Mr. Buffett for Prez!!!!

voiceofreason wrote:

What is the difference if welfare goes to a crack whore or to a bliilionaire???

NOTHING, so I ask, WTF are you talking about? Name ONE time I have advocated welfare for ANY one? Making up bullshit to make you feel better about your nonsensical stance is still bullshit!

voiceofreason wrote:

You seem to be all in favor of continuing to write a check on my bank account to make sure that your mythical trickle down job scheme may some day happen. Tell me ONE TIME it has???

As I mentioned above, name ONE time I have advocated 'writing checks' from the government to ANYONE? One more time, in order for the government to write a check......although a tax cut is NOT the same as writing a check in the real world, not sure about in your little socialist utopia.......it must first take by FORCE from someone else. That or go deeper in debt. Neither option is wise or prudent. Neither one protects individual liberty. Can you explain how a tax cut costs you so much as one penny? You seem to actually believe the money a billionaire EARNS is the governments and only by the governments good graces is the billionaire 'allowed' to keep any of what he has EARNED. That is Marx type of thinking......just saying.

voiceofreason wrote:

Damn!! I am fully aware of the blinders I have on. You my friend are not.
Not saying this to be insulting I just really want to know why it is alright to provide for the billionaire at my expense and not anybody else??

I realize we all have biased views, the only thing insulting from you is how ignorant and inane your views are. Let me clear this up for you my mentally and vertically challenged friend: I am NOT in support of corporate welfare, I am NOT for subsidies, I am NOT for bailouts for ANY company no matter how small or big they are (NO company is 'too big to fail' as far as I am concerned). I am NOT for big government, whether it is sold as a means of 'equality', for our own 'safety', for our own good because we are too dumb/weak to survive w/o the blessed government, or for ANY BULLSHIT reason. The bigger the government, the more tyrannical it MUST be, the less free the people MUST be, and the more corrupt those running WILL be. History has born this out REPEATEDLY, yet 'progressives' are so damn arrogant they believe they can change human nature and the Laws of Nature because they are so damn smart.

this guy gets it
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110824_336_0_BROKEN695237

"Name ONE time I have advocated welfare for ANY one? Making up bullshit to make you feel better about your nonsensical stance is still bullshit!"

Hows this
"The rich, if taxed at higher rates will either stop earning as much, at least on paper, or pass it on to the middle/lower classes via less spending at businesses owned/operated/employed by middle/low class citizens, they will higher even fewer people, they will go off-shore at higher rates than what we have now, or they will simply say they have enough and hang out at the beach house."

All while enjoying the lowest taxes in the last half century... SMFH???
Damn they are probably pissed they didn't get a happy ending with their massage.

At least in "Public School" I was taught the difference between "Higher" and Hire.

Like I said we all have our blinders... You brand me a Socialist while at the same time acting as a huge proponent of upward wealth re distribution. You are simply to self smarted to see it. No offense intended just saying.

Now your Tea Bagging group of Taliban Congressmen are foaming at the mouth
to get back the 2.5% tax break BARRY FRICKEN OBAMA gave to those earning less than $106,000.00 per year via the payroll tax break... SMFH again???

You support these bought and paid for puppets!!! You cling to an economic myth
that has time and time again proven to do considerable damage.

Once the upper class doesn't need to drive on our roads, call our cops, use our infrastructure to do business or send hundreds of thousands of my middle class
brothers and sisters over to a desert shithole to provide for their way of life they can pay less than me, you or the man or woman over there in a Humvee.

Let them take their asses over to Somalia, I hear their is one hell of a market for
boat rentals and bottled water. True unregulated capitalist nirvana.

voiceofreason wrote:

"Name ONE time I have advocated welfare for ANY one? Making up bullshit to make you feel better about your nonsensical stance is still bullshit!"

Hows this
"The rich, if taxed at higher rates will either stop earning as much, at least on paper, or pass it on to the middle/lower classes via less spending at businesses owned/operated/employed by middle/low class citizens, they will higher even fewer people, they will go off-shore at higher rates than what we have now, or they will simply say they have enough and hang out at the beach house."

