• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will the Democrats have a party after obama?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
hans030390 said:
It sounds like you're taking for granted EVERYTHING the government does for us. Yeah, we need to cut down on spending for certain things...I agree. But all this nonsense about reducing government and cutting spending just doesn't make any sense.

Would you really rather have a private company build your roads? Your parks? Schools that children NEED in order to be competitive in this day and age (we're already quite behind in this area? Would you rather have a private company say who does and does not get medical care simply because of how much they make? You know, the world is not an even playing field. Yes, some people abuse the system, and we should make every effort to get rid of that. But there are countless numbers of people that NEED services that the government provides.

I'm not saying government runs the country perfectly, but I'd sure as hell rather see it running the country than the private sector, which doesn't hide the fact that it's more interested in money than people. That is what will happen if we start cutting government down and reducing spending for the sake of "living within our means".

Based on your analogy, it's actually more like, "Hey, I only have half of a house that is half functioning. I really need more money from you if you want me to, you know, survive so that I can work for you."

Unless you're making a lot of money (you really don't need millions of dollars to live a more-than-comfortable life), Obama isn't out to raise your taxes. He primarily wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, which were meant to be temporary from the start, and end loopholes that allow the rich to end up paying less in taxes than the non-rich.

Here's an idea...get taxes back to how they were in the 90s (which is what Obama wants to do) AND cut spending. Two for one solution to help pay off our debt, which we were WELL on our way to doing in the 90s under Clinton.
Click to expand...

Who the HELL are you to tell me or any other free person how much I need or don't need?

Obama has consistently said he wants to eliminate mortgage interest and charitable deductions for "the rich" which is over 250k according to liberals. It's even in his budget. Are you saying that's a "loophole"? Do you know that everybody can take those deductions and at certain income levels you lose almost ALL deductions, have zero credits and AMT starts creeping in? You're falling for the obama class warfare rhetoric, I can tell it by the way you think.

You want to tank the housing market even more? Yeah, let's get rid of the mortgage interest deduction, GREAT plan you got there Obama!

And just WHY do you think he wants to elminate charity deductions? So people don't give as much to charity and in turn Government is the answer to all wants and needs. This shit is on purpose, and Tax Paying Americans can see right through it.
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
Explain how that's what he is doing.
Click to expand...
Buffett says the government says I now owe X dollars.

Buffett claims to think that his taxes should be higher - i.e. X + Y dollars, where Y is positive and rational.

Buffett is spending a great deal of money fighting to pay X - Z dollars, where Z is positive and rational.

Buffett's actions have the exact opposite of what he SAYS he wants. Although Buffett SAYS he thinks his taxes should be higher, Buffett's ACTIONS SAY he thinks his taxes should be lower. Buffett's mouth says tax me more; Buffett's millions are spent trying to be taxed less. Now, if you are a liberal and logic is extremely difficult, you may see no problem with this; it may seem perfectly natural that Buffett really wants to pay more taxes, but only if he can be cornered and absolutely forced to do so; that there is some magical formula whereupon Buffett can be happy and stop paying lawyers to reduce his tax bill if only the rascally Republicans will let him. If you are not a liberal and logic generally prevails, you will think that if Buffett says he wants to do something he can very easily do and instead tries very hard to do the exact opposite, then Buffett is lying when he says he wants to do that thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of one billionaire paying more taxes, it has to do with basic principles. Liberals (and granted, conservatives to a degree) prefer to lead from the rear, pushing others to make sacrifices that they themselves try hard not to make. A principled person leads from the front, proudly being the first to make the sacrifice he urges others to make. (And let's face it, Buffett paying extra taxes is hardly an onerous sacrifice anyway.)

Again, Buffett is paying lawyers to argue that his taxes are too high. If you think that is consistent with Buffett thinking his taxes are too low, then thinking is not your forte and you should stick with feelings. There are only three logical choices here. One, Buffett is lying out his ass. Two, Buffett is senile or otherwise mentally deficient. Or three, Buffett feels that other billionaires don't pay their fair share even though he personally pays too much - at least according to the IRS. There is no honest way one can think one's taxes should be higher while fighting to make them lower. It simply can't be done.

dank69 said:
Please consider the following analogy:
A man's entire extended family (lets say 20 people) is in the ER watching him bleed out. The doctor informs the family that the man will need 10 pints of blood to sustain him through the surgery that is needed to save his life. What you are saying in the quote above is that if only 1 family member is willing to donate blood to save the dying man's life, he should donate the blood knowing full well that he cannot donate enough blood by himself to save him and the man will die anyway.
Click to expand...
Let's revise that a bit. The doctor informs the family that the man will need 10 pints of blood a day to sustain him through the surgery that is needed to save his life. Each family member must on average donate 1 pint every other day to keep this man alive. Each family member donates blood, the amount being determined by the doctor; no family member is being asked to donate all the blood. The four adult men donate a pint every day, the six adult women donate a pint every two days, the very old, the frail, and the children donate nothing. Together the family is donating only seven pints of blood a day, leaving a deficit that must be borrowed from the blood bank. One family member - let's call him Dick - says that although the smaller members of the family cannot donate more often than every other day, us strapping men can easily donate more than a pint every day.

An admirable Dick will say this as he steps forward to be the first to donate that extra blood.

A weaselly Dick will say this as he attempts to have his current contribution of blood reduced.

Decide for yourself what kind of Dick is Warren Buffett.
 
werepossum said:
Buffett says the government says I now owe X dollars.

Buffett claims to think that his taxes should be higher - i.e. X + Y dollars, where Y is positive and rational.

Buffett is spending a great deal of money fighting to pay X - Z dollars, where Z is positive and rational.

Buffett's actions have the exact opposite of what he SAYS he wants. Although Buffett SAYS he thinks his taxes should be higher, Buffett's ACTIONS SAY he thinks his taxes should be lower. Buffett's mouth says tax me more; Buffett's millions are spent trying to be taxed less. Now, if you are a liberal and logic is extremely difficult, you may see no problem with this; it may seem perfectly natural that Buffett really wants to pay more taxes, but only if he can be cornered and absolutely forced to do so; that there is some magical formula whereupon Buffett can be happy and stop paying lawyers to reduce his tax bill if only the rascally Republicans will let him. If you are not a liberal and logic generally prevails, you will think that if Buffett says he wants to do something he can very easily do and instead tries very hard to do the exact opposite, then Buffett is lying when he says he wants to do that thing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of one billionaire paying more taxes, it has to do with basic principles. Liberals (and granted, conservatives to a degree) prefer to lead from the rear, pushing others to make sacrifices that they themselves try hard not to make. A principled person leads from the front, proudly being the first to make the sacrifice he urges others to make. (And let's face it, Buffett paying extra taxes is hardly an onerous sacrifice anyway.)

Again, Buffett is paying lawyers to argue that his taxes are too high. If you think that is consistent with Buffett thinking his taxes are too low, then thinking is not your forte and you should stick with feelings. There are only three logical choices here. One, Buffett is lying out his ass. Two, Buffett is senile or otherwise mentally deficient. Or three, Buffett feels that other billionaires don't pay their fair share even though he personally pays too much - at least according to the IRS. There is no honest way one can think one's taxes should be higher while fighting to make them lower. It simply can't be done.
Click to expand...

You seriously don't understand this? This can't possibly be simpler. Buffet uses every trick in the book to limit his tax liability to the lowest level allowed by law. Those accountants, lawyers, etc, etc all work to limit his taxes to the lowest LEGAL amount possible under current law. Every person should do this. What Buffet now wants to do is increase the lowest LEGAL amount that someone can pay.

How is it that you don't understand following the law to your best advantage while simultaneously advocating for a change in that law? What is so complex? Do you understand the principle of a collective action problem? I think I've asked you this before, but there's no way you would be saying what you just wrote if you understood what they were.
 
hans030390 said:
It sounds like you're taking for granted EVERYTHING the government does for us. Yeah, we need to cut down on spending for certain things...I agree. But all this nonsense about reducing government and cutting spending just doesn't make any sense.

Would you really rather have a private company build your roads? Your parks? Schools that children NEED in order to be competitive in this day and age (we're already quite behind in this area? Would you rather have a private company say who does and does not get medical care simply because of how much they make? You know, the world is not an even playing field. Yes, some people abuse the system, and we should make every effort to get rid of that. But there are countless numbers of people that NEED services that the government provides.

I'm not saying government runs the country perfectly, but I'd sure as hell rather see it running the country than the private sector, which doesn't hide the fact that it's more interested in money than people. That is what will happen if we start cutting government down and reducing spending for the sake of "living within our means".

Based on your analogy, it's actually more like, "Hey, I only have half of a house that is half functioning. I really need more money from you if you want me to, you know, survive so that I can work for you."

Unless you're making a lot of money (you really don't need millions of dollars to live a more-than-comfortable life), Obama isn't out to raise your taxes. He primarily wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, which were meant to be temporary from the start, and end loopholes that allow the rich to end up paying less in taxes than the non-rich.

Here's an idea...get taxes back to how they were in the 90s (which is what Obama wants to do) AND cut spending. Two for one solution to help pay off our debt, which we were WELL on our way to doing in the 90s under Clinton.
Click to expand...
Man, if I could figure out why liberals are so eager to have government decide what they "need" and to have leaders who force them to make sacrifices the leaders don't make, I'd make a freakin' fortune in self-help books.

I'm all for eliminating the Bush tax cuts - on everyone. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts only for the very rich (of which I am NOT one) is merely another form of demanding that other people exist for my benefit. Just one little thing - I want to see some spending cuts first. Not spending cuts against what you would LIKE to spend, not spending cuts that magically appear, pain free, in some distant future, but spending cuts in what we are spending now. The kind of spending cuts where one actually spends less than before the spending cuts. Then I'll be happy to support the repeal of all the Bush tax cuts and even add a bit onto the highest earners.
 
eskimospy said:
You seriously don't understand this? This can't possibly be simpler. Buffet uses every trick in the book to limit his tax liability to the lowest level allowed by law. Those accountants, lawyers, etc, etc all work to limit his taxes to the lowest LEGAL amount possible under current law. Every person should do this. What Buffet now wants to do is increase the lowest LEGAL amount that someone can pay.

How is it that you don't understand following the law to your best advantage while simultaneously advocating for a change in that law? What is so complex? Do you understand the principle of a collective action problem? I think I've asked you this before, but there's no way you would be saying what you just wrote if you understood what they were.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly the principle of a collective action problem. It's the eternal liberal answer to everything - everyone else should make a sacrifice for me.
 
werepossum said:
...


Let's revise that a bit. The doctor informs the family that the man will need 10 pints of blood a day to sustain him through the surgery that is needed to save his life. Each family member must on average donate 1 pint every other day to keep this man alive. Each family member donates blood, the amount being determined by the doctor; no family member is being asked to donate all the blood. The four adult men donate a pint every day, the six adult women donate a pint every two days, the very old, the frail, and the children donate nothing. Together the family is donating only seven pints of blood a day, leaving a deficit that must be borrowed from the blood bank. One family member - let's call him Dick - says that although the smaller members of the family cannot donate more often than every other day, us strapping men can easily donate more than a pint every day.

An admirable Dick will say this as he steps forward to be the first to donate that extra blood.

A weaselly Dick will say this as he attempts to have his current contribution of blood reduced.

Decide for yourself what kind of Dick is Warren Buffett.
Click to expand...
Of course you understand that in your own scenario, if Dick were to donate the extra pint a day and the other three men were not, then the man would die and Dick donating extra blood would help nothing.

However, for your analogy to hold up, Dick donating an extra pint a day would have to affect him in a slightly negative way. Slightly negative meaning roughly in the equivalent area of cutting back from 365 $100/plate dinners a year to maybe 365 $75/plate dinners a year.
 
Taxes on investment income and passive (unearned income) is lowest since WW1. Income Taxes are lowest since WW2. For example Reagen had a top marginal rate over 50% Eisenhower's was 92% today it's 35%. Not sure what the problem is. People and country require investment for success. You could always move to a low tax haven such a Guatemala (12%) but I don't think it's an accident rich countries with huge middle class invest in their people and infrastructure and that comes via taxes.

A lot of richer people understand this dynamic such as Warren Buffet or Bill Gates two of the richest people in America and want to see higher taxes.
 
werepossum said:
I understand perfectly the principle of a collective action problem. It's the eternal liberal answer to everything - everyone else should make a sacrifice for me.
Click to expand...
You keep twisting Buffett's words. He wants taxes raised on himself. For example:
werepossum said:
Man, if I could figure out why liberals are so eager to have government decide what they "need" and to have leaders who force them to make sacrifices the leaders don't make, I'd make a freakin' fortune in self-help books.

I'm all for eliminating the Bush tax cuts - on everyone. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts only for the very rich (of which I am NOT one) is merely another form of demanding that other people exist for my benefit. Just one little thing - I want to see some spending cuts first. Not spending cuts against what you would LIKE to spend, not spending cuts that magically appear, pain free, in some distant future, but spending cuts in what we are spending now. The kind of spending cuts where one actually spends less than before the spending cuts. Then I'll be happy to support the repeal of all the Bush tax cuts and even add a bit onto the highest earners.
Click to expand...
According to your bolded statement above and your position in this thread, you should be sending the IRS additional money, otherwise YOU are a hypocrite.
 
dank69 said:
Of course you understand that in your own scenario, if Dick were to donate the extra pint a day and the other three men were not, then the man would die and Dick donating extra blood would help nothing.

However, for your analogy to hold up, Dick donating an extra pint a day would have to affect him in a slightly negative way. Slightly negative meaning roughly in the equivalent area of cutting back from 365 $100/plate dinners a year to maybe 365 $75/plate dinners a year.
Click to expand...
This is true. I do not fault Buffett for not paying the extra so much as for trying to avoid paying the current. I rather admired him until I learned that. There's a subtle difference between not doing what one advocates and doing the opposite of what one advocates.

dank69 said:
You keep twisting Buffett's words. He wants taxes raised on himself. For example:
According to your bolded statement above and your position in this thread, you should be sending the IRS additional money, otherwise YOU are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I file strictly short form, so in effect I am sending the IRS extra money - unlike Warren Buffett, I am not claiming deductions even where I know I can back up my right to those deductions, much less arguing marginal deductions with the IRS. Please note also that I predicated my support for repealing the Bush tax cuts on actual spending cuts, and that support is based only on our current fiscal crisis as I am certainly not generally speaking a supporter of higher taxes on anyone. However I recognize our dire situation and I'm ready to do my part. I only ask that if I'm expected to get by with less, so is government. Not less extra than it would like - that would be like me agreeing to sacrifice and demand only a 10% tax cut instead of the 20% tax cut I need - but actually less. Let's all do our part, government included.
 
I'd like to know just what in the Buffet Tax will make Warren Buffet pay the same taxes as someone in the 150k range or so.
 
KlokWyze said:
Why is defending the rich from paying taxes the #1 talking point of the Republican party?
Click to expand...

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

-John Steinbeck


I know Republicans that are lucky to pay the minimums on their credit card's each month. The quote above is the only way I can rationalize why they choose to vote for a party that continually proves to not give a shit about them. I'm sure religion plays a role as well. Can't vote for those jesus hating commies.
 
Mr. Lennon said:
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

-John Steinbeck


I know Republicans that are lucky to pay the minimums on their credit card's each month. The quote above is the only way I can rationalize why they choose to vote for a party that continually proves to not give a shit about them. I'm sure religion plays a role as well. Can't vote for those jesus hating commies.
Click to expand...
It is not necessary to have money to be a Republican; it is necessary only to not have a longing for other people's money. If you can only imagine supporting a party because you deem it financially advantageous to yourself, then congrats, you made the right choice.
 
As far as the original topic goes. Maybe the real question should be:

Are the GOP going to be viable party if they nominate another circus-act like they did in 2008?
 
KlokWyze said:
As far as the original topic goes. Maybe the real question should be:

Are the GOP going to be viable party if they nominate another circus-act like they did in 2008?
Click to expand...

I hope Scary Perry gets the Grand obstructionist Parties seal of approval

:twisted:
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'd like to know just what in the Buffet Tax will make Warren Buffet pay the same taxes as someone in the 150k range or so.
Click to expand...

Knowing how congress works, they probably will create a massive Buffet Tax, and as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi once famously said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Only then will we realize it is a tax on Buffets, not Buffett. Damn you, government!

😛
 
cubby1223 said:
Knowing how congress works, they probably will create a massive Buffet Tax, and as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi once famously said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Only then will we realize it is a tax on Buffets, not Buffett. Damn you, government!

😛
Click to expand...

I've been to golden corral and old country buffet - this is a stealth tax on minorities and the lower class.
 
Originally Posted by KlokWyze
Why is defending the rich from paying taxes the #1 talking point of the Republican party?
Click to expand...

Why is taking money from the "rich" who aren't paying their "fair share" and giving it to the "average american" the #1 talking point of Osama?
 
Lithium381 said:
Why is taking money from the "rich" who aren't paying their "fair share" and giving it to the "average american" the #1 talking point of Osama?
Click to expand...

I think it's because any person with any amount of common sense, including Obama, fully realizes that the very rich have been getting unfair tax breaks and tax loopholes heaped upon them through their use of power and influence for nigh on decades whereas the middle class and the poor have been given nothing other than a razor wire wrapped stick up their butts and it's now time for the very rich to give back a little of what they've unfairly enjoyed for all that time. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top