• 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!

Christie: Buffett Should ‘Write a Check and Shut Up’

claiming Buffett is of the same class as most of the top one percent is as specious as saying someone who makes 10 Million a year has the same interests as someone making 100K a year even though the 100K and the 10M guy are much closer than most of us in the top one percent are to Buffett. Buffett's demands for more taxation is classwarfare against the moderately wealthy

anyone who thinks those of us making 375K-a few million a year have the same interests as a guy worth several billion and who makes 50-100 Million a year is really living in fantasy land. If you are making one million a year in investment income Obama wants to triple your taxes from around 150K a year to close to 450K a year. someone making a million who has his federal taxes go up 300K is going to have to make major lifestyle changes.

SOmeone making 50-100 Million a year-not so much

remember-the lefties claim that those uber billionaires really are spending only a fraction of what they make
 
Such a concept is exogenous of the available policy tools that government has at its disposal. If there were a "magic jobs button" i guarantee you that it would have been pressed (repeatedly) by now.

Because it did not address my statement.

The notion that regulation is killing employment opportunities has already been snuffed out. It is obvious to anyone with an objective pair of eyes that our employment shortfall is due to a lack of aggregate demand (which negatively impacts short to medium term investment). If you want to actually address my statement, then by all means go for it. But attempting to interject the notion that pent up supply is a drag on employment (via over-regulation) is nonsense.

You stated: the most efficient way to raise revenue without (pay attention hacks, this is important) negatively impacting economic growth is for the wealthiest of Americans to effectively pay more in taxes.

I refuted that by contending that the most efficient way to raise revenue is to raise people's incomes, and to reduce unemployment.

The rebuttal seems pretty direct and clear, yet you don't feel it addressed your statement?

Without ripping in to a fellow Chicagoan too badly, do you understand how business works, outside what you learned in Econ 101 at De Paul? Businesses have costs. Those costs are highly influenced by the price of energy. If you lower the price of energy, you lower the COGS for just about every business in America.

That leads to a better economy.

Corporations are taxed on profits. Lower costs for business = more profits = higher government revenue.

Also, lower prices on consumer goods equals higher demand. Higher consumer demand coupled with wealthier businesses equal more jobs.

Do you really fail to see how energy is an incredibly powerful economic driver?
 
Last edited:
You stated: the most efficient way to raise revenue without (pay attention hacks, this is important) negatively impacting economic growth is for the wealthiest of Americans to effectively pay more in taxes.

And again, you did nothing to address my comment, and instead chose to go off on a supply side rant that does not even begin to address the issues facing the U.S. labor markets. If you have no interest in addressing my comment, then please do not waste my time.
 
And again, you did nothing to address my comment, and instead chose to go off on a supply side rant that does not even begin to address the issues facing the U.S. labor markets. If you have no interest in addressing my comment, then please do not waste my time.

If your time is that valuable perhaps you should be doing something other than wasting it on a board like this

or reading his posts.

Just Sayin.........
 
If your time is that valuable perhaps you should be doing something other than wasting it on a board like this

or reading his posts.

Just Sayin.........

If he has no desire to address my comment, then it is in fact a waste of my time. Going off on a supply side tangent simply does not suffice.
 
If he has no desire to address my comment, then it is in fact a waste of my time. Going off on a supply side tangent simply does not suffice.

LOL-truly amusing that is.

I thought this thread was about a fat cat whose hypocrisy is slurped up by the people who despise the rich and a governor who called him out on his idiocy
 
what I find amusing is how many ne'er do wells and slackers worship BUffett thinking his position is actually based on a desire to help them.

He does this purely to gain more power and influence. You've been played. And he is a class warrior-he represents the uber wealthy who wants to screw over the upper middle class and the somewhat wealthy

Yeah, I'm sure a guy in his mid-seventies is really interested in gaining power and influence. Probably why he has given billions of dollars to the Gates foundation, also.

Do you ever stop and think about what you are writing, or is it just a knee jerk 'if it's not something I believe it's evil'?
 
And again, you did nothing to address my comment, and instead chose to go off on a supply side rant that does not even begin to address the issues facing the U.S. labor markets. If you have no interest in addressing my comment, then please do not waste my time.

Are you unable to follow basic logic? We are talking about cause and effect here. No wonder De Paul is the best school you could get in to.

You stated: the most efficient way to raise revenue without negatively impacting economic growth is for the wealthiest of Americans to effectively pay more in taxes.

I spelled out pretty clearly a MORE efficient way to raise revenue.
 
