Buffet weighing in on taxes now that he's made his fortune is similar to developed countries' arguments to third world nations on carbon caps.
Rich Man, Poor Man
- Thread starter heisenbern
- Start date
Buffet weighing in on taxes now that he's made his fortune is similar to developed countries' arguments to third world nations on carbon caps.
Ok, but if you firmly believed in your stance, you would act on it. But what you want (and what all liberals want) is to force your beliefs upon others as well.
I have no interest in that either. I'm opposed to that in fact. I'm ok with the collective will of the people being forced on me, even if I may not like it. But don't expect me to remain silent if i don't agree with public policy.
Of course I will act upon it. I am just waiting for the opportunity.
In fact it is the other way around. There is a certain amount of revenue that comes in taxes to the local or federal government. That is how things get payed for. If you want program x or program y, it has to be payed for. So there are two choices:
- pay for it with taxes, or
- cut programs.
If the republicans packaged their tax message as:
- Let's repeal Medicare/Medicade.
- Let's get rid of public education.
- Let's get rid of national parks.
- Let's get rid of the Army/Navy/Air Force.
- Let's get rid of the fire department.
- Let's get rid of trash collection.
- Let's not fund infrastructure.
- etc, etc, etc,.
Instead, knowing they cannot approach it directly, they obfuscate and deceive by repackaging their message by trying to sell it as tax cuts for YOU without telling you the consequences of those tax cuts, when in fact it is a tax cut fore them. They further lie by telling you the big bad wolf, the "big government", is taking away your freedoms.
Remember, if they don't get taxes from corporations and rich people, they are coming after YOU to make up the difference.
Last edited:
In the case of Buffet, I was, indeed, attacking the man. He's a con artist. I'm sorry if that annoys you. But in order to start a debate, both parties must consider the other a man of integrity at the very least. Otherwise the decision to not listen to the argument on the basis of "you can't have a honest discussion with a dishonest man" is paramount.
How convenient!
See, if the majority of the public had skin in the game, it would be a fair discussion and I would also accept the will of the people. But they don't. When you have no skin in the game, and your vote can affect those who do, that's more akin to a bunch of wolves and a sheep voting over who dinner will be.