Political Opinion

The Lobby
86

I used to have a lot of respect for Warren Buffett. As a disciple of Benjamin Graham, Buffett represented old-school, conservative, free-market investing. His business philosophy respected, promoted, and profited from the power of the American economy. He became wealthy beyond the comprehension of most of us, and I admired his ability to create wealth.

That ability made Warren Buffett a constant target of the IRS. Buffett fought the IRS over every dollar they attempted to extort from him — and I admired his willingness to fight, just as much as I admired the skill he deployed to earn those dollars in the first place.

Most recently, Buffett is in a dispute with the IRS over nearly a billion dollars of so-called “taxes owed”.

But, somewhere along the line, Buffett stumbled into left-wing politics; and, like Soros and some other rich do-gooders, when Buffett got “political”, he stepped in it, big-time. Try to wrap your head around this: While battling the IRS over a billion-dollar tax bill, Buffett started pontificating that the “rich” should pay higher taxes, and that it’s “unfair” that his secretary pays a higher tax [B]rate[/B] than he does.

Did Buffett volunteer for the role of Obama Sock Puppet? Or did he just stumble into that role the same way he stumbled into left-wing politics?

Either way, in his wildest dreams, Obama could not have wished for something this good to drop into his lap. The Obama Regime has created what they call “the Buffett Rule”, and now that “rule” is part of Obama’s reelection pitch.

[B]Warren Buffett has become Warren Buffoon, in my view.

And the crap that Obama is peddling all around this country should be called “the Buffoon Rule”.[/B]

Barack Obama and Warren Buffett: Hypocrisy on Parade | Sunshine State News

87

Sad to say it’s because most people never venture past the headlines of any news article.

And that’s a shame because Ron Paul is never in the headlines. Let alone the fact that he’s relegated to the smallest print, and given the title as “crazy”.

Check out what this guy calls him, because of his “less government” views.

The “crazy” part is why people don’t understand how he’s right. I am mystified daily by the way people defer to the the government to solve all their problems. On one hand, everyone complains about the expenses of taxes, and regulation for everything from changing a light switch, to needing permits to visit a park. On the other hand, when you have someone that wants to kick that expensive government crutch out from under them, they freak out, and think that the guy is crazy for wanting to return their liberties.

Just imagine how nice it would be to trade again at 100:1 leverage or more. No more TSA groping. And that the “too big to fail” crowd was now homeless… because they FAILED. Rewarding idiocy, or straight up larceny is part and parcel of bureaucracy run amok.

Strange world this place has become…

88

[B]“Stop Coddling the Super-Rich” [/B]was the title of Buffett’s 08/14/11 NY Times OP-ED.

folks should read it… :slight_smile:

……then ask, should we listen to people like Warren Buffett or Kenric Ward? :42:

89

Ummm… YEAH!!!:smiley:

As for getting just due, I found this to be rather humorous.

90

Since Warren Buffoon has used his own taxable income, tax rate, and taxes paid to illustrate how the super-rich are being “coddled”, as he puts it, let’s run some numbers on Warren’s situation.

Warren tells us that he paid $6,938,744 in federal taxes last year, and this represented only 17.4% of his taxable income. Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the 20 people who work in his office was 36%. Warren’s grossly unfair tax advantage is eating away at his conscience.

Warren’s numbers imply taxable income last year of $39,878,000. (rounded off). If he had been required to pay a “fair” 36% tax rate — like his employees — his federal tax would have been $14,356,000. So, because of the unfair tax laws in this country, Warren was able to fleece the government out of $7,417,000 (again, rounded off). This larceny is tormenting poor Warren.

[U]An Open Memo to Poor Warren:[/U]

Warren, send a check for $7,417,000 to the IRS, and soothe your troubled conscience.
Do it today. You’ll be glad you did.

On the other hand, Warren, you could just pay the IRS the $1 Billion in back taxes that you currently owe. It’s just a thought.

Meanwhile, Obama continues to double-down on The Buffoon Rule. Today his tax return was made public, and he immediately pointed out that [B]his[/B] tax rate is lower than [B]his secretary’s[/B] tax rate. He said this illustrates the need for implementation of The Buffoon Rule.

It isn’t clear whether Obama’s conscience is bothering him in any way. Let’s give him the benefit of that doubt.
Poor Barack.

[U]An Open Memo to Poor Barack:[/U]

Barack, follow Warren’s lead, and get out your checkbook. Write a big, fat check to the IRS, and ease your troubled mind.

Just think of all the bragging you’ll be able to do out on the campaign trail — you’ll be able to claim that, by following Warren’s lead, you were being totally consistent, “leading from behind”, as you like to do.

Write that check today, Barack.

91

here’s something to watch…

92

Ironically, his tax bill was still $20,000+ over her entire yearly income.

They need to stop trying to find a way to screw the public, be they rich, or be they poor, out of anything else.

They need to be taking apart dysfunctional bureaucracies, and working to get the government need for cash lowered.
There are an awful lot of candidates that are ripe for some forensic accounting. But what are they doing? Adding to the debt daily.

Any other person, corporation, or business of any sort, and spending in that deep of deficit, would by now be officially bankrupt, and out of operation.

It’s stupid to think it can be sustained.

93

But… on the other hand… maybe not…. we know what we know, we know what we don’t know, but we don’t know what we don’t know.

For example, in WD Gann’s* 1949 book ”45 years in Wall Street” in the last chapter “Can United States Afford Another War” Gann writes,[I] “The United States debt is a great burden which cannot be overcome. The wasteful spending by our government has already caused irreparable damage and even if it should stop now panic would come anyway”. [/I]

Gann goes on to predict a great depression and panic before 1953, and states [I]“nothing can prevent it”.[/I]

A few more cherry picked quotes from the book, [I]“The second World War cost the United States more money than any war in history. Our government debt is almost as great as the debts of all the balance of the world put together. With this burden of debt and the government expenses, how can a panic and depression be prevented?”

“If the new deal spending and give away continues as it is at the present time, it will just be a matter of a short time before the government will begin to confiscate property and everything else”.[/I]

Not for nothing but doesn’t it sound a bit like the problems the US is facing today? Back then national debt was around $250 billion. US was paying for the war, the Marshall Plan, the New Deal, the G.I bill, the start of the Cold War and a whole lot more……

But, what happen since 1949 when Gann wrote his book? The US when on to unprecedented economic growth, dragging much of the world along with it, not a great depression and panic as predicted. In 1949 we could only forecast the future based on our knowledge and experience from the passed. There was no way to factor in future change, innovation, and growth.

The Interstate Highway system, passenger airlines, the housing explosion in the suburbs, a US workforce with the highest level of education ever, in part b/c of the GI bill. Network Television and the huge consumer demand it created through advertising. The list goes on and on and on of things that Gann didn’t know he didn’t know about when he wrote his book in 1949.

In the late 1970’s the US economy was in a downfall in part b/c of the decline of the “Rust Belt” industries and again the future looked pretty gloomy. By the late 1980’s mid 1990’s the economy had come roaring back. Names never heard of in the 70’s, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Dell, AOL, had become part of everyday life and were now driving economic growth not US Steel.

So when we look back in history we find that the economic problems of the late 1940’s and 1970’s were nothing but speed bumps on the way to an explosion of innovation, with economic growth and expansion like the world had never seen.

Economic expansion is driven by an insatiable desire for more, better, bigger, faster, cooler looking, and cheaper. We don’t know what the next big world changing innovations will be, but we do know innovation and growth will continue.

It’s hard to see it now, but in the future our current debt issues will probably seem as insignificant and amusing as was the $250 billion that kept Gann awake at night back in 1949. :19:

*aka “a great trader” aka “a big quack”!

94

Obama Myth:

“We still believe that there is hardly anything we cannot do.”

Barack Obama and David Cameron, in a joint op-ed, prior to Cameron's visit to the U.S.

(referring to foreign policy challenges in Syria, Iran and Afghanistan).

Obama Reality:

Can Obama and his Regime actually win a war against a little rat's-ass country like Afghanistan? --- No, they can't.

Can Obama and his Regime stop the flood of illegal aliens across our southern border? --- No, they can't.

Can they wipe out the Mexican drug cartels which are terrorizing the American southwest? --- No, they can't.  

Can they slash the U.S. budget deficit? --- No, they can't.

Can they make actual cuts in federal government spending? --- No, they can't.

Can they reduce the tax burden on American taxpayers? --- No, they can't.

Can they reduce the regulatory burden on American businesses and American investors? --- No, they can't.

Can they get a larger percentage of the American population employed? --- No, they can't.

Can they reduce the welfare rolls in this country? --- No, they can't.

Can they get serious about developing our domestic oil reserves? --- No, they can't.

Can they halt run-away gasoline prices? --- No, they can't.

Can they abide by their oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"? --- No, they can't.

Obama, and his Regime, can't do any of the things necessary to save this country.  

But, without Obama, [B]we can.[/B]

Our Reality:

[B]We can[/B] overthrow the Ruling Class Elites --- peacefully, legally, at the polls in November --- starting with Obama.

[B]We can[/B] replace all of them with honest, humble, conservative men and women who will serve us faithfully as our

representatives, rather than presuming to be our rulers.

[B]We can[/B] take back our country, because we outnumber the supporters of the Ruling Class by at least 2-to-1.

Join Us!

95

Clint,

First up, please never apologize for not responding instantly to a question - we all of us have lives to lead, so I never considered you ‘slow’. I am just enormously grateful that you take questions posed to you so seriously: I’m a serious soul, myself, so it is heartening to see someone else take things seriously. In any case, you responded only a few days after my original question.

I then reciprocated: in between my original question and your response, I left for Portugal (we always take the kids away over their Easter holiday) - we left on 30th March, and returned late this Saturday just gone (14th), so I am still catching up. I traded end of day while on holiday (it’s our own property out there, so better set up for it than a rental) but was not on internet fora etc. I like to go into a news blackout when away, for some reason. So my trading was just half an hour an evening. This is my first week back and time has rather got away from me, for which please accept apologies.

Anyway, I am rambling - so what’s new?! - but basically I am very grateful for your response, and wanted to explain why I was so slow coming back to you.

I very much appreciate the detail you went into: in a past life I used to work for the British Government, and I studied US politics at school, plus my wife lived in the US before we had children, and I have travelled to the States a fair bit over the years, so am very interested in US politics, but am at my lowest ebb in terms of understanding the latest, something I need to work on - particularly during such an interesting period - so thank you for that invaluable crammer.

If I could trouble you with a further question - I don’t have much of a personal read on Santorum: it seems possible that on Tuesday 24th he could drop several hundred votes behind Romney. Is he the withdrawing sort, do you think? Or do you think that he keep fighting until it is mathematically impossible for him to win?

While I obviously don’t know the ins and outs as well as you do, it seems to me from this side of the pond that Obama, even to his supporters, must represent about the biggest gulf between rhetoric of change and reality of effectiveness in modern memory?

We have something similar going on here in the UK, at the moment, although on not quite such a grand scale - we had some structural issues with our economy, political system, relationship with Europe/ROW, environmental policy, taxation policy and on a groundswell of popular rejection of the sitting left-wing Labour Government, we got our first coalition Government in living memory, elected on the back of a raft of promises for change. Much of that good intention has disappeared in lethargy, infighting and the return of traditional political divisions.

It seems to me that Obama has been guilty of something similar: whether one supported or opposed him at the time of his election, it was clear that he was positioning himself as a bringer of change and radical policy. It appears from this side of the Atlantic that one thing our Governments currently share is that they were elected on big promises and have failed to deliver.

Anyway, I am rambling (again!) but thank you very much for your responses, and I would be interested in your read on whether Santorum will stay to the bitter end. I agree with you that it does now seem a certainty that Romney will get the nomination one way or the other.

Thanks again,

ST

96

Hello, ST

I hope your time away was restful and rewarding. Welcome back!

As of 8pm yesterday evening (Friday, April 20), here are the delegate totals:

966×456

Note that Romney has gainded delegates and Santorum has lost delegates since the last time I posted this graphic (on April 4).

Percentage-wise, Romney has captured just under 60% of the delegates currently committed, and needs slightly more than 40% of the remaining 1,139 delegates, in order to go to the Convention with the nomination locked up.

Santorum, on the other hand, would need more than 77% of the remaining delegates, in order to clinch the nomination prior to the Convention. That just won’t happen.

And, Santorum would need to capture more than 680 of the remaining delegates (60%), in order to keep Romney from clinching the nomination ahead of the Convention. Realistically, that ain’t gonna happen, either.

If Gingrich were to bow out — and if he could persuade all of his delegates to switch to Santorum — then Santorum would still have a mountain to climb, in order to overtake Romney. Gingrich is having serious money problems, so it’s possible he will have to drop out. Even so, that mountain would just be too much for Santorum, in my opinion.

All that being said, I think Santorum will stay in the race all the way to the Convention, unless his financial position becomes dire, or a family crisis takes him out. Santorum has a special-needs daughter who has been in and out of the hospital, and he has already suspended his campaigning once (for a short time), in order to attend to her.

If Santorum were to drop out — and if he could persuade all of his delegates to switch to Gingrich — it would definitely breathe new life into the Gingrich campaign, and make the next few months interesting. But, then that mountain would be Gingrich’s to climb, and I really can’t see that happening.

So, barring some complete game-changer, knocking Romney totally out of the race, it looks like Romney has a “virtual” lock on the nomination.

I’m not an impartial observer of Obama. I believe Obama is the most dangerous man in America, and I despise him. So, my response to your question will be very partisan and very harsh, and I will leave that for another time.

Until then, have a great weekend!

97

He did.

Rick Santorum drops out of the presidential race - The Washington Post

98

You’re right. Not sure how I missed Santorum’s announcement.

With Santorum out, Gingrich almost out, and Romney’s commanding lead in the delegate count, things are becoming clear: Romney is the “presumptive” Republican candidate for president in November.

Ron Paul continues to stay the course, and continues to accumulate a few delegates, apparently for the purpose of having a voice at the Convention. As far as the delegate count is concerned, Paul is no threat to Romney.

From time to time, Ron Paul is asked whether he will split from the Republican Party and run as a “third party” candidate in the general election; and he repeatedly hedges his answer to this question. Personally, I hope that he gets whatever accommodation he’s seeking at the Convention, and then I hope that he unambiguously supports Romney for president. A third-party run would simply siphon votes from Romney, esentially handing votes to Obama.

As of early this morning (Wednesday, April 25), here is the delegate count, as reported by the Associated Press:

965×454

Edit:

As of 1am EDT on May 21, Romney’s delegate count has been revised upward to 991. — Delegates remaining: 790.

99

“HOPE AND CHANGE” is dead.

So, Obama has rolled out a new slogan —

— to pay tribute to his socialist/communist ideology.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about the slogan “Forward” —

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications. For example, Vpered (Russian language for ‘Forward’) was the name of the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.”

100

Thank you, Clint, yes it was both: although in hindsight, I am not sure that demonstrating to the usually-rational Mrs Templar that I could make a profit at trading while on holiday was entirely sensible, as she might now be envisaging a few lifestyle changes lol.

Anyway, on to more serious matters: I have looked, but found nothing so far about Santorum directing his delegates to go one way or another (which I think he is technically able to do…?). If he does not do that, then I think that they are locked in to voting for him in spite of his withdrawal? Have you heard anything of this on your side of the Pond? Is there currently any lobbying going on, with the other interested parties courting the Santorum camp seeking their delegates? Or am I reading this wrong? Or, indeed, is this just something that does not happen?

Apologies for using you as a one-stop shop for US politics - I do this to top up rather than replace my own reading!!

ST

101

All depends on the states. The whole delegate thing is a bit mystifying.

Here’s an interesting read for you. Backroom politics at work here, and I for one hope it does what Mr. Paul is trying to do.

Ron Paul Wins Washington, On Track to Be Nominated at 2012 GOP Convention

102

Oh for Goodness sakes!!! Obama is not a bloomin’ Communist. What kind of political education have you had, Clint? Am disappointed!! Communism has NEVER existed in its purest sense. Similarly no such thing as free markets. Ridiculous simplification.
Anytime anyone tries to address issues of social justice within a liberal democratic framework in the USA it seems he or she will be deemed a ‘red’, which is something to be disdainful of.
Markets will ALWAYS be intervened in and thank goodness, because humans are just not bright enough to get it right without some wider intervention, be that governement or NGO movements.
Seems to me you got yourself a pragmatist in Obama, not an idealogue. He has soul which is what lacks in pure pecuniary pontifications! Let the environment, the sick and the elderly rot at the alter of capitalist profiteering?
I do not claim to hold the answers, but I get frustrated at the puerile level of political rhetoric I hear from across the pond sometimes… Rather Obama than some right wing Bible bashing closet Nazi… Am so disappointed to see this here…

103

You’re right… True communism never exists because it is always corrupted and used as a vehicle for the bureaucrats and politicians to grab even more power and profiteer off the backs of the people who are actually productive. Those “evil” racist founders who created this nation and drafted the Constitution realized that the more powerful the government becomes, the more corrupt and wasteful it becomes… They also acknowledged that total anarchy is a transitional phase to a tyrannical oligarchy. That’s why they created a Constitutional Republic. The constitution was meant to restrain the government from obtaining too much power… And it worked for a while. They created one of the most prosperous and inventive societies the world has ever seen. But overtime, with all the wealth and prosperity we created, citizen let their guards down. They gave a blind eye to the government’s usurpation of power. The politicians created a private Central Bank that enabled the politicians to spend more money without directly raising taxes on the people under the guise of monetary stability. The politicians knew that the taxes required to fund their pet projects and to pay off the special interests would cause the American people to riot. They made deals with lobbyists, imposing regulations that were said to protect everybody, but the only thing the regulations really protect are the banks and corporations that lobbied for them in the first place. Because of the steady stream of counterfeit money flowing from the Federal Reserve, the politician have become ever so eager to engage in unconstitutional, undeclared wars and the weapons manufacturers that supply the government with the war materials have no resent for their enormous profits. It used to be guns or butter. The government would be more eager to be diplomatic and reserve war as a last resort because they knew the benefits of war were rarely worth the cost. The founders knew very well that no nation could preserve its liberties during continual warfare… But the Fed is eager to monetize the costs of the war through inflation so the politicians don’t have to be accountable. Instead of going to the American people through congress to see if a war is necessary, the government gets approval for their wars through the United Nations and NATO.

15,700,000,000,000 Dollars later… We are here. We no longer are producers of wealth. We are debtors. Fortunately people still view our currency as some form of stability. Oil is required to be traded in dollars, creating artificial demand.

Over the last 50 years we built a highly speculative and leveraged society, giving the false impression of prosperity. This party will eventually end.

Your problem is that you believe in the government fairy… You view the government as some kind of omnipotent entity… As though it is not run by the same kind of creatures that have taken over Wall Street.

Too much government is the PROBLEM… Not the answer.

Of course I’m sure Obama is different… Even though he is bankrolled by the banks and corporations that were bailed out… Ignorance is Bliss!

104

Thank you very much for that, fascinating stuff and much appreciated this morning in a rainy Peak District - I am glad that it remains at least a little mystifying on your side of the Atlantic; I always feel like I have a reasonable handle on US politics, then you start having your run for the Party nomination and I just find myself playing catch up for months.

Or has it existed, just only briefly as it so quickly succumbs to its inherent flaws? I would agree that the perception of communism tends to last longer than the reality.

Even if that is true, unfortunately he is a pragmatist who presented himself as an idealogue, imho.

Just my thoughts!!

ST

105

That puerile, political rhetoric comes straight out of the [B]Socialist Democrat[/B] playbook.

Well, now you know which side of this debate to blame.