Buffet is a fraud. By the Democrats standard anyone making over $50,000 has hit “life’s lottery.” I’m still waiting for specifics from the liberals on this topic. They will protect their incomes while raising taxes on everyone else. Can you say John Edwards? Mr. Hedge Fund guy!
We all should be carefull anytime there is a call for Tax Reform. Look at every Tax reform of since our government began collecting… The people at the bottom incomes always pay more. That’s because the lobbyiests (the people working for Mr Buffet)pay the politicians to write the tax to favor the rich (being a liberal, earning over a Million dollars a year is rich). What we need to get to is a flat Tax with a few social breaks (mortgage interest etc.) The Alternative Minimum Tax is great, but again needs to be adjusted to target the right people i.e. not family farms etc.
I worked at least 60 hours per week for over 40 years. Deprived myself of many vacations. Created many jobs in the process. All the while risking my life’s economic future on a small business and now I’m described as winning life’s lottery. In addition, I saved my money and all those years paid tax on that money. When I die, rather than my kids inheriting all my assets, after the unified tax credit is applied the Government will confiscate over 50% of my assets that were already taxed. Some lottery I won!
You worked hard and earned success (or so it would seem from your post) but there are a large number of people who worked just as much as you and also denied themselves vacations and that are still struggling.
There are probably people that have worked harder than you but weren’t able to amass the level of wealth you have.
I think the word “lottery” is giving the wrong idea. How many people are rewarded with an instant jackpot when on the job? Outside of entertainment and sports industries, very few.
“Life’s lottery” can also mean those who worked hard over the course of their lives and have a lot to show for it and it does not necessarily have to mean that it is simply a random occurence that a person has become financially well off.
I believe Warren Buffet’s opinion is something along the lines of, ‘if you have accumulated significant wealth you are now in a position to benefit society significantly.’
Though yourself or others have worked hard their to achieve success, it is not true that success comes proportional to the amount of labors put into your endeavors. In other words, success is a combination of hard work and opportunism–opportunism meaning simple chance. There have been likely many clever or intelligent businessmen that saw to pursue an endeavor and put much effort into it only to see it fail. The opportunities to succeed are not laid bare to all entreprenuers and for those who do encounter an opportunity to succeed and capitalize upon it are those that have hit “Life’s lottery”.
I earned my money and already paid a heavy tax burden on that money. It’s my money, not the governments, and when I die all of it should be directed to those I want to receive it. If you want our great country to fail, just confiscate the wealth of the job creators. Take our incentive away and your standard of living will mirrow those failed socialist countries you seem to admire.
Rick,
I’m with you. The Dem’s always want to punish success. They are, and always will be, a one trick pony: Give us your income because you are too stupid to know what to do with it. To “Team Care Bears” just take your mush to the new Soviet Union and get the hell out of the U.S.
Such animosity….you would do far better making a civil argument than the disagreeable emotional explosion you just had there. Extremism has been known to breed extremism. If you are unwilling consider other opinions, like those I have shared, with civility why I should I consider your opinions with any respect?
I get scared whenever there is a call for a Flat Tax Rate in this country. Percentages thrown around seem to be 17%, which approximates a large amount of the people in this country’s effective tax rate, my effective rate included. However mortgage interest deductions are what brings my effective tax rate down to 17%, and this would be eliminated in most iterations of the plans being proposed. My problem is that as soon as there are large budget deficits and Democrats are in control, You can bet there will be cries to increase the tax rate for those wealthy Americans with incomes of $100,000 and greater to reduce this deficit. Before long you will see a graduated tax again, this time with no deductions for mortgage interest.
The problem with mortgage interest deductions is the average worker, some who do not own their own homes, end up subsidizing the wealthy who deduct huge interest payments on their million dollar homes. Why should I have to subsidize some fat cat’s mansion or vacation home? If we are going to allow mortgage interest deductions, there should be some reasonable limit and apply only to primary residences. That would be more fair to the average taxpayer.
I have no objection to limiting the mortgage interest deduction to primary homes, I’ll even go so far to say to limit it to the first $500,000 principal of the mortgage (with subsequent adjustments for inflation)so that mansions aren’t tax subsidized.
I also want to continue the deduction for State and Local income taxes. Living in a high tax state with higher housing costs and other costs of living makes my salary (considered rich by the Democrats)not go as far as it would in other areas of the country.
You are talking about something a little different from what my post is about. I don’t seem to remember discussing socialism.
Your issues with the Estate Tax are extremely valid. While I don’t think that a flat tax is a solution, I do think that most democrats would be willing to end estate taxation if they felt that corporations were paying their share of the national tax burden. What would be your opinion of that?
I assume that you might find that nearly disagreeable as well since the “job creators” are getting taxed. But I for one don’t want to double tax those individuals who, in some cases, had the responsibility to build a strong nest egg for their kin.
There is a perception that rich people get away with everything and that the wealthy have achieved their successes on the backs of the poor. Some Democrats subscribe to this notion. Therefore I am of the opinion that if Corporations are perceived to be “responsibly” paying their “fair share” of the tax burden that the outcry in favor of estate taxation upon the rich would be far less vocal.
Any law with that many pages has to be full of bad stuff. If Mr. B is correct that his secretary and he both paid the same percentage on their income, the tax system is clearly not working as advertised.
You can be sure that the ultra wealthy also have less to fear from the last tax bill than the merely rich. {I don’t like the two terms normally used. If I say inheritance tax I’ve already implied it is good and that I support it and death tax means just the opposite and hackles are already raised before anyone has said anything rational)
I like to dream of a tax code that I could read from beginning to end and understand while I drink my morning coffee. I know, then I could go outside and admire the view of the big rock candy mountains.
On August 11, 1999, Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN that set off bombs several times in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[4] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticised by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[5] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[6]
Your post had a socialistic slant, hence my mention of it. In a sense corporations do not pay tax as the tax they pay is passed onto the consumers through the cost of their goods and services. The corporate tax is a way politicians can hide the true cost of government from the people. The problem the USA has is one of over spending, not inadequate tax receipts.
I took another look at my post and I am not sure where the socialistic slant was. I am more of free market person myself but I won’t dispute your opinion.
I agree the government spending is way out of whack. It is very distressing to see the deficit spin wildly out of control as it has the past few years. Seeing the surpluses at the end of the last decade had me hoping that we as a nation would be less indebted to foreign nations–not more.
My post at 1:52pm was from a more political perspective. In the exhausting public struggle between Democrats and Republicans I see opportunities for compromise. During the “death tax” debate, I perceived an ideological gap that had just as much to do with our perception of reality as the reality itself.
Many left-leaning people perceive an imbalance in the federal tax system. As they see it Corporations run from federal taxes to tax havens abroad while the Government relies on the people more than it otherwise could have in order to cover its a$$ as it flushes all our tax dollars down the toilet.
From a political perspective I believe that those very same left-leaning individuals would tolerate the repeal of the “death tax” if they perceived corporations carrying their weight.
I mentioned that I agree with you that spending is out of control. But I should mention that I am not encouraged by the fiscal responsibility of the current administration. If they are content with running at such astronomical deficits, what guarantee is there that they would temper their spending if the tax receipts were less?
I agree with you regarding the reckless spending of this administration (and prior ones). The surpluses of the last decade prior were the result of Reagan’s tax cuts and the Republican Congress deficit plan of 1994. Taxes were cut causing economic explosion resulting in increased government receipts (taxes). Proof that supply side economics works. Let’s look at over spending in a very simple way. You should not give them more money as they will just spend it. You must treat politicians as you would a drug addict.
Corporations are not black boxes. They are owned by people. These people pay taxes, and in many ways double taxation because of dividends. People must be educated to the fact that corporations are used to hide the true cost of government.
“Unfortunately for the President, the prisoners turned out to be less than sympathetic figures for the country at large, self-righteous and unbending. (You could see how they might have appealed to Jimmy Carter.) One, Ricardo Jimenez, asked on NBC about people killed by F.A.L.N. bombings, basically blamed the proprietors of the restaurants and taverns that got blown up. ”I think all precautions were taken, you know, to make sure that all human life was preserved,” he said. ”And in the end the measures were not taken that were necessary by the people who owned those establishments.”
Mrs. Clinton, who supported her husband at first, bailed out when the deal came under fire. People like Representative Velazquez were never consulted. For all the listening the First Lady has been doing, she has apparently not learned that when you are making a decision involving Puerto Rican sensibilities, you should at least touch base with Puerto Rican politicians.
