Poll: 73 Percent Support ‘The Buffett Rule’, Including 66 Percent Of Republicans

[scandal 951]

You're kidding, right? You really need someone to provide examples of wasteful spending at the federal level? Perhaps if I said we needed to ensure flu vaccines were available you'd ask me to prove that the flu exists?

No I am not kidding. I said nothing about flu or vaccines, so let's stay on topic.

I also didn't say that there is no waste in government spending. Obviously there is waste, that's inevitable in any organization of any size that has a budget, revenues and expenditures. I work in a relatively efficient business and have direct approval over most of our IT expenditures. I continually find cases of unnecessary spending, which I work to cut back with our A/P folks and business users.

The question I ask is - how much government waste is there, and is it the primary cause of our budget woes? You imply that it is, and that raising taxes is unjustified due to government waste. I disagree with you.

[slim 1,525]

personally i think we all should pay the same percentage. fair is fair

The same percentage isn't fair.

What if you make more money than me? That means you'd pay more taxes. Why should you pay more taxes than me? Keep that up over a long enough time line and eventually we're back to our original problem. "I don't want to make more money because then I have to give it to the government."

I work in a relatively efficient business

Would you say that government is relatively efficient? Would you even say it's a business? Can you give any examples of any businesses in the world that keep their doors open year after year after year after year after year after year of losing money?

how much government waste is there, and is it the primary cause of our budget woes? You imply that it is, and that raising taxes is unjustified due to government waste. I disagree with you.

What is the cause of budget woes?

[scandal 951]

Would you say that government is relatively efficient? Would you even say it's a business? Can you give any examples of any businesses in the world that keep their doors open year after year after year after year after year after year of losing money?

I wouldn't say that "government" in general is or isn't efficient. It depends upon the government in question. For example, a government like Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe that took a country which was the breadbasket of Africa and squandered and stole its resources, impoverished its population and bankrupted its currency was the epitome of inefficient government. In contrast, the current US federal government in the postwar era, under (D) and (R ) administrations, is relatively efficient. It collects trillions in revenue and disburses it to a large and diverse population on services most Americans, in poll after poll and election after election, have claimed that they want. Is there waste and fraud? Of course. Medicare fraud, in particular, is an outrage and is becoming a serous financial amount.

I would not say that government is a business. It's clearly not. It's not operated on a for-profit basis nor should it be. It exists to service the needs of citizens and to provide through the public sector those services the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide. It's a fallacy to believe that market economics provide a solution to every need society has. That's never been so in any society.

What is the cause of budget woes?

The easy answer is accounting 101. An imbalance between the credit and debit sides of the ledger.

The more complicated answer is political. Throughout American history we've had those who believed in a more active and interventionist government and those who wanted a more restrained government. Neither side is purely right or wrong. Both have good cases to make and depending on the issue or the historical period, both have held sway. The key to the success of the American way of life has been the ability to find reasonable compromise through political discourse. Liberals and conservatives, Whigs and Jacksonian-Democrats, modern era Republicans and Democrats - have been able to find legislative answers to the needs of a growing and expanding America. Not so today. Today our elected representatives cannot agree on what ought to be routine matters like FEMA funding or debt ceiling increases, let alone the structural changes needed to align our revenue base and our expenditure programs.

[Ready to do it 101]

Agreed, while I despise 99% of all social programs, if I was completely ruined due to a natural disaster and the government didn't want to step in and help, yet they help folks too lazy to get off their butt and work for years on end and reward folks for having baby after baby, I'd be pretty ticked. I support helping those in need because of events they have no control over.

Today our elected representatives cannot agree on what ought to be routine matters like FEMA funding or debt ceiling increases, let alone the structural changes needed to align our revenue base and our expenditure programs.

[Pooky 3,792]

apparently you don't see any difference between mob rule and a representational democracy.

I see the difference.

I see the mob, making do with wages that are lagging behind inflation, or reliant on entitlement handouts, concerned that higher taxes for them will make life more difficult, wanting someone who has already made their money to give a little more to the government to pay for the mistakes that successive administrations have made.

And I see the frustrated, unrepresented majority of the electorate supporting a state wishing to enact legislation that mirrors federal immigration legislation, so that the state can mitigate successive administrations' lack of enforcement, coupled with this administration's active non-enforcement, of federal immigration law already on the books.

Now, I don't have any problem with the Obama tax cuts lapsing for everyone. It would show resolve from this president which has been sadly lacking recently. But it's not a done deal, yet, and neither is the "Buffett Rule." Whereas the administration's flagrant disregard for immigration law and the views of the majority of the electorate, is widely reported.

The difference you mention is that representation only occurs in this country when it suits the political ambition of those in Washington and not when serves the interests of the majority of the electorate. And that's a shame in this day and age.

[Ready to do it 101]

Unemployment would skyrocket if the Bush tax cuts lapse. I listen in many circles. I know many who refuse to invest money in hiring, starting new companies, etc simply because of the way this president spoke... I.e. Let the tax cuts lapse... ok, forget about me hiring anyone. Force small business owners to provide health insurance for their workers at a cost skyrocketing even more than before b/c of Obama Health care... ok forget about me starting that new venture. I'm not a very big fan of Bush, but I do recognize that letting the Bush tax cuts lapse would absolutely destroy the US workforce.

Regarding immigration... boot out the illegals and you just booted out 30 million consumers.... which means even more unemployment because there is less damand for goods and services.

Now, I don't have any problem with the Obama tax cuts lapsing for everyone. It would show resolve from this president which has been sadly lacking recently. But it's not a done deal, yet, and neither is the "Buffett Rule."

Edited September 30, 2011 by Ready to do it

[mawilson 2,133]

What is the cause of budget woes?

The easy answer is accounting 101. An imbalance between the credit and debit sides of the ledger.

The more complicated answer is political. Throughout American history we've had those who believed in a more active and interventionist government and those who wanted a more restrained government. Neither side is purely right or wrong. Both have good cases to make and depending on the issue or the historical period, both have held sway. The key to the success of the American way of life has been the ability to find reasonable compromise through political discourse. Liberals and conservatives, Whigs and Jacksonian-Democrats, modern era Republicans and Democrats - have been able to find legislative answers to the needs of a growing and expanding America. Not so today. Today our elected representatives cannot agree on what ought to be routine matters like FEMA funding or debt ceiling increases, let alone the structural changes needed to align our revenue base and our expenditure programs.

The answer is "the entitlement programs", specifically Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Everything else (defense, education, transportation, etc) is about the same (as a percentage of GDP) as it was before Obama took office.