So much compost, so little space to respond.....but, lets give it a try. A tax cut is NOT welfare! It is 'allowing' a person, and YES a business is made of persons......to keep more of HIS money. You are more confused than I thought!!!!

voiceofreason wrote:

All while enjoying the lowest taxes in the last half century... SMFH???
Damn they are probably pissed they didn't get a happy ending with their massage.

You should run for office, you can spin the meadow muffins as well as anyone. Question: what was the tax rate in 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940? Was it higher or lower than today? Was this nation in more or less debt then than now? Were we more/less productive? Were businesses moving off-shore like they are now? You keep making the absurd assertion that the government owns everything, and anything the people get is welfare!

voiceofreason wrote:

At least in "Public School" I was taught the difference between "Higher" and Hire.

Too funny! Did you come up with that all on your own?

voiceofreason wrote:

Like I said we all have our blinders... You brand me a Socialist while at the same time acting as a huge proponent of upward wealth re distribution. You are simply to self smarted to see it. No offense intended just saying.

Again, name when I have advocated wealth redistribution..... Tax rates are not redistribution's, they are the rate at which the government TAKES by FORCE from the people. Where they spend that TAKEN money is how wealth is redistributed. Remember the incident with Obama and Joe the plumber, you know....where Barry said we NEED to redistribute the wealth. I guess you ignore little things like FACTS, eh?

voiceofreason wrote:

Now your Tea Bagging group of Taliban Congressmen are foaming at the mouth
to get back the 2.5% tax break BARRY FRICKEN OBAMA gave to those earning less than $106,000.00 per year via the payroll tax break... SMFH again???

Tell me ONE time where during a DEPRESSION raising ANY taxes has helped? If the debt ceiling is raised, if the tax rates are raised, the deficit will INCREASE not decrease. Why you ask? Because the greedy SOB's in Congress see it as a blank check. Never has the deficit been reduced simply by raising taxes, NEVER! The problem is NOT the money coming in, it is the money going out and the money being printed out of thin air. You want to reduce the debt, do two simple things; 1)Eliminate the fiat currency system. 2)Reduce taxes/regulations. It has happened MANY times. What you are advocating is repeating the IDIOTIC policies of FDR, which prolonged and worsened the Great Depression.

voiceofreason wrote:

You support these bought and paid for puppets!!! You cling to an economic myth
that has time and time again proven to do considerable damage.

You are mistaken, I don't by into Keynesian Economics, that is your realm. I support the Austrian Theory of Economics, which has proven to be CORRECT over and over and over and over again.

voiceofreason wrote:

Once the upper class doesn't need to drive on our roads, call our cops, use our infrastructure to do business or send hundreds of thousands of my middle class
brothers and sisters over to a desert shithole to provide for their way of life they can pay less than me, you or the man or woman over there in a Humvee.

I say bring them all home, regardless of what class they come from. You see, it is progressives who LOVE to wage class warfare, pitting the lower/middle classes against the wealthy. Last I checked, we are ALL 'brothers and sisters'. You seem to be like John Edwards and see two Americas. Here is a nugget for you to chew on, the majority of billionaires in the country are progressives....

voiceofreason wrote:

Let them take their asses over to Somalia, I hear their is one hell of a market for
boat rentals and bottled water. True unregulated capitalist nirvana.

You are truly ignorant on what capitalism is....sad that so many people are clueless and ignorant. It makes it far too easy to manipulate them via the media. You are a progressive politician's wet dream.

I'd bet within half a day in a blind I could get your head out of your ass... It may take a winch and a team of horses
but I think I can get r done

Allowing a certain class to not contribute at the same rate as the rest is WELFARE... Any way you slice it.
Plain and simple end of discussion. Just like asking one group to pay more is providing a subsidy to those
that do not.

I fully understand now exactly where you are coming from. It's back to the Libertarian philosophy.
I should have known better.

Do away with Govt. Do away with taxes TAKEN BY FORCE from you, Do away with infrastructure, Do away with
the military and on and on.

So what exactly is worth being taxed for???

voiceofreason wrote:

...Do away with Govt. Do away with taxes TAKEN BY FORCE from you, Do away with infrastructure, Do away with
the military and on and on.

So what exactly is worth being taxed for???

You're close. Again, read the Constitution, especially those pesky first 10 AMENDMENTS. You'll find that only the Military, post office and regulation of commerce between states (meaning the elimination of anti-trade laws between said states) is expressly allowed. Read amendment 10 for all other activities.
If states want infrastructure, comprehensive health care, homosexual marriage, legalized pot, or some kind of retirement program, that's up to them but the federal government is expressly forbidden from that kind of intrusion.

So all you need is the military and the choice of buying Wyoming beer if you so choose right???


EDIT.. Sorry I forgot the post office.

voiceofreason wrote:

So all you need is the military and the choice of buying Wyoming beer if you so choose right???


EDIT.. Sorry I forgot the post office.

And that military needs to be on our borders, not overseas.

voiceofreason wrote:

Allowing a certain class to not contribute at the same rate as the rest is WELFARE... Any way you slice it.
Plain and simple end of discussion. Just like asking one group to pay more is providing a subsidy to those
that do not.

I fully understand now exactly where you are coming from. It's back to the Libertarian philosophy.
I should have known better.

Do away with Govt. Do away with taxes TAKEN BY FORCE from you, Do away with infrastructure, Do away with
the military and on and on.

So what exactly is worth being taxed for???

Tax rates are NOT welfare! And progressive tax rates are certainly not welfare for those in the higher tax brackets. Are you actually claiming you pay a higher percentage of your income at the end of the day than someone making $1M+? If so, WTF are you smoking?

Its not a libertarian philosophy I come from, its a adhering to the CONSTITUTION that I come from........crazy I know. I am NOT for doing away with government, I am for doing away from tyrannical government, from government that usurps its will on individuals/states, from government that tries to turn the world into one big democracy. I am for taxes at the federal level as long as they are used for the expressed purposes cited in the CONSTITUTION and the Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 Amendments FYI), and NOTHING else. FatBass explained the specifics very well. I realize to people like you and Obama the CONSTITUTION is 'just paper' that is 'living' and can be twisted and ignored at will, but it served this nation very well.

At the state and local level, I say let the people residing in the state/county/city decide what is 'worth' being taxed for above and beyond what the CONSTITUTION spells out for the federal government. Then, those people like you that want a nanny state can live in such Utopias, and those like me that want Liberty can vote with our feet and move to where Liberty is placed above so-called 'equality'.

fatbass wrote:

And that military needs to be on our borders, not overseas.

A-FREAKING-MEN!

"Are you actually claiming you pay a higher percentage of your income at the end of the day than someone making $1M+? If so, WTF are you smoking?"


http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html


Although this article is from that Left Liberal Rag Forbes the data is good.

WTF are you smoking???

"At the state and local level, I say let the people residing in the state/county/city decide what is 'worth' being taxed for above and beyond what the CONSTITUTION spells out for the federal government. Then, those people like you that want a nanny state can live in such Utopias, and those like me that want Liberty can vote with our feet and move to where Liberty is placed above so-called 'equality'."

Curious as to how you would rate liberty in Utah???

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/27/millionaire-owner-of-hr-block-wants-to-pay-more-taxes/

bottom of the page, watch the video PROphylactic.

There is no prohibition against paying more taxes if he so chooses, in fact it would be a great patriotic act if billionaires gave more freely to good causes. Taxes were totally voluntary for years so the richest always gave more than the working class.
I prefer the right to NOT have my income confiscated and given to causes that steal my rights (homeland security for one) and further enslave the citizenry, current or future (welfare, corporate or otherwise).

Bassy you silly ass... Don't you have enough sense to realize that everything you are against, high taxes, welfare, and subsidies are the exact same things you are
enabling for those that have absolutely no need for???

Ya call me a pinhead???

High taxes?? Yep you and I pay more cause they don't.

Subsidies??? What % did Exxon kick in last year??? How big of a check did you and I write to them??

Welfare??? Paying 15% on dividends and derivatives??

This shit would be comical if it wasn't so damn sad!!!

So you replied with absolutely no substance.... Well except the part about most of you thinking I'm a pinhead... I wear that proudly with the logic and common sense around this gang of numbnuts'

voiceofreason wrote:

"Are you actually claiming you pay a higher percentage of your income at the end of the day than someone making $1M+? If so, WTF are you smoking?"

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html

Did you actually read this article? If so, why would you post this as 'evidence' that the wealthy pay less taxes than you/me? From the article, the summation of it:

Quote :

The result: the top 5% of earners--those with an adjusted gross income of $153,542 or more--now pay a higher effective tax rate than the top 400.

So, since according to Forbes list, which is completely subjective, the richest 400 Americans pay slightly lower tax rates than the rest of the WEALTHIEST 5% of Americans. And, some how this proves that the wealthy pay less than those making minimum wage......talk about being a numbnut!

voiceofreason wrote:

Curious as to how you would rate liberty in Utah???

I would rate Utah in the top 10%, but nowhere near where it could/should be. But, in reality it is a mute point, we have a tyrannical federal government that is dictating to the states, which is assbackward of how it is supposed to be. The federal government has ONE purpose, and ONE purpose ONLY: To protect the states and individuals liberties and rights. That is ALL. If the federal government were to stick to its proper role, then the states could be held more accountable, since then people could vote with their feet and dwell in the state/city that reflects their values the closest. With such policies as Obamacare, NCLB, EPA policies, ESA policies, how can an individual escape tyranny?

Guess who's company owes BACK TAXES??????








http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-suporter-warren-buffetts-co-hasnt-paid-some-taxes-since-2002/

Wouldn't be the first time Obama associated himself with tax cheats.......



"Paging Timothy to front desk......You have a call from the President....."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0822/US-should-raise-taxes-to-help-fix-deficits-say-business-economists

From CSM

Here's the latest on Buffet. TYPICAL lefty doesn't pay his taxes.

"Buffet recently purchased a large stake in Bank of America just as the government is quietly crafting a plan for another bank bailout. This potential bailout would give nearly a trillion dollars worth of foreclosed homes to banks and investment firms for pennies on the dollar. Coincidence? I doubt it. Our team is investigating the plan and will have more information to you shortly.

But here's the main thing: Warren Buffett owes back taxes going back to 2002! His corporation, Berkshire Hathaway, has unresolved tax issues that go back almost a decade!

It's a free country, and Warren Buffett is free to voice his support for Pres. Obama. He's also free to try to keep his company's taxes as low as possible. In fact, I'd expect nothing less from someone who has acquired the wealth that Mr. Buffett has over his lifetime. That being said, it's blatantly disingenuous to claim that you want to pay higher taxes when, in fact, you owe the IRS for almost 10 years of tax revenue!"

http://www.westernpac.org/

voiceofreason wrote:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0822/US-should-raise-taxes-to-help-fix-deficits-say-business-economists

From CSM

Ah, the good old Christian Scientist Monitor, a left wing rag. There are so many flaws in this article I don't know where to start. Let's just say these same economists cited in the article are the ones who called for TARP, called for QE1 and QE2, said there was no housing bubble, in other words they have been wrong far more often than not, and yet people still listen to them. They come from the same line of thinking as Krugman, and his track record is pathetic. Keynesian economics have been wrong on every major issue since My Keynes spewed his theories out several decades ago. From FDR on, this line of thought has been disastrous and has made the economy worse, and has hurt the middle/poor classes the hardest.

Buffet owes about a BILLION......

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-much-is-buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-back-tax-bill-exactly-about-1-billion/

VOR, Are you sure you want this guy to be President?

Looks to me, like he doesn't know two shits about anything he talks about when it comes to taxes......