Last edited:
claiming Buffett is of the same class as most of the top one percent is as specious as saying someone who makes 10 Million a year has the same interests as someone making 100K a year even though the 100K and the 10M guy are much closer than most of us in the top one percent are to Buffett. Buffett's demands for more taxation is classwarfare against the moderately wealthy

anyone who thinks those of us making 375K-a few million a year have the same interests as a guy worth several billion and who makes 50-100 Million a year is really living in fantasy land. If you are making one million a year in investment income Obama wants to triple your taxes from around 150K a year to close to 450K a year. someone making a million who has his federal taxes go up 300K is going to have to make major lifestyle changes.

SOmeone making 50-100 Million a year-not so much

remember-the lefties claim that those uber billionaires really are spending only a fraction of what they make

You make 375K -1 million a year? That explains almost everything.
 
Yeah, I'm sure a guy in his mid-seventies is really interested in gaining power and influence. Probably why he has given billions of dollars to the Gates foundation, also.

Do you ever stop and think about what you are writing, or is it just a knee jerk 'if it's not something I believe it's evil'?

actually I find your posts on this subject to be knee jerking. What does Buffett want now? a legacy where millions of people like you remember him with fondness might be a starting point
 
I spelled out pretty clearly a MORE efficient way to raise revenue.

Nonsense. You provided a supply side rant that did not address my original response to the topic. Heroic assumptions combined with partisan subjectivity are in no way a substitute for a valid economic argument.
 
Nonsense. You provided a supply side rant that did not address my original response to the topic. Heroic assumptions combined with partisan subjectivity are in no way a substitute for a valid economic argument.

Wow, try laying off that Kush plant for a while.
 
Try to stay relevant in a thread for a change.

Either you're upset because someone came along and disproved your statement that the most efficient way to raise government revenue is to tax the rich.... or you actually aren't able to follow the pretty straightforward explanation I gave you.

Either way, though, you were owned. That's not my problem.
 
Wow, try laying off that Kush plant for a while.

If you'd stop insulting him and his alma matter for two seconds, maybe you'd do a double take and realize that the top marginal tax rate is at its lowest rate since the 30s. In general, I'm all for tax cuts whenever possible. In fact, $280 billion of ARRA was in the form of tax cuts. We take in 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies.

So stop trolling him.

Oh, and for the record almost all net job creation in the United States from 1980 to 2005 occurred in firms less than five years old. Horse and sparrow theories are unsound. Even Thomas Sowell, the most conservative of conservative economists, doesn't believe in such a thing as trickle down economics.
 
Last edited:
If you'd stop insulting him and his alma matter for two seconds, maybe you'd do a double take and realize that the top marginal tax rate is at its lowest rate since the 30s. In general, I'm all for tax cuts whenever possible. In fact, $280 billion of ARRA was in the form of tax cuts. We take in 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies.

So stop trolling him.

Oh, and for the record almost all net job creation in the United States from 1980 to 2005 occurred in firms less than five years old. Horse and sparrow theories are unsound. Even Thomas Sowell, the most conservative of conservative economists, doesn't believe in such a thing as trickle down economics.

He laid out a challenge to anyone who could refute his claim that taxing the wealthy is the most efficient way to raise revenue. (Note that word there...)

I took on that challenge and won.

He claims I didn't "address the question," which is weak.

Nobody is even talking about Reaganomics here.

I'm talking about increasing the availability of raw materials. If you guys can't understand how having better access to natural resources might make an economy more vibrant, all I have left are insults, because you're beyond reach.

This isn't even a "right vs left" argument. Natural resources make a nation richer. End of story.
 
Last edited:
He laid out a challenge to anyone who could refute his claim that taxing the wealthy is the most efficient way to raise revenue. (Note that word there...)

I took on that challenge and won.

He claims I didn't "address the question," which is weak.

Nobody is even talking about Reaganomics here.

I'm talking about increasing the availability of raw materials. If you guys can't understand how having better access to natural resources might make an economy more vibrant, all I have left are insults, because you're beyond reach.

This isn't even a "right vs left" argument. Natural resources make a nation richer. End of story.

Looking back, your argument is actually dumber than I originally thought. Create "hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs"? The totality of Royal Dutch Shell's employment is 101,000. And that's everybody. Exxon has just above 80,000.

You honestly believe that removing a few paltry regulations in the Gulf and Alaska will employment will create employment to the tune of three new Royal Dutch Shells? Keep dreaming. Oh, and by the way...the vast majority of unemployed in this country are in commercial real estate construction. I'm sure they'd all love being roughnecks on an off-shore platform.
 
Looking back, your argument is actually dumber than I originally thought. Create "hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs"? The totality of Royal Dutch Shell's employment is 101,000. And that's everybody. Exxon has just above 80,000.

You honestly believe that removing a few paltry regulations in the Gulf and Alaska will employment will create employment to the tune of three new Royal Dutch Shells? Keep dreaming. Oh, and by the way...the vast majority of unemployed in this country are in commercial real estate construction. I'm sure they'd all love being roughnecks on an off-shore platform.

