What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[leftysergeant]

No improvement? Not from my viewpoint. Plus it didn't get worse, and may have staved off the recession Obama finally caught.

Horsehockey. By reducing the tax rate on capital gains, the Shrub made it more feasible for the investor class to put their money where it would do the least possible good for the over-all ecconomy and rewarded them richly for doing so.

This, of course, wound up costing a lot of working people their jobs and their life's savings. (This is why the recovery is taking so long. The people who actually produce wealth are broke because the banksters grabbed all the money and ran.)

 

[RandFan]

No improvement?

No. That's not controversial. I said no "significant improvement" but I most certainly find little of anything to see that there was much of any improvement.

Plus it didn't get worse...

In the agregate of 10 years, yeah, much worse.

...and may have staved off the recession Obama finally caught.

As silly as I find this, and I do, it's possible so let's grant it for sake of argument. How exactly did it do that?

As to where we are headed

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...amas_solution_to_high_taxes_even_higher_taxes

See, this is where I can't take Republicans seriously. From your link: Obama's Solution to High Taxes: Even Higher Taxes

I'm sorry but I find this so silly. Do you have any idea what the effective tax rates were under Reagan, Bush the elder and Jr.? And these clowns are accusing Obama of this? Doesn't that seriously hurt the credibility of any one who would adopt or advance such demonstrably absurd claims? But okay, I'm merciful, I'll humor you.

• What is the basis for these claims, the one's in your link (give me figures, data)?
• What is the optimum tax rate (and what is your basis for that, or is it "just lower")?
• What reason do we have to suppose that the current tax rates have helped anything?

Al, I don't know for a fact that increasing taxes will spur the economy. There is good reason to think it will. But these wild eyed claims are so silly and so absurd as to bugger belief. They have no basis in fact. We have history that shows that the economy does very well under much higher rates.

So, let's have a discussion but let's base it on facts. Fact: The last 10 years, in total, have been a disaster. The best year saw a GDP increase of around 3%. There were a few 2%. The rest were negative or flat. The Stock Market has been in the toilet. There's just no good news out there prior to Obama. The idea that "it could have been worse" isn't a great argument. You need to justify why it would have been worse. You need something more than rank speculation.

 

[RandFan]

BTW:

You didn't address my question:

Okay, now here is where I have a problem.

1. Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003
2. There was no significant improvement in our economy.
3. You refuse to accept that premise #2 was the result of premise #1.

Why should we believe in results following a tax increase will have anything to do with the increase? How can you be coherent when you pick and choose your results?

That's an important question that you are ignoring. You seem to be inconsistent. All bad news is and will be automatically the fault of Democrats (even IF Obama didn't raise taxes). Any bad news that resulted after lowering taxes cannot be attributed to lowering taxes.

Which brings us to my question, regardless of what happens after the tax rate goes up, why should we assume any cause and effect? Are you not inconsistent?

 

[RandFan]

Please fix the misquote you attributed to me; that was Neally.

I did that as it was a fair request, now, please fix the aspersion you made against me in the Trayvon Martin thread.

 

[Neally]

How do you make money without consuming resources, burdening infrastructure (to include the regulatory agencies which ensure that you and your custimers and employees are not harmed by your or your competitor's actions) or using the labor of other persons?

Business pays for the resources that they use, electricity, raw materials, etc. They pay the labor a fair market wage. Regulatory compliance? They get a license to run the business. Of course that cost gets included into the cost of goods or services. Again, you want regulations, the consumer will ultimately pay for them.

Only labor, applied to natural resources, creates wealth. Capital is a product of labor. If you are not paying a living wage, you are stealing labor.

I thought this was a discussion about taxes. No need to sidetrack into the silly living wage debate.

The poor are a resource which needs to be maintained in good health as a labor pool. Taxing them to help pay for the regulatory burden and infrastructure subsidizes the capitalists who need them, as a resource to the harm of those who are shut out of the ecconomic game.

So no answer once again on proving that somehow the rich use more government resources than the poor and are paying disproportionately less towards those costs. No doubt you'll continue to bring up this same argument again and again even though still can't support it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Business pays for the resources that they use, electricity, raw materials, etc. They pay the labor a fair market wage. Regulatory compliance? They get a license to run the business. Of course that cost gets included into the cost of goods or services. Again, you want regulations, the consumer will ultimately pay for them.

Or the entrepreneur accepts a smaller margin of profit and everybody is more able to buy his products. Most of, I think, at least those with an IQ near or over 100, would like people who dump toxic crap into the environment to pay to clean it up.

I thought this was a discussion about taxes. No need to sidetrack into the silly living wage debate.

Just my way of telling you where to take your "job creators" mythology.

So no answer once again on proving that somehow the rich use more government resources than the poor and are paying disproportionately less towards those costs. No doubt you'll continue to bring up this same argument again and again even though still can't support it.

The only way you can earn income at a higher rate is to use resources at a higher rate. Stop snivelling.

 

[SezMe]

No improvement? Not from my viewpoint. Plus it didn't get worse, and may have staved off the recession Obama finally caught. I suspect McCains' mishandling of that was likely part of the reason he lost.

This is fascinating. AlBell, this is exactly what RandFan was talking about in the very post you are responding to. It is an objective fact that things got worse under Bush. I know of no economist on either side of the aisle who doesn't agree that the US went into a recession. That amounts to the definition of "worse". And yet you simply won't acknowledge that fact. The country went into the Great Recession while Bush was in office yet you claim it was staved off until Obama.

Again, this denial of objective fact is fascinating to watch. Scary, but fascinating.

 

[Neally]

Or the entrepreneur accepts a smaller margin of profit and everybody is more able to buy his products.

That is a possibility also. Also is a possiblity that with less regluatory burden, he would price his products even less and even more people would be able to buy his products.

Most of, I think, at least those with an IQ near or over 100, would like people who dump toxic crap into the environment to pay to clean it up.

No argument from me on that, but again off topic.

Just my way of telling you where to take your "job creators" mythology.

You confuse me with someone else. I never argued that lowering taxes creates jobs, only that taxing businesses for the mere fact of employing people somehow makes sense because they are somehow using up some public resources by providing employment - that they should be taxed or penalized for exploiting humans by offering them jobs.

The only way you can earn income at a higher rate is to use resources at a higher rate. Stop snivelling.

So still no answer once again on proving that somehow the rich use more government resources than the poor and are paying disproportionately less towards those costs.

 

[leftysergeant]

So still no answer once again on proving that somehow the rich use more government resources than the poor and are paying disproportionately less towards those costs.

How can you possibly make money at a higher rate without utilizing resources at a higher rate?

 

[AlBell]

I did that as it was a fair request,

Thank you.

now, please fix the aspersion you made against me in the Trayvon Martin thread.

Sorry, it's a bit late for that. I call 'em like I see 'em, and you've had GZ convicted from the start.

I could be wrong in my assessment of your motivations.

 

[AlBell]

This is fascinating. AlBell, this is exactly what RandFan was talking about in the very post you are responding to. It is an objective fact that things got worse under Bush. I know of no economist on either side of the aisle who doesn't agree that the US went into a recession. That amounts to the definition of "worse". And yet you simply won't acknowledge that fact. The country went into the Great Recession while Bush was in office yet you claim it was staved off until Obama.

Again, this denial of objective fact is fascinating to watch. Scary, but fascinating.

Yup. I find my subjective facts outway those economists. My immediate family was effected long after Obama took office, and instead of spending efforts to fix the economy, he spent 2+ yrs on Obamacare, a result which will likely bankrupt the US, which will effect my family and is effecting me now.

I'll let you and RandFan worry about lumped statistics.

 

[RandFan]

off topic post deleted. I apologize.

 

[SezMe]

Yup. I find my subjective facts outway those economists.

Outweigh. AlBell, let me make sure I understand you. In a discussion about tax policy and national level economics, you are prepared to argue your position based on your subjective, personal experience as opposed to statistical data?

My immediate family was effected long after Obama took office, and instead of spending efforts to fix the economy, he spent 2+ yrs on Obamacare, a result which will likely bankrupt the US, which will effect my family and is effecting me now.

Affect, not effect. Here is yet another example. The CBO is accepted by both sides of the aisle in Washington as an unbiased source of analysis of governmental fiscal policy. The CBO says ACA will reduce the nation's deficit. Yet you persist in stating just the opposite. How can you do that?

 

[dc1971]

he spent 2+ yrs on Obamacare, a result which will likely bankrupt the US,

Obamacare! Where did you first hear such a word? And how exactly will it bankrupt the US? Please don't use references from Fox news to verify your argument because they're nothing but a bunch of liars!

 

[dc1971]

When you consider that somehow you are using up some sort of public resources by providing jobs, then have to pay specifically for doing that, I'd call it a penalty.

Sorry, I don't buy into the Marxist crap that providing employment is somehow the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat like you do.

Marxist babble, but do continue that thought and detail exactly how you can fairly measure that use, and therefore tax fairly. Then tally up how much government resources the poor use and compare the two to find out who exactly is paying their fair share.

Ahh yes! Once again, we have learned how to blame other people for being communists, Marxists, leninists, socialist yet we really have yet to decide when and how we will debate what is so wrong with these ideas.

 

[RandFan]

It's possible to provide employment. It's possible to exploit people. The two are not mutually exclusive. Further, many companies can be more on the providing employment side of the spectrum while others are on the exploiting side.

The notion that providing employment makes corporations immune from charges of exploitations is rather bizarre. Power still corrupts and there is nothing sacred about being a corporation that precludes them from exploiting people.

 

[dc1971]

When you consider that somehow you are using up some sort of public resources by providing jobs, then have to pay specifically for doing that, I'd call it a penalty.

Well, you seem to be the only one then.

 

[AlBell]

Outweigh.

Sometimes I spel good, sometimes not so much.

AlBell, let me make sure I understand you. In a discussion about tax policy and national level economics, you are prepared to argue your position based on your subjective, personal experience as opposed to statistical data?

I take and defend positions that imo offer me and my family the best benefits, yes. I also vote that way.

Affect, not effect.

Affect is an emotional issue. Effect is physical which includes economic.

Here is yet another example. The CBO is accepted by both sides of the aisle in Washington as an unbiased source of analysis of governmental fiscal policy. The CBO says ACA will reduce the nation's deficit. Yet you persist in stating just the opposite. How can you do that?

'Reduces the deficit' was a CBO position years ago. It's changed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/health-care-reform_n_1347327.html

 

[Neally]

How can you possibly make money at a higher rate without utilizing resources at a higher rate?

So still no support for your claim that all these resources are under taxed and that the use by the poor of public resources are appropriately or over taxed.

Ahh yes! Once again, we have learned how to blame other people for being communists, Marxists, leninists, socialist yet we really have yet to decide when and how we will debate what is so wrong with these ideas.

So take up the cause that leftysergeant failed miserably at. Explain how providing a job to someone is somehow exploiting them and using up a public resource and therefore the employer should pay some sort of tax penalty for doing that.

 

[RandFan]

Affect is an emotional issue. Effect is physical which includes economic.

Affect is what causes the cause. Effect is the cause.

source The majority of the time you use affect with an a as a verb and effect with an e as a noun.

...

So what about those rare meanings that don't follow the rules I just gave you? Well, affect can be used as a noun when you're talking about psychology--it means the mood that someone appears to have. For example, "She displayed a happy affect." Psychologists find it useful because they know that you can never really understand what someone else is feeling. You can only know how they appear to be feeling.

And, effect can be used as a verb that essentially means "to bring about," or "to accomplish." For example, you could say, "Aardvark hoped to effect change within the burrow."