• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

Buffett patriotism: he puts his money where his mouth is!

"Warren Buffett’s $5 billion investment in struggling Bank of America is the latest iteration of a business philosophy that you might call dollar patriotism.

Earlier this month, in an op-ed column in The New York Times, Buffett urged Washington in this period of “shared sacrifice” to stop coddling the rich, raise taxes on millionaires, and jack them up even higher for the mega-rich (anyone pulling in more than $10 million a year).

And now he is bucking up BofA and Wall Street and the country much as he did in the darkest days of the financial crisis."

Read more: Warren Buffett's Patriotic Bailouts - Business Insider
 
None of that does anything to answer the question I put to you. Twice now you have avoided the direct question:

"Where are the jobs that conservatives said they would create with capital gains tax cuts we continued last year???

The short answer is that the massive regulations that your man put into effect through his fiat government has done its job to make sure that Obama presides over the decline like he wanted to. Congratulations.

j-mac
 
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. From the mouthes of some of the richest people in our nation saying "tax me more, I'm good for it!" It's no longer just Warren Buffet making this claim. Thus, the anti-tax-the-rich crowd cease with trying to protect the rich because many of them are essentially saying "Stop protecting me. Do what's right for the country, as well as those at the bottom who can't afford to pay any more taxes".

If Conservatives in Congress claim they are listening to the public, they'd be smart to listen to that 1% that pays 53% of all federal income taxes. Mind you 40% of of Congress is classified as wealthy, but if we're to listen to both Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin who are now condemning crony capitalisimwhich, then I would think Congress would begin to take heed of what some of the wealthiest citizens in the country have to say on America's tax policy.


There are 'useful idiots' in every aspect of financial class. Buffet, and Gates are no exception. Remember, they are angling for the elite, Socialism is for the people, never the Socialist.

j-mac
 
There are 'useful idiots' in every aspect of financial class. Buffet, and Gates are no exception. Remember, they are angling for the elite, Socialism is for the people, never the Socialist.

j-mac

Interesting the two richest people in a capitalist society are useful idiots.
 
The short answer is that the massive regulations that your man put into effect through his fiat government has done its job to make sure that Obama presides over the decline like he wanted to. Congratulations.

j-mac

And the proof of this absurd claim is??? I call BS talking point!
 
Interesting the two richest people in a capitalist society are useful idiots.


Yep. That's my take on it...Regardless who the hell cares what they say? The only reason that you people are using them is because you think they fit in your 'infallible argument' fail. The point is that once Obama loses this next election they will fade into the background again.

j-mac
 
Yep. That's my take on it...Regardless who the hell cares what they say?

Id suggest that you do.

The only reason that you people are using them is because you think they fit in your 'infallible argument' fail. The point is that once Obama loses this next election they will fade into the background again.

j-mac

When has Bill Gates ever been in the background?
 
Id suggest that you do.



When has Bill Gates ever been in the background?


On the former, you'd be wrong, and the latter, I am an apple user, not much use for Gates.

Sorry, try again.


j-mac
 
These folks can voluntarily pay more taxes, by taking fewer deductions; no deductions, even.

If they're not already doing that, then the whole, "please, tax me more", mantra is just bull****.

Yourself and other Conservatives keep saying that, but that's not how it works. Wealthy individuals don't by custom simply write a check to the IRS to "deduct" more taxes from their income. Could they do it? Yes, but that's not how it works.

They look for those "automatic deductions" that everyone within their income bracket look for. And if you don't "qualify" you simply don't go out of your way to "find" them unless it is to your advantage to do so.

Therefore, this notion that wealthy individuals in order to show their patriotism would merely break out their checkbooks and write these large checks to "contribute" more of their wealth in "volunteer" taxes is foolheartdy. And frankly, that's the argument conservatism would like for people to believe. But it doesn't work like that. You know it, I know it and most politicians especially Republicans know it.

If the wealthy are to write large checks it very likely will be a "tax write-off" towards a charitable donation, not a voluntery direct payment to the IRS. By the very definition of conservatism, wealthy individuals will never simiply "pay" more in taxes unless they know there is a financial benefit for them....you know...leveraging your income and all. Thus, the anti-tax Republican argument of "the wealthy can pay more in taxes simply by writing a check" goes in the face of "profitability, diversification and leveraging". It just will not happen in the way you and your fellow conservatives want the American people to believe.
 
Last edited:
Buffett patriotism: he puts his money where his mouth is!

"Warren Buffett’s $5 billion investment in struggling Bank of America is the latest iteration of a business philosophy that you might call dollar patriotism.

Earlier this month, in an op-ed column in The New York Times, Buffett urged Washington in this period of “shared sacrifice” to stop coddling the rich, raise taxes on millionaires, and jack them up even higher for the mega-rich (anyone pulling in more than $10 million a year).

And now he is bucking up BofA and Wall Street and the country much as he did in the darkest days of the financial crisis."

Read more: Warren Buffett's Patriotic Bailouts - Business Insider

Patriotism? You think Warren BUffet would invest that money, if he thought there was a good chance that he was going to lose it?

