Good news: Obama’s dumb “Buffett Rule” budget gimmick would reduce the deficit by around … four percent

posted at 9:57 pm on January 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

What’s the saddest part of this? That The One is so desperate to demagogue Romney and the GOP as the party of the rich that he’d make a chump-change gambit like this the centerpiece of his budget agenda? Or that liberals are pretending to be impressed? Good lord, I hope they’re pretending.

The liberal outfit Citizens for Tax Justice expects $50 billion in new revenue from the Buffett Rule in year one. Other estimates peg the total take even lower. Remember, the feds spend north of $10 billion each day.

Republican lawmakers — noting the absence of real numbers — attacked the plan as a political charade, an attempt to score points in the November election instead of a serious policy to reduce federal debt. One outside analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation indicates the rule would generate another $36.7 billion a year in revenue — far from enough to make a serious dent in a national debt of $15 trillion.

“It’s a smokescreen,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) told POLITICO. “Barack Obama just wants to pit one group against another so he can raise more money to spend on a bloated government.”…

On average, someone hauling in $1 million a year might have fork over another $50,000 to Uncle Sam. That’s a sizable tab for individuals but not a lot for the government, said David Logan, an economist at the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

“It’s an insignificant revenue gain,” he said. “I view it more as a political tool than anything else, because it doesn’t raise enough revenue to dent the deficit or the debt.”

Curiously enough, the White House has been in no rush to release its own inevitably disappointing projection. $36.7 billion would reduce the projected deficit for 2012 by a tidy 3.8 percent — essentially a rounding error — but lefty Greg Sargent’s excitement is palpable at the thought of Democrats forcing a high-profile floor vote in the Senate on the Buffett Rule to make Republicans squirm. The response to this will be, “Well, $50 billion’s better than nothing,” but that’s actually not true. It’s less healthy for the country to waste time on gimmicks like this, which sustain the fantasy of low-information voters that tax hikes on the rich can close the hole in the budget, than it would be for Obama to offer nothing and let the sense of crisis grow until Congress feels public pressure to act on mandatory spending. That’s the only real fix, of course, but reforming Medicare doesn’t get Obama any closer to his real goal of winning re-election whereas the “Buffett Rule,” a.k.a. the Romney Rule, does, so we’re going to jerk around with this red herring for months and months and months to come. Those priorities deserve a second term, no?

Here’s Reason editor Matt Welch with a better idea for how to make Warren Buffett a featured player in this debate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

MATH IS HARD!

KOOLAID2 on January 27, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I want to liquidate Warren Buffet’s assets in full as an experiment in patriotism and see how that helps.

Who’s with me?

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:01 PM

4% is 4%. No one’s going around saying this will single handedly close the budget deficit. Take it or leave it, budget hawks

ernesto on January 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM

4% is 4%. No one’s going around saying this will single handedly close the budget deficit. Take it or leave it, budget hawks

I’ll take it! When do we get entitlement reform? “Tomorrow,” right?

Allahpundit on January 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM

How ironic. Obama also speaks the truth four percent of the time.

(go ahead, say it’s less)

fogw on January 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM

would reduce the deficit by around … four percent

yahoo!

ALL HAIL DEAR LEADER

cmsinaz on January 27, 2012 at 10:07 PM

this is just obama playing the fairness card. this has never been about the ‘deficit’. Just like the cap gains thing…it is the fairness issue.

Punitive leftism needs an enemy. Fortunately, for the left, a very large part of the electorate are casual voters…i.e. vote for the cutest guy for example. The casuals have no clue about anything financial or political…well, they do understand simple things…like ‘i’ll send you a check if you vote for me’

r keller on January 27, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I honestly believe that the Buffet Rule would increase the deficit.

Because if you tell big government politicians that revenue goes up by $50 billion, they’ll spend $100 billion. Or more.

malclave on January 27, 2012 at 10:10 PM

4% is 4%. No one’s going around saying this will single handedly close the budget deficit. Take it or leave it, budget hawks

ernesto on January 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM

that’s exactly what they’ve been saying. End the wars, tax the rich and the deficit is taken care of. Playing politics and pushing narratives – this is our national discourse. We suck hard.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Well, $50 billion’s better than nothing,” but that’s actually not true. It’s less healthy for the country to waste time on gimmicks like this, which sustain the fantasy of low-information voters that tax hikes on the rich can close the hole in the budget, than it would be for Obama to offer nothing and let the sense of crisis grow until Congress feels public pressure to act on mandatory spending.

You may be right. But then again, about 20 other gimmicks across a broad array of programs where spending can be cut (most cases) or revenues increased (closing special interest loopholes) and you suddenly have a solution.

On average, someone hauling in $1 million a year might have fork over another $50,000 to Uncle Sam.

Need to look at the underlying calcs. If you were to raise someone paying at a 15% rate to 31% (pre-1992 rate), that would mean forking over another $160,000. And then you’re looking at nearly a 15% net change- and that is a significant and serious change.

Can someone correct me here- what am I missing in the numbers behind the $50k calc?

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I want to liquidate Warren Buffet’s assets in full as an experiment in patriotism and see how that helps.

Who’s with me?

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Can I get his secretary’s second home first?

KOOLAID2 on January 27, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I’ll suck yo d!ck for 250 k Warren

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM

I honestly believe that the Buffet Rule would increase the deficit.

Because if you tell big government politicians that revenue goes up by $50 billion, they’ll spend $100 billion. Or more.

malclave on January 27, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Well, then we’ll two people to get in the game for our experiment in patriotism.

Let’s liquidate Bill Gates’ assets as well. They won’t mind… they love this country.

Who’s with me?

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Can I get his secretary’s second home first?

KOOLAID2 on January 27, 2012 at 10:12 PM

As long as I can have her first home to help provide shelter for the homeless.

She won’t mind. She’s a patriot! She sat with the First Lady and everything!

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM

When do we get entitlement reform? “Tomorrow,” right?

Allahpundit on January 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Oh no no nooooo…we can’t have no stinkin entitlement reform, that might actually end up solving our deficit problem and then what will Obama use to blackmail his base , which sux off taxpayer’s teet for a living ? Let me tell you how this $ 50 Bil ” profit ” will be sold to Obama’s base :

Obama extracted mo monay , $ 50 bil from the evil rich tax cheats for our children’s education and to take care of our communities

He has to keep the problem lingering , remember no serious crisis should ever go to waste

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM

If you were serious about wanting to have an impact on lowering the debt and deficit you might want to stop spending ! Just a thought because after all we send it they spend it, regardless of the % taxes are paid at.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Let’s liquidate Bill Gates’ assets as well. They won’t mind… they love this country.

Who’s with me?

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM

he was smart, he put them in a charity, this is how much he trusts the govt with his money :-)…he went all ‘non-profit’ :-)…

jimver on January 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Let’s liquidate Bill Gates’ assets as well. They won’t mind… they love this country.

Who’s with me?

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:14 PM

let’s just conquer Brazil, we’ll go all Roman on everybody, confiscate wealth, burn, pillage, take their women.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I honestly believe that the Buffet Rule would increase the deficit.

Because if you tell big government politicians that revenue goes up by $50 billion, they’ll spend $100 billion. Or more.

malclave on January 27, 2012 at 10:10 PM

That’s an excellent point, but it’s also comical how the leftists always label Reaganomics as “trickle- down economics,” when a tax increase is the essence of a “trickle-down” policy.

When a business has to pay more in taxes, the business makes up for the loss in profit at the expense of the consumer. I’m a college kid, and even I learned this in middle school. That little known fact is called “supply-side economics,” which to a liberal is like holding a cross to Dracula.

Aizen on January 27, 2012 at 10:25 PM

DHChron
How ya doing bud?

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM

since when did high gas prices and tax increases become a winning proposition? libs are dumb

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:31 PM

sup, angrymike…I’m chillin’ like a villain, you?

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Liberalism is a mental disease, a very serious mental disease!

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:34 PM

let’s just conquer Brazil, we’ll go all Roman on everybody, confiscate wealth, burn, pillage, take their women.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Taking Warren Buffet’s and Bill Gates’ wealth to apply to the national debt is an experiment in patriotism, so let’s not get carried away with colonizing Brazil. The moon, maybe…

And frankly, the only asset Brazil could provide us would be getting back our money that our great and visionary President Obama (praised be his name) gave them for drilling oil.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/lawmakers-execs-slam-obama-boosting-brazils-offshore-drilling/

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Popped a few rounds tonight, made me feel so much better after that debate!

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM

“I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”…

d1carter on January 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM

since when did high gas prices and tax increases become a winning proposition? libs are dumb

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Hey Obama won in 2008 by promising to raise taxes and making the energy prices necessarily skyrocket , remember ?
It is a winning proposotion and it works

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Allah
+ 1000000

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM

4% is 4%. No one’s going around saying this will single handedly close the budget deficit. Take it or leave it, budget hawks

ernesto on January 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM

LOL

4% of this year’s deficit! Not 4% of our debt.

And when you take into account the amount of money removed from the economy to pay those taxes, it most likely would all be a wash.

It’s not the taxes dummy, it’s the SPENDING!!!!

ButterflyDragon on January 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM

It’ll give 4% in revenues…..if it doesn’t cost more than that in revenues. I’m sure all those ‘Buffets’ out there are going to be lining up to pay that additional tax, right? There are either loopholes that will allow people to avoid it, or some people will be so pissed off that they’ll decide not to invest here.

Winning solution from complete morons.

How about just cutting the spending in any and every way possible before you start raiding bank accounts to cover the cost of your progressive socialism?

Wolfmoon on January 27, 2012 at 10:42 PM

i went over to that lib tax website to see what theay’re saying

Lefties want to conflate payroll and income taxes. They don’t want to say that.

If they were honest, they’d just say when you add income+payroll taxes average people pay a huge share of their income in taxes. We’ll that’s true…because of SS/Medicare.

I wish lefties would just say this, because they tend to say things like the ‘effective’ tax rate is 21 percent for middle income people.

So to all you leftists that comment, just say that the middle class percentage wise pays a lot of taxes because of SS/Medicare…and you’d like the ‘rich’ to pay more income taxes to offset the caps on SS and the fact that DIV/Cap Gain/INT income is not taxed for SS/Medicare.

you’d sound a lot less stupid if you said that

this is why Buffet and his minion sound disingenuous….just tell the truth…Warren should pay 30 percent on his cap gain/DIV/INT income

Of course the stock market would tank, pension funds would go under, but it would be FAIR

r keller on January 27, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Allah
+ 1000000

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM

You don’t seem angry. Man its nice to be over here on a thread with some sane folks. That Palin thread is a bummer.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:37 PM

touché. Imagine that – we put a moratorium on US drilling and pay Brazil to drill offshore. They think we’re stupid…I feel stupid just being subjected to it.

let’s conquer Canada, it’s manifest destiny canvas…you can’t mess with destiny.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

4% of this year’s deficit! Not 4% of our debt.

And when you take into account the amount of money removed from the economy to pay those taxes, it most likely would all be a wash.

It’s not the taxes dummy, it’s the SPENDING!!!!

ButterflyDragon on January 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Actually, it’s both. Taxes have fallen below their historic 18% as a percentage of GDP, as many commenters have noted here many times before.

Raising taxes is only part of a much larger strategy that must include real entitlement reform and some deep cuts.

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Just lower all taxes to 10% and cut out whatever spending that can no longer be afforded.

Buddahpundit on January 27, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Hey Obama won in 2008 by promising to raise taxes and making the energy prices necessarily skyrocket , remember ?
It is a winning proposotion and it works

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:38 PM

It worked after eight years of Bush – we’ll see if they can pull it off again.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

You think that the necessary cuts to entitlements will ever happen? Raising taxes I can see them doing but cutting?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:48 PM

So will Buffett stop fighting the IRS and pay the $ 1 bil he already owes in back taxes ? What about GE ? Will Immelt pay any taxes for GE this time ? How about Google and the money they are shielding from IRS so that they don’t have to pay taxes ? Will that money be taxed ? Will we get to see Buffett’s now famous secretary’s tax returns and her bank statement ? What are her deductions ?
Questions questions :(

