OT Warren Buffett's Current Letter to Shareholders

[keno]

One of the reasons I enjoy reading Buffett's annual letter is his sense of humor as well as his candor. The following appear in this year's letter illustrating or making a point.

"Investors should be skeptical of history-based models. Constructed by a nerdy-sounding priesthood using esoteric terms such as beta, gamma, sigma and the like, these models tend to look impressive. Too often, though, investors forget to examine the assumptions behind the symbols. Our advice: Beware of geeks bearing formulas."

"I used to be Snow White, but I drifted." Mae West

In any event, his letter is a world of information and education. For anyone interested and unable to find it on the internet (it appears on the Berkshire Hathaway website), let me know at keno55@gmail.com and I'll be happy to forward it to you.

keno

[93legendti]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?

[RPS]

Buffett said. “A freefall in business activity ensued, accelerating at a pace that I have never before witnessed. The U.S. - and much of the world - became trapped in a vicious negative-feedback cycle. Fear led to business contraction, and that in turn led to even greater fear.”

While Buffett and business partner Charlie Munger can’t predict how stocks will perform in 2009, they’re certain “that the economy will be in shambles throughout 2009 -- and, for that matter, probably well beyond,” he wrote.


Obviously he doesn't know all; but I'd love to know what time frame "probably well beyond" they were thinking. :confused:

[avalonracing]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?

I know. It is terrible that Obama alone, in just five weeks, has gotten us into this situation.

[RPS]

I know. It is terrible that Obama alone, in just five weeks, has gotten us into this situation.Markets look ahead.

[sg8357]

I know. It is terrible that Obama alone, in just five weeks, has gotten us into this situation.


I though he was talking about Teddy busting up the trusts, that was
the last time America had real Capitalism. :)

[MilanoTom]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?

I didn't realize that Michael Savage was a forumite.

[Ray]

Thanks Ken,

The letter is kind of buried on the website, but its in the 2008 Annual Report, at this link:

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2008ar/2008ar.pdf

His letter to shareholders begins on page 5 (of the PDF - page 3 of the document)

-Ray

[97CSI]

I know. It is terrible that Obama alone, in just five weeks, has gotten us into this situation.Exactly. :rolleyes: Eisenhower got it right. Although I doubt that he envisioned the level of corporate malfeasance and political payoff from K Street.

[avalonracing]

Markets look ahead.

Maybe they realize that that "Bush's Binge" is over and bar tab is now coming.

[Ray]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?
These are probably the two paragraphs most on point:

This debilitating spiral has spurred our government to take massive action. In poker terms, the Treasury
and the Fed have gone “all in.” Economic medicine that was previously meted out by the cupful has recently
been dispensed by the barrel. These once-unthinkable dosages will almost certainly bring on unwelcome
aftereffects. Their precise nature is anyone’s guess, though one likely consequence is an onslaught of inflation.
Moreover, major industries have become dependent on Federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities
and states bearing mind-boggling requests. Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political
challenge. They won’t leave willingly.

Whatever the downsides may be, strong and immediate action by government was essential last year if
the financial system was to avoid a total breakdown. Had one occurred, the consequences for every area of our
economy would have been cataclysmic. Like it or not, the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various
Side Streets of America were all in the same boat.

He seems to have the same feelings a lot of us have - we probably had to do it, but its gonna suck. Hopefully it will suck less than if we hadn't done it, but it'll suck all the same.

Edit - on re-reading, he seems to fully endorse the bailout actions last year, but is somewhere between luke-warm and cold on the current "all-in" strategy. He describes it, talks about the inevitable negative consequences, but doesn't endorse nor attack it. But by endorsing "last years" bailout actions, his lack of same on the current strategy is striking in its absence. Just in the name of interpretive honesty, despite my own predilections to give the current strategy a chance.

-Ray

[dannyg1]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?

Troll. Limbaugh blowhard troll.

[Mshue]

These are probably the two paragraphs most on point:

This debilitating spiral has spurred our government to take massive action. In poker terms, the Treasury
and the Fed have gone “all in.” Economic medicine that was previously meted out by the cupful has recently
been dispensed by the barrel. These once-unthinkable dosages will almost certainly bring on unwelcome
aftereffects. Their precise nature is anyone’s guess, though one likely consequence is an onslaught of inflation.
Moreover, major industries have become dependent on Federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities
and states bearing mind-boggling requests. Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political
challenge. They won’t leave willingly.
Whatever the downsides may be, strong and immediate action by government was essential last year if
the financial system was to avoid a total breakdown. Had one occurred, the consequences for every area of our
economy would have been cataclysmic. Like it or not, the inhabitants of Wall Street, Main Street and the various
Side Streets of America were all in the same boat.

