Skip to comments.Saint Buffet's Chutzpah
Posted on 01/12/2012 10:40:07 PM PST by Sick of Lefties
'I'll donate a dollar to pay down the deficit for every dollar that Congressional Republicans donate' taunts Warren Buffet in a Reuters article (n.b. indirect quote).
He must have finished President Obama's copy of "Rules for Radicals" and decided to get on the fun side--the media's side--of the Statist v. Liberty conflict. Annoying your enemy, especially to the delight of community organizers, is a winning tactic according to the realistic revolutionary's handbook.
The irony of the quintessential "Have" speaking in the name of the "Have Nots" to persuade the "Have Some, Want Mores" to play in a game that gives him, not them, yet more is rich.
This "Have Some, Wants More" isn't fooled.
In return for his advocacy of Statist governance, Buffet gets the President's private assurances that BankAmerica, for instance, won't be allowed to go bankrupt, and that it is safe for him to invest billions of dollars in it on buccaneer terms.
The person who said that higher risk was necessary to earn higher returns didn't understand crony capitalism.
If Warren Buffet wants to squander the prestige he earned as a capitalist on behalf of Statist politics and governance, that's his business. We the people are free to ignore him, as we surely must do if only for the sake of self-preservation and that of the our country.
There were a couple of passages in the article, however, that begged a rejoinder.
[quote] The jabs over voluntary payments come as higher taxes for the wealthy and extension of payroll tax breaks for middle-class Americans are becoming increasingly contentious issues for the 2012 presidential race. Obama is trying to paint Republicans as only favoring the wealthy, while Republicans are trying to brand the president as relying on tax hikes to fund excessive spending. [end quote]
While it is certainly the case that each Party is jockeying to paint the other in the least favorable light, someone should point out that the picture Republicans are painting accords with a plausible reading of reality, whereas the one that Democrats are painting does not.
Borrowing a line from the immortal Josh Steiner, Republicans' claims are more a Manet than a Monet; Democrats' are much more a Munch--they say more about the painter's state of mind than about what they depict.
First, the President's claims that Republicans favor only the wealthy, are pure bloviation.
Unlike Warren Buffet, George Soros, Jon Corzine, Jeff Immelt, George Kaiser and the cadre of deep-pocket donors from Wall Street to Sunset Blvd. that fill the President's war chest to overflowing, Noman is not wealthy.
He knows that what passes for government since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over Congress in 2006, and especially since Barack Obama took over the White House in 2008, favors neither the middle class, no-family nor him.
To benefit from Democrats' favor, one must know somebody rather than something useful, have pressure group connections, join the metastasizing public sector, or generally be willing to lay down, roll over and beg.
Democrats' economic initiatives hinder the nation. Republicans' initiatives to reduce the scale and scope of government, taxes and regulation help the middle class and Noman by stimulating rather than suffocating private initiative, thereby unleashing rather than shackling the economy.
Republicans' economic initiatives promise hope for those skillful, lucky and blessed enough to seize opportunity. Democrats promise effortless abundance that exists nowhere but in heaven and in utopian fantasies.
Noman prefers freedom--even if it means the possibility of failure--to servitude and a life dependent upon whom one knows rather than upon what.
On the other hand, the President is relying on tax hikes to fund excessive spending. He fights like a rabid wolverine--a low-biting one at that--to defend every ounce of pork and patronage in the budget. He snarls and growls for tax increases through the use of euphemisms like "fairness."
Then he has the audacity to lambast Republicans for not compromising.
Total national debt has levitated by 60%, to over $16 trillion, during his Presidency despite the government's receipt of $2.1 trillion in tax revenues each and every year of it. How much is enough?
While current annual taxes slightly exceed 2005's amount, today's deficit surpasses that year's by $1.3 trillion. The difference is big government's spending of $3.8 trillion. The facts are plain to see.
That would constitute excessive spending in most people's estimation. But, for Liberals, the Goldilocks standard applies. Whatever the amount spent, as long as it increases year-to-year by a higher rate, it is never excessive and always just right (barely).
But, not for baby bear, whose belongings are casually appropriated by somebody else.
Before President Obama arrived in the White House with his notion of fairness, the federal government never spent more than $3 trillion in a single year. Thanks to his exertions, it will never again spend less, and is projected to spend $4 trillion by 2015.
Any bets on the actual figure reaching $5 trillion as ObamaCare bureaucrats settle into their offices?
Which Party is painting a realistic picture, and which is just doodling? You be the judge, in November.
The second point regards Saint Buffet's social theory, specifically his confusion of government with society.
[quote] Buffett said in the Time interview the United States needed a tax system that favored people who were not born investors.
"We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society," he said. [end quote]
Noman begs to differ. We need strong intermediate associations--e.g., family, church, schools; in short, educational, religious, cultural, charitable and other organizations-- to help people in need, not a tax system that robs these associations to favor pet groups, and recycle money with strings attached.
In a revealing moment of the New Hampshire debate last Saturday night, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney explained how this operates for good citizens doing useful things for society.
For instance, the Catholic Church was forced to abandon its role as a provider of adoptions in the state of Massachusetts because of its unwillingness to genuflect before Liberals' sexual dogma. For refusing to serve Baal, Catholic Charities has been denied millions of dollars in federal funding used to help victims of sex trafficking.
Why is this money in the governments' hands to begin with, so that it can meddle with the religious beliefs of Catholics, or others?
Buffet apparently doesn't realize that the agency of government is not the only means to assist people that aren't as well adapted to the market system and capitalism as he is.
Yet, he uses his celebrity to constrain the very system in which he honorably earned it. By doing so he exposes his ingratitude, as well as ignorance of political economy and life in the middle class--as opposed to among those who deign from the heights to speak for it.
Then again, the government doesn't work as well for most people as it does for him. He's in a select club of cronies, membership in which makes it worth his while to shill for Statists.
Noman prefers a less contrived game: one in which he and his no-children are free to become the next Warren Buffet, and in which the living legend doesn't labor to ensure that everybody stays in his or her place.
No one has EVER spent their goodwill faster than ol’ Warren. Casting your lot with Jimmy Carter II will do that.
I don’t buy the image Buffett likes to project himself as. Just a good ‘ol boy made good? Naaaa. More like scumbag, insider trading globalist. I wouldn’t doubt he’s amoungst the elite who are very interested in achieving a “sustainable” population figure.
These one-worlders who are getting up there in age are probably sweating it out. They can see the finish line but they’re on the verge of croaking. David Rockefeller, Dub’s dad, Prince Philip etc., etc..
Amen. I want his name to be MUD by the time he passes away.
He made his fortune by buying up estates assets for pennies on the dollar from heirs desperate to pay the IRS death taxes.
I loathe him even more.
He should have made that offer to the rats. They’re the ones who want to raise taxes.
Thieving scumbag Buffett made his billions in the low yax environment of the 80s and 90s. His effective lifetime tax rate is probably 15 to 25 %. Yet now that he has his pile in the bank, he starts preaching higher taxes. He doesn’t want anyone else to get rich now that he is. He is the worst kind of Socialist. He should have the guts to pay a big chunk of his wealth to the Treasury to.get his effective lifetime tax rate up to 40% if he likes that number so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.