skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Mickey, last night:First Time The MSM Has Ever Ignored Warren Buffett: The press accounts I've read have wildly underplayed Obama supporter Warren Buffet's criticism of the President on CNBC today. It's fairly pointed, and Buffett comes back to it, suggesting he has a message he's trying to deliver.
Rush, yesterday afternoon:... Here's Warren Buffett. So far now, he's disagreed with card check, he has disagreed with cap and trade, and now he's disagreeing with Obama on the basis that Obama's demonizing CEOs.... These are profound disagreements from one of the smartest men in the world who voted for Obama, and then he said this about the war, the economy as a war.... He doesn't like this notion of "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste"? So here are four profound disagreements from Warren Buffett on the economy with President Obama — and then, after all of that, Warren Buffett said this about Republicans.
BUFFETT: The minority has... They really do have an obligation to support things that, in general, are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way. Republicans have a -- an obligation to regard this as an economic war and to realize you need one leader and -- and in general support of that. But I think that the Democrats -- and I -- I voted for Obama, I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy, but I think they should not use this... When they're calling for unity on a question this important they should not use it to roll the Republicans.
RUSH: Um, somebody want to explain that to me? It sounded like a two-pronging answer but basically Warren Buffett, after offering four profound areas of disagreement on the economy, then says (summarized), "We need support the guy anyway, but the Republicans should not be rolled. I mean, the Democrats ought not be mean to the Republicans but the Republicans ought to support this anyway." Now, folks, this is what you call the absence of leadership. Here is a man, Warren Buffett, who clearly knows what's right and wrong for this economy, but will not stand up for it.
पोस्ट्स
१२९ टिप्पण्या:
RUSH reads out the names of people who have died of AIDS and then presses the applause button.
Why should I give a crap what this drug-addicted high-school dropout thinks.
If you don't give a crap what Rush thinks, DTL, feel free to skip over the posts where his name is in the header. That's kind of a giveaway, don't you think?
I remember listening to Rush on the radio many years ago, back when he was doing his "Rush to Excellence" speaking tour. Somebody called in to tell him he'd attended a speech, and how wonderful it was, and proceeded to complain about the "Act Up" people who'd tried to disrupt it. Rush replied, very seriously, that he understood why they were doing it. He said that if you saw your friends dying of a terrible disease, and thought you might be next, and thought nobody was paying attention or cared, you'd do what it took to try to get some help. He said he thought they were wrong about that - people do care, he said - but he understood why they were doing what they did. I heard this with my own two ears, and I can tell you exactly where I was when I heard it.
So I don't know what the context is when Rush reads out those names and pushes the applause button - you surely must because you saw/heard this yourself, right? you're not just repeating an ugly, baseless rumor? - but I'd be curious to know what it is, because what you're describing does not sound like the man.
It's not a rumour. It's a fact.
Ever hear of Google????
Sounds like Warren Buffet bought the Edsel, has buyers remorse but is trying to justify his mistake by saying isn't this a nice looking car?
Hey, DTL, no one gives a crap!!!!!
I know nobody cares. Most Americans (like you) are ecstatic when people die of AIDS.
Ever hear of Google????
Yes, 'cause if you read it on the internet, it's true!
The MSM listens to Buffett when he says the tax system is unfair and his proof is his claim that his secretary is taxed at a higher rate than he is.
And now I will turn it back to you DTL.
Why should I give a crap what this drug-addicted high-school dropout thinks.
Why should we give a crap what Mickey Kaus says? Better yet, based on your own criteria, why should we give a crap what Obama the coke snorter says?
The whole post is assinine.
The mainstream media is "ignoring" this????? Because Rush said so.
To the moronic wingnuts who buy this crap - oh i guess it must be true.
A 2 second scan of Google shows me a CNN, USA Today, and Business Week article on this very subject.
I have heard of "googles". George Bush said he did the googles on the internets.
Look, Buffet has been embarrassed by his decision to fully endorse Obama. Buffett blindly went along and now he is seeing the light. Obama is clearly anti-business and anyone that has half a brain saw this coming.
http://howisthatobamavoteworkingoutforyou.blogspot.com/
Heck, Obama could get hired at Berkshire Hathaway, yet Buffett blesses-off on him to be president.
DTL:
What I see when I "google" (actually I use Dogpile) is people who are already smearing RL piling that one on. I don't see anyone saying he himself saw or heard it. I've seen too many lies about what he did or didn't say to believe it b/c somebody who dislikes him said he said it. If YOU did not hear or see him doing that, then YOU need to quit spreading that rumor.
And as to "most Americans" being ecstatic when someone dies of AIDS:
You are flat wrong there, buddy. Maybe you need to return to the school where you got your mind reading degree and ask for your money back.
Should read:
Heck, Obama couldn't get hired at Berkshire Hathaway, yet Buffett blesses-off on him to be president.
Rush's response to the Buffett excerpt is confusing. First he asks if someone will explain it to him, then he says what he thinks it sounds like, then he definitively states that what it sounds like is what it is.
