2012 Tuesday: With Buffett Rule, Obama ignores economics and leans on ‘fairness’
A lot of commentary about Barack Obama’s re-election campaign focuses on what’s different from 2008. But there’s one clear way in which it’s exactly the same.
In 2008, when ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Obama during a debate why he favored raising the capital-gains tax rate when the evidence suggests doing so would only reduce government revenues, Obama answered, “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” (Amazingly, except to those who have noticed Obama’s tendency to try to have things both ways, he went on to talk about the need to spend more money on health care and education — without disputing Gibson’s premise that raising capital-gains tax rates would instead lower revenues.)
Now, in discussing the so-called Buffett Rule, which would require Americans making at least $1 million in a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, we’re back to the argument of fairness, economic and fiscal logic be damned.
Obama described the Buffett Rule during his State of the Union speech as part of a “sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit.” Well, maybe if by “that” he meant, “The Buffett Rule and about 200 other things”: The White House’s own study of the rule’s fiscal impact puts it at less than $5 billion a year during the next decade. The projected deficit for this fiscal year is more than 220 times as much. Heck, the deficit last month alone was almost 40 times as much. To save the same amount of money on the other side of the ledger, Obama and Congress would have to cut just 0.13 percent of this year’s federal budget. That’s how insignificant $5 billion a year is in Washington.
Thus, the Obama campaign is back to playing the fairness angle. Here’s campaign manager Jim Messina on Monday: “The Buffett rule will help make our system reflect our values as all Americans play by the same rules, do their fair share and get a shot at success.”
Now, it is the opposite of true to say instituting a special minimum tax rate for a certain group of people amounts to ensuring “all Americans play by the same rules.” But more to the point, Team Obama seems to be abandoning the idea of dealing with Washington’s actual problems of deficits and debt, and instead wants the general-election conversation to be about what’s “fair.” As defined by them.
In any case, the outrage about “unfairness” is based on anecdotal evidence — Buffett’s allegedly lower tax rate than his secretary — belied by the statistics. (I say “allegedly” because, when people began wondering how much money Buffett’s secretary would have to make in order to pay a higher tax rate than him, Buffett became suddenly shy about airing her tax information.) The data demonstrate not only that the current tax code is plenty progressive already, but that the average effective tax rate for people making more than $1 million is already greater than 30 percent.
So, we have a president who wants to spend valuable election-season time talking about a policy that:
a) would amount to tenths of a percentage point of the federal deficit; and
b) purports to address a “problem” that covers a subset of a subset of the population; but
c) doesn’t actually address the “problem”; all while
d) distracting from the larger problem of our out-of-control federal budget.
Ah, but it also e) brings attention to the wealth of Obama’s likely GOP opponent, Mitt Romney. And that’s the only truly relevant factor here. The Buffett Rule is a club for Obama to swing at Romney, nothing more.
Anyone who falls for it, thinking it will lead to one iota of improvement for their own lives, will deserve what they get. Or don’t get, as the case may be.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
109 comments Add your comment
Jm
April 10th, 2012
12:23 pm
Aaamen. It’s also real bad policy, as discussed at Bloomberg.
I believe capital gains and wage tax rates should be equalized, but the stupid buffett rule is not the way to do it.
DannyX
April 10th, 2012
12:31 pm
Ronald Reagan
Northside High, Atlanta
June 1985
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nRuWMoEWE1E
LMAO!
SBinF
April 10th, 2012
12:34 pm
By your logic, since Obama’s plan would only lower the deficit 1/10th, why not drop capital gains tax to zero?1!!1
It may not fix the deficit, but it’s a start. I say we roll back the Bush tax cuts. That’s the big reason the deficit has increased so much in the last decade.
Inconvenient truth to leave out there, Kyle.
Republican plan:
cut taxes, increase deficit, complain about deficit that would not have existed but for tax cuts, seek to cut spending to control deficit.
ya, makes perfect sense
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
12:36 pm
DannyX: What part of the tax reform Reagan was pushing back in 1985 — which resulted in two tax brackets, 28% and 15%, while eliminating a boatload of deductions — makes you think he would support the Buffett Rule? Yes, Reagan and Obama related similar anecdotes. But their policy conclusions couldn’t have been much more different.
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
12:37 pm
SBinF: You do realize that about 70 percent of the “cost” of the tax cuts went to lower taxes for people other than “the rich,” right?
