• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate fails to advance Buffett rule

TheNextEra said:
In that regard, I believe you are correct. But then that is standard politics for both sides which is why we are in the mess we are in.

Both sides "claim" to want to take action, but never do.
Click to expand...

They get in each other's way and refuse to let the other side do anything that will be beneficial because they dont want the other side to get credit for anything. Nothing is done anymore for the betterment of the country or the people. Its all gimmicks to stay or get into power.
 
TheNextEra said:
There are lots of things we need to be doing. The problem is, both sides only want their way implemented. The right only wants social programs cut and taxes lowered, while most on the left in congress want only taxes increased and military cut.

Cuts, reforms, and tax increases need to happen for us to get out of the mess we are in. However, both sides are only interested in getting elected and re-elected for their own benefit instead of the whole.
Click to expand...

I couldnt agree more.
 
muciti said:
They get in each other's way and refuse to let the other side do anything that will be beneficial because they dont want the other side to get credit for anything. Nothing is done anymore for the betterment of the country or the people. Its all gimmicks to stay or get into power.
Click to expand...


Very true. And the populace fall for it each election time.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
. Tell me, what does 40 billion over ten years mean in reality for the budget ? :lol:
Click to expand...

Seems like it would make sense to go after the 5,7 trillion in income that currently is excluded from federal income tax.
 
Samhain said:
Seems like it would make sense to go after the 5,7 trillion in income that currently is excluded from federal income tax.
Click to expand...

So your answer is to go after people who really can't afford to have their taxes increased (the lower and middle classes), while giving tax breaks to those who can (the rich). Got it.
 
TheNextEra said:
It all adds up.
Click to expand...


we could obliterate it by say legalizing drugs and taxing the **** out of it, but we don't. :shrug: taxing the producers more, doesn't all add up, especially over 10 years when in those ten years the increase in spending would obliterate said "additions"... It's a shell game, and you are being conned for class warfare.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
we could obliterate it by say legalizing drugs and taxing the **** out of it, but we don't. :shrug: taxing the producers more, doesn't all add up, especially over 10 years when in those ten years the increase in spending would obliterate said "additions"... It's a shell game, and you are being conned for class warfare.
Click to expand...


Actually de-criminalizing and regulating drugs would get rid of most of the budget for DEA, so yeah it would save. Good suggestion Rev, I'm sure you'll be behind it 100%.

The reason we don't legalize drugs is because of conservatives that believe the government knows best. Hmmmmm where have I heard conservatives say something against that before.
 
TheNextEra said:
Actually de-criminalizing and regulating drugs would get rid of most of the budget for DEA, so yeah it would save. Good suggestion Rev, I'm sure you'll be behind it 100%.
Click to expand...

I always have been, The Good Reverend cares not, who you ****, marry, or shoot drugs with. It's not my business, nor the governments.

The reason we don't legalize drugs is because of conservatives that believe the government knows best. Hmmmmm where have I heard conservatives say something against that before.
Click to expand...

Not from me..... :shrug:


Furthermore, you want it to all add up?


2012 Pig Book Summary


Start here.
 
TheNextEra said:
I thought you said you were a Libertarian and not a conservative. So my post doesn't include you......or does it? Hmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

:failpail:

YOu started here:

TheNextEra said:
Cons and Libertarians have said "It all adds up".
Click to expand...



You can't do more than one thing at a time? I have no problem starting on that list as well as decriminalization of drugs.
Click to expand...


I agree do both, stop wasting time throwing a tantrum over people like The Good Reverend making more money than you. :pimpdaddy:
 
AdamT said:
You know what they say: $50 billion here, $50 billion there -- soon you're talking about real money. :roll:
Click to expand...

Nope. Its not "50 here and 50 there". See Obama's own Simpson Bowles commission. Obama is not talking about that. ;)

This is to have the doctor put a bandaid on a booboo on your knee, ignoring the lung cancer you have, and then you and the doc light one up.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
. Tell me, what does 40 billion over ten years mean in reality for the budget ? :lol:
Click to expand...

It is 40 billion less is what it is. It is 40 billion that we arent paying interest on.

You are never going find any measure that is going to completely eliminate the debt immediately that will be acceptable. The way we are going to reduce it is by passing bills that will cut a few million here and there, and working to increase the amount of money our government in generating. Every little bit helps and it all adds up.
 
muciti said:
It is 40 billion less is what it is. It is 40 billion that we arent paying interest on.

You are never going find any measure that is going to completely eliminate the debt immediately that will be acceptable. The way we are going to reduce it is by passing bills that will cut a few million here and there, and working to increase the amount of money our government in generating. Every little bit helps and it all adds up.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is not what the intent is with the Buffet Rule, and is not what is happening here. The Buffet Rule is not about reducing debt. Obama said almost 4 years ago that he recognizes that increasing taxes on Capital Gains ends up producing less revenue to the government. Obama said such increases were about being "fair".

The Buffet Rule is about politics. Its about diverting attention from the problem, and empowering politicians to stay in power, while the masses stay stupid, and off the cliff we go.

Your spin is to be as one more lemming on this.

Here. Its at about 1:05
 
Last edited:
Eighty Deuce said:
Unfortunately, that is not what the intent is with the Buffet Rule, and is not what is happening here. The Buffet Rule is not about reducing debt. Obama said almost 4 years ago that he recognizes that increasing taxes on Capital Gains ends up producing less revenue to the government. Obama said such increases were about being "fair".

The Buffet Rule is about politics. Its about diverting attention from the problem, and empowering politicians to stay in power, while the masses stay stupid, and off the cliff we go.

Your spin is to be as one more lemming on this.

Here. Its at about 1:05
Click to expand...


I agree with you in part. The buffet rule is not going to change much so long as there are so many loopholes to be exploited. The Buffet rule would be a start but we need to start holding people to paying 30% of their total earning, not 30% of their adjusted income (like the buffet rule is doing). There is a huge difference there. The buffet rule as it might generate 40 billion, which is great, but how much would it make if you got people to pay 30% of the TOTAL income. The payoff would probably be 10x that amount.
 
muciti said:
It is 40 billion less is what it is. It is 40 billion that we arent paying interest on.

You are never going find any measure that is going to completely eliminate the debt immediately that will be acceptable. The way we are going to reduce it is by passing bills that will cut a few million here and there, and working to increase the amount of money our government in generating. Every little bit helps and it all adds up.
Click to expand...

Over ten years, Democrat spending would wipe that out in a heart beat. Apparently the money won't even pay off the interest for a week. There are so many far more important things to do then to play a class warfare game, based on buffets slight of hands hypocricy.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Over ten years, Democrat spending would wipe that out in a heart beat. Apparently the money won't even pay off the interest for a week. There are so many far more important things to do then to play a class warfare game, based on buffets slight of hands hypocricy.
Click to expand...

Democrat spending? Are you one of those that believe that ONLY the Dems are the ones that increased the debt with spending?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Over ten years, Democrat spending would wipe that out in a heart beat. Apparently the money won't even pay off the interest for a week. There are so many far more important things to do then to play a class warfare game, based on buffets slight of hands hypocricy.
Click to expand...

The alternate is do nothing until we come up with a bill that will eliminate our debt? I hate to break it to you, but that is not going to happen. That 40 billion won't pay of interest for a week? We pay on average about 21 billion in interest a month. So yes it would cover a week. Dont exaggerate please. Futhermore that 40 billion is not going to just pay on the interest. It is going to reduce the debt amount and not only give us 40 billion but also reduce the amount that we are paying in interest. Even if only by a few million a month. You pass a few bills reducing it by 40 billion and you are making a difference. Which is far better than ignoring it and doing nothing.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
:failpail:

YOu started here:

I agree do both, stop wasting time throwing a tantrum over people like The Good Reverend making more money than you. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Um you need to do a little better reading.

My comment was:

The reason we don't legalize drugs is because of conservatives that believe the government knows best. Hmmmmm where have I heard conservatives say something against that before.
Click to expand...

to which you replied:

Not from me..
Click to expand...

My comment was directed towards conservatives at that time (even bolded the part if you are having trouble reading). Like I said, hmmmmmmmmm.

Also, I'm not throwing the tantrum, that would be the people like you who might have to pay come 2013.
 
TheNextEra said:
Democrat spending? Are you one of those that believe that ONLY the Dems are the ones that increased the debt with spending?
Click to expand...


I was refering to the party in power, and the assumption they have, that they will still be in power, I am sorry, that went over your head. Republicans spend as much as democrats, I will make sure to spell every detail out so you can keep up my friend.
 
TheNextEra said:
Um you need to do a little better reading.

My comment was:



to which you replied:



My comment was directed towards conservatives at that time (even bolded the part if you are having trouble reading). Like I said, hmmmmmmmmm.

Also, I'm not throwing the tantrum, that would be the people like you who might have to pay come 2013.
Click to expand...



Palor trick. If you wish to call me a conservative, you can wallow in your own ignorance, the embarrassment will be all yours. furthermore what was this about if not infering I was both a conservative and against ending prohibition? "Hmmmmm where have I heard conservatives say something against that before."


Maybe I misread you, who knows, as for a tantrum, I am not the one whining about those making more than me. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I was refering to the party in power, and the assumption they have, that they will still be in power, I am sorry, that went over your head. Republicans spend as much as democrats, I will make sure to spell every detail out so you can keep up my friend.
Click to expand...

It didn't go over my head, you were just showing your partisan hackery at that moment. You're forgiven my left wing friend.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Palor trick. If you wish to call me a conservative, you can wallow in your own ignorance, the embarrassment will be all yours. furthermore what was this about if not infering I was both a conservative and against ending prohibition? "Hmmmmm where have I heard conservatives say something against that before."


Maybe I misread you, who knows, as for a tantrum, I am not the one whining about those making more than me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You did misread that part, it was stated strictly for CONSERVATIVES.

No, you are whining about having to pay more when you are afforded more.
 
muciti said:
The alternate is do nothing until we come up with a bill that will eliminate our debt? I hate to break it to you, but that is not going to happen. That 40 billion won't pay of interest for a week? We pay on average about 21 billion in interest a month. So yes it would cover a week. Dont exaggerate please. Futhermore that 40 billion is not going to just pay on the interest. It is going to reduce the debt amount and not only give us 40 billion but also reduce the amount that we are paying in interest. Even if only by a few million a month. You pass a few bills reducing it by 40 billion and you are making a difference. Which is far better than ignoring it and doing nothing.
Click to expand...

It's nonsense, look at what TNE stated, regarding 2013... he thinks only I will have to pay. but in one year, when all these taxes come back and the average family is paying 3k or so more a year, in one year, they will collect over 500 billion. 40 billion in one year, is not about reducing the deficit, but class warfare election year politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom