Are the neo-cons on here smarter than Warren Buffett?

[SodaPopinski]

Gee - who do I believe? The world's richest man and probably one of the most successful capitalists in our generation, or a bunch of jaded neo-cons with posters of Sarah Palin in a bikini in their garage?

If you truly think Obama's a socialist, you might ask yourself why the guy who has benefited more than anyone else in the world from a free market and meritocracy is supporting him for president. (HINT: I'm guessing it's not because he watches too much MSNBC.)

-Pop

 

[SodaPopinski]

Re: Are the neo-cons on here smarter than Warren Buffet?

And yes - I know there are two "t's" in Buffett, for any of you who are firing up a spelling flame.

-Pop

 

[Denny Crane]

Fixed spelling in the thread title for ya.

 

[maxiep]

Having billions is a nice insulator to the concerns of common people. If his taxes go up, what does it matter to him. Is there any tax you could put on him that would really hurt the guy? He's leaving virtually nothing to his kids (good for him, BTW) and has lived in the same house for 30+ years.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wonder what Buffett paid in taxes last year. Probably close to $0.

 

[blazerboy30]

He was also in full support of the Bailout Plan, which has a socialist taste.

Many have speculated that it is because he has a lot more to lose from the market taking a hit than almost anybody else, and he has little upside for capitalism at this point in his career.

I don't see how using one of the richest people in the world as a compass for government decisions is a good idea. Even people that are "rich", by McCain's definition or Obama's definition, are in nowhere near the same situation as Buffet.


**As a side note, what is with the trolling? Do you REALLY believe that if people think Obama's ideas are a step further into socialism that they are "neo-cons"?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Gee - who do I believe? The world's richest man and probably one of the most successful capitalists in our generation, or a bunch of jaded neo-cons with posters of Sarah Palin in a bikini in their garage?

If you truly think Obama's a socialist, you might ask yourself why the guy who has benefited more than anyone else in the world from a free market and meritocracy is supporting him for president. (HINT: I'm guessing it's not because he watches too much MSNBC.)

-Pop

OK. I'll ask myself (or yourself)

Why is he supporting him for President? He is ill experienced and has no major accomplishments nor has he ever led anything.

I would like to see Buffett's specific reasons for supporting Obama.

 

[maxiep]

**As a side note, what is with the trolling? Do you REALLY believe that if people think Obama's ideas are a step further into socialism that they are "neo-cons"?

Pop's a good guy, but he reads too many bumper stickers.

 

[SodaPopinski]

**As a side note, what is with the trolling? Do you REALLY believe that if people think Obama's ideas are a step further into socialism that they are "neo-cons"?

The whole "socialism" thing is ridiculous. It's a soundbyte line that is being trotted out there by the Republicans in the hopes it might scare people away from voting for Obama. So, if you're buying into the Rovian "attack dog" politics of trying to brand someone who isn't right-of-center without much substance to back it up, then yes - you are a neo-con.

His economic policies closely resemble Bill Clinton's, and rich people made a lot of money under his administration. But now - someone who subscribes to the same line of thinking is somehow "socialist"? Come on. Let's be smart about this. Rise above the political pandering from a desperate candidate who is 10 points behind in most polls and losing in almost every battleground state.

-Pop

 

[blazerboy30]

The whole "socialism" thing is ridiculous. It's a soundbyte line that is being trotted out there by the Republicans in the hopes it might scare people away from voting for Obama.

As we already had an entire thread on, America is a mix of socialism and capitalism. I don't think Obama is a pure socialist, but his proposals would take this country more to the socialist side. That is pretty easy to see. If you want to consider that a "scare" tactic, you don't understand the issues.

So, if you're buying into the Rovian "attack dog" politics of trying to brand someone who isn't right-of-center without much substance to back it up, then yes - you are a neo-con.

Seriously, you're one of the worst on the board about branding groups of people, along with Talkhard. "Branding" somebody has nothing to do with being a neo-con. But somehow you have convinced yourself that if something is bad, it must be something only neo-cons do.