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
12:38 pm
Also, how do you get 1/10th from a $5 billion tax hike out of a $1.1 trillion deficit?
MiddleClass
April 10th, 2012
12:45 pm
The deficit would be reduced if the tax cuts had expired; I don’t see a significant increse in jobs since it was allowed to continue. I’m positive the number of jobs we have seen the last year would be close, if not exactly the same. So, the extension of the tax cut hasn’t been as beneficial as reported.
Hillbilly D
April 10th, 2012
12:50 pm
In my opinion, the solution to this is a complete overhaul of the tax code. Make it a flat tax, everybody pays the same %, all forms of income are taxed the same, and cut out all the breaks, deductions and subsidies. That would buy us a few years until the lobbyists figured out what to get passed that would put their clients back in a “favored” status. And of course, I’m not naive enough to think it’ll ever happen. Too many people profiting from things just the way they are.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
12:50 pm
Since 5 billion is such an insignificant amount in your mind, Kyle, why don’t you just make an annual charitable contribution of 5 billion yourself. By the way, how much would be saved by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood for abortions or for cutting NPR. How about heating oil subsidies? Oil company subsidies? Come on Kyle. Present a complete picture and lay off the talking points. Take a full year’s budget and go through it and show us what you would cut and who would be impacted by said cuts. Show us how much the deficit and debt would be reduced. Show us who would get more tax cuts and who would pay for it.
Mr_B
April 10th, 2012
12:53 pm
“at less than $5 billion a year during the next decade” is one more edition of the complaint that the President doesn’t want to do enough to control the deficit. When I try to balance my budget, I look at everything, and taxing all income at the same rate (which BTW the Buffet rule does not do) makes perfect sense. No $5G isn’t going to fix the problem BY ITSELF. But it’s a start, and come from a place where it impacts the rest of the economy the least.
In the middle of the Bush presidency (2007) tax revenues were 18.5% of GDP. In 2010 they were 14.9 % coming off a recession.
Doesn’t sound like were taxing ourselves to death to me.
Kill ALL of the Bush tax breaks.
griftdrift
April 10th, 2012
12:53 pm
Two thoughts on the chart you linked to, Kyle.
I’m curious how they computed the corporate tax rate. There’s no explanation, yet, it magically balloons to over 9% for the highest income level. Also curious how they didn’t include capital gains which is a flat 15% and I believe a significant factor in Buffet’s argument.
Second, since you’ve give the evidence, can we at least to agree to a moratorium on the ridiculous “47% of people don’t pay taxes” argument. After all, your own chart shows that’s completely false.
gm
April 10th, 2012
1:01 pm
Enter your comments here
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
1:05 pm
No taxes should be raised until meaningful spending cuts (read: fundamental entitlement reform) are made along with them. Otherwise that is just more money that is going to be spent, not applied to deficit reduction. Deficit reduction is not attractive to a large number of voters, so you can be assured that additional revenue will not be used for that.
Fundamental entitlement reform is what is needed before taxes are raised on anyone. Period.
gm
April 10th, 2012
1:12 pm
Amazing during Bush 8 years in office Kyle the right never talked about budgets, economy deficits, now that Obama in office every one on the right criticism is totally un warrent.
Maybe if we had these concerns while Bush was spending over billion month in Iraq we would be farther along now, and the country would be more united.
jconservative
April 10th, 2012
1:16 pm
“The Buffett Rule is a club for Obama to swing at Romney, nothing more.”
Correct, and it will probably prove to be a wise political maneuver.
Folks, Reagan tripled the national debt, so please do not start again the chant about what a great guardian of the public purse he was.
Lt Dan
April 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
I believe we do not have a revenue problem, but more of a spending problem. Our government simply spends more than it takes in. That being said, the current Federal tax system needs to go due to being too complex and unfair to citizens and businesses.
I would like to see two things happen:
1) Scrap the current Federal tax system and go to the Fair Tax (but politicians will hate it as it takes so much power from them);
2) Determine what are the true duties the Federal Government should perform and do away with those departments that are redundant or not necessary. Department of Defense – keep it, but structure as to the missions that are required of it. Department of Justice – keep it but reorganize it (the “war” on drugs has failed, adjust accordingly). Department of Energy – a miserable failure – reorganize it or do away with it. Department of Education – scrap it and the mule it rode in on. Let the states run their own education systems and allow them to keep their tax dollars they raise for it.
