President Obama's 'Buffett Rule'

Whatever happened to all people are created equal? Wouldn't the transitive property then be applicable and then all people are taxed the same?

One flat rate for all people and one flat rate for all companies.

NO tax breaks for anyone and no tax exempt organizations.

Keep Spending at 2010 levels.

Keep this in place for 10 years, unchangeable and see what happens.

Score this at the OMB or OBM and see what happens to the debt and budget!!!!!
 
Ladies and Gentlemen:

If you assume Obama's idea is a good one, why did he not do exactly as he wishes 9 months ago when he held all the cards? Why did he extend the so called "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich"?

The answer is because it is a terrible idea and he has no intention of actually passing it. It is just a tactic to stir up his base. One hundred percent political theater.

Why does no one ask any questions of this president?
 
Shiner brings up a good point, why didn't he do this 9 months ago?

He agreed to leave it as is and know he is changing his mind?

This is nothing but a pot stirring of Class Warefare, stir them into a frenzy so they will forget that they don't have jobs and are in debt and about to have their homes foreclosed.
 
Yes, I do Roger, you take the good 6 1/2 years with the really bad. There is nothing W could have done to stop it and as witnessed by Obama's inability to turn it around(not all his fault) there is very little he can do.

Just raising taxes on 'millionaire/billionaires' is not the answer. Especially when you are lumping $200k earners in with that. Taking money that is already slated as savings and pretending like you found something new is not the answer, either.
 
W or Obama right now? Is there any question?

Obama is an unmitigated disaster. He is completely ineffectual and whoever is advising him needs to be fired ASAP.
 
People forget quickly that the tax rates proposed are the same ones millionaires had during our greatest economic expansions ever- which is why this isn't "picking on millionaires"- it's actually rolling back the clock 10 years on them to a time when they did just fine.

Cutting taxes only works until you hit a sweet spot- at some point, further tax cuts no longer work and the deficits you create inhibit economic expansion. Sorry- that is an economic law. Unless you guys want to live in West Africa or Haiti- where there is no govt to fund- we need to stay in this sweet spot.
 
You do realize the growth of the 1990's had little to nothing to do with the government, right?

Have you ever heard of the internet and networking? By networking I mean connecting everything in the world together. This was an unprecedented time during non-war times of expansion because of the way Corporate business worked and communicated with themselves, customers and suppliers?

You were in the business world in the 1990's right? Not to mention the Internet Bubble resulting from way too much government interference and the subsequent recession? You had a corporate business job at that time right?

Or the government hoax of 1999-2000 ******** that made me hundreds of thousands of government dollars, kinda like global warming!
 
Obama is one funny clueless dude

so all year, ever since the GOP took over the house he has been harping on lack of cooperation and compromise between the 2 houses and how both sides have to work together for the good of the country ( you know like Obama worked with Solyndra for the good of the... wait)
anyway so Obama wants both houses of congress to work together
but IF they do and pass a bill that does not have tax hikes he will veto

so much for obama really wanting both houses of Congress to work together and compromise.
It is his way or the highway.
 
Question for Pharm, Johhny, roger35, Mich and (kind of) mcbrett.

Over the past year or more everyone has said that spending is the main problem, right? BO himself said it. The debt commission said it. Virtually every economist said it. Foreign leaders say it. Buffet says it. I would guess even you guys have said it.

So BO finally decides to do something about our debt and proposes almost no real savings. Taking out fraud and waste you have about $180B in actual savings that are not spelled out in any fashion what so ever. No measures related to social security. No concrete measures to medicare or medicaid. Nothing.

Can any of you offer any reason or justification for this?

Can any of you offer any reason that BO thinks this might pass?
 
As usual, you are wrong about me being wrong.

The stimulus was designed to get the economy going, not just provide a 2-3 month boost. Even if it lasted 6 months, it still didn't work. The game is 4 quarters not two. So as I stated earlier Obama has not been able to turn it around, no matter how much money he spent for short term results. Results that were not that great, anyway.

I don't necessarily buy the argument that Joe millionaire needs to be protected because they might create jobs. But, I know that simply raising his taxes will not get the job done. Especially, when politicians are giving away $500 million to their friends.
 
There are really two issues here. First is the issue of whether or not there should be an overall tax increase or tax rate increase. Clearly there shouldn't be. The economy is in the crapper. Raising taxes is the last thing we should be doing. Furthermore, the deficits are spending driven. A tax increase won't even make a real dent.

However, the second issue is tax fairness. The government shouldn't be taxing people at different rates, and it shouldn't be taxing people differently according to how they made their money. I don't think anyone can seriously contend that it's fair to slam a bricklayer who makes $40K a year with a higher tax rate than some rich guy who made the same amount in 15 minutes selling a few shares of stock.

What we need to do is have one low, flat rate that isn't subject to deductions (except capital losses or cost of goods sold if you make your money selling products) and makes no distinction on how you make your money. That would be fairness. (I would prefer a national sales tax, but I wouldn't want it unless we repealed the 16th Amendment - too much risk of getting hit with both taxes.) And no corporate tax. Those are BS.

And really, that's a verbose way of saying both sides are full of sh*t.
 
First of all, our gov't received ~20% more revenue last year than it did in 2000. However, it spent 110% more than it did in 2000...

Why am I not convinced this is a revenue problem?
rolleyes.gif
 
If corporations, banks, and the rich are sitting on their money and not hiring, then, with respect to job growth, how does raising taxes on the rich matter? If the rich's money is being invested in the stock market into corporations that are not hiring, then why not use some of that money for debt reduction and economic stimulation such as badly needed infrastructure investment. Infrastructure investment isn't going to be any cheaper than it is now.
..........................
"Taxing the wealthy as has been stated time and time again, alters behavior and what little investment going on in this country dries up even further."
..........................
This tired phrase is not supported by the best economic minds, and repeatedly uttering it still does not make it true.


As far as the comment about fairness by taxing everyone equally is concerned, things are not equal. Our middle class is shrinking, and the rich are getting richer under a graduated income tax system. So are you willing to see the middle class disappear so we have more of a Latin American banana republic distribution of wealth just so you can have a tax system with arithmetic that easy for you to understand?

And give me a break about the worn out phrase, "hard earned money," suggesting that every rich person's money is hard earned. The huge Wall Street bonuses are not as hard earned as a teacher's salary having to deal with a student classroom. If one possesses good business acumen, and puts that knowledge to work to make a lot of money, the money earned is deserved, but it's not necessarily "hard earned."

I believe Obama has no expectation of his plan or any compromised version being passed by the House. I believe he is paying attention to the polls and trying to set up Republicans to be seen by the electorate as the party of the rich. And it doesn't matter what the posters and readers of this thread want to happen, since we are just a pimple on the *** of an elephant's gnat. I think the Obama folks are hoping that Perry gets the nomination, because on Election Day, damn few voters are going to vote fore a candidate that's against Social Security. But I digress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top