He seems to have the same feelings a lot of us have - we probably had to do it, but its gonna suck. Hopefully it will suck less than if we hadn't done it, but it'll suck all the same.

-Ray

Great quote, Ray. What I especially appreciate is the relative humility he shows in assessing the future consequences of this mess. Pundits and and "economists" of all stripes would do well to emulate him in this regard.

Relatedly, I would add that we should beware economists (again, of all stripes) bearing fancy models that spit out numerically precise estimates of the performance of future economic variables. The record of nearly all forecasters is absolutely abysmal. You'd think the "economists" would have learned something from the mistakes of the point-headed financial engineers who helped get us into this debacle.

[mistermo]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?

Capitalism of the US variety, destroyed itself. Let's not delude ourselves into believing that capitalism was alive and well in previous administrations. Tell me which type of capitalism the previous administration's 'no bid' contracts fall into? Tell me which type of capitalism does an agency like Fannie Mae fall into? Tell me, which type of capitalism do agri-subsidies fall into? This list is endless because we the people have allowed our government to be an agent of special interests, which are decidedly anti-capitalist, for decades.

One might appropriately fear the massive moves the government is presently taking. However, to believe that this administration began destroying capitalism five weeks ago, is naive. We the people, have elected our leaders who, through legislation determined by special interests, began our move towards socialism decades ago.

Any responsible discussion of this subject should also note that the current administration, in the past five weeks, have announced unparalleled ethics and transparency in their dealings with special interest groups.

Finally, since this is an international crisis, it is worth mentioning that the country best weathering this storm is itself quasi-socialist: Germany.

[SamIAm]

Finally, since this is an international crisis, it is worth mentioning that the country best weathering this storm is itself quasi-socialist: Germany.

This is so totally off base. That is like singling out China and talking about their past success as being an offshoot of communism.

Do agree that we are far from being a capitalistic country at this point and it didn't start 5 weeks ago, although we did put the pedal to the metal around that time.

[RPS]

Edit - on re-reading, he seems to fully endorse the bailout actions last year, but is somewhere between luke-warm and cold on the current "all-in" strategy. He describes it, talks about the inevitable negative consequences, but doesn't endorse nor attack it. But by endorsing "last years" bailout actions, his lack of same on the current strategy is striking in its absence. Just in the name of interpretive honesty, despite my own predilections to give the current strategy a chance.

-RayYou nailed it. It's clear to me that Buffett does not support the massive spending associated with the stimulus package that is only about 10 percent stimulus and about 90 percent "non-stimulus" -- whether well intended and needed or not. I think he realizes that the unintended consequences will be huge and that handouts of any type are next to impossible to stop. Ultimately they create system-wide inefficiencies.

[97CSI]

This is so totally off base. That is like singling out China and talking about their past success as being an offshoot of communism.

Do agree that we are far from being a capitalistic country at this point and it didn't start 5 weeks ago, although we did put the pedal to the metal around that time.Why is this so off base? Both Germany and Japan have done an excellent job of running a capitalist society the way it should be run since we set them up with 'modern' capitalism after WWII. One our biggest problems is that we still adhere to the deeply flawed form of capitalism given to us by the Supreme Court back in the late 1800s/early 1900s when they gave corporations the same protections/freedoms as individuals while shielding those who run these organizations from personal liability.

[Tom]

They do stay on script.

"Here you go, the word of the month is 'socialism'. Just keep repeating it. Repeat it like you mean it. Repeat it like you believe it. Just keep repeating it and eventually it'll be accepted as the truth. You and me know different but just keep beating that drum, boys."

[RPS]

Maybe they realize that that "Bush's Binge" is over and bar tab is now coming.To put this statement in context that makes sense to me, I'd first look at the Bush deficits and determine what portion was due to "one-time" costs associated with the wars. I'd then compare new spending to that which was already committed by prior administrations, and then I'd decide to what degree I'd blame him. For me it's not an easy task so I wouldn't spend much time on it.

From my perspective after the 9/11 attacks the US had to do something; and it was going to cost lots. Maybe had Gore won he could have run a "cheap" war, but I kind of doubt it. As a total of the entire budget and deficit, our problems have been building for years. To assume the wars and the bursting of the tech bubble were Bush's fault seems to simplistic to me.

BTW, just in the last 1/2 hour Bernanke stated that we really have to address social security and Medicare because they are the real deal. At some point we need to stop playing politics and the blame game and make tough decisions. ;)

[JMerring]

What truly boggles my mind is that Republicans are quick to bash Democrats and paint them as socialists when the fact is that the most Republican president and his moronic administration were largely responsible for the current mess this country (and, by extension, the world) is in - socially, politically, economically and militarily.