Any other ideas of what should be kept or scrapped?
Jefferson
April 10th, 2012
1:20 pm
If it is such a small amount it won’t hurt the millionaires that much.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
April 10th, 2012
1:33 pm
“Fairness” is the refuge of losers who can’t cut it in the adult world.
Grow up, Democrats.
Jefferson
April 10th, 2012
1:35 pm
The super committee did a great job when given the task, why does anyone think its all the President’s job, unless they have agendas.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
1:42 pm
“Since 5 billion is such an insignificant amount in your mind, Kyle, why don’t you just make an annual charitable contribution of 5 billion yourself. ”
Deflection. Used when those who have no logical argument must post anyway.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
1:44 pm
“why does anyone think its all the President’s job”
They don’t. See: Ryan, Paul Congressman from WI.
Also see: Leadership, as in: this Disaster-in-Chief has none.
Richard
April 10th, 2012
1:45 pm
Jefferson,
“If it is such a small amount it won’t hurt the millionaires that much.”
The small amount means there’s no point in doing it. Tax is for the purpose of funding the necessary functions of government, not to hurt millionaires.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
1:45 pm
gm@1:12,
I don’t think Kyle worked for the AJC for the vast majority of the time that Bush was president. And there are many of us who DID complain during the Bush administration about spending. But now that Obama is spending even more we are complaining louder. Anything wrong with that? The government spends too much money, and I want it to stop doing that. I really don’t care who is in charge.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
1:47 pm
“If it is such a small amount it won’t hurt the millionaires that much.”
Except it hits approximately 80% of small business owners who file as individuals and are the ones who are creating / maintaining jobs right now, but why would anyone expect you or this administration to know about job creators?
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
1:47 pm
grift: See here about TPC and the corporate tax rate. Basically, if you own stock, TPC (like CBO) assigns some of the burden of the corporate tax to you. Because higher earners are more likely to own stock, they bear a larger share of that tax burden.
Capital gains, I’m 99% sure, are included in the income tax — after all, you don’t fill out a separate tax return for your income from capital gains.
As for the 47% thing — first, the correct line is “47% of people don’t pay income taxes”; payroll taxes are, of course, a different matter altogether. The “47% of people don’t pay [any] taxes” line is used either by conservatives who misspeak or don’t know what they’re talking about, or liberals who want to highlight misspoken or ill-informed conservatives.
Second, that particular chart doesn’t prove or disprove anything about the share of people paying income taxes, because it doesn’t tell us what percentage of the population falls into each income bracket.
MarkV
April 10th, 2012
1:48 pm
Kyle,
What exactly do you have against fairness?
Do you really think that the President should only talk about issues that have a more impact on the revenues than the Buffett rule?
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
1:49 pm
What most people can’t see is that raising taxes will never satisfy those who want to spend more. Does anyone honestly think if we got rid of the Bush tax cuts that you would here this from the left: “There. Now that everyone is paying their fair share, let’s get to work cutting this spending.” Other people’s money is a very addictive drug.
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
1:50 pm
Once again, gm: I wasn’t writing for the AJC, or about federal government policies, when Bush was in office. You’ve beaten that fake horse well past the point of death.
Richard
April 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
I have two programs the government can eliminate entirely:
1. The Post Office. Self explanatory. This is a dying entity where the guy in charge is begging to be able to get rid of most of the work force and shorten the work week. Let UPS, DHL and FedEx bid on who gets contracted to handle government mail.
2. The US Mint. A bit more extreme, but honestly, who uses cash anymore? Also, it costs more than a penny to manufacture a penny. Our money is underwater.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
1:53 pm
My 1:49 should read “….hear this from the left…”.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
1:54 pm
“What exactly do you have against fairness?”
Why don’t you understand the definition of the term “fair”?
Fairness to most logical people is when folks pay the same rate regardless of their situation.
Fairness to liberals is when rich people pay more than poorer people and – oh, wait – they already DO!
So what you and the current Disaster-in-Chief really want isn’t “fairness”, as that already exists; you want confiscatory rates for those you envy.
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
1:56 pm
and who said Obama wants to be like France, I think he’s got a long way to go
The Socialist favourite in France’s presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
1:57 pm
How about those huge savings resulting from proposed cuts to NPR and Planned Parenthood, TB? If those cuts are significant, then so is the 5 billion that Kyle speaks of.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
1:58 pm
“Folks, Reagan tripled the national debt, so please do not start again the chant about what a great guardian of the public purse he was.”
jconservative, Reagan was fighting (and winning) the Cold War and driving our main foe underwater. He also had to deal with Tip O’Neill in order to get his agenda moved forward. Not defending everything he did, but there were actual reasons (and good ones) to spend the way he did.
