A friend posted Mr. Buffett’s article on his Facebook page
and wondered what his conservative friends thought of it. Here is that short but sweet
thread, including the subsequent right wing, anti-factual, knee-jerk response…
This one involves my other good buddy, Kathy.
Names have been changed to protect the guilty.
Mark
Interested in what my conservative-leaning friends think
about Buffett's Op-Ed piece:
Linda
I'll just cut and paste my comment from another friend's
post of this:
They're not "super rich" they are privileged. As
such, they are of better stock than the average human, are above us, are bred
better, and deserve all the special treatment they get. Ours is not to question
this arrangement, but to know our place in serfdom, work, and be grateful that
they allow us to remain.
[The best kind of sarcasm is the kind that drips.]
David
I really really hope you are taking the piss.
Bo
Shared sacrifice: a liberal ideal I can get behind.
Jason
C'mon Kathy...we know you're out there.
Linda
Hey- the rich are bred from the best among us. They are high
quality humans down to their blood. It's parallel to the clear fact that the
Chinese Crested is bred for pure, supreme beauty! A world in which it is not
immediately apparent to all that people like Paris Hilton and George W. Bush aren't
genetically superior and therefore more deserving of prominence and special
treatment is a world I never want to see. To even imagine that all people are
equal in quality is to admit to being a commie bastard! I mean, are all wines
equal? No. And everyone knows that people are just like wine, or at least just
like grapes...or something. What do I know, I'm not rich?
Kathy
I do not comprehend why Mr. Buffet doesn't shut up and pay
more, as he is certainly free to do. He COULD choose to pay himself more income/less
stock and save himself all that worry over the capital gains tax being so low.
[That makes no sense. Are you suggesting he should sell off his stocks to someone else - who would then still pay less taxes on them?] He could also write the government a big fat check just because. [No, he can't.] He does not.
[Because he can't.] Who is a billionaire to say those who earn a million a year don't pay enough?
The same as a millionnaire who thinks the middle class doesn't pay enough. [No, he said he doesn't pay enough taxes, not people less wealthy than him. But you have to invent this bullshit in order to have that complaint so your argument seems valid. Which it is not.] I
understand the thought "WTF do you need all that money for, asshole?"
but won't ever really comprehend "Hey, that's too much and thus I shall
relieve you of it because ." [Wowy wow wow. Cuz yeah, THAT'S what people are saying.]
David
I don’t think he is saying that millionaires need to pay
more, just the same as everyone else.
Angie
I agree with David - the tax code is a disaster and
rearranging it responsibly would go a long way toward leveling the tax rates
equally for everyone. That being said, I don't think it is at all rational or
responsible to determine 'how much is too much' and ratchet taxes to 50% or
greater for this group. I am sick to death of this type of class-warfare
rhetoric. As for the 'Giving Pledge'...look up ILIT and the section of the tax
code allowing for it - they really aren't giving it all away. Earning/investing
it doesn't make you evil anymore than someone else's failure/inability to do so
makes them entitled to it.
[Angie seems to be arguing for both sides. And confusing facts in the process. Unless I'm misunderstanding, as I often do when people try to placate everyone, she's saying: we need to rearrange the tax code so taxes are equal for everyone / agrees with David that the wealthy need to pay more to be on par with everyone else but don't jack up taxes for the rich to 50% (a false argument - no one's saying that) / earning from investments isn't bad (a false argument - no one's saying that) / the ILIT doesn't allow you to give all your money away. I'm not sure why she introduced the ILIT, because that only lets your life insurance proceeds pass down your heirs tax free - which seems to be an argument she's making both for and against wealthy people - donating money, but only to your heirs, but tax free - I don't know.]
Mark
Flat tax?
