact, the single biggest driver of our current deficit remains the Bush-era tax cuts. If we simply returned to Clinton-era tax law, the projected deficit in 2015 would be cut by more than half, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” I don’t know if you actually looked at the numbers or just a wing nut liberal that AJC is pumping out, but obviously you are out of your mind. Let us say we do let the Bush Era Tax cuts. So you get an additional $113 billion dollars. Obama’s budget for the next 10 years is over $6 TRILLION! http://wtvr.com/2012/03/16/obamas-budget-would-add-6-4-trillion-to-debt/ So isn’t the problem the gross over spending by the Government across the board? So this idea that if you add that $113 billion back to taxes the debt will disappear is total white wash BS by the White house. Stop being part of the problem and tell the truth for once in your career!

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:12 am

barking frog. and the addition of this rule will not change a thing. The rich will ALWAYS have too much power. Again, they will not feel the impact of this in ANY way. It will all get passed down to us. That’s fine…..when my taxes go up, I guess I will have to cut some from my charitable donations to accommodate it. Sadly, even on my modest salary, i give more than Biden and will probably give more after I make a reduction. Way to go Obama…..the United Way appreciates the reduction in its donations.

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am

How exactly will this improve the economy?

It won’t improve the economy. What it will improve, hopefully, is the completely abysmal performance that Congress has turned in over the past 30-40 years. Most notably, maybe the Norquist Virus can begin to be purged from DC. Once we rid Congress of that virus, maybe sensibility will replace the rampant jackassery that stains the halls of Congress.

Jay

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am

Race much, Scott?

TM

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am

Just another form of the Alternative Minimum Tax which was orignally passed to go after the ones with the big money but which now threathens to affect the middle class and has gotton to a point that they can’t repeal it because of the income it gernerates.

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am

Granny…nope we haven’t been united. We just have never seen a POTUS that so openly tries to create this division as Obama has.

TaxPayer

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am

Perhaps Joseph will share his secret recipe for paying off that debt with tax cuts because Bush’s secret recipe was a flop.

Mick

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am

moosa

Who do you blame for sept 08? Remember? The world economy was teetering on the brink, who gets the blame for that disaster?

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:14 am

Cheney hit the nail on the head! An unmitigated disaster… LOL… Let the howling begin….

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/15/cheney_obama_has_been_an_unmitigated_disaster_to_the_country.html

Ej Moosa

April 16th, 2012
10:14 am

“It is sad that so many people evidently either do not have the intellectual toools to understand the GOP’s twisting of issues to keep profit in the hands of the ultra-rich, or are too biased by the flallacious propaganda which plays on anger and fear to keep them faithful to the GOP causes. It’s sad that bumper-sticker mantras can sway so many folks. It speaks volumnes to the level of inability to think critically of so many people.”

And yet not one example of anything to support your comments.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 16th, 2012
10:14 am

“The whole rule is nothing more than a way to divide the country from a wealth envy and from a race perspective given that it is a fact that black people are poorer than white people.”

Again, Scott……clearly, you have a race obsession, therefore means no credibility in what you say.

harvey

April 16th, 2012
10:14 am

What nobody seems to talk about is tax reform. Buffett and others, like GE, get away with huge deductions to the point of not even paying taxes at all, while people who simply work for a salary of $150,000 or so, just spend their time working and don’t have the resources to employ the money managers that can figure out how to take advantage of all the loopholes. If our congress actually was a working congress, they would do the hard task of overhauling the ridiculous tax code.

barking frog

April 16th, 2012
10:15 am

Those with the most to
protect must pay the
most for protection.
Even the mafia knows
that.

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:15 am

TaxPayer:

Adopt the Ryan Plan for prosperity… Or even Simpson/Boles… Obama hasn’t produced a plan that would even receive one dem vote….

harvey

April 16th, 2012
10:16 am

By the way, spending all this time talking about raising taxes that would, at best, pay for one day’s interest on our ever growing debt is on its face, a sick joke. But then so is our President.

Mick

April 16th, 2012
10:16 am

As if cheney has any credibility to procalim anything an unmitigated disaster other than his own…

Simple Truths

April 16th, 2012
10:17 am

This feels a lot like another Alternative Minimum Tax. 40 years later, what a wonderful care package that tax has become!