Not so now.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:02 pm
“How about those huge savings resulting from proposed cuts to NPR and Planned Parenthood, TB? If those cuts are significant, then so is the 5 billion that Kyle speaks of.”
First of all, another deflection from the topic at hand, which is increasing tax rates.
Second, you’ve apparently never heard of the old adage, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”. We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Stop digging.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:03 pm
Tiberius@1:58,
I have to disagree. Overspending is overspending. Reagan did it, Bush did it, and Obama is REALLY doing it. You’re either a budget hawk or you’re not. There are times when you have to spend more, but you have to adjust revenue as well during those times. Neither side is willing to reconcile the ridiculous difference between what we spend and what we take in.
The debt shows our complete fiscal irresponsibility of the past, the deficit shows it for the present, and unfunded liabilities show it for the future. Winking and nodding when a Republican does it should not be an option, though no one is in Obama’s league.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:06 pm
You should follow your own advice, TB, and stop digging for it is you that attempts, poorly I might add, deflection.
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
2:08 pm
gordon is correct
both parties are up in washington spending
they are both guilty
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
2:09 pm
i am the 53%
are you?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:11 pm
Gordon, if you goal is to rid yourself of the Cold War without firing a shot, you have to either show the world and the countries involved that their way is wrong, or you have to spend them into oblivion.
Reagan had to deal with Tip O’Neill, who understood the concept of horse-trading for programs, as did Reagan.
What would this world (and our economy) look like today if the Cold War wasn’t settled back in the 1980’s?
That we didn’t STOP spending once the goal was accomplished was the problem, and that lays at the feet of successive Republican and Democrat Congresses and administrations, but Reagan got the job done he wanted to.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:11 pm
I did my taxes yesterday. I am definitely the 53%.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:12 pm
Wow, another post by Ten Percent not on topic.
I’m shocked!
Get Real
April 10th, 2012
2:12 pm
SBinF Until you stop runaway spending you can tax successful wagon pullers at 100% and it would be like throwing a brick in the Grand Canyon….WAKE UP
Jefferson
April 10th, 2012
2:13 pm
Yep spending should be cut, problem is your have obligations you must meet 1st. Cover the obligations with income where income is. You folks don’t realize what a mil in income is and what would be left after taxes. Nobody got punished.
Kyle is lucky, don’t forget.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:14 pm
I propose we eliminate all spending then and not spend any more money until the debt is paid off.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:15 pm
Wow, another post by TB directed toward me rather than the topic. Why am I not surprised.
gm
April 10th, 2012
2:16 pm
Gordon
I would take Obama spending money on Americans any day, then Bush spending Billions on building up Iraq, spending is only out of control to the right when it does not benefit them.
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
2:17 pm
now with ten percent better ideas
we can also wipe out several trillion right away by writing off intra-government debt…… in other words the money the general revenues owes the ss mis-trust fund can just be written off
we can go straight to pay as you go
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
2:17 pm
In other 2012 news, Rick Santorum reportedly is moments away from announcing his withdrawal from the race. It’s over, folks.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:17 pm
I can’t see from Paul Ryan’s budget proposal how much the debt will be reduced and how much the debt ceiling will be reduced versus time.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:18 pm
Tiberius,
What does the world look like now, with MASSIVE debt? Reagan made the case of peace through strength, but the didn’t pay for it. Bush made the case of going into Iraq, but he never paid for it. Obama is making the case for more government, but he isn’t paying for it. You have to pay for the things you want. We’ve reached the point where we CAN’T pay for the things the government wants at this point.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:19 pm
AP – “Santorum suspending his campaign.”
