Buffett Has No Love for High-Priced Money Managers; Says Even a President Trump Couldn’t Derail U.S. Economy

By and | May 4, 2016

  • May 4, 2016 at 8:42 am
    David5678 says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 10

    The US economy hasn’t seen 3% GDP in over 8 years. This is the longest the economy has been under 3% GDP in the history of the country. The only way you could possibly make things worse would be by raising debt, and taxes (like Bernie Sanders proposes)

    • May 4, 2016 at 4:19 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 5

      I guess Uncle Warren likes those below 3% growth numbers for the past 8 years in the economy. His ox is not getting gored. Hard to believe he is a leftist since he applies capitalistic ideas to make money. Of course, he also curry’s lobbying favors from Obama, particularly on the pipeline deal where his railroads have benefitted from carrying oil, not just coal.

      • May 4, 2016 at 11:38 pm
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 10

        Agent, you economic illiterate dolt, you can repeat the 3% line you have heard on Rush, but clearly don’t understand, but that doesn’t make them relevant. Look at worldwide growth, and 3% obviously has little to do with Obama. In fact it’s much higher than 1.6% most other places are seeing.

        Of course to a person with your intellectual abilities there is no worldwide economy, and Obama controls it all.

        • May 5, 2016 at 9:30 am
          Yogi Polar Berra says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 11
          Thumb down 6

          UW; you sound a lot like Dan Akroyd talking to Jane Curtin on SNL’s early days, er, nights, on the SNL News Skit. Do you kiss, um, email your mother with that mouth, um, those fingers?

          The 2016 US economy is part of Obama’s legacy. He put it $10T deeper in debt in only 7.5 years. At the 8 year mark, it will have doubled, eclipsing the amount of debt accumulated by ALL PAST US Presidents. The Stim-pendic-ulous didn’t work, and jobs are down in NUMBERS, which is more important than percentages per the Labor Dept ratios that ignore workers leaving the workforce.

          More people are on FOOD STAMPS than ever before. Vets are homeless and not getting medical care. Illegal Aliens are getting benefits. US citizens are not getting affordable medical care, or ADEQUATE access to health care providers.

          The US has almost always exceeded worldwide growth, with few exceptions. Obama Years are one of those few exception periods.

          Destructive economic policies intended to ‘change America, fundamentally’ are the cause. They include taxes, regulations, and destruction of/ interference with several energy industries; e.g. coal and XL pipeline. Obama and Jarrett are the two key Engineers of the US Economic Failure. Jonathan Gruber, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are major accomplices.

          I didn’t hear the above from ‘Rush’; they are available in many places on business/ news media; e.g. Reuters, Drudge, CNN, Bloomberg, Motley Fool, Fox Business News, NY Times, WSJ, Insurance Journal, and The Daily Mail.

          • May 5, 2016 at 10:37 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 8

            Yogi Polar Berra,

            You said:

            1. “At the 8 year mark, it will have doubled, eclipsing the amount of debt accumulated by ALL PAST US Presidents.” Presidents Reagan and GW Bush accomplished that same feat. Where was their criticism?

            2. “More people are on FOOD STAMPS than ever before.” Maybe if the corporations would let the trillions of dollars in profits they are sitting trickle down to the workers, they would not qualify for food stamps.

            3. “Vets are homeless and not getting medical care.” there are programs available for those vets. It is up to them to take advantage of them.

            4. “US citizens are not getting affordable medical care, or ADEQUATE access to health care providers.” This has been a problem for decades.

            While I would not put President Obama at the upper half of presidents, he is no where nearly as destructive as many people try to make him out to be, especially compared to past presidents.

          • May 5, 2016 at 6:09 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 7

            Yogi, the difference is that Agent, unlike Jane, really is ignorant. As are you in this case. Yes, debt increased under Obama, if you include the stimulus which was required due to Bush and the Republicans/conservatives crashing the economy. He also included Iraq and Afghanistan figures in the budgets instead of using accounting tricks like Bush and the Republicans. Also, as a percentage of GDP, his increase is not even historically large, and is on pace to be less than the increase under Reagan. On top of that, with interest rates near zero, or negative in real terms he should have taken on debt, and actually should have taken on more to fund spending, but he was blocked by Republicans, and relies on relatively conservative economic advisors, so he didn’t.

            You are also 100% ignorant, or lying about US growth lagging world growth under Obama. Like I said before you are now an Agent-level liar or completely ignorant.

            The stoppage of the XL pipeline is only a negative if you buy into outrageous conspiracy theories, and deny science about climate change and the costs associated with it. Again, liar or clueless.

          • May 6, 2016 at 9:18 am
            Yogi Polar Berra says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 4

            1. Inflation adjusted impact of Reagan, Bush’s National Debt was NO WHERE NEAR as damaging to the US economy.
            2. Illegal Immigrants undercutting wages is the root cause.
            3. Not true. Nowhere near enough programs and medical providers.
            4. Correct, but nowhere near the current level, exacerbated by an accelerated exodus of medical care providers from their field, to early retirement, under provisions of the ACA.

            Jimmy Carter is resting easy now, knowing Obama is the worst POTUS of all time! By a wide margin. The rankings of worst POTUS’ all-time has been Hope-y-Changed – – – by an arrogant Socialist, with a phone and pen – – – who is politically deranged!

          • May 6, 2016 at 12:22 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 2

            Yogi Polar Barra,

            1. Doubling the debt is doubling the debt, period. I do not think that is ever acceptable. Besides, we have had economic growth, albeit paltry, nearly every quarter since 2010.

            2. So you agree that it is corporate greed that is holding down wages and pushing more people into the food stamp program.

            3. If that is true, go see the Republicans who have done nothing while in control of Congress for well over a year now. My plan is the only one that would provide the health care options you seek for our veterans.

            4. Fair enough, but my point was that it is not a new problem started by President Obama’s.

          • May 9, 2016 at 10:04 am
            Yogi Polar Berra says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            @Ron;

            Doubling the US National Debt when it is a SMALL percentage of a GROWING GDP is NOWHERE near as damaging to the US Economy as doubling the DEBT when it is a yuuuuge percentage of a STAGNANT GDP, which hasn’t grown by as much as 3% in the entire 7.5 year Obama reign.

            Your ignorance of economics is blatantly showing up in your posts.

          • May 9, 2016 at 11:30 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            The aggregate national debt doesn’t matter, only the debt as a percentage of GDP, and the US and other countries have handled this ratio before with no problem. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true, Yogi. You are also counting Obama’s debt for the first year with the budget created under Bush, and the stimulus, which was required to stop the crash and depression that started under Bush, along with a budget that includes payments for 2 wars people like you supported, yet refused to fund-almost the entire Iraq War was funded through debt, even though you very serious people said the oil would pay for it, and it would only cost $60 billion . Almost all economists agree the stimulus worked, by the way.

            But I don’t expect a person who thinks an argument for taxing the richest at the rates we had historically can be extended into an argument for a tax rate of 100% to grasp this, because they person would not be even a somewhat competent person on this subject.

          • May 9, 2016 at 11:58 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 4

            Yogi Polar Berra,

            Let’s break this down.

            The economy was actually damaged and collapsed during President GW Bush’s administration and has improved since President Obama took office.

            Please give us your definition of “damaging the US Economy”. It seems to be the contradictory to that of an intelligent person.

        • May 9, 2016 at 12:42 pm
          Yogi Polar Berra says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          To all bush Bashers / Obama supporters clamoring above:

          Clinton allowed repeal of Glass-Steagall. further, he opined on the positive (cough, cough, cough) effects of the repeal…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall:_Aftermath_of_repeal

          Go ahead; try to blame AIG’s negilgent, perhaps criminal, mishandling of accumulation of risk in their CDO book on Bush and show EVERYONE just how ignorant you truly are.

          If you find the liberally driven wiki page to be somewhat tame on the impacts and tying the 2008 meltdown directly to RoG-S, I’ll return with some links that are much more direct and decisive in concluding that RoG-S directly caused the 2008 Financial Meltdown. Let me know.

          Now that I’ve ended your attempt to defend liberal democrat fiscal policies and actions, …. deal with it.

          Perhaps you can think of some NOVEL way to defend Clinton (cough cough cough ) or Obama …. that is a bit more challenging for me to shoot down? I’m waiting.

          • May 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 3

            Yogi Polar Berra,

            I am not trying to bash or defend anyone. I present facts. You may not like them, but they are facts.

            I have discovered a consistent theme with Republicans, they are far more interested in laying blame than solving problems. Disagree? Outside of repealing the PPACA, which had 0% chance of actually becoming law, please list all of the laws Congress has passed in the past 12+ months when Republicans took control of Congress.

          • May 9, 2016 at 3:32 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            So the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, written and sponsored by Republicans and signed by a conservative Democrat is the fault of liberals. Good logic. You whine incessantly about government regulation and then cite deregulation as the problem. The main drivers of the crises were more varied than this 1 bill, and had far more to do with fraud and the Bush administration’s general deregulation efforts, but Rush hasn’t decreed that, so in right-wing world of doesn’t exist.

            By the way, in the Senate vote on the Republican written and sponsored Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, all 53 voting Republicans voted for the bill while 1 Democrat voted for the bill compared to 44 against it.

            But liberals caused the problem, because freedom, or trandgendered people in bathrooms, or whatever ignorant talking point you guys are all coincidentally repeating this week.

          • May 9, 2016 at 5:36 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            I leave and you drone on.

            I’ll direct your points here:

            A: When talking about a president who will expand on spending which was proven not to work for Obama, we can compare the two. It isn’t about laying blame, it’s about not repeating mistakes. Republicans are not more about blame, they are about accountability. There is a difference.

            B: The GDP growth and inflation adjusted numbers do matter with Reagan. The incomes of the middle class grew, not so under Obama after inflation they are stagnant, the LPR went up, not true under Obama, it is still lower. You said the economy is better than it was after the recession that happened to occur under George W Bush. I had to modify that for you by the way. You worded it wrong.