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:17 am

Darrell:

Your confusing them with facts Darrell! Personel attacks will start soon becuase they have no answer…

Ej Moosa

April 16th, 2012
10:17 am

Mick,

Who do I blame? The very same folks tinkering with the economy today to make it better. At some point you have to stop the tinkering and let the economy heal.

When you do not understand what drives the US economy you arbitrary changes in how things work.

Career politicians do not know how things work. They do know how to win elections.

But for starters, one rule change could have halted the collapse in it’s tracks. That was the mark to market rule. Look it up. This arbitrary rule forced businesses to write down assets immedieately, forcing massive liquidations.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 16th, 2012
10:18 am

much ballyhooed revovery in the housing market?

What?

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:18 am

jay. Nope. Why do you ask? You cannot deny what I wrote. Fact: On average, black people make less that white people. FACT: There are more white people that would “pay more” under the Buffet Rule. FACT: 95% of the black vote will go to Obama. PREDICTION: If it is not passed, the Obama admin (or people on that side of the aisle. I cannot believe I have to make that statement but given that he says Hillary Rosen has nothing to do with his admin despite the fact she meets with him regularly) will invoke race into the argument to motivate black people to go to the polls. That is not racist…..just a simple truth based on facts.

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
10:18 am

I don’t know if you actually looked at the numbers or just a wing nut liberal that AJC is pumping out, but obviously you are out of your mind. Let us say we do let the Bush Era Tax cuts. So you get an additional $113 billion dollars. Obama’s budget for the next 10 years is over $6 TRILLION!

Funny, but yet another case of namecalling being the first sign of a losing argument… Claiming numbers from a budget that has NOT been passed does not count as an actual budget. You seem to have forgotten your talking points. The Senate has not passed a bill since how long ago??? Obama’s last budget was voted how many votes against to zero for it?? Obama’s budget has not passed, so your claim to $6 Trillion is hereby denied as factual content. You have been awarded a “Pants on Fire” rating for your rambling. Thank you for playing. Good day. :)

Jay

April 16th, 2012
10:18 am

Again Peadawg:

If you believe that the Bush-era tax cuts will be extended — and you should — then the real number is $160 billion. Why aren’t you using the more realistic number?

Simple Truths

April 16th, 2012
10:19 am

Jay,

If the Buffett Rule brings in “$160 billion over the next 10 years”, how many years will it take to pay off the current year’s $1+ trillion deficit?

Mary Elizabeth

April 16th, 2012
10:19 am

“In fact, the single biggest driver of our current deficit remains the Bush-era tax cuts.”
———————————————————————————–

This simple fact should NEVER be forgotten, if the last decade’s economic disaster is to be rectified and not repeated – and neither should be forgotten the primary reasons behind the establishment of these tax cuts.

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:20 am

Joe Cool. I have no obsession with race. Just stating that this proposed rule has racial connotations in itself. You say I have no credibility….then what is your excuse?

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:20 am

One thing that’s interesting is the fact that the economy started faltering in 08’. Stay with me libs. If that the case Bush only had a few months to try and fix the problem. What exactly has Obama done in almost 4 years to fix the problem? I think anyone with a brain would admit its gotten worse under his watch and he’s had more time to fix it…

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:21 am

Jay, That 160 million. How realistic is the number? Will it be altered like the cost of Obamacare has been?

Frontman

April 16th, 2012
10:21 am

Hey, Curtis…
You mean bumper sticker mantras like “Hope and Change”? Riighhht…
barking frog, Of course the rich have huge influence in politics. It has been that way as long as humans in communities have had government. There will always be some stress in trying to determine when the partnership between rich people and government “goes too far.” Crony capitalism as practiced by both Reps and Dems (and by darn near every state and local government as well) is a classic example. But it is no solution to simply force the rich at the point of a gun to give the government more money, Also, wealth is not a zero-sum game, and I wish people would stop treating it as such. Warren Buffett’s $45 billion is not money that should have gone to poor people, but he got it instead of them. He took no money from them.
Beware of anyone who talks about “fairness”. Prepare to get the shaft…

Jefferson

April 16th, 2012
10:21 am

You catch fish where the fish are.

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
10:21 am

Your confusing them with facts Darrell! Personel attacks will start soon becuase they have no answer

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fact about a $6 Trillion budget impact from the Obama budget… Even after you posted this: “Obama hasn’t produced a plan that would even receive one dem vote….

Somebody’s playing “Fast and Furious” with facts lately. :lol: :lol:

Chris

April 16th, 2012
10:21 am

Simple Truths
April 16th, 2012
10:19 am

Jay,

If the Buffett Rule brings in “$160 billion over the next 10 years”, how many years will it take to pay off the current year’s $1+ trillion deficit?
_________________________________________

60+ years – if we get a 0% interest loan from China.

ty webb

April 16th, 2012
10:21 am

funny Jay only brings up effective tax rates with respect to Romney’s taxes…anyone want to guess what % of income taxpayers in the US pay a lower effective tax rate than Romney?

Ej Moosa

April 16th, 2012
10:22 am

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/housing-repenetrates-alleged-bottom-nahb-index-misses-most-22-months

And the economic news will be getting worse going forward.

As I have said before, if you don’t understand how the economy really works, you cannot understand what it takes to get it functioning again..

That will be clearer and clearer as the year progresses.

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:22 am

scott:

I’m in a remote area scott but I can hear them howling from here… They simply have no answer….

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 16th, 2012
10:22 am

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:13 am
Granny…nope we haven’t been united. We just have never seen a POTUS that so openly tries to create this division as Obama has.

scott, i said we were already divided which means we are not united.

as to your second sentence – piffle and balderdash – he can’t create what already existed.

that you admit already existed

UNCLE SAMANTHA

April 16th, 2012
10:23 am

Jay,
Please explain to my minions that there are different taxes and that lumping it all as one tax rate is incorrect.
1. Federal Income tax
2. Payroll tax (SS and Medicare)
3. Capital Gains tax

You must compare among each area to get a TRUE indication.

TAX REFORM is a better alternative than raising or lowering rates.

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:23 am

Brosephus™:

How many votes did Obama’s budget receive?

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:24 am

How come Obama is so vocal about Romney releasing his tax records from the 30 yrs ago? If I was Romney, I would say “Tell you what…I will release my tax records as soon as you release your academic records.” We know Obama will balk at that. He doesn’t want everybody to truly know how stupid he really is.

TaxPayer

April 16th, 2012
10:24 am

Joseph,

How much does the Ryan plan reduce the debt per year.

Peadawg

April 16th, 2012
10:25 am

“If you believe that the Bush-era tax cuts will be extended — and you should — then the real number is $160 billion. Why aren’t you using the more realistic number?”

Okay so $46 Billion over 10 years equals a silent-but-deadly. $160 billion over 10 years equals a little squeaker. I’m fine w/ the Buffet Rule but Democrats need to stop putting it up on a pedestal like it’s the best thing since sliced bread. The Buffet Rule won’t do crap (pun intended) w/ substantial cuts that you mentioned…and I’m not holding my breath for the cuts to come.

Don't Tread

April 16th, 2012
10:25 am

Tax everybody at 100%…that’ll fix it.

Oh wait…no it won’t…spending will just increase to offset any gains on the deficit/debt, like it has every other time.

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:25 am

Granny. I am saying that no POTUS has ever sat there an openly tried to continue to divide the country until we got this guy.

Peadawg

April 16th, 2012
10:26 am

***W/ OUT*** @ 10:25

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
10:26 am

How many votes did Obama’s budget receive?

The last Obama budget proposal received 97 votes.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 16th, 2012
10:26 am

“Joe Cool. I have no obsession with race. Just stating that this proposed rule has racial connotations in itself.”

Scott, you really arent that bright using your logic. For instance, ANY LAW for the most part will affect more of the white population due to the fact that is the largest percentage race in the country. If a law goes in affect that cuts all government assistance whether welfare, grants, any type of funding from the govt, who do you think out of all races will be MOST affected?

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:26 am

Were those prositutes for Obama?

Ej Moosa

April 16th, 2012
10:27 am

@Jsoeph,

Actually you need to say that things peaked in 2006. From that point forward, the rate of profit growth continued downward. With that went the jobs and the ability to pay for the overpriced mortgages.

And then on top of that they raised minimum wage by 40%, creating even more pressure on jobs.

The picture was clear by July 2006, if you know what to look for. But when you don’t, you watch lagging indicators, and believe they are leading indicators, and then compound the troubles with the wrong economic policies.

Adam

April 16th, 2012
10:27 am

I hate to say it, but the Democrats aren’t going to sway any Republicans by saying the word “math.”

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
10:27 am

One thing that’s interesting is the fact that the economy started faltering in 08’.

Absolute insanity.

You are only off by thirty or more years.

The thing you Bushbots will never allow yourself to see is that for that long, the economy has been faltering for most working American families.

Decades of leveraging flat lined wages with mountains of sucker credit to pay for basic necessities – health insurance, education and housing costs.

Hello, is thing on?

Incredible…

MiltonMan

April 16th, 2012
10:28 am

No mention of Obozo ignoring his own Simpson-Bowles Commission study???

AJC just loves this class warfare garbage – already two articles today related to this rubbish.

UNCLE SAMANTHA

April 16th, 2012
10:28 am

bRO IS CORRECT
0-97

Jay

April 16th, 2012
10:28 am

And Darryl:

“Let us say we do let the Bush Era Tax cuts. So you get an additional $113 billion dollars.”

That is incorrect. In 2015, just to use an example, ending the Bush-era tax cuts would increase revenue by some $440 billion. Over the next 10 year, it would increase revenue by almost $5 trillion. Those are CBO numbers. So yes, Darryl, I did actually look at the numbers.

Did you?

Joseph

April 16th, 2012
10:28 am

Brosephus™:

Sure did. 97 votes against it….

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
10:28 am

Ooops, I was wrong. His 2012 proposal received 97 votes in the Senate. His 2013 proposal received 414 votes in the House.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

April 16th, 2012
10:29 am

Joseph

You talking about Mick Mulvaneys Budget Parody Vote?

You DO read don’t you?

Adam

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

If you believe that the Bush-era tax cuts will be allowed to expire as scheduled at the end of the year, then passing the Buffett Rule would raise an additional $47 billion over the next 10 years. Not a lot, but something.

Funny how the baseline is always “The Bush Tax Cuts will be extended forever,” UNLESS a liberal suggests taxing the millionaires. Then the Bush Tax Cuts will expire, and cause the millionaires to not generate anything significant. Clever ruse.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

Joseph, you’re really begging for some attention huh…lol

MiltonMan

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

Bush-era tax cuts. How cute. The same tax cuts that Obama extended???

Why don’t we call them for what they are – Obama extension tax cuts.

scott

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

kind of sad that no liberal gets on Obama for putting forth a budget that not even one member of his own party would vote on. Is he THAT bad at budgeting? Does he seriously have no clue about money? Kind of sad those same people will never speak ill of a Senate that has not passed a budget in 1091 days. How come you don’t hold Reid accountable for his poor performance? Isn’t it is a requirement?

Brosephus™

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

Joseph: Sure did. 97 votes against it….

Yet, you co-sign Darrell’s assertion about a $6 Trillion budget impact that did not receive a single vote FOR it? Facts don’t mean much to some of y’all do it? As long as you push the narrative, facts be damned. :roll:

Doggone/GA

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

“f the Buffett Rule brings in “$160 billion over the next 10 years”, how many years will it take to pay off the current year’s $1+ trillion deficit?

Counter question: how many years will it take to pay off the current year’s $1+ trillion deficit WITHOUT the “Buffet rule”?

JamVet

April 16th, 2012
10:30 am

TAX REFORM is a better alternative than raising or lowering rates.

OF COURSE! The current system is completely rigged against working people and slanted towards wealth.

THAT is why more and more and more money is begin aggregated into fewer and fewer and fewer hands in this country.

But ending the plutocracy will never happen.

Not as long as the 1%ers like Joseph have any sway…

Ej Moosa

April 16th, 2012
10:31 am

“Those are CBO numbers.”

Therein lies the issue.

CBO uses static projections in a dynamic environment.