Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Mickey_Finn]

I don’t worry about the wealthy. QUOTE]

Yet you jump needlessly to their defense time and again.

 

[LisaA]

I say purely redistribution because the recipients never paid into any system to get benefits. The program’s government component is paid for out of general tax revenues, which many recipients don’t pay.

Still, there is a difference between Part D and welfare programs or unemployment which require ZERO investment by the recipient. Part D could be made solvent by requiring drug companies to take the same hit doctors take when they take Medicare or Medicaid patients. Given the size of the Medicare population and demand for medications, offering the contract to certain drug companies and allowing them to bid or compete for the business would be a no brainer. Most of us in the medical biz were stunned that this was not part of the law (thanks to a member of Congress who took a lucrative job with Big Pharma after pushing this self serving law through). We’re also surpised this has not been changed given the desire for cost savings.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

? where have I said that?

If you support Democrats you are willing to overlook abortion. It could be not any more clear that their agenda with regard to abortion is militant. They are not simply “pro choice” but pro abortion at any time and for any reason (or lack thereof)

I truly do not see how any Catholic could support the Democrat party as it is today.

Lisa

PS I used to be a Democrat

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;9258643:

I don’t worry about the wealthy. QUOTE]

Yet you jump needlessly to their defense time and again.

It surely seems so to you, or you wouldn’t say it. I defend people against unwarranted, envy-motivated confiscation that serves no societal purpose other than the satisfaction of hate in some. And by the way, you never did tell us where you draw the line on who is “wealthy” and who isn’t. Where’s the line? Where do you start confiscating?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

If you support Democrats you are willing to overlook abortion. It could be not any more clear that their agenda with regard to abortion is militant.

Yup. Just no getting around that fact. “But they are better on other issues, etc, etc”.

To which I answer: a dead baby can not collect benefits.

 

[Persuader]

You have drawn your own conclusion out of your incredibly creative imagination, not my statement.

So, are you now saying that it’s an insignificant portion? If that is the case, why did you mention it in the first place? It would be irrelevant to your argument if it was so. Again, you’re not getting out of this one, sister. Own up to what you said.

PS: this wouldn’t be an ad hominem even if you were right about the substance (and you’re not).

Apparently people think these actions will benefit them in some fashion. My belief is that impulse control is lacking. Actually there is much evidence that whether one is able to defer gratification is a strong indicator of future success.

I agree that it’s relevant. As you say, there are studies showing a significant correlation between conscientiousness and future economic success. Unless you think conscientiousness is genetically determined, however, this is necessarily related to environment, and we are back to what can be done about changing environments to motivate behavior and character development. How can we improve conditions for small children to develop conscientiousness? How can we motivate fathers to stay with mothers? And so on. I suggest it would help if economic opportunities were better. Perhaps there is a need to do something about gender differences in college. A lot of things can be mentioned here, but it’s all about how we can make societal differences by employing different measures (be they economic or otherwise).

PS: you should notice what the correlations are saying. They are not saying, for instance, that everyone lacking conscientiousness are poor or visa versa - only that the conscientious are overrepresented among the financially successful. Also, you should notice that the advantage given by this property is in some part a relative one. So if conscientiousness improved in the general populous, you cannot automatically expect an equivalent economic improvement. It would hopefully result in some improvement, but it’s difficult to say how much.

As to “these problems are societal” is a canard.

Sometimes I get really discouraged by people. You call an appeal to societal problems a canard right after you give your own appeal to societal problems. How can you fail to notice that contradiction? Unbelievable. And as far as you caricature is concerned, it’s just that.

Who will pay for it? We already have substantial sums of government money going to colleges. Again you have a lot of ideas but no way to pay for them without pilching from someone else. Aside from that, there are many statistics demonstrating the more government subsidies to colleges, the higher the tuition.

I have already explained how to pay for it. You pay for it with taxes. I am not going to go into why tuition has increased, but safe to say that there is a need for structural changes. The subsidies I am talking about would go directly towards paying for tuition, and could come with strings attached if necessary.

I do find it funny when I mention a successful program (private charity not government) you extrapolate it to some nationwide movement and then demand “Who will pay for it?” I could ask you the same thing.

