Warren Buffett: "Stop Coddling the Rich"

[WuDrWu]

Pop Quiz: What author was my inspiration? Because there is one - he exists. :D

Another pop quiz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug2hLQv6WeY

Sorry, I had to.

I love learning here and MVJ gives the most concise argument I've ever heard.

[WuDrWu]

Mitt Romney released his tax information for the last two tax-years.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/romney-tax-returns-to-give-view-of-family-wealth/

His income over those two years? $45 million

His effective tax rate? Less than 14%.

That tax rate is the equivalent percentage that someone making around $40,000 would pay.

I don't believe this is accurate. Please find me a $40,000 income person paying an effective 14%. I make a hell of a lot more than $40k and I don't pay 14%, not even close. You can't show the EFFECTIVE rate on one side of the argument and not the other.....well maybe you can, but it's wrong.

And I don't get why this is bad anyway. The government confiscated $6,300,000. That's six million, three hundred thousand dollars over a 2 year period. That's not enough for 1 man?

Go back to MVJ. This is a spending problem.

[WuDrWu]

1 more thing, just to reword those more intelligent than I (pretty much everyone). Why is this SO important to Democrats? It doesn't fix the problem, it doesn't come EVEN CLOSE to fixing the problem.

It's like if I am upset with the President and his doings, instead of putting effort and money and thought into getting someone else elected, I just punch him in the nose. It will hurt, he may bleed. He may be scarred or he may recover fully. He's unlikely to allow me to do it again, and most importantly, I didn't fix the problem, all I did was obtain a short term satisfaction.

You must be a terribly petty individual to base your argument on "getting even". Especially when, in fact, there is no "even" to get.

[Kung Wu]

Well said Doc.

Newt, once again, is barking up the wrong tree. Only uneducated Occupy Wall Streeters would believe that Romney's returns, showing that he is a success, is a negative thing. In fact, it makes him _more_ of a role model to conservatives, not less of one. Romney made his money in the private sector, which is where money should be earned. Newt earned it through politics. Which one seems more "shady" to you? This goes to the heart of why it's very difficult to get behind Newt. He speaks in conservative platitudes but lashes out with liberal forked toungue.

Any true fiscal conservative believes that it's fair and even an incumbent right to legally lower your tax burden to the extent you can. In fact, that _is_ the type of person that should be in charge of our countries financial affairs. Maybe I have been wrong about Romney all along. Thanks for pointing that out Newt.

[pinstripers]

14 might amount to gas tax, property tax, etc all added up. I dunno, and nobody told me there would be math. Newt is too big of a azz****, Mitt just is not my guy, but we must vote for somebody.

[Maggie]

Mitt Romney released his tax information for the last two tax-years.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/romney-tax-returns-to-give-view-of-family-wealth/

His income over those two years? $45 million

His effective tax rate? Less than 14%.

That tax rate is the equivalent percentage that someone making around $40,000 would pay.

This a a bit "misleading" don't you think? Just trying to be nice.

[RoyalShock]

Speaking of Warren Buffett, a co-worker told me an interesting fact about the oil pipeline that won't be built. I'm not sure I'll have time to research this so I'll put it out there "as is". Apparently, the pipeline was to also carry oil extracted from North Dakota. Without a pipeline that oil will have to be carried mostly by rail. The largest railroad through the area is owned by Warren Buffett.


My co-worker is usually well-informed. Draw your own conclusions.

[MoValley John]

Speaking of Warren Buffett, a co-worker told me an interesting fact about the oil pipeline that won't be built. I'm not sure I'll have time to research this so I'll put it out there "as is". Apparently, the pipeline was to also carry oil extracted from North Dakota. Without a pipeline that oil will have to be carried mostly by rail. The largest railroad through the area is owned by Warren Buffett.


My co-worker is usually well-informed. Draw your own conclusions.

This is true. Warren owns Burlington Northern, which runs through North and South Dakota and along the Bakken Formation.

bakken-formation-map.jpg

Here is a link to BN's network. http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/200...sf-map-624.gif
In contrast, here is UP's network. http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/graphics/sysmap.gif

The pipeline would go right through the North Dakota oilfields. Without the pipeline, Warren has a monopoly on transportation.

[WuDrWu]

This is true. Warren owns Burlington Northern, which runs through North and South Dakota and along the Bakken Formation.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]130[/ATTACH]

Here is a link to BN's network. http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/200...sf-map-624.gif
In contrast, here is UP's network. http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/graphics/sysmap.gif

The pipeline would go right through the North Dakota oilfields. Without the pipeline, Warren has a monopoly on transportation.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. If you don't know the history of E.W. Marland it is worth the read, and you certainly should try to make a trip to Marland Mansion sometime.

It is an interesting story, and the "moving of the oil via rail" theme is certainly a big part of it.

[MoValley John]

Speaking of Warren Buffett, a co-worker told me an interesting fact about the oil pipeline that won't be built. I'm not sure I'll have time to research this so I'll put it out there "as is". Apparently, the pipeline was to also carry oil extracted from North Dakota. Without a pipeline that oil will have to be carried mostly by rail. The largest railroad through the area is owned by Warren Buffett.


My co-worker is usually well-informed. Draw your own conclusions.

This is true. Warren owns Burlington Northern, which runs through North and South Dakota and along the Bakken Formation.

bakken-formation-map.jpg

Here is a link to BN's network. http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/200...sf-map-624.gif
In contrast, here is UP's network. http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/graphics/sysmap.gif

The pipeline would go right through the North Dakota oilfields. Without the pipeline, Warren has a monopoly on transportation.

[MoValley John]

To be fair, I am no fan of Warren, and it's not because of his political philosophies. Everyone is entitled to have a political opinion and to express them. I don't like Warren because he is a phony. He spends millions of dollars polishing his image. Why not tell people who you really are? I have no problem with people being greedy, Republican or Democrat. I do, however, have a big problem with crooked business people doing everything possible to make the world believe that they are clean. Warren is a crook, plain and simple. You need to look no further than the acquisition of Northern Natural Gas during the Enron bankruptcy. Warren stole the company from the shareholders. There is no way in the world any bankruptcy judge should have approved the sale as presented. In the end, Northern Natural Gas was the only profitable segment of Enron and Warren acquired it for pennies on the dollar, assumed zero of Northern's debt and left the shareholders and creditors with nothing but worthless office furniture. It was a joke.

Knowing what I know about Warren Buffet, much more than the Northern transaction, I do get very upset when this thief decides to enlighten us all with his political rhetoric. More so, when he tries to push his agenda by selling us on how clean and well intended he is. What a joke.

[SB Shock]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...-cancellation/

Royal looks like your friend was spot on. I'm pretty convinced that in any political decision - follow the money and u will find the reason it was made regardless of political affiliation.

[Good News]

To be fair, I am no fan of Warren, and it's not because of his political philosophies. Everyone is entitled to have a political opinion and to express them. I don't like Warren because he is a phony. He spends millions of dollars polishing his image. Why not tell people who you really are? I have no problem with people being greedy, Republican or Democrat. I do, however, have a big problem with crooked business people doing everything possible to make the world believe that they are clean. Warren is a crook, plain and simple. You need to look no further than the acquisition of Northern Natural Gas during the Enron bankruptcy. Warren stole the company from the shareholders. There is no way in the world any bankruptcy judge should have approved the sale as presented. In the end, Northern Natural Gas was the only profitable segment of Enron and Warren acquired it for pennies on the dollar, assumed zero of Northern's debt and left the shareholders and creditors with nothing but worthless office furniture. It was a joke.

Knowing what I know about Warren Buffet, much more than the Northern transaction, I do get very upset when this thief decides to enlighten us all with his political rhetoric. More so, when he tries to push his agenda by selling us on how clean and well intended he is. What a joke.

1000 Bonus Interweb Points to whoever can name the movie and actor this riffs on.

(hint: Tarantino)

[Kung Wu]

R.D. Mr. White. Killer flick.

[pinstripers]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