Senin, 21 Oktober 2013

....Warren Buffett is lying about Warren Buffett ??..>>> ..“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here”. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better“. –U.S. Senator Barack H. Obama, March 16, 2006..>>> While the outcome of the irresponsible debit limit deadline is still a bit cloudy, what is not uncertain is how this nation got to where it is today. Might we start with this broad premise as to the “how” and “why” of the present situation: With no need to mince words out of political correctness: President Obama is a liar (you can keep your old plan and doctor, and much, much more, including Benghazi the IRS); a hypocrite as the paragraph above reveals; an incompetent and failed leader (never held a job or lead anything); a radical socialist (deep and long relationships with Saul Alinsky and Abner Mikva); stunningly clueless as to matters of foreign policy (Syria, Egypt, Libya); a gullible and naïve diplomat (Putin and Iran cleaned his clock); a Commander in Chief void of conceptual military strategy (abandon Iraq and Afghanistan); and a president devoid of an understanding of economic, fiscal and monetary policy (stimulus and unemployment outcome and government effectiveness)...>>>

Warren Buffett: ‘The Oracle of Omaha’ also “The Oracle of Obama’

September 27, 2011

Billionaire investor Buffett (According to Forbes, Buffett’s estimated wealth is $39 billion as second-richest American behind Microsoft’s Bill Gates.) is to be at the North Shore home of Byron Trott, an investment banker, on October 27, to headline President Obama’s blockbuster Chicago fundraiser.
Mr. Byron Trott as a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner, isn’t know as an outspoken Obma supporter.  He has donated to candidates of both parties, with his most recent donation of $2,500 made to Mitt Romney in June of this year.  Even so Warren Buffet calls Byron Trott his favorite investment banker.
Although President Obama is not expected to attend, it will be co-hosted by the same local donors who lined up to fuel Obama’s first presidential campaign at $35,800 per ticket — James Crown, Penny Pritzker, and John Roger, Jr.
Warren Buffett was recently featured at a September fundraising event in New York by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.  For this event the Buffett name was used as the draw for a reception and dinner where tickets ranged from $10,000 to $35,800 each.
It was not surprising to learn that the Warren Buffett late September New York fundraiser and the upcoming one at the North Shore home of Byron Trotter both selected as moderator, Austin Goolsbee, a University of Chicago law professor and former chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration
Warren Buffet, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, recently become a household name and was linked to the Obama Administration through a recent “New York Times” op-ed he wrote which called on the rich to pay more taxes.
Taking a clue from Buffett’s ”New York Times” op-ed piece, President Obama requested permission from Warren Buffet to allow his administration to use Buffett’s name in the title of a provision applicable to Obama’s $474 bilion jobs legislation.  As such Obama dubbed a proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy, the “Buffett Rule.”

Most controversial in Buffett’s “New York Times” op-ed was the claim that he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million he made without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary was taxed at 30% for earnings amounting to $60,000.

Lately Warren Buffett has changed his tune.  In a later op-ed piece Buffet no longer is claiming that his tax rate was higher than that of his secretary, but instead that he is being taxed more than others in his office.  President Obama, nevertheless, continues to repeat Buffett’s “New York Times” op-ed claim that Buffet’s secretary is being taxed at 30% to Buffett’s tax rate of 17.7%.

It makes no sense for President Obama to advance a new tax policy based on what is happening to the top 0.0000006% earning individuals.  Such a proposal is both risky and foolish.

Warren Buffett is almost definitely lying about the tax rate of his secretary.  CBO data, with payroll taxes included, indicates that someone making about $64,000 pays a total effective tax rate of around 14.3 if single and 7.5% if married.

It seems apparent that Buffett is either confusing or purposely comparing two different rates of taxation.  Money earned through investments is taxed at a lower rate than income from wages.  In Buffett’s case, 90% of his earned income is taxed at the lower investment rate.  The typical person who earns more than $10 million per year usually earns only about 38% of his income from investments that qualify for the lower tax rate.

Anyone who makes 90% of their money, as does Warren Buffett, from investments could theoretically pay around 15% whether they earn $50,000 or $50,000.000.

Even though Warren Buffet stated in a “New York Times” op-ed piece that he wants people to pay more on money earned through investments, it is obvious that the “Buffet Rule” has nothing to do with wealthy individuals.  Rich individual already carry far more of the tax burden than do the poor or the middle class.  The top 10% of tax payers carry 73% of the income tax burden, while the bottom 51% of tax payers carry 0%.

In that President Obama continues to berate rich people for not paying their fair share of taxes is proof that Obama’s rhetoric is all about class warfare (a political ploy) and not sensible tax policy.  The problem described by Warren Buffet of how the tax rate is insufficient on income that is realized through investments — might apply to professional investors, but not to rich people.

There are reasons why the tax rate for income earned through investments should be lower rate than for wages.

First of all, lowering the capital gains tax does bring in more revenue.  Bill Clinton signed legislation which dropped the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20% in 1997.  George W. Bush later dropped the rate to 15%.  In each instance the rate drops resulted in an increase of tax revenues.

Eric M. Jackson, formerly of PayPal and now CEO of CaptLinked, an on-line platform for private investing, explained in a “Washington Post” article on September 22,  how “increased taxation of capital gains would guarantee that investors would have a lower rate of return, would decrease the pool of capital available for early-stage investments, and would make the U.S. less competitive on the global stage.

Neither Warren Buffet or President Obama seem to realize that it is through capital gains that technology investors make money.  Willing to invest in high risk companies, knowing that many of their portfolio companies could fail, potential payoffs from winning companies justifies risk taking by investors.

So why raise capital gains rates at all?  A million or so people in this nation own stock and would be affected.  Many of them are senior citizens and retired people who depend on retirement income to supplement their Social Security checks.  They would be hurt by higher investment taxes.

The “Buffett Rule” is not working in CA where a Buffett-Rule-esque tax requires that all whose earned income exceeds $1 million must pay an extra 10.3% in taxes in addition to federal taxes.  Soaking the rich in CA has resulted in a precarious revenue roller coaster ride.  In Sacramento it’s either boom or bust time depending on how the wealthy are faring in the stock market and in their other investments.

Republicans must respond back in kind to President Obama when he uses unsophisticated fallacies to promote his illogical financial policies when on road trips, which includes spending  $447 billion more on a jobs stimulus bill.

One such response might go like this:
President Obama:  “Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare.”
Republican response:  “Either we stop Obama from giving our tax money to fat-cat labor union bosses and to others like Solyndra in “Pay for Play” handouts, or the money won’t be there for seniors to receive the medical treatment that they need and deserve.”
More and more of the American people are beginning to realize that under President Obama’s leadership America is headed in the wrong direction. Obama’s current idea of seeking to increase stimulus spending to fund bigger government by turning to millionaires and billionaires to pay for it, will only result in stiffing job creation by those who create jobs through capital to invest in new businesses.
Should voters in the 2012 elections elect a Republican president and a Republican-controlled House and Senate, of concern is whether Republican House and Senate members will really have the heart and the will to reduce the size of government so raising taxes to support and maintain a bloated government doesn’t rear its ugly head.
Will history repeat itself?  As has happened before, Republicans often speak of wanting less government and of lowering taxes, but what they really desire when in power is to control the purse strings.
In this way Republicans are little different from their Democrat counterparts.  When push comes to shove, members of both parties vote on issues and policies in ways that will please those whom they are counting on to return them to power, as money has become the mother’s milk of politics.
May Republican voters steer clear of a presidential candidate who is just an echo of what a Republican candidate should stand for.  We don’t need a Republican in the White House who promises to compromise with Democrats if what Democrats call for represents policies which are bad for this nation now and for future generations.
By any means, 2012 will not be an ordinary election.  It is my hope that Republicans of all stripes, Independents, and even some Democrats will recognize the severity of these time as it affects the very future of this nation when they vote in November of 2012.

If Republicans are successful in the 2012 elections, may they recognize the charge they have been given by voters to accomplish that which they were sent to Washington, D.C. to do:  
1) Bringing spending under control; 
2) reducing the size of government; 
3) eliminating unnecessary regulations; 
4) freeing America’s job creators to get back to business; and 
5) setting a new moral tone to counter the depravity that has infected society at all levels.

A word to Republicans if elected in 2012, there will be no time left to fail.  The continuation of the status quo would amount to a rapid and irreversible crumbling of the very foundations upon which this nation was conceived.  The result would be a death sentence and the admission that all who fought and died in wars to defend liberty and freedom did so in vain.

It is said that at the close of the Constitutional Convention a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and asked him what type of government had been decided upon by the delegates. Franklin stated: “We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.”  Franklin, of course, also believed that the Constitution could only last as long as the people themselves could sustain it.

Might the end be near?  I hope not, but it will be up to American voters and their elected representatives to decide the fate of this nation in 2012.  May both be up to the challenge that lies ahead.   May God continue to Bless America.

Where’s the money from the Zion Nuclear Facility Trust Funds?

September 15, 2011

http://nancyjthorner.wordpress.com/2011/09/

Over the past two years, several of my Letters to the Editor have been published in the Lake Forester zeroing in on the 2,100 megawatt Dual Zion Nuclear Facility, which I continue to feel was prematurely and unwisely shut down in 1998.
Despite diligent pursuit to resolve why The Zion Station was shuttered with its possibility of so many more years of productive life, the answer forthcoming from Exelon Corporation, headed by CEO and President John Rowe, never changed and did not meet the smell test. The standard answer given was one of economics.
Another question never resolved in my mind was why Exelon Corporation never attempted to sell The Zion Station to another entity if Exelon felt unable to operate it at a profit? Exelon Corporation, which also owns Commonwealth Edison, operates 10 stations and 17 nuclear units through its subsidiary, Exelon Nuclear, making Exelon Corporation the owner of the largest nuclear fleet in the United States.
Up until Sept. 1 of last year when Exelon Corporation transferred The Zion Station and its decommissioning fund to newly formed ZionSolution to dismantle Zion, I harbored the belief that somehow the Dual Zion Nuclear Station could escape destruction. Surely Illinois will have need for more electrical power sources in the future now that the EPA has mandated new regulation covering sulfur emissions from coal-fired plants. Because of the expense of updating older coal-fired plants, many of the older coal-fired plants will instead by shut down be their utility owners. Illinois has 25 coal-fired plants. One is located just north of here in Waukegan.
Thanks to a lawyer whom I had became acquainted with during my lonely two-year, one-woman mission to reopen Zion from my home base in Lake Bluff, along with the valuable input from David Hollein, a Barrington Hills resident who as project engineer for Westinghouse Corporation (designer of the steam turbines) was intimately familiar with all 11 of Illinois’s nuclear units, we continued to fight.
It is important for electric rate payers here in northern Illinois to know that between approximately 1998 and 2006 customers of ComEd paid hundreds of millions of dollars into two trust funds established by law relating to the decommissioning of the Zion Nuclear Power Plant. The balance in the Trust Funds turned over to ZionSolutions by Exelon Corporation on Sept. 1 of last year is in excess of $800 million.
All monies left over (the unspent balance) after ZionSolutions funded the necessary and reasonable decommissioning costs associated with its 10-year Zion Station decommissioning project, as applicable under law, was to be returned or credited to ComEd’s customers.
Since Sept. 1 of last year ZionSolutions has withdrawn millions of dollars from the Trust Funds, purportedly for claimed costs for planning the decommissioning of The Zion Station.
On July 14 of this year, I became one of four plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against ZionSolution LLC and the Bank of New York Mellon, a New York Chartered Bank, which was chosen to act as custodian of the Trust Funds.
The lawsuit concentrates on the fact that no qualified person or entity has been appointed to act as a trustee with respect to the Trust Funds to fully protect the rights of ComEd’s customers as beneficiaries of the Trust Funds under applicable law.
Likewise, no court or independent trustee is reviewing the withdrawals from the Trust Funds to conclusively determine whether they meet all of the requirements for payment under the terms of the law establishing and governing the Trust Funds.
Furthermore, the Bank of New York Mellon has not expressly agreed to fulfill, nor has it fulfilled, all the duties of a trustee under the law establishing the Trust Funds, having made payments from the Trust Funds to ZionSolutions, pursuant to ZionSolutions’ direction, without requiring conclusive proof that such are necessary and reasonable decommissioning costs or that such payments are otherwise fully compliant with the law.
As one of four plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, we are entitled to have a court appointed trustee of the Trust Funds who will accept and discharge the legal duties to protect all beneficiaries, including ComEd rate payers here in Lake Forest and Lake Bluff; who will withhold payment from the Trust Funds unless and until it is shown such payments are necessary and reasonable decommissioning cost; and who will manage and disburse the Trust Funds in a manner that reasonably balances the interests of ComEd’s customers in the Trusts.
Although the law suit is at least a year away from receiving a Court hearing, I felt it essential to inform Lake Forester readers about the activity taking place.
Aren’t you, as a ComEd electricity rate payer, entitled to a piece of the pie, having initially funded the Trust Funds to dismantle the Dual Zion Nuclear Plant through payments of your monthly ComEd electric bill



