The Housing Bubble

Travesty.

Man’s inhumanity to man is a problem all over the world. The Koran burning is something that we should be more concerned about because it is done in our name and funded with our taxes.

And mowing down Palestinians should be concern because it is done in the name of a religious state funded by our $$$.

Although Bush was commander in chief, he isn’t the only person in our military heirarchy… Who are the generals recommending our military strategy? Who are the analysts reaching the conclusion that the invasion and occupation are the correct and “safe” options for our country? Who is balancing the economic and human cost of military action with the level of extra “safety” achieved.

Now, how has this cadre of information gatherers, analysts, and option presenters changed through the various administrations? Which generals did Obama fire when he was elected? What incorrect beliefs were rooted out and forced to change by this new “commander in chief”? What war crimes were prosecuted?

So stop… Just stop with the whole evil Bush/GOP vs saintly democrats debate. We already agree with you that Bush was terrible. But it’s not this man or that man or this party or that party that is the problem. We have deep seated power issues in this country that span the political spectrum. Too much power and money is now concentrated in the hands of too few in Washington, with too little oversight by the people.

By abusing the commerce clause of the constitution, the federal government has incrementally amassed more and more power, all with the best of “intentions”. By concentrating so much power in the hands of so few people, we have exposed a weakness to corruption into our political process. Until we can reverse course and decentralize our power structure, the misuse of power and means of the American people will continue, no matter the party or person seated as “Commander in Chief”.

Take your own advice and stop with the corporations=good, government=bad.

Who are the generals recommending our military strategy?

Bush and co. canned the ones who said we needed more troops to occupy correctly, if you’re referring to the Afghan/Iraq wars.

Who are the analysts reaching the conclusion that the invasion and occupation are the correct and “safe” options for our country?

Uhh…Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld.

Are these rhetorical questions, or do you just not know even recent history?

And to answer the rest of your questions, the above were all ‘fired’ by the Obama admin, and replaced with the guys who just got us out of Iraq with whatever success and respect we could salvage, just killed Osama, and are currently getting us out of the mess in Afghanistan. And they just toppled a tyrant in Libya with no loss of US life, and no occupying forces. And our standing in the Arab world has greatly increased since these guys took over, which doesn’t hurt, either.

Those are some of the differences.

replaced with the guys who just got us out of Iraq with whatever success and respect we could salvage

Ummm… Didn’t they get us out of Iraq precisely on the timetable that the Bush admin had set out (end of 2011).

As opposed, say, to the 6mo timetable that Obama campaigned on.

Hope and change, hope and change. Loosely translated as “more of the same”.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gen-david-petraeus-replace-stanley-mcchrystal-afghanistan-obama/story?id=10992188#.T0vUY_X4J0c

McChrystal was replaced by Petraeus only after the Rolling stone interview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

If you don’t like wikipedia as a source, there are plenty of others.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates was kept on by Obama after being appointed by Bush to replace Rumsfield. He was replaced by Leon Panetta in 2011. So where did Panetta come from. Oh well he had been director of the CIA since 2009 while McChrystal was running the Afghanistan forces and Gates was runing Dod.

So don’t call BS on me buddy if the guys in there have been in the system for decades through several administrations. History does not refute my statements.

Ok now you want to bring Libya into it. Another great example of expanded Federal authority. Using the war powers act, the president initiated military action against a foreign country without a declaration of war. Are you trying to make my point for me?

I don’t see ending wars relatively successfully as comparable to starting them and executing them disastrously. It’s not more of the same, it’s the exact opposite.

@Realtors Are Liars: Where in the HECK do you get from me that corporations are good and government is bad? What we have now is the worst of both. Corporations driven solely by the thirst for shareholder returns are using our centralized federal power to “lobby” (read “bribe”) elected officials to tilt the playing field to their advantage often to the detriment of the US Citizen. Corporations are precisely the reason monolithic government is so prone to corruption!

Right now, my father in law can drive across the border to Mexico and purchase plavix for 1/4 the cost he can get it here in the US. Now, what is preventing an entrepreneurial person from driving to Mexico, buying a truckload of Plavix at the 1/4 price and bringing it to the US to sell to pharmacies at reduced prices. Hint, it has to do with law, and that law has been lobbied for by the corporations at the federal level.

Similarly, the US prison population has exploded. The primary cause of incarceration in the US is drug possession and drug related charges. All the drug laws we have on the books are granted authority from the commerce clause of the constitution. Several of the states have even tried to legalize some drugs for medical purposes and are being overridden at the federal level. Guess who is lobbying to keep the hard drug laws on the books to keep the prison populations up? That’s right, prison building corporations, corporations that use effectively “slave” prison labor, and also the unions that represent prison guards and workers.

When you have power isolated at small points like national congressional representatives where huge amounts of money are controlled by a small number of people, large organizations with special interests can more efficiently control and “persuade” the debate on what policy should be due to their unified positional leverage at the national level. By moving the power and money back to the state, county and local level for things like drug law, transportation infrastructure, health insurance regulation, and education, you can both de-leverage the special interests at the national level and more closely tailor law and policy to local conditions.

Note, no where in any of this have I called for promoting corporatism, privatizing social services, abolishing environmental or civil liberty protections, or any of the other nonsense “anit-government” malarky you are trying to paint onto my statement.

Seems like my replys aren’t going through.. don’t know if HBB or just getting flagged.

Seems like they are getting flagged.. In any case. DOD secretary.. did he change from B to O? Do we have non-goldman people as Treas Sec now? Is BB still fed chief?

I’m not pro-corporate anit-gov. I’m pro distributed gov at state and local levels.

I can’t nor will I refute a single thing you said. Right on the money you are Mathguy.

Peace

I am not certain that you get less corruption and waste and hijacking of government by corporations at the state and local level than you do at the federal level. In some ways, the smaller entities are more at the mercy of corporations than the larger ones. That is how you get cities providing sports venues for teams that move after a few years because they get a newer venue elsewhere. And it is how local officials get talked into bad investment decisions, because they don’t have the resources to compete on a level playing field.

I’m talking about this guy.

NYTimes
After President Bush told the nation on Wednesday night that he was ordering a rapid increase of American forces in Iraq, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was not among the retired officers to offer instant analysis on television.

But the president’s new strategy, with its explicit acknowledgment that not enough troops had been sent to Iraq to establish control, was a vindication for General Shinseki, who as Army chief of staff publicly told Congress as much just before the war began in 2003.

First vilified, then marginalized by the Bush administration after those comments, General Shinseki retired and faded away, even as lawmakers, pundits and politicians increasingly cited his prescience.

“We never had enough troops to begin with,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said just before the president’s televised address. “A month or two ago we found out the Army is broken, and they agreed that General Shinseki was right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html

McChrystal wasn’t a decision maker in the run-up to the Iraq/Afghan wars, so his dismissal has nothing to do with holding those who made the bad decisions responsible.

Obama kept Gates because he was one of the sane guys brought in to replace one of the crazies who had made the original bad decisions.

Panetta was also not in any position of power when the stupid decisions that led up to the Irag/Afghan wars were made. He was instead one of the guys, appointed by Obama, that oversaw the Iraq war’s relatively successful conclusion, oversaw Osama get capped, and is currently extracting us from Afghanistan. Again, he is part of the solution, not part of the original decision makers you wanted held responsible.

Try to keep your arguments somewhat logical, mathguy.

You are the one telling me this is a Bush vs Obama debate. I’m not disputing that changes have been made between the two presidents. I’m just stating that my analysis of those changes is like the shuffling of chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

You say Gates was one of the sane guys, but it was Bush that brought him in. I think you are only calling him sane because Obama kept him around. We are still on the Bush withdrawal timetable, so to you that is now acceptable since Obama has adopted it? Or are you saying it was always acceptable in which case you are saying Bush *wasn’t* a total screw up, but only a partial one? And conveniently only in the ways in which Obama has maintained his policy? To me Occam’s Razor says the simpler answer is that you are being partisan.

In any case: we still have ground troops in Iraq any way you slice it; we haven’t even made the pretext of withdrawing from Afgh. ; we are *still* pumping the banks with Fed money; we are still bouying Fannie and Freddie while they continue to buy the majority of mortgages on the market; Ben Bernanke continues to head the Fed; Goldman cronies continue to occupy treas dept.; we are at the lowest level of financial crimes prosecution in DECADES ; commodities and basic necessities continue to increase in price at highly inflated rates not reported by “core inflation” ; no progress at all has been made in stopping the offshoring of US jobs and the exportation of pollution and human rights violations including child labor in China; we continue to have hundreds of military bases in almost every foreign country on the planet; our military at the direction of the president continues to violate foreign soveirngnty with missile attacks in pakistan; blacks in the US remain a targeted minority for drug enforcement laws; reasonable immigration policy continues to be ignored; the deficit continues to rise; the average US taxpayer continues to be screwed.

It’s not the man, it’s the machine. It won’t stop until we fix it.

