"He is a filthy, lying, cheating, didn't build that rich guy."
I thought no matter how they got their money, all rich guys were noble job creators. Why is Buffet (or Gates, or Soros) different? Because he doesn't toe the party line? You people are ridiculous in your partisanship.
You liberals are the ones that denied that rich guys created jobs, not conservatives. You just seem to be very selective in which rich guys are good guys. If they give to Obama, they're good, if not they must be crooks. If you think that position is bi-partisan, you don't understand the meaning of the word, just like you don’t understand the meaning of the word compromise.
"are the ones that denied that rich guys created jobs"
I did no such thing. I said giving insanely wealthy people with large offshore bank accounts even more money would not spur them to create jobs. What will spur people to invest in job creating enterprises is to spur demand for the product of those enterprises. And that means, as it always has, a balance between capital and consumer wealth.
"You just seem to be very selective in which rich guys are good guys."
I don't think people are particularly bad or particularly good based on wealth or class. That is a problem of Communists, Tea Brains and other idealogues. Whether you poor more deficit dollars down Buffet's or Romney's throat, continually lowering taxes for the wealthy will not create jobs. Buffet and I agree on that. Romney and I don't.
"If you think that position is bi-partisan"
No, I do not think the imaginary position you assigned to imaginary liberals is bi-partisan. I think it is imaginary.
"the meaning of the word compromise"
Right now it is $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. Last summer it was $6 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. But that wasn't enough compromise for you. You overplayed your hand. You lose. That's it.