Warren Buffet personally benefited from the bailouts, so of course he wants the rich to pay more in taxes (he gets the money, and they're his competition).
Also, he DOES pay more in taxes than his secretary -- in fact, the IRS claims he still needs to pay $1 billion more.
There should be a government meme.
TAXES THE RICH
BAILS OUT THE RICH
Yeah, I just read that he owes the IRS a bunch in back taxes. I guess he wants all rich people except for him to pay more in taxes.
The thing is that he's lying to the public openly: he's asking his competitors to pay more taxes, when he receives the bailout money.
He's LITERALLY saying "rich people need to give me money".
And then, he's lying about how much taxes he pays: he pays BILLIONS in taxes each year. Unless he's paying his secretary a few trillion, I think she pays less than he does.
PS: it's been another post where the left refuses to comment on their foolish idiocy.
Its the left failing to comment on Evan's idiocy!
Buffet has got where he is by sound investment practices and buying and running good companies. If bailout money was going begging of course he would take it. He is an American capitalist after all. He actually had $34 billion cash available when the crash happemned and he used that money to make very good profits rescuing sound American companies that were in cash flow and confidence problems. Using his own and his shareholders capital he is answerable only to them.
Evan gets quite excited about one billion dollars of disputed tax. In context, Berkshire Hathaway EBITDA was 22.82 billion dollars, and there is 37.3 billion dollars in Warren's warchest for financial opportunities if they arise. If Berkshire Hathaway does not owe that tax Warren would be in financial deriliction of duty to shareholders if he were to pay it.
Sorry Evan - you will have to try harder. But I thought you were in favour of American capitalism anyway?
Actually, he only invested the money because the bailouts were reassured.
He's a corrupt man.
If Warren was betting on a sure thing that makes him a typical American capitalist.
And if the bailouts were so certain why didn'rt other capitalists rush in?
Warren took an intelligent risk. And by putting his money in he removed the risk.
And you didn't answer my question.
Warren Buffett is a brilliant and well respected investor who understands and supports fair taxation in the public interest. He's leaving nearly all his huge fortune to the Gates foundation when he dies.
I didn't comment on the bailout. I have a problem when people don't pay their taxes - I have to.
Oh Evan, how much brighter you would be if you took from other philosophies that which has been proven to be true rather than holding onto the philosophy of that which has not failed because it has not been tried must, therefore, be true.
The greatest quote of your nemisis, Keynes, is "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" This can be applied to Buffett's strategy such that if he did not believe the government would bail out the companies in which he invested, he would not have made those investments. Perhaps you see that as immoral relative to your philosophy on how things ought to be, but it was profitable relative to the way things are.
Before your prophets were predicting a burst of the housing bubble, there were some of us in the financial industry warning consumers that spending on plastic and relying on home equity to make budgets work was not sustainable. They were, in essence, buying dinner at McDonalds with a second mortgage. Some listened. Most did not. My point is that it was not the bursting of the housing bubble that caused the mess we're in. It was the proliferation of unsecured credit in the '80s that caused both the growth of the economy during that time, and, eventually, the inflated values of homes that banks used to show stability of assets.
Gold used to be an elite investment. Today, more and more people are investing in gold. That does not mean that more people are elite. It means the investment is now common. As the value rises, those people are secure in their investment, and thumping their chests about how smart they are, much the same way as people did when the stock market rose to new highs after investments in it became common. However, when those people get to the point that they need to cash some in to eat (utility), the supply in excess of demand will reduce its value. The elite will be buying it for pennies on the dollar, and those common folks who purchased it at a high point will lose much of their investment.
If people like Buffett are there to buy that gold for pennies on the dollar, it will not be because they are immoral. It will be because the facts have changed, so they changed their minds. What will you do, sir?
Keynes has been disproven time and time again. His school failed so many tests of history they are uncountable.
However, his views are still held in esteem.
You have been refuted.
Keynes's views are not held in esteem. They are distorted.
You have been refuted.
Keynesian economics or neo-Keynesian economics is standard in nearly every university economics department in the country. Wall Street economists are all Keynesians. Here's what Bloomberg Business Week said recently about the economy and the Federal Reserve:
Bloomberg Business Week on Federal Reserve Policy and the Economy 2-19-12
"It bears repeating: Further monetary easing is needed and abrupt fiscal tightening should be put on hold. The alternative would be to risk another round of one step forward, two steps, back.
