SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Because it's dumb and hypocritical. I don't support spending as much on the military than the next 6 countries combined. Does that mean I can just tell Christie to write a check out of his account for the next F-16 or nuclear submarine and shut up?" -The question posed was not a policy discussion. You have your opinion on military spending, I may actually agree with you. The question is whether Buffett is being genuine or a demagogue. He is asking people (those EVIL rich Republicans!!) who already believe the Fed Gov't is TOO big and spends TOO much money to DONATE money to that same entity. What would be the purpose of that? They don't believe it will be spent wisely. Neither does Buffett, as evidenced by his charitable giving. Christie is standing on principle, as well as Republican Senators in the House and Senate. Buffett is being a shill for President Obama. If he stood on principle, he would organize his rich friends to do as he did with charitable giving, and shame them into DONATING more to the US Treasury. BUT THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF THEIR MONEY, AND HE KNOWS IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I keep wondering why the Republicans don't ask questions about why Buffett's taxable income is such a pittance relative to his wealth, then I catch myself... "oh, of course, that's why". They can't shoot back without collateral damage. So we instead get these stupid responses. There, I've explained Christie's comment ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 "Southern Yankee, have you learned enough to share with us an investment idea?" -Plan Maestro, I can say this. It would probably be easier to buy a new house, than to fix an old one. But, thanks to Walter Schloss (DOW, BSET), an article about net-nets I found 5 years ago (GSIG), Buffett himself (since 2001, BRK-b), maybe Biglari (CAW - a local company I am trying to find out more about), and to this forum (Altius, LVLT), I have the money to spend on the house, and also to pay down some debt. What this has to do with Chris Christie telling Warren Buffett to write a check and shut up, I am not really sure. But I am sure that when it comes time to paying taxes, the majority of the people on this board will take an approach WHICH WILL MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT/YIELD, while MINIMIZING THEIR TAX BURDEN! I know I do (or try to do), I know Buffett does, I know the boys at Fairfax do, Munger does, Obama does (see book deal before he became President!), etc, etc, etc........ But thanks for asking, and THANK YOU for your patience! I am planning on being around for a little bit longer (God willing!), so in the next 50 years (fingers crossed), I will hopefully have an idea which will benefit others on this board. CHEERS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 "I keep wondering why the Republicans don't ask questions about why Buffett's taxable income is such a pittance relative to his wealth, then I catch myself... "oh, of course, that's why". They can't shoot back without collateral damage. So we instead get these stupid responses. There, I've explained Christie's comment ." -Who was that woman who famously said, "I don't know how he won (Nixon). I don't know anyone of my friends who would vote for him!" I don't know any Republicans who don't know why his taxable income is such a pittance relative to his wealth, it usually takes about 30 seconds to explain it. And I really don't care how rich he is, in fact I cheered when he decided to give his money to the Gates Foundation. It will be better spent than if the Federal Gov't received it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I don't know any Republicans who don't know why his taxable income is such a pittance relative to his wealth Neither do I, hence my comment about collateral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Buffett's proposal really isn't much different in spirit from the Minimum Tax, which the Republicans signed into law. The Republicans brought us the Minimum Tax in 1969 when Nixon signed the Tax Reform Act of 1969. The Republicans replaced it with the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1982 when Reagan signed it into law. Inflation has eroded the significance of the Minimum Tax, but it was originally a tax aimed at the wealthy earning an amount of at least one million in today's dollar terms (the same number that Buffett has in mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 That's just way over the top. I think you guys are completely misreading him. He's not saying "shut up!" in a vacuum, as if a private citizen isn't allowed to contribute to the debate. He's saying "write the check and shut up!". In other words: Enough beating around the bush with words and games. If you think rich guys like yourself aren't sending enough money to Washington, then lead by example and send in your money. Total straw man and distortion of what Buffett is arguing for. Buffett has already explained countless times why he's not arguing for voluntary taxes and why it wouldn't work, and he's not arguing that it's just him who's not paying enough taxes, so sending a check wouldn't fix anything. So Christie is not only arguing about something that Buffett isn't even talking about, he's doing it like petulant child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 That's just way over the top. I think you guys are completely misreading him. He's not saying "shut up!" in a vacuum, as if a private citizen isn't allowed to contribute to the debate. He's saying "write the check and shut up!". In other words: Enough beating around the bush with words and games. If you think rich guys like yourself aren't sending enough money to Washington, then lead by example and send in your money. Total straw man and distortion of what Buffett is arguing for. Buffett has already explained countless times why he's not arguing for voluntary taxes and why it wouldn't work, and he's not arguing that it's just him who's not paying enough taxes, so sending a check wouldn't fix anything. So Christie is not only arguing about something that Buffett isn't even talking about, he's doing it like petulant child. +1. Christie's response is really just an empty New Jersey style insult, devoid of any actual retort to Buffett's wider tax point. If I were Buffett, I would see Christie's childish insult, and raise him a: Christie should just 'put down the fork and shut up.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 That's just way over the top. I think you guys are completely misreading him. He's not saying "shut up!" in a vacuum, as if a private citizen isn't allowed to contribute to the debate. He's saying "write the check and shut up!". In other words: Enough beating around the bush with words and games. If you think rich guys like yourself aren't sending enough money to Washington, then lead by example and send in your money. Total straw man and distortion of what Buffett is arguing for. Buffett has already explained countless times why he's not arguing for voluntary taxes and why it wouldn't work, and he's not arguing that it's just him who's not paying enough taxes, so sending a check wouldn't fix anything. Nope. Nobody is saying Buffett is arguing for voluntary taxes (whatever that is). And nobody is accusing him of believing that only he isn't paying enough. Still, Buffett is saying he, among others, doesn't send enough money to the Treasury. Christie is inviting him to live up to his word, send in more, and be done with it, if that's what he believes. There's no need to engage in the farce of goading others who disagree with the implied premise that more taxes are the answer. He's better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 Nope. Nobody is saying Buffett is arguing for voluntary taxes (whatever that is). And nobody is accusing him of believing that only he isn't paying enough. Still, Buffett is saying he, among others, doesn't send enough money to the Treasury. Christie is inviting him to live up to his word, send in more, and be done with it, if that's what he believes. There's no need to engage in the farce of goading others who disagree with the implied premise that more taxes are the answer. He's better than that. You are doing the same thing that Christie is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyten1 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 its sad what this have come down to so i guess when someone disagrees with you, the best reply is to "you should X then shut up" buffett is arguing for higher taxes for certain segment of the population. it almost like saying "christie you think people are paying too much tax, why don't you just not pay and shut up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Nope. Nobody is saying Buffett is arguing for voluntary taxes (whatever that is). And nobody is accusing him of believing that only he isn't paying enough. Still, Buffett is saying he, among others, doesn't send enough money to the Treasury. Christie is inviting him to live up to his word, send in more, and be done with it, if that's what he believes. There's no need to engage in the farce of goading others who disagree with the implied premise that more taxes are the answer. He's better than that. You are doing the same thing that Christie is doing. He's responding to absurdity in kind. Anyone who has just a passing knowledge of the man knows that Buffett means more than "I don't pay enough". The absurdity arises when Buffett presumes (either through feint or sincere belief) that taunting others will have any effect on the national debate, since they disagree with him on a philosophical level. OK, I'm done on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest misterstockwell Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Christie is the best! He is telling Warren to shut the hell up and pay the money if you think it is such a good idea. He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. Collecting more taxes will do nothing if you don't stop spending. The message is very clear if you listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 hardincap, Asinine is government policy which outspends revenues by 40%. I believe people like Christie believe spending is the main problem, not the taking of more money from productive citizens. Do you have any interest in investing or are you purely here for the political chat......... I would have put a question mark, but I know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardGibbons Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This nicely sums up the conversation, from the third reply on this thread, by hardincap: im always surprised when people use the "if he wants others to help, he should just write a check himself!" argument. the point of policy is to achieve critical mass in order to make a difference in scale. What a nice statement -- totally summarizes and refutes all the opposing arguments, so that really, you have no choice but to understand. But, Not one person has answered a simple but straight-forward question put forward by another poster, "Are you going to offer an argument for why Christie was wrong for what he said, or why on this issue Buffett isn't more of a demagogue than Christie?" Hmm. I'm not sure if it's deliberately not reading the other persons said, or just simply misunderstanding. It's hard to imagine that it's the latter, since hardincap explained it so clearly and concisely. My working hypothesis is that the right wing media, with its one-sided view and demagoguery, has made people believe that they don't need to make sensible arguments when discussing an issue, but that shouting down is sufficient. Hence, the Christie's comments and the response of some people on this thread. The really unfortunate thing is that there are actually good arguments against Buffett's position. It's just that nobody's making them. I think Munger summarizes the situation very well: Another thing I think should be avoided is extremely intense ideology because it cabbages up one’s mind. You see it a lot with T.V. preachers (many have minds made of cabbage) but it can also happen with political ideology. When you’re young it’s easy to drift into loyalties and when you announce that you’re a loyal member and you start shouting the orthodox ideology out, what you’re doing is pounding it in, pounding it in, and you’re gradually ruining your mind. So you want to be very, very careful of this ideology. It’s a big danger. In my mind, I have a little example I use whenever I think about ideology. The example is these Scandinavia canoeists who succeeded in taming all the rapids of Scandinavia and they thought they would tackle the whirlpools of the Aron (sp) Rapids here in the United States. The death rate was 100%. A big whirlpool is not something you want to go into, and I think the same is true about a really deep ideology. I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another and that is: I say that I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people who support it. I think only when I’ve reached that state am I qualified to speak. This business of not drifting into extreme ideology is a very, very important thing in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Southern Yankee, have you learned enough to share with us an investment idea? Dammit you beat me to it. I will answer the question, no. Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Christie should just 'put down the fork and shut up.' Thats the funniest thing I have read all day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. A pretty good read here if you have the time (I'm hoping it changes your tone): http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf quote: On spending, both parties have blended together to form one giant Republocrat party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 This nicely sums up the conversation, from the third reply on this thread, by hardincap: im always surprised when people use the "if he wants others to help, he should just write a check himself!" argument. the point of policy is to achieve critical mass in order to make a difference in scale. What a nice statement -- totally summarizes and refutes all the opposing arguments, so that really, you have no choice but to understand. But, Not one person has answered a simple but straight-forward question put forward by another poster, "Are you going to offer an argument for why Christie was wrong for what he said, or why on this issue Buffett isn't more of a demagogue than Christie?" Hmm. I'm not sure if it's deliberately not reading the other persons said, or just simply misunderstanding. It's hard to imagine that it's the latter, since hardincap explained it so clearly and concisely. My working hypothesis is that the right wing media, with its one-sided view and demagoguery, has made people believe that they don't need to make sensible arguments when discussing an issue, but that shouting down is sufficient. Hence, the Christie's comments and the response of some people on this thread. The really unfortunate thing is that there are actually good arguments against Buffett's position. It's just that nobody's making them. I think Munger summarizes the situation very well: Another thing I think should be avoided is extremely intense ideology because it cabbages up one’s mind. You see it a lot with T.V. preachers (many have minds made of cabbage) but it can also happen with political ideology. When you’re young it’s easy to drift into loyalties and when you announce that you’re a loyal member and you start shouting the orthodox ideology out, what you’re doing is pounding it in, pounding it in, and you’re gradually ruining your mind. So you want to be very, very careful of this ideology. It’s a big danger. In my mind, I have a little example I use whenever I think about ideology. The example is these Scandinavia canoeists who succeeded in taming all the rapids of Scandinavia and they thought they would tackle the whirlpools of the Aron (sp) Rapids here in the United States. The death rate was 100%. A big whirlpool is not something you want to go into, and I think the same is true about a really deep ideology. I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another and that is: I say that I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people who support it. I think only when I’ve reached that state am I qualified to speak. This business of not drifting into extreme ideology is a very, very important thing in life. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm also seriously getting tired of people, who otherwise seem pretty smart, thinking that "Just write a check Warren!!" is anything more than a childish and useless answer to Buffett's proposal. Given that WEB's proposal revolves around the fact that in order to get its fiscal house in order, the country will soon be enacting policies that will inflict some serious pain on sections of the population, take for example retirees who will undoubtedly see their social security and medicare benefits take a serious hit; and WEB's point is that since you're asking all those people to bear the pain of balancing our finances,why not ask the richest of us like him to shoulder some of that pain and pay more than 16% in taxes. If you all allow me, I would suggest that WEB offers this as a rebuttal to those idiotic "write a check Warren!!" arguments: "Since you want to make it the country's policy that, I will shoulder some of the pain of righting the American fiscal ship only on a voluntary basis, I will go ahead and write a check to Geithner that will take my taxes from 16% to 30% ONLY if you also make it that the coming cuts to social security and medicare are on an "opt-in" basis! Meaning retirees will have to voluntarily opt-in for their social security payments to be cut." I wonder how that would go... ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest misterstockwell Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. A pretty good read here if you have the time (I'm hoping it changes your tone): http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf quote: On spending, both parties have blended together to form one giant Republocrat party. That's from 2004--now extend all those pretty graphs to today and you will see what real spending is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. A pretty good read here if you have the time (I'm hoping it changes your tone): http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf quote: On spending, both parties have blended together to form one giant Republocrat party. That's from 2004--now extend all those pretty graphs to today and you will see what real spending is all about. Here are the numbers for U.S. discretionary spending: +16.7% (cumulative increase for Obama's first 3 years in office) +39.7% (cumulative increase for Bush's first 3 years in office) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 If this was a practical problem and Warren was saying "I have too much money, I want to give more of it to the government." the answer would be "write a check!" But from a practical point of view, I'm pretty sure Warren would love to keep all the money for himself. His argument has ethical foundations. He believes in meritocracy and fairness, and regardless of how much waste there is in government (and there is plenty! and Warren doesn't like it!), he doesn't believe it's right that people making millions each year are paying a much smaller % in taxes than secretaries and mechanics. This position isn't incompatible with lowering taxes (or even raising them). It's not even about raising taxes, it's about preferential treatment of some of the very very rich in a society. He's arguing for what he thinks is fairer, and doesn't like to have the guy or girl making peanuts paying a larger fraction of his income than the guy making billions. If Christie or anyone else wants to address that argument, fine. But to distort it into something else completely and then attack that straw man is just dishonest and wrong (well, it's what politicians do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/christie-says-obama-using-buffett.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest misterstockwell Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 He knows, in reality, that the current administration will blow it, spend it, redistribute it, and we will have nothing to show for it. A pretty good read here if you have the time (I'm hoping it changes your tone): http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf quote: On spending, both parties have blended together to form one giant Republocrat party. That's from 2004--now extend all those pretty graphs to today and you will see what real spending is all about. Here are the numbers for U.S. discretionary spending: +16.7% (cumulative increase for Obama's first 3 years in office) +39.7% (cumulative increase for Bush's first 3 years in office) which tells me nothing--how about a nice graphical representation of debt--money in and money out. Who spends what they don't have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now