Warren Buffett to Match Republicans' Donations toward the Nat'l Debt.

...and he'll go 3 to 1 for senator Mitch McConnell.

This happened while OTC was new-thread locked, so I didn't get a chance to post it up then, but I'm curious what the OTC hive-mind has to say about it.

While in the long run it won't make a hell of a lot of difference either way (assuming anyone takes him up on this, it'll still only be a drop in the bucket), it's an interesting move on Buffet's part. If they don't take him up on it, the Republicans may look unwilling to help out with the debt, while if they do they may appear to have "caved" on the issue of increased taxes for the rich. More likely, it'll just peter out or they'll spin it as Buffett not being willing to put his money where his mouth is and just donate willingly.

Anyway, what's you guys' opinions on this maneuver?

Buffett must be puzzled that his word means nothing in his home country. WSJ thinks he's an eccentric kook, and that's the end of it. The lines of rational thought aren't open at all.

The Republicans don't seem to realize that not everyone thinks like they do. *shrug* The Republicans aren't going to do 'voluntary donations'. At this point you pretty much have to force them to pay up by closing up the ridiculous tax loopholes they're using to make money.

Hahahahah served. Smart Democrats up for re-election will capitalize on this.

You gotta love WSJ, they'll back all sorts of crazy anti-competitive practices and poverty-inducing government policies, but when a successful rich businessman says that's not the way to become sustainable rich or for a country to succeed, WSJ has to badmouth the guy. They have to shut up the very people they think they represent.

Anyway, I doubt much will come out of this as the Republicans bury the story.

Well, Mr. Buffett, I 'd, at least...

And who owns the Wall Street Journal? Rupert Murdoch.

No wonder why they don't like Buffett.

Neither do left wing folks, Democrats and basically anybody and everybody else. Welcome to human nature.

I'll be interested to see who puts their money where their mouth is first.

Who are the others?

Either way, it's insubstantial grandstanding. (For my part, every penny of my tax refund that didn't actually come out of my paycheck is going to my library system. :])

Buffet is an odd case of a Boomerang Bigot who bashes rich people despite being rich himself. He's there to show some of the Democrats' best friends are rich. Not like it needed to be said.

I just get sick of the hypocrisy. If a rich person is a "compassionate" liberal, they get a pass, but if they're a conservative (or say they are, like Romney, who we're not sold on but think his private sector experience and large donations to charity aren't bad but that's a different story) they get portrayed as evil for having they're wealth.

Who's to say Warren Buffet didn't do actual shady things to become rich? Because he's a liberal? If rich people as a whole aren't to be trusted, who's to say he's not done the same things he's accusing them of doing? Is he one of the "good" ones because he says he is? And why do liberals think you have to spout their talking points to be "intelligent"?

So it's true the OWSers are violent? If a Tea Party member said anything similar, that would be considered 'violent rhetoric'. Also, how would he be more Lawful than other rich people?

Vaguely defined, so how would someone be sure he wouldn't qualify as that himself?

edited 13th Feb '12 10:21:59 PM by doomsday524

I'm not sure he qualifies as a Boomerang Bigot, since he's criticizing them for their actions, not for simply being rich.

I've come to the conclusion, actually, that Buffet is simply a particularly clever plutarch.

After all, in the midst of the fools who think the system can still be pushed, he seems to have been the first to have a moment of clarity in realizing that, hey, the system needs to be yanked back into something resembling order if we're to avoid violence here. Such is how the cycle goes, usually. Now he and a group of his fellow less idiotic plutarchs are working to put things back to a point where the middle class isn't as discontented as the poor, i.e. with OWS and such.

Still. His calling out of the Republican fanatics is amusing, either way.

Buffett doesn't seem to hate the rich, he just seems to hate the ones who use their wealth to become even wealthier, rather than to pay their dues to society.

edited 13th Feb '12 8:49:48 PM by setnakhte

He's a rich person who actually believes that the rich have a societal responsibility to give something back rather than horde everything for themselves.

Incidentally, I'll probably be attending the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder's meeting later this year.

edited 13th Feb '12 8:52:39 PM by Balmung

@Doomsday: the financial records on him are a pretty good indication. Not to mention the fact despite being rich, he lives like a frugal middle class person with a single car and a moderate sized house and eats at local diners.

Buffett isnt the kind of rich guy who flaunts his cash around like mad or even lives like a rich person. And his business model is pretty much the polar opposite of Romney. He looks for strong but small companies that show promise, then buys them and gives them resources they require to go big time. And he plans when he dies to give just enough to his kids that they can continue pursuing their own careers and dump all the rest of his fortune into the charity setup by Bill and Linda Gates.

edited 13th Feb '12 8:55:15 PM by Midgetsnowman

He will try to control of his own reputation, you know. I think he doth protests too much. Where are the financial records? Is there any way you just assume he's not part of the vague corruption of the rest of Wall Street? Because he says he's not and tries to get good PR?

On an unrelated note, why is this site so overwhelmingly liberal?

edited 13th Feb '12 8:59:37 PM by doomsday524

believe whatever you want. it still makes you paranoid without hard proof.

on the unrelated note, because it attracts a lot of collegiate types. and the types that come out of college tend towards liberal or specific strains of conservativism like hard libertarianism or fiscal conservativism.

edited 13th Feb '12 8:57:21 PM by Midgetsnowman

Because it's the internet, where people trend young; young people, to finish the logical answer, trend liberal. Hence, liberal bias to the site.

Often useful. Sometimes not.

We're not mad at rich people for being rich. We're mad at the contemporary conservatives and big business men high jacking our politics and rigging it so that everyone else gets pushed down into the dirt and stays there. So that no one else could ever rise up and compete with them without bleeding out their soul in the process.

Warren Buffet just thinks that the rich need to play by the same rules as the rest of us. That they need to have some responsibility to the world around them. If that's liberal ideology then that's a pretty pathetic definition. That should be part of the basic definition of human decency.

Buffet has been accussed of being the most generous/charitable multi-billionaire in the world with record breaking donations.

It is unlikely that Republicans can comprehend that.

Different worlds and all. (Private Citizen VS Political Party)

yeah. the problem with assuming he's secretly evil is that his entire public agenda is based around moves that would absolutely ruin selfish, self-profiting practices. And he doesnt need those practices anyways. His legitimate business moves have made him one of the most ridiculously rich people in human existence. The man makes more money in a week than most people make in a lifetime. and he usually DONATES IT.

Michael Moore gives very little to charity. Rush Limbaugh gives quite a lot to charity. It's been shown, liberals generally give less to private charities than conservatives.

Midgetsnowman- So he can't be evil like the rest of Wall Street because...ta-da! Of his political affiliation. The fact that he's a liberal Democrat and says what they do means he can't do the same things they're mad at the rest of Wall Street for. And professing liberalism means he won't get demonized like the rest of the rich people. Don't you see how that could play out to a corrupt businessman? As much as you hate Wall Street, Buffet is "legitimate" because he's a Democrat? If rich people=evil=screw people over to get ahead, what would make him different?

edited 13th Feb '12 9:07:18 PM by doomsday524

Except Michael Moore, insofar as I can tell, is a joke. And Limbaugh is a fundamentalist, imperialist jackass. So, yeah...