"The Fed, you could argue, is doing all it can. On January 25 the central bank said it expected to keep interest rates close to zero for almost three years, a newly extended time frame that amounts to a subtle loosening of monetary conditions. Ben Bernanke then went even further.
"The central bank has an inflation target of 2 percent, he said--a firmer statement than before and an upward tweaking of the Fed's inflation goal...Bernanke tweaked it again by saying the Fed's dual mandate to maintain full employment as well as price stability implied patience in bringing inflation back down when the economy is very weak.
"From a market psychology point of view, the Fed's gloom roughly cancels out the comparatively timid steps it is taking to loosen its policy. To be effective, the Fed must be bolder. It should affirm that, under exceptional circumstances, it would permit a period of higher-than-target inflation. When unemployment is high, short-term interest rates near zero, short-term, and inflationary pressures diminishing, a rise in expected inflation--so long as it is carefully controlled-is not a problem to be avoided but a necessary part of the solution.
"The Fed should also embark on another round of bond buying, known as quantitative easing, to put more cash into the economy. together these steps would provide effective monetary easing--though not necessarily, one should note, lower nominal bond yields. Indeed, if nominal long-term interest rates keep falling, inflation expectations are subsiding, and the policy isn't working."
Evan thinks Bernanke is a criminal. Actually, he deserves a medal for nearly single handedly preventing a double dip recession. The White House economists and politicians were too conservative on their initial stimulus package when there was a Dem majority in the House and the Senate. That's one reason why the recovery has been slow. That, and the Tea Partiers in the House who have stymied nearly everything Obama has tried to do since the last Congressional election.
My eyes are open. I expose myself to a wide variety of sources, left, MSM and right (I'm ashamed to say I recently subscribed to a trial subscription to Murdoch's Wall Street Journal). Bernanke has spent a long and distinguished academic career studying and writing about government economic policy. He was absolutely the best person available to head the Federal Reserve, and he has been doing a magnificent job despite the howling of the Tea Party ignoscenti.
Evan isn't known for changing his mind on politics or economics.
But Evan is good company and likeable and intellectually honest even if he is often wrong. I like Evan.
So do I he's like Ron Paul, a nice guy but misguided.
I know that. He's rather like a mule who would rather bray about being hungry than to be dragged six feet to the feed.
Neither are you.
When a thief enters my home, I don't debate him, I shoot him.
Bernanke has been robbing you blind for 7 years now.
It's hilarious to hear you call me misguided when modern macro thought we'd all be overrun by Socialists by now.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to claim that I'm the misguided one: Money is a commodity, just like everything else.
I think Warren Buffett has indeed jeopardized his legacy.
What he did in recent years was to invest in companies like Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and General Electric, which were known to be insolvent.
When the credit markets were in shambles, Buffett worked publicly and privately to ensure the companies Berkshire Hathaway had a stake in were bailed out by the government.
You can call it whatever you want, but it has tainted his person and legacy, and who knows what may be found when people start to really get past his folksy demeanor and find what has been under his investing hood through the years.
Maybe his mote he always refers to has in many cases been behind-the-scenes sweetheart deals with the government. His recent actions have raised that very legitimate question, whether in the early years of his investing career it is true or not.
by A James Di Rodi 7 years ago
If you were worth 1 billion dollars would you donate most of it to charities?
by earnestshub 8 years ago
GM reckon that although they had a lousy year, the will be in profit this year and all the bailout money is to be paid back by June.There have been quite a few companies paying the bailout money back. Is this another positive indicator?
by Jen King 8 years ago
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors has made a final payment of $5.8 billion to the U.S. and Canadian governments, paying off the last of its $6.7 billion in loans, the company said Wednesday."I am very pleased to announce that, as of today, General Motors has repaid, in full and with...
by Deforest 5 years ago
And we don't have any money to save our country!
by phion 6 years ago
Taxpayers pay for $49,000 of the $89,000 dollars it cost to build a Chevy Volt. Sound like a good deal to you? That President Obama really wasn't joking when he said energy costs will have to sky-rocket was he? What a joke. See what happens when we rely on government?
by Vince 2 years ago
Do you feel we should send 1.7 billion dollars to Iran?Another Obama screw up that is costing the taxpayers money.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|