For those who don't want to click, I'll summarize:

Warren Buffet profited from Bush's TARP bailout. So vote Republican.

GAT_00: So, we've advanced from SOROS! to BUFFET! I see.

Good, I was getting hungry.

Fark Lib: *stops fapping to the Guardian* Reason article WHAARGARBLE! *goes back to fapping to the Guardian*

Time to start ripping down the guy whose name brings up visions of higher taxes on high income earners. The walls of my money vault aren't going to line themselves.

Wendy's Chili: For those who don't want to click, I'll summarize completely miss the point of the article:

Warren Buffet profited from Bush's TARP bailout. So vote Republican Whargarbl.

FTFY

I was once fiddled by a dirty old man, good times.

GAT_00: So, we've advanced from SOROS! to BUFFET! I see.

So come on down to the Soros Buffet!! All the freshest derp served up 24/7!
We have everything needed to restore YOUR constitution!
Try our job creator taters! Our freedom fries! Our O'Reilly Loofahs (that's falafel to the mooslime folks out there)! We guarantee you'll have no trouble recalling this meal.

[T]Reason

Is that like when Bush played the US on 9/11, then went after the guy who threatened his dad and his boyfriends instead and left Osama for the next guy to take care of?

Don't make Buffet go Galt on their ass!

akula: There's a very definite conflict of interest at work, and TFA makes a good case for why we maybe ought not to take everything Buffett says as gospel truth. He's a very good and very smart investor, but the crony capitalism being decried by the Occupy crowd appears to be at work here.

Anyone who would take 100% of anything someone said - Obama, Buffett, Palin, Keynes, Goldwater, Paul Krugman, RON PAUL, William Shatner - and base US policy on it is a moron.

Especially economic policy, especially from someone who stands to profit whether we win or lose (hey, that sounds familiar...).

Buffett may have some good ideas. Let's examine them independently, not worship at the altar of capitalism in the hopes that Mammon (and his priest/prophet Buffett) shines his grace upon us.

I no more trust Buffett solely with the country's tax policy than I do Paul Ryan.

akula: Wendy's Chili: For those who don't want to click, I'll summarize:

Warren Buffet profited from Bush's TARP bailout. So vote Republican.

Bad summary.

The short, short version is that Buffet has been lobbying the government (both under Bush and especially under Obama, with whom he has had a strong relationship since long before Obama's Presidential run) to bail out and invest in companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway, thereby driving up his own worth.

His stance for higher capital gains taxes is a very shrewd move, because it insulates him from public outcry against the super rich. He knows those taxes are not likely to happen to any great extent, and even if they did, his worth is of such magnitude that he'd never notice the higher rates.

There's a very definite conflict of interest at work, and TFA makes a good case for why we maybe ought not to take everything Buffett says as gospel truth. He's a very good and very smart investor, but the crony capitalism being decried by the Occupy crowd appears to be at work here.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

His primary business is creating tax sheltered investment products for high income folks who may have an increased intrest in avoiding the higher taxes he's currently lobbying to have enacted. Also he owns a huge number of tax sheltered municiple bonds and provides guarantees for many more which would no doubt increase in a higher tax environment. Finally, he's wealthy enough to be able to structure any sales he needs or wants to make to avoid low or high capital gains taxes.

Wall Street was on fire, and Buffett was running toward the flames. But he was doing so with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money. As he admitted on CNBC at the time, "If I didn't think the government was going to act, I wouldn't be doing anything this week."

Heads up to Reason readers (Libertarians in dorms who talk about weed, but never seem to have any), be fearful when others are greedy, be greedy when others are fearful. Note: this is why you shouldn't be buying gold right now.

And for God's sake quit talking about Ayn Rand when I've got chicks over. Chicks don't want to hear that shiat.

I know for a fact that he's always getting so drunk on margaritas that he can't keep track of his salt shaker. Is this the kind of man that we want influencing public policy?

GAT_00: So, we've advanced from SOROS! to BUFFET! I see.



That's not going to work. Good luck turning Buffett into a boogeyman. The Republicans are really failing at the PR battle these days, aren't they?

The problem with what Buffet says is his company owes something like $1 billion in back taxes that they are trying to not pay. Why not have his company pay it? They can easily afford it.

Like Al Gore (on environmentalism), I agree with him about the rich paying higher taxes, but he needs to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

I just want to see if I understand this right (seriously, no snark).

1. Rich guy bets big on failing banks, assuming that the gov't will step in to bail them out.
2. Rich guy uses lobbies for the gov't to bail out banks.
3. Politicians vote to bail out banks.
4. Rich guy gets 12 metric farktons of money due to bailouts.
5. Rich guys says the tax code is farked up because his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him.

Due to 1-4, 5 is invalidated? I get the claim that Buffet is not some altruistic "champion of the people," but that does not make him wrong.

///And don't go Godwinning up my post with crap about trains running on time. I am not holding him up as some shining hero, and I do think what he did was pretty jacked up, especially if he had as much influence as the article tries to attribute to him.

machoprogrammer: The problem with what Buffet says is his company owes something like $1 billion in back taxes that they are trying to not pay. Why not have his company pay it? They can easily afford it.

Like Al Gore (on environmentalism), I agree with him about the rich paying higher taxes, but he needs to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

There was an article where he dared any Republican Congressman to donate money to pare down the Federal deficit, and he said he woul match their contrabutitions. One Republican Congressman apparently had been doing this for awhile, and Buffett kept his promise and matched their payment for this year.

He hides behind that laid-back son of a son of a sailor attitude, but deep down, he's a cold, calculating margarita machine.

nelsonal: His primary business is creating tax sheltered investment

His business is running a huge conglomerate. And he's managed to do that pretty darn well.

roc6783: Due to 1-4, 5 is invalidated? I get the claim that Buffet is not some altruistic "champion of the people," but that does not make him wrong.

He first mentioned number 5 years ago, before anything happened with the banks.

roc6783: I just want to see if I understand this right (seriously, no snark).

1. Rich guy bets big on failing banks, assuming that the gov't will step in to bail them out.
2. Rich guy uses lobbies for the gov't to bail out banks.
3. Politicians vote to bail out banks.
4. Rich guy gets 12 metric farktons of money due to bailouts.
5. Rich guys says the tax code is farked up because his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him.

Due to 1-4, 5 is invalidated? I get the claim that Buffet is not some altruistic "champion of the people," but that does not make him wrong.

///And don't go Godwinning up my post with crap about trains running on time. I am not holding him up as some shining hero, and I do think what he did was pretty jacked up, especially if he had as much influence as the article tries to attribute to him.

The question is: How much does he gain off of #5? That still doesn't make fixing #5 wrong, but you better believe he going to make something out of the deal.

machoprogrammer: The problem with what Buffet says is his company owes something like $1 billion in back taxes that they are trying to not pay. Why not have his company pay it? They can easily afford it.

Like Al Gore (on environmentalism), I agree with him about the rich paying higher taxes, but he needs to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

When you say "trying not to pay," I assume you mean by finding deductions/exceptions/loopholes as opposed to blatant law-breaking.

I find no fault with him doing that. I don't consider it hypocrisy to take advantage of a system that you disagree with. To use a personal example, I'm against how much money the government puts towards higher eduction in the US. The ease of obtaining non-dischargeable student loans is driving up tuition costs to ridiculous heights and is benefiting the universities much more than the students. That being said, I'm absolutely taking out Stafford loans myself. It's free money (I know I have to pay it back; I'm talking time-value here), and there's no reason for me not to take it. By the same token, Buffet can believe in higher tax rates without volunteering more than his legal obligation to the government. He's not in favor of higher taxes because he wants to get rid of his money and doesn't know how else to do it; he's in favor of them because he thinks the government needs the money and that he and his peers are a good source of it. Personally donating wealth to the government, even from someone as wealthy as Buffet, would be a drop in the bucket compared to how much tax revenue they'd get from actually raising the taxes so that everyone pays more, not just those that volunteer.

Die already, you old crony capitalist fark, and take the rest of your kind with you to hell.

Warren Buffett is cousin Vinny to the GOP's Alakazam's magic tricks.

Doesn't mean he's not going to use his own magic to make a point.
"When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card."

big pig peaches: , but you better believe he going to make something out of the deal.

Or maybe he's not.

imontheinternet: Die already, you old crony capitalist fark, and take the rest of your kind with you to hell.

Aren't you cute, and stupid.

Geotpf: There was an article where he dared any Republican Congressman to donate money to pare down the Federal deficit, and he said he woul match their contrabutitions. One Republican Congressman apparently had been doing this for awhile, and Buffett kept his promise and matched their payment for this year.

There is a huge difference between the thousands a congressman would put up and a billion dollars, though...

Teenwolf: When you say "trying not to pay," I assume you mean by finding deductions/exceptions/loopholes as opposed to blatant law-breaking.

I read somewhere the IRS is after them and the lawyers are frantically looking for loopholes. If the IRS is actually trying to get them to pay it, I would say that is borderline "law-breaking" if they actually do owe extra for it being late.

big pig peaches: roc6783: I just want to see if I understand this right (seriously, no snark).

1. Rich guy bets big on failing banks, assuming that the gov't will step in to bail them out.
2. Rich guy uses lobbies for the gov't to bail out banks.
3. Politicians vote to bail out banks.
4. Rich guy gets 12 metric farktons of money due to bailouts.
5. Rich guys says the tax code is farked up because his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him.

Due to 1-4, 5 is invalidated? I get the claim that Buffet is not some altruistic "champion of the people," but that does not make him wrong. That still doesn't make him wrong.

///And don't go Godwinning up my post with crap about trains running on time. I am not holding him up as some shining hero, and I do think what he did was pretty jacked up, especially if he had as much influence as the article tries to attribute to him.

The question is: How much does he gain off of #5? That still doesn't make fixing #5 wrong, but you better believe he going to make something out of the deal.

Despite what Fox News calls him he's basically the king of Capitalists. Anyone who thought he wasn't going to benefit from this in someway is out of their farking mind. Last time I checked he's not running a charity.

The more Buffett talks, the less respect I have for him. He is the poster child for the incestuous relationship between big business and government.

Warren Buffett stands to profit no matter what the tax percentage for his bracket is, and that's the point. He's rich enough that he doesn't have to worry about it. That's what he's been saying for years. The rich and super-rich are well off enough that it would take a severely crippling and draconian tax policy - which will never happen - for the rich in the US to actually be hurt by it. When you have so much money you can make money off that money, what's a 2-3% bump in income taxes to you?

Even back in the days of a 90% tax rate for the top earners in the US, there were enough loopholes and shelters in place for the rich to cut that percentage down, keep a buttload away from Uncle Sam, and reinvest that cash into new securities. Benjamin Graham literally wrote the book on this and was a mentor to Buffett.

justinguarini4ever: The more Buffett talks, the less respect I have for him. He is the poster child for the incestuous relationship between big business and government.

You've obviously not read a lot of American or World history for that to be a surprise to you. He's not the first. He's not the last. Government and business have been bed fellows since people invent them.

As usual, Reason offers a piece that's anything but reasonable. The argument the article is making, from what I can tell, is this:

1) Warren Buffett has profited during a time when banks and other financial organizations required government bailouts.
2) Warren Bufffett has advocated positions that have resulted in creating advantages for him so that his firm can make more money.
3) Warren Buffett has, at the same time, said that the very rich are being coddled by the government and should pay more taxes.

The problem is that points 1 and 2 are irrelevant for refuting point 3. You can't make an argument that says, "We should allow the rich to continue to pay low taxes because Warren Buffett took advantage of a system that allowed him to make a ton of money, and yet has said the super rich should pay more taxes." It doesn't make any sense.

Another angle on the argument presented in the article is that we should be wary of Warren because he's got massive political influence and uses it to further his own interests. But that's not exactly surprising, given that he's a celebrity investor who represents the concerns of tons off companies that he owns and wants to keep profitable. Buffett isn't the guy who's dumping money into these companies, gutting them and selling them off to make a quick buck. He's a guy who uses his money to rebuild businesses that he acquires so they can become better at what they do.

Is he perfect? Absolutely not, and the article is correct in suggesting that his motives are not the same as the everyday person's. But why should they be? Should we really demonize him for that?

roc6783: I just want to see if I understand this right (seriously, no snark).

1. Rich guy bets big on failing banks, assuming that the gov't will step in to bail them out.
2. Rich guy uses lobbies for the gov't to bail out banks.
3. Politicians vote to bail out banks.
4. Rich guy gets 12 metric farktons of money due to bailouts.
5. Rich guys says the tax code is farked up because his secretary pays a higher tax rate than him.

Due to 1-4, 5 is invalidated? I get the claim that Buffet is not some altruistic "champion of the people," but that does not make him wrong.

///And don't go Godwinning up my post with crap about trains running on time. I am not holding him up as some shining hero, and I do think what he did was pretty jacked up, especially if he had as much influence as the article tries to attribute to him.

I don't disagree with any part of that. But I do suspect he has a plan to turn this entire thing to his advantage. Either that or he knows it won't happen so he's just going for some faux-populism in his old age so a lot of peons attend his funeral.

Buffett isn't one of the richest men alive without a reason. He knows what he's doing.