Took him long enough to realize the Crusade was going nowhere.
leslie johnson
April 10th, 2012
2:19 pm
WAKE UP PEOPLE
Obama’s Re-Election: A Stake in the Heart of the American Spirit
By Lloyd Marcus
…Frankly, I cannot relate to those who are eager for Obama, “King of the Trifling,” to reign in his new American kingdom, in which government harvests the crops of risk-takers to be redistributed equally to the masses. Obama’s re-election campaign is targeted to stupid dumb-down voters, to products of liberal indoctrinated education, making them clueless regarding the tremendous cost and value of freedom. Consequently, Obama voters will eagerly surrender freedom, which is their God-given birthright, for a “free” crust of bread or a bowl of soup.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_re-election_a_stake_in_the_heart_of_the_american_spirit.html#ixzz1rf3otVgN
Wade Hampton
April 10th, 2012
2:20 pm
“Anyone who falls for it, thinking it will lead to one iota of improvement for their own lives, will deserve what they get. Or don’t get, as the case may be.”
.
Ditto for the goobers who vote for the Mitt “lessor of two evils,hold your nose,North-east Libtard, friend of Kennedy, John Kerry Jr., Mittons” Romney.
.
You’ll get what you deserve.
Wade Hampton
April 10th, 2012
2:20 pm
I forgot ……….”gun grabber” Romney.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
gm,
The irony is that the Americans that Obama claims to want to help will be the ones hurt the most when this spending orgy blows up in our face. He wants dependence and votes. You are naive to think otherwise.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:21 pm
we can also wipe out several trillion right away by writing off intra-government debt…… in other words the money the general revenues owes the ss mis-trust fund can just be written off
we can go straight to pay as you go
I say put it to a vote. As the people receiving Social Security and Medicare how much they really need that pittance. It’s not like it’s that much money. Then we can eliminate the payroll tax and take that burden off the wealthiest too because they shouldn’t have to pay that tax. It’s not fair.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:23 pm
Better yet, let us eliminate all taxes and not bring them back until the debt is paid off.
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
2:24 pm
SS is simple………they know how much for a year they are to pay out and know how much to take in
for decades they were taking in surpluses and spending it in the general revenues
it needs to go to a straight pay as you go…….no accounting trickery
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:26 pm
Hippocrit@2:17,
That accomplishes nothing. Part of the government will be $X richer, another part will be $X poorer. Nothing will have changed.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:26 pm
“I wish they weren’t called ‘Bush Tax Cuts’” – G.W.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:27 pm
Hippocrit,
There are now 3 workers for every SS beneficiary. How do you think that is going to work?
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
2:28 pm
Ok, 10%, now tell everyone what Bush said right after that.
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
2:30 pm
Right after you, Kyle, tell us how Paul Ryan’s plan will pay down the debt.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:31 pm
I don’t disagree, Gordon. But there is more to spending than just “He did it, too”.
There is context behind everything, and this is one of the main things the Tea Partiers just don’t get. There will be times when you have to spend more, depending on national security issues. You cannot crash entire social programs already in place to pay for a war; you have to either raise taxes to pay for it or you have to go temporarily into debt and pay it back later. It’s the second part that subsequent Congresses and President’s don’t get.
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
2:33 pm
“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts,” he said. “If they’re called some other body’s tax cuts, they’re probably less likely to be raised.”
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
2:35 pm
GORDON
its accounting trickery
all it is doing is taking tax money from current federal income tax revenues and transfering them to the ss trust fund (the iou bonds)……… its a money transfer……… therefore the money that we are currently paying from general revenues will be halted
and both parties KNOW what to do with SS spending……… means test receipients, increase the retirement age and adjust the payroll tax to current inflationary levels, make COLA’s in line with real inflation, and more
its not rocket science
but the IOU’s are tricks
its like getting a cash advance off a credit card
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:35 pm
“Right after you, Kyle, tell us how Paul Ryan’s plan will pay down the debt.”
It won’t troll, not for another 27-30 years. Of course, if he DID propose something that would pay down the debt in less time than that, you be all over him saying he was throwing granny off the cli – oops! – too late for that.
griftdrift
April 10th, 2012
2:38 pm
“The “47% of people don’t pay [any] taxes” line is used either by conservatives who misspeak or don’t know what they’re talking about, or liberals who want to highlight misspoken or ill-informed conservatives.”
Kyle,
Please note how many people in this thread are chiming in that they are part of the “57″.
