Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

US Billionaire Buffett Backs Obama for President »

Posted by: TimALoftis 3 months ago

9.6

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 70

Propped: 118

Comments: 158

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is backing Barak Obama for US president and thinks current US economic policy will push the dollar lower against other global currencies

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 158

0%
raats66623 months ago

This is the same guy that told Tom Brokaw that the Federal Income Tax system is completely screwed up because he pays a lower rate of taxes then the Receptionist who works for him.
It's no secret that the only way we are going to get out of the financial hole that the Bush Administration has dug us is to reverse the tax cuts on the Warren Buffet's. He seems to be OK with that.
And it looks like he thinks that Senator Obama is the best person to get us out of the REST of the holes GWB has gotten us into.
Reply
15 Replies
- 0%
  HOUSEMD3 months ago
  
  If Buffett wants to pay higher taxes why not just donate to lower our debt? That will help the debt and keep the average joe from having to cough up a huge tax increase that some of the politicians in this election will require if elected.
  Reply
  14 Replies
  - 0%
    cushi3 months ago
    
    He will lbe helping the debt by paying higher taxes, which he knows he can afford and is willing to do! The tax increases Obama recommends will only be on the highest income brackets, people like himself, Hillary, McSame, and the Warren Buffets (most of whom, unfortunately, do not share his same spirit of generosity and fair play.)
    Reply
  - 0%
    ybdogsct3 months ago
    
    HOUSEMD:
    "If Buffett wants to pay higher taxes why not just donate"
    You mean like this?
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortu...
    "Within months, Warren Buffet would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, then and now worth well over $40 billion. Buffett has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable. Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations.
    The number of shares earmarked to be given have a huge value today: $37 billion. That alone would be the largest philanthropic gift in history. And if Buffett is right in thinking that Berkshire's price will trend upward, the eventual amount given could far exceed that figure."
    Some people have a social conscious. How much have you given HOUSEMD, ANIOKLY, etc.?
    Reply
  - 0%
    DropkickaLib3 months ago
    
    For a minute there I was afraid that Jimmy Buffet had endorsed Obama...whew! What a relief!
    Reply
    9 Replies
    - 0%
      ybdogsct3 months ago
      
      You mean Warren Buffet's portrait accompanying the article wasn't a big enough give away?
      Reply
      8 Replies
      - 0%
        DropkickaLib3 months ago
        
        Humor passed over a Lib's head again...what a shocker.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        Don't worry. We're definitely laughing at you.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        DropkickaLib3 months ago
        
        That's some hilarious stuff. What a sense of humor!
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        Admittedly, it's not as clever as your feigned mix up between a Parrothead's idol and a foremost expert of the modern American economy. I guess you think nothing elicits a chuckle like a pun on someone else's last name--indeed I'm sure Jerry Seinfeld himself would agree with you that puns represent the pinnacle of comedy and that this specific pun would be the best he's ever heard.
        But like I said, we're definitely laughing...at you.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        DropkickaLib3 months ago
        
        Spoken like a sneering, self-important, elitist Lib. Don't you have some Plebians to ridicule somewhere?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        Indeed. In fact, one of those Plebians is being ridiculed right now, although more through his own doing than mine.
        LOL.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        DropkickaLib3 months ago
        
        Right. Those who can't do, vote for Democrats.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        I think you're living proof against the validity of your own statement.
        LOL.
        Pathetic.
        Reply
  - 0%
    NoWayMan3 months ago
    
    so the $37 BILLION buffet donated to charity in 2006 isn't enough?
    Reply
  - lovermanComment removed: User banned.
0%
aniokly3 months ago

If Warren Buffet feels like paying more taxes he should make out a check to the U S Treasury. His friend Obama is talking about raising taxes, letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and doubling Capital gains tax. He does realize 100 million or so Americans hold capital investments, right? That is a lot of voters to p*ss off.
Reply
67 Replies
- 0%
  Lurch3 months ago
  
  ani, you do realize that under Bush, taxes have gone up for about 270,000,000 Americans. Only the top richest Americans have seen their taxes go down, and that is because under Bush, there has been a concerted effort to transfer wealth from current and future generations of middle class workers to today`s idle rich and crony corrupted crooks.
  Unless you are among the top 1% richest Americans or are a war profiteer, you should be ******ed off already, and McCain promises to continue the transfer of wealth away from the middle class.
  Reply
  38 Replies
  - 0%
    jumpmaster3 months ago
    