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:48 PM

let’s conquer Canada, it’s manifest destiny canvas…you can’t mess with destiny.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

I do love Canadia. Such lovely country…

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:49 PM

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I thought it was 10 billion Buffett is avoiding.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:50 PM

You don’t seem angry. Man its nice to be over here on a thread with some sane folks. That Palin thread is a bummer.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

so like…what do you think about Palin and stuff. I could talk about her for hours oh! love, love, love that Sarah effin’ Palin

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:50 PM

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I thought it was 10 billion Buffett is avoiding.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:50 PM

You are correct. My mistake. 1 billion.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Raising taxes is only part of a much larger strategy that must include real entitlement reform and some deep cuts.

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Only one part of that strategy ever materializes.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Don’t get me wrong I hold Palin in good regard, its just ugly to watch all the haters after a while. She is okay by me. She lives rent free in some places. It just gets old.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:45 PM

You think that the necessary cuts to entitlements will ever happen? Raising taxes I can see them doing but cutting?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I think it’s critical that the GOP demand serious spending cuts- at least 2 or 3 dollars of cuts for every dollar of Buffet rule new taxes- to ensure that entitlement spending is attacked.

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Oh Canadia! We’re so gonna conquer you. Oh Canadia! We’re gonna steal your women too.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:55 PM

So will Buffett stop fighting the IRS and pay the $ 1 bil he already owes in back taxes ? What about GE ?

burrata on January 27, 2012 at 10:48 PM

You know, if conservatives were actually serious and disciplined about teaching jerks like Buffet and Immelt a lesson, we would boycott their every company and product. Go Galt on their enterprises.

But as a group, we’re not. I noticed that Glenn Reynolds in the run-up to the light bulb ban always pointed his Amazon links to Sylvania bulbs, not GE. He points to bloggers, not to lefty media. Discipline.

Not until it really hurts will we do anything. And we’re not there yet, and when we are, it will likely be too late.

But in the meantime, we dance in forums like this for entertainment.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:55 PM

It just gets old.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

agreed

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:56 PM

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Are you hopeful, I remember the Tip/Reagan deal.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Bmore
not many ppl consider me sane! hehe

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Not until it really hurts will we do anything. And we’re not there yet, and when we are, it will likely be too late.

But in the meantime, we dance in forums like this for entertainment.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 10:55 PM

now I’m depressed :(

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:57 PM

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Being new here, I even considered going into the headlines inner room area. Not many folks go in there though.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:58 PM

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 10:57 PM

That’s okay, at least you have humor.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Pass the thing and remove Scooter’s only campaign issue, then repeal it or neuter it by EO in Feb 2013.

a capella on January 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Ya know Sarah reads our comments, HI SARAH, she has said things that were posted here!

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:00 PM

When a business has to pay more in taxes, the business makes up for the loss in profit at the expense of the consumer. I’m a college kid, and even I learned this in middle school.

Apparently you’re not getting much of an education. Corporations can leverage a number of tactics to reduce taxable earnings, and it’s simply not true that a higher tax rate results in higher prices.

Pricing strategy as well is informed by many factors such as elasticity and positioning; the tax rate on net income isn’t at the top of the list.

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 11:02 PM

now I’m depressed :(

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Cheer up! Canadian women await!

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&rls=en&tbm=isch&q=hot+canadian+women

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I think it’s critical that the GOP demand serious spending cuts- at least 2 or 3 dollars of cuts for every dollar of Buffet rule new taxes- to ensure that entitlement spending is attacked.

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Sure. New taxes go into effect immediately and spending cuts(actually cuts in projected increases, not actual spending) will go into effect in 15 or 20 years. Already seen that movie.

a capella on January 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM

a capella on January 27, 2012 at 10:59 PM

interesting. A Romney aide said recently we couldn’t possibly repeal Obamacare completely. Repeal isn’t a sure thing – higher taxes are – but whateva if we can toss the bum out of office.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Are you hopeful, I remember the Tip/Reagan deal.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Not very hopeful. Cantor learned very little from Reagan and is too small-minded to grasp the bounds of his power and comprehend the type of deal that’s achievable. Keep in mind that Reagan had prior executive experience, as the governor of California (larger than many nations), and understood the importance of getting things done, even when the final outcome was less than perfect.

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM

feeling better already beatcanvas…feeling better already :)

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I a big Sarah fan Sarah! love your…facebook page and stuff.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM

feeling better already beatcanvas…feeling better already :)

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I’m always willing to help a brother out.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:08 PM

interesting. A Romney aide said recently we couldn’t possibly repeal Obamacare completely. Repeal isn’t a sure thing – higher taxes are – but whateva if we can toss the bum out of office.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Yeah, I saw that. Well, it’s a gamble of sorts and rolls the dice we’ll vote him out, but he has to go or we’re screwed anyway.

a capella on January 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM

DHChron
/sark?

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:10 PM

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Reagan was the first vote a I ever cast, 1980, Carter years were miserable. Open ? first Presidential vote you all cast?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:13 PM

a capella on January 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM

effin’ a right we are. You don’t use music and the Government don’t use lube.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:13 PM

1980=1979

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:14 PM

DHChron
/sark?

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Don’t tell Sarah that angrymike! Maybe a little sarc/ I’m cool with palin though.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:15 PM

first Presidential vote you all cast?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Reagan, ’84

Good times, good times… days of big hair, big economy, and big America.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Reagan was the first vote a I ever cast, 1980, Carter years were miserable. Open ? first Presidential vote you all cast?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:13 PM

G dub!

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Good times, good times… days of big hair, big economy, and big America.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM

It was a great restart and it lasted along time. Man I miss him.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:18 PM

G dub!

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:17 PM

First term or second?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM

first and second :) Great man…a man of mystery, of stategery only the shrewdest among us could devise.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:22 PM

It was a great restart and it lasted along time. Man I miss him.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:18 PM

It was, and I do too. But what I’ve learned: we are the leader we’ve been waiting for. My company interacts with a lot of politicians, and we help their campaigns. Today, for example, I trained two patriots on my company’s software to help take out Iowa’s top democrat. Not only are they on fire to help, but they’re savvy. Just volunteers, but they have big plans to get involved and make a difference.

There’s nothing better than spending time rubbing elbows with the grassroots. It’s quite beautiful to see such a love of country on a regular basis.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Reagan, ’84

Good times, good times… days of big hair, big economy, and big America.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM

More like the days before we let China take away our manufacturing base and all its jobs.

I’ll never understand why people on both the left and right come up with all kinds of inane explanations for why there are no jobs when the answer is actually clear and present.

It doesn’t matter whether the tax rate is at 15% or 20% or if there are more or less unions or if the environment is pristine or polluted. This country sold itself down the river, hypnotized by the allure of cheap shiny gadgets and trinkets. If you remember the old saying- we actually did believe that with China open the US would be selling the Chinese a billion toothbrushes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

4% is 4%. No one’s going around saying this will single handedly close the budget deficit. Take it or leave it, budget hawks

ernesto on January 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Static analysis says 4%.

But when is static analysis ever correct?

I say it generates bupkiss for the government but extra coin for tax lawyers.

But Bambi and his pals will spend the extra $40 billion they think they’re going get anyway.

So we’ll actually be $40 billion worse off.

PackerBronco on January 27, 2012 at 11:24 PM

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Love that. I saw your comment about armchair grassroots, well played. Wish I knew more about software.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:26 PM

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Ah, so you were one of the brave ones. Good on you. I don’t know which would have been braver first term and second, or first time vote second term. Brave either way.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:29 PM

I’ll never understand why people on both the left and right come up with all kinds of inane explanations for why there are no jobs when the answer is actually clear and present…

bayam on January 27, 2012 at 11:23 PM

You answered your own question: cheap shiny gadgets and trinkets.

MelonCollie on January 27, 2012 at 11:29 PM

OT A buddy of mine just showed up at the Palin thread. Time for popcorn. I’ll check in and be back and forth.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Love that. I saw your comment about armchair grassroots, well played. Wish I knew more about software.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:26 PM

We all have our skills, and yours are exceptional.

As I’m commenting, I’m bouncing between a remote desktop session editing SQL statements (database commands) and my Opera browser. Work and play – nice thing about being a geek.

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM

But Bambi and his pals will spend the extra $40 billion they think they’re going get anyway.So we’ll actually be $40 billion worse off.

PackerBronco on January 27, 2012 at 11:24 PM

what, WHAT!! I’m flabbergastin’ ‘ere. I’m just so…stunned and such.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:31 PM

DHChron
I like what Sarah has to say, glad your sorta on board.
NEWT /PALIN 2012

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:32 PM

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM

dork!

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:32 PM

dork!

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Guilty! ;)

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM

DHChron
I like what Sarah has to say, glad your sorta on board.
NEWT /PALIN 2012

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Oh, I’m on board, it’s just the back and forth Sarah bickering that pisses me off.

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I hate the “This measure would only help [NAME OF BIG PROBLEM] by [TINY X]%” argument.

It’s CONSTANTLY being used against new oil drilling: “The oil from this field would supply just 6% of our energy needs.” Well, yeah, our energy needs are gigantic, so of course one field, however big, won’t make much of a difference. But it will be an improvement, on which further improvements can be made.

Relying on the “will only…” argument, governments will rarely adopt ANY policy or measure, because the big-problem denominator is always going to be an enormous number, against which the much-smaller solution numerator will rarely appear substantial.

Whether the Buffett Rule is wise or not should be judged on its merits, not the fact that it will “only” cut the deficit 4%.

bobs1196 on January 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Had on two different operas tonight, nice fire, a cool refreshing adult beverage or two. I’m in the dog house, even still, go figure. Being new I’ve been swapping songs with some other commenter’s on the QOTD threads. I think it freaks them out a bit how broad my musical interest are. I haven’t dropped any Opera on em yet. Still feeling em out.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Dacron
Welcome to politics.

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Whether the Buffett Rule is wise or not should be judged on its merits, not the fact that it will “only” cut the deficit 4%.

bobs1196 on January 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM

booooooooooo!

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I think it freaks them out a bit how broad my musical interest are. I haven’t dropped any Opera on em yet. Still feeling em out.

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM

did you see my take on the Canadian national anthem?

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Welcome to politics.

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Amen to that. Where piss and vinegar mix…

beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Thanx for giving this attention, but a lot of us have known all along that this was a “chump change gambit” and it’s just part of Obanal’s smoke ‘n’ mirrors repertoire. And knowing they’ve got this $50billion–they’ll enact entitlements spending 10 times as much or give out more silly greenscam loans. The real “saddest part” is that everything this guy proposes is as silly or sillier and won’t change a thing. Yet the Obamabots just keep swilling his kool-aid. Who needs hardcore drugs when ya’ got that?

stukinIL4now on January 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM

If raising taxes to 30% cuts 4% of the defict, then raising taxes to 300% will cut 40% of the deficit.

angryed on January 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM

ernesto on January 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM

how much did maryland project their millionaire’s tax would raise?? and how much did it actually raise?? these projections are done in a vacuum. put em in the reality world and watch reality shred those projections all to hell.

chasdal on January 27, 2012 at 11:57 PM

did you see my take on the Canadian national anthem?

DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM

No I looked up thread where is it?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM

This “analysis” assumes nobody will change their behavior is their tax rate is doubled.

So an evil rich guy makes $10M now and pays $1.5M. Tomorrow Obama says that $1.5M is now $3M. Does any sane person expect the evil rich guy to just sit back and say, OK here’s an extra $1.5M Mr. President?

Of course not. He will do everything he can to move money around to keep his tax rate at $1.5M. If anything this bill/proposal should be renamed to TAX LAWYER AND ACCOUNT FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT

angryed on January 27, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Did Matt Welch say that Buffet was on Medicare? The guy can’t afford his own medical insurance? Maybe he just like the idea of his secretary paying for his health care.

Vince on January 28, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Welcome to politics.

angrymike on January 27, 2012 at 11:38 PM

tru dat angrymike

No I looked up thread where is it?

Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM

what, WHAT!! it’s right here :) DHChron on January 27, 2012 at 10:55 PM

DHChron on January 28, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2