The media is awash with bozos like Limbaugh and Rove wishing for Obama's failure and lamenting the path he is taking in trying to fix the mess they (Limbaugh, Rove and the rest of their ilk) created. Other than tax cuts and limited government intervention, however, I have yet to hear any Republican offer anything that even approximates a reasonable, workable, non-idealogical solution.

I'm in the process of writing a book (preliminarily titled "Republican Swine"), if for no other reason than to vent my frustration in a public forum. And lest anyone think that I am a "liberal" (love how often Republicans use that as a derogatory term, as if respect for humanity is somehow a bad thing), left-wing, ideological demagogue, I am anything but.

[JMerring]

From my perspective after the 9/11 attacks the US had to do something; and it was going to cost lots.

Indeed. However, attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (notwithstanding what certain right-wing propagandists would have you believe) - at the expense of going after those who did - was not what ought to have been done.

[avalonracing]

I just wish people would stop labeling "Radical Republican Extremists" as "Conservatives".

[SamIAm]

I have yet to hear any Republican offer anything that even approximates a reasonable, workable, non-idealogical solution.



What make you think there is a solution? Atlanta is and has been in a drought situation for the past couple of years. What is our solution? The fallacy is in thinking that you are in control. Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty in current and past administrations.

[RPS]

Indeed. However, attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (notwithstanding what certain right-wing propagandists would have you believe) - at the expense of going after those who did - was not what ought to have been done.Hindsight is 20:20. ;)

[JMerring]

There may or may not be, but we won't know until we try something (or many things). One thing that is guaranteed to fail, however, is to cut taxes, let the market do its thing, and hope for the best.

[JMerring]

Hindsight is 20:20. ;)

As it concerns the Iraq war, that is, I am sorry to say, a ludicrous and very ignorant statement.

I think I'm going to shut up now as I don't want to jeopardize my access to this forum!

[97CSI]

To put this statement in context that makes sense to me, I'd first look at the Bush deficits and determine what portion was due to "one-time" costs associated with the wars. I'd then compare new spending to that which was already committed by prior administrations, and then I'd decide to what degree I'd blame him. For me it's not an easy task so I wouldn't spend much time on it.

From my perspective after the 9/11 attacks the US had to do something; and it was going to cost lots. Maybe had Gore won he could have run a "cheap" war, but I kind of doubt it. As a total of the entire budget and deficit, our problems have been building for years. To assume the wars and the bursting of the tech bubble were Bush's fault seems to simplistic to me.

BTW, just in the last 1/2 hour Bernanke stated that we really have to address social security and Medicare because they are the real deal. At some point we need to stop playing politics and the blame game and make tough decisions. ;)Yes, indeed.....prior administrations. From ronnie raygun, who started us on these huges defecits to support tax cuts to the wealthy to dubya's father to the rightwing congresses that Billie had to deal with until the Dems got back in and they were able to give the only surpluses we have had until the rightwing 'fiscal conservatives' got back in with dubya himself and the rightwing congresses he had. Our government has been in control of these 'fiscal conservatives for the vast majority of the last 25 years and that is what has gotten us here. Fiscal conservative means give the middle class income away to the rich. That is exactly why we are where we are.

Yes, after 9/11 we had to do something. But to start a bogus war based on made up 'intelligence' on a country that not only did not attack us but was the enemy of our enemy (Al Quida, Taliban, whomever is an Islamic extremist) was crazy. Cheney and his minions are nuts and totally unAmerican.

Hindsight is 20:20. ;)Cheney (and his puppet, dubya) had all the info about Iraq and choose to go in anyway. Might-makes-right to them. Very sad.

And, yes, again. We definitely need to do something about Medicare and SS. Medicare needs to be based on a single provider plan that takes the insurance companies out of the middle so we stop wasting $0.45 of every healthcare dollar on them. Medicare is the envy of the world in that it delivers good healthcare for under $0.10/dollar spent. It could do better, but the lobbyists, through their payments to our legislators, keep there from being any more money spent on 'enforcement' issues and fraud issues with Medicare. If there was good enforcement, the overhead costs would be even smaller.

SS would also be easy to fix. Remove the top limits, as Obama has suggested, on SS payments. Will fix it. But, even better, stop using the money paid in as 'general revenue' as Congress has done since our buddy ronnie raygun was in office. Gotta fund those tax cuts for the rich. This debt is finally coming due.

[MarleyMon]

"Investors should be skeptical of history-based models. Constructed by a nerdy-sounding priesthood using esoteric terms such as beta, gamma, sigma and the like, these models tend to look impressive. Too often, though, investors forget to examine the assumptions behind the symbols. Our advice: Beware of geeks bearing formulas."


keno
Is this his way of signaling he's moving out of his 1/3 share of Moody's?
I've got a problem w/ him owning the rating service that "objectively" values his portfolio.