You could, but I have already given an answer: taxes. If you are not going to launch a nationwide movement, how do you figure it would have a strong impact? And again, how are you going to pay for it?

Actually about 50% pay no FICA tax either.

Ehh, you seem thoroughly confused by this. The link says that about 159 million people work (and thus pay social security tax), which excludes pensioners, children and other people unemployed. This is not the same as almost 50% of households not paying federal income tax. You do understand that difference, right? (Hint: there’s not over 300 million households in the US.)

Everyone who works pays FICA-taxes. FICA-taxes are actually regressive.

Wrong.

Apparently you didn’t understand that, but that’s fine. The point was not that the bottom 50% pay a higher percentage of their own income in federal income tax. They hardly pay anything, as often noted by conservatives. Of course the top 1% pay a higher percentage of their own income in federal income tax than the bottom 50%.

The example I gave didn’t represent the rich and the poor respectively, as you seem to have thought. It represents an agent in two different situations. Would you rather pay 50% of 100.000 or 15% of 500.000? You want to do the latter, even though it would mean that you would contribute more to taxes.

Now, imagine a cake in 1979. That cake constitutes all taxable income. What has happened the last 30 years? Well, the cake has grown, of course. It’s a lot more cake to eat, but that growth of taxable income has gone straight to the top. In the same link you gave, there are tables showing this growing inequality and how it has, as a consequence of a large shift in pretax-income, also increased the percentage of total income tax paid for by the top 1%. The bottom 50% paid a higher percentage of total income tax 30 years ago. The top 1% paid a lower percentage. Why, the poor were richer and the rich were poorer (relatively).

Here are the basic points, summarized: cbo.gov/publication/42729

 

[LisaA]

So, are you now saying that it’s an insignificant portion? If that is the case, why did you mention it in the first place? It would be irrelevant to your argument if it was so. Again, you’re not getting out of this one, sister. Own up to what you said.

PS: this wouldn’t be an ad hominem even if you were right about the substance (and you’re not).

Please post the quote where I said a majority of Walmart Women were ‘drug addicted crazies’ I am not sure why you keep beating this dead horse. At any rate the term ad hominem refers to your attempt to degrade the quality of my argument (that there is no justification for confiscating from the successful) by claiming I think all Walmart Women are lunatics. I don’t. I do think most people availing themselves of social services have made a serious of decisions leading to that situation. Very few people are on government assistance without contributing to their own fate.

I agree that it’s relevant. As you say, there are studies showing a significant correlation between conscientiousness and future economic success. Unless you think conscientiousness is genetically determined, however, this is necessarily related to environment, and we are back to what can be done about changing environments to motivate behavior and character development. How can we improve conditions for small children to develop conscientiousness? How can we motivate fathers to stay with mothers? And so on. I suggest it would help if economic opportunities were better. Perhaps there is a need to do something about gender differences in college. A lot of things can be mentioned here, but it’s all about how we can make societal differences by employing different measures (be they economic or otherwise).

I have no idea why you’ve turned delayed gratification to conscientiousness since the two are not the same. At any rate, we would hope PARENTS would play a role in teaching their children to control their impules, say no when the request is inappropriate, delay a reward. Mine did and hopefully yours did as well. Given that we have generations of children who have grown up with parents who are apparently not doing this, the task may fall to school teachers but unfortunately teachers cannot undo poor parenting.

As to what WE can do to motivate men to stay with the mothers of their children…again shifting individual responsibility to someone else or some organization or government program. Really? How about this one…make the men pay to play. One of the least effective government tasks is tracking down non-custodial parents who will not support their children. Sadly many of the women are complicit in this by refusing to name the father of their child as they don’t want the state to go after Baby Daddy. How about making all support contingent on locating both parents and making them pay?

You seem to be a fan of societal pressure to convince Mr Gotrocks to hand over his dough to Ms Walmart Clerk. How about societal pressure to support your children? Good old fashioned shame might come in handy as these men think nothing of having mulitple children and dancing away after the oats are sowed.

With regard to the suggestion that fathers would support their children if economic times were better…another pipe dream. THe rise in out of wedlock births and use of social services has increased steadily through booms and busts. It’s not simply a matter of not having a job, it’s also a matter of knowing Uncle Sam will pay so why should you?