His economic policies closely resemble Bill Clinton's, and rich people made a lot of money under his administration. But now - someone who subscribes to the same line of thinking is somehow "socialist"? Come on. Let's be smart about this.

It is pretty well accepted by both sides that Obama is much more of a tax-and-spend candidate than Clinton. I don't know where you are getting this. Clinton lowered capital gains tax, he never pushed too hard for the universal healthcare (I don't even think it was one of his campaign points),

Rise above the political pandering from a desperate candidate who is 10 points behind in most polls and losing in almost every battleground state.

-Pop

We've discussed these issues on this board for almost a year now, and you can go back and check that I am not bringing this up just NOW. I've been saying this since well before the primaries were even shaping up. It has nothing to do with a candidate being down in the polls.

Like I said, not wanting to take more steps towards the socialist side, does not make somebody a neo-con. It makes them more capitalist than you. You need to sort out some of this in your head.

 

[MARIS61]

OK. I'll ask myself (or yourself)

Why is he supporting him for President? He is ill experienced and has no major accomplishments nor has he ever led anything.

I would like to see Buffett's specific reasons for supporting Obama.

Maybe it's simply because he knows exactly what kind of President McCain would make, and it frightens him.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Maybe it's simply because he knows exactly what kind of President McCain would make, and it frightens him.

His crystal ball extends past stock prices, and now into presidential fortune-telling??

 

[Vintage]

Gee - who do I believe? The world's richest man and probably one of the most successful capitalists in our generation, or a bunch of jaded neo-cons with posters of Sarah Palin in a bikini in their garage?

If you truly think Obama's a socialist, you might ask yourself why the guy who has benefited more than anyone else in the world from a free market and meritocracy is supporting him for president. (HINT: I'm guessing it's not because he watches too much MSNBC.)

-Pop

This post is hilarious.

Its almost like you are implying.... that everyone who is against Obama is a neo-con, in which case... there are probably some. But not everyone who disagrees/dislikes Obama is a neo-con. Methinks you don't understand what a neo-con is.

And then... the rest of the post... screams like we should vote for Obama because Buffett is. Kudos. That's a great line of reasoning.

Maybe you weren't implying it... but it came off like that.

And if you were trying to say that... then wow. That's a special kind of ... "special."

 

[MARIS61]

He was also in full support of the Bailout Plan, which has a socialist taste./QUOTE]

It amounts to a theft from the poor to reward the rich for defrauding the poor.

Not sure what ideology it comes under, but it sure ain't Socialism.

McCain/Palin support it also, so they must also be socialists.

Do you REALLY believe that if people think Obama's ideas are a step further into socialism that they are "neo-cons"?

I think they're ignorant and have no clue what socialism is, or haven't actually listened to Obama's ideas.

Neocon is too cool of a nickname for them. I just call them morons.

 

[blazerboy30]

It amounts to a theft from the poor to reward the rich for defrauding the poor.

Not sure what ideology it comes under, but it sure ain't Socialism.

McCain/Palin support it also, so they must also be socialists.



I think they're ignorant and have no clue what socialism is, or haven't actually listened to Obama's ideas.

Neocon is too cool of a nickname for them. I just call them morons.

Wow, just wow. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

 

[MARIS61]

Wow, just wow. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

Speechless, eh?

I'll come back later after you've had time to gather your thoughts to address my post with a bit more intelligence.

 

[blazerboy30]

Speechless, eh?

I'll come back later after you've had time to gather your thoughts to address my post with a bit more intelligence.

There is nothing in your post worth addressing. The only interesting part was the incredible irony of you calling somebody else a moron.

 

[bodyman5001]

Define smarter.

You want to use a rich guy as the example of being smart?


I am not saying that Warren isn't smart, just that his financial success doesn't prove that he is. It certainly doesn't prove that he is smarter than any of us. Just richer.

