ROSEN: Buffett, stick to investing
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 4, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
If you want investment advice or a hot stock tip, Warren Buffett may be your man. He's certainly made himself and many other Berkshire Hathaway stockholders rich. When it comes to politics or government fiscal policy, however, Buffett has become just another tax-happy liberal. He's even campaigning and raising money for Democrats.
Buffett, the second-richest man in America, is too good at math not to understand the statistical con game he's playing when he pretends that the rich aren't paying their fair share of the tax burden. His latest gimmick is to claim that he and other high rollers in the Forbes 400 pay a lower federal tax rate than do their "secretaries and receptionists."
To pull off this sleight of hand, Buffett - in the style of class-warrior John Edwards - mischievously whips up a stew of populist assertions, convenient omissions and half-truths. While it's true that dividends and capital gains, from which Buffett derives most of his income, are taxed at a lower rate than his secretary's wages or Buffett's own salary, this is for perfectly good reasons. Companies that pay dividends to shareholders do so with after-tax dollars, having already paid a corporate income tax on their earnings. The lower tax rate that shareholders pay on this dividend income when they file their individual tax returns serves to offset some - but not all - of this double taxation.
Likewise, when one invests in a stock, one does so from savings that already have been taxed when the income was initially earned. Moreover, if the stock increases in value over the years, much of the gain is illusionary, eroded by inflation. The capital gains tax makes no allowance for this. A lower tax on capital gains is a productive incentive for people to defer current consumption and invest in the future, creating wealth for themselves and society.
Buffett is also opposed to the elimination of the estate tax, which can sock your heirs with as much as another 55 percent in taxes. That's no skin off his nose, since he's already decided to give most of his wealth away rather than leaving it to his family. Personally, I'd rather leave mine to my kids.
But Buffett's worst manipulation is lumping together income taxes and Social Security taxes. Income taxes are sharply progressive, with more than 120 million Americans paying nothing at all and with tax brackets starting at 10 percent and rising to 35 percent on upper incomes.
Conversely, a uniform Social Security tax rate (6.2 percent for employees, matched by their employers) is applied to all payroll income (investment income is exempted) and is capped at an income limit that increases each year ($97,500 in 2007; $102,000 in 2008). So, obviously, Buffett's lower-salaried secretary pays a greater percentage of her income in payroll taxes than he does, since so much of his income isn't subject to the Social Security tax. But, again, this is for a perfectly good reason. Social Security benefits are similarly capped. From its inception, Social Security was described as a forced-savings plan for your own retirement or disability. If the Social Security tax on individuals had no limit, it would become just another income transfer/welfare program, which is precisely what the Democrats (and Buffett, apparently) want.
Those with an income of $1 million would be hit with a Social Security tax bill of $124,000 in 2008 instead of $12,648 under current law, an increase of $111,352. On an income of $10 million, the new Social Security tax would be $1,240,000, an increase of $1,227,352, with no commensurate increase in benefits. And this, of course, would be on top of income taxes, which Democrats also want to increase. This is grand larceny.
The top 10 percent already pays 70 percent of the nation's income tax burden, while the bottom 50 percent pays just 3 percent. And Buffett says the "rich" aren't paying enough? Nonsense.
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 4, 2008
6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
I find Buffet's behavior normal for big-business democrats. The drive to raise taxes puts more power in the hands of the government officials who are Mr. Buffet's friends.
January 4, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
I think that people like Buffett and Bill Gates, two notable, rich, successful guys who appear to be pretty liberal in their politics and approach to fiscal policy have a guilt thing going. And that is fine - if they want to do charitable work, start philanthropic foundations, make HUGE donations to the causes they support, to offset what they perceive as their guilt of having such massive wealth. But please stay out of MY pocket gentlemen!! Mike Rosen is correct, Buffett is a genius when it comes to picking winners and driving economic growth in companies and stock portfolios, but his grasp of a sane fiscal policy is lacking. It may make him "feel good" and it may sound appealing to those that think that taking more from the affluent and successful in our society will make their lot better off - but it never does and never will. As has been proven with JFK, Reagan, and now Bush43, lower tax RATES across the board drive HIGHER revenues into the US Treasury. Higher tax rates decrease both investing and the desire to work harder and earn more if all that happens is that the govt takes a larger share. Why strive for more when the net gain is minimal or non-existent? Why does the left fail to grasp or continue to ignore this? Because as we see with Edwards, throwing gasoline on the class war issue and playing the rich against the poor and this "2 Americas" crap that Edwards peddles does get a rise out of those with an ax to grind or little grasp of the economic basics.
