Whine: But the Buffett rule only raise x amount.

Recently the GOP has been saying that we don't need the Buffet rule because it would only raise $47 billion over ten years.  They are proving themselves wrong.

We start small.   With something that even an idiot would admit is wrong, and fix it.

When your opponent refuses to fix it, it shows they are corrupt.  That's right CORRUPT.  Anyone that says the Buffet rule should be ignored because it is too small is corrupt and should be thrown out of Congress for taking bribes (or if the rule would apply to them, for putting their own finances above the needs of the country).
 
Saying the rule will only raise a low amount is like saying "It's OK to let wealthy people drink and drive because they will only kill a small number of people."  No.  The size of the problem does not affect the righteousness of the problem.   We don't sit back and let a few people get away with cheating the rest of us.  If you want to do that, you are immoral, corrupt, and can not be trusted with a state government position, let alone a federal position.

It's like a hole in a boat, or a an unpainted spot on your house.  It doesn't matter what the size is, you FIX it.   When you complain about fixing something because it is small (as opposed to claiming that there is a good reason to keep things the way they are), it proves:

1. You are not serious about fixing the problem.  NOT ONE BIT.  If you think the Buffet rule shouldn't be passed because it is too tiny, then you don't care about the deficit. 
2. If you still refuse to fix it, that is admitting you LIKE the problem. As in you think rich people SHOULD be allowed to pay less taxes than their secretaries.
3. Most importantly, this undermines all other arguments you make in the future.  Once you refuse to fix the little hole in the boat, or paint the last corner of your house, your claim that the holes let water out of the boat, or that you like the existing color suddenly get shown for what they are: Lies.

 There are other, reasonable reasons to object to the Buffet rule - for example claiming it the AMT rule is already supposed to fix this problem.  The problem is the AMT rule is broken, rather dramatically so.  It gets temporary patches every year and quite honestly does not do what it was designed to do, as shown by the fact that the Buffet rule is needed.