Eleven ways Warren Buffett is lying about Warren Buffett ??



The president is basing a new law off of Warren Buffett.  This means that we are basing US tax policy on what is happening to the top 0.0000006% of people.  Does that seem sensible?
Regardless, Warren has been trotting out this point about his secretary for years.  Unfortunately, when Warren talks about Warren’s secretary, Warren lies about Warren’s secretary.  Here is his definitive statement about the situation from as far back as I can find it:
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
The President says that those who defend this situation “ought to have to answer for it.”  Fair enough.  Short answer: Warren Buffet is lying.  Much longer answer: 10 points.
  • Most simply, Warren Buffett is almost definitely lying about the tax rate of his secretary.  Now, it’s possible to pay any tax rate if you really want to, by paying more than is required.  You can just send in a check.  Since Warren apparently refuses to do that, let us dismiss that option for his secretary.  The typical person making between 50-75k, according to this IRS tax data, pays an effective rate of about 14%.  14% is less than 30%.  Even adding on payroll tax, it’s nowhere near 30%.  CBO data, including payroll taxes, shows that someone making about $64,000 per year pays a total effective rate of around 14.3%.  We asked an accountant to run the numbers in general for someone like Buffett’s secretary.  The results: if they were single, 14%.  If married, 7.6%.
  • Buffett is comparing two different taxes. One is a tax on income, one is a tax on investments.  They are two different taxes on two different things.  Want another scandal?  Warren Buffett pays less in sales tax than his secretary does in income tax.  We better write another law.
  • Warren Buffett has already been taxed on that money.  Here’s an oversimplification to explain what I mean.
You earn $100 in salary.
TAX #1: Uncle Sam takes $35, leaving you with $65.
You then invest that $65, and that investment earns 10% or $6.50.
TAX #2: Of that new $6.50, Uncle Sam takes another $1.
Now, add up the earnings: the original $100 + $6.50 = $106.50.
And, add up the taxes: $35 + $1 = $36.
On $106.50 in earnings, you were taxed $36, or 33.8%,– about double the rate Warren Buffet claims he’s paying.  This gets more complicated with margin, outside investment, and a million other variables, but this how it works in general.  (Dividends are worse: you get taxed on initial income, the company gets taxed on their profits, then when they give you a slice, it gets taxed again.)
So, how does Buffett justify his low tax numbers?  He acts as if TAX #1 never occurred.  Then he tells you that the rate of TAX #2 is too low.  It’s a completely disingenuous shell game.