January 4, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
Rosen, you, too, should stick to what you know (nothing).
January 4, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Um...without capital gains, no one will invest in capital, and our economy will spiral. Some of 'em may be evil or greedy or otherwise crappy, but they are necessary. Furthermore, the rewards gained from capital gains are a reward for risk. There is the chance that the economy tanks and these guys are left with a fraction of what they started with. The reward must be there for them to risk, and the higher the reward, the more they invest.
January 4, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Oh, and Tbone, in the eighties, Reagan tax cuts translated into more tax revenues.
January 4, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And eastvail, is your opinion based on anything? You say he knows nothing, but I don't see you offering anything better. At least Tbone has some sort of thought-process on which to base his hating, even if in this case, it is shallow and ignores several of the points in Rosen's argument. Sticks and stones, love.
January 4, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Rosen Rosen Rosen....when will you come to terms with the fact that the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 7 years will necessitate an inevitable tax raise? I find it amusing that acountability has completely left the far right's vocabulary.
January 4, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
Anything of substance to add rather than condescension for those you disagree with?
January 4, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Tbone,
I’ll agree that spending has been ridiculous. I’m not happy at all with Republicans at the moment regarding spending. I just disagree that tax increases are the way to handle it. Looking at your chart, it’s a bit hard to be precise with the way it’s drawn (the broken lines) but it looks like it’s showing a spike in revenue around ‘01-‘02, then a dip in ‘04 and an increase in ‘06-‘07.
January 4, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
We don't ever have to raise taxes to accomodate spending. The government can sell bonds, borrow from the treasury, other countries etc., which is what it has been doing to fund the national debt. As long as the debt doesn't become to large in proportion to GDP, it's all good. That being said, I am fiscally conservative and don't condone that. I, personally, think we ought to phase out social security and put the leftovers toward the debt as well as cutting some other government programs. There are two sides to fiscal policy, so it doesn't always have to be about increasing revenue. We can decrease spending, which we should do, in order to cut back on the debt.
January 4, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Also, Tbone, you'll note that taxes were raised in and around '92, and that time period coincides with a revenue decrease, perhaps better illustrating the point. I think the that a tax increase under certain circumstances can be beneficial depending on the state of the current economy. Right now, increasing taxes would be taking investment moneys away during a time that we need it to keep our economy rolling. Perhaps two years ago, or ten years ago, the right kind of tax increases may have been responsible.
My mistake, Spencer, about the Reagan comment. I got it confused with the Kennedy tax cut, which you may also note, coincided with revenue increases, according to your chart.
Revenue increases, in general, however, tend to correlate more with the cycles of recession and production just as much as with tax increases and decreases.
That being said, I say we do what we can to stay out of recessions, which from a fiscal policy point-of-view, includes leaving taxes the same or cutting taxes. We are in a recession now despite good tax and monetary policy (note that I did not mention the fiscal spending) because of the craziness over the last year or year and a half in the housing and credit markets.
January 4, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
My bad, Tbone, I meant the last one for you. Spencer is the person I was trying to get a rise out of by mimicking his name. I should probably drop Spencerr now and use my usual name. The ruse didn't work, as he hasn't written anything in any of the places I have been blogging at since I did it.
January 4, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" I just disagree that tax increases are the way to handle it."
There you go...you disagree...but that doesn't make your position any less invalid. Bush the Smarter also disagreed that taxes would have to be raised when we were in a similar situation at the end of the trickle down/deficit spending/pork laden reagan administration...I assume there's no need to remind you how that turned out for both he and Clinton...so remember kids...if you don't learn from your mistakes, you are destined to repeat them.
January 4, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Still nothing of substance from Jay. Nothing to back his leftist assertions, just condescending BS. I should have known better than to even try.
January 4, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Jay, dude, did you read my last post and look at Tbone's little diagram with revenues for the last forty years. Bush raised taxes in 92 and revenues actually decreased. Taxes are not always the right way to answer the national debt. It is just as important to keep the economy robust and growing (which at least the right-wing half of economists usually agree that taxes hurt), and you can cut spending, or during the right circumstances, even lower taxes in order to raise revenues. I'd have to agree with Eli on your last point. At least Tbone is producing an argument.
