Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry_Miah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the record what destroyed Detroit was middle class folks… black, white, asian, hispanic do not want to live in a ghetto culture.
Not exactly. When the riots finished up. Many did not think they had recieved enough response from the cities leaders. I remember the guy down the street was a sergeant in the national guard. So, our block was well protected. Others, did not fair so well. Houses were being built in the suburbs. Travel on the highways, was quick and easy. So, they fled. The “Ghetto” culture came about, after the wealth, and jobs, fled the city. So, today we have a once major city. Whos claim to fame, is that it’s the fifth most dangerous city in the world.:rolleyes:

ATB
 
The problem is that if we want the size of government we have now, we all will have to pay more in taxes. If we want to give highly subsidized health insurance to old people, if we want to pay able bodied old people not to work, if we want the government to pay for nursing home care for old people, then we all will have to pay more in taxes. This is something that neither democrats nor republicans seem to understand.
I honestly can’t see a reason to have a society, that doesn’t provide those things:shrug: So, I’m willing to pay for them. More, I’m willing to insist that others pay as well.😃

ATB
 
What about the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax at all? What are we going to do about them? 🤷
Nothing will be done. What Obama and his people are trying to do is get 51% of the people on the non-paying, receiving end. Once he accomplishes that, it will not only be the 1% who get “sheared”, (to use another poster’s expression) but the 49%. And it will not be reversible. That’s the goal. I hate to be pessimistic, but I’m guessing they’ll get it done. This “millionaire tax” thing is only symbolism, and it’s only the beginning. The idea is to get the American people used to the idea that it’s not only ok, but virtuous, to loot others, regardless of actual need.
 
I honestly can’t see a reason to have a society, that doesn’t provide those things:shrug: So, I’m willing to pay for them. More, I’m willing to insist that others pay as well.😃

ATB
Here’s one reason. Statistically, “transfer payments” come out of labor’s share of Gross National Income. That has been true ever since they started collecting statistics on it back in 1929. One who works, or even one who cares about workers, should not be too quick to endorse transfer payments when and to whom they aren’t actually needed. Now, when transfer payments are made to the middle class, which is what nearly all Obama transfer payments have been, (there have been some to the wealthy) as well as some that predate Obama, you’re advocating taking money from working people to give to some others who work and others who could work but just don’t. When advocating that, one ought to consider very carefully why one should do so profigately, instead of insisting that transfers from labor should go only to those in real need who cannot help themselves.
 
BTW just heard an interview with John Kyl. He said they used a procedure that is allowed but even had they passed the Bill in the Senate it could NOT become law unless initiated by the House. Totally contrived political theater. Unfortunately most of America isn’t aware of these rules and will just interpret it as “Republicans hate poor people.”
So, the Senate did this knowing it wouldn’t become law on purpose? It was a political stunt?

Is this a legal opinion?

Interesting. I wonder if any Constitutional scholars have commented on the legality of having the Senate passing the Buffet rule…
 
Here’s one reason. Statistically, “transfer payments” come out of labor’s share of Gross National Income. That has been true ever since they started collecting statistics on it back in 1929. One who works, or even one who cares about workers, should not be too quick to endorse transfer payments when and to whom they aren’t actually needed. Now, when transfer payments are made to the middle class, which is what nearly all Obama transfer payments have been, (there have been some to the wealthy) as well as some that predate Obama, you’re advocating taking money from working people to give to some others who work and others who could work but just don’t. When advocating that, one ought to consider very carefully why one should do so profigately, instead of insisting that transfers from labor should go only to those in real need who cannot help themselves.
Your assuming that the recipeints can all work. But, we are talking about SS, Medicaid, and other forms of aid. The vast majority of people who benefit from these programs, deserve to. I’m willing to pay for that. I’m also willing to insist that you do as well.

ATB
 
Nothing will be done. What Obama and his people are trying to do is get 51% of the people on the non-paying, receiving end. Once he accomplishes that, it will not only be the 1% who get “sheared”, (to use another poster’s expression) but the 49%. And it will not be reversible. That’s the goal. I hate to be pessimistic, but I’m guessing they’ll get it done. This “millionaire tax” thing is only symbolism, and it’s only the beginning. The idea is to get the American people used to the idea that it’s not only ok, but virtuous, to loot others, regardless of actual need.
I’m not so pessimistic. I do think that some of that 51% are not so self-centered that they would blindly follow those who dole out the most government dollars. There are some principled 51%'ers.
 
So you presume all the ills of Detroit result from whites not wanting to live in the same city as blacks? Why didn’t that happen in the South where the ratio of blacks is much higher?