Gimme a break!
 
Yourself and other Conservatives keep saying that, but that's not how it works. Wealthy individuals don't by custom simply write a check to the IRS to "deduct" more taxes from their income. Could they do it? Yes, but that's not how it works.

They look for those "automatic deductions" that everyone within their income bracket look for. And if you don't "qualify" you simply don't go out of your way to "find" them unless it is to your advantage to do so.

Therefore, this notion that wealthy individuals in order to show their patriotism would merely break out their checkbooks and write these large checks to "contribute" more of their wealth in "volunteer" taxes is foolheartdy. And frankly, that's the argument conservatism would like for people to believe. But it doesn't work like that. You know it, I know it and most politicians especially Republicans know it.

If the wealthy are to write large checks it very likely will be a "tax write-off" towards a charitable donation, not a voluntery direct payment to the IRS. By the very definition of conservatism, wealthy individuals will never simiply "pay" more in taxes unless they know there is a financial benefit for them....you know...leveraging your income and all. Thus, the anti-tax Republican argument of "the wealthy can pay more in taxes simply by writing a check" goes in the face of "profitability, diversification and leveraging". It just will not happen in the way you and your fellow conservatives want the American people to believe.

Deductions are strictly voluntary. I would like to know how many folks in the, "please, raise my taxes", crowd voluntarily don't take deductions.

Anyone that doesn't understand how to pay more taxes, on their own, doesn't know much about the tax code. Take fewer deductions...boom!...you pay more taxes.
 
The short answer is that the massive regulations that your man put into effect through his fiat government has done its job to make sure that Obama presides over the decline like he wanted to. Congratulations.

j-mac

You have to be kidding, right? If it was not for the leadershp skills of President Obama our economy would have totally collapsed we would of had 30% or more unemployed and another 20% plus under employed. If you want to know what decline feels like remember what it was like under the Bush administration

AND

President Obama managed to save the economy even though he had to try to negotiate with 279 elected republicans who had pledged to support the whims of one republican lobbyist Grover Norquist, how can you deal with the fact that 279 elected republicans signed away thier right to vote in the best interest of the people who elected them to represent the interests of Grover Norquist and his rulers
 
Buffett patriotism: he puts his money where his mouth is!

"Warren Buffett’s $5 billion investment in struggling Bank of America is the latest iteration of a business philosophy that you might call dollar patriotism.

Earlier this month, in an op-ed column in The New York Times, Buffett urged Washington in this period of “shared sacrifice” to stop coddling the rich, raise taxes on millionaires, and jack them up even higher for the mega-rich (anyone pulling in more than $10 million a year).

And now he is bucking up BofA and Wall Street and the country much as he did in the darkest days of the financial crisis."

Read more: Warren Buffett's Patriotic Bailouts - Business Insider

But I don't WANT bank of american bailed out. They are failing for a REASON.
 
Interesting the two richest people in a capitalist society are useful idiots.

"To be successful, it is not enough to just be stupid...you must also be polite"

Voltaire
 
Yourself and other Conservatives keep saying that, but that's not how it works. Wealthy individuals don't by custom simply write a check to the IRS to "deduct" more taxes from their income. Could they do it? Yes, but that's not how it works.

They look for those "automatic deductions" that everyone within their income bracket look for. And if you don't "qualify" you simply don't go out of your way to "find" them unless it is to your advantage to do so.

Therefore, this notion that wealthy individuals in order to show their patriotism would merely break out their checkbooks and write these large checks to "contribute" more of their wealth in "volunteer" taxes is foolheartdy. And frankly, that's the argument conservatism would like for people to believe. But it doesn't work like that. You know it, I know it and most politicians especially Republicans know it.

If the wealthy are to write large checks it very likely will be a "tax write-off" towards a charitable donation, not a voluntery direct payment to the IRS. By the very definition of conservatism, wealthy individuals will never simiply "pay" more in taxes unless they know there is a financial benefit for them....you know...leveraging your income and all. Thus, the anti-tax Republican argument of "the wealthy can pay more in taxes simply by writing a check" goes in the face of "profitability, diversification and leveraging". It just will not happen in the way you and your fellow conservatives want the American people to believe.

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force?
 
You have to be kidding, right? If it was not for the leadershp skills of President Obama our economy would have totally collapsed we would of had 30% or more unemployed and another 20% plus under employed. If you want to know what decline feels like remember what it was like under the Bush administration

AND

President Obama managed to save the economy even though he had to try to negotiate with 279 elected republicans who had pledged to support the whims of one republican lobbyist Grover Norquist, how can you deal with the fact that 279 elected republicans signed away thier right to vote in the best interest of the people who elected them to represent the interests of Grover Norquist and his rulers

wow, that is some interesting Obama worship there. and the interests of us who vote GOP is to stop the malignancy of more government and more taxes on those of us who pay too much as it is
 
wow, that is some interesting Obama worship there. and the interests of us who vote GOP is to stop the malignancy of more government and more taxes on those of us who pay too much as it is

Just maybe President Bush should have raised taxes to pay for the two wars he started instead of borrowing from the Chinese,now we not only have to repay the loans but we have to do it with interest. What republican would lower taxes and then borrow money? Some of the GOP are the malignancy you talk about, he couldn't raise taxes why? He had signed the Norquist pledge to never raise taxes.
 