            C: Reagan proposed the biggest spending of any president before him. Democrats refused to pass it. You refuse to give accountability to democrats, it’s a trend among moderates, do you agree? To try and focus on republican blame, but the refusal to look into democrat accountability? Reagan and Obama are not the same on all issues you claim, and then you make all republicans bad for claiming Reagan was better (which he was).

            You are talking with an agenda here. You aren’t a moderate.

          • May 9, 2016 at 5:41 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Oh for @#%@#’s sakes Ron. You blend stereotyping without facts to back it up, with absurd comments.

            List the bills republicans have passed?

            If I prove that republicans have been obstructed, will you hold Obama accountable?

            Obama made the debt super committee. He then agreed to spending cuts. Then he said he would only allow those cuts to pass, the ones he agreed on, if republicans gave him more. Then he went back on the deal again. And again, every year since he passed it!

            This is the source of the fights, not republicans.

            Now back to the proof of bills passed, and it has NOT just been repealing PPACA:

            http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Barack-Obama-Congress/2014/08/07/id/587482/

          • May 9, 2016 at 5:43 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            511 bills.

            Did you miss these just like you told me there were no health care alternatives from republicans???

            Are we going to go back where you blame the republicans that the media refuses to cover these things?

            How many excuses are you going to make up for democrats in the name of being “for facts” and being moderate?

            The idiots here actually let you get away with it too.

            I’ve been gone too long. It’s time to hand you your head.

            I will not let a fraudulent Catholic lead many astray. Let’s duke it out and let the facts speak for themselves.

          • May 9, 2016 at 6:00 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Sorry I had a typo there. Reagan proposed the biggest spending cuts of anyone before him just about.

            I have shown you this link like 50 times…Why do I have to keep looking it up?

            Why won’t you hold the democrats accountable for that spending?

            They refused to pass a lower budget. The same as they are now.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/11/us/reagan-proposals-detail-further-trims-in-budget.html

            This is just one article detailing spending cuts.

          • May 10, 2016 at 8:43 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            Bob,

            Nice to have you back.

            A. You are correct, there is a difference, one is 1st person the other is not. Definition of accountability – an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions. Definition of Blame – to say or think that a person or thing is responsible for something bad that has happened.

            This means you cannot hold someone you are against accountable.

            B. I was only pointing out the FACT that the debt double and increased more than all other presidents combined under Presidents Reagan and GW Bush. Are those FACT correct or incorrect?

            C. As I have stated, there are reasons, outside of the government’s control, that have caused the LPR and wages to not increase with the economy. It is called corporate greed. They are suppose to let the profits trickle down. However, they are sitting on trillions of dollars of profit to artificially boost their stock prices to the benefit of a few executives and fund managers. In addition, they are taking advantage of technological advances that have reduced the need for human labor.

            You are correct, I am not a moderate, I am an Independent.

            I have stated several times that I do not like everything President Obama has done. Unlike you, I am not a blind sheep.

            Did you even read the article you cited? It was from 2014. I asked about the past 12+ months since the Republicans have taken over control of both houses of Congress. In addition, it was mostly about the inaction of the Democrat lead Senate than President Obama.

            Try again.

            I never said President Reagan was for Keynesian principles, just that; he signed bills that incorporated such economic principles, they happened, and it helped the economy. Are you saying that President Reagan was a weak leader who abandoned his conservative ideals?

          • May 12, 2016 at 1:04 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Here’s what I find funny,

            First of all:

            Stop disliking posts more than once.

            Second of all:

            That anyone would dislike a post which showed that the democrat senate blocked more bills than congress blocked.

            This is a big deal, and my link showed exactly how.

            It proves the democrats, are lying. They are playing for image, they are not doing nothing as Ron suggests, which confirms they are not only playing for image they are also WINNING that game.

            The reason Trump is coming into the picture is that he doesn’t play by their rules.

            What do I mean by this?

            If they try to say this crap, he says basically:

            You’re a liar. In fact, you’re lyin’ Ted Cruz you do it so often.

            Oh no, he called a liar a liar, woe is me.

          • May 12, 2016 at 3:34 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Bob,

            First of all, I do not dislike any posts. I find that type of behavior childish. If you proof to the contrary, please present it.

            Second, your link is from 2014. I am still waiting for all of those bills, outside of repealing the PPACA, that Congress has passed over the past 12+ months since the Republicans took over.

            Just because you call me a liar, does not make it so. Present your evidence, based on what I have actually posted, that proves I am a liar.

            Do you think Donald Trump has been completely honest? He will be exposed as another typical politician. He is already starting to flip flop in preparation of the general election. I can’t believe you fell for his lies and rhetoric and believe he is any different. You, sir, are a fool.

          • May 18, 2016 at 9:22 am
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Bob, the NYT link you provided has already been proven irrelevant by me, citing his budget people; his term was longer than 1 year, which is when your link is from, and after his policy failed he passed one of, if not the largest tax increases in history, and had high spending. I know your reply is, as always, because…. Democrats, but as I showed, the budget he proposed was much larger than that submitted by Democrats. As always, ignore everything but your same 10 links, and blab about something you know nothing about, like the labor force participation rate. Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever, and he destroyed the middle class. Big shock you love him.

    • May 4, 2016 at 11:35 pm
      UW says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 8

      Raising taxes would be great for the US economy if done right, and debt would be fantastic if it resulted in spending leading to money in the lower/middle classes, which would actually drive growth. The BS trickle down economics you, Agent, and conservatives are in love with doesn’t work, hasn’t work, and never will work.

      Why do you think debt is a problem right now? Is it the interest rates?

      • May 5, 2016 at 9:41 am
        Yogi Polar Berra says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 4

        You are in denial about lowering taxes and stimulus through easing regulations that increase cost and delay delivery of goods and services.

        The problem right now isn’t debt OR interest rates. It is the poor leadership and the failure of Republicans controlling Congress to block its’ agendas.

      • May 9, 2016 at 10:06 am
        Yogi Polar Berra says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 3

        Applying your claim in an extreme example, raising taxes ( “if done rightly” …your words, not mine. LOL!) to near 100% SHOULD yield the greatest benefit ever!

        But the real world examples of that disprove it every time.

        Hint: Greece. Venezuela. North Korea. USSR.

        • May 9, 2016 at 11:04 am
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 4

          You are now officially an idiot, Yogi, and I was tricked into thinking you are somewhat serious instead of another Agent. That’s an asinine statement showing absolutely no critical thinking ability, or seriousness on the issue.

          Taxes in Greece are in line with other European nations, and lower then many, and many places with sovereign control of their currency have higher taxes and have nowhere near the problems Greece has. Their problems are not due to high taxes. Tax evasion totals about 10% of their GDP, resulting in significantly lower effective tax rates than Europe in general.

          You have apparently also caught Agent’s misquoting disease, or don’t know how quoting works.

          Your other posts are equally misinformed. You claim I am in denial about taxes and stimulus, but the studies show government spending is significantly more effective as stimulus they tax cuts. It’s not even debatable at this point. Your argument shoes little to no understanding about actual economics, or reality. Stick to climate change denialism.

          • May 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2012/05/29/why-taxing-rich-doesnt-work.html

            I’m just going to put this here, and let you dissect it. Even though your only come back will certainly be: Faux News!

            Never mind the testimony of researchers for the OECD.

            Never mind the percentages showing the rich pay more of the total taxes now than they did in the past.

            Never mind that in 2000 we had a share of revenues as a percent of gdp equal to that of FDR’s best years with taxes that had a significantly higher rate, and our corporations at that time paid a lower share, as well as our middle class a lower share,

            Somehow, magically, higher taxes on the wealthy works!

          • May 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Also never mind that if you took all their money you wouldn’t put a dent in the debt.

            This is all about fixing the economy with higher taxes for the rich somehow magically.

            It just works! Maths that I cannot prove, prove it!

          • May 13, 2016 at 1:50 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/source-revenue-share-gdp

            How do you explain away that 1996-2001 had a higher average of revenues to GDP than 1944 to 1949? The marginal rate was considerably higher, a higher percentage of revenues came from corporate taxes, and not only that, the wealthy now pay the largest share of the taxes out of the population, larger than in the last 30 years?

            If the low taxes are decimating revenue, how do you explain this?

            I have links showing the years, look at them for yourself.

            I have links with testimony from the OECD. Read it.

            If tax dodging is why the other countries don’t have more revenue, why do we have more revenues now as a percent of GDP inclusive of tax dodging, lower amounts coming from corporations, the middle class paying less, and the wealthy paying the largest chunk of taxes?

            I await your thought out reply.

          • May 16, 2016 at 10:45 am
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            I hope uw sees this and replies, it should be fun. There is so much voodoo economics and cherry picked data here. You don’t even make a point when you write these Bob. It is just a long rant about not wanting the rich and corporations to pay taxes, and then a freak out to anybody who replies to you, like an ass. Yogi said a 100% tax, which is obviously a stupid reply but you seem to back it.

          • May 16, 2016 at 3:27 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            Well you ignorant dolt, you said during FDR’s years, and used an average. Now I know as a “data driven” conservative by definition you know nothing about statistics, but an average includes all years, not the specific years you want for one part of the data, and then the lower part for the other. Also, when you cited figures for a Clinton you cherry picked the 1 max year in a 75 year span where this was true. Again, a cherry picking, incompetent liar. Dishonest to the core.

            What are you talking about with LPR? I don’t know what you are referencing with that abbreviation.

            As for your ignorant claim about the rich paying a higher percentage of taxes, no crap. Their incomes have skyrocketed while others have remained stagnant. Their control over capital has increased even more. When you make up more of the economy in dollar terms obviously you pay a higher percentage of taxes. The fact you don’t understand this is telling.

            You claim Trump never supported killing terrorists, provide a link claiming otherwise, and call the author a liar. You are a deranged imbecile, and again, a liar.

