Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[ishii]

When I said I was in favor of the “Buffett Rule.” I should have said, I was in favor of increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest americans. Then putting that money to good use. Looking after the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped. Little things like that.

ATB

I find you post insulting as it implies that those who are against the Buffett rule are against looking after the elderly, poor and handicapped. That kind of ad hominem is typical - and old. I don’t think Obama and the Democrats are going to get much mileage from it. By the way, what would the Buffett rule do to reduce the debt or cut the deficit? The answer is it would have a minimal effect - its just a crass election year pandering to class envy - the Democrats’ best trick in the arsenal. But I really don’t think it will fly this year.

Ishii

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I find you post insulting as it implies that those who are against the Buffett rule are against looking after the elderly, poor and handicapped.Ishii

Well, yeah. Those who are against the “Buffett Rule”. Do tend to be republicans.

ATB

 

[CRUE_CAB]

No sir. The guy or girl making a good living is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the upper earners who through years of manipulation of our political system. Pay a lower percent then that guy or girl making a decent living.

Remember, it doesn’t hurt to shear a sheep. Skinning them, is another matter.

ATB

That is called communisim.
If I earn a million or ten million, its my money. Not the governments to spread around to people that wont work.

 

[iamrefreshed]

1. You’ll retain the information better. If you do the research yourself.
2. Ad hominem again?
3. This paragraph runs a little long.

ATB

Translation - You’re right Mr. Ridgerunner. I have no basis for my argument.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If I earn a million or ten million, its my money. Not the governments to spread around to people that wont work.

You are against Social Security?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Iamrefreshed,

I think you accurately captured the message

God bless

Translation - You’re right Mr. Ridgerunner. I have no basis for my argument.

 

[mary_bobo]

You are against Social Security?

Let’s not make assumptions here. Did he say he was against SS?

 

[mary_bobo]

1. You’ll retain the information better. If you do the research yourself.
2. Ad hominem again?
3. This paragraph runs a little long.

ATB

Translated: I have no answers just phrases I heard somewhere else.

 

[CRUE_CAB]

You are against Social Security?

Depends on the circumstances.
If you pay into social security, expecting to get a return on it at some point in your life.
Then you should recieve it.
Otherwise let me opt out of it.
If you are applying for SS because of an injury or disability, then that should be determined on case to case basis.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Translated: I have no answers just phrases I heard somewhere else.

Mary, figures you’d pop in eventually. If you care to go back and read, or re-read the dialog between ridgerunner and myself. You’ll see that I’m interested in him learning. Doing his own research will will help him to accomplish this. Just like when you used to tell a child to “look it up”.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

That is called communisim.
If I earn a million or ten million, its my money. Not the governments to spread around to people that wont work.

Communism? Man, you really are scared.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Translation - You’re right Mr. Ridgerunner. I have no basis for my argument.

Already addressed.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Let’s not make assumptions here. Did he say he was against SS?

He said: “Not the governments to spread around to people that wont work.”

Sounds like social security, not many of those recipients work, although many could.

 

[estesbob]

No sir. The guy or girl making a good living is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the upper earners who through years of manipulation of our political system. Pay a lower percent then that guy or girl making a decent living.

Remember, it doesn’t hurt to shear a sheep. Skinning them, is another matter.

ATB

The problem with these discussions is the left delights in comparing the secretaries marginal rate with their bosses effective rate The truth is their bosses pay a much higher effective rate
Than their secretaries do.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

The problem with these discussions is the left delights in comparing the secretaries marginal rate with their bosses effective rate The truth is their bosses pay a much higher effective rate
Than their secretaries do.

So, it’s all just a big mis-undersanding?

 

[stinkcat_14]

The problem with these discussions is the left delights in comparing the secretaries marginal rate with their bosses effective rate The truth is their bosses pay a much higher effective rate
Than their secretaries do.

I think it depends on how you measure the effective tax rate, such as what you count as income. If you use the Haig-Simons definition of income, the boss could well have a much lower effective tax rate.

 

[Suudy]

So, it’s all just a big mis-undersanding?

Rather, it is a deliberate obfuscation to score political points.

 

[Persuader]

Another strawman set aflame! Like many on the Left you forget those essential details. For example the Left claims that Conservatives are against immigration or that they hate Hispanics. Ridiculous.

You’re not even replying properly to the content of my post. You’re simply bringing up other issues. Where is the straw-man? You are the one presenting straw-men and placing me in your neat boxes, not the other way around.

That’s not what I read in the objections to INCREASED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND HIGHER TAXES. You need to separate the two issues.

I find it interesting that you have yet again refrained from addressing what I wrote in response to your post. But let’s soldier on.

Clearly, you haven’t been paying attention to right-wring rhetoric, but I am happy to comment on your point about government and taxes. You seem to be implying that you would not mind raising taxes on the rich if government needed to increase revenue. That is contrary to the Ryan-budget, for instance. Both myself and the Catholic bishops are more interested in the moral priorities entailed by that budget.

