United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Warren Buffett Does Not Endorse WH's "Buffett Rule"
Source:
Real Clear Politics
URL Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi ... _not_endorse_buffett_rule.html
Published: Sep 30, 2011
Author: CNBC
Post Date: 2011-09-30 14:00:50 by jwpegler
Keywords: None
Views: 1627
Comments: 6
CNBC: "Let’s talk about the Buffett Rule for a moment." Buffett: "Uh-huh." CNBC: "Talk to you about how it came about in terms of the White House getting in touch with you and you putting your name to this." Buffett: "Well Gene Sperling called and said 'can we use your name' and I said 'yes.'" CNBC: "Are you happy you said 'yes?'" Buffett: "Sure. I mean I wrote about it." CNBC: "Are you happy that the way it is being described. Is the program that the White House has presented a million dollars and over your program? " Buffett: "Well, the precise program which will -- I don't know what their program will be. My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change. But, if they make a lot of money and they pay a very low tax rate, like me, it would be changed by a minimum tax that would only bring them up to what the other people pay." CNBC: "Does that mean you disagree with the president's new jobs proposal which would be paid for by raising taxes on households with incomes of over $250,000?" Buffett: "That's another program that I won't be discussing. My program is to have a tax on ultra-rich people who are paying very low tax rates. Not just all the rich people. It would probably apply to 50,000 people in a population of 300 million." CNBC: "So that means you disagree with the president on the $250,000?" Buffett: "No, no. You may disagree with him." CNBC: "So you agree, $250,000 is the right number?" Buffett: "I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, and which they are voting on, and decide net, “do I like it or do I not like it”. There is no question, there will be parts I’ll disagree with." CNBC: "And are you a supporter of his jobs program right now?" Buffett: "I am supporter of the action he is trying to get the Congress to join him in taking to really do something, rather than sit there and go in different directions." CNBC: "Do you agree with all the details?" Buffett: "I haven’t looked at all the details." CNBC: "Ok, fair enough."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
ROTFLMAO... So now we know. Buffet would NOT raise regular income taxes at all, including on people making $50,000,000 a year. Obama wants to raise regular income taxes on people making a lousy $250,000 a year. Buffet's point is that he wants to raise capital gains rates on people making hundreds of millions or billions of dollars a year through investing. Is Obama so stupid that he didn't think Buffet would say something??? What a bozo Obama really is.
This doesn't make any sense.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Buffett: "No, no. You may disagree with him." CNBC: "So you agree, $250,000 is the right number?" Buffett: "I will look at the overall plan that gets submitted to Congress, and which they are voting on, and decide net, “do I like it or do I not like it”. There is no question, there will be parts I’ll disagree with." CNBC: "And are you a supporter of his jobs program right now?" Buffett: "I am supporter of the action he is trying to get the Congress to join him in taking to really do something, rather than sit there and go in different directions." CNBC: "Do you agree with all the details?" Buffett: "I haven’t looked at all the details." do you even read what you post?
Tagline for sale - inquire within
What he is saying is that $50,000,000 a year is not a high income. Barack Obama thinks that $250,000 a year makes one filthy "rich". There is a huge disconnect between Obama and Buffet on this.
I get that part. I don't get his view that somebody making 50 million a year shouldn't be included in a tax hike, like sports figures or celebrities. WTF? That makes zero sense to me...and I'm against ANY tax hikes ANYWHERE. Just noting even in liberal la la land, this doesn't make sense.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Where in the article is the justification for the headline found? BTW, the "owner" of RCP is a Tea Bagger...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
That government is best which governs not at all -- Henry David Thoreau
#2. To: jwpegler (#0)
My program would be on the very high incomes that are taxed very low. Not just high incomes. Somebody making $50 million a year playing baseball, his taxes won't change. Make $50 million a year appearing on television, his income won't change.
#3. To: jwpegler (#0)
CNBC: "So that means you disagree with the president on the $250,000?"
#4. To: Badeye (#2)
This doesn't make any sense.
That government is best which governs not at all -- Henry David Thoreau
#5. To: jwpegler (#4)
#6. To: jwpegler (#0)
(Edited)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]