            “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,”

            Trump’s quote, which you lied and said didn’t exist, and then said didn’t mean kill. You are full of it. When talking about caring about their lives, and taking them out, he obviously meant killing them, it’s not debatable. You are an apologist, and a liar, plain and simple. Funny how Sanders talks about a specific example, and you expand that to prosecuting people who disagree with climate change, but Trump says this and you rationalize it away (after lying and saying he didn’t say it, then it was taken out of context). Actually, it’s not surprising because you are a far right-wing authoritarian, and this is what I expect from you guys. I remember you doing something similar when you lied and said he never supported deporting citizens, and then continuously lying about it after an audio clip was provided.

            As for your 3rd grade economics rant, and taxing 100% not denting the debt, no crap, retard. Nobody is calling for that, and no it wouldn’t in 1 year, but over 30-50, higher taxes would, as they have in the past. But you aren’t competent, nor intellectually honest enough to look at that.

            You are increasingly a pseudo-intellectual clown, go join Agent at a Stormfront meeting.

        • May 9, 2016 at 12:44 pm
          Yogi Polar Berra says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 2

          Name-calling points to loss of a debate.

          Game over.

          • May 9, 2016 at 1:30 pm
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 2

            Yogi Polar Berra,

            You said in a post above, “Go ahead; try to blame AIG’s negligent, perhaps criminal, mishandling of accumulation of risk in their CDO book on Bush and show EVERYONE just how ignorant you truly are.”

            Based on your logic, I won that debate.

          • May 9, 2016 at 1:52 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            No it doesn’t, it points towards incivility, and a lack of patience. I have no patience for people who are gleefully and willfully ignorant, and after a point I see no reason to keep pretending their opinion is based on reality, and therefore valid.

            What you stated is that the tone of the statement, has a bearing on the facts, and in fact are more important than them, this is clearly, undeniably wrong, and idiotic. In fact all I see from you are denials of reality, and attacks on liberals and Democrats, even when their policies are conservative in nature. You are Agent 2; unqualified to discuss this in any capacity, and living in a totally fact free alternate world.

            You whine about the debt, that gets absolutely annihilated and then you say the problem isn’t debt or interest rates, but a lack of leadership. Look at the leadership and “uniting” your garbage, racist ideology is experiencing and explain how that is liberal’s fault. It wouldn’t be possible for Obama to “lead” these nuts, because they don’t operate in reality, and serve nobody but the rich, regardless of the cost, and on top of that, they are supported by the modern day Illustrious Dunder heads that make up the Republican Party. You have turned into a total clown, again, go back to lying about climate scientists.

          • May 12, 2016 at 1:06 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Trump is not racist.

            Face it, stop the same attacks, move on.

          • May 12, 2016 at 6:07 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Move on, like you did after you lied and said Trump never said he would kill the families of alleged terrorists, or made comments about deporting Mexican-American citizens, or blocking Muslim citizens from entering the country, and said all of us were lying, and then were proven to be wrong and never replied again?

            You are Agent and Yogi level, if you write something it’s either an outright lie, based on a disproven conspiracy theory, or taken completely out of context. The only way you would ever accept that Trump was racist is if he said the N word, and I doubt you would even then.

          • May 13, 2016 at 2:47 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 2

            I have not lied on those issues, screw you, stop saying things just to say it. You mean to say I have disagreed with you.

            Yes. The only way I would accept racism is a direct show of racism.

            What you just did there was label me by another person. This is bigoted. Debate my facts and call me an idiot if you like. When you start saying I’m another person though, this is the interlude to racism and bigotry.

          • May 13, 2016 at 3:21 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            By the way:

            He never announced a policy for killing families of terrorists.

            He said they deserved to be killed from his perspective. No policy regarding killing families of Muslims has been suggested.

            So you’re the one lying on that.

            Here’s a comparable one:

            Do you say that rapists deserve to die?

            Does this mean you have suggested we kill all rapists?

            Such ignorance.

            I find most liberals do make the comment I just said above.

            Trump has presented no policy regarding what you’re talking about, and in the past I gave you a fact check link stating as much.

            You’re the one lying.

          • May 13, 2016 at 3:32 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            So let’s move on the other aspects of your comment below:

            http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-trump-says-kill-terrorists-families-but-obama-already-has/

            While this person still propagates the lie that Trump was for killing families, he said no such thing.

            He said he would target the families, but never said he would kill them.

            There is a second comment he made that I will give you a link regarding.

          • May 13, 2016 at 3:34 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            http://conservativefiringline.com/fact-check-trump-never-called-for-murder-of-terrorists-families/#

            So here is one when he did mention killing family members, and note the context.

            Read it.

            What people have done is blend these two separate comments together.

            When he says target Muslim’s families it does not mean to murder them. It may mean target them for monitoring to make sure they don’t become radical and kill us, or monitor the children of radical terrorists for extra screening.

            As in tough in that case may mean ban the children of radical terrorists from coming here.

            In that quote the word kill is never used.

            It is only used in the alternate, when talking about either shooting a shield or allowing our troops to die.

          • May 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Now moving to Muslim bans:

            I have mentioned many times that elements of what you have suggested in a Muslim ban may very well be inaccurate.

            Refugees should be banned from coming here from the war torn nation. I have given links showing that only about 15% of the people coming here from the Middle East are kids, then about 70% male, and about 15% women. They are saying they will send migrants here to attack, and those numbers are suspect.

            I have also given links showing how many current Muslims in the U.S are ok with Sharia law over U.S. law, in addition to violence to protect their faith. The number was 25 and 51% respectively. This is the religion and the region that is the issue. We do not need the constant violence of that war torn nation being seeded in our nation.

            http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/24/shock-poll-51-of-american-muslims-want-sharia-25-okay-with-violence-against-americans/

            You’re not allowed to come into our country in mass when 25% of you that have lived here for some time are ok with violence against Americans. These are not small numbers, or small issues.

            The Muslim issue from the Middle East needs to be dealt with.

          • May 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            So how many polls, studies, references to revenues as a percent of GDP, comparing the LPR, etc am I at now?

            And how many are you at?

            You talk out of your ass, moron.

          • May 13, 2016 at 4:03 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            One last comment I promise, on this one:

            You claim I run off when proven wrong.

            No, I run off when someone is clearly refusing to accept any facts whatsoever and I don’t have time to debate the issue anymore.

            So when I leave, it means I’m wrong.

            When I don’t leave, I need to shut up because I’m wrong.

            Damned if I do…Damned if I don’t. It’s what you’re all about UW. Unless I get on your wagon, right? I’m either with you or an enemy, whose name needs to be changed to “Agent”!

      • May 9, 2016 at 5:46 pm
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        Explain away Bill Clinton’s tax rates, which were considerably lower than FDR’s, yet he had taxes as a percent of GDP just as high, and all that with a substantially lower percent of tax revenues from corporations?

        If corporations paying low taxes is bad, how did Clinton occur?

        Sanders wants to tax GE up to 39% and claims they pay 10%. If you look at the earnings of GE last year, it would put them in the negative. Whereas if we made a deal, we would get 2.5 trillion in revenues back, taxed at 15% a year.

        This would gain jobs, revenues of $375 billion per year, GDP, and would end class warfare.

        Please explain how the higher taxes Sanders is going after in this regard will help.

        • May 12, 2016 at 6:14 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Good point, the economy during the biggest depression in our history, while the entire world was at war, and many people had basically no rights is the same as when rights are expanded, we have general peace, 50-60 years of technological and scientific advancement, and a massive worldwide tech boom originating in the US. Also you ignore demographics, as always.

          Sarcasm, obviously, because you are 100% clueless as always, and in your mind the entire economy is based on nominal tax rates, despite all contrary evidence.

          • May 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Good point, so then FDR didn’t end the depression by the time 1944-1949 rolled around? The years I compared were his highest years, from 1944-1949. See how much it dipped after 1944? Are you trying to say we went through another recession during FDR? So FDR never stopped the depression then by the time he left office? Eh? IDIOT?

            Also, you claim the technological boom and productivity is why the LPR is low, I’ve seen you argue it. Shouldn’t a low LPR lower tax revenues, in the same way a low LPR lowers tax revenues supposedly did so during FDR? Or worse yet, the less technology should have then forced a higher lpr, which should have made them higher?

            Which is it UW?

            You’re the one who believe it is based on nominal tax rates.

            I should note that higher marginal rates with lower effective tax rates are more damaging than lower rates that are in line with effective tax rates. Even democrats agree on this. Clinton argued the same point on the corporate tax rate. So did Obama.

          • May 13, 2016 at 3:03 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            I mean really, DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE YEARS

            Before you made that assumption you did below?

            Did you look at the info or try to craft an excuse without facts before hand to meet what you already believed on the matter?

            I think we already know the answer, given you mentioned a depression.

            I mentioned the peak of FDR’s revenues. If you knew history, the peak was 1944, at about 20 percent of GDP.

            You’re not going to have to explain why other countries run into the same walls unless they tax the middle class higher as well.

            It is not the issue you say it is.

            The only determining factors when it comes to an income tax are:

            The LPR, which is how many people are working.

            And then the incomes and the tax rates of those incomes of each demographic in society.

            If you’re trying to say the LPR rate will be higher with a high tax rate, I’m going to show you that the LPR shot up after Reagan lowered taxes. While people say he then raised them back up, he did not do this through income taxes. Not all taxes are created equal. He passed other taxes that made up for revenue which did not harm incomes. Ergo, the sharp rise in the LPR rate while unemployment went down.

            When it comes to an income tax, the reason a depression harms the revenues is the LPR goes down, or incomes go down. Both of these went up under Reagan when we lowered taxes. Neither of these would be affected by what you mentioned.

            If we had less productivity per person back then, and less technology, the LPR rate should have been higher, except for retiring folks, which didn’t kick in until recently, and certainly the baby boomers were not retiring in the 2000 year.

            Show your work UW. Don’t just tell me concepts without connecting the dots like an ass.

        • May 16, 2016 at 4:10 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Bob, your Muslim ban ignores the relevant part, where he said he would ban travel to the US by Muslim citizens. Of course, this is inconvenient to your lies, so you repeatedly ignored it, after of course claiming he didn’t say it, whined for citations, ans then disappeared when I abs others provided them. But hey, if polls show people support removing the Constitution we should do it to meet your right wing goals. He also called for deporting citizen children of Mexican immigrants, which again you denied, whined, and fled. Of course now you act like it didn’t occur, because you are fundamentally dishonest. Similarly, in your ignorant rants about the Laffer Curve and minimum wage and unemployment, you presented your legendary data and links, and then ignored the actual studies I presented, lied about reading them, and then incoherently tried to say why every academic study in aggregate didn’t add up to a story on Forbes. Similarly you have ignored demographics and studies about their effect on the economy approaching hundreds of times.

          Your are a clown, and a liar, and you know less than nothing about economics. Everything you say is weong, irrelevant, due to other factors, or more often, a lie.

  • May 4, 2016 at 1:43 pm
    Producer #1 says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 0

    the author says, Buffet “opted not to talk much about politics at the meeting…” Yet, the title of this article includes Trump’s name.

    If Buffet opted to not discuss politics that much… then why include it in the articles title??? One thing I have noticed is that authors are riding Trump’s coattails more than down ticket politicians are…

    • May 4, 2016 at 1:48 pm
      Jack Kanauph says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 10
      Thumb down 3

      I think they included “President Trump” in the title to get people used to hearing it!!!

      • May 4, 2016 at 2:01 pm
        Celtica says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 2

        Actually, the IJ used even, “a President Trump.”

  • May 4, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    Celtica says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 2

    Ever notice how EVERYONE in his organization calls Trump “Mr. Trump?” Pretty formal, doncha think. Noticed it on the Apprentice but thought it was for theatrics.

    Wonder if the world will need to start calling him “Mr. President Trump” if elected.

    • May 4, 2016 at 6:00 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 4

      Most President’s are called Mr. President as a sign of respect for the office, even if they are the worst in 100 years.

      • May 5, 2016 at 4:01 pm
        Celtica says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 8

        Dear Agent, yes, presidents are called, “Mr. President” — or in 2017, “Madame President.”

        However, I was inquiring if The Donald would want to be called “Mr. President Trump?”

  • May 5, 2016 at 9:36 am
    Yogi Polar Berra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 3

    ‘Trump Change’ will be much better than ‘Chump Change’ we are currently getting from the current WH administration.

    • May 5, 2016 at 1:08 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 5

      Yogi, the poisoned mind of a young or older Progressive Socialist is something to behold. They will never understand how an economy needs to be stimulated to provide jobs and GDP growth. They are happy with substandard growth, high taxes, higher Keynsian spending if they can get more of the free stuff. I am sure you saw the report that 55% of working folks support the 45% of the lazy in this country. Greece is on the horizon for this country. Good thing Trump, the businessman is coming to the rescue.

      • May 5, 2016 at 1:16 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 6

        Agent, I’m so old I remember when you guaranteed Romney in a landslide. And, Greece doesn’t control their own currency, quit trying to compare apples to gyros.

        • May 5, 2016 at 5:05 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 2

          Greece is an unmitigated disaster of Progressive overspending, free stuff and has been bailed out by Germany one or two times now. Why has Puerto Rico defaulted and they are one of our territories? Same Progressive policies got them in trouble, can’t pay their bills and are now screaming for a bailout.

        • May 5, 2016 at 5:25 pm
          Celtica says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Captain, Romney was in a landslide – so, and I cannot believe I am saying this, Agent was right. Or does it matter that Romney was the landslide rather than the landslider Obama.

          • May 9, 2016 at 6:25 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 0

            They were within 3.5 million votes of each other, or, 51% vs 48%. That is 3 percentage points.

            That is not a landslide.

          • May 9, 2016 at 6:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            I should also note:

            That there were 130,000,000 votes in both the 2008 and 2012 election.

            Mc Cain was 10 million votes behind. Romney was 3.5. Do you see the direction that is going?

            People are pretty ticked at both parties right now, but so far the democrats are doing better PC type of marketing.

            They are better at it. It’s only a matter of time before they make the same mistakes, the same over reach they did when FDR confiscated gold, stole property, prosecuted people over it, etc. It was illegal to own gold well into my parent’s life.

            The price controls of Carter, and now the carbon tax credits, which are proven to have little affect. They are basically a power grab, the usual tactics of the left to ensure an elite can crush the competition.

            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.418.2713&rep=rep1&type=pdf

            A difference of less than 3% over 9 years. That’s really going to stop global warming eh?

            It’s just a way of getting “moral” revenues that disagreeing with it would be seen as immoral. In other words, it basically makes it a tax they know you will never fight.

            Wake up people. The democrats are not the way to go.

            In WA state the republicans agreed to pass discrimination rights for gays, as long as there was a clause stating there would be no criminal liability for expressing a belief that offended gay people. What is offensive? It isn’t really defined. You think that’s good?