"Here is a man" who clearly knows that whatever spin he puts on a quote will be the received wisdom of millions. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Rush's interpretation; his rhetorical approach is revealing, though.
Ever hear of Google????
Ever hear of sorting out the fact from the fiction or the truth from the lies? Oh, you are a far far lefty. Lies, fiction, and truth are all the same.
Number of posts in the conservative blogosphere about the US not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: ZERO.
Number of posts in the conservative blogosphere about the US finding LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: about 10 million.
Number of news articles I find in Google News about Buffett's comments on Card Check. About 1500.
The whole post is assinine.
Assinine? Then why are you participating? Maybe Titus can help us out here.
I was in the closet for enough years to know that 60% of Americans loathe gay people and find AIDS jokes funny.
Try again. You can't fool me. And American voting patterns (such as Prop 8) prove my point.
Most Americans, when in the privacy of the voting booth, will do everything they can to make sure that gay people can't visit their partners in the hospital - solely for spite.
I'm participating because I like to mock you.
And what's wrong with card check?
Funny how Republicans are against freedom of choice - AGAIN.
"Most Americans, when in the privacy of the voting booth, will do everything they can to make sure that gay people can't visit their partners in the hospital - solely for spite."
Again with the mind reading. You might as well stop, you're not good at it.
"I'm participating because I like to mock you."
Then how are you any better than Rush or anyone else?
I went straight to CNN's website and could not find the article you found in a 2-second Google search - the one where Rush reads off names of people who have died of AIDS and presses the applause button. I guess your internet skills are better than mine. How about a link to that CNN article?
Just arrived in my email: Next Week: Obama Administration to Focus on Electronic Records Management in Gov
This illustrates the Kaus and Buffett point. Obama needs to focus his eergy on the economy and specifically on the financial sector. anything else dilutes focus and energy.
I think what Buffet's point was:
This is a big deal, Obama needs to make it job one, he hasn't done well yet, but the GOP needs to support solutions, not be reflexive two year olds, nor rubber stamps either.
...find AIDS jokes funny.
Jokes are funny, even if they are distasteful. That is their purpose, to make people laugh.
Just like you. You are a joke. You come here, we laugh.
And what's wrong with card check?
What's wrong with a secret ballot? I mean it works for our elections, I don't see why my vote for or against a union should be public knowledge.
The Employee Free Choice Act is about free choice? There is some Orwellian spin DTL.
If you mean employees now have free choice to choose from only one option, I agree.
It is a multiple choice test with only one answer....do you want to cast your vote in public where all can see how you voted!
And what's wrong with card check?
Funny how Republicans are against freedom of choice - AGAIN.
Funny how you libs do not like the privacy of the voting booth.
DTL: Winning the hearts and minds of non-militant people everywhere. You seem to have a serious case of projection, you should get help. Getting so personally upset about a person you don't know and doesn't affect your life isn't healthy. You control your life DTL, not Rush Limbaugh.
Isn't proper research methodology for the person making the claim (DTL-Rush-applause) to provide the source (primary, not a rehash of an accusation) instead of the person who challenges him.
Buffett is only useful to the left when his points can be tailored to their policies. Otherwise, he is a very successful businessman and, to many radical liberals, is part of the problem.
What Buffett said was that:
1) Obama is offering the wrong policies, but I have faith he can still offer the right policies.
2) The GOP should not be rubber stamps for the wrong policies, but should support the President when he offers the right policies rather than reflexively refusing them.
Bart said it better, even if he was slower at it :)
Buffett is a smart guy and I pretty much agree with all of that quote, except he seems to be trying to twist himself in a pretzel to excuse himself for voting for Obama. The part about how republicans should run with the president but they shouldn't have so much shoved down their throats was sort of twisty.
DTL, I have nothing to say to this whole “reading aids names things because” I never heard it personally and have never seen a transcript. If it happened, obviously that was not a nice thing. But I have seen too many lies fly through the internet to believe things I hear third-hand through an obviously partisan source. Show me a transcript and I’ll offer an opinion.
I will say Rush’s game is pushing buttons and he often goes over the top to do so. I wouldn’t be surprised if he said something rude, he often does. This seems a little too far for anyone to go, so I require more proof.
Card check
Restoring the right to get beat up.
Remember when Rush used to use the blender sound effect when he talked about abortion?
Now that made the point.
The old days, when he was much more edgy.
Then that great parody he did of Hillary when Bill was in the White House was so good I had to pull off the road I was laughing so hard.
The Employee Free Choice Act is about free choice?
There should be a law against naming Acts, because they're never named for what they'll do, it's all marketing (See: USA PATRIOT act).
I say if you're too lazy to read through the bill to see what it does, you don't get to know!
I had an argument with my spouse last night about this - she was watching ABC news quoting the sage - no mention of card check or focusing on the economic war. Only that things were much worse than he thought they would be. I told her that they left out the parts of his talk that didn't fit their message. She told me that I was being close-minded. I told her that I was aware of the whole picture and pointing out how ABC was misinforming its viewers by selective reporting.
