Buffet: "when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it"

[sabra]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321868

<snip>

BECKY: Tax policy has been another huge topic-- as the tax cuts-- are due to expire....

BUFFETT: Right.

BECKY: ... if they're not renewed. The President has put forth his-- his position. Which is that-- they should be extended only for the middle class and not for the upper three percent. Peter Orszag, his outgoing budget director, said that he'd like to see that, too. But if it's not politically feasible, he'd rather see tax cuts passed for everyone-- than for no one. What do you think?

BUFFETT: Well, I don't think they'll end up being passed for no one. So, I-- I think that-- but Peter did put the argument that way. He-- he didn't say this is the most desirable policy, he just said this is the most politically feasible policy. But-- the-- way the tax system has gotten tilted toward guys like me over the last 20 years is-- as opposed to the middle class, you know, in my view, is a little obscene. So, I-- I think-- I'm not saying $250,000 necessarily. But-- but-- at the-- at the high end-- and-- and the people who are getting their huge incomes through capital gains and-- I just-- I just think that-- when a country needs more income and we do, we're only taking in 15 percent of GDP, I mean, that-- that-- when a country needs more income, they should get it from the people that have it.

BECKY: You think it's okay to raise taxes at a time when the economy's uncertain?

BUFFETT: I think-- sure. On some people. Yeah. I-- I don't want to raise 'em on 90-- you know, 98 percent of the people, but-- but-- no, I think the inequities that have gone into the tax code in the last 20 or 30 years compared to the situation that existed when this country was very prosperous in 1960, 1970, 1980 and so on, I-- I think it's-- I just think it's been tilted toward the rich.

BECKY: You said that you think it is politically feasible to get something passed, but if the President-- President has to compromise to get something through, do you think he should?

BUFFETT: In the end, he has to do something. I mean-- that-- the laws expire by-- by their nature. No, I-- but-- I-- I play pretty tough if I was him -- (LAUGHS)

[tridim]

1. Thank you Mr. Buffett for saying what needs to be said.

He is proof that money doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.

[madokie]

2. Not many like him though

[Xenotime]

25. Will he be writing out checks?

[donquijoterocket]

28. Near as I can tell

Buffett is one of the true good guys. That said I've seen him attacked- in what might be the epitome of hypocrisy- for giving away a substantial portion of his fortune. The angle was that it enabled him to avoid estate taxes. I call hypocrisy because the attack came from a person who'd surely support doing away with the "death tax" altogether but seeing that hypocrisy would require some reasoning power and I believe there's a serious shortage of that among the wingnuts.I like the fact that he's constantly pressuring people in the same position as he to do more and to do the right thing.Between him and Gates they might actually persuade some of the oligarchs that it's in their best long term interest to inject some of their hoards of cash back into the country from which they took it.

[Greyhound]

3. He says good things, but it's the follow-through that is lacking.

I used one of his quotes from 1999(8?) about the class war for years, but in the meantime he has done nothing but exacerbate it.

He is similar to Obama in that he understands but doesn't act. Is it simply a pacifier or an unwillingness to put even a meaningless fraction of his power behind his touted convictions?

[stray cat]

6. Better take a close look at what he has been doing....

He has put his and other peoples money where his mouth is - unlike DUers in general

[Greyhound]

12. I follow exactly what he's done.

Some good, some bad, and some very bad.

Did you have a point?

[young but wise]

8. ...........

:thumbsdown: For you. :thumbsup: For Buffet

[Greyhound]

24. Still waiting for some evidence of your professed wisdom to shine through... n/t

[flyarm]

4. What Buffet said is 100% correct!

[leveymg]

5. If Buffett really feels that way, he can do a reverse Koch Bros. and finance the Dem Party Left

He has what we need to mobilize the base, field decent Democratic candidates and build an effective Progressive Congress. Loads and loads of money.

[stray cat]

7. Why throw his money after the dems - progressives on DU don't even support them

[leveymg]

9. Out of a rump of the Whig Party sprung the Republican Party of Lincoln . . .

Sometimes, you have to look back to see the future.

[Greyhound]

11. Ta-Dah!

Here's hoping!
:toast:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. Except the right-wing "blue dogs", I see Democratic candidates supported just fine here.

And the poster did say "Dem Party Left".

[Overseas]

33. I agree. //nt

[ladjf]

10. Hmm. What a novel concept. Maybe we should try it. nt

[Obamanaut]

13. Another idea might be to write a budget that fits the current income

and not go bonkers on overspending.

[JDPriestly]

21. You mean stop fighting so many wars?

That would be a good idea. How much are we spending on keeping our troops in Iraq now that the Mission has been Accomplished and combat is supposedly over? Why in the world are we still there? And how long can we afford to stay there?

Who should go without? The unemployed and elderly in this country? Or the military contractors?

Where are our values? That's the real question we face.

But don't expect either political party to present the issues in that fashion. Because our military pretty much owns us.

There isn't much we can do about except see the facts as they are. We are a militaristic nation. Do we do some good overseas?

Absolutely. (Along with some bad.) But we spend an awful lot of money doing it and neglect needs of people in our own country to fund it.

[Obamanaut]

27. That is indeed a plan. Plus, there are more than 700 military sites

in 30+ countries.

Close the sites, bring the troops home.

Immediate savings are no lease payments to the host governments for those sites. No salary pmts to the civilians working on those sites. No expense in transporting personnel and their families (many places are accompanied tours), no supplies to support them.