–HELLO! HILLARY BAILED OUT WHEN THE PARDONS CAME UNDER SCRUTINY!
well, i see that we have various conclusions about everything and anything except the article itself.
1) it was a dinner for Hillary as a way to get money for her presidential coffer. personally – it goes to show that the rich don’t mind giving and even more so it is written as a tax write off. why folks go? no only for tax write off, but they can say that talked with a financial genius of Warren Buffet and a potential of a female president in Hillary Clinton.
2) Warren Buffett – knows his $$$ and understands the use. Matter of fact if you look at recent articles, Warren has given money to the Gates foundation. Money out of his own pocket the normally should be available for his kids when he passes away. But he looked the positive, let’s spend the money for good use to help others. Again, that is a person whom says look, we who have money give back to the world to help those in need. Yet, there will never be enough money to go around to help everyone.
3) this article, was about the dinner, not about the taxes. matter of fact, if you read, he has not endorsed hillary and is even having 2 other dinners for other party presidential candidates.
4) Hillary – you have to remember on thing. She is MARRIED! Woud you not stand up and support your other half, when sometimes it could be wrong? We are all allowed to support our spouse, even when things go wrong. Why do you think that the courts can not force a spouse to testify against their other half. You can not hold her to what her husband did. That would be like me holding you responsible for what your adult children do/think.
5) Life’s Lottery — if you read anything, we have a choice of how to proceed. read warren’s biography, you’ll see that he earned his money and still does.
so: remember it was a dinner that allowed hillary to get some money for her presidential campaign but not an endorsement. warren, has 2 other dinners of the similar kind. was it unique? yes. will it be the last? no.
You evidently have not been following events prior to 1990. Reagan’s tax cuts were the prime mover of the economic expansion we continue to experience today. Any informed economist will advise you of that. I recommend you do some serious reading!
Reagan’s tax cuts increased tax receipts due to econoimic expansion, his victory of the cold war resulted in less military spending and in combination with the 1994 Republican Congress deficit reduction plan created the surpluses you refer to. If you disagree with this you are ripe for brain washing by Michael Moore.
so, here’s the problem i have with ur statement: hillary is not a thief, nor was she ever found guilty of being one. as far a buffett is concerned, what wrong with an entreprenuer providing a dinner as a fund raiser? it would be like gates providing dinner or why not donald trump…
if u read the article, there is possibly another one whom he is going to get a dinner for…now remember, he is possibly doing it because he might be a democrat himself…i don’t know that for sure…
GECKO um….he’s not political, or it’s just not important to that creature….what’s important is that we make a good decision with our knowledge when we vote…remember it is based on the familiarity of the platform that person claims that he/she can perform…
It’s amazing a capitalist honk like Buffet who leans to the left in bed with a theif like Hillary Clinton. Supporting a leftist socialist agenda and a candidate like Hillary who has contempt for our U.S. Military is a disgrace. Warren Buffet living the American Entrepenurial dream, yet supporting socialists like Clinton and Barak Hussein OBama, seeking candidates who will insure that government hold down the common man and making mediocrity the new U.S. theme.
I bet the Gecko is turning colors now?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness…..John Kenneth Galbraith
“The political problem of mankind is to combine three things: economic efficiency, social justice and individual liberty.”
John Maynard Keynes
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine
personaly I think it is the other way around. An overly greedy gov’t looking for any superior moral justification to take more money from its citizens than it should.
I think it’s a shame that that gov’t can give people a free ride through life, that gov’t can demand more ways to take our money to subsidize mass transit; claiming it’s unfair to raise rates, while I get letters in the mail from emergency service providers begging for money to remain operational (fire, paramedics, etc.)
I’m not a greedy conservative at all. Just one that thinks it is the job of the people to care for the poor and downtrodden, and not the job of the gov’t. If the people are slack in that responsibility, the gov’t shouldn’t step in because they can’t do anything right or efficiently.
Buffet is a fraud. By the Democrats standard anyone making over $50,000 has hit “life’s lottery.” I’m still waiting for specifics from the liberals on this topic. They will protect their incomes while raising taxes on everyone else. Can you say John Edwards? Mr. Hedge Fund guy!
