What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[Neally]

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

Disappointed that you haven't exposed some huge hypocrisy conspiracy, with your stupid question, eh?

 

[theprestige]

I get the impression that the progressives on this board pay a lot more attention to Rush Limbaugh and Warren Buffet than do the conservatives.

 

[zaphod2016]

As an "Eisenhower Republican":

The proposal is a distraction from the real problem, which is current and projected spending. Very few people would be affected by the Buffett Plan and the revenue generated would be relatively insignificant. In short, it is a political stunt instead of a serious effort to address our federal budget deficit. So my issue with Buffett is that he is allowing himself to be used as the face of a non-serious, diversionary political stunt.

How many farking times are we gonna have this same debate on JREF?

Let me summarize:

Clinton left a surplus, Bush spent it, Obama is now outspending Bush...

So where do we go from here?

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

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/C0R3.html

Interesting if true!

 

[zaphod2016]

I get the impression that the progressives on this board pay a lot more attention to Rush Limbaugh and Warren Buffet than do the conservatives.

The only reason Rush Limbaugh is still considered "relevant" is because the liberals keep giving him precious, precious attention.

After his comments on birth control, isn't it painfully obvious this guy is a professional troll?

 

[dc1971]

Disappointed that you haven't exposed some huge hypocrisy conspiracy, with your stupid question, eh?

Not really.

But I really think it's funny how the conservative talkies will dub other conservatives as heroes up until they support a Democrat.

 

[dc1971]

I get the impression that the progressives on this board pay a lot more attention to Rush Limbaugh and Warren Buffet than do the conservatives.

And conservatives on this board will jump on us "progressives" if we even dare mention such names as Al Sharpton, Keith Olbermann, or Ed Shultz (to name a few).

 

[dc1971]

The only reason Rush Limbaugh is still considered "relevant" is because the liberals keep giving him precious, precious attention.

No, the only reason Rush is still relevant is because Americans are stupid and they love listening to stupid radio programs and love watching stupid news programming like Fox News.

 

[Ziggurat]

And conservatives on this board will jump on us "progressives" if we even dare mention such names as Al Sharpton, Keith Olbermann, or Ed Shultz (to name a few).

So conservatives respond when you bring up those figures. But you aren't responding to conservatives who brought up Rush, you brought him up yourself.

 

[mikedenk]

It's also not even a "flip-flop"

Even if Rush was a big fan of Buffett (no idea, I don't read his books or listen to him religiously, unlike the OP), criticizing somebody you have previously praised after they do something you disagree with is hardly inconsistent.

 

[SezMe]

Interesting if true!

As pointed out up-thread, it is not true.

 

[dc1971]

So conservatives respond when you bring up those figures. But you aren't responding to conservatives who brought up Rush, you brought him up yourself.

No, that's not what I'm saying Ziggurat! Jumping to conclusions like you always do.

My point is that several times I have mentioned an issue that was discussed on Keith Olbermann's show or there was an issue discussed here on JREF that just so happened to involve Al Sharpton. Instead of discussing the issues, people here will jump on me (and others) for mentioning these names instead of actually discussing the issues.

I give this thread another 30 seconds before the same thing happens again!

 

[tyr_13]

But this entire thread is 'bringing up names'. That's how it started, so it's not startling that that's how it will continue.

 

[dc1971]

But this entire thread is 'bringing up names'. That's how it started, so it's not startling that that's how it will continue.

And so are a lot of other threads here on JREF!

 

[Lurker]

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.

Um, we don't run the government like a bake sale. It is not a charity. Tax policies are written into law.

Your argument is rather silly. I think *I* should be paying a higher rate in taxes but won't do so until it is codified into law.

If I think the medicare tax should be higher do I need to voluntarily send in more money to be taken seriously? If I think the military should be paid more do I need to send $ to military families in order to be taken seriously?

 

[Ziggurat]

Um, we don't run the government like a bake sale. It is not a charity. Tax policies are written into law.

Your argument is rather silly. I think *I* should be paying a higher rate in taxes but won't do so until it is codified into law.

I'm sorry, but it is YOUR argument which is silly, not mine. You are free to pay more in taxes. The government already has laws in place which allow that. So your "codified into law" is just a dodge, that option is already part of the law. If you aren't paying more, it's because you don't actually think that you should. It's simply a lie to claim otherwise.

If I think the medicare tax should be higher do I need to voluntarily send in more money to be taken seriously?

If your argument is that other people should pay more in taxes, and you're willing to pay more yourself in order to get that to happen, then there is no logical requirement that you pay more now. But if you think that you yourself should pay more because that is right in and of itself, then yes, it really is a logical requirement that you pay more. If Buffet is making the former argument, then his identity is irrelevant: he's no different than anybody else who wants rich people to pay more, and there's no reason to pay him any particular attention in this debate. If he's making the latter argument, then he's lying.

 

[tyr_13]

If Buffet is making the former argument, then his identity is irrelevant: he's no different than anybody else who wants rich people to pay more, and there's no reason to pay him any particular attention in this debate.

That's not entirely true. There is a very, very common narrative that people who want a greater tax burden placed on top earners, through additional taxes or closing loopholes, are advocating class warfare to take money from other people or advocating it for political gain.

Because Buffet is in the group that would have their current tax burden increased, his view cannot be dismissed as being self-serving class warfare (or whatever term is being used this week). Because Buffet is not running for office, he can't be trying to buy votes.

Now I understand what you're saying. Who he is as a person shouldn't be relevant to the argument he presents. The policy should stand on it's own merits. I agree. But the sad fact is politically it has mattered.

 

[SezMe]

tyr_13 is right. People bring prejudices and pre-judgements to political debates, including you, Zig. This colors the debate so that much more than just pure logic is involved. Having a 1%er advocating for higher taxes on the 1% helps offset the non-logical facets of the discussion.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm sorry, but it is YOUR argument which is silly, not mine. You are free to pay more in taxes. The government already has laws in place which allow that. So your "codified into law" is just a dodge, that option is already part of the law. If you aren't paying more, it's because you don't actually think that you should. It's simply a lie to claim otherwise.

Horse feathers. Buffet's point was that the rich do not need the tax breaks they are getting, and that it cripples government to forgo that tax revenue. (According to the troll Grover, that is the whole point.)

Theoretically, the benefit of giving a tax break to the morons who think themselves "job creators" was that they would then invest in job creation here. They don't. They just use the money that they should have been paying into the fund to maintain our social and physical infrastructure to create jobs in China at the expense of our industries.

This, of course, leaves working people to pick up more of the tab for that infrastructure. Buffet sees this as wrong. You don't even need an IQ as high as his to see that.

But, would his voluntarily chipping in more in taxes help the working people? Not really. It would just look like another excuse for the republicons to give the parasites more money to stuff into off-shore investments. It would also leave Buffet with less money, thus less resources to compete with his less ethical peers.

I, for one, would not see any reason to disadvantage myself to subsidize slime like the Koch roaches. I think it absurd for anyone to expect Buffet to do so.

 

[Ziggurat]

Horse feathers. Buffet's point was that the rich do not need the tax breaks they are getting

And why is his opinion on the matter any more relevant that anyone else's? Do you think rich people's opinions matter more than poor peoples'?

But, would his voluntarily chipping in more in taxes help the working people? Not really.

Would forcing him to pay more make the money magically multiply? You're not making any sense.

I, for one, would not see any reason to disadvantage myself to subsidize slime like the Koch roaches. I think it absurd for anyone to expect Buffet to do so.

I thought the whole idea was that government revenue would benefit the poor, which is why we needed to increase that revenue. Now apparently you're arguing that increased revenue benefits the rich. You're not making any sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

tyr_13 is right. People bring prejudices and pre-judgements to political debates, including you, Zig. This colors the debate so that much more than just pure logic is involved. Having a 1%er advocating for higher taxes on the 1% helps offset the non-logical facets of the discussion.

So you're justifying illogical arguments on the basis that they're needed to counter illogical arguments. I don't find that compelling.