January 4, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
chillycreek writes:
If Buffet wants to pay higher taxes let him
January 4, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Tbone,
Regarding spending in the Pentagon, this is something that drives me absolutely nuts. After serving for three years, I think the military should be severely downsized. Not in the sense that Clinton did it, though.
Just cutting the budget for the military wouldn't fix it. The size of the bureaucracy needs to be cut down for the military to be more effective. This was partially accomplished under Rumsfeld, when he combined infantry, armor, engineer and aviation units (why this wasn't done decades ago is beyond me).
An example of how the huge bureaucracy wastes money would be my experiences in Iraq. We were constantly low or out of water and ammunition in my unit, but when supply lines finally caught up we had an air conditioner delivered to us. It was a great thing to have out there, given our position in the middle of nowhere and our lack of electricity. It's a lot of fun to look at an air conditioner in the box in 130+ degree weather.
I could go on for page after page after page about the inefficiencies experienced in three years of active duty, but suffice it to say that the military is choc full of countless unneeded support personnel and civilian contractors, and not enough combat arms specialists.
January 4, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Eli...you still have an invalid position despite the personal attacks against me. We can't cut spending enough to pay down the outrageous bills wrung up over the last 7 years...can't be done. If you disagree...by all means...make your case. We also can't hope that this economy on the cusp of a recession is going to grow so incredibly fast that revenues will skyrocket to the levels needed NOT to raise taxes. THUS...the irresponsible fiscal policies of the last 7 years will result in an INEVITABLE tax raise. Simple economics. Again...make your case if you disagree...but don't attack me.
Remember people...your refusal to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts don't make them go away.
January 4, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
You never offer anything of substance to support your leftist assertions, and when I call you out on it that is a personal attack? That's not a personal attack, it's an inconvenient fact that you prove over and over again with every subject you post on. Last time I debated with you, you twisted poll data and repeatedly refused to answer direct questions because you found them too inconvenient to answer. Thus, I find your arguments hard to take seriously.
Calling the positions of those who disagree with you "invalid" is not a personal attack? Can't quite see the logic there…
If you look at the link posted by Tbone, you’ll see a spike in Federal revenue around the time of the Bush tax rate cuts.
According to whitehouse.gov, the following numbers are what was spent in 2007 in billions of dollars:
Security – 622
Social Security – 544
Medicare – 325
Medicaid and SCHIP – 186
Other – 357
I do think that without a doubt military spending should be reevaluated, but with the massive amount of money being wasted on social programs I don’t think the solution to our financial problems is to raise taxes. I think a more viable solution would be to do something about the vast amount of money constantly wasted on social programs and pork projects.
I don’t expect a logical answer from you, but I’ll try anyway…
What levels do you think federal income needs to increase to in order to offset spending?
What logic do you use to explain that efforts to curb spending (serious efforts, not the crap we’ve gotten thus far) can’t possibly have the desired effect?
Who do you want to increase tax rates on? According to the Congressional Budget Office, 78% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners. The top 5% pay 51.4%.
Do you have anything at all to support your assertions that "it can’t be done", regarding compensating for spending?
Can you offer anything at all to support your assertions that positions which disagree with your own are "invalid"?
As stated above, I have tried to get straightforward answers from you on more than one occasion in the past, and you consistently ignore direct questions that you don’t like. I expect nothing different this time, but I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt and try once more.
January 4, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"twisted poll data"
again...politically inconvenient facts are still facts. If I remember you've railed against credible info that doesn't support your far right positions in the past as well.
sorry you find it infuriating enough to disparage others.
Your only other arrow in that tiny quiver of yours is the time honored far right wing strawman argument.
"What levels do you think federal income needs to increase to in order to offset spending?"
do you not know how to look up the current budget deficit (a record for the last 4 out of 5 years)?
"What logic do you use to explain that efforts to curb spending (serious efforts, not the crap we’ve gotten thus far) can’t possibly have the desired effect?"
when did i ever say i didn't want to reduce spending? when did i ever say that such reductions weren't absolutely necessary and long overdue?
"Who do you want to increase tax rates on? According to the Congressional Budget Office, 78% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners. The top 5% pay 51.4%."
and we know that the republicans shifted a percentage of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class during their reign. we also knonw that the previous tax cuts highly favored the upper over the middle classes. do you believe that should be the status quo from now on or did you finally come around on the twice failed, inherently flawed nature of trickle down economics?