Love,
Your favorite “liberal”
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
2:39 pm
grift: For all I know, you’re one of the misspoken conservatives…
gm
April 10th, 2012
2:39 pm
Gordon
He wants dependence and votes. You are naive to think
Dependence on what? saving Americans from being thrown out in the streets, helping college kids stay in school so we can compete against the world, when will you people on the right understand we are in the 21st century and the world is moving forward not backwards?
griftdrift
April 10th, 2012
2:40 pm
Then I am far from alone. I hear it daily.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:42 pm
Hippocrit,
I don’t disagree with you. Stop the fake “trust fund”. But that actually solves nothing. There will be a huge revenue shortfall in Social Security that must be made up in the budget one way or another. You originally stated money could be saved. It can’t.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:42 pm
Since when is it the government’s job to prop up housing prices or tuition, gm?
Why can’t people go it on their own?
HDB
April 10th, 2012
2:43 pm
Too many people are decrying the government’s spending….but during an economic downturn, name me one entity that can RAPIDLY inject capital into the economic system when the private markets won’t?
This level of governmental spending, granted being unsustainable, is necessary in order to clean up the mess that the previous Administration left behind. Economics state that governments spend more in an economic downturn…and spend less in an economic upturn. With the number of jobs having been offshored by private industry, the government is the only entity that can adequately address the national need.
The real issue is this: Why wasn’t the national spending a major concern when the nation was BUSHwhacked?? Why wasn’t there a tax INCREASE to finance the war effort (as has been done in every war effort save this one!)??
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:43 pm
gm,
Dependence on the government. He is bankrupting us, and we won’t be able to help anyone. The poor will be the first ones cut out. Wake up.
leslie johnson
April 10th, 2012
2:44 pm
FOR CONSIDERATION
Obama’s Re-Election: A Stake in the Heart of the American Spirit
By Lloyd Marcus
…Frankly, I cannot relate to those who are eager for Obama, “King of the Trifling,” to reign in his new American kingdom, in which government harvests the crops of risk-takers to be redistributed equally to the masses. Obama’s re-election campaign is targeted to hypnotized voters, to products of liberal indoctrinated education, making them clueless regarding the tremendous cost and value of freedom. Consequently, Obama voters will eagerly surrender freedom, which is their God-given birthright, for a “free” crust of bread or a bowl of soup.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_re-election_a_stake_in_the_heart_of_the_american_spirit.html#ixzz1rf3otVgN
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
2:45 pm
grift: And like I said: Those people are wrong.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:46 pm
“but during an economic downturn, name me one entity that can RAPIDLY inject capital into the economic system when the private markets won’t? ‘
It’s always easier to spend someone else’s money, HDB.
The question is, why should they? When did it become the role of government to interfere with the normal rise and fall of economic activity?
“The real issue is this: Why wasn’t the national spending a major concern when the nation was BUSHwhacked??”
Another deflection.
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
2:48 pm
Gordon
There is a shortfall because both parties passed a PAYROLL TAX CUT of 2 or 3% for over a year now………….as i stated there are actions that both parties KNOW they can make to get SS in line…….. they just don’t want to do them because its POLITICAL SUICIDE……….. its MEDICARE that will be the problem………… SS can be brought to sustainable …… its a closed end quantifiable payout…… MEDICARE is an open-ended
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
2:51 pm
@Jm
April 10th, 2012
12:23 pm
Aaamen. It’s also real bad policy, as discussed at Bloomberg.
I believe capital gains and wage tax rates should be equalized, but the stupid buffett rule is not the way to do it.
************************************************************************************
The Buffett Rule is a “sense of shared responsibility”.
Republicans are willing to lie, distort, obfuscate, fabricate and manufacture
fake evidence to bring down a political opponent.
@@
April 10th, 2012
2:55 pm
There’s nothing fair about FORCING people to spread their money around.
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
2:57 pm
@leslie johnson
April 10th, 2012
2:44 pm
FOR CONSIDERATION
Obama’s Re-Election: A Stake in the Heart of the American Spirit
By Lloyd Marcus
…Frankly, I cannot relate to those who are eager for Obama, “King of the Trifling,” to reign in his new American kingdom, in which government harvests the crops of risk-takers to be redistributed equally to the masses. Obama’s re-election campaign is targeted to hypnotized voters, to products of liberal indoctrinated education, making them clueless regarding the tremendous cost and value of freedom. Consequently, Obama voters will eagerly surrender freedom, which is their God-given birthright, for a “free” crust of bread or a bowl of soup.
*****************************************************************************************
That type of consideration you can keep to yourself.
When will you people realize that all of that ridiculous NON-SENSE ain’t working.
We, the supporters of Obama AIN’T falling for that kind of NON-SENSE.
Try again.
