Liberty Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/buffett-should-just-write-a-check-and-shut-up-governor-christie-says.html More demagogery ::) Doubt he's telling people talking about issues he agrees with to shut up..
enoch01 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/buffett-should-just-write-a-check-and-shut-up-governor-christie-says.html More demagogery ::) Doubt he's telling people talking about issues he agrees with to shut up.. Christie took difficult, unpopular steps to try and right New Jersey's finances. He's earned some goodwill to discuss this issue publicly. Buffett chooses to use his wealth to farcically goad senators, who've never agreed that sending more money to Washington is the solution to the nation's problems, instead of writing a check to the Treasury. He knows they won't take him up on the offer, but he also knows they don't agree with his premise. So who is being a demagogue, again?
hardincap Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/buffett-should-just-write-a-check-and-shut-up-governor-christie-says.html More demagogery ::) Doubt he's telling people talking about issues he agrees with to shut up.. Christie took difficult, unpopular steps to try and right New Jersey's finances. He's earned some goodwill to discuss this issue publicly. Buffett chooses to use his wealth to farcically goad senators, who've never agreed that sending more money to Washington is the solution to the nation's problems, instead of writing a check to the Treasury. He knows they won't take him up on the offer, but he also knows they don't agree with his premise. So who is being a demagogue, again? im always surprised when people use the "if he wants others to help, he should jsut write a check himself!" argument. the point of policy is to achieve critical mass in order to make a difference in scale. i like christie but its pretty disappointing to see him say something so asinine
SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 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.
Liberty Posted February 22, 2012 Author Posted February 22, 2012 Christie took difficult, unpopular steps to try and right New Jersey's finances. He's earned some goodwill to discuss this issue publicly. Someone doing something right doesn't mean that when he does something wrong it doesn't count.
ERICOPOLY Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 I believe people like Christie believe spending is the main problem, not the taking of more money from productive citizens. Well, he chose to cut the income tax instead of the property tax. I'm not sure it's motivated by keeping money in the hands of the productive. Unless lower income people are legitimately less productive.
enoch01 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Christie took difficult, unpopular steps to try and right New Jersey's finances. He's earned some goodwill to discuss this issue publicly. Someone doing something right doesn't mean that when he does something wrong it doesn't count. Of course, that is trivially true.
SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Ericopoly, There are certain restrictions imposed by the NJ Supreme Court (some say unconstitutionally, as theirjob is not to determine what amount is constitutional),which bind the hands of the Governor and legislator when it comes to spending on education. His choice of lowering the income tax instead of the property tax is directly related to those restrictions. It also has nothing to do with the policies of the Federal Government, not really sure why you would bring it up.
ERICOPOLY Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 It also has nothing to do with the policies of the Federal Government, not really sure why you would bring it up. It has nothing to do with Nicaragua, not really sure why you would bring it up. (I didn't mention the Federal Government) Regarding the property taxes... does the NJ Supreme Court also prevent him from pushing for a tax credit on the state income tax return? A tax credit in recognition of property taxes paid. This would still leave some people out (those who pay less income tax than the value of the credit), but it would be relatively more evenly distributed.
Liberty Posted February 22, 2012 Author Posted February 22, 2012 Of course, that is trivially true. I guess remembering the obvious is hard, then, because so many people seem to forget it...
enoch01 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Of course, that is trivially true. I guess remembering the obvious is hard, then, because so many people seem to forget it... Your trivial point was consistent with my argument. I was just being charitable. 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?
SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 "It has nothing to do with Nicaragua, not really sure why you would bring it up. (I didn't mention the Federal Government)" -Ericopoly, The argument Buffett makes is for Federal tax rates, that is why I said it has nothing to do with New Jersey, or Nicaragua, or any other place/thing/entity. Regarding the property taxes, I am at an income level where I just want to keep a higher percentage of my labor, so that I can prepare for my family's education, retirement, health-care bills coming due in the near future. Which one is better for New Jerseyans has nothing to do with this conversation. 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?"
SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 "Buffett chooses to use his wealth to farcically goad senators, who've never agreed that sending more money to Washington is the solution to the nation's problems, instead of writing a check to the Treasury. He knows they won't take him up on the offer, but he also knows they don't agree with his premise. So who is being a demagogue, again?" -A simple enough statement, followed by a simple question. This should not be a contentious issue. State your opinion, backed up with the facts which support it.
Liberty Posted February 22, 2012 Author Posted February 22, 2012 Your trivial point was consistent with my argument. I was just being charitable. 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? Buffett is expressing his point of view as is his right and Christie, a government official, is telling him to "shut up". Whether you agree or disagree with Buffett, I don't see how Christie's behaviour can be defended as being anything other than childish.
Parsad Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Of course, that is trivially true. I guess remembering the obvious is hard, then, because so many people seem to forget it... Your trivial point was consistent with my argument. I was just being charitable. 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? What if Christie said "Buffett should shut up about corporate governance!" Or how about "Buffett should shut up about executive compensation!" Better yet, "Buffett should shut up about politics!" Christie by saying what he is saying is simply choosing to ignore the debate or dicussion. He's saying that Buffett, as a citizen of the country, should not be allowed to voice his opinion about what changes should be made to how the country is governed. He has that right, as does Christie. Whether you agree or disagree with Buffett...Christie's comment was just ridiculously stupid for someone of his position. Cheers!
enoch01 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Christie by saying what he is saying is simply choosing to ignore the debate or dicussion. He's saying that Buffett, as a citizen of the country, should not be allowed to voice his opinion about what changes should be made to how the country is governed. 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. Christie is not ignoring the debate. He's knee-deep in it, as his actions as governor have demonstrated. (not a New Jersey resident, BTW)
JSArbitrage Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 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? 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?
ERICOPOLY Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 The argument Buffett makes is for Federal tax rates, that is why I said it has nothing to do with New Jersey, or Nicaragua, or any other place/thing/entity. Regarding the property taxes, I am at an income level where I just want to keep a higher percentage of my labor, so that I can prepare for my family's education, retirement, health-care bills coming due in the near future. Which one is better for New Jerseyans has nothing to do with this conversation. Here's why I brought it up. 1) Christie is a New Jersey official expressing displeasure with Buffett because Buffett wants to raise the Federal tax burden on the rich 2) Christie practices tax cutting that disproportionally favors the rich in New Jersey. I'm just trying to better understand the animal. I conclude that what bothers him is not just spending as you suggest, but rather he wants the rich to keep more of their winnings (which puts him at odds with Buffett). I established his desire to benefit the rich by introducing his New Jersey income tax cut (other tax cut options were available to him).
Parsad Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 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? 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? +1! Cheers!
Parsad Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 The argument Buffett makes is for Federal tax rates, that is why I said it has nothing to do with New Jersey, or Nicaragua, or any other place/thing/entity. Regarding the property taxes, I am at an income level where I just want to keep a higher percentage of my labor, so that I can prepare for my family's education, retirement, health-care bills coming due in the near future. Which one is better for New Jerseyans has nothing to do with this conversation. Here's why I brought it up. 1) Christie is a New Jersey official expressing displeasure with Buffett because Buffett wants to raise the Federal tax burden on the rich 2) Christie practices tax cutting that disproportionally favors the rich in New Jersey. I'm just trying to better understand the animal. I conclude that what bothers him is not just spending as you suggest, but rather he wants the rich to keep more of their winnings (which puts him at odds with Buffett). I established his desire to benefit the rich by introducing his New Jersey income tax cut (other tax cut options were available to him). Yup! Who's yer daddy? Cheers!
watsa_is_a_randian_hero Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Unless lower income people are legitimately less productive. Well actually, the definition for productivity widely accepted among economists says just that (assuming they work the same number of hours on average). "Workforce productivity is the amount of goods and services that a worker produces in a given amount of time." (the value of those goods & services measured generally in a common currency) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_productivity
enoch01 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 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? 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? There is no analogy here. The debate is over whether the nation's finances should be balanced through increased taxes, decreased spending, or a mix. Buffett is ignoring that issue, and is instead playing a game. Christie is calling him on it.
ERICOPOLY Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Unless lower income people are legitimately less productive. Well actually, the definition for productivity widely accepted among economists says just that (assuming they work the same number of hours on average). "Workforce productivity is the amount of goods and services that a worker produces in a given amount of time." (the value of those goods & services measured generally in a common currency) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_productivity Sadly, I still don't feel productive because this only talks about the productivity of labor (not investment income).
SouthernYankee Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 "What if Christie said "Buffett should shut up about corporate governance!" Or how about "Buffett should shut up about executive compensation!" Better yet, "Buffett should shut up about politics!" -Parsad, You actually prove the point enoch01 (and others) is trying to make. In the area of exec compensation and corporate governance, Buffett has led by example for many years, and in the past 10 years led the fight against stock options and what their costs are. In regards to politics, he should be portrayed as the partisan that he is. Let the media ask him about his support of other Obama/Democratic policies as well, not just talk about money. His image may take a hit if he does that. He has gotten a free ride as the lovable grandfather for a while.
PlanMaestro Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Southern Yankee, have you learned enough to share with us an investment idea?
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