Although Bush was commander in chief, he isn’t the only person in our military heirarchy… Who are the generals recommending our military strategy? Who are the analysts reaching the conclusion that the invasion and occupation are the correct and “safe” options for our country? Who is balancing the economic and human cost of military action with the level of extra “safety” achieved.

Now, how has this cadre of information gatherers, analysts, and option presenters changed through the various administrations? Which generals did Obama fire when he was elected? What incorrect beliefs were rooted out and forced to change by this new “commander in chief”?

I answer all these questions, and then you say…

You are the one telling me this is a Bush vs Obama debate. I’m not disputing that changes have been made between the two presidents.

But you were disputing exactly that until I showed you that changes had indeed been made. Like I said, try to keep your arguments a little logical, mathguy, or I’ll quit responding to them, due to their absurdity.

If Geitner changed his name to McGuffin, a change would have been made. But would the change have any significance. Can you see through my words and understand my meaning? I apologize that my language is imprecise… I do have a day job though.

You are saying the change at the operational level of our system during the transfer of power is significant. I’m saying we have systemically too much power concentrated at the federal level, and the forces acting on that system remain constant through the change of power and exert too much control because of the relatively small surface area of the congressmen to which they have to apply pressure to incite change. Are you saying the Democrats are somehow better able to weather this systemic pressure?

Suppose they are. I am saying it would be better still if they didn’t have to. Remove the pressure. Increase the surface area upon which special interest must act to the point where it is no longer profitable to do so. Is it better to worry whether a democrat congressman is better able to withstand bribing than a republican, or is it better to not worry about bribing at the federal level because spending on education, infrastructure, and social services are happening at the state level? Suppose the feds did not have access to social security to borrow from to pay for the wars because social security money was state money.

For instance, California is the worlds 9th largest economy. Can’t California manage it’s own medical and retirement plans? You may ask, what happens if someone moves from California to Arizona…? Well what happens with Social Security if they move from the US to Mexico? These are not intractable problems in the same way preventing the temptation of a congressman to bribing is.

I work with systems every day. The balance to homogenizing systems at a unified level is they become prone to attack and systemic failure. A simple saying has developed over time to describe this phenomena, and not to sound trite, but there is wisdom in it. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Arthur Neville Chamberlain FRS (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy.

You know everything else has failed, killing Khadaffi didn’t work or Egypt…nothing has worked….

And whats wrong with being called the great satan? It is a religious JIHAD after all….that’s the fight they know we don’t have the guts for.

Blowing up their Mosques will only fan the flames.

What are they gonna do? Bleed on us?

You’re the one advocating bombing mosques.

Please don’t confuse us with the facts.

If they were being used to pass messages, then you deny the prisoners the right to use the library. Easy. Doesn’t require that you burn the books.

If there really were messages in them, I would expect them to be sent someplace for intelligence services to figure out the messages and see if there is any useful info. Demands that the books not be burned.

Even if you really find out that burning is the way you are supposed to burn the books, you don’t do it as part of burning a bunch of trash. One of the proper ways of disposing of a damaged flag is by burning, but only in the context of doing it with respect. You don’t add it to a pile of leaves or burning tires.

A guess is that this was done as a “punishment” for the prisoners for the alleged note passing. Dumb. You don’t give people in that culture an excuse for exploding like that. Basic curtesy, like respecting holy texts no matter why they were confiscated, is just the minimum I would expect from someone who wasn’t raised by wolves.

To be fair about it, the Taliban/Al Queda guys made the concious decision to “look like the locals”, and live among them.

I can’t get too worked up about civilian casualties, when the opponent has chosen to use them as cover.

Can’t get too worked up about Blackwater “civilians” hanging from bridges in Iraq for the same reason. Especially when they were making the contractor big bucks.

If were were smart (and we aren’t), we’d flood the country with the most lethal weapons imaginable (including chemical and biological), let both sides spend a few years wiping each other out, then come back and mop up what’s left.

If we’re really lucky, there will be a bunch of collateral damage in Pakistan. I’m betting that India would appreciate that.

As far as terrorism, the banksters/Obama need to worry more about crazy-azz hillbillies than they do Al Queda. The number of people out here in Red State Flyover actively discussing the possibility/likelyhood/desirability of Obama getting whacked would shock you.

Not that 99.5% of them would actually have the stones to back up their talk with action. I’m worried about the .5% that IS crazy enough. All it takes is one guy. Especially if he’s not worried about surviving the attempt.

So basically, you are more worried about what hasn’t happened and will not happen against Obama than the killing and maiming of innocents children that has happened, continues to happen and will continue to happen?