We all should be carefull anytime there is a call for Tax Reform. Look at every Tax reform of since our government began collecting… The people at the bottom incomes always pay more. That’s because the lobbyiests (the people working for Mr Buffet)pay the politicians to write the tax to favor the rich (being a liberal, earning over a Million dollars a year is rich). What we need to get to is a flat Tax with a few social breaks (mortgage interest etc.) The Alternative Minimum Tax is great, but again needs to be adjusted to target the right people i.e. not family farms etc.
I worked at least 60 hours per week for over 40 years. Deprived myself of many vacations. Created many jobs in the process. All the while risking my life’s economic future on a small business and now I’m described as winning life’s lottery. In addition, I saved my money and all those years paid tax on that money. When I die, rather than my kids inheriting all my assets, after the unified tax credit is applied the Government will confiscate over 50% of my assets that were already taxed. Some lottery I won!
You worked hard and earned success (or so it would seem from your post) but there are a large number of people who worked just as much as you and also denied themselves vacations and that are still struggling.
There are probably people that have worked harder than you but weren’t able to amass the level of wealth you have.
I think the word “lottery” is giving the wrong idea. How many people are rewarded with an instant jackpot when on the job? Outside of entertainment and sports industries, very few.
“Life’s lottery” can also mean those who worked hard over the course of their lives and have a lot to show for it and it does not necessarily have to mean that it is simply a random occurence that a person has become financially well off.
I believe Warren Buffet’s opinion is something along the lines of, ‘if you have accumulated significant wealth you are now in a position to benefit society significantly.’
Though yourself or others have worked hard their to achieve success, it is not true that success comes proportional to the amount of labors put into your endeavors. In other words, success is a combination of hard work and opportunism–opportunism meaning simple chance. There have been likely many clever or intelligent businessmen that saw to pursue an endeavor and put much effort into it only to see it fail. The opportunities to succeed are not laid bare to all entreprenuers and for those who do encounter an opportunity to succeed and capitalize upon it are those that have hit “Life’s lottery”.
I earned my money and already paid a heavy tax burden on that money. It’s my money, not the governments, and when I die all of it should be directed to those I want to receive it. If you want our great country to fail, just confiscate the wealth of the job creators. Take our incentive away and your standard of living will mirrow those failed socialist countries you seem to admire.
Rick,
I’m with you. The Dem’s always want to punish success. They are, and always will be, a one trick pony: Give us your income because you are too stupid to know what to do with it. To “Team Care Bears” just take your mush to the new Soviet Union and get the hell out of the U.S.
Such animosity….you would do far better making a civil argument than the disagreeable emotional explosion you just had there. Extremism has been known to breed extremism. If you are unwilling consider other opinions, like those I have shared, with civility why I should I consider your opinions with any respect?
Why doesn’t he give his $ to the Treasury instead?
I get scared whenever there is a call for a Flat Tax Rate in this country. Percentages thrown around seem to be 17%, which approximates a large amount of the people in this country’s effective tax rate, my effective rate included. However mortgage interest deductions are what brings my effective tax rate down to 17%, and this would be eliminated in most iterations of the plans being proposed. My problem is that as soon as there are large budget deficits and Democrats are in control, You can bet there will be cries to increase the tax rate for those wealthy Americans with incomes of $100,000 and greater to reduce this deficit. Before long you will see a graduated tax again, this time with no deductions for mortgage interest.
The problem with mortgage interest deductions is the average worker, some who do not own their own homes, end up subsidizing the wealthy who deduct huge interest payments on their million dollar homes. Why should I have to subsidize some fat cat’s mansion or vacation home? If we are going to allow mortgage interest deductions, there should be some reasonable limit and apply only to primary residences. That would be more fair to the average taxpayer.
I have no objection to limiting the mortgage interest deduction to primary homes, I’ll even go so far to say to limit it to the first $500,000 principal of the mortgage (with subsequent adjustments for inflation)so that mansions aren’t tax subsidized.
I also want to continue the deduction for State and Local income taxes. Living in a high tax state with higher housing costs and other costs of living makes my salary (considered rich by the Democrats)not go as far as it would in other areas of the country.
You are talking about something a little different from what my post is about. I don’t seem to remember discussing socialism.
