Jump to content

Buffett Offers GOP Donation Challenge


dcollon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wish WEB would leave the cheap political stunts to the politicians. 

 

A dollar for dollar match (or $3 in the case of McConnell) when his net worth is $60bln doesn't look like a good faith proposal to me.  How about a challenge to match a donation based on a percentage of McConnells vs. WEBs net worth?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish WEB would leave the cheap political stunts to the politicians. 

 

A dollar for dollar match (or $3 in the case of McConnell) when his net worth is $60bln doesn't look like a good faith proposal to me.  How about a challenge to match a donation based on a percentage of McConnells vs. WEBs net worth?

 

it's for show. why? because no republican is going to reach into his wallet and give money to the US Gov. Buffett is just trying to get them to shut up.

 

Yup.  Ever since he expressed his displeasure in tax rates, the GOP has been on his case saying "Well, why don't you donate your money then to the government".  He's just pointing out, as blatantly as he can, that the GOP talks a big game but are as selfish as the Democrats and won't shell out a dollar.  Both parties like pointing out each other's follies, but neither is willing to make sacrifices for the good of the country until push comes to shove.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"it's for show. why? because no republican is going to reach into his wallet and give money to the US Gov. Buffett is just trying to get them to shut up."

 

-Let me understand this, Peter Burke, CEO. People who think the Federal Government spends too much money and has too much power should reach into their own pocket and pay more money. And this is because Warren Buffett, he of donating most of his fortune to the Gates Foundation before he dies, so that in his own words, it gets used properly and for a good use, as opposed to that same huge FEDERAL leviathon he professes to support, makes them a bet? I think Warren does not understand the thinking of the Republican Party. He may think it is wrong, but this bet is just silly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He's just pointing out, as blatantly as he can, that the GOP talks a big game but are as selfish as the Democrats and won't shell out a dollar."

 

-You can classify the GOP as selfish if you like, I don't want to pay more because I think I pay enough already. And I would like to keep more so that I could make sure my children get a better education, or I can put some more into my 401K, or I can plan to have a Long-Term care insurance policy in place for when I get older. I DO NOT want to rely on the largesse of these turds from both parties to give me a pittance in 30 years when i look to retire, or simply work less!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you have to call Republicans "dolts". They believe (or the voters in their districts do) the Federal government is too big and too powerful. One of the ways to reduce it is to cut spending for things the Federal government should not be responsible for. Is that not a valid discussion to have? You have for this year, about a $1.3 trillion deficit. They think it is too big, and they think that the PEOPLE already pay enough. Expenditures need to be cut.

 

Again, WEB donated a vast chunk of his fortune, because they will do a better job of spending the money than the Federal government would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side says we should cut expenditures first, because that is where the main problem lies.

 

The other side says we need more revenue, because all of these programs are VITAL!

 

Let each side run on their beliefs, and let's see who would win. Quick question: Should we keep taking money from the Social Security program, which is what has been happening with that cut in the FICA tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side says we should cut expenditures first, because that is where the main problem lies.

 

The other side says we need more revenue, because all of these programs are VITAL!

 

Let each side run on their beliefs, and let's see who would win. Quick question: Should we keep taking money from the Social Security program, which is what has been happening with that cut in the FICA tax?

 

I think it's more like one side wants to increase revenue and make large cuts and the other side refuses to any increases in revenue whatsoever (didn't all the candidates refuse 10:1 in the debate?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple act of Buffett donating so much money to Bill Gates and his childrens foundations is the clearest example of his disillusionment in the manner which government spends taxpayer money. Yet now he is challenging Republicans in Congress to go against their thinking, as well as his own!??

 

Could it be because the Gates Foundation is tackling issues that the Federal government isn't?  Population growth, malaria, providing resources for the education of 3rd world children? 

 

Buffett is on the record, as this thread states, that he is more than willing to pay more tax to alleviate the issues the United States is facing.  He's not asking someone like yourself or myself to contribute more.  He's asking for a certain subset of the population to contribute, where there is a clear inequity in the way the system is benefitting them due more to luck and wiring, than the beneficence of God's will, talent or work ethic.  He's not asking anyone to do more than him. 

 

And let's not fool ourselves into thinking the GOP is interested in cutting costs.  They will spend themselves, be it through reduced corporate taxes, a war in Iran or what have you.  Do you really think that Mitt, Newt, Santorum et al are any different than the Democrats?  Clowns the whole lot of them!  They will chew each others bones just to get an edge over the other.  Only Ron Paul is showing any backbone or class, and he kind of screwed himself over with the whole newsletter thing. 

 

As unemployment continues to go down over the next few months, and the Republicans continue to kill each other, it looks more and more likely that Obama is going to pull a Clinton and get a second term.  Cheers!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that both Parties are irresponsible idiots. However, I would rather have the party that openly wants to reduce taxes and gov't spending, then the one that wants to clearly raise taxes and increase gov't spending. My interest as an individual taxpayer is to keep as much of my hard earned dollars as possible, period. The more money I have, the greater my wealth, the less dependent I will be on gov't largesse, the more FREEDOM I will enjoy.  I believe this is a rational, irrefutable, logical position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southern Yankee: I think that you overestimate the intelligence of most of the republicans in congress.

 

Parsad: Ron Paul is the solution. (I say this as a jab, as, I would imagine that you are not a fan, but, I really do like the guy...)