If I was skilled and enterprising, I would try to find a way to create a rating system that wasn't in the pocket of those it evaluates.

Also - WWII we were all in, this ain't that by a long shot.

[RPS]

As it concerns the Iraq war, that is, I am sorry to say, a ludicrous and very ignorant statement.This is exactly why we can't have civil discussions.

Because I have a different opinion (i.e. -- that no one can know the future fully) you immediately label me ignorant. :confused:

And please don't try to differentiate between me being ignorant and having ignorant thoughts. That crap doesn't work on me -- they are one and the same.

[fiamme red]

This is exactly why we can't have civil discussions.

Because I have a different opinion (i.e. -- that no one can know the future fully) you immediately label me ignorant. :confused:

And please don't try to differentiate between me being ignorant and having ignorant thoughts. That crap doesn't work on me -- they are one and the same.So should we expect an apology from JMerring for implying that RPS is ignorant? :rolleyes:

[JMerring]

This is exactly why we can't have civil discussions.

Because I have a different opinion (i.e. -- that no one can know the future fully) you immediately label me ignorant. :confused:

And please don't try to differentiate between me being ignorant and having ignorant thoughts. That crap doesn't work on me -- they are one and the same.

First - no harm was intended and until I actually meet and interact with you, I will reserve ANY form of judgment as to your character. I am extremely frustrated with the political dialogue in this country and my posts this morning are reflective of that.

Second - and this is a HOWEVER - on this particular issue (ie, justification for and propriety of the Iraq war), I don't think it is one for "opinion" and "reasonable minds can disagree." The facts are pretty well settled - to wit, Iraq didn't have any WMD, didn't have any involvement in 9/11 and the war is therefore both unjustified and unnecessary and being waged at the expense of finding and defeating those who are in fact responsible for the attacks.

[Ray]

Yes, indeed.....prior administrations. From ronnie raygun, who started us on these huges defecits to support tax cuts to the wealthy to dubya's father to the rightwing congresses that Billie had to deal with until the Dems got back in and they were able to give the only surpluses we have had until the rightwing 'fiscal conservatives' got back in with dubya himself and the rightwing congresses he had.
97, I tend to agree with you on a lot, but in the interest of historical accuracy, Clinton came IN with a Democratic Congress. They did make the tough votes on his 1993 tax increases that helped balance the budget, but the Republicans took over (in a BIG way) in 1994 and it was in the years of a Clinton presidency and GOP control of congress that we actually balanced the budget and had surpluses. Clinton had big gains in the 1998 mid-terms, but not enough to take congress back. The Dems didn't take Congress back until 2006.

-Ray

[mistermo]

Hindsight is 20:20. ;)

Indeed hindsight is 20/20, but this isn't a case that requires hindsight. Let's not wash away the fact that a blind man duped most of us into believing he saw things that didn't exist.

Remember the UN inspectors, the French and the Germans? It appears they all had 20/20 vision afterall and we were the blind ones. Let's not forget that lesson and maybe acknowledge that in hindsight we were just plain arrogant and stupid.

[SamIAm]

There may or may not be, but we won't know until we try something (or many things). One thing that is guaranteed to fail, however, is to cut taxes, let the market do its thing, and hope for the best.

Not saying it is the solution, but how in the world do you know its not? I would say that raising taxes and taking away deductions on the wealthy is a recipe for disaster. That is the problem here. You don't know, I don't know and the government does not know. Yet everyone is trying to do something. We passed a hightly questionable and unknown stimulus bill on a forced timetable with the mandate to do something, anything. Does anybody really think it would have mattered it it had taken another month to pass the stimulus bill. Of course not. We needed to pass it quickly because as details continued to come out about the porky nature of it, support began to wane. Our desperation to fix the unfixable is making us vulnerable to some bad ideas.

Anytime the government spends money, someone ought to be able to explain to the taxpayers why its more important for the government to spend it rather than give it back to the taxpayers. How would you like to have the job of doing that for this stimulus package?

[93legendti]

What truly boggles my mind is that Republicans are quick to bash Democrats and paint them as socialists when the fact is that the most Republican president and his moronic administration were largely responsible for the current mess this country (and, by extension, the world) is in - socially, politically, economically and militarily.

The media is awash with bozos like Limbaugh and Rove wishing for Obama's failure and lamenting the path he is taking in trying to fix the mess they (Limbaugh, Rove and the rest of their ilk) created. Other than tax cuts and limited government intervention, however, I have yet to hear any Republican offer anything that even approximates a reasonable, workable, non-idealogical solution.
I'm in the process of writing a book (preliminarily titled "Republican Swine"), if for no other reason than to vent my frustration in a public forum. And lest anyone think that I am a "liberal" (love how often Republicans use that as a derogatory term, as if respect for humanity is somehow a bad thing), left-wing, ideological demagogue, I am anything but.

