Obama and his supporters point to Buffet as an endorsement of Obama’s liberal economic stance.  Warren Buffet is someone who made money betting (sound bets undoubtedly) on financial instruments; he created his wealth through wizardry in the financial markets.

 Warren Buffet has got enough money stored away to endorse and pal around with anybody he chooses; a conservative or a liberal economic policy will affect him very little. Today, the economic issue is about the effect of a conservative or a liberal policy on regular folks. For a regular guy or gal to make it in this world a conservative economic policy is far superior as evidenced by the fact that the liberal socialistic policy has been tried and failed throughout the world. The two biggest growing economies in the world - India, and China - have given up their socialist economic model and have embraced capitalist market economics. Just in India alone since after the switch, 50 Million people have come out of abject poverty in the last decade because of the new economic model embraced by the nation. Sure in a capitalist model, the disparity between the rich and the poor may increase, but remember that total wealth is not the total amount of money floating around in the system. Wealth keeps growing and everyone (who works, and is responsible) gets to own a part of that wealth. That’s the only way of making sure that the relatively poor can make it in this world. There’s plenty of charity in the United States to help the truly needy, but for the rest a government welfare check will only breed dependence. As the saying goes, “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day…..”.

Liberal economics does the following:

1) Super rich folks who have already made money have very little effect on their wealth. Their taxes may rise, but it's irrelevant to them. For rich people like Buffet, who thinks raising taxes is fine, here's something he should be aware of - the IRS does not turn down money that you give them even if you don't owe it to them. If Warren Buffet would like to give more money than what is due to the IRS he is free and most welcome to do so – the IRS will happily take it. If in the end, Warren Buffet does not like what's become of this country as a result of Obama's socialism, he can go buy an island somewhere and be king - the rest of us don't have that option.

2) The crowd at the bottom will get welfare checks from the government - which in the end is a huge disincentive to them. Here, the government is taking from the haves and distributing it to the have-nots (which is socialism). It's interesting to note though, that the supposed have-nots live a pretty comfortable life compared to most of the world – yes, including Western Europe. They have all the food they can eat, cable TV, flat screen TVs, one or more cars, etc. etc.

3) The people in the middle who want to make something of themselves, business owners, hard-working folks etc. will be the most hurt, because liberal economic polices "encourage" them only to get as successful as the government thinks it's necessary, because if they get too successful, they get taxed more. This is a huge disincentive to risk taking, hard work, innovation, etc.

At the end of the day, liberal socialist economic models look attractive (mostly to the second group of people) only for a short period of time, but in the long run that kind of model is not self-sustaining, and will crumble. Liberal economics, a.k.a socialism, is really a race to mediocrity, but what we need is a race to excellence.