Warren Buffett: Tax me and the rest of the wealthy more

Every group has their bad apples. Lindbergh was also an ecologist, taught pilots in the WWII Pacific theater to fly farther - i.e. hypermiling.

Here you go:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world]Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

$1 Trillion in spending cuts isn't enough to balance the current budget, let alone pay off a single penny of the accumulated debt from the past.

The tax cuts and spending increases of a decade ago were founded upon the 'irrational exuberance' of the late 1990s. In the long term, once we are out of this recession, those changes need to be rolled back. Government spending needs to be cut. And the rich need to pay more taxes. And, despite Obama's promise, the middle class needs to pay more taxes too. And the below-middle class taken completely off the rolls by Bush's tax cuts -- more than 40% of earners now pay no income tax -- should start paying some tax again, even if it isn't much.

all poor/middle class on other hand must irregardless!

More to the point though, he understood what the Federal Reserve was and who was behind it, which actually has quite a bit to do with the topic at hand- income taxes.

So that would make Republicans.......what?????
Irony:
(I*RO*NY)
n., plural -nies
1. The use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “You hate minorities! You're intolerant---You hate! You're a moron...just like all those %$#@!! Republicans!!!.
See also: Hypocrite.

ONE of the things we have to do to solve this problem is to stop treating it like a Sunday afternoon soccer game, and get past these sophomoric political circular firefights.
It isn't a binary problem. Both "sides" spent too much. Both "sides" sent kids overseas to "defend freedom and democracy." Both sides sling mud and lie. However (comma!) liberals and conservatives are going to have to learn to sit down at the same table to solve the problem...which should not be confused with winning the argument.

The OTHER thing (IMHO) you're going to have to do is to get past the eye candy of bashing the billionaires. Even if you took ALL of their money and made them start over again from scratch----you're looking at what? A few hundred Billion? Also consider the fact that (b)illionaires and most (m)illionaires don't keep their money stuffed into mattresses. Most of it is in the market somewhere. Hasn't the market taken enough of a beating lately without taking a few hundred more billion out of it to cut a check to the Chineese?

Lastly. I'd like to see how Europe gets out of their own debt problems before I start holding them up as a shining example of what we should be doing. What's the unemployment rate in Spain? Ireland? What is the price of gas in Germany? Electricity? Bread? I Looooove GB, but what's it cost to rent a 1,000 square foot flat for a month?
Loooove the Continent, but just sayin....

PEACE!

From Wikipedia:

Exactly.

The reason for the gridlock on the budget is elected officials are a LOT more motivated to keep their jobs now than look out for your jobs now and in the years to come. Both parties are going to have to see some of their pet programs cut, else the choices will get even worse and we will be in a situation like Greece we can't get out of even if we were above the partisan bickering.

Stupid me...thinking that NASA, and the FBI weren't military.
My bad.

Obama has really fumbled the ball on this one. You can blame the Republicans for defying the silent majority (even conservative Republicans I've talked to are for a tax increase) by opposing ANY restoration of the tax cuts imposed by Bush. But the real culprit is Obama, who let them do it.

I've had it with this guy. Since Rahm Emmanuel left, he is listening to a bunch of apologists while the majority of the country looks on in disbelief.

The guy was elected in a landslide on CHANGE--he has become the biggest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain--constantly giving up his position BEFORE negotiating and always staying on the defensive, instead of attacking the Republicans as a bunch of dangerous extremists.

The so-called Tea Party (really the Libertarian party disguised cleverly by the Koch Brothers' money) would not be a factor, and the Democrats would still control the House if Obama voters had turned out in the 2010 elections. They did not--because of their disappointment with Obama as a leader. That was the difference in the 2010 elections.
The Obama vote stayed home--and it was Obama's fault.

be careful about believing everything in wiki.

anybody can put anything in wiki. it's free.

I would be as imprudent and unfair to toss the blame solely at my (current or past)Commander in Chief, as it is to lay it at the feet of any other single faction of our political extremes....left or right.

If you're on a sinking ship, the best course of action is USUALLY to stop the leak....then dewater the ship. You can find out how the water got into the ship and assign blame afterwards, and apply lessons learned and hang the guilty bastards...afterwards.

Hurling insults and blame is awfully fun.....but the fact is we're in debt. Deeply in debt. It's getting worse...not better. We need to tax more and spend less.
Right now.
Everywhere.
Everyone.
Until and unless we stop the flooding, the ship is going to eventually sink.
That isn't going to be on the Administration, or the Legislature, or the rich "not paying their fair share" or the poor "not paying anything at all"...or the Judicial branch, or even on the illegal immigrants.
It's going to be on all of us.
(JMHO!)

Even taking those out it's still over a trillion dollars.

That is why citations are usually required on there.

Time for a revisit to the way it is, why taxation is NOT the answer and why it isn't going to be corrected.

It really doesn't matter what it is. We could argue over what really is military spending and what is not until the next "deadline" and it still will not solve the underlying problems.
Like I said before, simple math says we have to cut spending everywhere. We've already tried to spend our way back into the black, and it isn't working out so well from where I sit.
Slashing military budgets is a debate I'm willing to consider, along with 'entitlements' (means testing, age extensions, etc) and everything else that begins with a "D". DOE, DOI, DOS, DOH!
I'm also willing to put my middle class paycheck up for some more income taxes....just to get some more money flowing into the budget, since it doesn't look like the economy is going to be shattering any growth records anytime soon.
I guess we could discuss taxing the crap out of job providers in this country, but we've tried that too. The United States has the second highest tax rates for corporations by some people's tabulations (GE excluded) which means the actual number (if anybody could guess what it really is) probably places us at least in the top five.
But hey.....I'm willing to debate this too.
What I'm not willing to consider is giving the government more and more and more and more spending authority without at least a passing discussion on how we can get next year's debt total just a little bit less than this year's debt total....or hell, I'd even settle for a scratch year!
All of the wrangling this year has been about how much we can decrease the rate of acceleration. That's not the same as slowing down spending, it's not even close.

Evidently, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
The next Presidential election is 440 some odd days away.
I guess we'll see what happens then.
See you at the polls?

I agree with all of the above.

In theory we have a very high corporate tax rate. In reality...not so much.

Everyone agrees we have to cut federal spending. Put a roomful of liberals of all stripes, conservatives, libertarians, and even random apathetic folks and they'll all agree.

Unfortunately, none of them will agree on WHERE to cut, and that's where the problems all start.

Stupid me, thinking that any of the NASA budget is for providing services to the military.

Can you imagine the fight changing the tax code would bring ? Civil war II or more most of the federal and state politicians would cut off the hand that feeds them and all ceo's and most medical specialists. Would never happen in a million years, Hell would freeze over first. The budget debate and associated problems laid down a big enough smoke screen to protect a tax code overhaul for years.

This is pretty much in alignment with my take on it. I wonder how far a smallish VAT would go? Put a horizon on it so that it doesn't just become the norm. make the wealthy pay the same effective tax rate as the middle class. reduce the number of people who pay no tax at all. Cut expenditures and kill subsidies to industries that don't need them (things that exacerbate the trade deficit, for example).