Gordon
April 10th, 2012
2:57 pm
hippocrit,
The SS problem is more managable, but it is FAR greater than the 2 or 3 percent cut of recent years. The extra revenue from the payroll tax has been spent, and from this time forward revenues are not sufficient to pay costs. Either means testing (which is wrong), or adjusting the retirement age up is necessary at this point. SS was originally meant to keep people from being destitute in their final years. Now it is used as retirement income. The life expectancy has risen while the age of retirement has not.
You are right that Medicare in its present form is hopeless.
AngryRedMarsWoman
April 10th, 2012
2:58 pm
A “sense of shared responsibility”?????
I do not make $1million…far from it. Screwed again by the AMT, this year my family will pay federal taxes at a rate of 27.6% of our taxable income…24.5% of gross. Georgia is another 5.8%. $85k in state and federal income taxes. I am not crying – I know I am blessed to have this income (as if I don’t work my tail off for it, but I digress)….I am just sick of being told that I don’t pay my fair share. Could anyone seriously say that I am not “sharing the responsiblity”? Feels like I am sharing for a whole bunch of folks who aren’t asked/expected to share in the responsibility. pffttt
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
3:00 pm
@ – @@
April 10th, 2012
2:55 pm
There’s nothing fair about FORCING people to spread their money around
**********************************************************************************************
No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head trying to force them to spread their
money around.
The last time I checked my checking account, savings account, 401k, IRA, anniity…
the money wass STILL THEIR.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
3:01 pm
1960 – John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic President
2008 – Barack Obama, the first black President
2012 – Mitt Romney, the first Mormon President
America has come far.
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
3:01 pm
CORRECTION
The last time I checked my checking account, savings account, 401k, IRA, annuity…
the money was STILL THEIR.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
3:02 pm
“No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head trying to force them to spread their money around.”
Try telling that to the IRS, Trash.
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
3:02 pm
CORRECTION #2
the money was STILL THERE.
SBinF
April 10th, 2012
3:04 pm
Kyle, I have no idea if the statistic you posted is correct or not….but my point stands. Allow the tax cuts to expire, we can sort everything else out later.
HIPPOCRIT
April 10th, 2012
3:04 pm
gordan you are right that is why as a nation we need have a “constitutional convention” and spend time clarifying and defining options to SS and MEDICARE and then coming to a bipartisan consesus to move forward……….. at this point the can has been kicked down the road time and time again until at one point it only becomes massive cuts in benefits and massive tax hikes ONLY………..
HDB
April 10th, 2012
3:07 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
2:46 pm
“The question is, why should they? When did it become the role of government to interfere with the normal rise and fall of economic activity?”
A total collapse of the world’s economic system is NOT a normality in the sphere of economic activity! This was also a point of national security!! The intersection of financial applications (banking, insurance, government) forced the government to act to prevent a repeat of a DEPRESSION!!! With Corporate America dependent upon an active economic system, failure was not an option…and to clean up this mess, it’s going to take an increased level of spending so that the nation can recover. This will be a time consuming process…….
“The real issue is this: Why wasn’t the national spending a major concern when the nation was BUSHwhacked??”
“Another deflection.”
No deflection — a serious question!! NO one complained at what the government was spending when Bush was in office; the Tea Party did not exist until Obama came into office!! Those that were silent under Bush decided to have a voice when Obama came into office…….and the level of animus towards Obama speaks volumes!!!
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
3:08 pm
If we were to call the recent payroll tax cut the Obama tax cut, then it wouldn’t get raised. Is that what you’re saying, Kyle.
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
3:11 pm
@Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
April 10th, 2012
3:02 pm
“No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head trying to force them to spread their money around.”
Try telling that to the IRS, Trash.
*******************************************************
I think in these lines that Jesus is showing how the kings of world show favoritism but how the appropriate thing to do is not exempt anyone but so show them equal treatment and expectations.
In Matthew 17:24-27 we learn that Jesus did indeed pay taxes:
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”
“Yes, he does,” he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?”
“From others,” Peter answered.
“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin.
Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
3:11 pm
If Bush did not intend for his tax cuts to be eliminated, then he should have made sure that was what his legislation the he signed stated.
Kyle Wingfield
April 10th, 2012
3:13 pm
New post upstairs on the Santorum exit.
