Obama Adviser Buffett to America: You’re Rich Enough

People forget

That while we don't like government spending--especially for a non-defensive war--its better to be TAXED than watch your government rob your SAVINGS by borrowing money and PRINTING more of it.

dude of CA @ Sep 07, 2008 11:24:47 AM

eğitim

Merhaba sayın warren buffet.Ben Türkiyede yaşıyorum. Çocuklarımın daha iyi eğitim almalari için sizinle beraber çalişmak istiyorum.Saygilarımı sunarım.

Selahattin Kaya of NY @ Sep 04, 2008 09:00:57 AM

hypocrisy

U go Dan

derek of @ Aug 28, 2008 17:53:38 PM

>>>"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent.">>>

If you'll note, during this time, everyone and their brother wanted to buy American. We had no competition, globally speaking. Of course, you could tax skyhigh, union's flourished, and no one cared, cause everyone could still make a buck.

We had the "only game in town."

Those days are long gone, friend.

The globalization began back in the 60's under JFK, he was smart for reducing taxes, Reagan further reduced them in accord with competition, globally.

The problem with Lib's is, they live in the past.

They still want to believe this is 1950, and we can still tax that way. Taking from the top, giving to the bottom.

It's a closed system approach. We do not live in a closed system.

Personally, given the absolute bankrupcy of our entitlement systems, I thinkwe ought to be challenging Liberals who still support these failed programs. These tired, old albatrosses around everyone's neck, dragging us all down.

They need to be called to account for their legacy, these massive, wasteful, bloated, failed programs.

It's far past time for the Lib's to have to stand and defend these no growth programs.

Ron of CA @ Aug 26, 2008 22:35:37 PM

What does he care?

Sure, the Buffman already has "his", what about all those who come after?

Another problem with Buffer, is that by saying it's basically OK with him that the Government should regulate growth in the private sector, it's yet anothr slice of the control pie.

Look at what the Lib's want? They have already been successful at setting the minimum wage, now they are complaining about the spread between workers & employers. Obviously what they crave is to set the maximum.

If they can then set both upper & lower, they can set all the way in-between.

Giving socialists the ability to set growth rates, will totally sow up this system.

Personally, I think Buffer has something up his sleeve, a fix of some kind, to keep himself exempt.

All you really need to do is read his resume, he buys up small, failing companies struggling, and add them to his increasing wealth. Market manipulation via preferable government regulation is mechantilism. Not free market enterprise, as preached by Adam Smith.

Bufferman knows how this system now works, since the days' of FDR, he's just steppin up, and gett'n his... to steal a little bank robber lingo there.

Ron of CA @ Aug 26, 2008 22:26:19 PM

"gosh! i almost burst out laughing reading the above sentence. I guess most of you here neither understand buffet or his investment philosophy. The true reason he didnt pay dividends was because he felt he can return more to the shareholders through reinvestment in busines than a dollar paid out. (i hope you understood that). "

I understood that, XX, but I'm not sure you did. If he doesn't pay dividends, then you don't have to pay taxes on that dividend. If you reinvest the money back into your company, you still have to contend with paying taxes on the profits incurred. And many times, shareholders only want a return on their initial investment, of which dividends are, in addition to the initial investment they made. If the business continuously reinvests without providing a return, shareholders aren't none too happy to hvae their money be thrown down the drain.

"Even more hilarious. Chris, if you have ever taken Finance 101 (which i doubt) the first thing u learn is that stock is a part ownership of a business and hence it should be understood as business and not a piece of paper."

It's so nice that people make an assumption without getting facts. I have a degree in Economics, an accounting certification, am taking the CPA exam, getting Masters in Taxation and in Portfolio Finance. I have enough business smarts to get by on. That said, Warren Buffett buys companies outright that which he thinks would benefit from his management expertise and provide a solid return on his investment. He doesn't just buy stocks. If you have ever taken a Finance 101 course, you would know that you can buy a company outright or buy a major portion of it through stock purchases. Buffett does both, but companies he feel will be extremely profitable he buys outright.

Chris of AZ @ Aug 26, 2008 12:45:00 PM

Context?

Why don't you provide a source so we can see the full context of Mr. Buffet's remarks? "Even if we grow at 1 percent per year, " does not necessarily mean that WEB was suggesting that we SHOULD or that we COULD only grow at that pace.

Mike Bell of WA @ Aug 26, 2008 08:04:54 AM

Hilarious!

"he espouses silly tax policy that he isn't taxed enough because his secretary is not being taxed enough."

gosh! i almost burst out laughing reading the above sentence. I guess most of you here neither understand buffet or his investment philosophy. The true reason he didnt pay dividends was because he felt he can return more to the shareholders through reinvestment in busines than a dollar paid out. (i hope you understood that).

"here's the thing: Buffett doesn't just pick stocks, he also buys companies"

Even more hilarious. Chris, if you have ever taken Finance 101 (which i doubt) the first thing u learn is that stock is a part ownership of a business and hence it should be understood as business and not a piece of paper

@ Aug 26, 2008 04:35:06 AM