 

Hi Ragnar,

 

I actually like the guy too.  Perhaps, he's going a bit extreme on the reductions he wants to make, but at least he's moving in the right direction, not playing partisian politics, and remaining above the fray of the Republican party egos.  Funny how the guy who really started "The Tea Party" is the one that the Republicans, especially tea partiers, don't want to vote for.  I think Jon Stewart said it best yesterday..."It's really striking how far the Republican party has gone from its true roots."  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to hear some of the guys on this board like Ron Paul aswell. He is the only guy who actually has something to say (role of government, constitution, etc.), while all the rest seem to be giving the usual rhetoric "go go go, whoora whoora, take back the white house, time for change" stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread reminded me of a quote I read that seems appropriate

 

"Democrats spend your money while raising taxes, Republicans spend your money while raising deficits"

 

I wish there was a candidate who didn't just believe the party line, I realize this is what's required to get elected, but I still wish it.  The problem I see is that the country's problems aren't solved by a Republican or Democrat idea, you really need some out of the box thinking.  Ron Paul at least is willing to be out of the box which is more than anyone else.  But either way I'm not very hopefully that anything will change.

 

While we're on politics I am always fascinated that people get so involved in watching national politics yet those are the ones that will probably have the least impact.  At the same time the local stuff, school districts, townships all of that is ignored yet that could have the biggest day to day impact on a person's life.  It just seems switched, if the local school board destroys the school system I could have trouble selling my house vs some bill that decreases military spending in 2017.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I believe that both Parties are irresponsible idiots. However, I would rather have the party that openly wants to reduce taxes and gov't spending, then the one that wants to clearly raise taxes and increase gov't spending. My interest as an individual taxpayer is to keep as much of my hard earned dollars as possible, period. The more money I have, the greater my wealth, the less dependent I will be on gov't largesse, the more FREEDOM I will enjoy.  I believe this is a rational, irrefutable, logical position."

-This is a pretty good summation of how I personally think. And when oddballstocks wrote, "Democrats spend your money while raising taxes, Republicans spend your money while raising deficits", unfortunately this is how the Republican brand has just about ruined itself. They did not live up to their principles. Oddball also mentioned how people do NOT get involved locally. That is actually where the Tea Party is concentrating their power, hopefully that effort will lead to more freedom for ALL people. (this is my opinion, thanks for allowing me to express it!)

One other note: While I like Ron Paul and some of his stated domestic policies, I will not support him in the Republican primaries. I do not think the time is right for him. And I also beg to differ on him starting "The Tea Party". I have to give that credit to the Koch Brothers! ;D 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread reminded me of a quote I read that seems appropriate

 

"Democrats spend your money while raising taxes, Republicans spend your money while raising deficits"

 

 

I would put it differently.  Both parties believe in compromise.  The Democrats want to raise taxes and increase the size of government.  Being compromisers they willingly dropped the raise taxes part.  Republicans want to shrink government and lower taxes.  Being compromisers they willingly dropped the shrink government part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put it differently.  Both parties believe in compromise.  The Democrats want to raise taxes and increase the size of government.  Being compromisers they willingly dropped the raise taxes part.  Republicans want to shrink government and lower taxes.  Being compromisers they willingly dropped the shrink government part.

 

And it's the complete opposite with social issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interest as an individual taxpayer is to keep as much of my hard earned dollars as possible, period. The more money I have, the greater my wealth, the less dependent I will be on gov't largesse, the more FREEDOM I will enjoy.  I believe this is a rational, irrefutable, logical position.

 

The refutation is that, as income inequality gets too high, the poor/middle class will rise up and kill the upper class.  This is very bad for you. 

 

There are also other bad things, like lack of roads making commerce hard, lack of laws and police making avoiding being beaten up, robbed, and raped more likely, and various things like death and various hardships resulting from negative externalities.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... as income inequality gets too high, the poor/middle class will rise up and kill the upper class.   

 

In America, mob violence has never really gained traction in advancing causes.  Peaceful demonstrations are typically much more effective.  Desite breathless cheerleading on the part of many in the media, the OWS protests lost credibility with the populace when violence ensued.  The opposite occured with the non-violent tea party protests.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refutation is that, as income inequality gets too high, the poor/middle class will rise up and kill the upper class.  This is very bad for you. 

 

I do not believe Income Inequality is a concept that should be addressed by our gov't. What does it mean, that I have more income or wealth then my neighbor???  So what!!!  Does that mean that the gov't now comes knocking on my door to take part of my wealth and give it to my neighbor so we are all equal??  It may sound simplistic but this is exactly what the current administration is advocating. In my opinion the concept has no place in America and is contrary to what our founding fathers fought for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my observation lately that states that have high re-distribution (California) some common services like roads are worse than in states that have less re-distribution (Arizona & Texas).  If anyone has driven in the Calif/Ariz/Nev region you know what I mean.

 

Packer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my observation lately that states that have high re-distribution (California) some common services like roads are worse than in states that have less re-distribution (Arizona & Texas).  If anyone has driven in the Calif/Ariz/Nev region you know what I mean.

 

Packer

Correlation does not imply causation. There are other factors at play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my observation lately that states that have high re-distribution (California) some common services like roads are worse than in states that have less re-distribution (Arizona & Texas).  If anyone has driven in the Calif/Ariz/Nev region you know what I mean.

 

Packer

 

Interesting observation. I'm curious about what defines California as a state with high redistribution for you. Is it the state tax? Self employed tax? Rate of pay / pension for public workers? Something else altogether?

 

Cheers,

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say when you pay prison guards a 3X salary as a pension then that defines redistribution for me. 

 

I have also noticed the same road contrast over the years and say its spot on.  If anyone drives I-80 on the way to (or from) Reno into California, you will know what I mean.

 

 

Cheers

JEast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...