Gotta love that kind of mindset. No different than the rednecks you denounce I might add.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. X-Gs clearly states “as far as terrorism is concerned” meaning as far as being worried about terrorist attacks against the US by the “terrorists” we are at war against. Clearly X-Gs is all for pulling the troops back home. You might want to consider slowing down and understanding what he is saying before you get all internet flame troll on him.

If were were smart (and we aren’t), we’d flood the country with the most lethal weapons imaginable (including chemical and biological),

That doesn’t seem like a very wise course to me—what are the odds that those weapons would NOT be used against us both around the world, and here at home? Biological and chemical weapons in particular would be incredibly stupid to spread around in unstable regions.

And sadly no one talks about the innocents children, women and men we kill every day.

The populations of Afghanistan allow the Taliban to operate freely among them. They allow weapons and supplies used against US/NATO forces to travel freely from Pakistan. They allow the Taliban to bury IED’s in plain sight of local populations. They use religion as an excuse to go on killing sprees of the very troops their to “help” them.

I have nothing but contempt for the people of Afghanistan. They allowed themselves to become subjugated by those who supported our enemies and planned 9/11. They chose their fate by their inaction. There are no innocents in war. Get over it.

Easy to take care of the chemical and biological proliferation problem.

Stamp a “USE BEFORE” date on them.

I don’t know who is more screwed up……the “better to fight them over there than over here” crowd, or the people who get their panties wadded up about civilian casualties, but then turn around and whine about how the Taliban restrict women’s/Christian’s “rights”.

If you are so worried about their “rights”, have them move in with you. And with no do-gooder subsidies from the government either.

We’ve got enough problems, without importing them, or by flying halfway around the world to “Nation Build”.

Better to GTFOOD, and tell everyone that the next time there is a terror attack on US soil, we are going to get “medieval” on whoever did it, their friends, and the friends of their friends. And no smart bombs to minimize casualties. A nice carpet bombing back to the Stone Age will do.

Agree, Prime. Flooding an area with weapons just provides a stockpile to sell to the highest bidder.

“Better to GTFOOD, and tell everyone that the next time there is a terror attack on US soil, we are going to get “medieval” on whoever did it, their friends, and the friends of their friends. And no smart bombs to minimize casualties. A nice carpet bombing back to the Stone Age will do.”

+1,000,000

“My often unemployed divorced neighbor on his 8th drunk driving conviction”

But I am sure he has some other good qualities.

“I have another neighbor” STOP! STOP! I can`t take it.

““My often unemployed divorced neighbor on his 8th drunk driving conviction”

But I am sure he has some other good qualities. ”

He’s OK guy when he’s sober, which is most of the time. I couldn’t stand his (now ex-)wife.

Everyone is a nightmare neighbor to someone else, the only difference is some realize their own issues and some don’t.

For example, before his wife left him, she was always complaining about stuff I was doing (she was kind of cute, but no danger of me cheating with her, no way, I didn’t like her at all). All she did was whine about my 10 foot diameter bonfires that I used to have right behind their garage, and when I’d melt and cast aluminum in the backyard (I do some metal working, lathe and mill and all that) she’d whine about something or other, and there was The Stump Grinder Incident where she whined about woodchips flying 50 feet and hitting her windows and cars (no damage, she just didn’t like it). Oh and they were landing in their mosquito love hotel… err I mean semi-maintained swimming pool. Then there’s the ham radio antennas, oh she just loved those. And the tree and bush branches that came from her yard thru my fence, I’d go all Paul Bunyan on them (resulting in 10 foot diameter bonfire) and she’d get all misaligned about her bushes. Well I’m smart enough to realize I might be a difficult to live next to on rare occasion, but at least I realize it and try not to be as non-annoying as possible.

Old folks are great neighbors, right? Wrong. I have another neighbor who thinks its a great idea to attract every fieldmouse for 100 miles with free bird food and bird water, and the field mice can just sublet in my house and garage and car all they want. I’ve been thinking of throwing the trapped dead mice on his sidewalk, see what he thinks. Oh and the birds he feeds deposit all over.. everything outside. Everything, cars, back yard stuff, its just disgusting. Shoot the birds, I say. And the mice too, if you can hit them. My only comfort is they may succeed in covering my backyard in bird deposits and filling my house with mice, but they’ll be dead 30 years before me, so we’ll see who gets the last laugh about this little battle.

Some folks would pay a lot of money to live far away from me and my neighbors in some hyper HOA prison like neighborhood, and that’s just fine if it works for them. Glad I don’t live there. I imagine they think the nightmare neighbor is the guy with the non-standard tone of beige paint or the wrong flower species. Unhappy folks gotta find something to be unhappy about…

We’re all nightmare neighbors, to somebody, in some weird way or another. Some of us know it, some don’t. Because of that, I think the enforced immobility of the housing bubble is going to make neighbor relations more difficult, have to live with them, can’t just take the equity and move. I bet a graph of police neighbor disturbance reports shows an increasing trend…

When I have had mice, I have not had cats. When I have had cats, I have never had mice. And they keep the bird population in check, too.

Old folks are great neighbors, right? Wrong. I have another neighbor who thinks its a great idea to attract every fieldmouse for 100 miles with free bird food and bird water, and the field mice can just sublet in my house and garage and car all they want.

Two things:

1) There’s an opening in your house someonewhere along the foundation line that the mice are getting in. Do a foot-by-foot walk-by around and close up/cover with screen any crack or pipe drain.

2) Snakes are incredibly fantastic for controlling rodents. Seriously. I’d look into some natural controls. Foxes, snakes, hawks - they’d have a field day. Sounds like you’ve got an out-of balance area.

My cat used to bring in a live mouse every so often and let it loose in the house. Maybe 1 out of 5 mice were live. Only age is slowing him down now.

“The Stump Grinder Incident”

Hey man, I think you need to sell that title Hollywooood. “Old folks are great neighbors, right? Wrong” Actually the best neighbors I think I have ever had was a couple of older lesbians. They were pretty cool, I did a lot for them and they were really good to my kids. They didn`t have flocks of birds and herds of mice though, that could be a problem.

Ditto here.

The Amityville HARPer.

Awesome…

You damn HARPie’s.

I’ll make it easy for them to sort the wheat from the chaff

Small Fry =
-anyone not making $100K year
-anyone not getting a “bonus”
-anyone whose salary is not contingent on “performance”

Won’t help if those people don’t know exactly what happened. And if they are less familiar with the securities laws, then it is twice as hard. A person who knows they or their colleagues are doing something illegal will remember the conversaion. A person who doesn’t will just hear someone say “We could do a transfer from account jghs89787 to account alsj89284.” Except they won’t remember the account numbers. Not very helpful when you are trying to figure out who decided to do it and who authorized it.

Seriously, the first rule of investigating (like a lot of lawyering) is not to ask a question unless you already know the answer. They have to figure it all out first, then figure out how to prove it. Sounds like they are making progress.

But we don’t do that. Because our legal system is totally corrupt and refuses to treat corporate and rich crooks like real criminals.

Yes. This is why gross wealth inequality is a threat to our Constitutional right of equal protection under the law - and not just a threat, but gross wealth inequality has already damaged our republic.

. So when you steal $10, they send out armed men to get you, but when you steal $10 million, they are literally too afraid of de-stablizing the entire crooked system

So there IS a downside to having a crooked system.

Oh, wait, we pay higher rates than almost everyone else in the state, with their socialist, publicly-owned systems

Do you think perhaps the guvvie-owned water utility is subsidized by taxes?

I don’t know, but it’s a distinct possibility.

Do you think perhaps the guvvie-owned water utility is subsidized by taxes?

Considering most of those other places pay lower taxes than we do, they are getting a good bang for their buck by doing so.

But I doubt there is much subsidization, because it surely would have come up during the highly-contentious debate we just had over a movement for the city to take over the water company (our right to do so is in their contract). Those opposed (the company itself, mostly) spent a ton of money on an advertising campaign to discredit the takeover attempt, and such subsidization was never mentioned- even when those in favor of the takeover showed that other areas paid less than we do. If the water co could have shown that subsidization was the reason for the other areas’ lower rates they surely would have done so- it was their opponents’ best and most effective argument.

Subsidized by taxes? Uh, I think you’re confused on the concept.

They are FUNDED by taxes AND monthly bills. You see, that’s what taxes are FOR.

They are FUNDED by taxes AND monthly bills. You see, that’s what taxes are FOR.

Are you really incapable of understanding my point, or do you just like to argue for the hell of it?

Words mean things. “Subsidized” makes it sound like it’s some useless service that really needn’t exist at the taxpayers expense, when in fact, it is a CORE critical service that we cannot live without.

“Subsidized” also makes it sound like taxpayers are not getting something for their money, when in fact, taxes often pay for most, IF NOT ALL, of our critical infrastructure that our society would collapse, without.

Private companies a should NEVER be in charge of what is often referred to as “National Strategic Resources.” They tend to cut corners at the expense of people’s lives. Yes, worse than the government, This has been proven throughout the 20th century and facilitated the move away from private contracting to public system. Fire departments, water department, weights and measures, being just a few of the very important and highly visible example.

The drumbeat for the return to 19th century practices will destroy us. It is NOT different this time.

Words mean things.

Yes, they do. And you should look up the meaning of the word ’subsidized’. Note, it’s not about how it “Sounds” to you, it’s about how it’s defined.

Yes, they do. And you should look up the meaning of the word ’subsidized’.

+1.

sub·si·dize   [suhb-si-dahyz]
verb (used with object), -dized, -diz·ing.
1.to furnish or aid with a subsidy.
2.to purchase the assistance of by the payment of a subsidy.
3.to secure the cooperation of by bribery; buy over.

sub·si·dy   [suhb-si-dee]
noun, plural -dies.
1.a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3.a grant or contribution of money.
4.money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

“Subsidized” makes it sound like it’s some useless service that really needn’t exist at the taxpayers expense [...]

“Subsidized” also makes it sound like taxpayers are not getting something for their money [...]

I didn’t see either one of those things that you seemed to think were implied (e.g. “makes it sound”) in the actual definition of “subsidized.”

I’m not advocating for higher taxes; I do everything in my power to pay as little as possible in tax every year and strongly oppose additional spending at the federal, state and local level. My position is consistent, higher taxes are bad for me, and are bad for you. Warren’s position is not consistent, higher taxes are good for you, but I’m going to give my money to charity because that’s better for me.

Sorry, I don’t see the contradiction. I personally take steps to avoid/minimize my taxes. If I say that I think we should balance the budget, for the good of the nation, and I accept that I will have to pay higher taxes along with everybody else, yet I do not make a donation to the IRS ahead of my tax increase, I am not contradicting anything.

If I say that I think we should balance the budget…yet I do not make a donation to the IRS ahead of my tax increase, I am not contradicting anything.

Wow. I agree with Blue. Maybe I’ll go buy a lottery ticket. Weird stuff is happening today.

“Buffet seems torn between wanting to be wise vs feeling guilty.”

Close. More like “wanting to be perceived as a sage vs feeling guilty.”

As King, Buffett actually believes he has words of wisdom that would benefit his subjects. He does not. Further, he does not appear to understand that he does not.

Either that, or he does not yet feel guilty enough to fall on the dagger. He is not a role model for that which he speaks. Not even close.

What Buffett has is lots of money and guilt. What he is looking for is to assauge himself. He is having an increasingly difficult time coming to terms with himself and what he has done to rob ordinary citizens (i.e., his subjects).

What Buffett has is lots of money and guilt.

I’m glad you understand his mental/emotional state so clearly; are you his therapist by any chance?

Maybe he just wants to affect national policy at this stage of his life, and right a wrong by doing so, rather than simply making more money with the time that he has left.

A desire to affect national policy? After benefitting from highly questionable policy for decades?

Now that he has his, everyone else is supposed to see the light?

Elitism. Gotta love it.

Buffet coined the phrase: “Financial weapons of mass destruction” to describe those fraudulent Wall St. securities BEFORE it all imploded.

Before. 2003 to be exact.

My how soon we forget.

2003? That’s your “proof” that Buffett is honorable?

He had his billions long before that. And Wall Street was corrupt long before that, too.

The guy accurately predicts and warns of AND names the cause of the Wall St catastrophe and that’s not good enough?

Thanks for proving my point.

No, it’s not good enough. Not by a longshot.

The first trick the very wealthy do is to incorporate themselves.

And that’s why we shouldn’t listen to them.

May Buffett is trying to encourage the rich to give more to charity, indirectly.

x3 cheers to Rio!

I pay 40%+ of my income to taxes (or all types) every year. What effect on my behavior would you like to see Buffet’s “putting his money where his mouth is” have on me?

By lowering your taxes, of course.

If you’re paying 40% and the very wealthy are paying only 15%, is that fair to you?

However, if you’re very wealthy and still paying 40%, then all I can say is, “yer doin it wrong”.

40% of my income to taxes (or all types)every year.

All types?? what does that mean? property, sales, FICA, medicare, state tax? if all are included, I pay more than 40% total and probably earn less than you. I also don’t refer to myself as overtaxed.

No, that doesn’t include everything. Add in sales tax and you can tack another few percent on there. But, if you earn less than I do it would be almost impossible to pay more in taxes (even as a percentage), I’m single and have no children. I’m also subject to the AMT, and get to add back in almost all my taxes and pay tax on that as well.

However, not ever dollar I made is taxed at my highest rate. And, not every dollar I spend is subject to sales tax. If you take a dollar that I earn at the end of the year (which I’m in the highest bracket) and spend on something which is taxable, I’d bet that 50% of that dollar is tax.

“However, if you’re very wealthy and still paying 40%, then all I can say is, “yer doin it wrong”.”

I’m not very wealthy. I’m a high income (well, by most standards, I earn about what the janitor at Goldman makes, but, to most of the country, they would consider me high income) W2 employee. I do have some investments that are taxed at the capital gains rates, but that’s a tiny fraction of my income.

“I suspect he knows that if he paid more than he owes in taxes it would have no effect on the behavior of folks like Overtaxed. ”

I’m not the kind of person he’s asking for higher taxes on. So, yes, as you suggest, if he paid voluntarily, it would have no impact on me. But I’d have some respect for his position if he put his money where his mouth was.

You think he wants higher taxes on the rich but would not pay them?

Irrelevant. One comes from a much stronger position if one says “i’m doing this - y’all should start doing it to”, rather than “hey, I’ll do this, but only if y’all agree to do it with me”.

The latter is weak. The former is what a leader does.

Buffet is not a leader.

One comes from a much stronger position if one says “i’m doing this - y’all should start doing it to”, rather than “hey, I’ll do this, but only if y’all agree to do it with me”.

Buffet’s position is the strongest any could be if one looks at it objectively. He leads through example by giving away MUCH more money than the higher taxes he advocates would ever amount to, while he pays the current taxes required.

He just knows that the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes OR charity and of the two, only taxes can be required.

“Buffet is not a leader.”

But he knows one very well.

“Buffett would profit from Keystone cancellation”

“Buffet’s position is the strongest any could be if one looks at it objectively. He leads through example by giving away MUCH more money than the higher taxes he advocates would ever amount to, while he pays the current taxes required. ”

He gives to charity, not to the government. That’s not at all the same thing, it’s shouldn’t even be in the same category. Charity giving is something that people do because it makes them feel good and because they leave a legacy. Taxes are just “money thrown into a black hole, never to be seen again”.

He gives to charity, not to the government.

Buffet gives to charity AND pays his government taxes. He does both.

Taxes are one of the prices paid for modern civilization.

“He leads through example by giving away MUCH more money than the higher taxes he advocates would ever amount to, while he pays the current taxes required. ”

But he’s not giving that money to the government, he’s giving it to his charities. If he feels that the government would be a good steward of his funds, and would spend them wisely, why not give the money to them? That’s my point, lead by example, give the government what you think they should have and then I’ll be much more likely to listen to you. Taking advantage of every tax break possible while, at the same time, advocating for higher taxes; I’m just going to brush you off as another “do as I say, not as I do” politician.

Only a fool swims alone.

“That’s my point, lead by example, give the government what you think they should have and then I’ll be much more likely to listen to you.”

I don’t buy this. You would claim he still wans’t giving enough to the government. You don’t want higher taxes for selfish reasons and nothing will convince you that higher taxes should be legislated.

This argument is simply being used to close down the conversation.

If we think that paying down the deficit is something that needs to be done, then the revenue side must be considered in addition to the spending side.

We’ll see how serious the Republicans are about the deficit when they next gain control of the White House and Congress. Based on previous performance, I think they are not at all serious. I think it is a political game to prevent spending on programs they don’t like and limit economic growth so they can regain control.

“You don’t want higher taxes for selfish reasons and nothing will convince you that higher taxes should be legislated.”

I’m nowhere near the tax bracket that Buffet is talking about. And I don’t make a big majority of my income from capital gains and dividends, so, unlike Buffet, I’m paying 40%+ of my income to taxes each year.

I don’t know if I would support higher taxes on the mega-rich; I don’t have my mind made up one way or the other on it. What I do know is that I wouldn’t be flapping my jaw that other people should pay more taxes while, at the same time, doing everything I can to minimize my personal tax burden!

“You would claim he still wans’t giving enough to the government.”

No. I think he’s probably paying way too much to the government already. He’s the one (not me) who said he’s not giving enough to the government. So, go ahead and give; convince your rich buddies to give. Leave your fortune to the Fed instead of the Bill Gates foundation. But don’t sit around complaining that you’re not paying enough, those of us who have “tax” as (by FAR) the largest annual expense don’t want to hear it. My mortgage is about 50% of my monthly tax bill. That means that I’m financing houses for 3 people, one that I live in, and 2 that the government is “redistributing” to other people.

I’m guessing that Ayn Rand isn’t a popular figure on this blog.

You would guess right. She was also a fraud and a hypocrite.