Zedd
April 10th, 2012
3:13 pm
I’m 42 and have been told all along that I’ll need upwards of a million in my 401k/IRA to be able to retire. Will that ever happen? No, I live basically paycheck to paycheck, single income family for the last 8 years. But if I were able and more fiscally responsible, I would contribute more. What will this Buffet rule does to those of us who want to retire before we’re 70-75?
Now with Ten Percent More Flavor
April 10th, 2012
3:14 pm
Bush and the GOP exhibited true cowardice in 2001 and 2003 by passing temporary tax cuts when they knew full well at the time that they wanted them to become permanent tax cuts at someone else’s political expense.
ODD OWL
April 10th, 2012
3:33 pm
The ODDOWL tax the rich plan… A top federal income tax rate of 50%… A capitalist gain tax rate of 50%… A 40% corporate tax rate… A 20% tax rate on small businesses… A 40% inheritance tax rate… Impose Social security payroll tax and medicare tax on all earned income… Every dollar earned should be taxed… The ODDOWL tax plan for the rich will pay off the debt and eliminate the deficit in five years… Share the wealth, TAX THE RICH, pay down the debt…
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
3:47 pm
Prosperity comes from strong and growing middle class.
Today Washington Post Poll:
52% – Believe in Economic FAIRNESS
dobri
April 10th, 2012
4:11 pm
Only the poor pay taxes…
http://dobrisratings.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149533&Itemid=1
ld
April 10th, 2012
6:54 pm
When the employee class say “fairness” what is meant is a courtesy “handicap” in the economic rat race.–Think Masters, golf: “handicap”. We do NOT all start at the same starting line.
It is the richest of the rich that are gaining the most from the labors of the many.
For the owner/employer/executive class of the “moneychangers” the taxpayers bailed out to end up paying less than most of the taxpayers is reprehensible.
Also, the GOP “trickle down” economics has the effect of “p*$$ on” the employee class. It has NOT produced the touted/promised jobs–unless, perhaps, you count lower paying service jobs, part time jobs, and temp jobs or that it has forced spouses to go to work in such jobs part time because the primary breadwinner ended up making less. It has made “outsource” and “downsize” part of the American lingo and moved manufacturing jobs overseas.
Given the economic realities of today, it is NOT fair for someone that risks ONLY money — and usually borrowed money — to pay less % tax on that money than the worker risking their health and, in some instances, possibly even their lives or sanity.
FYI: Far too many law enforcement and military families qualify for foodstamps and they’re usually making more than the employees in the services industries.
So next time you hear about economic fairness, for “fair” think golf.
ld
April 10th, 2012
7:01 pm
The tax cuts SHOULD expire–that was the point of putting an expiration date on them.
ld
April 10th, 2012
7:03 pm
If you want to reduce spending, then sever the link between Congress and the specific decisions for which the money is spent–think block grants. Until this is done the lobbists and contributors will continue to hold more sway than the good of the nation.
Fundamental Decency is a Concept that is Dying in the Republican Party
April 10th, 2012
8:44 pm
Reagan’s Forgotten Tax Record
Conservative activists were appalled that Reagan would even consider such a thing, but he eventually endorsed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
According to a Treasury Department analysis, it raised taxes by close to one percent of GDP, equivalent to $150 billion per year today, and was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history
In 1985 President Reagan was for the Buffet Rule.
Reagan’s tax legacy fits neither the right-wing nor left-wing pigeonholes.
Although he cut taxes when he could, he raised them when he had to.
That’s something self-styled Reaganites today should remember.
——————————————————————————–
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
April 10th, 2012
9:46 pm
Obozo claimed his Buffett Tax would eliminate the deficit.
The same folks who believe there’s a Republican “war on women” probably believe him.
Idiots.
vanessa
April 10th, 2012
10:23 pm
Ahh. so you all think that mitt romney would do any better??? lmao…. that is a laugh.
Don
April 13th, 2012
12:50 pm
It is unbelievable that this thread has gotten this long without anybody talking about the history of the capital gains tax rate, the rationale for it being different from regular income and whether there is any evidence to suggest there is a “sweet spot” in the rate.
History: almost always lower than regular income. Differential eliminated under Reagan – 28% max rate. Dropped to 20% under Clinton, and to 15% under Bush.
Rationale: We want people to make long term investments in the economy.
Does it work?: Still looking for someone to point to some evidence one way or the other.
As for “fairness”? The real question is how progressive should the income tax be? Nobody ever asks that. I guess it’s hard to generate good sound bites…