What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[Beerina]

I've seen rich people say, "Ok, I'll pay more taxes -- now cut the hell out of spending to meet halfway."


...and the crickets chirp.


So, spare me this, Mr. Buffet supporters. If he weren't saying, "Raise taxes on me", most of you would be bemoaning his worthless existence.

 

[Upchurch]

So, spare me this, Mr. Buffet supporters. If he weren't saying, "Raise taxes on me", most of you would be bemoaning his worthless existence.

Evidence? He's been around a lot longer than he's been saying "Raise taxes on me". How many people bemoaned his existence before that?

 

[leftysergeant]

How about he donate to the IRS if he amazingly cannot find another way to pay "his fare share"? How about he pay the back taxes his companies owe (I believe the sum is over 1 billion)? Rich hypocrite.

Right. Why doesn't he subsidize the Walton slime and hobble himself while they and the Koch roaches gobble up all the wealth of the nation and then whine about how miserable they feel when asked to pay income taxes?

 

[leftysergeant]

I've seen rich people say, "Ok, I'll pay more taxes -- now cut the hell out of spending to meet halfway."

Screw 'em. A lot of that spending is to clean up the crap that the rich dumped in our backyards making the money we now want to see taxed.

So, spare me this, Mr. Buffet supporters. If he weren't saying, "Raise taxes on me", most of you would be bemoaning his worthless existence.

No. He is not being an arrogant putz and insistting that he shopuld not be "punished" for "creating jobs." He knows that his less civilized peers are feeding us compost for truffles and he is calling them out on it.

 

[dc1971]

Let me bring this back to center...

I take from Rush Limbaugh, who I happened to have playing on my car radio, who bemoaned Warren Buffett for wanting to raise taxes. Mr. Buffett has long been a hero to Rush.

Why is it when a Democrat supports someone like Warren Buffett, they're suddenly considered a "traitor" by conservative talkies like Rush?

Those who consider themselves conservative, please enlighten me?

 

[dc1971]

If you just want rich people to pay more, then what does Buffet have to do with it, other than just being one of many rich people? If you're trying to use his statements to justify your position, wel, Buffet is free to pay more if he thinks he should. Nobody is stopping him, except him.

I don't have any position here. I'm asking why conservatives like Rush suddenly consider Warren Buffett a traitor.

Any ideas?

 

[Neally]

Why is it when a Democrat supports someone like Warren Buffett, they're suddenly considered a "traitor" by conservative talkies like Rush?

First it's not because a Dem supports someone that automatically the GOP hates them. Second the answer why conservatives are against Buffett's politics are obvious to the point that your posing the question is stupid:
1. Buffet already does pay more in taxes than his secretary. Changing the tax rates just means he pays even more.
2. The focus should be on spending rather than fiddling with the tax rates.

Why you keep asking moronic questions is the real mystery.

 

[dc1971]

First it's not because a Dem supports someone that automatically the GOP hates them. Second the answer why conservatives are against Buffett's politics are obvious to the point that your posing the question is stupid:
1. Buffet already does pay more in taxes than his secretary. Changing the tax rates just means he pays even more.
2. The focus should be on spending rather than fiddling with the tax rates.

Why you keep asking moronic questions is the real mystery.

I probably would have taken your response more seriously weren't it not for the last sentence.

 

[Scopedog]

Either noted and successful capitalist Warren Buffett isn't a capitalist or raising taxes on the rich isn't really all that socialist after all.

I'm not an expert on debate or skepticism or critical thinking or logical fallacies but this seems like one of those false dichotomy thingies to me. Maybe you should work on it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, Buffett is also a rather noted and successful capitalist. One might even argue that he is something of an authority on capitalism.

He's an authority on business management and investing. He's not an authority on tax policy.

Further, it has been argued by many that raising taxes on the rich is wealth redistribution and socialism. I think that's silly, but whatever.

It may or may not be silly, but Buffet still has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, the label one places on a particular tax policy isn't what makes it good or bad. Something isn't automatically bad because it's "socialist", but conversely it's not automatically good if it's not "socialist".

So, we have a disconnect here. Either noted and successful capitalist Warren Buffett isn't a capitalist or raising taxes on the rich isn't really all that socialist after all.

There is indeed a disconnect, namely between this argument and basic logic. Nothing about being a successful capitalist means you can't advocate for socialism. But you're still just arguing labels, not substance.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's always amazing to me how once a prominent conservative economist will support a democratic plan for raising taxes, conservative buffoons such as Rush will label them a "traitor". Then when asked, conservatives will try to change the subject.

Buffet isn't an economist, he's a businessman. I don't care what Rush says about Buffet, and have no interest in trying to justify anything he says. Rush doesn't speak for me. But conversely, neither does Buffet. I don't care what he says either. So I don't care about what Rush says about Buffet, or what Buffet might say about Rush either.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because he's the namesake of the proposed "Buffett Rule".

So... politics by celebrity status. Not very compelling to me.

 

[dc1971]

Buffet isn't an economist, he's a businessman. I don't care what Rush says about Buffet, and have no interest in trying to justify anything he says. Rush doesn't speak for me. But conversely, neither does Buffet. I don't care what he says either. So I don't care about what Rush says about Buffet, or what Buffet might say about Rush either.

Fair enough.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So... politics by celebrity status. Not very compelling to me.

Nope. I gave the direct answer to the question you asked: "If you just want rich people to pay more, then what does Buffet have to do with it, other than just being one of many rich people?"

I'm not arguing any politics by celebrity status. I simply answered your question.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've seen rich people say, "Ok, I'll pay more taxes -- now cut the hell out of spending to meet halfway."


...and the crickets chirp.

Crickets chirp?

I guess you haven't heard of the Bowles-Simpson proposal? Or Obama's endorsement of, I think, a 3 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases (as long as the cuts are spread out over a 10 year period)? I'm not sure if that's the latest ratio he's offered, but I know it's beyond 1 to 1 (meeting halfway on the tax increases).

Seems to me the Democrats have been willing to work toward sensible long-term solutions to the long-term debt problem (while attempting to minimize the impact on a very fragile recovery). But many Republicans (especially in the House) have signed onto Norquist's pledge.

 

[dc1971]

But it's such a "MORONIC" question, is it not?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

funny thing about the buffett rule, it wouldnt even apply to warren buffet. his salary from berkshire-hathaway is only 100,000 dollars. the rest of his income is from dividends and capital gains, which i dont think the buffett bill addresses

No, that's exactly what the Buffet Rule would address. It's aimed at those who are able to pay lower rates on their earnings because they're not treating it as income (but as long-term capital gains).

John Boehner has said, "There's a reason we have low rates on capital gains... because it spurs new investment in our economy and allows capital to move more quickly." Of course, he doesn't say where that capital moves as the result of lower tax rates.

I see little if any evidence that it moves in ways that create jobs. Meanwhile, loss of revenues has resulted in significant job losses in public sector jobs (especially at state and local government levels).

 

[leftysergeant]

Seems to me the Democrats have been willing to work toward sensible long-term solutions to the long-term debt problem (while attempting to minimize the impact on a very fragile recovery). But many Republicans (especially in the House) have signed onto Norquist's pledge.

Grover doesn't even care whether government works any more, as long as he and his owners get their tax cuts. It follows that those who have signed their nads over to him do not care, either.

So screw 'em. Vote them out and get some grown-ups in there to actually look for a sensible solution. Raising taxes does not bother people with good business sense. People like Buffet who actually make things happen are more valuable than the witch doctors that trolls like Grover and the Rushblob will cite.

 

[dc1971]

I guess none of the conservatives here have anything to say about Rush's flip-flop!

Eh?

ETA: Except Ziggurat

 

[SezMe]

I'm not a conservative and I don't listen to Rush but Buffett is a hypocrite plain and simple. He uses every tax loophole in the book to pay the minimum amount of taxes possible but now suddenly he wants everyone who is rich to pay more (after he's made his billions of course). How about he doesn't take any deductions on his taxes? How about he pays himself more than his secretary so he can give more money back to the government (state, local, and federal)? How about he donate to the IRS if he amazingly cannot find another way to pay "his fare share"? How about he pay the back taxes his companies owe (I believe the sum is over 1 billion)? Rich hypocrite.

*Whoooosh*

There's no hypocrisy involved. Buffett is for everybody (including himself) follow all the tax rules which means taking advantage of existing loopholes. He'd be an idiot not to. Rather, he is advocating changing some of the rules that would, in part, affect what loopholes would remain that he and other wealthy taxpayers could continue to use. He also advocates adjustment of the tax rates.

How you find hypocrisy in that is simply beyond me.