What's wrong with a secret ballot?
Nothing. Why?
What's wrong with a secret ballot?
Nothing. Why?
No need for card check then.
When I worked in the steel mills for an outside contracter, we were a non-union shop. Enough guys signed the petition and we had an election under the supervision of the NLRB and it went smoothly. I didn't see a need then to announce my preference and don't see one now.
We MUST support Obama. The fact that he's taking us over a cliff is as nothing compared to the nobility of the nobility of the nobility of.....
I had an argument with my spouse last night about this - she was watching ABC news quoting the sage - no mention of card check or focusing on the economic war. Only that things were much worse than he thought they would be. I told her that they left out the parts of his talk that didn't fit their message. She told me that I was being close-minded. I told her that I was aware of the whole picture and pointing out how ABC was misinforming its viewers by selective reporting.
Well, your first problem is that your wife actually watches ABC!! She needs to be careful...just watching that station will lower your IQ by 20 points.
I see trouble in River City, when two people are on such different pages or reading from different books.
When Buffet was spouting things that the MSM agreed with and that could be used against the eveeeeilll Bushhilter, he was the darling of the media and published everywhere.
Now that he is saying a few things against their self appointed messiah, they are selectively quoting out of context or ignoring the statements entirely.
Nothing to see here....move along people.
The fact that he's taking us over a cliff
We were off the edge of the cliff long before the inauguration.
...nobility of the nobility of the nobility of.....
The natural order being followed and all of the lemmings going off the cliff together. That is what all this enviromentalist stuff is about insn't it- the nobility of the natural order of things?
"The fact that he's taking us over a cliff.. We were off the edge of the cliff long before the inauguration.
9:46 AM"
What's the cutoff date for blaming Bush?
We were off the edge of the cliff long before the inauguration.
So, is that the excuse for Obama and the Democrats using a bulldozer to shove the rest of us over the cliff now?
You would think that the leader of the free world (ha ha) would be trying to avert the disaster instead of exacerbating it.
You would think that the leader of the free world (ha ha) would be trying to avert the disaster instead of exacerbating it.
The DOW is up over 200+ DBQ. Evidently Obama found the staff that Moses left for him and is parting the credit crisis as we speak.
DOW up over 200 points. Obama must have done something right today. What do you think it was DBQ, in your professional opinion.
The S&P 500 index hit an all-time high in October 2007. Since then, it has fallen by more than half. 80% of those losses came before the January inauguration.
DOW up 200? Yeah, big deal.
Even dead cats bounce.
Michael Panzner:
Assuming that we've seen the worst as far as the economy and corporate profits are concerned -- though there are lots of reasons to believe otherwise -- stocks could still fall another 50 percent before they would represent a true "buying opportunity."
...My own research on the deviation between stock prices and their longer-term moving averages, which can help gauge the "intensity" of a move, reveals that the differential has reached a level not seen since mid-November, after which the market jumped 19 percent in five days. Prior to that, the last time we saw such a rubber band-like divergence was during the 1930s -- before one of those rebounds I referred to earlier.
What this means, of course, is that when the stock market does have another one of its dead cat bounces, it likely won't be because of anything our president has done.
But that won't stop another group of "experts" from claiming otherwise.
I heard about what Buffett said, then later in the day I heard ABC news at the top of the hour on the radio. They only played the bits where Buffett talked about how bad the economy was, as though that buttressed Obama's call for "stimulus." At the end, they quickly noted that Buffett thought Obama had sent unclear signals to the market. That was it. It was a total whitewash of Buffett's comments, and, if anything, made it seem as though Buffett somehow supported Obama's plans. There was not a single mention of anything that Buffett disagreed with from Obama's plans.
ABC has chosen to become the new Pravda. This is hardly the first time since the election that they've done this kind of thing. They repeat Obama talking points all the time, like the other day when the top of the hours news kept repeating that Obama was ready to "take on lobbyists." Har har har. By handing out billions of dollars to their clients?
Warren Buffet's interview was all over CNN this morning.
Warren Buffet's interview was all over CNN this morning.
Which part? Lots of them are running it but leaving out the disagreements with Obama.
ABC ="All Broadcasts Censored" for content by the DNC.
That's an outrage Freeman Hunt.
I wasnt paying attention.
All I know is he was on CNN every hour from 6-9.
Actually they seemed to play a big chunk of the interview. He was saying stuff like the economy is tanking and things are really bad. Worse he has seen in his life time. Probably not dismal enough but it sounded bad.
The S&P 500 index hit an all-time high in October 2007. Since then, it has fallen by more than half. 80% of those losses came before the January inauguration.
Pogo conveniently leaves out the part in his link from the author that the bear market began long before Obama assumed power, and the author's thoughts on what triggered the selloffs. I'm shocked.
Wait a minute. We hate Warren Buffet.
Now I am really angry.
I just hope things continue to get worse and worse.