"Do you have anything at all to support your assertions that "it can’t be done", regarding compensating for spending?"
Now here you actually ask a good question. The reason why you don't think this fact is a fact is 1) it's politically inconvenient for you...and B) don't have any clue what the total bill is for the republican policies (more about that below)
"Can you offer anything at all to support your assertions that positions which disagree with your own are "invalid"?"
Again..strawman...i never stated that all positions with which I agree are invalid...just yours....still.
And finally here we see asn example of you getting as close to acknowledging the weakness of your position as I think we'll see anytime soon.
"I do think that without a doubt military spending should be reevaluated, but with the massive amount of money being wasted on social programs I don’t think the solution to our financial problems is to raise taxes"
When you finally consider that military spending and funds for the war are included in the record debt wrung up by the republicans over the last 7 years...and which dwarf any increases in social programs (besides faith-based maybe...which yes...we can do without)...you have to acknowledge that a tax raise is INEVITABLE...unless of course you are simply going to refuse to believe in reality and think that we'll just walk away from the bill laid upon the nation's table as a result of such incompetence and greed.
January 4, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
Regarding military spending, see my post above.
I do not have to acknowledge that a tax raise is inevitable as you've still offered nothing to support that assertion, and I doubt you will. You never do offer anything to support your assertions.
I did not rail against credible info in the past, I pointed out your twisting and combining of numbers and how they gave a distorted perspective, which was something for which you had no response.
“When did I ever say I didn’t want to reduce spending? When did I ever say that such reductions weren’t absolutely necessary and long overdue?”
This was not an answer to the question.
When I asked if you have anything to support your “it can’t be done” assertion, you respond by saying it’s a good question but you provide no answer.
Regarding the question about who you’d like to increase tax rates on, you provide no answer.
Regarding your assertions that my positions are invalid, you offer no counter point.
I guess my efforts were once again wasted. Yet again you refuse to back up anything you say or answer direct questions. I give up.
January 4, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" I pointed out your twisting and combining of numbers and how they gave a distorted perspective, which was something for which you had no response."
No this is just a lie. I forgot to completely add a particular polling group (as I'd done on every single other) and that was your big "scandal"...to which I responded accordingly.
Again...you believe that we won't have to pay for the war, the pork spending, the tax cuts (that don't pay for themselves), etc etc etc...I disagree. You have offered ZERO credible information that would lead us to believe that your position is correct. This is simple economics my far right wing friend....you can't ring up that much debt and not raise taxes...again...can't be done. You can't save your way out of that hole. You can't tax cut (obviously) your way out of that hole.
Come to terms with it.
January 4, 2008
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
spencerr - your points are fair. I didn't/won't read the article.
The title alone seemed adequate: Rosen's here giving instructions to Warren Buffett. This alone highlights Rosen's own mental delusion well enough to make him worthy of criticism. I figured there was a great opportunity to suggest to Rosen that he follow his own proposed rationale, which I summarized as "stick to what you know."
Since Rosen is underwhelming at best and has absolutely no clue about anything whatsoever at worst, it only seemed intuitive to suggest to Rosen that he follow his own advice.
Hypocrites are the easiest type of people to insult because they make themselves look so stupid. All the audience needs to do is point out the obviousness of the idiocy.
January 4, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
That is absolutely not a lie. You had no response when it was pointed out that your combination of different answers gave a distorted perspective of poll results. I was not referring to the group that was mistakenly left out.
You still offer no answers to the questions listed above, just as you offered no answers to questions you didn't like before.
I have offered credible information. Actually, Tbone did, but the link is right there. ONCE AGAIN I ask you to take a look at the graph in Tbone's link, showing an increase in revenue at the same time of the tax cuts. I doubt you will.
Do you care to answer any of the questions listed above or are they too inconvenient for you?
January 4, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Still lying Eli...those polls were all random, scientific, national polls done by the nation's leading sources.
see again here if your memory is that short. Ever seen the movie Memento?
www.pollingreport.com
Furthermore, the inaddition of that group into the particular referenced subset STILL didn't invalidate my position on the matter....but nice try.