No logic in your answer. Guess it’s not a serious attempt to respond
Lisa
I think your displaying what they call denial.
 
The lack of logic is blameing people for fleeing high crime and substandard schools-regardless of their race.
The high crime, and poor schools came as a result of White Flight. This is common knowledge by the way. So, I’m surprised that it is even disputed. Revisionism I guess.🤷
 
It would decimate the housing market and Charity.
I’m not so sure they would. The “loopholes” sited. Are the ones I qualify for. If we did away with them. I’d still own a home, and give to charities. So, not much in my life would change. I imagine the same is true for most folks. At least in my modest income bracket.🤷

ATB
 
I’m not so pessimistic. I do think that some of that 51% are not so self-centered that they would blindly follow those who dole out the most government dollars. There are some principled 51%'ers.
I would not be so sure. Before Social Security about 75% of men over 65 were in the labor force. Today it is around 17%. People will take free money for not working if they can get it and then justify that they are entitled to make others work to support them.
 
I’m not so sure they would. The “loopholes” sited. Are the ones I qualify for. If we did away with them. I’d still own a home, and give to charities. So, not much in my life would change. I imagine the same is true for most folks. At least in my modest income bracket.🤷

ATB
The phrase “I imagine…” should never be used when you are trying to convince anyone of, really, anything.

Might as well say “I actually have no idea if the following statement is true, but what heck, here goes!”
 
I would not be so sure. Before Social Security about 75% of men over 65 were in the labor force. Today it is around 17%. People will take free money for not working if they can get it and then justify that they are entitled to make others work to support them.
And, the life expectancy was much shorter back then.
 
The high crime, and poor schools came as a result of White Flight. This is common knowledge by the way. So, I’m surprised that it is even disputed. Revisionism I guess.🤷
So black people need white people around or crime will grow??? That seems to be a racist attitude.
 
Hi, Pork Roll,

I know this is going to sound pretty bad … but ‘fairness’ as it is used by our President is a red herring that has many of the news hounds going in circles as they simply lose Obama’s trail. ‘Fairness’ really is a meaningless word in this economic context. For example:

Growing up with siblings, the idea of sharing and taking turns and learning to play by the rules - and not run with scissors, is standard operating procedures for a family. But, here we have our parent(s)/guardian(s) looking out for us because we are children. Once we are grown up, we are expected to apply these principles as we make a living for ourselfs and our family. I do not think anyone goes out and opens up their bank account for anyone who wants some of our money - because this is ‘fair’ or this is ‘sharing’. We identify which charity or charities we want to support and work with our money in this direction … at least this is what a lot of people do. Income redistribution via governmental fiat is not how ‘fairness’ works in this economy. If you want a role model for how income redistribution works or how total governental control of an economy (ultimate fairness) works - look at Russian before the fall of Communism, and N. Koreia today. People were treated like slaves - unless they were in the Party.

The challenge that Obama has yet to grasp is how do we get everyone to prosper, now how do we sink everyone’s expectations to conform to a failed economic philosophy of Karl Marx.

But, just for the fun of it… imagine that we have all gone along with Obama’s idea of fairness - our money goes into Washington and comes out redistributed … less the fees for the federal government, the waste, fraud and abuse that see with poorly monitored agencies (e.g., GSA) poorly thought out ideas ($500 million additional to the IRS already allocated for ObamaCare although the Supreme Court has yet to rule on it) and the various boon-doggles like the solar panel company Solyndra that went bankrupt after handing our bonuses to the executives… all at taxpayer expense. Now, we are only talking about money here - but, look at principles like how the Congress exempts themselves from the laws they pass on the rest of us. ‘Fairness’ just seem to be taking a real beating when the government gets its hands on it.

Ultimately, we are all made the poorer - both financially and psychologically with such a devious manipulation of the language. Maybe we all should re-read ‘Animal Farm’ to see what other creative uses language can serve. :eek:

God bless
Going in circles, losing his trail. I like it.👍 But, neither The soviet Union, or North Korea. Are, or were, working models of socialism. That greed is out of control and leading our country to ruin. Well, it’s beyond dispute. In case you haven’t noticed. The wealthy are getting wealthier. The poor are getting poorer. Our nations infrastructure is crumbling.

Taxes, and government policies, are the only remedies available at this time. If the 1% want to scream, cry, and kick. 🤷

ATB
 
The phrase “I imagine…” should never be used when you are trying to convince anyone of, really, anything.

Might as well say “I actually have no idea if the following statement is true, but what heck, here goes!”
Not so.* I Imagine *most people in my income bracket. Would still own homes and give to charities. Why would they not?

ATB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top