Opening up drilling would improve the overall economy. Job growth would occur in nearly every sector of the economy. I wasn't talking about jobs as roughnecks on an off-shore platform (although those jobs pay very well).

I can't think of a single business in America that isn't directly impacted by the price of energy.
 
Opening up drilling would improve the overall economy. Job growth would occur in every sector of the economy, just about. I wasn't talking about jobs as roughnecks on an off-shore platform (although those jobs pay very well).

I can't think of a single business in America that isn't directly impacted by the price of energy.

You still spouted off a completely irrelevant "hundreds of thousands" number. Any reduction in domestic oil price would be offset (pretty rapidly) by growing global demand for petroleum, especially considering the time and effort it will take to actually build the infrastructure to extract the oil and physically drill it out. Right now, our domestic consumption is over 4 times the amount of domestic production and growing. I seriously doubt that blindly drilling for more oil at a time when our own domestic production peaked 30 years ago is going to meaningfully affect the deficit in any way. At most, it would be a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Eliminating loopholes in our tax system and updating the brackets to reflect income growth trends? That would be much better. Natural resources are fine and dandy but we aren't sitting on any gold mines.

Drill, baby drill =/= AUTOMATIK JOBZ AND DEFICIT GO BYE BYE YEYYYYY
 
Last edited:
claiming Buffett is of the same class as most of the top one percent is as specious as saying someone who makes 10 Million a year has the same interests as someone making 100K a year even though the 100K and the 10M guy are much closer than most of us in the top one percent are to Buffett. Buffett's demands for more taxation is classwarfare against the moderately wealthy

anyone who thinks those of us making 375K-a few million a year have the same interests as a guy worth several billion and who makes 50-100 Million a year is really living in fantasy land. If you are making one million a year in investment income Obama wants to triple your taxes from around 150K a year to close to 450K a year. someone making a million who has his federal taxes go up 300K is going to have to make major lifestyle changes.

SOmeone making 50-100 Million a year-not so much

remember-the lefties claim that those uber billionaires really are spending only a fraction of what they make

Interestingly, I could make the exact same argument about trying to raise the taxes of the poor and middle class vs. the moderately wealthy. But in that case you would argue that it's invalid to look at how taxes impact people's lives, right? All that matters is we should all pay the same percentage. :roll:
 
You still spouted off a completely irrelevant "hundreds of thousands" number. Any reduction in domestic oil price would be offset (pretty rapidly) by growing global demand for petroleum, especially considering the time and effort it will take to actually build the infrastructure to extract the oil and physically drill it out. Right now, our domestic consumption is over 4 times the amount of domestic production and growing. I seriously doubt that blindly drilling for more oil at a time when our own domestic production peaked 30 years ago is going to meaningfully affect the deficit in any way. At most, it would be a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Eliminating loopholes in our tax system and updating the brackets to reflect income growth trends? That would be much better. Natural resources are fine and dandy but we aren't sitting on any gold mines.

Drill, baby drill =/= AUTOMATIK JOBZ AND DEFICIT GO BYE BYE YEYYYYY

Don't forget about natural gas. We have more natural gas than we know what to do with.

We haven't even mentioned coal. We have at least a hundred year's worth of coal just waiting to be mined.

You are right that it would take a couple years for everything to gear up, but we have a lot of rigs sitting idle right now that could get to work. If we deregulated American energy, though, it would easily create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Everyone would get rich.
 
Don't forget about natural gas. We have more natural gas than we know what to do with.

We haven't even mentioned coal. We have at least a hundred year's worth of coal just waiting to be mined.

You are right that it would take a couple years for everything to gear up, but we have a lot of rigs sitting idle right now that could get to work. If we deregulated American energy, though, it would easily create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Everyone would get rich.


And then when the environment is altered in these ways what are future generations to do?
 
No, what he wants is for a major obama slurper to quit being dishonest and put his money where his mouth is (ie firmly planted on obama's posterior)

The problem is, Christie's comeback dismisses Buffet's entire argument nor does it offer a practical solution... repaying the debt, shouldn't be one man's burden.
 
It's pretty self-explanatory. Buffet whines about how the rich should pay more, and he can voluntarily give the feds as much extra money as he wants to, but he doesn't really want to do that. If he really wanted to, he would. He just likes to play the benevolent nobleman without having to do anything concrete.

You guy's are acting like his argument is a personal problem, and it's not a personal problem... he is arguing a about a policy. You guys, instead of arguing policy, you attack him personally and it goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. And if he did put his money where his mouth is (as you say), and forked over a billion to the government, would that buy your respect for him? **** no, it wouldn't, and that's exactly why he shouldn't do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom