Skip to main content

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

_____________________

 

I assume you object to the Koch brothers too then.

__________________________________________

Well, Jank, it seems you just do not understand the fundamentals of right-wing activism.   It goes something like this:   There is nothing out of order with the multi-billionaire Koch brothers spending multiplied millions to promote the interests of their vast energy empire, but when Warren Buffett applies his ample financial resources and his legal and constitutional right to freedom of expression in a manner favorable to his interests but not so favorable to the Kochs, he is a seditious practitioner of "crony capitalism."

 

Your attitude obviously needs some rehabilitation--at least that is how Dire and certain other alleged defenders of the Constitution would see it.

________________________________________

Your comments on the Koch brothers is merely deflection, the question was about Warren Buffet.

I object to anyone using the government to gain from a decision, especially one that will hurt the nation at large. 

____

The subject matter was crony capitalism; the Koch brothers are of that genre.  I assume from your reply that you DO object to their use/abuse of the gummint. 

Considering all the money that the Koch boys gave Andrew Cuomo and how Huntsville is about to profit from New York's folly; Three Cheers for the Koch Brothers! It seems the boys have found a better way of combating liberalism: let them win and let the electorate see reality. I hope they funnel a bunch of dough to Gov. moonbeam. At least Tennessee or Texas might wind up with Silicon Valley.

 

Jt, are you going to post that with a straight face? No blog or site without a liberal agenda is going to post that the way you put it. They take it out of context, and hope the sheep, like you, don't bother to research and find the truth in the statement. Pity of it is, even if you do know the truth you keep spreading the falsehood. BTW, Romney was not laughing about his father firing 4000 people either. He was relating something that happened over 40 years ago after his father moved production from michigan to wisconsin. BTW, he was elected govenor of michigan. Maybe you should research the man before you post.

 

Excerpt:

 

During his first State of the State address in January 1963, Romney declared that "Michigan's most urgent human rights problem is racial discrimination—in housing, public accommodations, education, administration of justice, and employment."[121] Romney helped create the state's first civil rights commission.[

File:George W. Romney - NCAA antisegregation march.jpeg

 

The governor (shirt sleeves) walking in the first rank of an NAACP march, 600-strong, in protest of housing discrimination, June 1963[123]

 

 

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Oh sorry, I re-read it and now I see that zerohedge is ASSUMING that amount by each of the members of the Patriotic Millionaires.

 

Donations by men like Buffett is not the answer to our debt problem. Tax reform, and government spending cuts are. 

 

I wonder why so many Republicans seem to dislike Warren Buffett? Are they jealous of his wealth? Do they abhor his wealthy lifestyle?  

Tax reform?  I will ask you again how much is enough of someones income to take?   I am sure you are well off compared to some; how would you like if someone just took something of yours to give to someone more needy in their eyes.   To me it seems that most clamoring for higher taxes would not have to pay them themselves. 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and the rt. wingnuts continue, regardless of facts. don't you ever grow tired of being wrong?? why do you have such hatred for the current POTUS? where was your outrage when boosh was spending more than obama? why no outrage when W put two wars on the 'credit card'? why no outrage when 'part d' was a huge failure?  definition of hypocrite..... HERE

________________________________
All of Obama's spending is more than Bush's. Medicare Part D should have a revenue stream to pay for its.  However, its one of the few programs within budget and succeeding.  BTW, your link doesn't work.

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Best, I'm not aware of posting any lies.

==============

Yes, you are aware, you just don't care, and try to "play dumb".  By leaving out the rest of the statement you make a lie out of the truth. By making a claim about something that didn't happen, you are posting lies. But, you know that, you don't care. At first I thought you were just uninformed and maybe "innocent" when you posted those things. Now I know that you know exactly what you're doing, and that is spreading falsehoods no matter how many times it's pointed out to you that they are falsehoods. I'm not surprised by the lies being passed around because that is exactly how the democrats work, I'm only surprised that I ever thought you didn't know what you were doing.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and the rt. wingnuts continue, regardless of facts. don't you ever grow tired of being wrong?? why do you have such hatred for the current POTUS? where was your outrage when boosh was spending more than obama? why no outrage when W put two wars on the 'credit card'? why no outrage when 'part d' was a huge failure?  definition of hypocrite..... HERE

________________________________
All of Obama's spending is more than Bush's. Medicare Part D should have a revenue stream to pay for its.  However, its one of the few programs within budget and succeeding.  BTW, your link doesn't work.

==============

Well, yea, Obama did not end Medicare part D, and we still have a military at "war" , and a bloated Pentagon budget that he has not seemed willing to cut back on.
Also, he was not able, or apparently willing, to end the worse spending of Bush which was the tax breaks, although he did get some concessions on some.

So, yes, he has continued the extreme spending of the Bush admin, and has a congress that is not willing to provide a revenue stream for the part D, reduce military spending to Clinton era levels, nor go back to the Clinton era tax basis, so of course, his spending will be more, however, his additional spending is the lowest of any president in the modern era.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/...ding-inferno-or-not/

To be truthful, it was Reagan and Bush2 that exploded our spending.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5a255a9258_blog.html

Finally, Obama claims that “we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower.” We regret to say that the president is repeating a widely debunked column that appeared on MarketWatch earlier this year. We devoted three columns to the column’s faulty logic, and FactCheck.org and the Associated Press also said it was bunk. (PolitiFact said it was “half true.&rdquo

Not to get too deep in the weeds again, but the claim is based on treating 2009 (as we said, an amalgam of Bush and Obama policies) as actually Bush’s year, and then ignoring Obama’s proposed spending increases in the future. Such calculations help to dramatically shrink the growth of spending under Obama relative to other presidents.

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

direstraits.. proving rt. wingnuts would rather lie than admit the truth since 3.27.13.

--------------------------------

Rules of argumentation require you prove proof of your statements.  Then, I will respond in kind.  The ball's in your court, old sock puppet!

__________

dire, i've shown where you lied, repeatedly.. yet, you still post the same rt. wingnut 'talking point' lies, at every chance. so, the balls in your court. i doubt very seriously if you're capable of change. it would contradict your warped senses of 'right'.

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

and the rt. wingnuts continue, regardless of facts. don't you ever grow tired of being wrong?? why do you have such hatred for the current POTUS? where was your outrage when boosh was spending more than obama? why no outrage when W put two wars on the 'credit card'? why no outrage when 'part d' was a huge failure?  definition of hypocrite..... HERE

________________________________
All of Obama's spending is more than Bush's. Medicare Part D should have a revenue stream to pay for its.  However, its one of the few programs within budget and succeeding.  BTW, your link doesn't work.

==============

Well, yea, Obama did not end Medicare part D, and we still have a military at "war" , and a bloated Pentagon budget that he has not seemed willing to cut back on.
Also, he was not able, or apparently willing, to end the worse spending of Bush which was the tax breaks, although he did get some concessions on some.

So, yes, he has continued the extreme spending of the Bush admin, and has a congress that is not willing to provide a revenue stream for the part D, reduce military spending to Clinton era levels, nor go back to the Clinton era tax basis, so of course, his spending will be more, however, his additional spending is the lowest of any president in the modern era.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/...ding-inferno-or-not/

To be truthful, it was Reagan and Bush2 that exploded our spending.

____________________________________

First, the expense outlay of Obama vs Bush isn't just more, its extremely higher.  From White House website.

 

<colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64" /><col style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 5339; width: 110pt;" width="146" /><col style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 5376; width: 110pt;" width="147" /><col style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 5339; width: 110pt;" width="146" /><col style="mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2962; width: 61pt;" width="81" /></colgroup>
 OUTLAY OUTLAY 
 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MILLIONS OF DOLLARSDIFFERENCE
20011,862,84620093,517,677 
20022,010,89420103,456,213 
20032,159,89920113,603,061 
20042,292,8412012 estimate3,795,547 
20052,471,9572013 estimate3,803,364 
20062,655,0502014 estimate3,883,095 
20072,728,6862015 estimate4,059,866 
20082,982,5442016 estimate4,328,840 
TOTAL19,164,717 30,447,66311,282,946
     
     
     
     
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals 

 

That's about 160 percent more.

 

 As to the Pentagon budget, its on the road to reduction:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...se-budget-in-charts/

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

direstraits.. proving rt. wingnuts would rather lie than admit the truth since 3.27.13.

--------------------------------

Rules of argumentation require you prove proof of your statements.  Then, I will respond in kind.  The ball's in your court, old sock puppet!

__________

dire, i've shown where you lied, repeatedly.. yet, you still post the same rt. wingnut 'talking point' lies, at every chance. so, the balls in your court. i doubt very seriously if you're capable of change. it would contradict your warped senses of 'right'.

________________________________________
No, Crash, you have not shown I've repeatedly lied.  In the main, you've only made statements without substance.  If you can't prove your earlier statements, one must accept that you can't because you have no basis for the statements.  My reply to seeweed, puts the lie to your statement Bush spend more than Obama. 

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Oh sorry, I re-read it and now I see that zerohedge is ASSUMING that amount by each of the members of the Patriotic Millionaires.

 

Donations by men like Buffett is not the answer to our debt problem. Tax reform, and government spending cuts are. 

 

I wonder why so many Republicans seem to dislike Warren Buffett? Are they jealous of his wealth? Do they abhor his wealthy lifestyle?  

Tax reform?  I will ask you again how much is enough of someones income to take?   I am sure you are well off compared to some; how would you like if someone just took something of yours to give to someone more needy in their eyes.   To me it seems that most clamoring for higher taxes would not have to pay them themselves. 

____________________________

 

You don't want tax reform? It is so convoluted and bloated that it only works in favor of those that can afford expensive tax attorneys or accountants. The average person going down to the local H&R block has no idea if they are getting all the deductions they are allowed. Most of the time they are not even eligible for the best deductions because they don't make enough money. I'm sure I pay more than some one living in poverty. Since they need to keep as much of their income as possible to pay for essentials like food and housing, it doesn't bother me in the least. If I were worth 50 million dollars I doubt I would notice the comparatively small increase.  I'm not greedy. If I have 10 apples and you don't have any...I would gladly give you some of mine.  

  • Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
  • Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

oops.. dire sure forgot about that.. lets see.. that's one lie.

lie two, obama's vacations.. obama has taken less than 90 days...

boosh.. just over 370... oh the rt. wingnut outrage.

dire lie number 3. obama spends more taking care of his kids and momma and all those trips by 'moochelle"..

ms. obama, about 75 vacation days.

ms. bush, just over 275. including 7 trips to africa , with the kids, at about $100 mil. each.

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Oh sorry, I re-read it and now I see that zerohedge is ASSUMING that amount by each of the members of the Patriotic Millionaires.

 

Donations by men like Buffett is not the answer to our debt problem. Tax reform, and government spending cuts are. 

 

I wonder why so many Republicans seem to dislike Warren Buffett? Are they jealous of his wealth? Do they abhor his wealthy lifestyle?  

Tax reform?  I will ask you again how much is enough of someones income to take?   I am sure you are well off compared to some; how would you like if someone just took something of yours to give to someone more needy in their eyes.   To me it seems that most clamoring for higher taxes would not have to pay them themselves. 

____________________________

 

You don't want tax reform? It is so convoluted and bloated that it only works in favor of those that can afford expensive tax attorneys or accountants. The average person going down to the local H&R block has no idea if they are getting all the deductions they are allowed. Most of the time they are not even eligible for the best deductions because they don't make enough money. I'm sure I pay more than some one living in poverty. Since they need to keep as much of their income as possible to pay for essentials like food and housing, it doesn't bother me in the least. If I were worth 50 million dollars I doubt I would notice the comparatively small increase.  I'm not greedy. If I have 10 apples and you don't have any...I would gladly give you some of mine.  

If you mean tax reform so I pay more and the ranks of those who pay no federal income taxes grows from around 43% in 2013, then my answer is no.  I would gladly give to you if you were in need but that is not what we are talking about.  I will ask again how much is enough of a percentage of ones income to have to give to the Government in Income taxes?

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by mad American:

Solve it all. Flat tax rate.  Any objection to a flat tax only means that you want to redistribute wealth. 

"

Redistributing wealth is what we have been doing every since the 1980s and under Bush's reign of ruin, it increased by exponentially.  That's exactly why the rich have gotten so much richer, and the middle class and the poor have gotten worse off.

This youtube  shows how our wealth redistribution really looks like  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ
This poses two questions with the flat tax :

1> if the flat tax were, say 30% for example, does it equally affect the guy making $200/week trying to feed his family , as it does, the guy making $200,000,000 a week ?
2> Are  you really foolish enough to believe that the $200M a week guy is actually not going to find a way out of paying his 30% ? Hell, they already do. That's why I pay about 30% in taxes and people like Romney pay half that.

 

Most flat tax proposals give every tax payer a refund for the taxes on the essentials of life such as food, housing, clothing and utilities etc.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by mad American:

Solve it all. Flat tax rate.  Any objection to a flat tax only means that you want to redistribute wealth. 

"

Redistributing wealth is what we have been doing every since the 1980s and under Bush's reign of ruin, it increased by exponentially.  That's exactly why the rich have gotten so much richer, and the middle class and the poor have gotten worse off.

This youtube  shows how our wealth redistribution really looks like  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ
This poses two questions with the flat tax :

1> if the flat tax were, say 30% for example, does it equally affect the guy making $200/week trying to feed his family , as it does, the guy making $200,000,000 a week ?
2> Are  you really foolish enough to believe that the $200M a week guy is actually not going to find a way out of paying his 30% ? Hell, they already do. That's why I pay about 30% in taxes and people like Romney pay half that.

 

Most flat tax proposals give every tax payer a refund for the taxes on the essentials of life such as food, housing, clothing and utilities etc.

Then it ain't flat is it?

 

 

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Oh sorry, I re-read it and now I see that zerohedge is ASSUMING that amount by each of the members of the Patriotic Millionaires.

 

Donations by men like Buffett is not the answer to our debt problem. Tax reform, and government spending cuts are. 

 

I wonder why so many Republicans seem to dislike Warren Buffett? Are they jealous of his wealth? Do they abhor his wealthy lifestyle?  

Tax reform?  I will ask you again how much is enough of someones income to take?   I am sure you are well off compared to some; how would you like if someone just took something of yours to give to someone more needy in their eyes.   To me it seems that most clamoring for higher taxes would not have to pay them themselves. 

____________________________

 

You don't want tax reform? It is so convoluted and bloated that it only works in favor of those that can afford expensive tax attorneys or accountants. The average person going down to the local H&R block has no idea if they are getting all the deductions they are allowed. Most of the time they are not even eligible for the best deductions because they don't make enough money. I'm sure I pay more than some one living in poverty. Since they need to keep as much of their income as possible to pay for essentials like food and housing, it doesn't bother me in the least. If I were worth 50 million dollars I doubt I would notice the comparatively small increase.  I'm not greedy. If I have 10 apples and you don't have any...I would gladly give you some of mine.  

If you mean tax reform so I pay more and the ranks of those who pay no federal income taxes grows from around 43% in 2013, then my answer is no.  I would gladly give to you if you were in need but that is not what we are talking about.  I will ask again how much is enough of a percentage of ones income to have to give to the Government in Income taxes?

_____________________

 

I don't think there is a hard and fast percentage that should never change and apply across the board. There was a time that a flat tax looked good to me. Then I researched it and gave it a lot of thought. I realized that it would only benefit the very rich and put the poor in a worse place financially then they are right now.

 

The 67% of the 43% are families making 30,000 or less a year. With paying just the basics to live and work there is no way they can pay taxes. You do the math and tell me how they have ANYTHING that they can contribute to federal revenues. However, they do pay taxes, everyone does. They pay local and state sales taxes. No one pays 0 taxes.

 

You say that in a flat tax system they would give people a refund on living expenses. How would that be any different than what we have today then? Then we are back to deductions and credits. 

 

If we did a true flat tax...The flat tax rate I see banded about the most is 20%. Take a family making 20,000 a year, they would suddenly have a tax increase and pay 2,000 a year in taxes. Leaving them with 18,000 to pay for the essentials. That is nearly impossible. Someone making 200,000 a year would pay 20,000 a year. Leaving them with 180,000, I think ANYONE should be able to live on that. Does that seem fair to you? 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
  • Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
  • Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

oops.. dire sure forgot about that.. lets see.. that's one lie.

lie two, obama's vacations.. obama has taken less than 90 days...

boosh.. just over 370... oh the rt. wingnut outrage.

dire lie number 3. obama spends more taking care of his kids and momma and all those trips by 'moochelle"..

ms. obama, about 75 vacation days.

ms. bush, just over 275. including 7 trips to africa , with the kids, at about $100 mil. each.

 

_____________________________

Squirrelly Dawg has advance age and dementia to blame for his condition.  Uncertain what is to blame for Crash's -- natural talent, one supposes.

 

As to the first, Obama will spend 160 percent more than Obama, by his won WH economists stats.

 

As to the other two, I haven't commented on excessive vacation time for either Obama or Moochelle.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by mad American:

Solve it all. Flat tax rate.  Any objection to a flat tax only means that you want to redistribute wealth. 

"

Redistributing wealth is what we have been doing every since the 1980s and under Bush's reign of ruin, it increased by exponentially.  That's exactly why the rich have gotten so much richer, and the middle class and the poor have gotten worse off.

This youtube  shows how our wealth redistribution really looks like  .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ
This poses two questions with the flat tax :

1> if the flat tax were, say 30% for example, does it equally affect the guy making $200/week trying to feed his family , as it does, the guy making $200,000,000 a week ?
2> Are  you really foolish enough to believe that the $200M a week guy is actually not going to find a way out of paying his 30% ? Hell, they already do. That's why I pay about 30% in taxes and people like Romney pay half that.

 

Most flat tax proposals give every tax payer a refund for the taxes on the essentials of life such as food, housing, clothing and utilities etc.

Then it ain't flat is it?

 

 No body with a heart would support a tax on everything without making cost neutral for low income people to provide the necessities of life for thier family.  A flat tax like above would do that, it is a flat tax but everyone gets a exemption or refund for the taxes on the above.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Oh sorry, I re-read it and now I see that zerohedge is ASSUMING that amount by each of the members of the Patriotic Millionaires.

 

Donations by men like Buffett is not the answer to our debt problem. Tax reform, and government spending cuts are. 

 

I wonder why so many Republicans seem to dislike Warren Buffett? Are they jealous of his wealth? Do they abhor his wealthy lifestyle?  

Tax reform?  I will ask you again how much is enough of someones income to take?   I am sure you are well off compared to some; how would you like if someone just took something of yours to give to someone more needy in their eyes.   To me it seems that most clamoring for higher taxes would not have to pay them themselves. 

____________________________

 

You don't want tax reform? It is so convoluted and bloated that it only works in favor of those that can afford expensive tax attorneys or accountants. The average person going down to the local H&R block has no idea if they are getting all the deductions they are allowed. Most of the time they are not even eligible for the best deductions because they don't make enough money. I'm sure I pay more than some one living in poverty. Since they need to keep as much of their income as possible to pay for essentials like food and housing, it doesn't bother me in the least. If I were worth 50 million dollars I doubt I would notice the comparatively small increase.  I'm not greedy. If I have 10 apples and you don't have any...I would gladly give you some of mine.  

If you mean tax reform so I pay more and the ranks of those who pay no federal income taxes grows from around 43% in 2013, then my answer is no.  I would gladly give to you if you were in need but that is not what we are talking about.  I will ask again how much is enough of a percentage of ones income to have to give to the Government in Income taxes?

_____________________

 

I don't think there is a hard and fast percentage that should never change and apply across the board. There was a time that a flat tax looked good to me. Then I researched it and gave it a lot of thought. I realized that it would only benefit the very rich and put the poor in a worse place financially then they are right now.

 

The 67% of the 43% are families making 30,000 or less a year. With paying just the basics to live and work there is no way they can pay taxes. You do the math and tell me how they have ANYTHING that they can contribute to federal revenues. However, they do pay taxes, everyone does. They pay local and state sales taxes. No one pays 0 taxes.

 

You say that in a flat tax system they would give people a refund on living expenses. How would that be any different than what we have today then? Then we are back to deductions and credits. 

 

If we did a true flat tax...The flat tax rate I see banded about the most is 20%. Take a family making 20,000 a year, they would suddenly have a tax increase and pay 2,000 a year in taxes. Leaving them with 18,000 to pay for the essentials. That is nearly impossible. Someone making 200,000 a year would pay 20,000 a year. Leaving them with 180,000, I think ANYONE should be able to live on that. Does that seem fair to you? 

 

 

 

They would not have a tax increase because they would get a check from the government for the taxes on the necessities of life.  They would like the rest of us have to pay for bling or the new giant flat screen we all want etc.

 

Probably a bad time to be talking taxes as I just finished mine.   I believe most clamoring for higher taxes mean for anyone above them in income not themselves.   I scrimped, saved and did without for over 15 years to get where I am now so I have seen both sides.  I just sick and tired of those who clamor for higher taxes for anyone they decide makes more than necessary.

 

I am sure you say you would be fine with 1/3 of your pay going to the government in just federal income taxes and yes I pay the same taxes on the other stuff you are talking about when you say no one gets a free ride but I guarantee you would feel different when it happens.

Last edited by HIFLYER2
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I wish I made enough to be in the 35% bracket

I wished for years myself and worked hard via working my way thru college and flight training putting all my extra money towards that goal for over 15 years to get here.  I did this all while many of my friends were living for the moment with extravagant vacations, boats motorcycles etc.   Now many of them are the first ones to say I need to pay more in taxes.  Nothing but your choices prevented you from the doing the same thing I did, I was not born into a wealthy family "other that love".  

 

Flew with a F/O the other day from the real sticks of Miss, I mean in the middle of no where.  I asked him how he became a pilot.  He looked over at me and said no easy way to say it, his mom left them when he was getting out of high school and he gave his dad what little money he had to save the farm.  He went into ROTC to go to college getting a Masters in Aerospace Engineering and then to the Airforce. He said the was the only one of his siblings who wanted to go to college to break the chain of living pay check to pay check.  Like I said it's about accountability you have to apply yourself and work for the goal.   You should not have become whatever your occupation is if you did not want to live within the confines of the salary it provides.   You simply cannot have every toy your heart desires, a 4000sf home, take big vacations, fancy car etc. on every salary.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

=======

I don't know why you inject the Keystone pipeline into this discussion, but someone else mentioned the Koch bros to it.
I don't know what Buffett's position on the pipeline, having good sense , I would suspect he would oppose it, but something about the keystone pipeline to remember:

This country takes the risk

this country gets the waste,

China gets the diesel,

The Koch bros get the money.

 

http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/20...e-xl-pipeline-built/

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

=======

I don't know why you inject the Keystone pipeline into this discussion, but someone else mentioned the Koch bros to it.
I don't know what Buffett's position on the pipeline, having good sense , I would suspect he would oppose it, but something about the keystone pipeline to remember:

This country takes the risk

this country gets the waste,

China gets the diesel,

The Koch bros get the money.

 

http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/20...e-xl-pipeline-built/

________________________________________

So, China gets the diesel, more likely South and Central America gets the diesel.  US gets the gasoline, jet fuel (kerosene), propane, asphalt, heating oil, and other products. 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

=======

I don't know why you inject the Keystone pipeline into this discussion, but someone else mentioned the Koch bros to it.
I don't know what Buffett's position on the pipeline, having good sense , I would suspect he would oppose it, but something about the keystone pipeline to remember:

This country takes the risk

this country gets the waste,

China gets the diesel,

The Koch bros get the money.