One could use our current president as another example of why statements like that don't fly. He is the number one guy in our country as far as position is concerned, yet I doubt that there are many people who think he is the smartest guy out there.

If you want more examples, I could go on but here is just one more.

Michael Jordan is often considered the best basketball player of all time. If not the best, at least one of.

YET, he doesn't have the best track record when it comes to drafting NBA players does he?

 

[DaRizzle]

LOL...WOW
nice sig​

 

[bodyman5001]

LOL...WOW
nice sig​

I noticed this afternoon that you had me quoted but cut out the important part...

So I just looked through some of your posts and found something I could use. There was a LOT of good stuff that could be taken out of context..ha ha.

I will change it tomorrow.

 

[DaRizzle]

dont bother...that shit is hilarious

 

[bodyman5001]

dont bother...that shit is hilarious

I was going to find something better to change it to

 

[el_Diablo]

Having billions is a nice insulator to the concerns of common people. If his taxes go up, what does it matter to him. Is there any tax you could put on him that would really hurt the guy? He's leaving virtually nothing to his kids (good for him, BTW) and has lived in the same house for 30+ years.

the rich can pay more and don't even notice it?

isn't that exactly the point of raising taxes on the rich, which some of the non-obama-supporters have been railing against as communism?

 

[maxiep]

the rich can pay more and don't even notice it?

isn't that exactly the point of raising taxes on the rich, which some of the non-obama-supporters have been railing against as communism?

There's a difference between Warren Buffett and a family taking in $250K. In some parts of the country, that's middle class.

 

[barfo]

There's a difference between Warren Buffett and a family taking in $250K.

I'm astonished you admit that, honestly.

It's true, and there is also a difference between someone making $250K, and someone making $30K.

Just as Buffett feels the pain of tax less than the family taking in $250K, so the $250K earner feels the pain less than the $30K earner.

Buffett should pay higher taxes than the family making $250K, and the family making $250K should pay more than the family making $30K.

barfo

 

[Pontius]

I am not saying that Warren isn't smart, just that his financial success doesn't prove that he is. It certainly doesn't prove that he is smarter than any of us. Just richer.

If you give Buffet's accomplishments context then it would be hard to argue that he's not a genius in his field. Are any of us considered genius level? I don't mean good and I don't mean smart.

You don't amass that type of fortune on your own without a superior intellect, which I have no shame saying is greater than my own. Or as it were, I might be typing this on platinum-plated keys while lovely models play the trumpet as part of my "ode to joy".

 

[maxiep]

I'm astonished you admit that, honestly.

It's true, and there is also a difference between someone making $250K, and someone making $30K.

Just as Buffett feels the pain of tax less than the family taking in $250K, so the $250K earner feels the pain less than the $30K earner.

Buffett should pay higher taxes than the family making $250K, and the family making $250K should pay more than the family making $30K.

barfo

I wouldn't disagree that the family that makes $250K should (and does) pay more; even if they're taxed at the same percentage. A family making $30K likely doesn't pay a penny in taxes (depending on the number of dependents). I'm not opposed to the concept of progressive taxation; I am opposed to a steep slope on that progressivity.

 

[MARIS61]

Half of American workers make less than the $30k Barfo used in his example.

33% of all American workers make less than $15k per year.

40% make between $15k and $49k.

22% make between $50 and $224k.

5% make between $250k on up to obscenely ridiculous sums.

So much for the American Dream.

 

[maxiep]

Half of American workers make less than the $30k Barfo used in his example.

33% of all American workers make less than $15k per year.

40% make between $15k and $49k.

22% make between $50 and $224k.

5% make between $250k on up to obscenely ridiculous sums.

So much for the American Dream.

Do you have a link for those figures?

 

[barfo]

I'm not opposed to the concept of progressive taxation; I am opposed to a steep slope on that progressivity.

Then we are not so different, you and I... (what am I quoting here? it sounds familiar but I'm not sure)
The only question is what slope is too steep (or too gradual).

barfo