Kathy
All for flat tax- but the tax code is the way it is due to
the nature of government and pandering for votes. The Dems. can point to Buffet
and friends as proof that the wealthy pay less, the Repubs to the IRS info on
the yield from each tax bracket (which provees Buffet is in a minority of the
wealthy who actually pay less than the wealthy in the bracket just below) [She made that up. The wealthy have the advantage of using loopholes that are not available to the middle. Their tax rates may be higher, but their effective tax rates are lower. Romney paid 14% taxes on $21M on investment return. Oh, right, I pay taxes for working so I'm taxed higher. He's taxed less for doing nothing. Oh! The poor rich. Leave Romney Alone!!] and
both can be correct. [Not according to facts outside of the right-wing news bubble.] Problem UN-solved, people divided and finger pointing
jackasses still hungry for power. GOOOOOOO USA!!
Angie
I like the idea, but too simple of an answer. The taxation
of capital gains, inheritance, estates, C-corp vs. S-corp etc. all need a
second look. I'm all for scrapping my meager middle class tax deductions, as
long as we’ll also ditch my highest incremental tax rate. And, while we're at
it, we should also eliminate the payroll deduction - if everyone is having to
write that check every quarter we'd all be paying a helluva lot more attention
to what we are making vs. what we are taxed and therefore be far more
interested/involved it what is being done with it. [I don't think I disagree with any of that.]
Bill Mancuso
It must be nice to live in a world where you can make up
anything you want and present it as the truth to support the previous thing you
made up. Although I do agree that the tax code is the way it is due mostly to the
nature of Republicans in government pandering to the rich for money to pay for
votes.
Angie
There are plenty of rich Democrats as well - that pendulum
swings both ways. For example, current US Representative John Dingell has a
reported net worth in the neighborhood of 1.2 to 3.8 million dollars.
Incidentally, his investment portfolio reflects his top campaign contributors.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
Bill Mancuso
Right. Which party is fighting for what, now? You're
obfuscating the point and assigning equal blame to both parties where it is
blatantly not equal. That's not to say all Democrats are angels, of course there are rich Democrats and they look out for their interests, but look at
the major donors to each party: big business (which now hilariously = people)
mostly donates to Republicans and unions donate to Democrats. I ask again;
Which party is fighting for what, now?
And to be clear, my previous post was not aimed at you, so I
apologize if it seemed to because it came after your post.
Mark
Keep your guard up at all times, I want a good clean fight.
Bill Mancuso
Shit-stirrer.
Angie
The problems are far more complex and deep-rooted than the
dogma being regurgitated by both sides will allow. I agree with some Republican
ideology, but not all. I agree with some Democratic ideology, not all. Painting
either side with a broad brush on this issue is over-simplified and short
sighted at best. The sound bites have become tiresome and it's time for gov't
to collectively stop pointing the finger at someone else and instead actually
come up with something reasonable and attainable.
...and no apology necessary. Wasn't sure where it was aimed,
but I figured since I jumped into the ring I'd better be able to take a few
punches :)
[I mostly agree. The Republicans want to cut spending, which is a good idea. However, they just want to hatchet-slash all social programs that help poor and elderly people or that make businesses conform to environmental laws - anything that diverts extra profits to already wealthy people. The correct way would not be just to randomly slash things they don't like, but to make them more efficient. It's not about simply making a small government, our country is too big to just proclaim government needs to be tiny, it's about spending money efficiently where it's needed. And raising taxes on the wealthy and paying workers living wages - not the 1968 levels where they are now.]
Kathy
shareholders are people, just as unions are people. the
difference being shareholders can sell to get out if they disagree with the
politics of the corp. Union members must pay dues to support the positions of
their officials whether they agree or not. Unions and those they rep. are not
one in the same. Sorry if I'm obfuscating YOUR point, whatever that is. It
appears to have something to do with big business supporting Repubs (except
when they contribute to powerful Dems, but that doesn't boost your point, so
you ignore it). We were discussing Mr. Buffet who is continually making his
arguement by presenting the public with half-truths concerning his tax
situation and allowing others to leap to conclusions based on this anecdotal
evidence. Do try to keep up.