  • Buffett is an exception to the rule of the mega rich. While he earns around 90% of his income at the lower rate through investments, the typical person who earns more than $10 million per year only earns about 38% of their cash at that rate.  Sure, someone who is mega rich is an exception to the rule.  But, Buffett is an exception to that exception.  Basing a rule on his experience is not sober policy making.
  • Buffett’s secretary is an exception to the rule of secretaries. She/he makes $60,000 per year.  While I’m not exactly blown away by Buffett’s generosity in his pay-scale either, the average secretary makes about $33,000 per year.  Instead of the 14% tax rate of Buffett’s secretary, the typical secretary pays more like 10%.   This information makes something like this, even dumber than you previously thought.
  • Rich people pay far more than the middle class in both total dollars and percentage terms.  Don’t take my word for it, listen to the Associated Press: “This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes…Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.”  Those numbers aren’t even close to what Buffett is claiming.  Did I mention he is lying?  (Quick side note—a tax is nothing but a fee you pay to the government to run the structure that maintains society.  In theory, each person has equal access to government services. Even in Buffett’s (false) example, he’s claiming that he pays over $8 million, and his secretary pays $18,000 for the privilege of living here. Does that really sound so unfair even if it was true?  (It is not.))
  • Rich people already carry far more of the burden than the poor or the middle class. The top 10% of tax payers carry 73% of the income tax burden.  The bottom 51% of tax payers carry 0%.
  • The Buffett rule has nothing to do with wealth.  The “problem” Obama is describing is a “problem” with professional investors, not rich people.  To get a rate of 17.7% on your income as Warren Buffett, you have to earn roughly 90% of your earnings from investments.  But, you don’t have to make tens of millions for this to happen.  Anyone who makes 90% of their money from investments could theoretically pay right around 15% whether they earn $50,000 or $50,000,000.  Yet, Obama just keeps talking about rich people.  This is one way to be completely sure this is really about class warfare, not tax policy.
  • Obama’s rule doesn’t actually target people like Buffett.  Forget everything we’ve talked about here for a second and strip things down to the core.  The claims about secretaries are just false.  But, in theory, someone making $1 million could complain that he pays a rate that is slightly higher than someone making $11 million. Those 7 figure earners are victims to the tyranny of the 8 figure earners!  Cry for them!  In other words, the really rich get slightly screwed as compared to the really REALLY rich.  But Obama’s rule, just targets anyone making $1 million or more—the rule actually “screws” the people being “screwed” most by the “problem.”
  • The rate on investments should be lower than the normal rate…for many reasons (see #3 and #10 for example).  But in addition to those: when I go to work, I receive a salary.  When someone earning their living through investments goes to work—they may LOSE money.  It’s wonderful to focus on the ultra-rare person like Warren Buffett who is so successful that he/she is able to acquire tens of billions of dollars.  But the average person who invests might just bet wrong and get hammered.  When he/she bets right, it makes sense that he/she gets taxed at a lower rate.  They’re playing a different game than you and I, and therefore pay a different tax.
  • Lowering the capital gains tax, brings in more revenue. Even the media understands this.  Charlie Gibson, not a guy who is up for a job at the Heritage Foundation, asked Obama this question in one of his debates with Hillary Clinton:
CHARLIE: Alright, you have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact you said on CNBC and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton which was 28 percent”. It’s now 15% that’s almost doubling if you went to 28%.  But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent and George Bush has taken it down to 15%  and in each instance when the rate dropped, revenues for the tax increased. The government took in more money and in the 1980s  when the tax was increased to 28% revenues went down. So why raise it at all? Especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well Charlie what I said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Obama is claiming that he wants this change to create jobs in a jobs bill, but he’s really trying to implement his version of “fairness.”  Those are two competing interests, and the unemployed will feel the weight of his indecision.
I suppose some of these aren’t Warren’s lies, instead just lies/falsehoods/exclusions/spin by the media–but you get the point.
By the way—has anyone else noticed Buffett’s slight change in argument?  He’s been arguing forever that he paid a higher rate than his secretary.  His latest op-ed that started this up all over again never mentions his secretary.  Obama keeps saying it.  Warren does not.  He’s now saying he’s taxed more than other people in his office.  While I assume that his “secretary” works in his office, when someone is being this slimy, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s attempting to intentionally weasel himself out of the original claim.  Sort of how he’s trying to weasel out of his taxes.
*I was initially going to use this post to take on the ridiculous Politifact “true” rating for Warren Buffett.  But, they are barely defending that themselves anymore, so I’ll give them a pass.
 
  • Avatar
    Jim Phillips
    • 2 years ago
    Today
    we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has
    been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since
    his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will
    be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:-Knowing
    when to come in out of the rain; - Why the early bird gets the worm;-
    Life isn't always fair; - And maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived
    by simple, sound financial policies, don't spend more than you can earn
    and adults, not children, are in charge. His health began to deteriorate
    rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in
    place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for
    kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash
    after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student,
    only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents
    attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to
    do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when
    schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion
    or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student
    became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Common Sense lost the
    will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received
    better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when
    you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the
    burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will
    to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee
    was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a
    huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents,
    Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility,
    and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My
    Rights,I Want It Now,Someone Else Is To Blame,I'm A Victim.Not many
    attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still
    remember him, pass this on. If not, do nothing.
    see more
    • Avatar
      CJM2 Jim Phillips
      • 2 years ago
      The school problems began when the NEA and NTA lobbied vigorously to have the parents ousted from the classroom back in the late '60s...when teachers finally threw up their hands in the '80s because they could not control the children the teachers blamed the parents.  When parents did try to intervene or provide sound advice to the teachers, they were threatened with being jailed.  Parents were so outlawed by the school system, signs were posted throughout the school forbidding parents to enter without some sort of permission from the principal.  Teachers lied to parents about the child's progress in school--only informing the parent that a problem existed just before the report card came out.  Then the police were introduced into the school--not the parent.  So please put the blame where it belongs---on the teachers.  Other than that fact, I can agree with the rest of your comment.
      • Avatar
        Rusty4176 CJM2
        • 2 years ago
        I don't know what school you went to but that sure isn't the way it is here.  Parents are quite welcome at our schools and invited to participate in their children's activities in all ways possible.  So many parents choose to be irresponsible and lazy and expect the schools and teachers to deal with their problems.  How you can blame teachers for out of control children is beyond me.  It starts at home.  The bottom line is that if you aren't willing to undertake all of the responsibilities it takes to raise children then you shouldn't have them in the first place. 
        • Avatar
          DixieAngel_76 Rusty4176
          • 2 years ago
          That sounds like a pat argument until you look a little closer. See, Rusty, it's like this. Most parents would love to come down to school and do your bidding all day long if they weren't so busy working two and sometime three jobs just to pay all the taxes that the school system soaks up. That's point number one in my argument. Second point is this; good parents who raise their kids up to believe in God (doesn't have to be Jehovah, but that is what I believe and it is how I raised my kids to believe) have taught their kids that there are consequences to all of their actions, and that it does indeed matter how they treat their fellow man. Then they go to school and get told that they descended from apes, so how can they be blamed for acting like animals? Third point, and perhaps most important of all is that they are taught that a well deserved swat on the rear or maybe being sent to bed without dinner once in awhile when they behave badly is "abuse" and they are encouraged to rat out their parents for this "abuse". Then you wonder why more parents have troubles controlling their kids? Another issue I have is that schools do absolutely nothing to remove bullies and troublemakers from amoung the students' ranks. Even when I was in school over 40 years ago I remember being terrified come Monday morning and knowing that another week of dodging sadistic bullies was about to begin. All the while the school did absolutely nothing to stop it. It took years for me to overcome the emotional damage that was done during that time. No principal ever stepped in to suspend or expell the bullies, and no teacher ever intervened even when I came in from recess or lunch with tears streaming down my cheeks. Tell me that all of that was the fault of my parents somehow if it will make you feel better, but many people reading this know exactly how this type of abuse and humiliation feels and we also know that while all examples of bullying are not always learned in schools, they are at least re-inforced by the knowlege that nothing will be done in punishment. Before you ever lay one finger of blame against innocent parents you tell me how that situation is to be changed, Rusty.
          see more
          • Avatar
            Rusty4176 DixieAngel_76
            • 2 years ago
            It feels to me you are twisting this conversation. You want kids to be provided with a better education but on the other hand the schools are spending too much money forcing you to work 2 or 3 jobs. Hardly an excuse to have out of control children. Money makes this world go around. How do you propose improving the education system without spending money? I agree that bullying is a big problem in schools and as far as that goes many other social settings. Teachers and administrators are prevented from disciplining children for fear that they will be sued in this sue happy world. Teachers are not the ones teaching the kids that a well deserved swat on the behind is “abuse”, society is teaching that. Teachers would love to have the discretion of being able to swat one’s behind but unfortunately our corrupt society forbids it.
            • Avatar
              DixieAngel_76 Rusty4176
              • 2 years ago
              I'm not twisting anything Rusty. The fact of the matter is taxes fund the schools and schools get a large chunk of the tax pie. Taxes for all public sector spending have been on the rise for over 4 decades and that is a fact. Niether am I suggesting that we can operate schools without spending money, but that doesn't mean that the answer to each and every problem is a bigger budget. If teachers and administrators are prevented from disciplining children it seems like this is the first place that reforms can be made. And yes Rusty, there have been documented incidents where kids have been told that they should turn their parents in for spanking them. Parents have much to fear in the litigious soceity we live in too, but that doesn't let us off the hook, and the school system shouldn't be either.
              And you still did not address the issue of why more of the bullies aren't taken out of the school so they can't harm other kids? Could it be that the schools don't want to lose the money they get per student? Surely it is not yet against the law to suspend or expell someone?
              With your snooty I-know-it-all-and-you-don't attitude, I'm glad I don't have a child in your classroom. I can only imagine the condescending attitude you must display at a parent-teacher conference.
            • Avatar
              abrasmom Rusty4176
              • 2 years ago
              Rusty, could I be so bold as to venture that you have no children?
        • Avatar
          CJM2 Rusty4176
          • 2 years ago
          Sorry, but the teachers must share the blame--and most of it at that.  When I tutored in public school systems, it was appalling to find teachers not teaching at all, yet would tell the children if they didn't learn it was their parents fault.  When asked why the textbooks were stacked against the wall instead of distributed to the children, I was told they would only get the books dirty and the school would get less money for the returns. When asked why students were given comic books to read, the expanation was: if they can't read by grade 4, they will never learn anyway.  At least they can look at pictures.  And by the way, Rusty, this was not in just one State--it is prevalent across the nation and statistics bear this out when youngsters are graduated without the skills to read, write, spell, speak proper English, or do simple math.   Teachers welcome parents only when it is beneficial to the schools, period.  And further, I never absolved the parents from their part--I merely pointed out that teachers DO SHARE most of the educational problems we face today.  I hardly think anyone would disagree that parents have a responsibility towards rearing their children, but at the same time, teachers should not be undermining the parents authority over their children--which happens to be the case in this day and age.
          • Avatar
            Rusty4176 CJM2
            • 2 years ago
            Based upon what you have been saying I assume you come from an urban area. I am in a rural area and I beg to differ on many of your stances. I would agree there are some teachers that are just putting in their time and collecting their paycheck. I blame this on the Union. The teachers don’t have to be held accountable and the good ones are not rewarded for their efforts. If a teacher has tenure it is very difficult to get rid of them no matter how bad they are. A good share of the teachers I know are in it for the right reasons. They care very much for their students and do all they can to educate them. I am welcome in my children’s school at any time. I have a great relationship with their teachers and feel they are doing the best job possible with the resources available. I can’t speak for other school systems but the one I went to and the one my children go to don’t fit the mold of what you are referring to. I send my kids to school well groomed, fed and rested. With that I expect the school system to provide a quality education. Up to this point I am satisfied with the results. My kids are among tops in their class. In contrast I see other children going to school that are not well groomed, not fed and not rested. How can you expect teachers to teach children in this matter along with all of the other distractions they likely have. It is strictly the parents responsibility to prepare their children for school. With all that said I would agree that the system is not perfect and could always be better but let’s not lay all the blame on the teachers.
            • Avatar
              CJM2 Rusty4176
              • 2 years ago
              I live in a very rural district and tutored in both urban and rural school settings in two different States.  What I stated is what I observed and were primarily the answers I received from TEACHERS, not the parents.  Teachers DO usurp parental rights in every corner as witnessed by their ability to provide your children with birth control contraceptives, including assiting a child to have an abortion WITHOUT parental consent--and that has even been in the news (papers and tv).  Teachers are now busy feeding children in schools homosexual agendas, punishing students who disagree and consider the life-style morally wrong.  No one would disagree that some parents do not teach their children wholesome family values, but for the majority who do teachers have been undermining those parents--and then blame the parents when children do not do as they say.  Lucky for you that you are a welcome guest in your local school district; the rest of the nation does not enjoy such a luxury...it's a safe bet your presence would be as welcome as a riverrat in a California school or wherever liberal politicians have taken over.
          • Avatar
            abrasmom CJM2
            • 2 years ago
            My child was not even allowed to bring a book home! After looking over some of the work in kid's position I noted that the info was incorrect. After going to the school and having the teacher show me the book, I ask how they could teach info they knew was wrong and was told that was what would be on the federal testing so the children had to learn it. But, I was not to fret too much because they would be getting new text the next year. Wow, that was great to know after my kid has been made to learn incorrect information.Thank goodness I no longer have to deal with these jokes they call a hall of education. Teachers, you should stand up and if you don't then you rightly should bear the shame of the education system you teach in.
        • Avatar
          southerngal Rusty4176
          • 2 years ago
          These two positions are both correct.  It depends on where you live.  I've lived in both types of areas.  One was liberal and one was conservative.  The liberal, I was not allowed to go into the classroom and observe my child when they wanted to put him on Ritalin.  The conservative, I was invited in to have a meeting with the teacher, principal and counselor and came to the conclusion that he was just bored and acting up while they were trying to teach phonics...problem was that he could already read at the 6th grade level!  So we came up with a solution...let him go to the library and read during phonics!  Uh duh...If the liberal had bothered to ask, I could've told them this!  Sad, but true...
        • Avatar
          abrasmom Rusty4176
          • 2 years ago
          Please, I would love to know where that school is that the post notes. Public schools in this state do not welcome parents to be involved, nor will they tolerate us trying to teach our children morals. It seems it has become their position that they must teach our children to be immoral. At one point I was teaching my child a text and was informed that I had no right to even mention G-d, or she would turn me into the school. Well, after I got over laughing and got up off the floor, I had to inform her that I was the parent and I would pull her out of that worthless school in about two seconds. The school tried to teach her to challenge my authority as a parent and teach her it was a cop out if I would not acknowledge why I would not give in to her demands. So, I had to go to the school and ask the teacher to refrain from this teaching because if for instance I say my child's life was in danger and told her to move, that I would not have time to explain in order to save her life. Then there was the time they had a speaker who informed all the 8th graders that they were all bisexual and there was no such thing as hetrosexual really stunned me. Then there's DARE, the Red Cross bring a bus to draw blood from teens who are 16 without a parent's knowledge. I could go on but I think my point is pretty clear. Education went out the window when the federal government took over and mandated what the state was to teach.
      • Avatar
        the_griswolds2 CJM2
        • 2 years ago
        There's a lot of truth here - when we wanted to do something as a family and take our girls out of class, we couldn't tell the school that we were taking them somewhere (the truth).  We couldn't tell them we wanted a planned absence and ask for advance assignments. They explained that we could not take them out, that it would be put down as unexcused absence if we told them we were taking them on vacation with us. Instead, we had to just take them out and when they went back to school, the school staff would ask if they were sick.  We would just say "As far as you know."  Ridiculous.  They were OK otherwise, but I still found it wrong that the parents couldn't decide what their children would do for a week or two.  And I loved the discussions where we told the children "Your teachers are wrong."  And I'd love to see a parent or grandparent try to debate a subject with a teacher in the middle of the classroom.  You'd probably leave in cuffs.  The teachers are a big part of the problem because they come through the mill of "I'll tell you how to think, don't question me, I have tenure", but they're not everything that is wrong.  Talk to your children, unteach them well... and teach them principles, use shows, songs, their conversations to show how society is against so many right and good things.  Teach them to think for themselves... good things will happen.
    • Avatar
      landofaahs Jim Phillips
      • 2 years ago
      You forgot to add that he was preceded in death by his wife "Morality".
    • Avatar
      bootsorsaddles Jim Phillips
      • 2 years ago
      i love the way he says he wants to pay more taxes and then fights for 10 years to keep the govt from taking the billion they say he owes.....Beck is right and when he gave tips on storing food i found a place with great supplies; www.sony.myefoods.com where you can get 3 free samples, just pay shipping
    • Avatar
      bootsorsaddles Jim Phillips
      • 2 years ago
      well put... i started storing food 2 years ago using Glenn's tips and buy my supplies at www.sony.myefoods.com where you can still get free sample packets, just pay shipping
    • Avatar
      bootsorsaddles Jim Phillips
      • 2 years ago
      common sense is dead......i am so glad i have watched Glenn for the last 2 years and am prepared....I store food and buy my supplies at www.alta.myefoods.com where you can still try it for free, just pay shipping........and you will really enjoy the food
    • Avatar
      bootsorsaddles Jim Phillips
      • 2 years ago
      one liar always recognizes another...I am prepared though because I started using Glenn's tips 2 years ago on storing food and get my supplies at www.alta.myefoods.com, where you can still try it for free, just pay shipping...
  • Avatar
    neiman1
    • 2 years ago
    Buffet evaded paying even the capitol gains tax.  When he donates his billions to the Gates Foundation he just donates the stock....before its taxed....so when the Foundation sells it there is no tax as it is a non profit organization.  If Buffet, or Gates, was worried about the nation they should sell the stock, pay the tax, and then donate.
    Now I know its great they are giving away their wealth but why do the taxpayers have to subsidize their gift by not collecting the capital gains they would normally pay.  On $100 Billion between them that is $15 Billion the government didn't get.
    Now the Gates Foundation spends its money globally.  So the taxes we would have received are being spent around the world as the Gates Board decides instead of in America or how the government wants it spent.   I like the idea that its their money so they should do as they please with it but don't then tell us we should surrender more of ours to the government so bureaucrats can spend it.
  • Avatar
    Steve Cannell
    • 2 years ago
    Stu...you are missing an important (determinative) point.  Obama is settling his estate every year by gifting $1.58 Billion per year (in Stock) to Gates Foundation each of the past 6 years.  Buffet sits on the 3 person board of Gates (Buffet, Bill & Melinda) so he still controls his money.  If you increase the Dividend and Capital Gains tax to 39.6% as Buffet wants he still reduces his taxable income by 1/2 which means that his effective tax rate on his "sources" of income and even "earned" income is 1/2 the Maximum Rate.  I read the most recently published Gates Foundation 99PF (over 300 pages) last night.  Buffet sill won't have to pay a higher rate that the secretary AND he gifts the STOCK in a yearly plan instead of money so he doesn't ever pay the capital gains tax on the shares he gifts to Gates Foundation yet gets the FULL MARKET VALUE of the stock deduction though untaxed and as though it were full after tax cash.  (see Internal Revenue Code)  All this accumulates so that Buffet is still rich, he is mitigating his estate tax and retains control and you can make the rate what you want and he'll only pay 1/.2  (maximum reduction of AGI Adjusted Gross Income due to charitable contributions is 50% of AGI meaninig he pays one half the stated rate....what ever it is.)  I hate to further disappoint his secretary. 