So again...I don't care if your graph does show that tax cuts happened at the same time as an increase in revenue...you still can't make a causal relationship between the and...AGAIN...and most importantly...you still haven't made the case that such revenue increases are going to foot the unprecedented, record setting debt that has amassed as a result of the republican polices of the last 7 years...INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE WAR.
Do you have any idea what the average US family's share of that debt will come to in the next ten years? Again...we see your lack of education on the matter severely impacting your ability to comprehend the big picture.
January 4, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
I'll take that as your concession that the questions posted to you above are in fact too inconvenient for you to answer. Your lack of a response regarding the fact that you combine the numbers from different answers in your polling data in order to provide a distorted perspective of the results is also very telling, as is your consistent refusal to support anything you say and your refusal to look at any data contradicting your assertions.
January 4, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"you combine the numbers from different answers in your polling data in order to provide a distorted perspective of the results is also very telling"
I think we're done here if that's all you got eli. As established, I accidentally didn't combine those two groups (which I did in every other instance..again...no conspiracy at work here)...and remember...even without the added groups, the information STILL supported by position and invalidated yours...but, as usual apparently...you simply refused to acknowledge facts contrary to your political position on the far right wing of the spectrum.
AGAIN...you simply haven't made the case that the republican policies of the last 7 years won't result in an inevitable tax raise. It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone with a basic understanding of economics would actually believe that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for years of out of control deficit spending, tax cuts that don't pay for themselves and a 3 billion dollar a month war habit.
Doesn't pass the smell test outside of the Rush Limbaugh Fantasy Hour.
January 4, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Given the character limit for posts, I've split this into two posts:
1
We still have no answer to the questions above. As you always do Jay, you are choosing one portion of a post to respond to while ignoring the rest. There is still no response regarding the fact that the combination of answers to poll questions provides a distorted view of the actual results. You just point out how you forgot one group, which was never what I took issue with. I also NEVER said that any of those polls didn't show numbers leaning in favor of the liberal side. As a matter of fact I said on more than one occasion that the results seemed to support a negative general opinion regarding the war (for anyone who doesn’t know, the polls in question were about Iraq). I said you distorted and exaggerated the results, which you did. You’ve never offered any explanation for your dishonesty with those numbers. You also never offered any explanation for the poll questions you made up (an example for those who don’t know would be “the vast majority of Americans want us out of Iraq regardless of the consequence”), which were nowhere to be found on your link. When I asked you where they were, you refused to answer. I believe I asked a total of four times.
As anyone reading this can see, our friend Jay is absolutely terrified of any direct questions and is extremely selective in what he will and will not respond to. Anybody want to take a guess at what the odds are of actually getting any answers to the questions previously posted to Jay? I’ll give you a hint – it’ll NEVER happen. Jay has once again refused to answer any questions he finds inconvenient, refuses to even look at any data that might contradict him, and refuses to offer any support for his assertions.
January 4, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
2
He goes from saying I’ve provided no data, to refusing to look at it (“I don’t care” at 3:28), to saying I’ve made no case. He makes wild assertions about my positions and makes things up that I never said (“you believe that we won’t have to pay for the war, the pork spending, the tax cuts” 3:08).
By the way Jay, I am not nearly as far right wing as you may think I am. I am not against abortion (although I am against Roe v. Wade, but for reasons not related to the morality of abortion). I am not against gay marriage. I am very much for downsizing the military, although I think it requires a more involved effort than just cutting the defense budget as I explained in my post above (12:16). Not trying to change the subject to any of those issues, they’re just a few examples.
Since it’s obvious that this will go nowhere, given your repeated refusal to answer any direct questions or to support your assertions, yeah I guess we are done here. You’ve done more than enough to demonstrate (once again) that you will only respond to what you find to be convenient, and that you will not support anything you say. And I am not a listener of The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Anybody want to guess which part of this post Jay will quote and respond to while ignoring everything else that has been said?
I’ll give you the last word if you like, Jay.
January 4, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
joe writes:
Obviously, there are 120 million Americans not paying their fair share of tax. To me, it makes a good case for a national sales tax, and throw out the personal income tax.
January 4, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"There is still no response regarding the fact that the combination of answers to poll questions provides a distorted view of the actual results"
You're still lying Eli. The lack of combination of those two groups wasn't part of a vast left wing conspiracy out to make you look stupid. I combined all the other groups accordingly...and ALL the info supported by position and invalidated yours. Again...please come to terms with the major lesson you need to learn here...politically inconvenient facts are still facts.
"I said you distorted and exaggerated the results, which you did."
This is also a lie. I posted the results exactly as they're seen here...while combining groups for brevity (again...not part of some grand conspiracy). Get over it. The info invalidated your position and you've been pouting about it ever since.
Move on.
As far as your position being invalid today again...and you still simply refusing to acknowledge such...AGAIN....if you believe that we won't have to raise taxes to pay for the republican track record that brought us record deficits and debt, an unecessary 4 billion a week war habit, tax cuts (in time of war...unprecedented), etc, etc, etc...by all means MAKE YOUR CASE. Put up or shut up...and someone else's graph showing a noncasual relationship between tax cuts and revenues don't count...but nice try.
I'll be waiting....in the meantime you all have a good night
January 4, 2008
9:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
TheByzantine writes:
Rosen perniciously whips up a stew of twaddle, assertions, convenient omissions, half-truths and other propaganda to stereotype, label and libel victims of his choosing. Doublethink, ala Bush, is ever present. The ding dong dotties salivate like lapdogs over Rosen's every word. Large numbers suffer from panglossian disorder and cognitive polyphasia.
Despite the muck in the world, and people like Rosen who like to throw it, there are good people and good things going on. Grab onto a cause that interests you and make a positive difference.
January 5, 2008
2:36 a.m.
gkb2008 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 5, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Maha writes:
This may be the most hypocritial column ever written. Mike the master of the inch deep argument Rosen accuses Warren Buffett of using a "statistical con game" to make a point about taxes, then goes on to use his usual statistical con game to try to contradict Buffett. He even tries to blame the style on "class warrior" John Edwards. He then tries to tie in his usual argument against estate taxes, insinuating that Buffett plans to stiff his children, when a five minute google search could have told him that Buffetts grown children have already received and paid taxes on billions of Berkshire Hathaway money. I guess Rosie wouldn't want to confuse people with the facts when arguing for that oh so American ideal of a permanant aristocracy.
When a successful businessman known as much for his ethics and integrity says taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations (a rosen omission) are too low and it's hurting the economy, it means something. When a muckraking right wing shill fires off a half assed contradiction it means nothing.
Stick to attacking the Clintons Rosie, Warren Buffett is way way out of your league.
January 5, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Most Hated and Detested man in Colorado and the Mountain Time Zone, Mike Rosen??
And I thought it was Douglas Bruce?
January 6, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
A struggling family farm with land assets of a million dollars is under bank loans of two hundred thousand dollars. The family can barely, as is usual in farming make enough profit to pay the bills each year and repair or replace machinery and buildings. Daddy dies and the family must suddenly be able to pay death taxes that are calculated on all assets including real estate, buildings, machinery, animals and all other things including any money in the bank. Yes let's keep the death tax on these profiteers and apply it to bridges to nowhere and museums to political ego and, of course, those wonderful welfare cheats who work the system year after year.
Whether or not I agree with any of you on anything, it is clear that there needs to be a combination of real, meaningful reform in both entitlement programs and taxes.
Elimination of pork is a fantasy but there are other fantasies here so I'll add that one. Reform and real punishment for cheats in welfare, Medicare and Medicaid would be a practical beginning. Real reform in the illegal immigrant area would do much starting with high fines and other real penalties for employers.
A national ID card would be a nice addition but that's another subject.
As with all things in life, we will never get all we desire. To progress we must combine both sides by first identifying agreements and then making compromises. I'll start:
For any percentage of increase in tax rates there must be either an equal or double equal percentage decrease in each social program either by reduction in revenue or elimination of fraud.
(Government estimates of Medicare fraud are at least 30% because of no in-depth oversight.)
As for Mike, I am a conservative without enough time to winnow out enough conservatism in Mike's words to make it worthwhile. Someday I hope to have that twenty hours a day.
January 6, 2008
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I guess if you don't agree with Rosen, he wants you to shut up
January 8, 2008
9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
gkb2008 writes:
The most hated man in the Mountain Time Zone is at it again. If you do not agree with him, then he views you as trash and as worthless. The only thing worthwhile about Mike Rosen is his niece, Daphne Rosen.
January 9, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I don't think Rosen is the most hated man in the time zone...I think he's the most laughable example of the misinformed political hack in the time zone...but must hated? He just doesn't matter that much outside of the ranks of the far right extremists