If they get even a teensy weensy better I don't know what I will do with my anger and outrage.
Probably just pinch a really nasty loaf with chunks of fish in it.
Fuck you garage.
That's what '80% of those losses came before the January inauguration." actually means, you stupid illiterate shit.
What do you think it was DBQ, in your professional opinion.
Bank stocks are reporting better than expected quarterly earnings and are bouncing from their extremely distressed lows. Bernake is making rumblings about changing the accounting rules for banks. Not completely getting rid of "mark to market" (which I favor) but modifying it to reflect more realistic values of bank assets in downturns of market sentiment on bank assets.
"in periods of financial stress, when some markets don’t exist or are highly illiquid, “the numbers that come out can be misleading or not very informative,” Bernanke said. Regulators could provide “guidance” on reasonable ways to value assets, he said"
Plus a lot of profit taking and speculation. People who are up the challenge and have money they can burn are taking chances on depressed stocks for long term speculation driving up the prices a bit. Others are selling on the dead cat bounce effect.
Don't get too excited and break out the party hats yet. Inventories are down substantially, and this is NOT a good thing as a leading indicator. More job cuts are in the future and the price of oil is creeping back up despite huge surpluses.
*corrected bond auction failure. The failed auctions were not just today but rather a trend.
The overall market trend is still negative.
I get my bonus for 2008 on Friday and am going to find my summer cottage in Ptown for the this year.
I am so excited.
The place needs to be dog friendly and on the water-natch.
It is really a "cottage" as it will only be a maximum of 1000 square feet, with only one bedroom.
Some call these cottages bungalows. I am really open to whatever you want to call it.
In any event I am very excited. Also, it is my little contribution in helping the economy. While in Ptown I will shop at Marc Jacobs and other fine stores and get fabulous dinners at fabulous restaurants. Again, my little help during these tumultuous times.
On a side not Ptown is the smallest town, population wise, to have a Marc Jacobs. Thought you would be all interested in that little tidbit. It really says quite a bit about the town that it is able to support a Marc Jacobs. Well done Ptown.
Don't thank me, really don't.
Can somebody explain "short covering" to these nincom poops.
Oh ya and Titus if you were a Human Resource expert in almost any other field you'd have to be firing a lot more people right now in anticipation of the minimum wage hike, and single payer health care just for starters.
But I know you don't have to worry about that, your company is not about the little people
Another little piece of Ptown trivia for my fellow republicans.
Ptown has only 3000 people during the "off season" months but during the "high season" the population SWELLS to 80-100,000. People come from all over the world to experience the beaches, nightlife, fabulous food and environs. Famous people have homes there too and they mingle and walk with the not famous people. All one big happy family. The real estate is outrageous which is too bad though because it means it is not as diverse economically as I would like. I don't care for hog there. That is not why I go. The hog is to upper class and white-no thanks, you know what I am saying and I think you do.
I like the word SWELLS>
Oh and there are tons of fabulous dogs everywhere. Many restaurants allow dogs at their establishments. I don't do that though as I think it looks gay.
Pogo
I did misread the opening of your post. Sorry. No need go ballistic.
My company is a Massachusetts employer. They already have mandatory health insurance in the state, Mitt Romney signed that into las. To be honest with you I have know idea how it works. I am insured and so is everyone at my company-it doesn't impact us. From what I have ready I think the program is kind of a mess though.
Also, fortunately, knock on wood, and I count my blessings every day, my company is growing. We are expanding. We are hiring approximately 500 new employees this year. 200 in Q2 alone. The jobs are very specific, high paying jobs that require all kinds of technical, science, research and educational background. We actually have a very difficult time finding these people.
Biotech and Health Care in general is a wonderful industry to be working in. Who doesn't need medicine and medical care sometime in their life?
We are having an outside department meeting at a dude ranch. Lord help me. I am going to look so gay on a horse or throwing a fishing line in the water. There is also going to be white water rafting. Oh and team building exercises-I get sick just thinking about it. Can I just not go and save the company some money?
The dows up 310!
Good news, I think. Oh no wait a minute?
Dr. Strangeloaf:
How could you be an HR exec and not know anything about the Mass law ?
The Mass law is largely irrelevant to big employers that already had offered health insurance.
I think all they have to do is make sure that people who decline coverage (as I do, since my wife's coverage is better) are insured.
Well why doesn't your company petition Obama to open a school were the government and companies run them jointly-I think the Brits are trying it.
I guess Harvard and the like are falling down on the job.....
The market's reaction today is an excellent example of what a bit of good news means to investors as opposed to gloom and doom. Now this isn't to say that tomorrow you won't see a 200 point drop because someone in the media might remind Wall Street that we're running a trillion dollar deficit so we can pay for things like swine odor research and more food stamps.
OK crap...
I am all about the swine odor research unfortunately...
That's NIMBY kind of situation though-I understand, but actually we are talking miles away and it. still . is. really . really. bad.
DOW up over...
Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. The only figure that has meaning is the one at the closing of the market.
BTW, Citigroup and GMAC put out positive earnings reports today. This is probably the source of the rally.
Fundamentals: A company that generates profits is worth something, no matter what the market says.
What matters is long term and the Nikkei has traded sideways for almost twenty years now.
If you bought and held an index of the Nikkei you would be down over 17% perhaps more.
Nikkei chart since 1990
Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.
Resist! Fight it! We will NOT prevail!
The DOW is up today, because earlier this morning Obama was spotted with a sock in his mouth. Biden is under house arrest. Combine those facts with the sudden influx of unpaid taxes flowing into the Treasury from Democrats that have been nominated for positions in the government, and you have a good day. Tomorrow?
Warren Buffett seemed to be even-handed: The Democrats should not use the economic crisis to push all of their pet projects, while the Republicans should not flyspeck each teeny aspect of the stimulus:
BUFFETT: Yeah, well there's too many cooks in the kitchen. I mean, if this really is economic Pearl Harbor, you know, Roosevelt on December 8th should not have called in--started holding hearings for three weeks and had 535 members of Congress each giving their own views and in a certain number of cases posing for their local cameras or anything. Now, incidentally, I don't think that Congress would do that if they realized that this was the economic equivalent of Pearl Harbor. I mean, they're patriotic. But you can't have 535 people planning war strategy and criticizing people and finger-pointing and all of that. If you do, you destroy confidence. I mean, people--the American public partly is scared because they see all these different actions going on and they don't--confuse the players and people are criticizing every activity that comes along. I don't think that's very useful in a time of war.
BECKY: Congress might shoot back that this is American taxpayers' money and it's my job to protect the interests of the people who voted me into office.
BUFFETT: Yeah, and it was American--you know, American taxpayers who were paying for the landing at D-Day, too, but we did not hold congressional hearings for a couple of weeks before that with everybody debating where we should land and how many troops we should send in and what day we should come. And nor did we have in the two weeks after people saying too many people died and you know, we should have sent in more troops or less troops or we should have waited a week to leave. You know, basically, Congress has responsibility, I mean the Constitution defines it, but they ought to realize that there are times when a commander in chief really has to be able to speak with a good bit of both parties behind him. At the same time, when you demand--when you really need that it means that essentially the majority party can't push around a minority party. So you can't use that as an excuse to push through all kinds of things and then expect unity, or substantial unity from both parties in supporting you in the really important war, and this is an important war.
"Flyspeck every teeny aspect of the stimulus?" (Your interpretation - Buffett didn't say that) You mean pointing out that stimulus bills have not been effective in the past, or that most of the money was to be spent after this year? Or pointing out that reversing welfare reform is not generally considered to be a stimulus? I could go on, but I am sure you get my drift.
I think most of the gains today are related to Citibank declaring a profit for their last quarter.
No judgement one way or the other, just an observation.
Oh, and DTL - can I have the Internets number for the Google?
Or pointing out that reversing welfare reform is not generally considered to be a stimulus?
But Buffett didn't say that, at all. What are you reading?
What Buffett actually said: Buffett is in favor of a stimulus bill, Buffett acknowledges that the US will have to spend money to stimulate the economy, and Buffett wants us all to line up behind our Commander in Chief, Obama.
We are going--we are fighting a big war, and there--we're using--we're going to use money to fight it. And the whole world is leveraging down. The only party that can leverage up is the US government. They have the ability to take on anything because they can print money as long as people will do business in US dollars.
...
BECKY: We have people asking questions about things that the administration has already put out. In fact, Bob wrote in from Baltimore, Bob Knott, who says, "On a scale from one to 10, how would you assess the value to the US economy of President Obama's recently enacted stimulus plan?"
BUFFETT: Oh, well, the stimulus plan's going to take a long time to kick in. I mean, there'll be certain things kick in fast. But the stimulus plan is part of the recovery, but it's not the most--it's important to put it in, but there's other things that need to be done now to restore confidence. You're not going to--you're just not going to see that much happen. I mean, there'll be things on TV and all of that. But when you're talking about a $14 trillion economy and you're talking about all the things that are worried--people are worried about and scared--and scared is a better word, because that's what they are. There are things that need to be done up front that actually are more important. But I'm still in favor of having a stimulus bill.
...
So I think--I think that the minority has--they really do have an obligation to support things that in general are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way. And I don't think you should--I don't think before D-Day on June--on June 5th you ought to have--or June 1st, maybe, have a congressional hearing and have 535 people give their opinion about where the troops should land and, you know, what the weather should be and how many troops should land and all of that. And I think after June 6th you don't--you don't have another hearing that says, `Gee, if we'd just landed a mile north.'
garage,
I am undeniably partisan towards the conservative approach, but I try very hard not to misrepresent the facts merely to favor my position.
I tried to make the exact point you thought I was hiding (that the market fall well predates Obama) very clear, so being called a liar cuts me to the quick.
My apologies for being ballistic about it.
fls
"There are things that need to be done up front that actually are more important. But I'm still in favor of having a stimulus bill."
I think we interpret Buffett's remarks quite differently, you and I.
Well FLS -
I pointed out that flyspeck was your word and then responded to your words. Rereading Mr. Buffett and Rush's comments, I realized that Rush was right. Buffett had to resort to imperfect analogies to avoid a direct and sharp criticism of Obama and his crew.
Actually they seemed to play a big chunk of the interview. He was saying stuff like the economy is tanking and things are really bad. Worse he has seen in his life time. Probably not dismal enough but it sounded bad.
That's my whole point, Titus. They're playing the "economy is bad" part, something everyone knows, but leaving out the "Obama's stimulus is not a stiumuls" part.
Pogo
I should read more carefully. Anyways the deals Citi and AIG did, and the jaw dropping losses they incurred, had little to do with who was in office.
Buffett acknowledges that the US will have to spend money to stimulate the economy, and Buffett wants us all to line up behind our Commander in Chief, Obama.
I don't think anyone disagrees that money needs to be spent to stimulate the economy. The problem is we're spending money we don't have. To make matters worse, what its being directed to won't be much help. Considering the money spent and pledged thus far would have paid off 80% of the mortgages in the country, I'd say that would have been a better stimulus than funding tattoo removal for California.
The President is CinC of the military. Frankly the whole 'war on (insert crisis)' is getting tiresome.
I think the fact that Emmanuel and Clinton are on record about not letting a crisis go to waste certainly speaks volumes as to thier goals are pushing a liberal agenda and not actually fixing what ails the economy.
I wonder if Naomi Klein will do a similar hard hitting piece on the current President for mis-using a crisis.
I don't think anyone disagrees that money needs to be spent to stimulate the economy. The problem is we're spending money we don't have.
I think you're misunderstanding the theory behind economic stimulus. Keynesian stimulus calls for substantial deficit spending during recessions. You're *supposed* to "spend money you don't have".
And incidentally, a whole lot of people -- including not a few economists -- disagree that the government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy.
You're *supposed* to "spend money you don't have" ...[during recessions.]
The problem comes when your federal gummint has already been doing so for the past 40 years while NOT in a recession, and so have a significant number of its citizens, as well as their local and state gummints to boot.
If the multiplier effect of deficit spending was really greater than one, we'd all be rich.
I'm more than willing to support Obama if and when he finally does something right.
But I'm still in favor of having a stimulus bill."
A bill, not necessarily this bill. In fact, I think it’s pretty clear he doesn’t especially like this bill.
I think the fact that Emmanuel and Clinton are on record about not letting a crisis go to waste certainly speaks volumes as to thier goals are pushing a liberal agenda and not actually fixing what ails the economy.
Clearly that bothered Buffett too. He also seemed unhappy with the utter lack of focus on the important stuff.
Frankly the whole 'war on (insert crisis)' is getting tiresome.
Yeah that Warren Buffett is trite and boring.
Somebody think him up some snappier metaphors.
a whole lot of people -- including not a few economists -- disagree that the government needs to spend money to stimulate the economy.
And then again, some economists -- notably Paul Krugman -- think Obama's plan is way too small to be effective.
The problem is ... your federal gummint has already been doing so for the past 40 years while NOT in a recession,
True: the borrow-and-spend Republicans were out of control. There hasn't been a fiscally prudent Republican President since Jerry Ford:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
I think it’s pretty clear [Buffett] doesn’t especially like this bill.
How did you come to that conclusion?
The dirty little secret is we are already a socialist country in terms of wealth distribution.
If you sat down and added up the many state. local and federal social programs, the spending per capita is more than $5,000. If you calculate per average lazy deadwood citizen, the spending is more like $15,000 per lazy sucker of the public teat.
That calculation includes program like HUD, EIC, welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and on and on. I did not include Medicare nor social security.
The working people in this country are giving up about $5-$10,000 per year so the lazy people [taxtakers] can get $15,000 in social programs.
If the working people [taxpayers] understood this fully, they woould revolt violently. Liberal politicians have gone to great lengths to create numerous social programs that mask this cost.
FLS
While you are right about the Repub's, the Dem's main complaint has been that the Repub's were not spending enough fast enough, so they're really in no position to call anyone any names. The instant it was possible, they started spending like the drunken draft dodgers they are.
FLS does it ever occur to you that maybe the Government spends too much regardless of party affiliation?
I think you're misunderstanding the theory behind economic stimulus. Keynesian stimulus calls for substantial deficit spending during recessions. You're *supposed* to "spend money you don't have".
Actually I understand Keynesian economics well enough to not subscribe to it. Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years which by Keynesian logic means we should have been overstimulated to economic nirvana.
I should have clarfied my comment in that I believe spending is necessary, but not necessarily by the government.
And then again, some economists -- notably Paul Krugman --
I think less of Krugman than I do Keynes.
Speaking of Mass their little students are the highest rated science students in the country. Something doesn't smell right there. Massachusetts also has the lowest divorce rate in the country. What's up with that?
What is the matter with Massachusetts?