Sometimes I get really discouraged by people. You call an appeal to societal problems a canard right after you give your own appeal to societal problems. How can you fail to notice that contradiction? Unbelievable. And as far as you caricature is concerned, it’s just that.

I have already explained how to pay for it. You pay for it with taxes. I am not going to go into why tuition has increased, but safe to say that there is a need for structural changes. The subsidies I am talking about would go directly towards paying for tuition, and could come with strings attached if necessary.

You could, but I have already given an answer: taxes. If you are not going to launch a nationwide movement, how do you figure it would have a strong impact? And again, how are you going to pay for it?

So that’s your answer to all of society’s ills…take more from the successful and give to those you (or your agents) think are more deserving. As to Best Friends becoming a nationwide movement, the reality is that local programs addressing local issues are far more effective and less expensive than some federal from on high program that requires a huge budget, thousands of government workers, mountains of rules and policies and very little of the money actually getting to the intended recipients. I’m a fan of not taking our money to Washington in the first place…

Lisa

 

[ishii]

I think this is pretty much, a side step. If you could show me a government that doesn’t tax and spend. That would be something.

You’re being disengenuous, Mickey. You know I’m not referring to a govt. which legitimately taxes and spends on the necessary things like national security and infrastructure, but rather taxes and spends as a means of maintaining power- the modus operandi of the Democrat party. Tax, spend, tax, spend - on wasteful projects that often do more harm than good - that is what I’m talking about. But I suspect you already knew that.

The problem remains, a group of people that wish to hold on to wealth. They don’t care about households that are run by single woman. They don’t care about bridges that collapse into the river. They don’t care about droughts and tremendous wildfires that scar the landscape. They care about their wealth. That people defend them, still baffles me.

Ad hominems, MIckey. You say about those with whom you disagree - “you don’t care about the poor! You don’t care if they die when the bridge collapses” - that is an ad hominem attack that shows how bankrupt your ideas are. Why do you demonize those with whom you disagree? Does it make you feel better? I also note that you don’t answer any of my points. Do you have anything other than ad hominems?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

There is a pie (chart) floating around. It shows what percent of the national wealth is held by who. It also shows what is possible.
pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/easy-as-pie-inequality-in-downloadable-charts.html

ATB

You remind me of an algebra student who just doesn’t grasp the concepts. The pie is not static. You see the pie as finite in which the govt. should decide who gets what - divide it up. The problem is, you don’t understand economics. People have to start somewhere. Those at the bottom can move up. What liberals don’t understand is that many in the lower levels are passing through on their way up to the next level. Its not like its that same people stuck in each slice. The pie grows as the economy expands and people get more opportunities. Those just starting out are in the lower classes. Many of them move into the middle class or higher. Some are stuck in the lower classes due to factors that have nothing to do with not confiscating enough rich people’s money. But maybe I should start arguing like you: " you hate the rich. you want to steal their money because you envy them." How do you like ad hominems when they’re used against you?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You obviously only see the GOP through rose colored glasses. My point was that some of the worst examples of ethics, abortion legislation and traditional family values in the presidency and its candidates have been on the Republican side. I was not describing how government works. I view a lot of the rhetoric and propaganda and about political parties, from all sides, as a form of idolatry and remain an independent with my focus on Christ.

No, I see reality, Eugenius. Let’s keep it simple so that everyone can understand: there are two parties, Democrat and Republican. One party, Democrat, wants to keep abortion on demand legal. They are in the pocket of the abortion lobby. They believe in fetal stem cell research and euthenasia. The other party, the GOP is for passing restrictions on abortion and for traditional marriage and protection of the elderly from the pressure of “physician assisted” suicide. Its clear which is the pro-death party and which is the pro-life party. You are merely confusing matters by taking the actions of a few Republicans who are not exemplary examples of personal morality and using them to deface the entire party. The only question is what could cause you to hate a party so much that you would want to do this? Is it because your candidate wasn’t chosen for the nomination? You need to get over it, wake up and see that we have a choice between a pro-life party and a pro-death party.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I have already explained how to pay for it. You pay for it with taxes. I am not going to go into why tuition has increased, but safe to say that there is a need for structural changes. The subsidies I am talking about would go directly towards paying for tuition, and could come with strings attached if necessary.