Your issues with the Estate Tax are extremely valid. While I don’t think that a flat tax is a solution, I do think that most democrats would be willing to end estate taxation if they felt that corporations were paying their share of the national tax burden. What would be your opinion of that?
I assume that you might find that nearly disagreeable as well since the “job creators” are getting taxed. But I for one don’t want to double tax those individuals who, in some cases, had the responsibility to build a strong nest egg for their kin.
There is a perception that rich people get away with everything and that the wealthy have achieved their successes on the backs of the poor. Some Democrats subscribe to this notion. Therefore I am of the opinion that if Corporations are perceived to be “responsibly” paying their “fair share” of the tax burden that the outcry in favor of estate taxation upon the rich would be far less vocal.
Any law with that many pages has to be full of bad stuff. If Mr. B is correct that his secretary and he both paid the same percentage on their income, the tax system is clearly not working as advertised.
You can be sure that the ultra wealthy also have less to fear from the last tax bill than the merely rich. {I don’t like the two terms normally used. If I say inheritance tax I’ve already implied it is good and that I support it and death tax means just the opposite and hackles are already raised before anyone has said anything rational)
I like to dream of a tax code that I could read from beginning to end and understand while I drink my morning coffee. I know, then I could go outside and admire the view of the big rock candy mountains.
On August 11, 1999, Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN that set off bombs several times in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations.[3] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[4] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticised by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police,[5] members of Congress, and Hillary Clinton in her campaign for Senator.[6]
Source: wikipedia
Great post.
Your post had a socialistic slant, hence my mention of it. In a sense corporations do not pay tax as the tax they pay is passed onto the consumers through the cost of their goods and services. The corporate tax is a way politicians can hide the true cost of government from the people. The problem the USA has is one of over spending, not inadequate tax receipts.
I took another look at my post and I am not sure where the socialistic slant was. I am more of free market person myself but I won’t dispute your opinion.
I agree the government spending is way out of whack. It is very distressing to see the deficit spin wildly out of control as it has the past few years. Seeing the surpluses at the end of the last decade had me hoping that we as a nation would be less indebted to foreign nations–not more.
My post at 1:52pm was from a more political perspective. In the exhausting public struggle between Democrats and Republicans I see opportunities for compromise. During the “death tax” debate, I perceived an ideological gap that had just as much to do with our perception of reality as the reality itself.
Many left-leaning people perceive an imbalance in the federal tax system. As they see it Corporations run from federal taxes to tax havens abroad while the Government relies on the people more than it otherwise could have in order to cover its a$$ as it flushes all our tax dollars down the toilet.
From a political perspective I believe that those very same left-leaning individuals would tolerate the repeal of the “death tax” if they perceived corporations carrying their weight.
I mentioned that I agree with you that spending is out of control. But I should mention that I am not encouraged by the fiscal responsibility of the current administration. If they are content with running at such astronomical deficits, what guarantee is there that they would temper their spending if the tax receipts were less?
I agree with you regarding the reckless spending of this administration (and prior ones). The surpluses of the last decade prior were the result of Reagan’s tax cuts and the Republican Congress deficit plan of 1994. Taxes were cut causing economic explosion resulting in increased government receipts (taxes). Proof that supply side economics works. Let’s look at over spending in a very simple way. You should not give them more money as they will just spend it. You must treat politicians as you would a drug addict.
Corporations are not black boxes. They are owned by people. These people pay taxes, and in many ways double taxation because of dividends. People must be educated to the fact that corporations are used to hide the true cost of government.
“Unfortunately for the President, the prisoners turned out to be less than sympathetic figures for the country at large, self-righteous and unbending. (You could see how they might have appealed to Jimmy Carter.) One, Ricardo Jimenez, asked on NBC about people killed by F.A.L.N. bombings, basically blamed the proprietors of the restaurants and taverns that got blown up. ”I think all precautions were taken, you know, to make sure that all human life was preserved,” he said. ”And in the end the measures were not taken that were necessary by the people who owned those establishments.”
Mrs. Clinton, who supported her husband at first, bailed out when the deal came under fire. People like Representative Velazquez were never consulted. For all the listening the First Lady has been doing, she has apparently not learned that when you are making a decision involving Puerto Rican sensibilities, you should at least touch base with Puerto Rican politicians.