The dow better go back down tomorrow.
Frankly the whole 'war on (insert crisis)' is getting tiresome.
Isn't that the truth. It's almost a signal that people *aren't* serious about it but are deliberately overstating the problem to prove that they are. Thus, declaring a "war" on whatever bad thing is the bad thing du jour.
I also abhor the word "czar", and for the same reason. It sounds like such a serious title, so very *powerful*, as if having a *powerful* title means that anything will be solved.
Either announcement... another "war" or another "czar" is getting to be a clue that lots of bluff and bluster will ensue... and not much else.
And then again, some economists -- notably Paul Krugman -- think Obama's plan is way too small to be effective.
Yes, I've pointed that out before. The overwhelming majority of the "stimulus" bill was just pork. The portion that could plausibly be considered Keynesian stimulus was pathetically small in relation to the economy. This is why the stimulus bill was a pathetic failure by ANY economic standard. But it was pretty good for its actual purpose of buying votes with borrowed money.
In any case, my point was simply that there was nothing like unanimous agreement among economists that we needed a government stimulus package.
True: the borrow-and-spend Republicans were out of control. There hasn't been a fiscally prudent Republican President since Jerry Ford:
Congress, not the President, borrows and spends money. It is amazing how many Americans are ignorant of that simple fact.
Also, please, my war/czar peeve is entirely bipartisan. They are *always* stupid.
And dang... you *know* the Russians are laughing their *ss*s off every time they hear us use it.
The dow better go back down tomorrow.
If it does, it's Obama's fault. Today's rise? An anomaly totally unrelated to Obama.
How did you come to that conclusion?
I don't have time to look up the quotes right now, but that's the impression I got from his comments.
The working people in this country are giving up about $5-$10,000 per year so the lazy people [taxtakers] can get $15,000 in social programs.
I mentioned this in the other thread, but my brother and I's taxes are completely inverted for 2008. He is getting back over 4times what he put in, and I'm getting back 1/5 of what I put in. Lovely.
If it does, it's Obama's fault. Today's rise? An anomaly totally unrelated to Obama.
It is a lot easier for a government to screw up an economy than it is for one to fix a screwed-up economy. Accusations that government actions have caused markets to tank are inherently more credible than claims that government action raised stock prices.
Let's assume that we see an upward trend over the next month. What action of Obama's would explain that timing? The stimulus package passed a while ago but the money remains almost entirely unspent, which makes the timing wrong for crediting either the news or the effect of said package. It can't be the Treasury policy on the financial crisis because they haven't got one yet. What would it be?
In contrast, it is easy to point to something Obama is doing that could be tanking the markets, or more specifically what he is NOT doing: coming up with a plan and telling us what it is. His (and his underlings') speeches are long on rhetoric and invective and short on strategy and detail. If you're a financier right now you've got no idea where your company will be a year from now. Bought out by the government? Regulated out of existence? Saved by timely intervention? Who knows?
The government is very, very powerful and very, very stupid. Markets hate not knowing what it is going to do.
Excellent, Rev.
Shanna:
It's a great country if you are a taxtaker :)
BTW I did see your earlier comment on the other thread.
And please don't get me wrong. I support some social programs but we have gone way way overboard.
Congress, not the President, borrows and spends money. It is amazing how many Americans are ignorant of that simple fact.
Americans' ignorance is amazing, I'll grant him that.
From Answers.com:
The Presidential budget is the request that the President submits to Congress for legal authority to spend federal funds. Fourteen days after the Monday on which Congress convenes each January, the President is required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 to submit to Congress the budget of the U.S. government, along with a message outlining his budget priorities. The budget covers the fiscal, or business, year (from October 1 to September 30) and is named for the calendar year in which it ends. The FY 2000 budget, for example, covers the period from October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000. (Prior to passage of this law, departments submitted requests for funds directly to Congress, bypassing the President entirely.)
Presidential budget requests are prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), based in part on spending justifications submitted to it by each executive branch department and independent agency of government. The OMB evaluates all agency spending requests according to White House priorities.
The Budget of the United States provides data on past expenditures and current spending authority for each agency, but it is only a set of recommendations to Congress for future spending. The Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) provides that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.” This provision gives Congress the final word on spending money. Presidents have at times asserted a power to impound funds, or to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress.
eh, fact of the matter is, buffet does not have "profound disagreements" with the obama administration.
not that anyone here cares, right.
here's are the issues that rush claims buffet disagrees with obama on:
Here's Warren Buffett. So far now, he's disagreed with card check, he has disagreed with cap and trade, and now he's disagreeing with Obama on the basis that Obama's demonizing CEOs.... These are profound disagreements from one of the smartest men in the world who voted for Obama
first, this is rush's characterizatoin, without any quotes, which means he is probably making it up, exaggerating, or misleading.
second, even if they are legit disagreements, they are hardly "profound."
also, he only cites to three items, not four. guess the hillbilly heroin affected his higher functions!
two observations:
Gasbag is so fat he spins funny.