    270,000,000? That means that there is .001 percent unemployment rate. That is awesome!
    Reply
    11 Replies
    - 0%
      ETproductions3 months ago
      
      With your grasp of math, it is small wonder even George W. Bush can pull the wool over your eyes while he fleeces you.
      First, the 270,000,000 number has NOTHING to do with employment or unemployment. Second, 30,000,000 is 10% of 300,000,000; not .001%.
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 0%
        jumpmaster3 months ago
        
        So I made a math error? Big deal.
        How is George Bush fleecing me when he is lowering my taxes?
        
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Will13133 months ago
        
        he's only putting it off .. soon the checks his administration wrote.. will begin to bounce...
        like the old Fram commercials...
        "you can pay me NOW or you can pay me LATER"
        well it's later than most people think....
        It doesn't matter WHO gets elected.. taxes are going to go up... even mr. read my lips... had to do that... it is inevitable..
        Reply
        
        0%
        ETproductions3 months ago
        
        If you are in the top tax bracket, then you did get a tax break from Bush. Those in the middle class got a shell game instead. A very modest decrease that was immediately offset by spending changes by the Federal Government. Because of that shell game, nationwide property taxes have skyrocketed. States are under stress to raise revenues.
        For the first time in modern history, we have gone through a period of economic growth but seen real income for the middle class and poor shrink. Only the wealthy have benefited.
        Now all this is before we even start thinking about paying off the $10 trillion debt that the Republicans have run up. With 100,000,000 taxpayers in America, that amounts to $1,000,000 per household. Hope you got a REALLY big tax cut from Bush so you can write that check.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        ETproductions3 months ago
        
        The RepugniCons have been borrowing all this money to transfer it to the uber rich and to their defense contractor cronies. These people are multinationals. When the bill comes due, do you seriously think they will stick around and pay it.
        No! They will just move on and leave it to the struggling middle class and poor to pay for their party.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Will13133 months ago
        
        For the first time in modern history, we have gone through a period of economic growth but seen real income for the middle class and poor shrink. Only the wealthy have benefited.
        -----------
        they JUST about have the technique perfected...
        Reply
        
        0%
        quackpot3 months ago
        
        I hope you are proud of having your kids pay for your desire to not pay for your share of the nation's expense.
        Lower taxes for the ultra rich while passing the bill to our childern is SICKO
        Reply
        
        0%
        aceofspades13 months ago
        
        How is George Bush fleecing me when he is lowering my taxes?
        save that rebate check you got - you're only going to have to pay it back with interest
        Reply
    - 0%
      cushi3 months ago
      
      DUMB...just plain DUMB!!
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        ecotourusa3 months ago
        
        "DUMB...just plain DUMB!!"
        are you referring to the 3 stooges?
        check out this cool music video by Aimee Allen:
        http://www.dailypaul.com/
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        ecotourusa3 months ago
        
        Guess which pres. candidate wants to eliminate the IRS...
        Reply
  - 0%
    aniokly3 months ago
    
    We are not rich. We are retired, make very small amount from other incomes, so no. I don't believe the taxes went up on just the poor. The middle and upper income tax people pay more then their share, so the very poor pay nothing. Thats fine, but don't pretend it was tax cuts for the rich. I pay as much as I consider fair, and I will not vote for a tax increaser in any party.
    Reply
    25 Replies
    - 0%
      ETproductions3 months ago
      
