That was where I was going. They don't want to, because they don't believe in it any more than their millionaire counterparts on the right do. All they want to do is be seen as the champion for the effort. If they truly believed in it, they would do it regardless of what others do. That is when you can tell the difference between a true believer of a philosophy and a gasbag who pontificates about change.
buffett is out front and center for the dems... because he is getting inside information and bailouts. Plain and simple buffett has lived off inside deals for years. He had the inside on GS and Wells Fargo and now apparently his trains will be shipping oil from canada instead of the pipeline. Citing Buffett on the economy is like citing this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf Google Image Result for http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg
I don't recall PMing you, although I do recall making such a remark in a PM. I checked under all of Gabfly1's inbox and outbox, and I don't see it. I gather you may have been using a different user name at the time, and I don't recall who PMed whom first. Now to the point. If you think it is a valid point to ask Buffett to make a bigger tax contribution because he believes the rich should pay more, then you get what you deserve by way of response. You think you're clever? I have read this time and again by others here, and I really expected more from you. You were being contemptibly obtuse, and I accorded your comment the respect it deserved. In fact, I responded in kind. How surprising that you didn't like what you read when it came back at you. Spelling error? I didn't think you made a spelling error. That's a different word, not a typo. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you meant what you wrote, which would have been something of an admission of intellectual integrity. I think presenting stupid arguments is a waste of time. Yes, I read them all the time here, and I often ignore them except when I'm bored. I responded in your case because, as I noted earlier, despite our considerable political differences, I genuinely expected better from you. That you took umbrage at being taken to task for having made such a vacuous remark leads me to believe that you actually took your comment seriously. In that case, it would appear that I assumed too much.