You would claim he still wans’t giving enough to the government. You don’t want higher taxes for selfish reasons and nothing will convince you that higher taxes should be legislated.

You don’t think there’s a bit of a strawman in there, by chance?

Rather than attack what you think someone would say, why don’t you stick to what Overtaxed has actually said, rather than make assumptions?

You’re right that I put words in his mouth.

The real point is not that Buffet wants to pay more taxes. He really wants ALL of the rich to pay more taxes.

He wants a tax system that is more fair. And I think he wants that because he recognizes that an unfair system is a risk in and of itself to the system that has provided his wealth. And that more taxes will help to bring the budget into balance and that is a public good that benefits him and the other mega rich also.

“That is leadership.”

Not in my book. When Buffett walks the walk instead of talks the talk, then he may have something worthwhile to listen to.

Giving things away so as to lessen one’s tax burden is not leadership either. Neither is giving away more than one’s tax burden would be otherwise.

Gift giving to lessen one’s guilt is not leadership. Rather, it spanks of desperation to prove to others that you’re a good person.

“Gift giving to lessen one’s guilt”

That IS leadership.

When Buffett walks the walk instead of talks the talk, then he may have something worthwhile to listen to. (if I agree with his politics)

Giving things away so as to lessen one’s tax burden is not leadership either. Neither is giving away more than one’s tax burden would be otherwise. (because he is a Democrat)

Gift giving to lessen one’s guilt is not leadership
(because rich people only give because they feel guilty and the poor people only give more than rich people because they hate the rich and want to make the rich feel guilty so the rich will give more) (it’s as simple as the slogans)

Interesting you think that right and wrong depends on one’s politics, Rio. Noted.

And, no, RAL, that isn’t leadership. Giving as some sort of self-serving recompense for prior bad deeds isn’t leadership. It also doesn’t serve as a sufficient platform from which one can shoot their mouth off.

You can deny it all you want but that giving what you have in excess of what is required is ALWAYS leadership.

Interesting you think that right and wrong depends on one’s politics, Rio. Noted.

You didn’t get it.

“You just hate the oil companies because as Rio so eloquently stated “you are a parasite leaching off the producers because you hate the rich and you despise God and American freedom” spandex bicycle fairy!”

Yep, pretty much true! Just MrBubbleJr and me walking down the sidewalks marked “WPA 1940″, totally leaching off the Man, wishing that we could be driving our Suburban the quarter mile to the shops like our neighbors. Darn it! If we could only keep up with the joneses (and allow massive cognitive dissonance to help us unlearn how energy policy, the environment, foreign policy and health all intersect). O, why are we so stupid and un-Merican, my beamish boy??!!

At TEOTWAWKI, if there are just a bunch of dough-faced “everymen”, driving around in Chevy Silverados listening to Barry Manilow and eating twinkies, I’m outta here!

MrBubble

My comment above w.r.t. the winners if the pipeline went through still stands. Hint: it’s not any of us. Oh, unless you are an oil executive.

It’s all about refineries…

I agree.

You’re one of them.

Incorrect.

Like all neocon talking points, it is self conflicting and contradictory and its adherents can’t even see it. “We destroyed the village to save it.”

You forgot self-serving and disingenuous.

The idea is to raise taxes on the wealthy to have a more equitable split on the raising the funds that are needed to keep society going.

And there’s the good comeback you’ve been looking for, Oxide.

Not to mention that wealth concentration in the hands of the few is inherently both a threat and a hindrance to democracy, as history and current events are showing.

“Fact: “I did pay more than I needed and I’m not even rich.””

But Buffet WANTS to pay more tax. Why would he do something like this? That’s the point, these folks take the position that they want to pay more tax, if only the government would help them do it. The government doesn’t need to help you, just go ahead and send it in. Buy all your stock Jan 1 and sell it Dec 30th (to keep it short term) and pay away. Declare 100M dollars in unearned/illegal income on your taxes this year; quick and easy 35M dollar tax bill.

“But Buffet WANTS to pay more tax.”

That is not what he is saying. He wants ALL of the super-rich to pay more tax.

And there is an element of self-interest in wanting the super-rich to pay more. If the system is perceived to be unfair because the Romneys and Buffets get to pay at a 15% rate while the rest of us pay substantially more, then the system itself is at risk.

I = I’ll

Although I like the sound of “I keep you posted” in a sort of Hans & Franz accent.

Very little is as pure as advertised or as imagined.

Besides, that’s Venus that you see, and it is clear in the Blue Sky too. So bugger off, eh!

You’re right, it was actually a street light. The big metal pole stuck in it made me think it was Uranus.