Buffet notes "taking advantage of the opportunity" and decries Obama for doing that. But this is the same Warren Buffet who wouldn't hesitate for an instant to move in on a company or corporation that was in trouble and doing so to his advantage.
Obama should maximize any situation that he can. What should he do? Wait? Or like Rush, stand on the sidelines and snipe.
Rush is kind of fat and sweaty and has had multiple marriages and is a drug addict who has railed against drug addicts.
I love him to death but only wish we had a better spokesman. But he is a winner. I only wish he would run for president.
Still love him to death though.
What time I pinched a loaf and Rush's face was in my loaf. Just like Jesus in someone's pizza slice.
The Budget of the United States [...] is only a set of recommendations to Congress for future spending. The Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) provides that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.” This provision gives Congress the final word on spending money.
Like I said -- Congress, not the President, does the borrowing and spending. So why blame Republicans for the country's debts and deficits? In the last 40 years we've had only five years of budget surpluses, four of them under a Republican Congress. The last time a Democratic Congress passed a balanced budget was 1969.
Buffet notes "taking advantage of the opportunity" and decries Obama for doing that. But this is the same Warren Buffet who wouldn't hesitate for an instant to move in on a company or corporation that was in trouble and doing so to his advantage.
Is drawing parallels between Barack Obama and corporate robber barons really the approach you want to be taking here? Just asking.
There hasn't been a fiscally prudent Republican President since Jerry Ford:...
There hasn't been a fiscally prudent Democrat ever.
There hasn't been a fiscally prudent Democrat ever.
Harry Truman, actually. Then again he was politically to the right of Joe Lieberman and wouldn't be welcome in the modern Democratic Party, so maybe that doesn't count.
Just joining in progress . . .
First back to dtl at 8:21 am:
I know nobody cares. Most Americans (like you) are ecstatic when people die of AIDS.
dtl - You know me. You know that I don't agree with gay marriage, that I attend an evangelical church that does not feel that practicing homosexuality is right.
But you also know that I defend the dignity of and am blessed by and enjoy the friendship of wonderful neighbors, family members and dear friends who are gay. And I know that I have posted before - I can't remember when - that I voluteered with my wife for over 16 years at Aids Hospices in my county. I have been at the deaths of over a dozen. Two of those times I was the only person other than the hospice workers at the death. It was and is heartbreaking.
I don't expect brownie points or really anything except this.
One can read the Bible and believe that any sexual relations outside of the heterosexual bond of marriage is out of the will of God. But that doesn't equal hatred or even judgment of those who choose to not believe. The basic Protestant understanding of the will of God for man is that God desires that each man/woman with understanding make his/her own free choice to follow that which God has revealed to man. God doe not want forced conformity. God does not want anyone to judge the motives or heart of anyone else. God reserves that judgement for Himself.
Which is why any fear of Christian evangelicals wanting a Theocracy in any country is unfounded. God demonstrates in the Bible that while he desires righteous living, He does not want a forced Theocracy that would remove the personal, free choice of anyone to follow Him.
All that to say - there are many people that don't understand homosexuality or even like it who are nonetheless committed to certain understanding of equal rights and dignity in this country for gay people. It may not be the same as yours, but many of them are serving unselfishly people who disagree with them such as yourself.
So now...the right wing idiots here...suddenly support Buffett??
When was the last time anybody here had anything good to say about the man?
DUH.
Peter V. Bella said..."There hasn't been a fiscally prudent Democrat ever."
WRONG - AS USUAL
There has been a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of the five categories.
Per annum growth:
GDP Growth Democrat 4.1%
Republican2.9%
Employment Democrat 2.9%
Republican1.7%
CPI Democrat4.0%
Republican5.1% 3.0%
DJIA Democrat 8.1%
Republican.5%
Dollar Democrat +0.8%
Republican-3.6%
Apparently no one is answering the phone at Treasury either.
Then again he was politically to the right of Joe Lieberman and wouldn't be welcome in the modern Democratic Party,
Actually he wasn't welcome in the Dem party in the 50s after his first term either considering his poll numbers were somewhere south of where Bush was when he left office.
WRONG - AS USUAL
There has been a significant advantage when a Democrat occupied the White House in each of the five categories.
As usual Michael confuses GDP growth with a prudent federal fiscal policy. One had to do with economic growth versus running a balanced budget.
For someone who orders people to READ MORE he certainly fails his own test.
Just ask Mikey he believes everything!
It's a great country if you are a taxtaker :)
Yeah. I mean, I love my brother and it's not his fault the tax system is stupid-he agrees with me! And he does “need” it more than me, but damn. That’s kind of hard to take. I’d love to get back 4 or5 times what I paid in taxes! In fact, I told him he should just give me half :)
Also, I could have just saved the government a step and given all of my taxes to my brother.
I would think that Rush would like the buffet.
It's not a rumour. It's a fact.
Ever hear of Google????
If it comes up on Google, it's a fact??? Oh, we are lost, we are well and truly lost.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा