Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 76

Thread: How the "Buffet Rule" will affect the deficit.

  1. #1
    Guest

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Papillion, NE
    Posts
    3,743

    How the "Buffet Rule" will affect the deficit.


  2. #2
    Without regard for the merit and/or problems of the Buffet Rule re: tax policy, and dealing just with the information that you have presented in the OP, it seems to me that the dark blue bar is better than the light blue bar.

    Put another way: 1.1XX Trillion is < 1.2 Trillion

    Is that the point of your post?

    (Also, your post doesn't have a source or link so I can't exactly quantify the red bar. Is that 4.7 billion that a year that JTC projects or the 3.1 that billion a year that the JTC projected earlier or the 11.4 billion a year that the UBTPC projects?)

    How many billion is not enough to care about?

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Guest

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Papillion, NE
    Posts
    3,743
    The graph demonstrates the Buffet Rule does next to nothing to decrease the deficit.

    IMO, implementing the Buffet Rule will, given the propensity of politicians to spend other people's money multiple times, likely result in increased spending.

  5. #5
    Antediluvian Abrasiveness
    Sonuvahusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    40,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    How many billion is not enough to care about?
    For Obama, that number is apparently 1200 and rising.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth View Post
    Sonny once again proving that he is the biggest piece of ******** on Huskermax. Congrats on earning this title, sir.
    http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown...+leaves+office

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    Without regard for the merit and/or problems of the Buffet Rule re: tax policy, and dealing just with the information that you have presented in the OP, it seems to me that the dark blue bar is better than the light blue bar.

    Put another way: 1.1XX Trillion is < 1.2 Trillion

    Is that the point of your post?

    (Also, your post doesn't have a source or link so I can't exactly quantify the red bar. Is that 4.7 billion that a year that JTC projects or the 3.1 that billion a year that the JTC projected earlier or the 11.4 billion a year that the UBTPC projects?)

    How many billion is not enough to care about?
    I think the point is that regardless of the Buffett rule, both comparison lines are WAAAAYYY too long...

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Red Rick View Post
    I think the point is that regardless of the Buffett rule, both comparison lines are WAAAAYYY too long...
    Agreed. Which one, IYHO is better? Would you rather by a car for 11,900 or for 12,000? Would you rather get that nice beach house for 1.19 million or for 1.2 million. Would you rather take a new job where you make 119k a year or one that pays 120k a year?

  8. #8
    Red Shirt

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Not Chicago anymore
    Posts
    2,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    Agreed. Which one, IYHO is better? Would you rather by a car for 11,900 or for 12,000? Would you rather get that nice beach house for 1.19 million or for 1.2 million. Would you rather take a new job where you make 119k a year or one that pays 120k a year?
    That's not even a remotely applicable comparison. I would actually say when you are talking about a car at 11,900 versus 12,000, I probably wouldn't care. Same with a new job with 1000 bucks difference. I would take the job I think I would like better and money wouldn't be an issue. I would like to save personally 100K on a nice beach house, but I imagine that if I actually had the money to buy a 1.2 million dollar beach house, I might not care.

    But trying to make this comparison to the national deficit is a huge stretch.

    I would rather a comprehensive debt reduction package be put into place that some over politicized barf that is being talked about here. I don't have a problem paying higher taxes, HOWEVER I am not just going to support more money being funneled to the nitwits in DC without a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt in place. This "Buffett rule" doesn't do anything except rally up the far left who lack a nuanced understanding of the problem anyway. It won't even begin to solve the problem.

    The issue with Washington, in my opinion, is that the country is too big and too diverse to micromanage. They can't find a problem that can't have more money thrown at it, but then there is no accountability to see that the money is well spent or even doing what they thought it would do. The government just keeps adding programs and regulations without appropriate oversight and restraint.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Chi-Town Cube View Post
    That's not even a remotely applicable comparison. I would actually say when you are talking about a car at 11,900 versus 12,000, I probably wouldn't care. Same with a new job with 1000 bucks difference. I would take the job I think I would like better and money wouldn't be an issue. I would like to save personally 100K on a nice beach house, but I imagine that if I actually had the money to buy a 1.2 million dollar beach house, I might not care.

    But trying to make this comparison to the national deficit is a huge stretch.

    I would rather a comprehensive debt reduction package be put into place that some over politicized barf that is being talked about here. I don't have a problem paying higher taxes, HOWEVER I am not just going to support more money being funneled to the nitwits in DC without a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt in place. This "Buffett rule" doesn't do anything except rally up the far left who lack a nuanced understanding of the problem anyway. It won't even begin to solve the problem.

    The issue with Washington, in my opinion, is that the country is too big and too diverse to micromanage. They can't find a problem that can't have more money thrown at it, but then there is no accountability to see that the money is well spent or even doing what they thought it would do. The government just keeps adding programs and regulations without appropriate oversight and restraint.
    Great post!
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  10. #10
    I think we need to stop thinking that a few billion isn't enough to worry about and stop the argument that any one idea isn't enough to solve the problem. We need to start moving the ball down the field--start getting positive yardage.

  11. #11
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    13,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    I think we need to stop thinking that a few billion isn't enough to worry about and stop the argument that any one idea isn't enough to solve the problem. We need to start moving the ball down the field--start getting positive yardage.
    Since both Dems and Pubs agree on cutting spending, why do we have to have that token tax increase before we start that?
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  12. #12
    The Walking Red
    nems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    16,706
    This assumes it would actually raise tax revenues at all. They recently tried a similar tax in the UK and it failed miserably.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    I think we need to stop thinking that a few billion isn't enough to worry about and stop the argument that any one idea isn't enough to solve the problem. We need to start moving the ball down the field--start getting positive yardage.
    Since both Dems and Pubs agree on cutting spending, why do we have to have that token tax increase before we start that?
    what spending cuts did they agree on?

  14. #14
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    13,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskerwirejay View Post
    what spending cuts did they agree on?
    We could start with this discussion:

    http://www.huskermax.com/vbbs/showth...hlight=boehner
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

  15. #15
    Ok


    What did the Super Committee agree to re: spending cuts?

    Why hasn't the house proposed the spending cuts that WaPo said they all agreed on? They could draw a line in the sand and say "we are the party that can cut spending."







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •