Warren Buffet - The Next in a Never Ending Line of Liberal Hypocrites

[LiveLaughLove]

Absolutely not shocking at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/warren-buffett-jet-company-_n_1313351.html?1331054968

His private jet company lobbied heavily for lower taxes. That's rich.

I wonder why the MSM couldn't find this story during the State of The Union Address?


"Buffett's pleading with Congress to hike his tax rate has grown so incessant that Republicans routinely suggest the Omaha billionaire should simply, as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie put it, "write a check and shut up."

But when a Buffett company had a chance to tackle both problems, it chose to do the opposite. And it spent handsomely on K Street to get it done."

[SoonerorLater]

Buffet is modern day snake-oil salesman. For the longest time I couldn't understand why guys like Buffet take the stand of liberal Democrats. Then one day it became clear. Wealthy people like Buffet don't care about taxes because they aren't going to pay them anyway. Buffet wants YOU to pay taxes to transfer wealth to the have-nots so the country doesn't end up in open rebellion.

[SCOUT]

Maybe his secretary should just hire a lobbyist.

[LiveLaughLove]

Buffett is for the little people like the Wicked Witch of the West was.

[Midtowner]

Buffet is modern day snake-oil salesman. For the longest time I couldn't understand why guys like Buffet take the stand of liberal Democrats. Then one day it became clear. Wealthy people like Buffet don't care about taxes because they aren't going to pay them anyway. Buffet wants YOU to pay taxes to transfer wealth to the have-nots so the country doesn't end up in open rebellion.

What evidence do you have for that? It seems he was upset he was paying less tax % than his middle class secretary.

[LiveLaughLove]

What evidence do you have for that? It seems he was upset he was paying less tax % than his middle class secretary.

Who gives a flip what the guy said. His actions are that he was paying money to lobby for lower taxes. His actions speak louder than his hypocritical words.

If he wants to pay more taxes, he can do so. The IRS will gladly take it. Don't hold your breath waiting for it though.

Personally, I think every rich lib should pay the government everything they have less 50k a year to live on like a normal person. Then and only then, will they actually be putting their money where their mouths are.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Buffet is modern day snake-oil salesman. For the longest time I couldn't understand why guys like Buffet take the stand of liberal Democrats. Then one day it became clear. Wealthy people like Buffet don't care about taxes because they aren't going to pay them anyway. Buffet wants YOU to pay taxes to transfer wealth to the have-nots so the country doesn't end up in open rebellion.

I have always said and been poo-pooed that the Libs want to close the ranks of the wealthy to all Americans and leave a "small" group of people wealthy and in control (like Europe - a built in ruling class). They cannot stand the fact that there can and will be new rich amongst the blue blood by people who made it, not borned it...I include the RINOs and the Progressives as the same here.

[TUSooner]

What evidence do you have for that? It seems he was upset he was paying less tax % than his middle class secretary.

Mid - Step back! This is just another Right Wing circle jerk

[XingTheRubicon]

Some of you need to google "What is capital gains and is it the same as income tax"

[LiveLaughLove]

Mid - Step back! This is just another Right Wing circle jerk

Yes, when confronted with obvious liberal hypocrisy, it must be nothing more than a right wing circle jerk. A cowardly dodge, but not surprising.

[dwarthog]

Mid - Step back! This is just another Right Wing circle jerk

Is not! ;)


It is interesting that he decries the inequities of the tax code with regards to what he pays vs his secretary, then pays lobbyists to get "special" tax breaks for his corporate jets.

There certainly does seem to be a dichotomy with regards to his statements and actions when it comes to paying taxes.

[TUSooner]

Yes, when confronted with obvious liberal hypocrisy, it must be nothing more than a right wing circle jerk. A cowardly dodge, but not surprising.

Yes, I am being dismissive of your howling indignation and hand-wringing and "aha aha , we got 'em now" horsecrap. I have heard it before and just don't mean jack ****, and neither does Buffett. What's your silly point? That somebody on "the left" might be a hypocrite (depending on the spin, of course)? As if that excuses your own closed mind or all the other nonsense from the far farright. "Right-wing circle jerk" is a fair enough assessment; I'll stick with it.

[ictsooner7]

Absolutely not shocking at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/warren-buffett-jet-company-_n_1313351.html?1331054968

His private jet company lobbied heavily for lower taxes. That's rich.

I wonder why the MSM couldn't find this story during the State of The Union Address?



What is more hypocritical is republicans raising taxes on poor and middle class people to give themselves a tax cut.

[pphilfran]

Some of Buffets remarks are laughable...

He pays his sec 60k a year....the highest income tax rate she could possibly pay is 14.08%...and it is that high if she has no deductions other than her one personal deduction...

Then he says he has an employee paying 41% in income taxes...someone needs to show me how anyone can pay 41% in income taxes...even with payroll taxes included the employee couldn't get to 41% in total fed taxes...(unless he isn't an employee and is a contractor and is paying the total SS payroll tax)

[LiveLaughLove]

Yes, I am being dismissive of your howling indignation and hand-wringing and "aha aha , we got 'em now" horsecrap. I have heard it before and just don't mean jack ****, and neither does Buffett. What's your silly point? That somebody on "the left" might be a hypocrite (depending on the spin, of course)? As if that excuses your own closed mind or all the other nonsense from the far farright. "Right-wing circle jerk" is a fair enough assessment; I'll stick with it.

You want to pretend like the man is a nobody all of the sudden. He is Obama's main tax increases argument. That makes this extremely relevant in the political discourse and you know it does. That's why you can add nothing to it, but to try and attack the messenger. Obama had his freaking secretary (that poor mistreated woman that owns two homes) sit in his box at the State of the Union to emphasize the point of her mistreatment at the hands of the evil rich.

My "closed mind" has nothing to do with Bufffett's hypocrisy. It seems to me, the person that can't admit he is a hypocrite and that Obama by extension is disingenuous (or are you going to actually say Obama didn't know about the lobbying?) or incredibly sloppy (if he actually didn't know), is the one being "close minded".

Don't let the facts get in your way TU. It's really us evil Republicans that forced Buffett to lobby for lower taxes. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[okie52]

What is more hypocritical is republicans raising taxes on poor and middle class people to give themselves a tax cut.

Did the Bush tax cuts do that?

[TUSooner]

You want to pretend like the man is a nobody all of the sudden. He is Obama's main tax increases argument. That makes this extremely relevant in the political discourse and you know it does. That's why you can add nothing to it, but to try and attack the messenger. Obama had his freaking secretary (that poor mistreated woman that owns two homes) sit in his box at the State of the Union to emphasize the point of her mistreatment at the hands of the evil rich.

My "closed mind" has nothing to do with Bufffett's hypocrisy. It seems to me, the person that can't admit he is a hypocrite and that Obama by extension is disingenuous (or are you going to actually say Obama didn't know about the lobbying?) or incredibly sloppy (if he actually didn't know), is the one being "close minded".

Don't let the facts get in your way TU. It's really us evil Republicans that forced Buffett to lobby for lower taxes. Yeah, that's the ticket.


That makes this extremely relevant in the political discourse and you know it does.

One man's extreme relevance is another man's "sound and fury signifying nothing."

I think I'll have fried chicken for lunch.

[LiveLaughLove]

So two minutes of research in and NetJets, the company y'all say was owned by Berkshire-Hathaway (or some are even suggesting Buffett did this) actually owns around 70% of its own stock. Saying that this is a position Buffett has taken is about as accurate as saying that because Midtowner owns a Mutual Fund which has invested in BP, Midtowner is in favor of dangerous drilling practices which cause massive environmental catastrophes.

Summary: NetJets isn't controlled by Buffett. Yet again, the circle jerk is shown to have cut/pasted before researching the validity of the claims in their inboxes.

Right. That's some good spin Mid. Keep trying.

Your liberal brethren at The Huffington Post seem to disagree with you, and think he has a ton of control in NetJet. Berkshire-Hathaway = Buffett and you know it. 70% is quite a majority control.

You have to really believe in pie in the sky to believe that Buffett has nothing to do with NetJet and it's business practices.

Summary: NetJet is most definitely controlled by Buffett through it's 70% ownership through Berkshire-Hathaway. You're going to have to try harder than that.

[Curly Bill]

One man's extreme relevance is another man's "sound and fury signifying nothing."

I think I'll have fried chicken for lunch.

Why does this make me snicker?

[TUSooner]

Right. That's some good spin Mid. Keep trying.

Your liberal brethren at The Huffington Post seem to disagree with you, and think he has a ton of control in NetJet. Berkshire-Hathaway = Buffett and you know it. 70% is quite a majority control.

You have to really believe in pie in the sky to believe that Buffett has nothing to do with NetJet and it's business practices.

Summary: NetJet is most definitely controlled by Buffett through it's 70% ownership through Berkshire-Hathaway. You're going to have to try harder than that.

You find a penny in the gutter and act like you've discovered the Lost Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

[Curly Bill]

You find a penny in the gutter and act like you've discovered the Lost Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

He discovered a movie?

[REDREX]

What is more hypocritical is republicans raising taxes on poor and middle class people to give themselves a tax cut.--- Wrong---- The tax cuts lowerd the marginal tax rates for most Taxpayers---not just the top

[okie52]

--- Wrong---- The tax cuts lowerd the marginal tax rates for most Taxpayers---not just the top

Don't confuse Icky with facts...he has his talking points memorized.

[LiveLaughLove]

You find a penny in the gutter and act like you've discovered the Lost Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Well, let's just say it's funny watching you guys squirm for Obama and his pals. Not a penny really. More like a burr.

I am sure when the whole under taxed argument was brought up by Obama and Buffett you had nothing to say about it, and considered it a non-issue. I'm sure you thought Obama was just finding a penny in the gutter, and it didn't matter at all.

I'm sure Midtowner never posted about it also. I'm sure there were no threads about it at all here in fact. It was never discussed. Right?

[TUSooner]

Well, let's just say it's funny watching you guys squirm for Obama and his pals. Not a penny really. More like a burr.

I am sure when the whole under taxed argument was brought up by Obama and Buffett you had nothing to say about it, and considered it a non-issue. I'm sure you thought Obama was just finding a penny in the gutter, and it didn't matter at all.

I'm sure Midtowner never posted about it also. I'm sure there were no threads about it at all here in fact. It was never discussed. Right?

I don't recall ever getting too excited about it. But anyway, which Buffet was wrong, the one who says the wealthiest people don't pay enough taxes or the one whose jet company lobbied for lower taxes? Does Buffett's presumed hypocrisy mean that millionaires and billionaires pay enough already? What's the big picture as far as tax burdens go? See, you have your penny in the form of "Buffett's a liberal hypocrite! Nana nana boo boo!" but you haven't really said anything useful about the issue of fair taxation. Gloat over your penny all you want -- that, Sir, is the right-wing circle jerk.

Lunch at 11, Julia St deli !

[TUSooner]

He discovered a movie?


Perhaps I should have said Nuestra Senora de Atocha? I don't know too many good treasures these days.

[ictsooner7]

Yes, when confronted with obvious liberal hypocrisy, it must be nothing more than a right wing circle jerk. A cowardly dodge, but not surprising.




It is simply amazing how the right finds one instance of someone on the “left” playing by the rules and screaming hypocrite. What is wrong with having a company that you have ownership in lobbying for a tax break? Buffet is talking about raising taxes on HIMSELF! Apples and oranges. The right pulls their hair out and cries about Clintons immoral behavior while completely ignoring McCain, Gingrich, Vittner, Esign and the coup de grace for republicans claiming democrats are immoral – Mark “but honey she’s my soulmate” Sanford phandering.

[ictsooner7]

Don't confuse Icky with facts...he has his talking points memorized.

Tell me again how I have my facts wrong.


‘Robin Hood in reverse:’ Brownback’s plan would raise taxes paid by poorest Kansans


Topeka — More criticism emerged Tuesday over Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax plan as figures showed the poorest of Kansans would face a huge increase in their tax liability.

A non-partisan policy group said Brownback’s proposal would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said its analysis found “that the bottom 80 percent of the state’s income distribution would collectively see a tax hike under the Brownback plan, while the best off 20 percent of Kansans would see substantial tax cuts.”The Washington, D.C., research group, which advocates for progressive taxes, added, “For most middle- and low-income Kansans, the tax break from the income tax rate cuts would be completely offset by the loss of income tax credits and itemized deductions, as well as a higher sales tax rate.”

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka called Brownback’s proposal “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Hensley said of Brownback, “He is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.”

Brownback says plan is pro-growth

Brownback, a Republican, has proposed decreasing state income tax rates, eliminating the state income tax for thousands of businesses, doing away with numerous tax credits and deductions, and keeping the state sales tax at 6.3 cents per dollar, which under current law is supposed to drop to 5.7 cents per dollar in 2013.

Brownback has said his proposal will lure businesses to Kansas and spur economic development. He said his intent is to eventually phase out the state income tax.

“I firmly believe these reforms will set the stage for strong economic growth in Kansas – and will put more money into the pockets of Kansas families and businesses,” Brownback said in his State of the State address.

“Growth that will allow us to further reduce tax rates and increase our competitiveness. Growth that will see people move to Kansas instead of leaving our state,” he said.

More numbers emerging

As a group, low-income families would see an astronomical tax increase, according to Kansas Department of Revenue figures released by legislators.

The amount of individual income tax revenue would decrease by 12 percent overall, but it would affect different groups of taxpayers differently.

Those Revenue Department figures show there were 564,328 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less in the 2009 tax year. Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million. Under Brownback’s plan, that group would have a total tax liability of $86.5 million. That is more than a 5,000 percent increase in tax liability and averages $156 more per filer.

Meanwhile, there are 21,158 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or more. Under Brownback’s plan, they would pay an average of $5,239 less in taxes, and as a group $110.8 million less than now, which is a 18.5 percent tax cut.

Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman Joan Wagnon, who also served as the state’s chief tax official for eight years, said Brownback has picked banks and wealthy corporations over people.

“This isn’t even remotely fair, and it drains funding from education,” Wagnon said.

Under Brownback’s plan, individual Kansans will lose $180 million in tax credits, while banks and wealthy corporations would retain nearly all of their credits, said Wagnon, who served as secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue from 2003 until 2011.

Brownback’s plan would get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction, child care and dependent care deductions, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the tax credit for families who adopt children, and the sales tax on food rebate program.

Removing the rebate on sales taxes paid on food will take money from more than 365,000 Kansans, while ending the state portion of the EITC would hurt more than 227,000 working Kansans, Wagnon said.

Brownback has said he planned to take funds saved from junking the EITC and plow them into programs to help the poor.

Hensley said this runs counter to Republican rhetoric “to reward work and not reward welfare.”

Copyright 2012 The Lawrence Journal-World. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. We strive to uphold our values for every story published.

[sappstuf]

I don't recall ever getting too excited about it. But anyway, which Buffet was wrong, the one who says the wealthiest people don't pay enough taxes or the one whose jet company lobbied for lower taxes? Does Buffett's presumed hypocrisy mean that millionaires and billionaires pay enough already? What's the big picture as far as tax burdens go? See, you have your penny in the form of "Buffett's a liberal hypocrite! Nana nana boo boo!" but you haven't really said anything useful about the issue of fair taxation. Gloat over your penny all you want -- that, Sir, is the right-wing circle jerk.

Lunch at 11, Julia St deli !

Probably the Buffet who is CEO and Chairman of Berkshire-Hathaway which owes a billion dollars in back taxes...

[LiveLaughLove]

It is simply amazing how the right finds one instance of someone on the “left” playing by the rules and screaming hypocrite. What is wrong with having a company that you have ownership in lobbying for a tax break? Buffet is talking about raising taxes on HIMSELF! Apples and oranges. The right pulls their hair out and cries about Clintons immoral behavior while completely ignoring McCain, Gingrich, Vittner, Esign and the coup de grace for republicans claiming democrats are immoral – Mark “but honey she’s my soulmate” Sanford phandering.

ict, You're like a sawed off shotgun that just scatters shot about trying to hit something. Congratulations on your, um, post diversity! It's truly dazzling.

[okie52]

Tell me again how I have my facts wrong.


‘Robin Hood in reverse:’ Brownback’s plan would raise taxes paid by poorest Kansans


Topeka — More criticism emerged Tuesday over Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax plan as figures showed the poorest of Kansans would face a huge increase in their tax liability.

A non-partisan policy group said Brownback’s proposal would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said its analysis found “that the bottom 80 percent of the state’s income distribution would collectively see a tax hike under the Brownback plan, while the best off 20 percent of Kansans would see substantial tax cuts.”The Washington, D.C., research group, which advocates for progressive taxes, added, “For most middle- and low-income Kansans, the tax break from the income tax rate cuts would be completely offset by the loss of income tax credits and itemized deductions, as well as a higher sales tax rate.”

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka called Brownback’s proposal “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Hensley said of Brownback, “He is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.”

Brownback says plan is pro-growth

Brownback, a Republican, has proposed decreasing state income tax rates, eliminating the state income tax for thousands of businesses, doing away with numerous tax credits and deductions, and keeping the state sales tax at 6.3 cents per dollar, which under current law is supposed to drop to 5.7 cents per dollar in 2013.

Brownback has said his proposal will lure businesses to Kansas and spur economic development. He said his intent is to eventually phase out the state income tax.

“I firmly believe these reforms will set the stage for strong economic growth in Kansas – and will put more money into the pockets of Kansas families and businesses,” Brownback said in his State of the State address.

“Growth that will allow us to further reduce tax rates and increase our competitiveness. Growth that will see people move to Kansas instead of leaving our state,” he said.

More numbers emerging

As a group, low-income families would see an astronomical tax increase, according to Kansas Department of Revenue figures released by legislators.

The amount of individual income tax revenue would decrease by 12 percent overall, but it would affect different groups of taxpayers differently.

Those Revenue Department figures show there were 564,328 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less in the 2009 tax year. Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million. Under Brownback’s plan, that group would have a total tax liability of $86.5 million. That is more than a 5,000 percent increase in tax liability and averages $156 more per filer.

Meanwhile, there are 21,158 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or more. Under Brownback’s plan, they would pay an average of $5,239 less in taxes, and as a group $110.8 million less than now, which is a 18.5 percent tax cut.

Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman Joan Wagnon, who also served as the state’s chief tax official for eight years, said Brownback has picked banks and wealthy corporations over people.

“This isn’t even remotely fair, and it drains funding from education,” Wagnon said.

Under Brownback’s plan, individual Kansans will lose $180 million in tax credits, while banks and wealthy corporations would retain nearly all of their credits, said Wagnon, who served as secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue from 2003 until 2011.

Brownback’s plan would get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction, child care and dependent care deductions, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the tax credit for families who adopt children, and the sales tax on food rebate program.

Removing the rebate on sales taxes paid on food will take money from more than 365,000 Kansans, while ending the state portion of the EITC would hurt more than 227,000 working Kansans, Wagnon said.

Brownback has said he planned to take funds saved from junking the EITC and plow them into programs to help the poor.

Hensley said this runs counter to Republican rhetoric “to reward work and not reward welfare.”

Copyright 2012 The Lawrence Journal-World. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. We strive to uphold our values for every story published.

A Kansas tax plan? A state tax plan? That's the best ya got?

Well those aren't the Bush tax cuts now are they?

[badger]

Maybe Warren Buffet should just go ahead and run for office, rather than asking other people to do what he wants. Just go and do it yourself, man.

[ictsooner7]

--- Wrong---- The tax cuts lowerd the marginal tax rates for most Taxpayers---not just the top

Try again.

[sappstuf]

Tell me again how I have my facts wrong.


‘Robin Hood in reverse:’ Brownback’s plan would raise taxes paid by poorest Kansans


Topeka — More criticism emerged Tuesday over Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax plan as figures showed the poorest of Kansans would face a huge increase in their tax liability.

A non-partisan policy group said Brownback’s proposal would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said its analysis found “that the bottom 80 percent of the state’s income distribution would collectively see a tax hike under the Brownback plan, while the best off 20 percent of Kansans would see substantial tax cuts.”The Washington, D.C., research group, which advocates for progressive taxes, added, “For most middle- and low-income Kansans, the tax break from the income tax rate cuts would be completely offset by the loss of income tax credits and itemized deductions, as well as a higher sales tax rate.”

Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka called Brownback’s proposal “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Hensley said of Brownback, “He is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.”

Brownback says plan is pro-growth

Brownback, a Republican, has proposed decreasing state income tax rates, eliminating the state income tax for thousands of businesses, doing away with numerous tax credits and deductions, and keeping the state sales tax at 6.3 cents per dollar, which under current law is supposed to drop to 5.7 cents per dollar in 2013.

Brownback has said his proposal will lure businesses to Kansas and spur economic development. He said his intent is to eventually phase out the state income tax.

“I firmly believe these reforms will set the stage for strong economic growth in Kansas – and will put more money into the pockets of Kansas families and businesses,” Brownback said in his State of the State address.

“Growth that will allow us to further reduce tax rates and increase our competitiveness. Growth that will see people move to Kansas instead of leaving our state,” he said.

