JerkStore: Buffet: I think the rich should pay more taxes.

Critics: Nothing's keeping you from sending in some extra money, Mr. Moneybags!

Buffet: Here's a check, and I'll also match the donations made by any of you other blowhards.

Critics: Just STFU and send more money. You can afford it.

Seriously, can any of you reach into your wallets and pull out $50 grand that you'd just hand over to the government, no strings attached, never mind the fact that there's more where that came from if you do somehow manage to also reach into your own pocket.

/hypocrite crickets

Well, actually, before I can answer, I'm going to need a ruling on how much "$50 grand" is?

And actually, I need to know how its pronounced. Is it "fifty dollars grand"? "Fifty grand dollars"? I suppose "a grand" is a colloquialism for "one thousand dollars", so do you mean to say "fifty dollars one thousand dollars"? Or "fifty thousand dollars dollars"? Is that like meters per second per second?

I just need to know how much we're talking about before I can intelligently answer.

Also, I'm curious what "hypocrite crickets" sound like.... are they crickets that pretend to make a lot of chirping noise.. but don't actually have wings?

Jack Black 62: Only a matter of time before the government defaults. I wonder how long the average farker will survive when they realize their fiat currency is worthless?

If the government defaults and the economy collapses, gold (especially if you don't actually have gold bricks in your hand but are merely "invested" in it) won't be much more useful; though all that ammo you've been sitting on for the last 3-4 years might.

For those biatching about this donation as a percentage, what percentage did the Koch brothers give as a donation to the treasury? Mitch McConnel, Bohener? or best of all Mitt?

Because People in power are Stupid: misanthropic1: Because People in power are Stupid: So we have three repugnantans on here.

1) Lives with the fantasy that American money is worthless... which immediately implies that paying down any so-called debt is a fools errand.
2) Wants to shoot people (not sure where he's going with this)
3) Believes that any criticism of the hypocrites in congress is "hateful".

What am I missing?

A complete disregard for deductive reasoning?

How so?

You are MISSING a disregard for deductive reasoning.

Vrpljbrwock: More impressed by the senator, 15% of his pay versus .0000001% of Buffet's, but well done on both parts.
/Still short by a couple orders of magnitude

I'll be impressed by the Senator's contribution if that is above and beyond the 28% of his income that should already have gone to taxes (I'm guessing he didn't pay anywhere near that 28% to begin with).

msupf: Instead of biatching about how little money that is for buffet, why aren't you biatching about how many republican reps have seemingly ignored this challenge so far, and why the democrats haven't asked to get in on it as well?

That would mean using their brains.

Joce678: j__z: Yup, it's time to step up the plate, I'm matching Buffets donation as well. So as a percentage of my net worth that mirrors Buffet % contribution, I'm sending in 17 cents.

Derp.

Warren could give all his money to the treasury, sure, but he knows that they'd just steal it and/or piss it away so why bother?

The point isn't to see how much Warren can donate, the point is to see how many politicians step up to the plate when challenged. You know, politicians, the people who are supposed to be looking after the country's finances.

if it is a challenge, why are the people who accept set up so they are the only ones who can possibly lose anything of value to themselves?
this challenege conveniently can't possibly affect buffets wealth by a hundredth of a percentage point. he has no skin in the game. he's just being a pious douche.

And you know that money went no where near paying down the national debt... it got rolled into this years budget spending.

Joce678: j__z: Yup, it's time to step up the plate, I'm matching Buffets donation as well. So as a percentage of my net worth that mirrors Buffet % contribution, I'm sending in 17 cents.

Derp.

Warren could give all his money to the treasury, sure, but he knows that they'd just steal it and/or piss it away so why bother?

The point isn't to see how much Warren can donate, the point is to see how many politicians step up to the plate when challenged. You know, politicians, the people who are supposed to be looking after the country's finances.

Pffft. Since when does anyone expect politicians to do their jobs? I'm pretty sure that the US Congress is taxpayer-subsidized day-care for retarded adults.

trappedspirit: Because People in power are Stupid: So we have three repugnantans on here.

1) Lives with the fantasy that American money is worthless... which immediately implies that paying down any so-called debt is a fools errand.
2) Wants to shoot people (not sure where he's going with this)
3) Believes that any criticism of the hypocrites in congress is "hateful".

What am I missing?

Goyim

? Not an Israel thread duder

here to help: So why isn't this guy running for president?

He doesn't need the pay cut or the headaches.

Because People in power are Stupid: trappedspirit:

You are MISSING a disregard for deductive reasoning.

You are a moron. (new window)

No, really.

relcec: if it is a challenge, why are the people who accept set up so they are the only ones who can possibly lose anything of value to themselves?
this challenege conveniently can't possibly affect buffets wealth by a hundredth of a percentage point. he has no skin in the game. he's just being a pious douche.

The people being challenged fired the first shot with "why don't you just write a check?". They were being grandstanding douche-bags with that little statement, and essentially brushed off what he was proposing (an adjustment to the tax structure). He fired back with a challenge for them to put up or shut up. So far only one of those challenged has stepped up to the plate.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. The pussy Republicans that snarked Buffet for his tax idea are getting a taste of their own medicine, which apparently they and you don't like. Next time, maybe the Republicans and their mouth-breather defenders should think about what they are saying before trying to dig someone who has the ability to embarrass them.

MythDragon: Jerkwater: I bet you could sell a couple of those and afford a headboard and a nightstand.
I have a nightstand thats out of frame. And Jesus Christ with the headboard. You sound like my wife. The wall makes a great headboard. Why pay money for something that does what the wall is already doing?


It just looks nice. Why have baseboards or trim?

Horses for courses, though (he says gamely to the crazy person with all the firearms).

Knara: Ah, someone calls the "you can write a check to DC anytime you want" conservative/Paultard bluff.

$49K from Warren Buffett hardly amounts to "calling anyone's bluff", given the state of the USA's finances and Buffett's own. But it's nice to know that this is the going rate for a talking point - more expensive than I had estimated, given the petty squabbles that pass for political debate these days.

relcec: he's not making a statement about the debt at all. he's claiming he is pious by picking some lint out of his navel, then cutting it in half because it was too generous, then flicking it at the treasury. I couldn't cut up a penny small enough to represent how litttle I could give to the treasury to match this Buffet Porportion, this silly theater that has you enthralled. fark him.

Reeeeeeeeally? How much did you give above and beyond your mandated taxes? I bet it not one farking cent.

You're biatching about this guy who did, and who challenged the assholes who endless yammer about lowering taxes on the wealthy.

So either cough up some of your own cash, or shut it. Whiny little biatch.

The Face Of Oblivion: Knara: Ah, someone calls the "you can write a check to DC anytime you want" conservative/Paultard bluff.

$49K from Warren Buffett hardly amounts to "calling anyone's bluff", given the state of the USA's finances and Buffett's own. But it's nice to know that this is the going rate for a talking point - more expensive than I had estimated, given the petty squabbles that pass for political debate these days.

Instead of "calling someone's bluff" call it "put your money where your mouth is". For the most part, those in power who rant and rail weren't willing to.

Vrpljbrwock: More impressed by the senator, 15% of his pay versus .0000001% of Buffet's, but well done on both parts.
/Still short by a couple orders of magnitude

A portion is the senators money will come from Buffett's. Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't a solid economic strategy unless you intend to never pay Peter back.

Archimedes' Principal: Pure symbolism over substance. Way to go Mr. Buffett.

Don't underestimate the power of symbolism...

Hebalo: Instead of "calling someone's bluff" call it "put your money where your mouth is".

"Put your money where your mouth is" is generally understood to refer to a meaningful sum. This isn't an expected loss situation for Buffett, by the way; he's reasonably good at monetizing the positive perception of his companies and himself personally. A similar criticism, by the way, applies to Rigell; he may not have huge wealth currently, but the earning potential of ex-members of Congress is notable for being completely out of proportion to their education or work experience. In other words, it's posturing all around, and that's true even if every Republican member of Congress ponies up significantly and Buffett matches each. It's more nonsense that only people deeply emotionally invested in getting one over on their political oppponents view with an un-jaundiced eye.

I submitted this with a less expensive headline.

The Face Of Oblivion: "Put your money where your mouth is" is generally understood to refer to a meaningful sum.

Nope. It means, back up what you're saying with action. There is NO consideration for the amount, which is beside the point at any rate.

Hebalo: Nope. It means, back up what you're saying with action. There is NO consideration for the amount, which is beside the point at any rate.

No, it's not beside the point. When someone is speaking of something other than money, one understands that the speaker means "do something", where "something" is not a totally inconsequential act. The same applies when someone is actually speaking of money. It's a colloquialism, and appropriately illustrated by colloquial use:

Friend: "I say Giants. Put your money where your mouth is."
You: "OK. I bet you one dollar...."
Friend: "Not so confident now, are we?"

vs.

Friend: "I say Giants. Put your money where your mouth is."
You: "OK. Five hundred bucks says..."
Friend: "I'll take those odds; you'd better hit the ATM before gametime."

In the present situation, Warren Buffet did something inconsequential relative to both his overall wealth and the overall U.S. debt, and moreover stands to earn back personally more than he laid out no matter what happens because he bought some amount of positive perception by ideologically sympathetic people. Everyone either challenging him or responding to his gambit is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior. This is partisan bickering as win-win proposition, all around.

Because People in power are Stupid: The point is that Buffet thinks that the tax rates for the rich should be higher.

And that's fine and he's entitled to his opinion. My point, which I believe that I explained quite clearly above, is that neither Buffett nor his critics stand to lose either money or social standing as a result of events to date, and that nobody should be falling overthemselves to offer congratulations for acts that involve no risk.

Because People in power are Stupid: trappedspirit: Because People in power are Stupid: trappedspirit:

You are MISSING a disregard for deductive reasoning.

You are a moron. (new window)

No, really.

[i141.photobucket.com image 600x400]

[thisnerdinglife.files.wordpress.com image 332x332]
Antisemite!

The Protocols!

/it's the new Aristocrats
//Thanks for the pity sponsorship

The Face Of Oblivion: Hebalo: Nope. It means, back up what you're saying with action. There is NO consideration for the amount, which is beside the point at any rate.

No, it's not beside the point. When someone is speaking of something other than money, one understands that the speaker means "do something", where "something" is not a totally inconsequential act. The same applies when someone is actually speaking of money. It's a colloquialism, and appropriately illustrated by colloquial use:

Friend: "I say Giants. Put your money where your mouth is."
You: "OK. I bet you one dollar...."
Friend: "Not so confident now, are we?"

vs.

Friend: "I say Giants. Put your money where your mouth is."
You: "OK. Five hundred bucks says..."
Friend: "I'll take those odds; you'd better hit the ATM before gametime."

In the present situation, Warren Buffet did something inconsequential relative to both his overall wealth and the overall U.S. debt, and moreover stands to earn back personally more than he laid out no matter what happens because he bought some amount of positive perception by ideologically sympathetic people. Everyone either challenging him or responding to his gambit is engaging in exactly the same type of behavior. This is partisan bickering as win-win proposition, all around.

Nonsense. In this case, the politicans put the onus on Buffett to pay more.

He in turn issued the reverse challenge to match whatever politicians donated.

They barely coughed up any cash at all.

To castigate Buffett for doing something while they do nothing is ridiculous.

Could Buffett have paid more? Of course he could.

Could the politicians? Of course they could.

But in the end result, Buffett DID cough up, to the same extent as they did. If they want him to pay more, there's a simple way to do it. But they don't really want that. They want to keep all their cash, they don't really want to solve the budget issues.

Molavian: This is the equivalent of me sending a quarter to the IRS.

So do it and quit whining.

Hebalo: But in the end result, Buffett DID cough up, to the same extent as they did.

And you seem to have read right past the part of my post in which I point out that neither party to the challenge stands to lose anything from their respective stances and actions. There's really no point in viewing the back-and-forth as anything but a sideshow. It's a cheap way to purchase outrage, as perfectly illustrated by earlier posts in this thread.

Hebalo: So do it and quit whining.

Also, it's funny (though I guess not surprising) that a guy that lives in Canada is so wrapped up in US politics that he tells people to "quit whining" for pointing out the obvious in a manner that is insufficiently deferential to Buffett (said poster's punching bag of choice).

The amount Buffett is able to put in is inconsequential. The whole argument went something like this:

Republicans: THE DEBT IS KILLING THE NATION!
Buffett: We need to raise taxes on rich people like myself, in order to pay down the debt.
Republicans: Why don't you just pay more yourself, that should help pay down the debt without raising taxes.
Buffett: Fine, but since you guys care so much about the debt, how about a little gentleman's agreement. You cut a check to pay down the debt, and I will match that. Goes triple for turtle-boy.
Rigell: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
Rest of the Republicans so far: Why would we do that? It won't help one bit, even though one of our core arguments for the whole "just write a check" snark was that such a contribution should help.

End Result: Republicans are essentially destroying their own talking points about how charity and voluntary contributions will pull us out of debt, because even they don't think that such an approach would ever work. The whole exchange is proving that pretty much the ONLY way to solve the debt crisis is to raise taxes, because relying on individual contributions would be like draining Lake Superior with a tablespoon.

fuhfuhfuh: End Result: Republicans are essentially destroying their own talking points...

And they'll do it gladly, because all that matters to them is "sticking it to the Libs" no matter what the price to them or the nation.

MythDragon: Jack Black 62: Only a matter of time before the government defaults. I wonder how long the average farker will survive when they realize their fiat currency is worthless?

Easy:
[i1134.photobucket.com image 600x450]
[i1134.photobucket.com image 600x450]
^ Images is collection of guns for those who can't see it when my cheap-ass free photobucket account runs out of bandwith

And:
[lib.store.yahoo.net image 400x304]

/Yes, that CZ-P07 has a bayonet on it.

Wouldn't it be easier and smarter to carry one gun and a lot of ammo for it?


/Unless you have thirty-six hands...
//But still only binocular vision...
///Points for enthusiasm.

The Face Of Oblivion: Hebalo: So do it and quit whining.

Also, it's funny (though I guess not surprising) that a guy that lives in Canada is so wrapped up in US politics that he tells people to "quit whining" for pointing out the obvious in a manner that is insufficiently deferential to Buffett (said poster's punching bag of choice).

Why does it matter where I live? Whining is whining.

Love it that Buffett (who does something) gets a face full of "NOT ENOUGH!!!" "TOKEN PAYMENT!!!!" from those who have no intention of paying a cent more than they have to.

Foreground My Ass: that's 10 new Nikon d4 cameras,.....

wow


It doesn't even pay for one GBU-31 JDAM. (~$70,000)

mitEj: To everyone bithcing that Warren Buffett didn't give more you have no one to blame but the people in office and get them to pony up.

This is the only guy that took up the challenge. and Warren Buffett was big enough to take the man at his word without any other proof that he did this.

Also well done to Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican representing Virginia.
He clearly practices what he preaches in office.

1.) $49,000 is walking around money to Warren.

2) Giving more money to government solves nothing unless you fix the spending problem.
For example Obama's home state :

After raising income taxes 67% -- IL still $8.5B in debt...
(new window)