Stop Coddling the Super-Rich: Warren Buffett

[hugolp]

Not directly, but it is the implication of you statement unless you live in some alternative world where people just stop accumulating wealth when they're "rich enough" (by whatever your standards may be).

Neither indirectly or directly. If you keep reading I wrote:

One thing is being clever by respecting and profiting from benefiting your fellow citizens. Its very different profitting from imposing rules by force onto your fellow citizens. The first helps human progress, the later destroys society and hurts the people.

[1713989804]

1713989804

[1713989804]

1713989804

[1713989804]

1713989804

[Grinder]

Not directly, but it is the implication of you statement unless you live in some alternative world where people just stop accumulating wealth when they're "rich enough" (by whatever your standards may be).

Neither indirectly or directly. If you keep reading I wrote:

One thing is being clever by respecting and profiting from benefiting your fellow citizens. Its very different profitting from imposing rules by force onto your fellow citizens. The first helps human progress, the later destroys society and hurts the people.

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

[hugolp]

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

I dont understand why you come to this community to just repeat talking points and insult people.

[FlipPro]

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

I dont understand why you come to this community to just repeat talking points and insult people.

He is not being insulting, he is just stating the truth. We can't have a society with no rules because it just doesn't work and it's been proven time and time again. I put these threads up so that people can see that we really are a diverse community with varying opinions and we aren't just stuck to listening to one view and one ideology. Here is something that might fit your view, though I doubt you'll be invited .

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

[Anonymous]

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

I dont understand why you come to this community to just repeat talking points and insult people.

We can't have a society with no rules...

Nobody has ever advocated this. If anything, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding in what we wish to achieve.

In the end, what we want is effective order established by the many. Not mob rule, not a few but all through a system that effectively addresses all individual desires and that is -- unremorsefully -- free market capitalism.

[hugolp]

He is not being insulting, he is just stating the truth.

Im really fed up with the empty rethoric. Have you ever trying saying something?

We can't have a society with no rules because it just doesn't work

Nobody has proposed a society with no rules.

etc... you guys keep repeating talking points, using empty rethoric and isulting people. Lets see where it gets you.

and it's been proven time and time again. I put these threads up so that people can see that we really are a diverse community with varying opinions and we aren't just stuck to listening to one view and one ideology. Here is something that might fit your view, though I doubt you'll be invited .

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

And btw, congratullations on completely derailing the thread with stupid rethoric. You seem incapable of being rational.

[Anonymous]

He is not being insulting, he is just stating the truth.

Im really fed up with the empty rethoric. Have you ever trying saying something?

We can't have a society with no rules because it just doesn't work

Nobody has proposed a society with no rules.

etc... you guys keep repeating talking points, using empty rethoric and isulting people. Lets see where it gets you.

and it's been proven time and time again. I put these threads up so that people can see that we really are a diverse community with varying opinions and we aren't just stuck to listening to one view and one ideology. Here is something that might fit your view, though I doubt you'll be invited .

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html

He thinks he's higher than us. He believes he can make it just on a supposed moral high ground along with his supporting few.

[AyeYo]

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

I dont understand why you come to this community to just repeat talking points and insult people.

We can't have a society with no rules...

Nobody has ever advocated this. If anything, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding in what we wish to achieve.

In the end, what we want is effective order established by the many. Not mob rule, not a few but all through a system that effectively addresses all individual desires and that is -- unremorsefully -- free market capitalism.

Which is why you'll keep getting called delusional by non-delusional people.

[FlipPro]

That just supports my statement. Your claim that it "destroys" society is clearly wrong, because the most well regulated countries are also the richest. Too many rules can create unnecessary obstacles, but the uncertainty a lack of laws creates is just as bad.

Anyway, I realize your ideology is your religion, so I'll stop wasting our time discussing this now.

I dont understand why you come to this community to just repeat talking points and insult people.

We can't have a society with no rules...

Nobody has ever advocated this. If anything, it only demonstrates your lack of understanding in what we wish to achieve.

In the end, what we want is effective order established by the many. Not mob rule, not a few but all through having a system that can effectively addresses all individual desires.

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

"In the end, what we want is effective order established by the many. Not mob rule, not a few but all through having a system that can effectively addresses all individual desires."

Is the problem that YOUR candidate won't win? I assume you are a Ron Paul guy or for some other non main-stream candidate. If your picks never win it's not because there is some conspiracy against your ideology, or everyone is just too stupid to care. It's simply because not enough people think that your Ideology is best for the entire country, becuase Atlas you have to step back for a second and understand that not everyone thinks like you do.

You are advocating "effective order established by many" yet you continue to rally for restrictions imposed by few through literal economic terrorism. Ron Paul is WRONG when he thinks he can take the entire country back to the gold standard without having any negative effects on the entire economy. Ron Paul is WRONG when he says he can cut all social programs and people will be able to find their own way, Ron Paul is not only wrong but is irresponsible when he says that we don't need to enforce revenues on rich people and that we should let the free market manage itself.  I cannot believe that some people think these are good ideas. I honestly feel like I am wasting my time even debating these ideas which is why the Mainstream Media ignores him and all his supporters. Don't get me wrong I like some of Dr. Pauls ideas alot, but some are just so off base, and so wrong I don't even know where to start.

You fight for rich people every single day Atlas by fighting for policy's that have no chance of ever making it to law, so you turn the debate so far to the right, that all of a sudden "Right" is the new middle. Being blind to ideology is just as bad as fighting for the rich.

[Anonymous]

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

No, what we have now is where the corporations fund their candidates and then we get the illusion of choice. We pick from a box of puppets: a system, a farce known as government that can be easily manipulated by the irrational whims of few. Who can blame them? A monopoly power is destined to be as such.

Is the problem that YOUR candidate won't win? I assume you are a Ron Paul guy or for some other non main-stream candidate. If your picks never win it's not because there is some conspiracy against your ideology, or everyone is just too stupid to care. It's simply because not enough people think that your Ideology is best for the entire country, becuase Atlas you have to step back for a second and understand that not everyone thinks like you do.

Most people don't think. They have a free vote that is worth nothing. They can mandate and admonish whoever they wish because most people have no stake in our democracy. That's one of the main issues. A true democracy is not one of free votes. Such is slavery.

You are advocating "effective order established by many" yet you continue to rally for restrictions imposed by few through literal economic terrorism. Ron Paul is WRONG when he thinks he can take the entire country back to the gold standard without having any negative effects on the entire economy. Ron Paul is WRONG when he says he can cut all social programs and people will be able to find their own way, Ron Paul is not only wrong but is irresponsible when he says that we don't need to enforce revenues on rich people and that we should let the free market manage itself.  I cannot believe that some people think these are good ideas. I honestly feel like I am wasting my time even debating these ideas which is why the Mainstream Media ignores him and all his supporters. Don't get me wrong I like some of Dr. Pauls ideas alot, but some are just so off base, and so wrong I don't even know where to start.

In a nutshell, you think it is wrong for a man to be entitled to his property and his own life when most organisms on this planet sustain on the concept of property. I think it is WRONG to deny man his birth right. I think it is wrong for man to be admonished by the whims who do not contribute nor having nothing at stake by their vote.

Being blind to ideology is just as bad as fighting for the rich.

Look in the mirror.

[AyeYo]

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

No, what we have now is where the corporations fund their candidates and then we get the illusion of choice. We pick from a box of puppets: a system, a farce known as government that can be easily manipulated by the irrational whims of few. Who can blame them? A monopoly power is destined to be as such.

So your solution is to give all the power over to the corporations directly, saving them the effort of proxying it through a government.

Yea that'll work perfectly!

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

Oh how the education system has failed you dear child... The United States IS NOT nor EVER WAS a democracy... our government is a REPUBLIC....  I bet you don't really know what that means....

A republic is a form of democracy, brosef.  Educate yourself.

[hugolp]

You fight for rich people every single day Atlas by fighting for policy's that have no chance of ever making it to law, so you turn the debate so far to the right, that all of a sudden "Right" is the new middle. Being blind to ideology is just as bad as fighting for the rich.

The only one fighting for rich people like Warren Buffet is you. Progressivism is just corporatism with a nice smile.

But let me use a language you will understand: You are delusional, you dont see the truth, ary ary, blablabla... Better that way?

[Anonymous]

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

No, what we have now is where the corporations fund their candidates and then we get the illusion of choice. We pick from a box of puppets: a system, a farce known as government that can be easily manipulated by the irrational whims of few. Who can blame them? A monopoly power is destined to be as such.

So your solution is to give all the power over to the corporations directly, saving them the effort of proxying it through a government.

Yea that'll work perfectly!

For the hundred-thousandth time, powerful corporations are nothing without the government. They are no longer persons but held liable by the very people that run them. They will no longer have an exclusive access to force. You ignore this fact.

[AyeYo]

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

No, what we have now is where the corporations fund their candidates and then we get the illusion of choice. We pick from a box of puppets: a system, a farce known as government that can be easily manipulated by the irrational whims of few. Who can blame them? A monopoly power is destined to be as such.

So your solution is to give all the power over to the corporations directly, saving them the effort of proxying it through a government.

Yea that'll work perfectly!

For the hundred-thousandth time, powerful corporations are nothing without the government. They are no longer persons but held liable by the very people that run them.

hahahahahahahahahha *deep breath* hahahahahhhahahha


I guess that's why powerful corporations consistanty lobby for less government and are the backers of the movements like the Teabaggers.  They must just want to destroy themselves.

[Anonymous]

A modern democracy is what we already have NOW...

No, what we have now is where the corporations fund their candidates and then we get the illusion of choice. We pick from a box of puppets: a system, a farce known as government that can be easily manipulated by the irrational whims of few. Who can blame them? A monopoly power is destined to be as such.

So your solution is to give all the power over to the corporations directly, saving them the effort of proxying it through a government.

Yea that'll work perfectly!

For the hundred-thousandth time, powerful corporations are nothing without the government. They are no longer persons but held liable by the very people that run them.

hahahahahahahahahha *deep breath* hahahahahhhahahha


I guess that's why powerful corporations consistanty lobby for less government and are the backers of the movements like the Teabaggers.  They must just want to destroy themselves.

The thing is they don't. All the pharmaceutical corporations made sure Obamacare was passed. The companies that vouch for the Tea Party today are still for corporate welfare. The Tea Party in its current is very much for corporatism. If you look at the true principles The Tea Party once stood for, the lobbyists have nothing for it.

Look at Ron Paul, the founder, he doesn't have a single corporate sponsor. Big media doesn't even want anything to do with him. He's a threat to big companies.

[FlipPro]

And btw, congratullations on completely derailing the thread with stupid rethoric. You seem incapable of being rational.

Sorry but that's a line of crap.... (See the original post....)

Conservatives / Libertarians jumping in to repudiate the words of someone 10000 times richer than them in 3...2...1  

The truth hurts

Warren Buffet pays 17% and he's the third richest person in the world. I am pretty sure Bill Gates isn't to far away from that number either.

How can you guys possibly think this is ok? What is wrong with you?

In Germany for example the top income bracket pays 56% with the average paying 29%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

We are the lowest taxed industrialized country on Earth and you guys are still fighting for less even though 46% of the population in America already pays 0 income tax.

[Anonymous]

And btw, congratullations on completely derailing the thread with stupid rethoric. You seem incapable of being rational.

Sorry but that's a line of crap.... (See the original post....)

Conservatives / Libertarians jumping in to repudiate the words of someone 10000 times richer than them in 3...2...1  

The truth hurts

Warren Buffet pays 17% and he's the third riches person in the world. I am pretty sure Bill Gates isn't to far away from that number either.

How can you guys possible think this is ok? What is wrong with you?

In Germany for example the top income bracket pays 56% with the average paying 29%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

We are the lowest taxed industrialized country on Earth and you guys are still fighting for less even though 46% of the population in America already pays 0 income tax.

How can you think it is okay that you pay 20% in taxes and fictional persons called corporations (that have the most income) pay less than 2%? Why are we not concerned about a government that only engineers a regime that creates bigger and more coercive companies? We're worried about the wrong thing. It's all a distraction.

[AyeYo]

A republic is a form of democracy, brosef.  Educate yourself.

No it's not... a republic is a republic... republics existed on this planet far longer than any democracy ever did the American system added some additional democracy like flavor but it is still not a democracy or a form of it....

Let me help you out here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


If there's voting going on, it's a democracy.  A republic is a subset of democracy in which the populace elects (that's the democratic part) politicians to represent them.

Republic
 
Main article: Republicanism
 
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[74] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister.[75]
 
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.
 
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[76] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep it."[77]

[AyeYo]

And btw, congratullations on completely derailing the thread with stupid rethoric. You seem incapable of being rational.

Sorry but that's a line of crap.... (See the original post....)

Conservatives / Libertarians jumping in to repudiate the words of someone 10000 times richer than them in 3...2...1  

The truth hurts

Warren Buffet pays 17% and he's the third riches person in the world. I am pretty sure Bill Gates isn't to far away from that number either.

How can you guys possible think this is ok? What is wrong with you?

In Germany for example the top income bracket pays 56% with the average paying 29%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

We are the lowest taxed industrialized country on Earth and you guys are still fighting for less even though 46% of the population in America already pays 0 income tax.

And what's funny is that these same people want to return to the "good old days" when the country was growing strong because there were no taxes on the rich... oh wait..

[hugolp]

The truth hurts

More rethoric. Are you capable of using a rational argument?

Warren Buffet pays 17% and he's the third riches person in the world. I am pretty sure Bill Gates isn't to far away from that number either.

If you really believe this you are even more naive than you seem.

How can you guys possible think this is ok? What is wrong with you?

Who says we are ok with it? You progressives are guilty of this situation.

In Germany for example the top income bracket pays 56% with the average paying 29%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

And in the USA corporations pay higher tax rate than in Germany. If you like Germany I guess you support lowering taxes for corporations in the USA right? Or this Germany things is just another of your stupid talking points?

We are the lowest taxed industrialized country on Earth and you guys are still fighting for less even though 46% of the population in America already pays 0 income tax.

The USA has the highest corporate rate in the industrialized world. Germany and all the northen european countries have lower corporate rates. Is that the model you are defending?