To answer the last question directed at me by my2cents (I'm not going to the forum, and and will not ask any questions that need to be answered)
1 because the inequity isn't in the direction you believe it's in. That garbage about Obama paying a lower percentage is just that, garbage. Had he not donated nearly 200k to charity, what would his tax rate have been? Do you really think that money would have been more efficiently used by big governments bureaucracy?
2 because the Buffett rule isn't about raising money, it's about vilifying the wealthy. The wealthy create jobs, not the poor
3 maybe if cash flow is the issue, the gov't can quit wasting money. We send billions in aid to china every year, then turn around and borrow from them because we can't manage what we have.
$5 trillion deficit racked by by 0Bama in just 3 1/2 years.
$5,000 billion in overspending in 40 months.
0Bama Regime is spending $125 million more per month then they should.
Ballpark numbers, as a taxpayer your share of the 0Bama deficit is $57,000. You are $57,000 poorer as a taxpayer then when 0Bama took office.
0Bamas proposed budget for next year contained another $1 trillion in deficit.
The deficit is spiraling out of control due to payments to illegal aliens, the Stimulus and 'Green' debacles, etc, etc.
Last year, the Inspector General for the U.S. Treasury Department released a report revealing that illegal aliens annually receive $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits. EVERY Dim on the Ways and Means Committee voted against stopping payments to illegals!
I did a quick calculation of what will happen to your taxes at the end of 2012, with the expiration of the "payroll tax holiday" and the expiration of the "Bush tax cuts", for someone making $50K a year:
Your social security taxes will increase by $1000/year (2% of 50K).
Your federal income taxes will increase about $435/year (the 10% tax bracket now being rolled into the 15% bracket).
Just a heads up to all on your first paycheck of 2013.
Gee could the reason why Bush's deficit is less is because taxes were higher before the rich were given their tax cut part way through his term? Sounds like a good reason to let these tax cuts (which have NOT produced jobs) expire.