So, let’s say we follow the ideological path (deontological libertarianism, Ayn Rand-style) of the Ryan-budget to its eventual end – either a dismantling or serious reduction of welfare programs. Do people really think that charity would pick up the slack? I am going to say no. If people disagree, how about some arguments to support the notion that charity can serve people just as well as government programs? Certainly, there is no current organization capable of this, but perhaps one could see this developing in some way. I have to ask, though - if charity works so well, why was welfare implemented in the first place?

Now, if we suppose that charity will be insufficient, we are apparently left with a position saying that it’s more important that rich people keep more of their money (the Ryan budget will cut taxes for the rich), even though almost all of the wealth-generation over the last 30 years has been going to the top. Look at the statistics on the ongoing increase in income inequality in the US. The US has the worst income inequality in the western world, with a gini-index of 40+.

So given that fact, perhaps we can say this to the rich: “Look, over the last 30+ years, almost all of the economic growth has been going to you guys. Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% have seen their income increase by 275%, whereas income for the working class and the middle class has stagnated. In 2007 (it’s probably worse now), the top 10% took home 50% of the income. The top 1% took almost 24% of the income. You have gotten all the increases in income, so you have to pay more of the taxes. Either that, or the working class and middle-class gets paid more, so they can afford to pay more in taxes. Your choice. But you have to choose between the two. You cannot have all the increases in income without taking on the burden of higher taxes.”

 

[mary_bobo]

Mary, figures you’d pop in eventually. If you care to go back and read, or re-read the dialog between ridgerunner and myself. You’ll see that I’m interested in him learning. Doing his own research will will help him to accomplish this. Just like when you used to tell a child to “look it up”.

ATB

Whatever, But I hardly think Ridge needs help. His post always seem knowledgeable and well researched.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Persuader,

I am guessing that you are addressing the US Catholic Bishops idea of having a ‘circle of protection’ for the poor and needy that benefit from certain programs for feeding families. blog.bread.org/2012/04/us-catholic-bishops-call-for-circle-of-protection-during-fy2013-budget-debate.html Personally, I wish they would take a moral stand on the $16.6 Trillion deficit and address this concern with the same type of enthusiasm and realism. Speaker Boehner statement that if we do not get spending in line there will be no programs to help the poor. reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/usa-boehner-bishops-idUSL2E8FIHGQ20120418 And, as of yet, the Bishops have not yet responded.

In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes is to think that Government is both the answer to our questions and the solution to our problems. Look what such a view has brought - increasing groups of people dependent on government who have become accustomed to entitlement spending on their behalf.

For centuries before Columbus arrived in the New World - the Catholic Church in the Old World was taking care of the poor, sick and homeless. This could be done today - but, current laws would need to be drastically changed - recall that the Catholic Church has been forced out of providing adoptions because of their moral opposition to same sex ‘couples’ adopting a child. Catholic relief agencies were told they could no longer be funded because pregnant women, victims of human trafficking, were not forward on to abortion providers. These are not just financial issues - they are highly political.

Certain individuals have made a living out of speaking out for more hand-outs for their followers knowing full well that increased dependence on government means that they will personally benefit by being the leader. There really is a lot of money in poverty programs - the trouble is - little gets to the poor… and this is by design.

No easy or simply answers here - all of the low lying fruit has been picked years ago - and getting a ladder is so much less enjoyable then just complaining that the fruit is out of reach.

Go bless

You’re not even replying properly to the content of my post. You’re simply bringing up other issues. Where is the straw-man? You are the one presenting straw-men and placing me in your neat boxes, not the other way around.

I find it interesting that you have yet again refrained from addressing what I wrote in response to your post. But let’s soldier on.

Clearly, you haven’t been paying attention to right-wring rhetoric, but I am happy to comment on your point about government and taxes. You seem to be implying that you would not mind raising taxes on the rich if government needed to increase revenue. That is contrary to the Ryan-budget, for instance. Both myself and the Catholic bishops are more interested in the moral priorities entailed by that budget.

So, let’s say we follow the ideological path (deontological libertarianism, Ayn Rand-style) of the Ryan-budget to its eventual end – either a dismantling or serious reduction of welfare programs. Do people really think that charity would pick up the slack? I am going to say no. If people disagree, how about some arguments to support the notion that charity can serve people just as well as government programs? Certainly, there is no current organization capable of this, but perhaps one could see this developing in some way. I have to ask, though - if charity works so well, why was welfare implemented in the first place?

Now, if we suppose that charity will be insufficient, we are apparently left with a position saying that it’s more important that rich people keep more of their money (the Ryan budget will cut taxes for the rich), even though almost all of the wealth-generation over the last 30 years has been going to the top. Look at the statistics on the ongoing increase in income inequality in the US. The US has the worst income inequality in the western world, with a gini-index of 40+.

So given that fact, perhaps we can say this to the rich: “Look, over the last 30+ years, almost all of the economic growth has been going to you guys. Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% have seen their income increase by 275%, whereas income for the working class and the middle class has stagnated. In 2007 (it’s probably worse now), the top 10% took home 50% of the income. The top 1% took almost 24% of the income. You have gotten all the increases in income, so you have to pay more of the taxes. Either that, or the working class and middle-class gets paid more, so they can afford to pay more in taxes. Your choice. But you have to choose between the two. You cannot have all the increases in income without taking on the burden of higher taxes.”