      In real terms, as I just explained above, taxes went up on the poor and middle class because they will be left to pay off the massive debt that tax cuts for the rich have created.
      If you make a small amount, you might end up with taxable income of $7,000. If so, you got a tax cut of 5%, or $350. Unfortunately, minor changes in cost of living, property taxes, etc will erase that cut in a heartbeat. Cost of living, food, gasoline, home heating is a huge slice of your total income.
      The top bracket fell from 39.6% to 35%, or just 4.6%. But that applies to people earning taxable income (after all deductions) of $357,700 per year. Let's take an example of a CEO of a major corporation who earns salary and bonuses of $100,000,000. His taxes dropped by $460,000. Increases in cost of living have virtually no impact on such a person. Cost of food, gasoline, etc. is just a very tiny fraction of their income.
      Reply
      22 Replies
      - 0%
        jumpmaster3 months ago
        
        The top 25% of earners pay 85% of the taxes.
        Will you only be satisfied when they pay 100%?
        Reply
        21 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        JUMP:
        "The top 25% of earners pay 85% of the taxes."
        I'd like to see your documentation. The documentation shows that the top 1% of income owners earn 57% of the national income yet only pay 20% of the national taxes.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/national/29ri...
        "The top 1% owned 57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4% the year before, according to a CBO analysis. For every group below the top 1%, shares of corporate wealth have declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7% for those on the 96th to 99th rungs on the income ladder to 57% for the poorest fifth of Americans."
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/
        "The CBO study found that the wealthiest 20% saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4% of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5%. The top 1% saw their share fall to 20.1% of the total, from 22.2%. Taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase."
        Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib239
        "Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revealed a sharp increase in income inequality over the past few years. The increase in income inequality was greater from 2003 to 2005 than over any other two-year period covered by the CBO data. Over these years, an amazing $400 billion in pre-tax dollars was shifted from the bottom 95% of households to those in the top 5%."
        http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
        "By 2010, an astonishing 52% of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1%. Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts, 80% of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won't take effect until after 2005. Tax cuts for the 19% of taxpayers making between $73,000 & $356,000 this year will grow little over the next 4 years, but then will dwindle thereafter."
        Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        Will blanket tax cuts stimulate the economy? Perhaps, but at great cost to government income that is needed for national defense, infrastructure (roads/bridges), budget deficits, etc. What is needed is a SMART, responsible tax code. One that stimulates the economy with the minimum budgetary costs. Greenspan and others have praised Clinton for his smart tax policy and rebuked Bush for his irresponsible one.
        http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm
        "The Clinton plan would provide the child tax credit to four million children in near-poor and lower-middle-income working families who wouldn't qualify under the Senate bill. It would provide the credit to six million such children who would not qualify for the credit under the House bill.
        http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm
        "President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2% of the wealthiest taxpayers."
        Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
        "The design of Bush's tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary costs."
        http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm
        "The early returns on the effects of Bush's tax cuts have not been good. The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level since 1950, and shifted projected large budget surpluses to projected deficits. The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. THE DESIGN OF THESE TAX CUTS WAS ILL-CONCEIVED, RESULTING IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ECONOMIC STIMULUS THAN COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE SAME BUDGETARY COST. Because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation has been notably worse since the end of World War II."
        Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/...
        "The stock market does far better under Democrats. During those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."
        http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
        "Note that the DJIA rose steadily during the Clinton Presidency from 3300 in Jan 1993, to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Bill Clinton left office--a 221% increase."
        http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=20&...
        "Now, here are the monthly Dow Jones closing averages since George W. Bush has been President. Relatively stagnant from 10,600 to 12800--a meager 20% increase."
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer3 months ago
        
        Actually, it's the top 10% of wage earners that pay 90% of the Fedral income tax.
        Reply
        14 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        Prove it. Post your documentation.
        Reply
        13 Replies
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer3 months ago
        
        U.S. Income Tax BurdenThe Congressional Budget Office (CBO) further breaks down the income brackets by the Top 1%, the Top 5%, and the Top 10% of wage earners. ...
        www.allegr...
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        GLOBALWARMER:
        "Actually, it's the top 10% of wage earners that pay 90% of the Fedral income tax."
        I do not see your statistic anywhere. The statistic I DO see is that the top 1% pay 29% of the taxes.
        http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
        "The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes."
        However, your data dated 1999 is almost a DECADE old. Newer data from the CBO DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your claim that the top 10% pay 90% of all taxes. In fact, the 2004 CBO report says that the top 1% pay only 20.1% of all taxes and that the top 20% pay 63.5%, NOT 90%.
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/
        "The CBO study found that the wealthiest 20% saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4% of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5%. The top 1% saw their share fall to 20.1% of the total, from 22.2%. Taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase."
        Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        While the top 1% pay 29% of all taxes, they also earn 57% of the nation's corporate wealth. Perhaps a fairer tax code would have the top 1% pay 57% of the taxes since they own 57% of the nation's wealth.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/national/29ri...
        "The top 1% owned 57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4% the year before, according to a CBO analysis. For every group below the top 1%, shares of corporate wealth have declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7% for those on the 96th to 99th rungs on the income ladder to 57% for the poorest fifth of Americans."
        Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        By the way, these are the SAME people who opposed an Iraq War funding bill because they didn't want to pay a measly 0.5% tax increase applicable only to those making over $500k annually.
        Despicable.
        http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...
        "The war spending would provide $163 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year. But Democrats are focusing more on their add-ons, especially the big increase in the GI Bill and an extension of unemployment insurance for people whose benefits have run out. The two items have led the White House to promise to veto the measure.
        The House also was poised to approve an extra tax on the wealthy. The new revenue would help cover the 10-year, $52 billion cost of bolstering the GI Bill and providing those veterans with a college education. Republicans and business groups are balking at the 0.5% increase in tax rates on income topping $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples."
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer3 months ago
        
        I find it interesting that you use the "earned" when referring to how these people made their money. Because that's exactly how they obtained their wealth: they earned it. Unless, of course, their last name is Kennedy.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        I find it interesting that you:
        1) Can't locate the statistic you quoted (top 10% pay 90% of the taxes) from YOUR OWN article.
        2) Have apparently run out of arguments to make and have instead resorted to directing impertinent, gratuitous ad hominems at the Kennedies.
        3) Hold the hypocritical notion that the Kennedy family didn't earn their money. Well, this wealth had to come from somewhere. It didn't magically appear in their bank accounts. Patriarch Joe Kennedy EARNED his fortune through real estate.
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kennedys/peopleeve...
        "Joseph Kennedy Sr., started from a SOLIDLY MIDDLE CLASS family in Boston.
        The Kennedy real estate holdings became legendary: family compounds at Hyannis Port on Cape Cod, in Palm Beach, Florida, and New York City. Joe Kennedy owned Hialeah Race Track in Miami. In 1945 Kennedy formed a trust to buy the Merchandise Mart, which sold in 1998 for $625 million."
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer3 months ago
        
        "Patriarch Joe Kennedy EARNED his fortune through real estate."
        He was a bootlegger, John.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        He was a SUSPECTED bootlegger, never convicted. He was a VERIFIABLE real estate magnate.
        I see you STILL can't find your misquoted, or should I say fabricated, statistic in your own source.
        LOL.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer2 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        In the 1920s, Joseph Kennedy, the patriarch of the political clan, made his fortune during Prohibition as a bootlegger partnering with the likes of Frank Costello and Diamond Joe Esposito. Kennedy kept these alliances secret from his sons, who were being groomed for political leadership. Some believe this cost him big-time. Political pundits, such as Burton Hersh and Seymour Hersh (no relation?), have blamed the origin of "The Kennedy Curse" on Joseph P. Kennedy's shady dealings.
        
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct2 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        (1) Exactly where in your rambling post does it say Joe Kennedy was ever convicted of this crime? These are unproven suspicions. Even if they were true, I would hardly rank serving alcohol as a serious crime. Certainly not when compared to the crimes committed by the current administration. There's a reason why Prohibition was REPEALED and what Joe Kennedy did back then is no longer considered illegal. But this point is moot because you do NOT have a criminal conviction to cite. All you have are unsubstantiated suspicions.
        (2) Still waiting for you to locate your fabricated stat. Where in your article does it say the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes?
        (3) Your attempts to obfuscate the issue are not going to work. This debate is NOT about Joe Kennedy. And the fact that you continue to avoid the topic for discussion shows just how desperate you've become now that you've run out of arguments and evidence.
        LOL. You must be a glutton for punishment.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer2 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        I didn't fabricate a damn thing. Joe ran booze, Ted killed Mary Jo Kopechne, John Jr. should never had been allowed to fly in that weather, as he was not rated, causing another woman to meet her demise in a watery grave. Then there was the rape incident. This "royal famiy" thinks they are above the law. I frankly don't give two s hits what you believe. For 30 plus years I've been a cop in one of the highest crime-ridden cities in this country, yet my gun has killed less people than Ted Kenedy's car.
        If you truly believe otherwise, then you are as dumb as the poor grammar and spelling in your posts leads everyone to believe.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        ybdogsct2 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        You're either illiterate or too lazy to read past the first sentence of my post. Let me repeat Points 2 and 3 as you conveniently neglected to address them.
        (2) Still waiting for you to locate your fabricated stat. Where in your article does it say the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes?
        (3) Your attempts to obfuscate the issue are not going to work. This debate is NOT about Joe Kennedy. And the fact that you continue to avoid the topic for discussion shows just how desperate you've become now that you've run out of arguments and evidence.
        As for Point 1, you STILL have yet to provide proof of a CONVICTION against Joe Kennedy. Even if you did have proof (which you have none), selling alcohol is not a crime anymore anyway as Prohibition was repealed quite a long time ago. So, you can't say the Kennedies didn't earn their money because they did - largely through real estate.
        Still going to ignore the original argument? LOL.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Global_Warmer2 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        www.treas....
        wwwtreas.g...
        wwwdotttre...
        Everytime I attempt to paste the site it doesn't show on propeller. It's Treas dot gov / press / releases
        Reply
    - 0%
      ETproductions3 months ago
      
      Check this out, and comprehend the tax rate discussion below the chart. It details what someone with taxable income of 100,000 pays in taxes now.
      http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets...
      Reply
    - 0%
      quackpot3 months ago
      
      Ah you wnat to vote for a schmuck who will pass YOUR bill onto our children?
      Reply
- 0%
  jmopinion3 months ago
  
  Buffett is a sly old goat. He makes statements that will benefit his own positions in the market imo.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 0%
    Will13133 months ago
    
    are you saying that what's good for him... might not be good for the average person
    
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      jmopinion3 months ago
      
      Maybe, maybe not.
      Reply
  - 0%
    Beau78903 months ago
    
    It benefits ALL citizens when the U.S. economy does well. And yes, that includes Warren Buffett's holdings.
    Reply
- 0%
  slate3 months ago
  
  Tax increases in hard times is never the answer, hey you on the Hill, have you ever heard of a thing called tightening your belts? If not, go on a national tour, there are pleanty of people to talk to that are doing just that right now. Quit spending so *&^%$&#@ much money ya *&^(%$ idiots, that's how you do it. Jeeze is it really that difficult for all you knuckleheads?
  Reply
  21 Replies
  - 0%
    Neophile3 months ago
    
    Absolutely. They can start by spending less on the Iraq war.
    Reply
    18 Replies
    - 0%
      newbie04203 months ago
      
      Yes, please quit wasting money on the war on drugs.
      Reply
    - 0%
      jumpmaster3 months ago
      
      Or the war on poverty. The US has been occupied for 40 years by the anti-poverty troops and we have spent trillions of dollars and there has been no improvement.
      Reply
      16 Replies
      - 0%
        not2needy3 months ago
        
        What war on poverty, while the homeless families grow by the minute, much the way they did back during the Reagan Era/ The only war on poverty is to see how many people they can starve to death during the republican admins.
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        0%
        jumpmaster3 months ago
        
        Are you saying that the Republicans have held the White House for 40 years? Why didn't JFK, LBJ, Carter, and Klinton fix poverty when they had the chance?
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        ETproductions3 months ago
        
        JFK cut the top income tax bracket from 90% to 70%. It's now an actual 33%.
        Back when JFK was President, middle class families did just fine on 1 income. Today it takes two breadwinners in most families and that's still not enough.
        Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the rest has grown ever wider. The top 1% owned 25% of everything when LBJ left office. Today they have doubled that. The wealthiest 1% own 50% of everything in this country.
        Yeah Jumpmaster, keep voting to ship your money to the rich because some politician tells you he's giving you a tax cut.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        jumpmaster3 months ago
        
        Okay, let me get this straight. If I am paying less taxes than before, how am I shipping more money to the government?
        I am not in the top 1% but good grief, why are you so covetous and envious of people who make good money?
        Why do you want to punish achievers?
        Why do you want to deny people the opportunity to move up financially?
        I love the charts on your link. It tells me when to quit working so hard and when to quit achieving. Once you get past a certain point, it just isn't worth it anymore.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        What the hell is wrong with you?
        You ask why people want to punish "achievers" (though many of those are crooks).
        WHY DO YOU WANT TO KICK PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE DOWN?
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        saintetienne3 months ago
        
        "WHY DO YOU WANT TO KICK PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE DOWN?"
        I don't want to kick 'em. I just want them off the street so my limousine can get by.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        ybdogsct3 months ago
        
        Don't you mean your Ford Pinto?
        Face it, SAINTETIENNE. You aren't fooling anyone.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        The one thing I can say about you is your honest about your greed.
        Reply
        
        0%
        tdash3 months ago
        
        That old "punishing achievers" line always makes me laugh.
        Bill Gates is so sick of being punished that I hear he's quitting his job to become a cashier at Wall-Mart. He may have to give up a few creature comforts, but I'm sure he'll be much happier since he won't be punished any longer.
        Reply
        
        0%
        ETproductions3 months ago
        
        Jumpmaster wrote: "Okay, let me get this straight. If I am paying less taxes than before, how am I shipping more money to the government?"
        Because SOMEBODY is going to have to pay off the ten trillion dollars in debt these tax cuts have run up.
        The somebody is NOT going to be the ultra-wealthy multinationals that have gotten the money borrowed from China and OPEC. They will simply leave when the bill comes due. It will be you and me and our children and their children left to pay off the tax increase you couldn't see.
        Reply
        
        0%
        aceofspades13 months ago
        
        the funny part of this whole thread is that the folks making the really big $$ don't have time to sit around & post comments here - they are too busy making money - & it's the poor schnooks with lots of time to kill defending them here - ain't America great?
        Reply
        
        0%
        saintetienne3 months ago
        
        "What war on poverty"
        The War on Poverty initiated by LBJ, which has since grown exponentially over the past 40 years, costing taxpayers a whopping 9 TRILLION - - that's TRILLION, with a "T" "R" - - dollars, and showing next to no results. We have MORE people in "poverty", MORE people collecting welfare, 27 million people receiving food stamps each month, MORE homeless shelters, and MORE homeless. I'd like to know A.) Where is all this money going? B.) Why is the criteria for welfare constantly being lowered, allowing more and more people to take advantage of it instead of going out and finding a job, and C.) Why do MY taxes keep going up to subsidize this nonsense?
        Why are the people who do all the work and earn all the dough being punished by having it taken away from them?
        Why are the people who do nothing year after year rewarded with welfare payments, social programs, food stamps and the continued option to do nothing?
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        slate3 months ago
        
        Hmmmmm do you have stats to back up how many people have starved in this country due to Reagan or Bush Needy?
        Reply
      - 0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        jumpmaster:
        The "war on poverty" ended over 25 years ago, starting with Reagan's statement about welfare queens and the emasculation of unions, and the continuous lowering since then of all benefits to the needy. Where have you been hiding?
        It's hard to imagine there are still heartless bastards out there who think the government is spending their money helping poor people out. In fact, about 90% of what the government spends is on defense, foreign aid, wars, and Social Security (no, that's not limited to poor people).
        You want to save government dollars? STOP THE WAR.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        jumpmaster3 months ago
        
        If you feel so strongly about helping the needy, why don't you jump in and do something about it? Why wait for the government?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78903 months ago
        
        What makes you think I don't?
        And what makes you think private assistance is enough? The government has far more resources than I or any group do.
        Reply
  - 0%
    ETproductions3 months ago
    