    Steve Cannell
    35 year Tas Accountantprepared in excess of 3,000 tax returns
  • Avatar
    W432
    • 2 years ago
    We mourn the death of two old friends, Truth and Common Sense.
  • Avatar
    Marci Gray Porter
    • 2 years ago
    Excellent well researched points Stu. The average schmo actually believes that a rich person is not paying taxes on their income at all given the media bullhorn on this worn-out talking point. And Obama isn't trying to be "fair" either. He's trying to bring everyone down so that they are manageable under his Cloward-Piven thumb. He certainly isn't going to make anyone in the lower ranks richer by this move. As we know, we the people get zero say in how they end up hammering out and passing a bill any more than we have control on how they hand out that money. Some incorrectly believe this is going to make them wealthier somehow (haven't heard a logical argument yet---come to think of it, they usually don't get beyond their "they aren't paying their fair share" tantrum) instead of understanding how the economy works.
  • Avatar
    Todd Budde
    • 2 years ago
    Lies, lies, lies and more lies. It's right out of the book, Rules for Radicals.  I am so sick and tired of these idito liberals. I really hope the average American starts to pay attention and look into the facts when these liers open their mouths.
    • Avatar
      lindajsmith Todd Budde
      • 2 years ago
      I'm so sick of all of them. When the dems were in charge and they didn't make a budget so the repubs cryed like babies. Now they are in control and they still have no budget. There are still no jobs and even though Obama is president the repubs refuse to do their job and force him to sign bills to create jobs and training so people can get jobs and move out from under the bridge and out of their cars. If we would cut our defense budget in half and bring all these people in the military home we would get a boost right away from their money being spent here and not over seas. I knows these people know this if I do I'm not smart. That just goes to show you we no longer have control over anyone in congress,senate, or the white house.
      • Avatar
        aussiemongoose lindajsmith
        • 2 years ago
        I am not American but I try to follow your politics. As I understand it, the Republicans are only in charge of the House with the Democrats still in charge of the Senate and the Presidency. With control of only one third of the Executive, they were unable to push through their budget which was passed by the House (?) and were unable to push through the "Cut, cap and balance" bill to effectively deal with the debt/spending issue. The fact that so many Americans seem to believe that the House Republicans are somehow responsible for the present mess supports the comments that truth and common sense are dead in America.
        • Avatar
          2ndchild aussiemongoose
          • 2 years ago
          You have it EXACTLY right.  The House has passed many pieces of legislation that gets sent to the Senate - and they refuse to even bring it to the floor.  My problem with the House Republicans is that prior to the 2010 election, they stated over and over that "they controlled the purse strings", making US (we, that worked very hard to get Conservative Republicans elected) think that they could actually DEFUND much of what this administration had passed -  if they gained the majority.  Now, the "old guard" Republicans spend their time "brow-beating" the freshmen that are trying to stay true to their beliefs and their constituents.  We've still got some work to do!
          • Avatar
            CJM2 2ndchild
            • 2 years ago
            They do, essentially, 'control the purse strings' in the sense that appropriations belongs in the House, not the Senate; however, the Senate must also approve, according to Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution.  You have the same situation with respect to impeachment--a House member could recommend impeachment, but the full power to impeach lies within the realm of the Senate.  If the person being impeached is the sitting President, than the Chief Justice presides.
      • Avatar
        CJM2 lindajsmith
        • 2 years ago
        Linda: The democrats have controlled Congress more than two years--when the republicans won in 2010, they only won control of the House of Representatives and the Senate remained under democrat control. The republicans ARE doing their job, but the democrats still control the Senate and will, as they promised in 2010 with obama's blessings, defeat every agenda the republicans put out--which is why there is no balanced budget and why some other things cannot get fixed at this time.  Quit blaming the republicans--the democrats have always been the party of no, not the other way around.
        • Avatar
          My3Dogs CJM2
          • 2 years ago
          The reason Linda and others think this way is because of the "main stream" media and poor education. If the media actually reported the truth about how the bills go through (or don't) people would react differently. I'm beginning to think the old "political point of view held over from the 60s" has resulted in dumb (ignorant) news reporters that can't recognize the difference between the house and senate, president and king/dictator, or state and federal governments for that matter; or republic and democracy.
          • Avatar
            CJM2 My3Dogs
            • 2 years ago
            I have to agree with you.  When the hippies were a severe social problem (and they were with their illicit drug-saturated life-style), my late spouse said: "and to think there will be a day when these young repobates will become our governors, congressmen, and anti-establlishment leaders;" he was so right!
      • Avatar
        My3Dogs lindajsmith
        • 2 years ago
        The House passed a budget early in the session (and several job promoting bills). Harry Reid "floored" them so they won't be voted on. Harry conveniently gets the rules changed to suit the political fight but not the citizens.
      • Avatar
        Incommudro lindajsmith
        • 2 years ago
        "the repubs refuse to do their job and force him to sign bills to create jobs and training so people can get jobs and move out from under the bridge and out of their cars." Are you serious? aussiemongoose understands our system 1000 times better than you do.
  • Avatar
    Chuck Webb
    • 2 years ago
    Warren Buffet has made his money. Now he is trying to prevent others from doing the same.  Eliminating the competition is not a new thing.  There is 25% less millionairs now then just a few years ago. If he can help that trend to continue it would mean he would get richer, and others will not.  This is a business move from a cold heart, that is all. 
  • Avatar
    profbean2
    • 2 years ago
    I wish Glen would mention this again on his show:
    Message flagged
    Monday, September 26, 2011 7:02 AM
    Message body
    I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the
    conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. '"I'm
    opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared,
    "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than
    ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'" "But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back." I
    could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I
    said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand." "Suppose
    that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all
    ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first
    four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay
    $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the
    richest) would pay $59." The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant
    every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner
    threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said,
    "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for
    the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat
    for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the
    remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that
    $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's
    share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to
    eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be
    fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being
    sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
    should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in
    $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12,
    leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside
    the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a
    dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth,
    "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor." Then,
    the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the
    most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for
    dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it
    came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They
    were $52 short! "And that, boys, girls and college instructors,
    is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
    get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack
    them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any
    more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the
    Caribbean."

    see more
    • Avatar
      Guest profbean2
      • 2 years ago
      That was wonderful profbean..but it won't sink in.   I have a similar story, but mine deals with grades instead.  The logic is pretty much the same, but the message targets the youths or yewts in their case.   Great analogy.
  • Avatar
    desdakron
    • 2 years ago
    How does Buffett know what his employees pay in taxes?
    • Avatar
      One_Man_Army desdakron
      • 2 years ago
      Well, he does pay his employees.  If you pay your employees, you know what your employees make.  If you know what your employees make, you should know how much they pay in federal income taxes at the very least.
      • Avatar
        ltcolkep One_Man_Army
        • 2 years ago
        Don't know about you but my boss knows nothing of my exemption status, the amount of home interest I pay, my charitable donations or any of the other factors that go into computing my federal taxes. So Mr Buffett should probably not know about the details of his employees' tax situation
  • Avatar
    Scouterjohn301
    • 2 years ago
    Warren Buffett says he wants to pay more to the federal government BUT his actions say otherwise!  When he was deciding where to give make a charitable contribution he gave to Bill Gate's foundation rather than the fedeeral government.  This clearly shows that he believes that private charity will do better with his money than the federal government. 
    Also remember that the federal estate tax law has been good to him in helping him buy companies at a bargain.
  • Avatar
    Trey Morris
    • 2 years ago
    Thanks Stu,  but why do you use these facts when this story is based on fiction?  These people have no idea that we are NOT as dumb as they think we are.  WHY is Warren B. involved in ANY way with what the government does?  Is he a policy advisor?
    • Avatar
      freemarketgov Trey Morris
      • 2 years ago
      I have read that one of Warren B's companies makes its money by loaning people money to pay inheritance taxes on family businesses.  In some cases he buys them instead.  If you want to buy a business at pennies on the dollar you need to find someone between a rock and a hard spot.
  • Avatar
    greg mahloch
    • 2 years ago
    Even if the Buffet rule is passed. Warren Buffet would not pay anymore taxes.
    Warren Buffet does not pay an increase in dividend tax because his company does not pay dividends to its stockholders.
    Warren Buffet does not pay capital gains either because he does not sell any Stock.
    He is now giving away his stock to a charity that is set up by him. He has never paid any taxes on that money, so he is giving away part of our money.
    Pipeline is being block by him, because he owns railroads and he wants the oil to be transported by his railroad.
  • Avatar
    Lamont_Madison
    • 2 years ago
    Buffet, Soros, Bill Gates and other elitists who made fortunes in a capitalistic society that gave them all the opportunity, now want to destroy those same liberties with their liberal agendas, and their support of Odumbo.. 
    Bill Gates has destroyed more computer jobs than anyone in America.  When the value of Microsoft stock quit rising in around 2000, Gates could no longer get away by underpaying overworked US citizens with (*free to Microsoft) stock options.  So he andf other rich capital cronies convinced a corrupt congress to authorize  more and more and more H1B Visas each year so he could import Indians to take American jobs.  Gates claimed there weren't enough skilled American workers (A DAMNED LIE), when the truth was there weren't enough skilled American workers who were willing to work for substandard wages. 
    Bottom line:  Fast Forward 10 years:  The sonofabitch billionaire elitist Gates has destroyed more technical jobs in America than he ever created.  Oh, visit the Microsoft headquarters nowdays in Washington State and you will think you must be in F___ing India.
  • Avatar
    Junter
    • 2 years ago
    Great read!
  • Avatar
    ulyssesmsu
    • 2 years ago
    Don't say "disingenuous." Get rid of that stupid word. If you mean "dishonest," say "dishonest."
Diposting oleh ZA di 23.23

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)