Last edited:
Just maybe President Bush should have raised taxes to pay for the two wars he started instead of borrowing from the Chinese,now we not only have to repay the loans but we have to do it with interest.

Now wait just a minute...

...Presidents tax the citizenry?

What republican would lower taxes and then borrow money?

Almost any modern Republican. Now your turn:

What Democrat would continue the Bush tax cuts while borrowing even more money, waging just as much or more warfare, AND expanding entitlement programs? (hint, it is almost identical to my answer, except for one word)

Some of the GOP are the malignancy you talk about,

Could this mean you are starting to notice striking similarity between the parties?
 
But I don't WANT bank of american bailed out. They are failing for a REASON.

Pass House Bill 1489 to once again establish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks and then I will be happy to let the investment banks fail. Until then, it would be shooting ourselves in the foot.
 
Last edited:
If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force?

Please explain how Buffett could increase the nation's revenues by hundreds of billions a year by increasing the capital gains tax by his choice alone???? Doesn't that require an act of Congress???
 
Now wait just a minute...

...Presidents tax the citizenry?

No it's better to start two wars borrow money to pay for them that the taxpayer will have to repay with interest rather then help the poor of this country is that what you are saying?

Almost any modern Republican. Now your turn:

What Democrat would continue the Bush tax cuts while borrowing even more money, waging just as much or more warfare, AND expanding entitlement programs? (hint, it is almost identical to my answer, except for one word)

Listen to the GOP debates lately?

Could this mean you are starting to notice striking similarity between the parties?

Read my reply above it is exactly the same
 
Last edited:
Pass House Bill 1489 to once again establish the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks and then I will be happy to let the investment banks fail. Until then, it would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Even without that bill passing, I'd much rather shoot myself in the foot, than in the head. To me, all this shows is the dude's true colors...he's willing to hand over money so the wealthy bankers can keep giving themselves gigantic bonuses...why doesn't he use that same money to instead start a fund to assist people with their mortgages? Keeping people in their houses during times of unemployment and other economic hardships does FAR more the economy, and the everyday person, than bailing out the poor business practices of Bank of America. No, this is Buffet looking to make money, not altruism.
 
Please explain how Buffett could increase the nation's revenues by hundreds of billions a year by increasing the capital gains tax by his choice alone???? Doesn't that require an act of Congress???

You're dodging the question. Just answer the question. It's a simply freaking question, and you can either answer it, or ignore it...but don't pretend for a second that anyone is fooled by your failed attempts to skirt it.

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force? Answer it, or shut up. And even so, I'll address the weak point you have tried to raise with your poor dodge.

Buffet alone is not going to change anything just with his money, true. But then, even a pebble tossed into a pond can eventually become a wave. If you're not willing to toss the pebble, why would you expect to try to force others to do it for you? You gotta start somewhere...and I would be a LOT more behind these people if they were willing to start that SOMEWHERE by choice, rather than trying to start right out with the application of federal force against their fellow man.
 
Income gains in the U.S. are slowing and workers’ slice of the earnings pie is shrinking, raising the risk that consumer spending slackens next year.

Gross domestic income, or the money earned by the people, businesses and government agencies whose purchases go into calculating growth, rose at an average 2.8 percent annual rate from April through September after climbing 4.3 percent in the previous six months, Commerce Department data on Nov. 22 showed. Employee compensation last quarter accounted for its smallest share since 1955.

In contrast, the portion accruing to corporate profits was the biggest since 1950, showing companies are hoarding cash as concern grows that a European country will default on its debt and that deficit-reduction gridlock in Washington will continue. Without more pay and a pickup in hiring, households may ring in 2012 by making their own budget cuts.

U.S. Workers
 
You're dodging the question. Just answer the question. It's a simply freaking question, and you can either answer it, or ignore it...but don't pretend for a second that anyone is fooled by your failed attempts to skirt it.

If someone doesn't want to do it by choice, why then, would they argue to do it by force? Answer it, or shut up. And even so, I'll address the weak point you have tried to raise with your poor dodge.

Buffet alone is not going to change anything just with his money, true. But then, even a pebble tossed into a pond can eventually become a wave. If you're not willing to toss the pebble, why would you expect to try to force others to do it for you? You gotta start somewhere...and I would be a LOT more behind these people if they were willing to start that SOMEWHERE by choice, rather than trying to start right out with the application of federal force against their fellow man.

Your premise -- that Buffett is not willing to do it -- is false. Buffett is lobbying for a change that would apply to him. In other words, he is willing to do it so long as it's a systemic change.

You are making the weak argument that conservatives always make in these cases: that there should be no collective action, when collective action is required, because person X hasn't volunteered by himself.

If someone is trying to convince the town that 100,000 sandbags need to be laid down to hold back the river, it's senseless to criticize that man because he hasn't already laid down 20 or 30 sandbags himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom