Debt

I read the first two paragraphs and heres what I got.

1 new york times-     liberal source
2 warren buffet- left of liberal.
3 only the poor and middle class are in the military

Credibility is gone!

I did look as you can see by the threee points I referenced. I am just saying it is a biased piece of garbage with a distinct liberal agenda.

I would have been disappointed if you hadnt.

OverMyHead wrote: I read the first two paragraphs and heres what I got. 1 new york times-     liberal source 2 warren buffet- left of liberal. 3 only the poor and middle class are in the military Credibility is gone!

Not picking on you, but this is a perfect example of the ridiculous, polarized political attitude the vast majority of America has. Does everyone really think that the whole country can be divided into two sides, of which every viewpoint carried by one side is the exact opposite of the viewpoints of the other?

I would most certainly consider myself a conservative, but I don't act like everything thing a Republican says has to be right, and everything a Democrat says has to be wrong.

Phil, I read the article, thanks for posting it.

Buffet is rich. Those making 250k and up is our admin's target. Our little company falls into that definition. Moreover, anything more than what we have to deal with now; taxes, regs, etc will be the end of our little company.

The NYT has a nick name on Red Eye...yall know what it is?

Joe, Buffet and the NYT have a proven record. Their mission there was to further the lib agenda. Neither entity wants to see our savior booted.

If I didn't make my point clear, sorry. I am not saying whether or not the article is full of crap, or full of truth, or whether or not you agree or disagree with it. My point was just making an example about your initial reaction to it. There have been many other posts (by others in this thread, not just you) that I could've made the same example out of.

It's the general thought that "I stand on this side, therefore EVERYTHING on the other side must be wrong." Not everything is part of a larger "agenda"/conspiracy, some things might actually make sense if you view them without a preconceived notions.

If Keith Olbermann told me that 10 x 10 = 100, I got to admit, I would probably hesitate to believe him, but I try to at least keep an open mind.

C-Bass wrote: If I didn't make my point clear, sorry. I am not saying whether or not the article is full of crap, or full of truth, or whether or not you agree or disagree with it. My point was just making an example about your initial reaction to it. There have been many other posts (by others in this thread, not just you) that I could've made the same example out of. It's the general thought that "I stand on this side, therefore EVERYTHING on the other side must be wrong." Not everything is part of a larger "agenda"/conspiracy, some things might actually make sense if you view them without a preconceived notions. If Keith Olbermann told me that 10 x 10 = 100, I got to admit, I would probably hesitate to believe him, but I try to at least keep an open mind.

Craig, no apology neccesary, Like I said, I did go to and read the article. It was just at each step my radar went up. First the link came from Phil, second it was in the NYT. Up untill about a year ago I read the electronic version of the NYT every morning, I know it well, it is a major source but leans a little left. Sometimes alot. When I purchased my latest phone with a bigger screen for reading at the breakfast table I had trouble with the NYT site and switched to AP, also a little left but I read it everyday. Despite my own bias (big news, I have a conservative bias)I consume media from many sources left right and middle. Anyway, when I saw it was written by Warren Buffet my radar began to flash violently, but I proceeded. The first paragraph set the purpose of the article. The second set the tone. Like I said before, the unrelated military comment was place there for a reason, specifically to manipulate the reader.(I could have said to persuade or sway, but I am also biased and trying to manipulate, and it has a harsher tone). Warren wanted the reader to have contempt for his targets before he made any arguments so that the reader is less likely to question his reasoning. It is easy to see if you are looking and I dont care to be used in this way. When I post statistics I am always asked if they come from a non-biased source. So I pick sources like the IRS, then I am asked to read things by Warren Buffet. What would the response be if I made a point backed up by Sarah Palin article?

BO's tone has been pathetic in his last few appearances.

Barack came to minnesota today, hard to work with one hand protecting your wallet.

ononewheel wrote: Your example of the construction worker above is nice.... Isn't it screwed up when two working people in the household, one works simply to cover the cost of daycare so they can work? Or you could say that construction worker, works, just to cover his work. Yeah, and peter piper picked a pail of pickled ....... But yet, he still pays taxes, and went back to work when asked. Did you tell him you are a member of a forum, and on the forum you are trying to make an argument where folks like him are abusing the system, and you'd rather not see others like him receive unemployment benefits?

I did not tell him about the forum but I did remind him who was paying for him to sit home, and that we were glad to see him back at work.

OverMyHead wrote: C-Bass wrote: If I didn't make my point clear, sorry. I am not saying whether or not the article is full of crap, or full of truth, or whether or not you agree or disagree with it. My point was just making an example about your initial reaction to it. There have been many other posts (by others in this thread, not just you) that I could've made the same example out of. It's the general thought that "I stand on this side, therefore EVERYTHING on the other side must be wrong." Not everything is part of a larger "agenda"/conspiracy, some things might actually make sense if you view them without a preconceived notions. If Keith Olbermann told me that 10 x 10 = 100, I got to admit, I would probably hesitate to believe him, but I try to at least keep an open mind. Craig, no apology neccesary, Like I said, I did go to and read the article. It was just at each step my radar went up. First the link came from Phil, second it was in the NYT. Up untill about a year ago I read the electronic version of the NYT every morning, I know it well, it is a major source but leans a little left. Sometimes alot. When I purchased my latest phone with a bigger screen for reading at the breakfast table I had trouble with the NYT site and switched to AP, also a little left but I read it everyday. Despite my own bias (big news, I have a conservative bias)I consume media from many sources left right and middle. Anyway, when I saw it was written by Warren Buffet my radar began to flash violently, but I proceeded. The first paragraph set the purpose of the article. The second set the tone. Like I said before, the unrelated military comment was place there for a reason, specifically to manipulate the reader.(I could have said to persuade or sway, but I am also biased and trying to manipulate, and it has a harsher tone). Warren wanted the reader to have contempt for his targets before he made any arguments so that the reader is less likely to question his reasoning. It is easy to see if you are looking and I dont care to be used in this way. When I post statistics I am always asked if they come from a non-biased source. So I pick sources like the IRS, then I am asked to read things by Warren Buffet. What would the response be if I made a point backed up by Sarah Palin article?

The point of the article and the reason why I pointed it out to you, was to show you that the ultra rich DO NOT pay their fair share in taxes. Warren even laid out his numbers for the reader...

Phil, we have a 3.729 trillion dollar budget , and about 310 million poulation that makes the fair share for each individual a little over $12,000. (If I got my zeros right,thet is a crapload of mony) At 6 million plus I think Warren has covered his "fair" share.
anything beyond that is a wealth re-distribution, call it what it is. by the way, If familys like mine had to pay the 60 grand in taxes we really owe instead of soaking the rich, we would not have a dem in office and we would have a much smaller government.

OverMyHead wrote: ononewheel wrote: Your example of the construction worker above is nice.... Isn't it screwed up when two working people in the household, one works simply to cover the cost of daycare so they can work? Or you could say that construction worker, works, just to cover his work. Yeah, and peter piper picked a pail of pickled ....... But yet, he still pays taxes, and went back to work when asked. Did you tell him you are a member of a forum, and on the forum you are trying to make an argument where folks like him are abusing the system, and you'd rather not see others like him receive unemployment benefits? I did not tell him about the forum but I did remind him who was paying for him to sit home, and that we were glad to see him back at work.

And now he is paying his share for the other guy, or gal, who was just laid off. That's how it works.

ononewheel wrote: Now don't start about the "fairtax" the right talks about, I will so bust that apart, promptly.

Bring it on skippy! Bet you haven't read either book...

In the spirit of good sportsmanship, how 'bout this one:

Which bill is the most researched in American history?

OverMyHead wrote: Eric, we have pretty much determined the rich do pay taxes, top 1% pay 40% after loopholes and havens. They only earn 25% of the income which is what we tax. they hold 38.8 percent of wealth, which is not what we base taxes on anyway but it is clear they are paying more than their fair share, please stop the rhetotric because it is simply not true.

I think you need to go back and re-read the article. Buffet paid 17.4% of his taxable income. How much did you pay? Furthermore, he is only advocating on increasing the taxes on people making 1 million a year or more that is .03% of the population. But why would you want to tax millionaires when everyone thinks they will be millionaires one day? Wishful thinking or denial? Where do you guys learn your supply side economics? A conservative talk radio host or what? I can see giving the rich tax cuts if they really created jobs but they don't and history shows us that. The race to the bottom continues no matter the taxes.