What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?

[AlBell]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect

When used as a descriptor or adjective, affect means to change, and usually refers to an emotion or symptom. Affected, when used in a description, refers to fake or intentionally assumed behaviour (a changed behaviour), i.e., an affected accent. Affect can refer to facial expression or demeanor.

In general, to affect refers to the influence a change has on something else. In this sense, it is often confused with to effect, which generally means either "to cause/make/create a change" or to the result of a change. When used as a verb, "effect" refers to the cause of a change, or as a synonym for "created" or "made" ("The governor effected a change in policy"); while "affect" refers to the consequences of that change ("The new policy really affected our family").

As a noun, "affect" may refer to an emotion or to a psychological/psychiatric state (see below). As an adjective, it may refer to an assumed pretense: "Her affected accent really had an effect on me"; "Her affected accent really affected my view of her".

I disagree with the use "The new policy really affected our family", in that I find nothing there but an emotional implication. Anything tangible would be an "effect".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect

Effect may refer to:

A result or change of something
...

Cause and effect, an idiom describing causality

Thanks.
I'll try to be more careful.

 

[RandFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affect

In general, to affect refers to the influence a change has on something else. In this sense, it is often confused with to effect, which generally means either "to cause/make/create a change" or to the result of a change. When used as a verb, "effect" refers to the cause of a change, or as a synonym for "created" or "made" ("The governor effected a change in policy"); while "affect" refers to the consequences of that change ("The new policy really affected our family").

I disagree with the use "The new policy really affected our family", in that I find nothing there but an emotional implication. Anything tangible would be an "effect".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect


Thanks.
I'll try to be more careful.

Wiki, it's really a very bad piece of writing. Trust me on this one, go with grammar girl.

 

[RandFan]

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

That should have read, affect is what causes the effect, effect is what the cause causes.

 

[dc1971]

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.

Huh?

 

[RandFan]

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.

But he did spend efforts. When Obama took office the US economy was in free fall. Not his fault. He sponsored and signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The results? Now you might not like the steps he took. You might think the results too slow. But, you can't say he did nothing and you can't say that things are getting worse or static.

Dow

 

[AlBell]

But he did spend efforts. When Obama took office the US economy was in free fall. Not his fault. He sponsored and signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The results? Now you might not like the steps he took. You might think the results too slow. But, you can't say he did nothing and you can't say that things are getting worse or static.


[qimg]http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7051/unemploy.png[/qimg]


Dow

[qimg]http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8674/dowjonesw.jpg[/qimg]

Slow and uncertain; no doubt about it.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/2012/04/21/obamas_25_percent_stall

 

[RandFan]

Slow and uncertain; no doubt about it.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/2012/04/21/obamas_25_percent_stall

Thanks for the link. A very good article. No question about it, it's slow and uncertain. There is no certainty in anything though.

 

[AlBell]

Thanks for the link. A very good article. No question about it, it's slow and uncertain. There is no certainty in anything though.

You are welcome. Here's another.

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

Some things do work; low taxes being one of them. The ARRA2009 was the usual Keynsian, worthless, joke.

 

[RandFan]

You are welcome. Here's another.

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...aganomics_looking_at_evidence_from_the_states
Some things do work; low taxes being one of them.

I've seen very little evidence that low taxes work. Further, what exactly is "low taxes"? This is the question I ask over and over and no one will answer me. How low? Is it just "lower"? I ask and people start humming. What were the effective tax rates under Reagan, Bush and Clinton? Did Reagan raise taxes and was that successful? Honestly, do you even know? Or have you bought into this "low taxes are good" meme to the point that the specifics and the facts don't even matter?

The ARRA2009 was the usual Keynsian, worthless, joke.

Here you go, switch from reasonable to this... it's frustrating. I've been asking you a very specific question that you have been ignoring. And that's fine. I've decided not to try and demand that people answer my questions. But this is such a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

When does success get attributed to policies and when does failure? You seem to suggest that if things are good after a tax decrease it is proof that tax decreases are good. If things are bad you argue they could have been worse.

So, considering ARRA2209,

A.) Is it not demonstrably true that things are getting better?
B.) Could things have been worse?
C.) Or do you simply map results to your preconceptions? Can we have some consistency?

 

[RandFan]

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

BTW: Unlike the previous link, this one was decidedly not a good article. Clearly partisan and lacking objectivity and quite frankly, dishonest.

Why Reagan Raised Taxes and We Should, Too:

David Stockman (Reagan's former Budget Director): We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.

 

[dc1971]

I've seen very little evidence that low taxes work. Further, what is "low taxes". This is the question I ask over and over and no one will answer me. How low? Is it just "lower"? I ask and people start humming.

Yeah right!

It's the similar feeling you get when talking to a brick wall.

 

[AlBell]

BTW: Unlike the previous link, this one was decidedly not a good article. Clearly partisan and lacking objectivity and quite frankly, dishonest.

Got anything specific to point out?

Why Reagan Raised Taxes and We Should, Too:

David Stockman (Reagan's former Budget Director): We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.html

In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "In this time of grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war; no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000." That $25,000 is the equivalent of $323,208 in today's dollars. Can you conceive of a modern president suggesting that no American should earn more than $323,000 after taxes?

The graph top taxrate & GDP really doesn't bring much light to the question. I will say that had I been in the enviable position of facing a 90%+ taxrate I'd have hired several tax lawyers/accountants at likely several hundred $'s / hr, and I'd expect them to purchase the day's McMansions, high priced cars, boats, etc as well as maintain a suitable lifestyle with other expenditures. Maybe maids, gardners, etc would also have been hired. I suggest these economic activities would be far more effective for GDP growth than anything the govt might have done with the tax revenue they expected at 90% that was instead sheltered. Of course funding WWII was the objective, and yes, GWB should have done something similar to fund his tiny-by-comparison wars.

I note at that time in question $10,000/yr would have been solid middle class verging on upper middle class. Today I'd have no problem with a 100% rate for income in excess of, say, $350,000/yr.

 

[RandFan]

Got anything specific to point out?

Yes. He straw man's Obama's position ("taxing into prosperity", a fatuous and absurd bit of propaganda). He lies about "Reganomics". The truth is Regan raised taxes far, far more than Obama EVER raised taxes (do you know what the effective tax rate was under Obama when he took office vs. what it is now? Do you know what it would have been if Obama had his way vs what it was under Clinton vs Reagan, vs George H. W. Bush?

Al, I don't mean to be dismissive of the rest of your post but we have a problem. We can't have a discussion if you simply ignore my salient points and questions. I'm not going to pester you but if you refuse then I don't see the point of this discussion. It's not going to go very well if it is all one sided.

 

[fuelair]

What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?


Salad fixings not bad,fair soup choices, but too little choice of meat dishes, too much veggies and pasta and deserts aren't all that great. And they charge for drink refills!!

 

[dc1971]

What do conservatives have to say about Warren Buffet?


Salad fixings not bad,fair soup choices, but too little choice of meat dishes, too much veggies and pasta and deserts aren't all that great. And they charge for drink refills!!

Actually conservatives NOW have nothing to say about Warren Buffet. Apparently, since other prominent conservatives have flip-flopped their views about him then it's only fair to say that those said prominent conservatives do not represent certain conservatives here on JREF.

...and to that, I say...

B.S.!!!!!!

 

[Lurker]

Why Reagan Raised Taxes and We Should, Too:

David Stockman (Reagan's former Budget Director): We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did.

Thanks for the links. It illustrates well the timeline of Reagan tax cuts and subsequent tax increases and how the economy reacted. I will be adding that information to my debate folio.

 

[daenku32]

I like the fact that "capital gains" are classified as unearned income. As opposed to the earned income that us lesser mortals have to actually labor to get. Makes you wonder why the unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate.

 

[daenku32]

You are welcome. Here's another.

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

Some things do work; low taxes being one of them. The ARRA2009 was the usual Keynsian, worthless, joke.

The only problem with ARRA was that is was too small, as is evident in the graphs.

I'm still waiting to hear the conservatives explain how ARRA was a bad thing though. Or even worthless. I'd really like to hear how they would link those claims to any economic theory.

 

[Lurker]

I like the fact that "capital gains" are classified as unearned income. As opposed to the earned income that us lesser mortals have to actually labor to get. Makes you wonder why the unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate.

While I think capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than it currently is I do see the argument that it is different than "earned" income. Capital gains are only realized after an investment is made. Investments invovle risk and one can actually lose money instead of make money. I know that losses can be deducted but you certainly don't recoup all of your losses and only get to deduct them from income. That element of risk clearly defines the difference between the two incomes.

 

[Neally]

I like the fact that "capital gains" are classified as unearned income. As opposed to the earned income that us lesser mortals have to actually labor to get. Makes you wonder why the unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate.

The money used to invest for capital gains has already been taxed as earned income so it makes sense to give it a break rather than double taxing it for someone willing to put it at risk.