 

http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/20...e-xl-pipeline-built/

________________________________________

So, China gets the diesel, more likely South and Central America gets the diesel.  US gets the gasoline, jet fuel (kerosene), propane, asphalt, heating oil, and other products. 

Just continue on being a pawn of the Kochs

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
  • Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
  • Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

oops.. dire sure forgot about that.. lets see.. that's one lie.

lie two, obama's vacations.. obama has taken less than 90 days...

boosh.. just over 370... oh the rt. wingnut outrage.

dire lie number 3. obama spends more taking care of his kids and momma and all those trips by 'moochelle"..

ms. obama, about 75 vacation days.

ms. bush, just over 275. including 7 trips to africa , with the kids, at about $100 mil. each.

 

_____________________________

Squirrelly Dawg has advance age and dementia to blame for his condition.  Uncertain what is to blame for Crash's -- natural talent, one supposes.

 

As to the first, Obama will spend 160 percent more than Obama, by his won WH economists stats.

 

As to the other two, I haven't commented on excessive vacation time for either Obama or Moochelle.

 

_______________________

ummmm... how about you stop making fun of how someone else posts.. until you come up with something coherent.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

As to Warren Buffet, I object to his crony capitalism with government -- trying to influence killing the Keystone XL so his investment in RR tank cars will prosper.

=======

I don't know why you inject the Keystone pipeline into this discussion, but someone else mentioned the Koch bros to it.
I don't know what Buffett's position on the pipeline, having good sense , I would suspect he would oppose it, but something about the keystone pipeline to remember:

This country takes the risk

this country gets the waste,

China gets the diesel,

The Koch bros get the money.

 

http://ecowatch.com/2013/10/20...e-xl-pipeline-built/

________________________________________

So, China gets the diesel, more likely South and Central America gets the diesel.  US gets the gasoline, jet fuel (kerosene), propane, asphalt, heating oil, and other products. 

Just continue on being a pawn of the Kochs

 

_____________________________

Ahhh!  Did I upset!  Good!  Never met a Koch, never plan to.  The US imports oil, refines it, sells what it can internally, then exports the rest.  Usually, the season depends upon what is exported.  Most of the exports go to the western hemisphere.  China gets most of her oil from Africa, the Middle East and Russia.  Only a small amount comes from Venezuela and Columbia.  Transport from the gulf coast, thru the Panama canal and across the Pacific is rather expensive in comparison with their other sources. 

 

Koch brothers may make a bit of profit, paying US workers and improving the trade balance, plus taxes.  Fail to see a problem.

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
  • Spending growth in Bush’s first seven years: 8%, 7%, 6%, 8%, 7%, 3%, 9%.
  • Spending growth in Obama’s six years: 13%, 6%, 2%, -3%, 5%, 2%.

oops.. dire sure forgot about that.. lets see.. that's one lie.

lie two, obama's vacations.. obama has taken less than 90 days...

boosh.. just over 370... oh the rt. wingnut outrage.

dire lie number 3. obama spends more taking care of his kids and momma and all those trips by 'moochelle"..

ms. obama, about 75 vacation days.

ms. bush, just over 275. including 7 trips to africa , with the kids, at about $100 mil. each.

 

_____________________________

Squirrelly Dawg has advance age and dementia to blame for his condition.  Uncertain what is to blame for Crash's -- natural talent, one supposes.

 

As to the first, Obama will spend 160 percent more than Obama, by his won WH economists stats.

 

As to the other two, I haven't commented on excessive vacation time for either Obama or Moochelle.

 

_______________________

ummmm... how about you stop making fun of how someone else posts.. until you come up with something coherent.

_____________________________________
I will continue to jape at those who post in a barely coherent manner.  Especially, when they post untruths about myself.  `

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×