Bill Mancuso
You're right. Shareholders are people. And as people, every
single one of them has a vote - as an individual. Though it's laughable to
think they would sell their shares if they disagreed with the politics of the
business they hold shares in. [THAT'S how we make money? Well, I'm leaving!] However, a corporation is not a person. An
average person doesn't have millions of dollars to throw behind a candidate in
return for, say, getting rid of EPA regulations that forces them to take
measures that prevents them from polluting a river which interferes with their
profit margin. I did not ignore the fact that big business does contribute to Democrats.
In fact, I plainly said not all Democrats are angels - that major donators, not
all donators are to Republicans by big business. But you ignored that just to
lie about me ignoring it. And about Mr. Buffett presenting half-truths, that's
one of those situations where you make stuff up to support the other stuff you
make up. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not true. And to your
other ridiculous point that Mr. Buffett could just write the government a big,
fat check - A. How does that solve anything? B. Who would he write it to? The
gov't would just return it to him. You know how when people overpay on their
taxes, they get a refund? Why do you think they would keep Buffett's
overpayment? Unless you don't and you were just trying to make something up to
support something else you made up. And crossing your fingers that no one would
notice. And both flat and fair tax systems would never work. Flat tax
effectively lowers taxes for the rich while placing a greater burden on the
working class. Fair tax effectively curbs incentive to buy things and would
kill what's left of US export economy. But these are facts you probably want to
ignore as well.
Angie
There's is a section on your tax return where you can check
a box and indicate how much more money you wish to send for federal taxes. The
gov't does not send it back.
Bill Mancuso
Learn something new every day.
Then I guess it isn't a ridiculous sidestep from the issue
to suggest Mr. Buffett is lying and that he can solve our economic problem all
by himself by writing a big, fat check - and of course any other billionaire
corporations that in their good hearts wish to donate more to the government if
they don't have to. Because that's how things get done in the corporate,
for-profit world. It's not as if they fight to get even lower taxes (the lowest by a large margin in 60 years)
than the ones they enjoy now. They all just want to donate more money to the
government of their own ‘selfless, non-greedy, best interest of others’ hearts.
Of all recent polls, including ones by conservative
pollsters, 64% of all Americans - including Republicans - believe taxes should
be raised on the rich. What this poll shows is that Republican politicians are
not listening to "the American people," but instead pandering for
some reason to the delusional, uneducated, extremist Teabaggers. Let's see how
that works out for them.
Please, someone say ‘corporations need lower taxes to create
jobs.’ PleasepleasePLEASE.
David
The government does not send it back, it is however applied
to future taxes you may owe.
[David is correct. You cannot donate more than you owe to
the government. If you have overpaid your owed taxes, you can check a box and
list the amount you want refunded and check another box and list the amount you
want applied to your estimated taxes for the next year. So, yes, the government
technically “does not send it back,” but it’s not ‘extra’ money. You can find
this information in the REFUND section on your Form 1040. Turns out I didn’t
learn anything new that day after all.]
[And yes. I went through my tax returns to find this
information because I wasn’t sure if either Angie or David were correct. They
couldn’t both be, and I didn’t just blindly accept what someone told me. If
you’ve been following this blog, you should know this by now.]
[Going through your tax returns fucking sucks. I now have
way more appreciation for accountants.]
Angie
Why throw good money after bad? I would be more apt to agree
to a tax increase if gov't could provide a convincing plan to control the
current state of waste and ineptitude. And since everyone here on this board
lives in glass houses I would refrain from the use of derogatory terminology
toward groups whose ideologies differ.
[I typed up this response to the “refrain from the use of
derogatory terminology toward groups whose ideologies differ,” but I didn’t
post it. I guess I took pity on her for some reason…
Good thing I didn't call the
Teabaggers ‘fucking idiots’ like I was going to. I was also toying with ‘fucking
morons’ (or 'morans' as they spell it). Teabaggers do not have ideologies. The
root and suffix of ideology respectively is idea + the study of. Teabaggers do
not have ideas. Nor have they ever studied anything. Especially history. And
math. And current events. And poli-sci. And social studies. And the English
language - particularly spelling. And grammar. They certainly do not know what
the Founding Fathers thought. What they do have are tri-corner hats and replica
muskets - representative of the era in which the level of their education is
based - 238 years ago. They have no understanding why the organizations that
bought or created the different Tea Party groups (Republican PAC's and the
billionaire Koch brothers' FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity) called
them the Tea Party in the first place. And what they're doing has nothing at
all in common with the Boston Tea Party event. Let's hope no one really
believes this was an actual grassroots movement.