            It creates peace?

            No. It’s intentionally to divide and conquer.

          • May 9, 2016 at 6:44 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            And I might add Sanders says on his webpage that he will prosecute climate change deniers.

            So if you fund research as a company, that is counter to the government accepted ideology, you can be sued.

            That is the precedent he is setting. He wants to pass laws that would leave only the government in charge of things.

            We need people who can fund research who are business, and government. Not one or the other.

            Then people can make up their own mind. Essentially Sanders is saying you’re too stupid to see information so he’ll ban the information he doesn’t like.

            You don’t see this as a problem?

            What if Bush had banned studies on whether or not the Iraq war was for a reasonable cause back when about 80% of Americans agreed with it, stating it was risking our safety as a nation?

            Banning information is not ok.

          • May 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Hey, lying Bob is here to spam lies. You were right on one thing though, the Romney loss was not a blowout, but it wasn’t really close either. The difference is mostly due to lower turnout by Democrats unhappy with Obama though, not some mythical surge towards Republicans, although maybe we are still waiting for the unskewed polls you guys were blabbing about for months.

            On Sanders’ climate science, you are full of crap, but also a climate change conspiracy theorist, so your opinion is irrelevant, ans based on a fantasy, as always. Sanders was referring to companies that suppress science, pay for fraudulent “science” to create doubt, and pay bribes. He was specifically referencing the case of Exxon, who hid their results showing climate change was real, and was caused by humans, and then paid for millions of dollars of false studies to create doubt, along with paying bribes. If course, you ignore that, ignore their own documents, and pretend the fake stuff is legitimate, because you believe what you want to believe, not reality.

            As always, you have it exactly wrong, based on nothing but fantasy and ideology. Even the case you present as proof contradicts the beliefs you pretend are based on rational though, data, etc, instead of ideology and pseudo-intellectual BS.

          • May 13, 2016 at 1:42 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Hey UW:

            It’s nice to see you talking like the Divisive Trump, but it’s ok because you’re justified right?

            I’m lying on what issue? Be specific, moron.

            He has spoken on this many times, that he will stop business from being able to fund research.

            Interesting to note, Exxon mobile, the company he references below as one example, actually SUPPORTS a carbon tax, the very thing Bernie is actually insulting them for on his page for not supporting.

            So if carbon tax isn’t about big companies, why are the big companies signing on, like Exxon Mobile? This is grand standing. Bernie Blames Exxon just to have an enemy, Exxon has for some time supported a carbon tax for their PC campaign. I’ll give you the link separately for Exxon, as if I post two the post will take a long time to show up. I will also quote Bernie below.

            https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

            “Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.”

          • May 13, 2016 at 1:43 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-and-the-carbon-tax/

            I’m Lyin’ Ted Cruz though aren’t I?

            You are such a fool and a hypocrite.

          • May 13, 2016 at 1:45 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            What do you notice in the phrase:

            “Bring climate deniers to justice”.

            The plural aspect about it. He was not talking about just Exxon. He was talking about anyone who denies climate change.

            Regardless of even this, Exxon should not be prosecuted for trying to research climate change and refusing to accept the status quo until they had more solid research, which is what happened. They should not be prosecuted for this, it sets a dangerous precedent.

          • May 13, 2016 at 1:54 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Also:

            I never implied a surge of republicans.

            Low democrat turnout is a sign of dissatisfaction by the by.

            You can’t count people who didn’t vote. Are you really trying to imply this?

            I could say the same thing. Low republican turn out was why the votes were close.

            In fact, you said this when you said there was no republican surge. You’re right.

            Now connect the dots, and do what you do when you think about democrats, when you think about republicans.

            Use your logic.

          • May 13, 2016 at 2:01 pm
            Bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Law time:

            http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2006&bill=2661

            This is the law I’ve been mentioning. When something passes with amendments that means the republicans would have allowed it IF the amendments were included.

            What do you notice UW?

            One is that a vote will be required.

            Seems reasonable.

            The others remove criminal liability, and there are some that protect religious organizations which I don’t really care for or against.

            But criminal liability against people expressing their religious beliefs, that one is not ok.

            Don’t take my word for it.

            Read it yourself. Do you see any red flags?

            You never read these laws that pass, do you?

            And I’m just slightly more literate, for reading bills that pass eh?

        • May 6, 2016 at 9:26 am
          Yogi Polar Berra says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          Bush begat Obama.
          Greece begat UK consideration of Brexit from EU.
          Obama begat Trump.

          Let me add:

          Detroit, Chicago, LA, NYC, St. Louis / Ferguson, Newark, Cleveland, SF, ….

          Internationally;

          Cuba, Venezuela, the Former USSR (dissolved by Reagan & Thatcher), …

          What’s the common thread?
          Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

        • May 9, 2016 at 6:27 pm
          Bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 2

          Relevance?

          Can I find some relevance anyone?

          Would someone please give me some relevance? Who cares if Agent said Romney would win in a landslide. He’s talking about younger voters having serious issues, which they do.

          Bernie is evidence of that.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*