likearock

Because then not as many people would 'take him at his word' about the rich needing to pay more taxes. And why exactly is that important?

He is an expert at tailoring his image. When a guy says, "I should be taxed more" everyone thinks, "oh. That Warren is a special kind of man." Giving away all of his wealth to charities is a great way to ensure the government doesn't take half of it when he dies. It's the new thing - donate it to charities because then it won't go to the government. Then get the tax exemption for the charitable donations and make sure the government doesn't tax that, either. Buffet knows that the worst place to send his earned dollars is to the government. He'll shelter it and say, "Government isn't getting it. If I can't have it it will go to my second choice." Buffet is a genius. The Oracle of Omaha. He shelters his taxes and still looks good. Like Al Gore flying a private jet - boy, if he doesn't just say the right things! Well I suppose if you're going to call into question the character of anyone who says something you disagree with, you can never be wrong. He says that the rich should pay more in taxes and I take him at his word. Why should he give a shit about his image anyway? I certainly wouldn't if I had his money.

Keep in mind that the 2 - 4 minute blocks are priced at around $25/hr compared to the volume blocks that are closer to $10/hr. You wouldn't be saving as much as you think. what tunnel is $25/hr? I want to go lol.

Were you planning on ADDRESSING that topic at some point, rather than the charitable contributions? I thought I did, but I'll do it again so there's no mistaking: Warren Buffett support raising the tax rates on the rich. Warren Buffett is a multi-billionaire. Therefore, supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth. Argument to authority, nice. Bogus, but nice. Nope. Argument to or from authority states: In this case, p = "supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth". I was not using Warren Buffett as an authority to support p but as an example of p. Very different. Okay, here you're on more solid ground. I kind of finessed the fact that his statements in support of raising taxes on the rich did occur after he acquired most of his wealth. My assumption is that people don't usually change their core beliefs that much over their lifetime and Buffett, who wasn't born rich, probably had the same views back then. Perhaps I'm right, perhaps not. I'd say though that the fact he's willing to give away 99% of his wealth to charity is pretty good evidence that his heart has always been in the right place.

Were you planning on ADDRESSING that topic at some point, rather than the charitable contributions? I thought I did, but I'll do it again so there's no mistaking: Warren Buffett support raising the tax rates on the rich. Warren Buffett is a multi-billionaire. Therefore, supporting tax rates on the rich is not an impediment to acquiring wealth.

So, let him put his money where his mouth is. Claim it as income, no tax sheltering, and pay the full tax on it And you have some personal knowledge of his misuse of tax shelters? Pray show it. This is all besides the point, which was that a willingness to see the tax rates go up for the rich does not necessarily prevent one from acquiring wealth. Any chance of your sticking to that topic?

With an attitude like that, you will probably never be a millionaire or if you become one you won't be for long. Tell that to Warren Buffett. He has that attitude in spades. How do you figure that? Buffett has his money in tax exempt/deferred shelters and has accountants to make sure he takes the least tax bite possible. Let's see him put his money where his mouth is and take it as income instead of capital gains, without any sheltering - he can start by cutting a check to these folks: Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Credit Accounting Branch 3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D Hyattsville, MD 20782 Dude, he has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth to charities. How much more do you want from the guy? More to the point, he has consistently said that the rich should be taxed more as he does here. Bill Gates has also pledged to give away 50% of his wealth. Generosity and a willingness to "give back" is not necessarily a detriment to acquiring wealth yourself.

With an attitude like that, you will probably never be a millionaire or if you become one you won't be for long. Tell that to Warren Buffett. He has that attitude in spades.

Keep in mind that the 2 - 4 minute blocks are priced at around $25/hr compared to the volume blocks that are closer to $10/hr. You wouldn't be saving as much as you think.

I'm not sure why you're so surprised. I believe that break down is a consequence of the fact that we have a progressive tax structure where the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. If we had a completely flat tax, you would indeed have that top 1% paying 23.5% of the total tax. Now whether you think its fair or not for millionaires to pay a higher percentage is something you can certainly argue one way or the other but as of now, they are.

+1 For the price of a tandem, you can do a full 15 minutes in the tunnel rather than piddle around with 2 or 4 minute blocks.

Good point - my guess is that putting in enough reps will tend to smooth out the transitions. But of course if you really want to know, Joda's the man to ask - he could tell you exactly what's behind the move, what drills make it easier, etc. Would love to - actually, I'm going up this weekend with a somewhat smaller group (4 hrs for 5 people). I don't know how you guys do it - pretty soon you'll have to open your own tunnel with the numbers you're pulling in!

I definitely agree that it's probably more weighted towards power. But I wouldn't discount money completely - try looking at net worth in the House but sorted by poorest first.

you can make the argument...... I'd make the argument that the access to power and the character of the individual play so much more that the salary level really doesn't matter at all That's fine - but at the end of the day they're both pretty much subjective arguments unless you can back them up with some kind of evidence. People go into politics for a number of different reasons - I'd be willing to agree that power and money are two of the leading factors.

Another justification for higher congressional salaries is to try and make it less likely for corruption to develop. Clearly some will turn out crooked no matter what, but you can make the argument that, generally speaking, someone making $200K would be less likely to look for bribes than someone making $50K.

Now that made me laugh! Screen Name : Likearock . . . umm - If I say what is obvious, I will probably get a warning or so . . . instead I'll just let obvious be obvious. Funny - let us know if your daughter likes that one as well.

Now that made me laugh!

so, change the names to something that'll sit better in your political comfort zone - or do a search on this specific joke and find versions there that already do it for you Some of us don't find such jokes funny even when they are targeted on political opponents. And some people completely lack a sense of humor. If having a sense of humor means laughing when somebody calls another man's wife a whore, I'm glad I don't have one.

so, change the names to something that'll sit better in your political comfort zone - or do a search on this specific joke and find versions there that already do it for you Some of us don't find such jokes funny even when they are targeted on political opponents.

Hey, Dave. Isn't it just a simple belly to back (through sit) followed by a back layout? The hard part is the back layout. I'd imagine you'd be hucking it at first but the trick is to eventually be able to do it slowly with control.

He'll be back on air Tuesday. Who wants to bet they won't get a nice ratings bump out of this?

Pfffftt........We all know it was an evil plot hatched by Bush/Cheney and PNAC to take over the World and control the flow of oil. What rock have you been hiding under? True but then the only thing I don't understand is, since Bush and Cheney engineered the whole thing, how come they fabricated Al Qaeda for the fall guys rather than Saddam Hussein?

You still have to ask yourself if the larger size at XP is worth paying 3 times the price of a smaller SV tunnel. It's hard to see how they would be getting three times the revenue.

So Scarborough did report his contributions? MSNBC should really get clear about that to avoid looking like complete hypocrites.

I'd think Scarborough would be the most interesting example. Isn't he on the same network as Olbermann?