Why don't you give us some numbers on how the Buffet Rule would improve the economy and the debt situation?

Id be happy to. This two part video explains the situation perfectly.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...-conservatives


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...e-ride-is-over


^This is a good video by Jon Stewart that explains the situation. He says a revert to the Boom 90's tax rates on the wealthy would generate over $700 billion in revenue over 10 years. Thats just going back to Clinton Rates, I don't know yet what the BUffet rule would do, but it definitely points out that we should probably let the Bush tax rates expire.

You care about the estate tax more than the income tax rate, tax deductions and all other tax issues?

You care so much about the estate tax that it trumps every thing else?

I understand being against the estate tax. But most people who feel that way, are already pretty firmly in the Romney camp (and conversely, most who disagree, are already in the Obama camp).

You do realize that the aggregate majority of the Bush/Obama tax cuts go to those that make <$250K right? Obviously in a individual case it seems like the wealthy are getting a steal of a deal but there are much, much more middle/lower class than the wealthy. Here is your problem Jimmy, the Buffett rule won't bring in near enough money to bring down the deficit. And any tax increases on the middle class (ie: doing away with the Bush/Obama tax cuts) will result in the incumbant party getting thrown out.

Also correlation of the Clinton era tax rates is not the causation of the booming 1990's economy. It was the internet boom. And the Bush era tax cuts did not cause the recession, it was the bubble bursting of the NASDAQ and 9/11.

It's quite sad, because you seem like a smart guy, but you are just regurgitating MSNBC partisan factoids. Screaming for the Buffett rule is like ordering a Diet Coke with your Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, Supersize Value Meal.

Re: The Buffett Rule a wide array of tax policy groups give between $5-50 billion/year in new tax revenue. Please explain how this is gonna put a dent in the nearly ~$1T deficit. Hint: It won't. It's just partisian pandering.

Honestly though, Romney should just re-raise Obama and say, I support ending the tax breaks for >$250K and will pass the Buffett Rule and tell Obama, your recovery sux, you have failed the American people. Game over bitchas.

I care more about repealing the income tax, but repeal of the estate tax would be huge. It also slightly changes my view of Romney.

I'm firmly in the they're both scum camp.

Well its just an example where higher taxes, doesn't crash an economy. You see when Clinton signed off on his 1993 budgetary bill that included tax increases mostly on the wealthy, Newt Gingrich predicted such a tax increase would bring about the next Great Depression. The 1993 budgetary bill garnered no Republican support What happened?

Well we had 7 years of unfettered economic expansion, we balanced the budget 4 year in a row, and while Clinton did have the Internet bubble, Bush had the mortgage bubble.

Make no mistake, we have balanced the budget exactly zero times with the Bush tax cuts in place. When it came to a tax/spending level that was set to pay down the entire debt in 10 years this was Bush's approach to the situation.

"If it ain't broke, BREAK IT!"


While the majority of the people may have gotten a tax break, the majority of the MONEY went to the wealthy. See it sounds good, I gave 160 million people $300 each. But he gave 1% of the population or 3 million people, $500,000. You see yes, a majority of the people got some money out of the tax cuts, but it was peanuts compared to what he gave to the wealthy.

By the sounds of it, you don't even want to even try to balance the budget through raising revenue. When you set a budget there are two factors, spending and revenue. You are ignoring half of the problem when you refuse to even look at raising revenue as a means of balancing a budget.

Yikes. This guy is not even close to what a presidential candidate should be. It does not seem like he is even trying to play the part.

What the heck is 4 billion a year (buffet rule) going to do to a budget deficit of 1.1 trillion a year? You trying to convince me you're going to fill the an entire lake with a 600ml water bottle?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-10-years.html

Obama's plan is only reducing 100 billion a year in spending. That leaves 1 trillion dollars, 10% of gdp in budget deficit.

Might as well let the private sector keep their money.

Basically, Americans can't afford more taxes except the rich. But you're not going to get much more taxes out of them.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

There's 3-4 different big budget spending items that need to be hair cutted and shaved in order to get any meaningful budget deficit reductions.

But it won't happen ever. Lobbyist from both parties won't let that happen.

My responses in blue

This is what I don't get. Endorsing a repeal of the estate tax seems very in character for Romney because that represents mainstream GOP policy.

I don't mean to pick on you. It's just that I sense you may be under some misunderstanding about how the parties generally view the estate tax.

I think you completely fail at recognizing that almost half the money in this country, is allocated with 1% of the population. 97.5% of the money is allocated amongst the top half of the people. We live in a banana Republic, where the wealthy control a huge piece of all the money in this country.

I think you underestimate how big the wealth and income disparity in this country is.

Look at this graph.



You see how much CEO income has gone up over the last several years?

Do you see how flat worker/minimum wage has been in that time frame?

Are you trying to tell me that the people who have seen virtually no increase in pay over the last 30 years are the ones we should be balancing the budget off their backs, while we shouldn't even attempt to raise money of the people whos income has drastically risen in that time frame?

If thats the case I would call you penny-wise dollar stupid, at least when it comes to balancing budgets and figuring out where the money is at in society.

THe graph is dated, I can try to find a more up to date one but it will essentially say the same thing that we see in this graph, that the wealthy have made off like bank robbers while the majority of people are still making the same wages in 2012 that they were in 1981.

Just 8 years ago I worked at a restaurant. Do you know what my wage was? $2.13 an hour+tips, with tips included it added up to just about minimum wage. I also suspected my bosses skimmed money from my tips and there was nothing I could do about it since they got a hold of the money before I did.

8 years later do you know what the wage is for restaurant work to this day? $2.13 an hour+tips. The wage has stayed flat, for atleast the last 8 years and I think that wage was set in the early 90's. It has never been raised. With that real world example, are you trying to tell me we need to cut off any government aid to people who are making $2.13 an hour+tips as a means of balancing the budget instead of going to where the real money is?

I'd rather see more tax reductions for the middle class than estate tax reductions.