Warren Buffett - "stop coddling the super-rich"

[cardboardbox]

Right after you give me your proposal for $1 trillion in spending cuts per year, I'm wide open to moving back to the Clinton era tax percentages Oakland As loves so much. How they're structured, I don't much care. Want to go after capital gains? Hey, go for it. Want to raise the top tax bracket? Sure.

But until our government can show us a scintilla of repsonsible spending behavior - which I'm defining as cutting 60% of our deficit with real spending cuts - they don't deserve another dollar to misspend.

60% isnt enough. That still only gets us to around a $600 billion deficit right? Rolling back all the Bush tax cuts, not just the ones for the rich, would only get back about $260 billion I think which leaves a massive deficit of $330 billion. Remember when $330 billion used to be a massive deficit, oh, 5 years ago? I remember the left (and myself) were up in arms over W's $200-400 billion/yr deficits which at the time were huge. I'd want to see enough cuts so that when we roll back the tax cuts, the budget is very close to being balanced. Take a look at these two charts, very scary. And the second one is dated 2007, I imagine its gotten far worse since then.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Hey, look, I found some conservatives who are willing to cut defense. I don't really understand why these socially conservative Christian fundamentalist lapdogs who never challenge Republican leadership would rise up against their masters like this, but here it is!

Linky: http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/d...n-defense-cuts

**********

Tea Party activists say the Pentagon should be targeted for cuts by the “supercommittee” created in the debt-ceiling deal.

Groups affiliated with the conservative grassroots movement say defense cuts should be on the table as the supercommittee tries to compile at least $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts.

...


Tea Party activists say defense programs should come under the same knife as any other taxpayer-funded programs, and that massive national security budgets were not exempt from their definition of “big government.”

“The liberty movement is about the fundamental limitation of government, and that doesn’t have departmental boundaries with regards to this principle,” said Chris Littleton, co-founder of the Ohio Liberty Council.

I haven't once said in any of these threads I disagree with the core values of fiscal conservatism or that cuts, and hard cuts, should not be made. I do disagree with their refusal to include revenues in the solution and am obviously on the opposite side of most their social ideals--but I don't think you'll find too many of us "Left Wing Choir Boys" disagreeing with the very premise the Tea Party was founded on some in here seem to think we're attacking.

[DMT]

That 2nd graph posted by CBB is misleading b/c of compounding interest. Also, simple demographics mean that spending on entitlements was going to be higher under Obama than Bush. The same will be true for the next president.

And as GITH said, none of us have said that tax increases should not be accompanied by spending cuts but yet many of the Republicans are saying the exact opposite. That is either a) pure political grandstanding (as I suspect, if they show much greater willingness to compromise), b) class warfare (if they don't compromise and the Democrats completely cave, or c) reckless endangerment of our economic future (if neither side budges as we have seen thus far).

[cardboardbox]

That 2nd graph posted by CBB is misleading b/c of compounding interest. Also, simple demographics mean that spending on entitlements was going to be higher under Obama than Bush. The same will be true for the next president.

How does interest make it misleading? This was the reality as of 2007 but now its much worse. If we cant get our spending under control now, what chance do we have in 20 years?

And as GITH said, none of us have said that tax increases should not be accompanied by spending cuts but yet many of the Republicans are saying the exact opposite. That is either a) pure political grandstanding (as I suspect, if they show much greater willingness to compromise), b) class warfare (if they don't compromise and the Democrats completely cave, or c) reckless endangerment of our economic future (if neither side budges as we have seen thus far).

its primary season and these questions are litmus tests. Nothing more.

[chancellor]

60% isnt enough. That still only gets us to around a $600 billion deficit right? Rolling back all the Bush tax cuts, not just the ones for the rich, would only get back about $260 billion I think which leaves a massive deficit of $330 billion. Remember when $330 billion used to be a massive deficit, oh, 5 years ago? I remember the left (and myself) were up in arms over W's $200-400 billion/yr deficits which at the time were huge.

If we can get from $1.65 trillion to 0.33 trillion in the next budget, I'd be happy. I agree that a balanced budget would be even better.

[GwynnInTheHall]

If we can get from $1.65 trillion to 0.33 trillion in the next budget, I'd be happy. I agree that a balanced budget would be even better.

but are you wiling to include revenue increases with the obvious needed cuts.

[Wonderboy]

If we can get from $1.65 trillion to 0.33 trillion in the next budget, I'd be happy. I agree that a balanced budget would be even better.

And this goes back to something I've said several times. It is absolutely amazing to me that we can find someone with such differing opinions as me and chance, and yet I am absolutely convinced that he and I could sit down and work out a fair and reasonable compromise that would put the country back on its feet in 5 or 10 years. And he and I aren't even that smart!

And yet that seems completely beyond our elected officials. Again, I think voters get some blame for this by electing people whose stated purpose is not to compromise one inch, no matter what.

[Moonlight J]

Stewart does it again

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

[Mithrandir]

Stewart for President!

[TranaGreg]

And this goes back to something I've said several times. It is absolutely amazing to me that we can find someone with such differing opinions as me and chance, and yet I am absolutely convinced that he and I could sit down and work out a fair and reasonable compromise that would put the country back on its feet in 5 or 10 years. And he and I aren't even that smart!

And yet that seems completely beyond our elected officials. Again, I think voters get some blame for this by electing people whose stated purpose is not to compromise one inch, no matter what.

it seems elected officials are affected by that schoolyard mentality ... when you're being watched by a bunch of your friends you tend to come out tougher & meaner than if it's one on one. Maybe they just need to reach puberty.

[Fresno Bob]

Stewart does it again

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart is crushing!

[Lurker765]

There is a decent analysis of Buffett's editorial over at the Motley Fool (financial analysis site):

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-on-taxes.aspx

If it asks you to register just trying visiting the site again. It lets you in for free/requires registration randomly.

[OaklandA's]

There is a decent analysis of Buffett's editorial over at the Motley Fool (financial analysis site):

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...-on-taxes.aspx

If it asks you to register just trying visiting the site again. It lets you in for free/requires registration randomly.

Good article. The graph showing the Tax Revenue as a function of GDP is very interesting. We are at 14.3% now, while the percentages have consistently been over 17% for the last 50 years. How much smaller would our deficits be if we were collecting 2-3% more of the GDP?

[Lurker765]

Good article

The author got my attention with the paragraphs:
---------------------------------------------------------
"This topic stirs up emotions so strong it's hardly worth discussing with peers. Most think taxes are either too high, or too low, and nothing will change their opinions -- end of story, with an almost religious level of conviction.

So rather than debate whether Buffett's right, I thought I'd share five pieces of data that put the topic into context.

Before that, let's get two things out of the way. One, Buffett explicitly says deep spending cuts are necessary. He calls this "job one" for the Congressional super-committee tasked with completing the recent debt-ceiling deal. Two, whenever Buffett calls for higher taxes, many respond with what they think is a clever rebuttal: "If he wants to pay more, he's welcome to donate his money to the IRS!" Folks, this totally misses the point."
---------------------------------------------------------
It is painful reading through comments sections on articles like this. Tons of people just saying things like "he should just donate his money to the IRS" or "why doesn't he give his money to charity if he feels guilty". These people (a) didn't read the article or (b) don't know anything about Buffett. How can you get into a discussion with someone about an article if they haven't even read it or don't even know any of the background about it.

Some of those comments talking about how Buffett "got his" and wants to raise the rates now to keep everyone else locked out. That sentiment was even echoed in a link there to the Wall Street Journal that said roughly the same thing. Yeah, Buffett "got his" back when the capital gains rate was 38% and the income tax rates were almost double what we have now. He did it in a far more difficult environment.

[Fresno Bob]

yeah, buffett "got his" back when the capital gains rate was 38% and the income tax rates were almost double what we have now. He did it in a far more difficult environment.

bingo! How about we just apply the federal tax rates and capital gains tax rate of that great Socialist and America-hater Ronald Reagan and see where we are.....