More numbers emerging

As a group, low-income families would see an astronomical tax increase, according to Kansas Department of Revenue figures released by legislators.

The amount of individual income tax revenue would decrease by 12 percent overall, but it would affect different groups of taxpayers differently.

Those Revenue Department figures show there were 564,328 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $25,000 or less in the 2009 tax year. Currently, that group receives a total refund of $1.7 million. Under Brownback’s plan, that group would have a total tax liability of $86.5 million. That is more than a 5,000 percent increase in tax liability and averages $156 more per filer.

Meanwhile, there are 21,158 Kansas tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or more. Under Brownback’s plan, they would pay an average of $5,239 less in taxes, and as a group $110.8 million less than now, which is a 18.5 percent tax cut.

Kansas Democratic Party Chairwoman Joan Wagnon, who also served as the state’s chief tax official for eight years, said Brownback has picked banks and wealthy corporations over people.

“This isn’t even remotely fair, and it drains funding from education,” Wagnon said.

Under Brownback’s plan, individual Kansans will lose $180 million in tax credits, while banks and wealthy corporations would retain nearly all of their credits, said Wagnon, who served as secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue from 2003 until 2011.

Brownback’s plan would get rid of the home mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction, child care and dependent care deductions, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the tax credit for families who adopt children, and the sales tax on food rebate program.

Removing the rebate on sales taxes paid on food will take money from more than 365,000 Kansans, while ending the state portion of the EITC would hurt more than 227,000 working Kansans, Wagnon said.

Brownback has said he planned to take funds saved from junking the EITC and plow them into programs to help the poor.

Hensley said this runs counter to Republican rhetoric “to reward work and not reward welfare.”

Copyright 2012 The Lawrence Journal-World. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. We strive to uphold our values for every story published.

Uhhh

http://divenomad.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/wizard_of_oz_dorothy.jpg

[okie52]

LOL

[pphilfran]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Fed tax rates

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Buffet's gotten rich off the crony capitalism marriage between big business and the fed gov't. He's just an old man trying to get into heaven now.

I, for one, don't have a problem with his call for higher taxes. I'm all for austerity.

[SoonerorLater]

Make no mistake about it, despite Buffets rhetoric saying he doesn't pay enough taxes, he wants OTHER people to pay more taxes. If he felt duty bound he could absolutely pay more taxes now. I dismiss Bufett's "aw shucks" persona as nothing more than an act. Buffett wants you to pay more in taxes to keep the wheels from coming off of the economic system that he has so much vested in, thus continuing his symbiotic relationship with the US Financial System.

[StoopTroup]

Buffet's Secretary is more of a story than Warren these days.

[StoopTroup]

Maybe Warren Buffet should just go ahead and run for office, rather than asking other people to do what he wants. Just go and do it yourself, man.

He's smart enough to know that even the POTUS can't do that. We impeach President's in this Country. Warren has a great life. Why would he want to live in the Whitehouse when he can visit there by making one phone call right now.

[StoopTroup]

Absolutely not shocking at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/warren-buffett-jet-company-_n_1313351.html?1331054968

His private jet company lobbied heavily for lower taxes. That's rich.

I wonder why the MSM couldn't find this story during the State of The Union Address?


Guys like Buffet and Trump and others don't think like the rest of us. Trump in "The Art of the Deal" "Sometimes I like making a move or buying stock in a Company to see just how far the Management of that Company will go to protect their own bad management of their company". Now...I know that Trump went after Robert Crandall CEO of American Airlines. Crandall back then stated that to fend off guys like Trump he had to put the company into deep debt in order to make it to much of a risk for a Trader to try and take over and really do a Romney. You know....sell off the assets fire the employees of a perfectly healthy company and pocket millions. Now imagine you have a friend that runs an airline you think is great. It has no Unions and has Hawt flight attendants and really offers the public a really cutting edge product and all he needs to do is put a few of the old guard airlines out of business. Is it about helping Americans get cheap air travel in this Country or is it about helping a friend's airline while ruining the current airlines that many investors and travelers were very happy with? Was it about making sure the planes were safe? Was it about whether the Pilots were well trained? Or was it about being powerful enough to do it and eventually putting people who poured their lives into those Companies out to pasture so you could travel on Hooters Airline? At the end of it all they find out there are Federal laws that stop it all but it was fun while it lasted.

Some of these guys are power mongers. You should be glad Buffet is taking the position he is. Go work for Trump. See how long you last in his World. That guy might be successful but I've never thought he looked happy. Buffet looks like he loves life and IMO he doesn't go out of his way to hurt people over money.

Go back and read about some of the Bosses before Labor laws took effect in this Country. I know lots of folks hated Hoffa but look what he had to do to get the Bosses attention? I personally don't think what Hoffa did was terrific but he did realize that he had very little to fight with so what better way than to get two really rich and powerful entities to go to War? That must have been fun to watch....at least until Hoffa got a bullet to the brain.

[badger]

Speaking of American Airlines, I am not sure what changed, but they are gonna freeze pensions for everyone (cept pilots, who they are afraid are on the verge of mass-retirement and leaving the company without anyone to fly the planes) instead of kill them off.

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=585&articleid=20120307_585_0_hrimgs451403)

While I really don't know much about Warren Buffett other than him surpassing Bill Gates recently in wealth standings worldwide, Trump's best argument for not being a total ogre and disingenuous is that he seemed to raise well-grounded, well-rounded kids, at the very least. Trump might have been silver spooned, but his kids apparently had education and no other expenses taken care of. I've heard that Buffett did the same thing in his family.

Check out the documentary "Born Rich." Ivanka Trump is the only "born rich" one that doesn't sound completely disconnected from real life, mainstream society. Pretty amazing what having to actually work does.

[jkjsooner]

Berkshire Hathaway is publicly traded. Warren Buffet's personal views do not take away BH's responsibility toward its shareholders.

Also, for all of you who are saying that Buffet should just write a check and shut up, you know darn well that Buffet is concerned with something bigger than himself. He could give his entire fortune away and it would only be a drop in the bucket. It would do almost nothing to solve our fiscal problems.

If he believes what he says then he has every right and responsibility to do more than just write a check to Uncle Sam.

[TUSooner]

Berkshire Hathaway is publicly traded. Warren Buffet's personal views does not take away BH's responsibility toward its shareholders.

Also, for all of you who are saying that Buffet should just write a check and shut up, you know darn well that Buffet is concerned with something bigger than himself. He could give his entire fortune away and it would only be a drop in the bucket. It would do almost nothing to solve our fiscal problems.

If he believes what he says then he has every right and responsibility to do more than just write a check to Uncle Sam.

Buffett might even have free speech rights and stuff, too. Provided he's not a Christian, I mean. :rolleyes:

[Curly Bill]

Buffett might even have free speech rights and stuff, too. Provided he's not a Christian, I mean. :rolleyes:

Sure he does. I don't recall where someone here said he couldn't open his mouth and make a hypocrite of himself. I'm in fact glad he has.

[dwarthog]

Berkshire Hathaway is publicly traded. Warren Buffet's personal views do not take away BH's responsibility toward its shareholders.

Also, for all of you who are saying that Buffet should just write a check and shut up, you know darn well that Buffet is concerned with something bigger than himself. He could give his entire fortune away and it would only be a drop in the bucket. It would do almost nothing to solve our fiscal problems.

If he believes what he says then he has every right and responsibility to do more than just write a check to Uncle Sam.

And taking every dime from every "rich" person would have no effect either.

So what is the "bigger than himself" issue he is concerned with here?

[jkjsooner]

And there's another side to this that's not entirely altruistic but nevertheless very much part of the human psyche. Most of us want want to be treated fairly. Many of us would be willing to pay slightly higher taxes if that's what the country needed but we won't do it unless our neighbors have to pay it as well.

Call it fairness or jealousy or whatever. It's human.

[jkjsooner]

And taking every dime from every "rich" person would have no effect either.

So what is the "bigger than himself" issue he is concerned with here?

Really? Taking every dime from every rich person wouldn't have an effect? The top 1% owns 37.1% of the nation's wealth. (That's the conservative number that includes one's primary real estate wealth.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States

As of 2010 our private net worth was $48.8 trillion. (That only includes homes and stocks.)

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-24/markets/29998983_1_wealth-fair-value-housing-prices

Let's see, .371 * $48.8 trillion = $18.1 trillion.

The national debt is $15.5 trillion.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So, yeah, that would pay it off.


Now, I don't suggest taking 100% of the top 1%. You made that statement not me. That would wreak havoc on our economy at the minimum and you couldn't liquidate that money without suffering huge losses but I think I made my point.