You could, but I have already given an answer: taxes. If you are not going to launch a nationwide movement, how do you figure it would have a strong impact? And again, how are you going to pay for it?
]

In short, you answer is “pay higher taxes”. That will only go so far - people will find ways to protect their money from excessive taxation. Also, people will decide that its just not worth it to take the risk and make more money if all it means is that it will put them in the higher tax bracket and pay more taxes. Here is a novel concept: pay for things yourself. Why does college tuition have to be paid for by someone else? If you want to go to college, find a way to pay for it. People are already taxed high enough - including the rich. When you add up all the federal income taxes, state income taxes, in some cases city taxes, sales tax, excise taxes, property taxes, it adds up to a huge chunk of ones income overall. People are overtaxed. There is too much spending on useless projects. Simply saying “tax the wealthy” is to simple. What we need to do is close loopholes, simplify the tax code, lower taxes, and cut spending. Oh, and pay for your college education yourself if you want one.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

**
BTW has anyone seen the latest Obama campaign “Julia” where a composite woman is taken from cradle to grave by her dear old Uncle Sam. Somehow THIS is what we are supposed to aspire to?

Lisa**

I heard about it on the Medved show. Bizarre. It makes Obama into some sort of demi-god who will take care of us all - whether we want him to or not. It seems to take to the extreme the idea that “Obama will solve our problems.” Ironic that “Julia” is the character from the Orwell book 1984. 1984 is where Obama would take us. The ad itself reads like a piece from some kind of Soviet propaganda circa 1958:

"under Obama, Julia gets free birth control so she doesn’t have to worry about her health. Romney would repeal Obamacare. Under President Obama: Julia’s son Zachary starts kindergarten. The public schools in their neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama’s investments in education and programs like Race to the Top"

"*Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she’ll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.

Under Mitt Romney: Julia’s benefits could be cut by 40*%"

In other words, the don’t worry, the state will take care of all of your needs from cradle to grave. The Obama campaign is relying on the stupidity of the voters. Here is the link:

barackobama.com/life-of-julia

Here is a better critique than I could manage:

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/04/obamas_vision_for_julia_statism_114052.html

A snippet:

“No doubt, the creators of Julia — imagine a dour and featureless version of Dora the Explorer who grows old through the years — weren’t seeking to make a major philosophical statement. But they inadvertently captured something important about the progressive vision. Julia’s central relationship is to the state. It is her educator, banker, health-care provider, venture capitalist, and retirement fund. And she is, fundamentally, a taker. Every benefit she gets is cut-rate or free. She apparently doesn’t worry about paying taxes. It doesn’t enter her mind that the programs supporting her might add to the debt or might have unintended consequences. She has no moral qualms about forcing others to pay for her contraception, and her sense of patriotic duty is limited to getting as much government help as she can.”

Does anyone still maintain that Obama is not a socialist?

Ishii

 

[Eugenius]

It’s entirely possible for some to view the GOP through rose-colored glasses. It is also possible to cover one’s glasses with pitch so as not to see:

1. An anti-employment program pitched as “environmentalism” and “redistribution”.
2. Oppression of the Church (and not only the Catholic Church…ask the LCMS about that)
3. Promises that will increase the cost of heating and cooling to the poor who can afford it least, and destroy thousands of jobs in a low-employment environment.
4. Single wedded devotion to abortion.

That’s idolatry with a capital “I”.

Now you understand why we need to be careful about over identifying with a political agenda and claiming that it represents God. There is capital “I” idolatry everywhere. By the way, I don’t really agree with your four points, each one over dramatizes and over simplifies the situation. Seeing clearly, rationally and objectively is not the same as covering one’s glasses with pitch.

 

[Eugenius]

No, I see reality, Eugenius. Let’s keep it simple so that everyone can understand: there are two parties, Democrat and Republican. One party, Democrat, wants to keep abortion on demand legal. They are in the pocket of the abortion lobby. They believe in fetal stem cell research and euthenasia. The other party, the GOP is for passing restrictions on abortion and for traditional marriage and protection of the elderly from the pressure of “physician assisted” suicide. Its clear which is the pro-death party and which is the pro-life party. You are merely confusing matters by taking the actions of a few Republicans who are not exemplary examples of personal morality and using them to deface the entire party. The only question is what could cause you to hate a party so much that you would want to do this? Is it because your candidate wasn’t chosen for the nomination? You need to get over it, wake up and see that we have a choice between a pro-life party and a pro-death party.

Ishii

You are over simplifying.

Your comment about hating the Repulican party made me laugh, is this another “ad hominem”? Eugenius pointed out the truth so he must hate the Republicn party? Are you being serious? In case you missed it, the “few republicans who are not exemplary examples of personal morality and using them to deface the entire party” were Republican Presidents and/or candidates, the very people you are telling me I am supposed to support because they are better than everyone else and supposedly respresent God. It is this idolatry I am speaking out against.

 

[ishii]

You are over simplifying.

Your comment about hating the Repulican party made me laugh, is this another “ad hominem”? Eugenius pointed out the truth so he must hate the Republicn party? Are you being serious? In case you missed it, the “few republicans who are not exemplary examples of personal morality and using them to deface the entire party” were Republican Presidents and/or candidates, the very people you are telling me I am supposed to support because they are better than everyone else and supposedly respresent God. It is this idolatry I am speaking out against.

Which immoral Republican candidates am I telling you to support, Eugenius? When did I say anyone “represents God” ? I would appreciate you not attributing to me ideas I have never suggested. When you deface the entire GOP because of the actions of a few candidates then I have to wonder about your motives - perhaps you could tell us why, for example, the supposed “adulterer” candidate makes it impossible for you to support Rick Santorum? Or Romney? Rubio? Chris Christie? Bobby Jindal? Rick Perry? Paul Ryan? Are they all immoral adulterers? Which immoral adulterers are running for president, Eugenius? Which ones for governor? Senate? Vice presidential picks? Are you going to not support Romney because Newt Gingrich had 3 wives? You’re not making sense, Eugenius.

Ishii

 

[LisaA]

You are over simplifying.

Your comment about hating the Repulican party made me laugh, is this another “ad hominem”? Eugenius pointed out the truth so he must hate the Republicn party? Are you being serious? In case you missed it, the “few republicans who are not exemplary examples of personal morality and using them to deface the entire party” were Republican Presidents and/or candidates, the very people you are telling me I am supposed to support because they are better than everyone else and supposedly respresent God. It is this idolatry I am speaking out against.

Ridiculous. No one said ANY Republican represented God. You must be thinking about the other party, a number of whom characterized Obama as “messianic” (I’m thinking maniacal is more like it). No one said you should support candidates whose morals are in question. As to your attack on Nixon…he’s been dead a while so not sure how supporting a candidate like Romney or Santorum or Rubio has the remotest connection with Nixon’s past sins. Were you even alive when Nixon was in power? The irony being that as we look back Nixon’s issues pale in comparison to the current crop of politicians (John Edwards anyone?).

What has been stated repeatedly although you fail to acknowledge it or have no argument so you simply blown on by, is that there are distinct differences between the Democrat and Republican party. If we look at which party most identifies with our Catholic social teachings, the Republican party is far ahead of the Democrat with respect to LIFE issues, the non-negotiables. The Democrat party is in the pocket of the abortion lobby and it was no more evident than when a bunch of Democrat senators publically dressed down a PRIVATE CHARITY for de-funding Planned Parenthood. They are so protective of their pet abortion industry that they think it’s perfectly appropriate to meddle in the affairs of Susan B Komen.

The Democrat party may pretend to be on the side of the poor…or as Ann Coulter says they love the poor they keep making so many more OF them. But in truth as Ridgerunner and Ishii and others have pointed out, the constant demands for additional programs are more vote buying than demonstrating actual concern given that they loudly support programs that do not work, are wasteful or have a poor track record of actually directly helping the poor.

I admit there are no angels in this play and there are a few Republican policies that give me pause as a Catholic. But the perfect party and the perfect candidate does not exist. Perfection is the enemy of the good. And I’d rather have 80% than 5% any day

Lisa

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You’re being disengenuous, Mickey. You know I’m not referring to a govt. which legitimately taxes and spends on the necessary things like national security and infrastructure, but rather taxes and spends as a means of maintaining power- the modus operandi of the Democrat party. Tax, spend, tax, spend - on wasteful projects that often do more harm than good - that is what I’m talking about. But I suspect you already knew that.

Ishii

Well Ishii, I’m not at all disengenuous. Just because you don’t approve of a program doesn’t mean it is not worthwhile.

ATB

 

[LisaA]

Well Ishii, I’m not at all disengenuous. Just because you don’t approve of a program doesn’t mean it is not worthwhile.

ATB

Actually you were bein disengenuous. It’s the “all or nothing” approach so commonly used by the Left. Well you must want NO government if you object to its intrusion into the minutia of your personal life (unless you want an abortion in which case it’s hands off).

What most Conservatives promote is the limited federal government role envisioned by the Founding Fathers. More focus on state and local efforts to solve state and local problems rather than coming down from on high with huge and inefficient programs. Check the Founders’ writings including our founding documents and it was clear that the Federal government’s role was not to support school lunch programs in Tumbleweed County. That should be left to the state/city/county and the tax dollars do not need to make their way to Washington only to be doled back to the locals after pilching a good portion for admin.

As Ishii noted, something like our common defence is in the realm of the Federal government since this function cannot be done by 50 states in 50 ways. OTOH the multiple programs, often duplicative, always expensive and with a lifespan of nuclear waste are not the role of the feds. Objecting to increases or yet another dopey program does not mean we are suggesting anarchy, just some rational thinking and a knowledge of the role of government at every level
:Lisa

 

[Eugenius]

Which immoral Republican candidates am I telling you to support, Eugenius? When did I say anyone “represents God” ? I would appreciate you not attributing to me ideas I have never suggested. When you deface the entire GOP because of the actions of a few candidates then I have to wonder about your motives - perhaps you could tell us why, for example, the supposed “adulterer” candidate makes it impossible for you to support Rick Santorum? Or Romney? Rubio? Chris Christie? Bobby Jindal? Rick Perry? Paul Ryan? Are they all immoral adulterers? Which immoral adulterers are running for president, Eugenius? Which ones for governor? Senate? Vice presidential picks? Are you going to not support Romney because Newt Gingrich had 3 wives? You’re not making sense, Eugenius.

Ishii

You made comments that the GOP is in line with church teaching. I pointed out some exceptions to you. I don’t know why you are interpreting this as a threat, but I will leave that for you to work out. The topic of this thread is about the Buffett Rule, it was not my intention to derail the discussion, other than to point out that voting Republican just because of its supposed alignment with church teaching does not guarantee that we will get what we thought we were voting for. I’m sorry you are so confused by such a matter-of-fact observation.

 

[ishii]

You made comments that the GOP is in line with church teaching. I pointed out some exceptions to you. I don’t know why you are interpreting this as a threat, but I will leave that for you to work out. The topic of this thread is about the Buffett Rule, it was not my intention to derail the discussion, other than to point out that voting Republican just because of its supposed alignment with church teaching does not guarantee that we will get what we thought we were voting for. I’m sorry you are so confused by such a matter-of-fact observation.

Here Eugenius, I will re-post my comments to give you another chance to actually answer my points:

Which immoral Republican candidates am I telling you to support, Eugenius? When did I say anyone “represents God” ? I would appreciate you not attributing to me ideas I have never suggested. When you deface the entire GOP because of the actions of a few candidates then I have to wonder about your motives - perhaps you could tell us why, for example, the supposed “adulterer” candidate makes it impossible for you to support Rick Santorum? Or Romney? Rubio? Chris Christie? Bobby Jindal? Rick Perry? Paul Ryan? Are they all immoral adulterers? Which immoral adulterers are running for president, Eugenius? Which ones for governor? Senate? Vice presidential picks? Are you going to not support Romney because Newt Gingrich had 3 wives? You’re not making sense, Eugenius.

Ishii

We’ll take it one at a time. For starters, you said I was telling you to support immoral candidates. Which immoral candidates have I told you to support? Second, when did I ever say the GOP “represents God” ? Answer those questions, Eugenius, and we can have a conversation - if in fact having a two-way conversation is your goal.

Ishii