–HELLO! HILLARY BAILED OUT WHEN THE PARDONS CAME UNDER SCRUTINY!
Rick,
Wholly crap, I almost spit out my water when I read your last post. The surpluses in the 90’s were the result of the Reagan administration????
You got pass what your smokin’ to the left.
well, i see that we have various conclusions about everything and anything except the article itself.
1) it was a dinner for Hillary as a way to get money for her presidential coffer. personally – it goes to show that the rich don’t mind giving and even more so it is written as a tax write off. why folks go? no only for tax write off, but they can say that talked with a financial genius of Warren Buffet and a potential of a female president in Hillary Clinton.
2) Warren Buffett – knows his $$$ and understands the use. Matter of fact if you look at recent articles, Warren has given money to the Gates foundation. Money out of his own pocket the normally should be available for his kids when he passes away. But he looked the positive, let’s spend the money for good use to help others. Again, that is a person whom says look, we who have money give back to the world to help those in need. Yet, there will never be enough money to go around to help everyone.
3) this article, was about the dinner, not about the taxes. matter of fact, if you read, he has not endorsed hillary and is even having 2 other dinners for other party presidential candidates.
4) Hillary – you have to remember on thing. She is MARRIED! Woud you not stand up and support your other half, when sometimes it could be wrong? We are all allowed to support our spouse, even when things go wrong. Why do you think that the courts can not force a spouse to testify against their other half. You can not hold her to what her husband did. That would be like me holding you responsible for what your adult children do/think.
5) Life’s Lottery — if you read anything, we have a choice of how to proceed. read warren’s biography, you’ll see that he earned his money and still does.
so: remember it was a dinner that allowed hillary to get some money for her presidential campaign but not an endorsement. warren, has 2 other dinners of the similar kind. was it unique? yes. will it be the last? no.
You evidently have not been following events prior to 1990. Reagan’s tax cuts were the prime mover of the economic expansion we continue to experience today. Any informed economist will advise you of that. I recommend you do some serious reading!
Reagan’s tax cuts increased tax receipts due to econoimic expansion, his victory of the cold war resulted in less military spending and in combination with the 1994 Republican Congress deficit reduction plan created the surpluses you refer to. If you disagree with this you are ripe for brain washing by Michael Moore.
so, here’s the problem i have with ur statement: hillary is not a thief, nor was she ever found guilty of being one. as far a buffett is concerned, what wrong with an entreprenuer providing a dinner as a fund raiser? it would be like gates providing dinner or why not donald trump…
if u read the article, there is possibly another one whom he is going to get a dinner for…now remember, he is possibly doing it because he might be a democrat himself…i don’t know that for sure…
GECKO um….he’s not political, or it’s just not important to that creature….what’s important is that we make a good decision with our knowledge when we vote…remember it is based on the familiarity of the platform that person claims that he/she can perform…
It’s amazing a capitalist honk like Buffet who leans to the left in bed with a theif like Hillary Clinton. Supporting a leftist socialist agenda and a candidate like Hillary who has contempt for our U.S. Military is a disgrace. Warren Buffet living the American Entrepenurial dream, yet supporting socialists like Clinton and Barak Hussein OBama, seeking candidates who will insure that government hold down the common man and making mediocrity the new U.S. theme.
I bet the Gecko is turning colors now?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness…..John Kenneth Galbraith
“The political problem of mankind is to combine three things: economic efficiency, social justice and individual liberty.”
John Maynard Keynes
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine
personaly I think it is the other way around. An overly greedy gov’t looking for any superior moral justification to take more money from its citizens than it should.
I think it’s a shame that that gov’t can give people a free ride through life, that gov’t can demand more ways to take our money to subsidize mass transit; claiming it’s unfair to raise rates, while I get letters in the mail from emergency service providers begging for money to remain operational (fire, paramedics, etc.)
I’m not a greedy conservative at all. Just one that thinks it is the job of the people to care for the poor and downtrodden, and not the job of the gov’t. If the people are slack in that responsibility, the gov’t shouldn’t step in because they can’t do anything right or efficiently.
Where’s the Buffet? I’m hungry!
Seriously, can’t we even spell Buffett correctly?
I think the one you’re referring to is “boofay”
This one is the singer