Interesting.
First - no harm was intended and until I actually meet and interact with you, I will reserve ANY form of judgment as to your character. I am extremely frustrated with the political dialogue in this country and my posts this morning are reflective of that.

Second - and this is a HOWEVER - on this particular issue (ie, justification for and propriety of the Iraq war), I don't think it is one for "opinion" and "reasonable minds can disagree." The facts are pretty well settled - to wit, Iraq didn't have any WMD, didn't have any involvement in 9/11 and the war is therefore both unjustified and unnecessary and being waged at the expense of finding and defeating those who are in fact responsible for the attacks.

[RPS]

So should we expect an apology from JMerring for implying that RPS is ignorant? :rolleyes:Nope, don't care about anyone's apologies. ;)

I just think it freaking stupid to always switch to personal attacks.

Having said that, I don't know JMerring from Jack. For all I know his wife or sister could have been a soldier killed in Iraq and now is too emotional about the subject matter to debate anything related in an objective manner.

For that reason I won't discuss things with people who seem too hot on any subject. If I don’t know them personally it just doesn’t make sense to get into personal attacks.

[Chad Engle]

Nope, don't care about anyone's apologies. ;)

I just think it freaking stupid to always switch to personal attacks.

Having said that, I don't know JMerring from Jack. For all I know his wife or sister could have been a soldier killed in Iraq and now is too emotional about the subject matter to debate anything related in an objective manner.

For that reason I won't discuss things with people who seem too hot on any subject. If I don’t know them personally it just doesn’t make sense to get into personal attacks.

Don't go there.

There are/were no wmd's, please prove me wrong, it would make me feel much better about the entire war. I'm not hot or irrational. To say we needed hindsight to determine this to be the case is ignorant. Nothing personal, no attack.

Ignorant - uninformed

[JMerring]

I would say that raising taxes and taking away deductions on the wealthy is a recipe for disaster.

Maybe for a company like Ferrari (Serotta, too, I guess), but not in the alternate reality that I and most people live in.

[mistermo]

This is so totally off base. That is like singling out China and talking about their past success as being an offshoot of communism.
I'm not sure it's TOTALLY off base. I didn't mean to imply anything too grand by this but wanted to point out that painting capitalism as good and socialism as bad is too simple and convenient.

Perhaps there's something we can learn from other countries, in this case Germany.

As Americans, we are often arrogant and believe our political dogmas work for the rest of the world: Democracy & Capitalism

Let's not forget that our flavors don't suit everyone. At the moment, quasi-socialism seems to be working better in Germany, than capitalism in the US.

At the moment, democracy isn't working in Palestine (as Hamas is a democratically elected government set on terrorism).

[keno]

I liked "I used to be Snow White, but I drifted" best.

keno

[MarleyMon]

I liked "I used to be Snow White, but I drifted" best.

keno
drifted like a Serotta Forum thread!

[JMerring]

Not saying it is the solution, but how in the world do you know its not? I would say that raising taxes and taking away deductions on the wealthy is a recipe for disaster. That is the problem here. You don't know, I don't know and the government does not know. Yet everyone is trying to do something. We passed a hightly questionable and unknown stimulus bill on a forced timetable with the mandate to do something, anything. Does anybody really think it would have mattered it it had taken another month to pass the stimulus bill. Of course not. We needed to pass it quickly because as details continued to come out about the porky nature of it, support began to wane. Our desperation to fix the unfixable is making us vulnerable to some bad ideas.

Anytime the government spends money, someone ought to be able to explain to the taxpayers why its more important for the government to spend it rather than give it back to the taxpayers. How would you like to have the job of doing that for this stimulus package?

Having grown up in a third world country where taxes did little more than enrich and entrench the political elite, and where the government's role was limited to collecting taxes and suppressing dissent, I guess I have a different view of government and taxation than the average American. In spite of America's current woes and the lost almost-decade that represents the Bush administration, it is still nice to live in a country where the rule of law means something, where government actually functions (which it does, at least in comparison with many other countries) and where tax money is actually spent on things like infrastructure (which it was, at least until W).

It is astonishing to me that people (ie, Republicans), who appear, outwardly at least, to be intelligent, actually think the world's largest economy and a nation of 300 million diverse people can be managed by a small, limited, uninvolved government. Thank god (and I'm not religious) we finally have someone in power who believes in a strong and active government.

Or maybe there is something wrong with me. Maybe I should just say "to hell with everyone and everything - all I want in this world is to accumulate as much money as possible so that I can buy myself material things and have more stuff and be more impressive and respected than my neighbor because my house is bigger, and my car is faster, and my outdoor grill/pool area is fancier." Maybe I'll ascribe to the view that hindsight is 20/20 and Lance really is innocent because he never failed a drug test. Oh, and Dick Cheney really is a decent person. And W really had a brain.

Or maybe I'll keep reminding myself, much as Bud Fox's father did himself, that I don't go to bed with a whore and I don't wake up with one. And I'll hold on to the passport issued by the third world country in which I was born because maybe it has evolved to a point where hono(u)r, integrity, respect (for humankind) and accountability actually mean something and, instead of fleeing the US because of a second Bush term or the prospect of a McCain/Palin autocracy/theocracy, I'll leave because this country, stuck in the rigid and mindlessly ideological maelstrom that has characterized the political debate for the past 20 years, will never regain its former glory. Hopefully not, though.

[goonster]

It is astonishing to me that people [...] actually think the world's largest economy and a nation of 300 million diverse people can be managed by a small, limited, uninvolved government.

Why do you hate freedom? :confused:

[RPS]

Don't go there.

There are/were no wmd's, please prove me wrong, it would make me feel much better about the entire war. I'm not hot or irrational. To say we needed hindsight to determine this to be the case is ignorant. Nothing personal, no attack.

Ignorant - uninformedWhy should I let you limit me on where I go?

I made a simple statement – implying that there are many things we can’t know for certain in advance. *** do you have to make more out of it? Have you not made mistakes before that you wish you could take back, or are you perfect?

It wasn’t just Bush, was it? Others agreed to go in, so are they just as stupid, evil, etc…? Or were they simply too naïve to know they were being fooled? I don’t get why all the sudden I'm being blamed for the freaking war that I had nothing to do with. It's really starting to piss me off.

Do you also think Clinton would have approved legislation that would ultimately lead to Swaps that brought down the economy if he had know what was going to happen? Of course not.

Hindsight is 20:20. Please don’t make more of it than that.

[JMerring]

Why do you hate freedom? :confused:

How does a strong, active, involved government equate to a loss of or hatred for freedom?

Moreover, a recent Republican president and Congress presided over the largest expansion of government power and correlated reduction in individual liberty/freedom than at any time in recent memory.

[97CSI]

Why do you hate freedom? :confused:You've certainly boiled it down to its most simplistic, black-and-white form. It is about nothing but 'freedom'. :crap: Hopefully, you will not miss the irony or sarcasm in my reply. :)

[goonster]

How does a strong, active, involved government equate to a loss of or hatred for freedom?

It was a joke . . . ;)

[Tobias]

Don't go there.

There are/were no wmd's, please prove me wrong, it would make me feel much better about the entire war. I'm not hot or irrational. To say we needed hindsight to determine this to be the case is ignorant. Nothing personal, no attack.

Ignorant - uninformedI can't resist asking: Do you know what "hindsight is 20:20" means?

[MilanoTom]

Hindsight is 20:20. ;)

Maybe if you hadn't put that little wink in your post, you wouldn't be accused of making ignorant remarks. It makes your remark look (to me at least) flippant and insulting.

[SamIAm]

I and most people live in.

And with that attitude, no doubt will continue to live in.

[Tobias]

Maybe if you hadn't put that little wink in your post, you wouldn't be accused of making ignorant remarks. It makes your remark look (to me at least) flippant and insulting.Please clarify for me so I don't insult others. Who does that insult?

Personally I see this as the same "anti-war" group finding any opportunity to go after anyone just so they can vent. :rolleyes:

[JMerring]

And with that attitude, no doubt will continue to live in.

next time i ride (read: fly) by some overweight schmuck on a different meivici shod with super record that is a different color than the meivici he rode yesterday shod with sram red, i'll think of this thread.

[mistermo]

It is astonishing to me that people (ie, Republicans), who appear, outwardly at least, to be intelligent, actually think the world's largest economy and a nation of 300 million diverse people can be managed by a small, limited, uninvolved government. Thank god (and I'm not religious) we finally have someone in power who believes in a strong and active government.

I'm with you on most, but think you are about to step over into over-generalization. I think it is intelligent to debate the proper size, scope and responsibilities of a government. Is "active" really better? I might argue (along with Thomas Jefferson), that it is not. I might argue that the problems we face today are a consequence of a government that, for eight years, was too "involved". In my view, the previous administration believed a "strong and active" government could usurp our liberties in the name of defense.

"Small" and "limited" is not necessarily bad. "Active" and "involved" is not necessarily good.


...all I want in this world is to accumulate as much money as possible so that I can buy myself material things and have more stuff and be more impressive and respected than my neighbor because my house is bigger, and my car is faster, and my outdoor grill/pool area is fancier....

IMO, people too often associate values with politics. I've known many Democrats who live the life you describe above. I know lots of Repubs who work at the food bank and donate their time and $ to charity.

So let's keep this debate on track and try to recognize that when our brain becomes ruled by emotion, we lose rational objectivity. Let's recognize that "outwardly intelligent" people can be susceptible to emotional dogma.

Broadly painting either political party as good or bad, doesn't work. Most of us are in the center. The Republicans got a cold lesson about this in November. ...and the Republican party's internal civil war about this very matter is quite entertaining at the moment.

[SamIAm]

next time i ride (read: fly) by some overweight schmuck on a different meivici shod with super record that is a different color than the meivici he rode yesterday shod with sram red, i'll think of this thread.

I am not exacty sure what that means, but it sounds moronic.

[cdimattio]

Having grown up in a third world country where taxes did little more than enrich and entrench the political elite, and where the government's role was limited to collecting taxes and suppressing dissent, I guess I have a different view of government and taxation than the average American. In spite of America's current woes and the lost almost-decade that represents the Bush administration, it is still nice to live in a country where the rule of law means something, where government actually functions (which it does, at least in comparison with many other countries) and where tax money is actually spent on things like infrastructure (which it was, at least until W).

It is astonishing to me that people (ie, Republicans), who appear, outwardly at least, to be intelligent, actually think the world's largest economy and a nation of 300 million diverse people can be managed by a small, limited, uninvolved government. Thank god (and I'm not religious) we finally have someone in power who believes in a strong and active government.

Or maybe there is something wrong with me. Maybe I should just say "to hell with everyone and everything - all I want in this world is to accumulate as much money as possible so that I can buy myself material things and have more stuff and be more impressive and respected than my neighbor because my house is bigger, and my car is faster, and my outdoor grill/pool area is fancier." Maybe I'll ascribe to the view that hindsight is 20/20 and Lance really is innocent because he never failed a drug test. Oh, and Dick Cheney really is a decent person. And W really had a brain.

Or maybe I'll keep reminding myself, much as Bud Fox's father did himself, that I don't go to bed with a whore and I don't wake up with one. And I'll hold on to the passport issued by the third world country in which I was born because maybe it has evolved to a point where hono(u)r, integrity, respect (for humankind) and accountability actually mean something and, instead of fleeing the US because of a second Bush term or the prospect of a McCain/Palin autocracy/theocracy, I'll leave because this country, stuck in the rigid and mindlessly ideological maelstrom that has characterized the political debate for the past 20 years, will never regain its former glory. Hopefully not, though.

OK, all Republicans are evil. Who needs self-reliance or religion when we have government? There were issues at both ideological polical extremes last time I checked (and most of us have disparate views on various subjects than span both political parties.)

How does this forum drift from the simple english witty financial essays of an American Folk Hero to this senseless drivel?

Buffett is hailed as the best of his generation. He has the rare power of homespun intellectual writing. He attacks complex issues while expressing essential, eternal truths in simple, earthy phrases.

[JMerring]

I am not exacty sure what that means, but it sounds moronic.

not sure either; shoulda kept my mouth shut.

[gdw]

and it's really pathetic. I should have known better. It's mostly the same posters fighting the same battles with a slight spin. Is this crap the result of cabin fever or S.A.D?

[97CSI]

Personally I see this as the same "anti-war" group finding any opportunity to go after anyone just so they can vent. :rolleyes:Let's see.......we went into Iraq based on made-up intelligence and were lied to by those in charge and the end result is 100s of $billions wasted and over 100 thousand dead, including far too many of our fellow citizens and we are venting? Don't know about you, but I spent 8-years on active duty, including the Vietnam war-zone, so I don't feel I'm 'venting' when we fight a bogus war attacking a country that did not attack us and I don't care for it. Especially as those in charge knew this to be true at the time.

[JMerring]

OK, all Republicans are evil.

finally, someone who agrees with me.

sorry to those i have insulted. yes the thread has drifted. i have more time on my hands than i'd like. i'm off to try be productive.

[Tobias]

Let's see.......we went into Iraq based on made-up intelligence and were lied to by those in charge and the end result is 100s of $billions wasted and over 100 thousand dead, including far too many of our fellow citizens and we are venting? Don't know about you, but I spent 8-years on active duty, including the Vietnam war-zone, so I don't feel I'm 'venting' when we fight a bogus war attacking a country that did not attack us and I don't care for it. Especially as those in charge knew this to be true at the time.Then why all the hate towards Bush and not all the others in congress who approved the war based on the same information? Does that make sense to you regardless of how one feels about the war?

[johnnymossville]

My oh my what a sunny day we're having. Amazing how yesterday it was all snow.

