# Warren Buffet weighs in on tax cuts and supply side economics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487 "2010-11-21T23:39:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/121 "2010-11-23T15:23:32Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Yes, I am seriously arguing that anyone that thinks taxes should be higher should pay more taxes. So you think that America should run its budget on donations? People don’t think taxes should be higher because they want taxes to be hgiher. We are not masochists, we have simply taken a look at the numbers and realize that we CANNOT balance the budget over the long term without a tax increase. Show me a politically feasible way we can baalnce the budget without a tax increase. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/122 "2010-11-23T15:33:04Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Damuri–where did I dismiss an argument by saying that? I was just pointing out that you and others are wrong when you say that it’s not possble for Buffett to voluntarily pay more in tax. I don’t remember saying that its impossible to pay more in taxes than the minimum you owe. You can do tax planning to increase your tax burden just as easily as you can engage in tax planning to decrease your tax burden. I seemed like you were supporting the idiotic notion that “well, if he thinks taxes should be higher then he should just pay more taxes” is a sensible argument My apologies if you recognize this as a stupid argument. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/123 "2010-11-23T16:51:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Show me a politically feasible way we can baalnce the budget without a tax increase. IMM thinks we should eliminate several cabinet level departments entirely, IIRC. Department of Education is one he has particular animus toward. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/124 "2010-11-23T16:57:44Z")
You think eliminating the Department of Education is politically feasible? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/125 "2010-11-23T17:03:34Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The fact that you consider any of these (with the exception of Obama is a…) to be basic facts that conservatives are wrong about shows how dogmatic you are and how willing you are to march in lockstep with the left. My examples are based on facts and reality. Your objections are based on what some shitbird on FOX told you. > [@](#): > > You seem willing to accept these “basic facts” as gospel. Most of your examples are indeed debate-worthy. Well anything is debate worthy. But all the things I noted are, to the experts of the field, not very controversial. The [Stimulus](http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326)actually saved us from a much worse recession. Health Care Reform will actually [save us quite a bit from the deficit](http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d11201sphigh.pdf). [\<–PDF] The Auto Bailout [saved a ton of jobs](http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/gm-ipo-auto-bailout-saved-more-than-1-million-jobs-study-says/). The only argument against it is ideological. > [@](#): > > Oh, and the argument is that ACORN was guilty of voter _registration_ fraud. Are you aware that ACORN didn’t do anything wrong? Are you aware what the difference between voter registration and voter fraud is? I’d guess a lot of people on the right don’t. Why would people on the right be hysterical about ACORN stealing elections if they were concerned about voter registration fraud? The very act of the uproar shows they don’t understand the issue. And as for AGW, if you don’t believe in the science you are siding with less than 1% of the working climate scientists on Earth. Why do you trust 1% when 99% are saying something else? The right, now at least, is based on mythology, lies and wishful thinking. It’s pathetic really. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/126 "2010-11-23T17:06:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You think eliminating the Department of Education is politically feasible? I don’t; I will let IMM argue that pipe dream. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/127 "2010-11-23T17:26:36Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > My examples are based on facts and reality. Your objections are based on what some shitbird on FOX told you. Ahh…I see now. The Left owns the facts and the right is just parroting that idiot Beck. Got it. It really is pathetic to blame Fox for all that ails you. Not too surprising coming from you. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Well anything is debate worthy. But all the things I noted are, to the experts of the field, not very controversial. The [Stimulus](http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1326)actually saved us from a much worse recession. Health Care Reform will actually [save us quite a bit from the deficit](http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d11201sphigh.pdf). [\<–PDF] The Auto Bailout [saved a ton of jobs](http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/11/17/gm-ipo-auto-bailout-saved-more-than-1-million-jobs-study-says/). The only argument against it is ideological.[ No, not everything is debate-worthy. The points you claim are simple facts are anything but simple. The fact that you are willing to dismiss anyone who you disagree with shows that your beliefs are nothing more than religious fervor. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Are you aware that ACORN didn’t do anything wrong? Are you aware what the difference between voter registration and voter fraud is? I’d guess a lot of people on the right don’t. Why would people on the right be hysterical about ACORN stealing elections if they were concerned about voter registration fraud? The very act of the uproar shows they don’t understand the issue. I’ve already stated I am not here to argue any of these points. You brought them all up and then you suggest that they are all very simple points. I would suggest that anyone making that argument, not the listed points, is very simple. > [@Lobohan](#): > > The right, now at least, is based on mythology, lies and wishful thinking. It’s pathetic really. No, you have it backwards. The left, now at least, has traded religion for a new belief system. It’s funny, really, to see that people cannot escape religion no matter how hard they try. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/128 "2010-11-23T17:35:48Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Ahh…I see now. The Left owns the facts and the right is just parroting that idiot Beck. Got it. It really is pathetic to blame Fox for all that ails you. Not too surprising coming from you. To be fair, it’s also right-wing bloggers. 😃 Look, the trouble is that many news sources no longer consider it important to fact-check. As it happens the lion share of those sources is on the right. The accusations of bias against the MSM have, if you want to be generous, lead to over correction. On the other had, a lot of sites are simply misinformation farms. > [@](#): > > No, not everything is debate-worthy. The points you claim are simple facts are anything but simple. The fact that you are willing to dismiss anyone who you disagree with shows that your beliefs are nothing more than religious fervor. They aren’t simple, but they are true. I don’t dismiss real arguments, but people on the right don’t often bring them. Most people on the right simply think that AGW is a hoax (for instance). > [@](#): > > I’ve already stated I am not here to argue any of these points. You brought them all up and then you suggest that they are all very simple points. I would suggest that anyone making that argument, not the listed points, is very simple. Some things in the world are true. Some people fight against people believing those true things for partisan gain. Those people are shit-heels. > [@](#): > > No, you have it backwards. The left, now at least, has traded religion for a new belief system. It’s funny, really, to see that people cannot escape religion no matter how hard they try. This is the Rovian tactic of attacking where you are weak. The right dismiss AGW by fiat. They believe that cutting taxes increases government revenue. I could go on. Arguing that the left is the side with ideological connection to untrue things is batshit insanity. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/129 "2010-11-23T18:08:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > IMM thinks we should eliminate several cabinet level departments entirely, IIRC. Department of Education is one he has particular animus toward. Seems like pretty small potatoes. [http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/edlite-section1.html](http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/edlite-section1.html) I guess eliminating Pell Grants and other funding for poor folks to get educated entirely might have a small effect in the short term. Seems pound foolish to me for the long term though. We have too many unemployed poorly educated people and not enough educated people to fill the open jobs. Funding for smart but poor people to get educations seems to have a very effective ROI. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487/130 "2010-11-27T16:05:16Z")
I think that everybody who makes over 1 billion dollars should have all assets above that level taken from them. The last 100 years has shown that nobody needs that kind of money. How about that, Mr. Buffett, since you are the big historo-economist? Best wishes, hh [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warren-buffet-weighs-in-on-tax-cuts-and-supply-side-economics/561487.md?page=6)