[pphilfran]

Berkshire Hathaway is publicly traded. Warren Buffet's personal views do not take away BH's responsibility toward its shareholders.

Also, for all of you who are saying that Buffet should just write a check and shut up, you know darn well that Buffet is concerned with something bigger than himself. He could give his entire fortune away and it would only be a drop in the bucket. It would do almost nothing to solve our fiscal problems.

If he believes what he says then he has every right and responsibility to do more than just write a check to Uncle Sam.

Do as I say not as I do

Walk the talk

[dwarthog]

Really? Taking every dime from every rich person wouldn't have an effect? The top 1% owns 37.1% of the nation's wealth. (That's the conservative number that includes one's primary real estate wealth.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States

As of 2010 our private net worth was $48.8 trillion. (That only includes homes and stocks.)

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-24/markets/29998983_1_wealth-fair-value-housing-prices

Let's see, .371 * $48.8 trillion = $18.1 trillion.

The national debt is $15.5 trillion.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So, yeah, that would pay it off.


Now, I don't suggest taking 100% of the top 1%. You made that statement not me. That would wreak havoc on our economy at the minimum and you couldn't liquidate that money without suffering huge losses but I think I made my point.

Hmm, wealth maybe.

But in the form of yearly taxes, which is the subject being kicked around here, no it wouldn't make any difference.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262053/how-much-money-do-rich-have-robert-verbruggen

[REDREX]

Try again.----Come on ICKY----show me that I am wrong----You are CLUELESS

[okie52]

----Come on ICKY----show me that I am wrong----You are CLUELESS

It won't happen Red. If Icky can't find a quote in the Dem's handbook he'll just disappear from the thread.

[49r]

Berkshire Hathaway is publicly traded. Warren Buffet's personal views do not take away BH's responsibility toward its shareholders.

Also, for all of you who are saying that Buffet should just write a check and shut up, you know darn well that Buffet is concerned with something bigger than himself. He has already given his entire fortune away and it would only be a drop in the bucket. It would do almost nothing to solve our fiscal problems.

If he believes what he says then he has every right and responsibility to do more than just write a check to Uncle Sam.

Fixed that for ya...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/

[okie52]

Fixed that for ya...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/

Noble, but he isn't giving it to the federal government, is he?

[jkjsooner]

Hmm, wealth maybe.

But in the form of yearly taxes, which is the subject being kicked around here, no it wouldn't make any difference.


Did you not say "take every dime from every rich person"?

[jkjsooner]

Do as I say not as I do

Walk the talk

I think it would be highly inappropriate to use the money that other's have entrusted to him (via Berkshire Hathaway) to walk the talk.

It's one thing for him as a private citizen to encourage higher tax rates for the wealthy. Sure if he got his way that could impact his shareholders but he isn't acting in the role of someone who is supposed to maximize his shareholder's profit when making those statements. It's another thing to simply give away his shareholder's money to the government.

[pphilfran]

I think it would be highly inappropriate to use the money that other's have entrusted to him (via Berkshire Hathaway) to walk the talk.

It's one thing for him as a private citizen to encourage higher tax rates for the wealthy. Sure if he got his way that could impact his shareholders but he isn't acting in the role of someone who is supposed to maximize his shareholder's profit when making those statements. It's another thing to simply give away his shareholder's money to the government.

i am not talking about the company money...only his own...

[TUSooner]

It won't happen Red. If Icky can't find a quote in the Dem's handbook he'll just disappear from the thread.

I find this amusing and ironic because it's the far right posters who offer, by far, most of the canned tripe on these boards.

[pphilfran]

I find this amusing and ironic because it's the far right posters who offer, by far, most of the canned tripe on these boards.

It is a toss up...

[Mississippi Sooner]

Tripe toss!!!

[okie52]

I find this amusing and ironic because it's the far right posters who offer, by far, most of the canned tripe on these boards.

Of course you do.

[Curly Bill]

Of course you do.

Shocking analysis wasn't it?

[okie52]

Shocking analysis wasn't it?


Yep, and deep too.

[Sooner5030]

why did that f-stick make a big deal about it only to get defensive when folks actually wanted to see her returns to she what she really makes? He needs to stick to investments, lobbying, and pay day lending tactics for cash strapped companies. He sucks at making political points.