[93legendti]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


http://thepage.time.com/bill-clinton-on-iraq-in-2003/

Bill Clinton on Iraq in 2003

April 14, 2003 (Minneapolis Star Tribune): “In his first speech in Minnesota since leaving office, former President Bill Clinton on Sunday praised President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. But he criticized Bush’s domestic priorities and urged the administration to offer North Korea aid and a pledge of nonaggression in exchange for an end to that country’s missile and nuclear weapons programs.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14/03]

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

...Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

...Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates...In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians...

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

...President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

...Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

[fiamme red]

Anything in there about the President's intended move toward socialism as an deliberate attempt to destroy captialism and the stock market?It's interesting to note that Buffett has long argued for higher taxes on dividends and long-term capital gains.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/

In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw that aired last week, Buffett took his "I'm not paying enough in taxes, and neither are my fellow billionaires" campaign to a new level, highlighting his contention that he pays a lower tax rate than all of his office employees.

He told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."

[93legendti]

How many billionaires make $250,000 a year?


In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw that aired last week, Buffett took his "I'm not paying enough in taxes, and neither are my fellow billionaires"

Raising taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year, while ignorant (I learned here that is not an insult), will not kill capitalism by itself.

It is interesting that part of the Presiden't ruse is to never mention the tax cuts by JFK, Pres. Clinton or Pres. Reagan.

[RPS]

Maybe if you hadn't put that little wink in your post, you wouldn't be accused of making ignorant remarks. It makes your remark look (to me at least) flippant and insulting. To whom exactly? Other than you that is?

The wink was meant solely to soften the tone in order to avoid escalating an argument with a person looking for a fight. How that becomes insulting to anyone is beyond me.

This thread has finally taught me to stop trying to be civil because that obviously doesn't work. :crap: I'm done playing nice.

[johnnymossville]

The only guy that was "right" about the Iraq war back then was the guy sitting in the oval office right now, and that's only because at the time the important decisions were being made he never had to actually vote one way or another on the matter.

That makes him equal to my 6 year old daughter in that regard. When he did finally get a chance to vote on it, (Funding) he voted for it.

[Johny]

So is Buffett buying a Meivici or not?

[SamIAm]

It's interesting to note that Buffett has long argued for higher taxes on dividends and long-term capital gains.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/

In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw that aired last week, Buffett took his "I'm not paying enough in taxes, and neither are my fellow billionaires" campaign to a new level, highlighting his contention that he pays a lower tax rate than all of his office employees.

He told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."

Both sides are right in a sense. It is certainly true that if most of your income comes in the form of capital gains, you are in a very low tax bracket, but how many "rich" (incomes >= 250,000) people generate most of their income in capital gains. In a sense capital gains taxes are the second bite at the apple in most cases. Somebody works hard, pays income taxes, takes his money invests and gets taxed again on that. Should they be at the same rate? I don't know. I would guess that it may discourage investment to a certain degree, but that would just be a guess.

You cannot define rich by income in any case. So do we now need a full accounting of citizen's assets in order to assess their true wealth and arrive at the optimum level of taxation? Should we have a look at their monthly expenses to assess how much they can afford to "give"?

[SamIAm]

So is Buffett buying a Meivici or not?

Not one, but two and if he hears on your left, he will know who is "flying" by. :)

[Chad Engle]

I can't resist asking: Do you know what "hindsight is 20:20" means?

I believe I do. But I'd listen to your definition if my post leads you to believe I don't.


RPS - You should never have to limit where you go because of me or anyone else. Your comment about personal attacks, claim to be trying to be civil yet post a fabricated story involving someone dying in Iraq to account for the tone of someones post. Sorry but that one stung a little.

My "don't go there" referred to your post quoted below. No ones blaming you for the war. Hindsight is 20/20. I have made plenty of mistakes, none of them resulted in the death of thousands. Ever been to a soldiers memorial service? Doubt it or you wouldn't have been so thoughtless

For all I know his wife or sister could have been a soldier killed in Iraq and now is too emotional about the subject matter to debate anything related in an objective manner.

For that reason I won't discuss things with people who seem too hot on any subject.

What was the op about again. My sincerest apologies for my contribution to the drift.

[JMerring]

Not one, but two and if he hears on your left, he will know who is "flying" by. :)

i'd be going so fast on my 20lb steel fixie he wouldn't even hear

[97CSI]

Then why all the hate towards Bush and not all the others in congress who approved the war based on the same information? Does that make sense to you regardless of how one feels about the war?No free ride for congress from me. They are just as guilty and are generally bigger scumbags than the prez. Most of them get to hide behind the "he (the prez) told me so" on this one as they are not privilaged to the same "intell" as the prez.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Lockeroonie time . . . What is UP with you people, anyway? :crap: :crap: :no:

Go for a ride . . . or come to my spin class.

In any event, go somewhere else to do THIS ----> :argue: :argue: :argue:

BBD