Buffett Speaks The Truth

If you read carefully you will notice that my comments are broader than this one issue. I am not arguing that increasing taxes should not be done. The point I am trying to make is that the government needs to quit wasting money and reform things so that they are not spending more than they are taking in first. After they have done that we can discuss raising taxes. Remember raising taxes on the so called rich will not solve the hole of debt they, both republicans and democrats, have put us in.

So I ask again what do you think the result would be if a poll asked if the people wanted Congress to cut all of the waste and eliminate programs that were unneeded before coming back to the people for more taxes. If you have the polls questions and thay asked that please feel free to let me know the result.

The debt problems facing this nation are so large that being fair will no longer be an option. Taxes for medicare and Social Security will go up. Benefits for those programs will go down. God help us if we have to pay for Obamacare also. The time for politically correct sound bites has passed and the only group that is trying to change from politics as usual is the tea party so be careful when you criticize them based on comments from someone that is protecting the status quo.

Bigtex:
My belief in how people feel is not based on anything but my opinion and conversations with people I know which I have more faith in than some that post here. Yes I know that is also biased because most of the people I associate with are rational. Originally Posted by Laz

So you'll determine the opinion of 350million people based on your 6 person focus group? You call that rational?

If I had the money or desire I could easily craete 23 polls that support me.

Spoken like a person who is bitter over the results of those 23 polls. A true rational person (as you claim to be), rather than blindly criticizing the results of 23 professionally done polls, would at least cite examples indicating why they're problematic.

You did not address what you think the results would be if my question was asked you just keep pushing the same idiocy of the Democratic party.

First, none of the 23 polls were sanctioned by the Democratic party, so continually citing them is not "pushing the same idiocy of the Democratic party". Any rational person would see that. Secondly, while i'll concede that your question would deliver the result you'd want to hear, your question is clearly the sort of question you'd be whining about. Again, any rational person can see that.

Here's a gallup question:

"As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of both. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit?"

Sounds about as balanced as you can get. So, your problem with that is....????

How about letting Congress and the president act resposibly before we discuss how they can steal more money from the citizens. That is doing something. How about throwing out idiots that are more interested in pushing their agenda and beliefs down the throat of the people regardless of the cost or even if it is a good idea. There are people in both parties that fit that description with Obama being one of the worst.

We have been doing the same thing for decades and expecting different results. We cannot expect elected officials to be resposible. They have proven they are not. We need to have lagal constraints such as a balanced budget amendment to force responsible behavior. Originally Posted by Laz

Let’s see.

You think the Bush tax cuts were responsible acts, regardless of a two front war and the prescription plan for Medicare? $3-5 trillion in lost revenue over 10 years (many different totals given. These are middlish)
You see if they weren’t (tax cuts) responsible, we could allow them to lapse, and start collecting the revenue that the tax rate left in place by the last fiscally responsible administration. The Clinton administration. If you don’t support going back to what worked, most of your arguments fall apart and you want:
So let's just say "fuck it!" and not try anything.

Since anything we do will only really help the people in power, let's just wait another year and a half. Yeah, that's it. We'll just keep on keepin' on

Most of the tea party people I know have the “balanced budget” thing. Sounds simple I know but what they really mean is a rider that says a simple majority can cut taxes but it takes a super majority (66%) to repeal such cuts. A kind of “Republican Pork”. Is that a requirement for you too?

A couple of other things. The other 2 legs of your position won’t work either. One is the “cut spending with no new revenue will work”. The other, “throwing them all out” won’t work either. Think Russia at the beginning of hostilities with Germany (WWII) After they had been purging their senior military officers for numerous years. That worked well.

As for polls, no one said they were fact if taken question by question out of context from the larger picture. Since you don’t have the time or money to produce results that support your position produce that result using any of the questions found on any of the polls. Once again Rasmussen is the key. They are the best at calling elections but in the pack with the rest on opinions. If you lost with them, you lost. These poll organizations didn’t modify their methodology for just this poll.

Should have asked how you feel about birth certificates. Any remark on Obama’s?

I was not a fan of Bush's overspending anymore than I am of Obama's. I would love to go back to Clinton and the republican Congress he had. They were the last ones to act responsibly because they countered each others excesses and were still pragmatic.

I am not a fan of doing nothing I am a fan of doing things that will help the economy. The problem is that anything Obama has proposed that I can thik of at the moment is bad for the economy and the Senate can't even pass a budget. We may have no choice but to wait.

On the balanced budget my only requirement is that they do it. I like the idea that it takes 66% to spend money. If the idea is not good enough to get that kind of support it should not be done. Before you ask, no I am not stuck on 66% but some number greater than 50% would be good. Whoes pork you get changes as the majority party changes. The objective is to quit getting anyones pork.

One more time I am not saying to never raise taxes. Before this is over that will probably be necessary. I am just saying that we should do that last not first. If Congres has more money they will waste it and we will still be in a debt nightmare. Make them face the debt problem first.

As for they polls I am simply stating that how the questions are asked will drive the results. I do not care about the 23 polls or who ran them.

And finally I could not care less about Obama's birth certificate. I just do not understand why he let this issue drag out as long as he did. But either way I did not care.

And finally I could not care less about Obama's birth certificate. I just do not understand why he let this issue drag out as long as he did. But either way I did not care. Originally Posted by Laz

He dealt with it 3 times. The first time in June, 2008. He never should have addressed it again.

PS Thank you for answering my questions and not doing the tap dance thing.

Instead of raising Buffet's taxes, lets bring his secretary's down. Raising Buffet won't help her. Originally Posted by SkyDriver

And cutting hers won't help the deficit.

So let's just say "fuck it!" and not try anything. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

there is a basic difference on what we each think needs to be tried. tax and spend has been tried till here we are. cut needs to be tried,,actual cutting. in out current situation taxing is like a drowning man finding a rope and theres no one on the other end. its a plop of a few drops in the vast ocean. the issue is we cannot tax enough to make one bit of difference in our downward trajectory, in adding to the mounding debt, in turning the country around. the next ten years we only add 7 trillion to the debt instead of 10? what? holding the line holds the people in washingtons feet to the fire.

I think that the focus on the debt ceiling and on spending cuts is the new thing being tried.

You just waxed lyrical on a set of lines to totally confuse the issue. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

glad you liked it, wrote it myself. but it isnt meant to confuse. the focus on taxing is what is confusing the public when the focus should be on spending.

The issue isn't that the rich don't pay their fair share. The issue is where can we get the money we need. Who can afford to pay more than their fair share and suffer the smallest injury?

How quickly they forget. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

you see, i think that if we had our spending under control and a required, true, balanced budget with targets to meet over time so that the balancing was something that occurred over a period of time and then taxes were truly needed, well thats the time a leader of the American people could convince me. but i think if we had all that, the economy would take off and growth would handle a lot of our needs. the issue is applying pressure on the idiots in washington.

Washington is full of drunks .. they need more money like an alcoholic needs more alcohol. The only cure is to take away the alcohol. The only way to control government is to starve it and get debt truly scary enough so the people will rise up and stop it.

Washington is full of drunks .. they need more money like an alcoholic needs more alcohol. The only cure is to take away the alcohol. The only way to control government is to starve it and get debt truly scary enough so the people will rise up and stop it. Originally Posted by SkyDriver

That is simply not true. The US is a low tax country. Among the lowest in the developed world.



And note that with the exception f Switzerland and Australia, the other low tax countries -- Japan, Spain, Ireland, and Greece -- are all having (or had) financial problems.

And cutting hers won't help the deficit. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

neither will raising buffets under buffets proposal

And note that with the exception f Switzerland and Australia, the other low tax countries -- Japan, Spain, Ireland, and Greece -- are all having (or had) financial problems. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well there ya have it; Australia is proof that our taxes are just too damn high!

neither will raising buffets under buffets proposal Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Sure it will. Note that I said "help." It will help balance the budget. And since the elderly, the poor, and children consume a disproportionate share of government service that will inevitably be cut in reducing the deficit, it will most importantly more fairly distribute the burden of reducing the budget deficit.

Let's do everthing possible to keep it that way.

You can tax the wealthy at 100% and it still wouldn't take care of the spending problem.

IT's THE SPENDING STUPID!

You can tax the wealthy at 100% and it still wouldn't take care of the spending problem.

IT's THE SPENDING STUPID! Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

We spent to damn much on your education if you actually believe that it is only a spending problem