    That would be true if we had a balanced budget. We are running the defecit up currently at a rate of nearly 1 trillion dollars a year. That Amounts to a trillion dollar annual tax INCREASE that we are just deferring payment on. We must pay it all back WITH interest. Interest on the debt is now running nearly 1/2 trillion dollars per year in interest payments alone.
    We cannot stay the course. We're flying the economy into the side of a mountain.
    Reply
  - 0%
    slate3 months ago
    
    LOL look at all the people who negged my plea for those on the hill to not spend so much money!
    Reply
- 0%
  RedRiverJ3 months ago
  
  Them that's got, gets, the rest of us get screwed.
  Reply
- lovermanComment removed: User banned.
0%
Justice4All3 months ago

My taxes went up under Bush. My spending power is down. And we still have a war to be paid for.
It's a shame that the cost of this war can't be passed on to the idiots that voted for Bush. I'm tired of paying for other people's mistakes.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  PresidentBuckheadd3 months ago
  
  Thank you!
  Reply
0%
saneman3 months ago

Since I have a Juris Doctorate Degree, I would never vote for someone who only has a Bachelor's Degree. It wouldn't make any sense.
Reply
12 Replies
- 0%
  slate3 months ago
  
  But would you vote for someone that has a Bachelor in the Arts or would do you only want another lawyer on the hill?
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 0%
    saneman3 months ago
    
    I would only vote for someone who has Doctorate Degree. I would prefer someone who either has a Doctorate in economics, finance, international studies, psychology, human relations just to name a few and who has a high level of cognitive ability with identifiable and quantified results.
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      jumpmaster3 months ago
      
      "Doctorate in economics, finance, international studies, psychology, human relations just to name a few AND who has a high level of cognitive ability with identifiable and quantified results"
      Normally these two areas are mutually exclusive.
      Reply
    - 0%
      slate3 months ago
      
      Sane, so you don't vote?
      Reply
      6 Replies
      - 0%
        saneman3 months ago
        
        Not the last 2 elections, but I will this coming election.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        slate3 months ago
        
        I'm not sure any of them has a doctorate?
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        saneman3 months ago
        
        All people who graduate from law school have doctorates (Juris Doctorates).
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        slate3 months ago
        
        So you as a lawyer supporting another lawyer, man what a surprise. That's just what we need, more lawyers running and ruining this country.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        jumpmaster3 months ago
        
        What do you call a busload of lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
        A good start.
        Reply

Hello!

US Billionaire Buffett Backs Obama for President »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 158

raats66623 months ago

HOUSEMD3 months ago

cushi3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

DropkickaLib3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

DropkickaLib3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

DropkickaLib3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

DropkickaLib3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

DropkickaLib3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

NoWayMan3 months ago

lovermanComment removed: User banned.

aniokly3 months ago

Lurch3 months ago

jumpmaster3 months ago

ETproductions3 months ago

jumpmaster3 months ago

Will13133 months ago

ETproductions3 months ago

ETproductions3 months ago

Will13133 months ago

quackpot3 months ago

aceofspades13 months ago

cushi3 months ago

ecotourusa3 months ago

ecotourusa3 months ago

aniokly3 months ago

ETproductions3 months ago

jumpmaster3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.

Global_Warmer3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

Global_Warmer3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

Global_Warmer3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

Global_Warmer3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

Global_Warmer2 months, 4 weeks ago

ybdogsct2 months, 4 weeks ago

Global_Warmer2 months, 4 weeks ago

ybdogsct2 months, 4 weeks ago

Global_Warmer2 months, 4 weeks ago

ETproductions3 months ago

quackpot3 months ago

jmopinion3 months ago

Will13133 months ago

jmopinion3 months ago

Beau78903 months ago

slate3 months ago

Neophile3 months ago

newbie04203 months ago

jumpmaster3 months ago

not2needy3 months ago

jumpmaster3 months ago

ETproductions3 months ago

jumpmaster3 months ago

Beau78903 months ago

saintetienne3 months ago

ybdogsct3 months ago

Beau78903 months ago

tdash3 months ago