Oh, but the one thing they
do have in abundance, as a result of their education coming to a halt in 1773,
is racism.]
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
[Sure, there is wasteful government spending. That always
needs to be addressed. But I would also like for just once, the people who
claim the government is inept, to give me examples. They like to point to the
Post Office, but the USPS is not inept. The problem with the Post Office was
completely manufactured by a Republican Congress when it passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which forced the USPS to PREPAY its FUTURE health care benefits to retirees
for the NEXT 75 YEARS to employees that they HAVE NOT HIRED YET. What the fuck?
Oh, right. Republicans. The USPS has the biggest union in America and
Republicans HATE unions since they mostly donate to Democrats, so they designed something to legally collapse the
USPS. It seems the Republican Party is inept in this case.]
Mark
It is a safe bet to say that the people in power are going
to legislate in their own favor, or the favor of their campaign donors,
especially when it comes to money, and that's not passing judgment, it's just
common sense and human nature.
Kathy
It's ridiculous to continue trying to debate an individual
who, rather than stand on the weight of his counterpoint, offers up the notion
that his opponent is lying based on nothing more than his apparent belief that
said opponent is a liar. [Except where I proved you're lying - which you ignored.]
Mark
You can debate with me... TASTES GREAT!!!!
Kathy
LESS SATISFYING(filling)...
David
Is this individual me perchance?
[No, it was me. It's always me]
Bill Mancuso
Hey Kathy, first you said Buffett was lying about himself
(because you obviously know more about his tax situation than he does), then
you said I was lying about ignoring things that I clearly wasn't. You do realize
people can read the words you post here, right? Me pointing out that you are
wrong or intentionally misleading others is not me ‘not standing on the weight
of my counterpoint’ - it's actually part
of the counterpoint. I guess you're saying I should just accept it when you
make shit up. Too bad. What's ridiculous is you trying to flip the blame onto
me for what you yourself are doing.
David
I love it when politicians talk about Buffet. If he says
something they agree with he is, and I quote, “The Oracle in Omaha!” Say
something they don’t like and he becomes 'The Crazy Old CUNT in Omaha who
doesn’t know what to do with his money.' Note that I said politicians, not
Republicans or Democrats
* * * *
Unfortunately for me, no one answered my plea to claim that
lower taxes for corporations creates jobs. I so wanted to ask why the two giant
Bush tax cuts that have been in effect for ten years not only resulted in not
creating any jobs, but we lost jobs and had a huge fucking recession. Oh, well.
Here is a plethora of articles about:
A) how most of America thinks the wealthy should pay more
B) how wealthy people also want to pay more taxes
If the majority of Americans want the rich to pay more in
taxes and many rich people also want to pay more in taxes then why is the Republican
Party signing a pledge to a lobbyist, Grover Norquist, to never raise taxes
(somehow except on poor people), which is anti-constitutional? This 30+ year
experiment of “trickle-down economics” has failed as an economic policy. It has
only succeeded in making the rich richer and the poor poorer. For a fact.
Crooks & Liars: The Epic Failure of Republican Trickle Down Economics
Crooks & Liars: The Epic Failure of Republican Trickle Down Economics
Jon Stewart sums up this whole argument in one ten-minute
segment on The Daily Show episode from 8/18/11...
(If it says "Content is Unavailable" just click on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in the box. I don't know why it sometimes does that.)
My next post, “Blackmailing the Truth” will cover this Reaganomic farce and how Republicans choose to deal with it.
Tea Party! America Thanks You!
No comments:
Post a Comment