Place the returning troops in various US bases that have been downsized. Immediate influx of money into those local economies. Reduce the overall size of the military via normal attrition as enlistments expire (some don't reenlist), and less vigorous recruitment efforts.

If necessary, donate all the equipment left in the "outus" (outside the US) to the host governments as a good-will gesture. They can contract with the various manufacturers for replacement parts.

This is a start.

With the money saved, no one here will have to do without. Budgets will be easier to prepare, and the need to borrow from other governments is lessened.

And yes, stop fighting so many wars. Let the Department of Defense become a Department FOR Defense, rather than policemen for the world.

Oh, and cancel all contracts with entities such as Blackwater.

[Beavker]

31. Add in the Tax Payer funded subsidies for the industries

that are raking it in and holding our country hostage (Big Oil, Health care). I still can't believe that the people of this country, the Tea Baggers as well (as I use the term 'People' loosely here) would not completely lose their GD minds knowing (if they are ever enlightened) about the MASSIVE amounts of $$ that goes to Big Oil, Health Care, and even the violent, outsider hating, suppressive, dictatorial countries around the world (I mean, besides our own) while they are jobless, and struggling to make ends meet.

[nilram]

14. K. & R.

[gscraig]

15. Buffett has been a fascinating guy

There is an interesting thing about leading by example. Buffett is spending massive amounts of his money on charity, but he isn't just giving money to the government. I think that he really is looking at the system as a whole, and he thinks that the country would be better off if the rich paid higher taxes. But for just one person to do it would be silly. No one else would be likely to join in unless it was enforced by regulation.

[anarch]

16. I can't really argue with the guy on that one

[SusanaMontana41]

17. Tiny quibble about the spelling of Warren's last name.

It's Buffett, not Buffet (though I'm pretty sure Mr. Buffett can eat as much as he wants anywhere he wants to).

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. :P

[newtothegame]

18. If we're all going to benefit from those tax dollars, we should all pay. nt

[JDPriestly]

22. I really can't see that I have benefited at all from the War in Iraq.

Not in any way.

[indimuse]

19. KNR! n/t

[JDPriestly]

20. As anyone who grew up in Nebraska or the midwest knows:

"You can't squeeze blood from a turnip." You can't get money to fund wars or to take care of the disabled and elderly or to educate the young from the poor. And if you squeeze the middle class just a wee bit too hard, they become poor -- and then you can't squeeze them any more. So, right or wrong, fair or not, if the government really needs more money, it has to squeeze the rich. Sorry, fat cats, but losing a little of that weight will actually do your hearts some good.

[McCamy Taylor]

23. This is what all sensible rich folks should be saying. They benefit more than anyone else

from a vibrant economy.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

26. Bill Gates agrees that the rich should be taxed.

His dad (a wealthy lawyer in his own right) is leading the effort to pass a Washington State income tax on the top 1.2% Bill Jr. supports it. His Microsoft successor Steve Ballmer does not.

And the elder Mr. Gates is a real good sport about the whole thing in a TV ad for the ballot initiative called "Soak the Rich"..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayCmNlo80a4

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

29. Yep

[krispos42]

30. Warren Buffet, class traitor. And thankfully so. n/t

[txaslftist]

32. Well, maybe they ought to cut spending too...

Just saying.

[ooglymoogly]

35. My prediction; That "tax cuts for the rich", will go

the way of Health care legislation; As Rahm continues to promote bluedogs and pugs to run as dems, while pulling the rug from progressives to make sure that happens.

'O' can then put on his best kabuki hat and rant and rave and talk the talk against pugs while he supports and places in powerful heads of commissions those bluedogs that destroy any good legislation he "supports" effectively making sure the corporates have it their way. That has at least been the MO so far.

Saying one thing to his supporters, having already set in motion the opposite, then placing blame on the pugs instead of those Dino's in our party who water to nothing the good legislation the people are clambering for.

When will we learn that Bluedogs and DLCers are just pug corporate shills who have taken over our party and no good can, or will, come of it.

As Blanch Lincoln, Brown, Al Franken and others have already proven, If they can't have A Dino, Rahm and the DLC would rather have a Republican win than a Progressive, who might actually effect some change.

[eilen]

36. My prediction too-

the Democrats will fold like a cheap deck chair on ending the tax cuts on the wealthy. Obama will sign it.

All based from observation of the last 20 months.

And the faithful here will defend it. I think when that happens, I find another board.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. I believe Bill Gates has begun reading from the same hymn sheet.

It is very encouraging to hear very rich men talk in this way. Not so much for the sake of the exploited populace, since, compared to their very rich colleagues, they would be very few in number and their aggregate wealth less, and consequently would carry no political clout in that regard. No. It is for their own sake.

I know Gates has been involved with Monsanto, so he has even more to answer for than being a paragon of the lawless capitalism that has brought us to the verge of a planetary economic catastrophe, and Buffet's joined his personal charity. When rich men want to control their 'charitable' gifts, even in less ambiguous circumstances, one can only view it as an extension of their life-long ego-trip/control-freakery.

However, when they implicitly acknowledge that their compatriots (and perhaps, secondarily, by extension, the rest of the world) deserve a greater share of their wealth, as of right, it has the potential to be a whole new and different ball-game for themselves. Assuming their motives are not completely tarnished, there is hope.