Warren Bussett

[Taixuquan99]

Stop Coddling the Super-RichBy WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share

I think taxes are a responsibility. A certain member likes to ask if anyone had ever heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity, but the fact is, there really haven't been prosperous nations without taxes.

Thoughts?

[BJJ-Blue]

I think taxes are a responsibility. A certain member likes to ask if anyone had ever heard of a nation taxing itself to prosperity, but the fact is, there really haven't been prosperous nations without taxes.

Thoughts?

That's me, so just say it next time. I wont be offended.

But the question remains; Can you give me one example of a country taxing itself into prosperity? I notice Buffett didn't name any.

[Taixuquan99]

That's me, so just say it next time. I wont be offended.

But the question remains; Can you give me one example of a country taxing itself into prosperity? I notice Buffett didn't name any.

Can you name a prosperous country without taxes? If not, then every prosperous country ever fulfills, in function, your request.

[BJJ-Blue]

Can you name a prosperous country without taxes? If not, then every prosperous country ever fulfills, in function, your request.

I never said we don't need taxes, so that statement is flawed. But I am combating the false premise that rasing taxes is good for an economy.

Just name one country. ;)

[Lucas]

disneyland

[Taixuquan99]

I never said we don't need taxes, so that statement is flawed. But I am combating the false premise that rasing taxes is good for an economy.

Just name one country. ;)

Setting taxes reasonable to a situation presumes raising or lowering them based on circumstances in the society and the world at the time. Since you say we need taxes, we must need them for things taxes are for, and so you admit that, if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be raised.

Thank you.

[Brule]

What is Vatican City Alex?

[BJJ-Blue]

Thank you.

Thanks for what?

You still haven't gaven me ONE example of a country taxing itself into prosperity.

Of course I've pointed out 3 different times in the United States history where tax cuts raised revenue as well as raised the tax burden on the rich. Now it's your turn to provide ONE example like I've asked for. Or can you not do that? If you can't, just admit it. I can't, and I have no problem admitting it.

[BJJ-Blue]

if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be raised.

Actually history shows quite the opposite.

[Taixuquan99]

Actually history shows quite the opposite.

No, history has not shown that if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, that they fulfill their purpose.

[BJJ-Blue]

No, history has not shown that if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, that they fulfill their purpose.

I didn't say they did.

I'll correct your post so you might see what I mean:

"if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be lowered."

Because as I've shown, lowering taxes actually increases revenue.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It has never been about Tax, it has always been about what you GET for the taxes you pay, that is why some countries pay a lot but you don't see people complain as much.
Tax the rich only puts the money they have in the pocket of the government and I would prefer the rich SPEND the money on the economy.
I say TAX the rich IF they don't spend it.
Monet being spent is what stimulates and keeps economies strong.
Big taxes only equals big government and NO guarantees that the money gets where it is supoose to go.

In my view everyone pays the same, say 25% and then add tax "motivators" to motivate those with serious coin to SPEND it IN HOUSE.

[Taixuquan99]

I didn't say they did.

I'll correct your post so you might see what I mean:

"if taxes are too low to fulfill their purpose, they must be lowered."

Because as I've shown, lowering taxes actually increases revenue.

This argument is the opposite of what you've already stated, that taxes are necessary. If lowering automatically increases revenue, then lowering to zero increases revenue most.

What you are avoiding is that there both the possibility of taxes being too high and of being too low, and if the latter, lowering them more is futile.

[BJJ-Blue]

This argument is the opposite of what you've already stated, that taxes are necessary.

I've never stated taxes are not necessary. I believe this is now twice in this thread alone you've attributed things to me I've not even said. Debate what I say, not what you claim I said.


If lowering automatically increases revenue, then lowering to zero increases revenue most.

I guess a 'Bell Curve' is not something you are familiar with.


What you are avoiding is that there both the possibility of taxes being too high and of being too low, and if the latter, lowering them more is futile.

Are you saying that taxes are too low right now?

[BJJ-Blue]

I didn't see Buffett mention spending, just taxes.

And I'll wager that Buffett didn't get rich by spending more money than he took in month after month for decades on end and just borrowing more and more money to keep going and going down that path.

[Taixuquan99]

Are you saying that taxes are too low right now?

For the top earners, yes.

[Taixuquan99]

I've never stated taxes are not necessary. I believe this is now twice in this thread alone you've attributed things to me I've not even said. Debate what I say, not what you claim I said.

I've attributed just fine, you are avoiding accepting a point at which lowering taxes ceases to pay off, if you say there is no such point, then that means no taxes are necessary.

[BJJ-Blue]

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License TaxMedicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?

[David Jamieson]

There is no such thing as a nation without taxes.
ergo the question is moot.

Nations cannot be without taxation, prosperous or otherwise.
The question, though it came from an interesting person, is fake at the bottom line and used as a piece of political rhetoric.

take one second to think about the statement.

then take another to think about exactly how nations would prosper without taxes.

done. good. So you understand how political rhetoric is all crap now?

good. :-)

[Taixuquan99]

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License TaxMedicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?

Essentially free labor dissapeared with the end of Jim Crow laws.

Child labor ended.

Need any more nails in your utopian coffin? We'd bomb those primitives to dust in a nanosecond, we're closer to having a state of liberty than they ever could dream possible for all Americans, and we aren't putting frikkin kids in coal mines. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than the dollar.

[BJJ-Blue]

done. good. So you understand how political rhetoric is all crap now?

Who is calling for NO taxes? I've missed those candidates, so please fill me in.


Need any more nails in your utopian coffin?

Ask the community organizer. He promised us Utopia, and all we got was 9% unemplyment and record debt. I'm just stating that the solution is to lower taxes, lower regulation, and cut spending.

I don't believe in that garbage. I live in the real world. And in the real world economies that are least hamstrung by Gov't intervention are the ones who do the best. Emulate success, not failure.

[BJJ-Blue]

Essentially free labor dissapeared with the end of Jim Crow laws.

Child labor ended.

So you're saying the debt soured and that most households went from one provider to two providers because we ended child labor? :confused:

[David Jamieson]

So you're saying the debt soured and that most households went from one provider to two providers because we ended child labor? :confused:

with the end of child labour and indentured slavery and with the rise of unions, taxes started to get higher because people couldn't oppress others physically into working for nothing.

the people that did that tended to be the wealthy elite, yes, not much has changed since the beginning of time has it.

Now, we are oppressed by unnecessary taxes that are hoisted upon us, instead of onto the profits of huge corporations controlled by few that are producing the most economic wealth and are not giving back to the people that make it.

I didn't say the wealthy elite were stupid. I'd say they were more like a pack of psychopaths in a lot of ways.

[Taixuquan99]

So you're saying the debt soured and that most households went from one provider to two providers because we ended child labor? :confused:

Talk about making up arguments.

You're saying that companies were paying children and blacks fair wages, and that this wage scale did not end after the end of those two institutions? Okay.

For the majority of U.S. history, a statistically large amount of those in labor could not receive a fair wage for their work, and business benefited from this. When this ended, costs went up because the cost of labor went up.

Now, Chinese and Indian kids do it.

This is the succesful model you admire while arguing about the lack of morality of fatherless children.

[BJJ-Blue]

with the end of child labour and indentured slavery and with the rise of unions, taxes started to get higher because people couldn't oppress others physically into working for nothing.

So when the evil corporations couldn't exploit people anymore, the solution was higher taxes? :confused:


Now, we are oppressed by unnecessary taxes that are hoisted upon us, instead of onto the profits of huge corporations controlled by few that are producing the most economic wealth and are not giving back to the people that make it.

You're nuts if you believe this.

First off, if a corporation hires people, they are giving back. You liberals can't fathom that jobs are an important part of society and that "the rich" provide large numbers of those jobs.


Talk about making up arguments.

Your comprehension is horrible. I asked if that was what you meant because I was confused. I never attributed it to you.


This is the succesful model you admire while arguing about the lack of morality of fatherless children.

So can you show me where I called for the legalization of unregualted child labor?

And it's not the children's lack of morality I blame primarily, it's the fathers lack of it I blame primarily.

And why can't you two liberals just admit that a 2 parent household is better than a single parent household? Is this toxic to you guys or something?

And arguing about child labor is not what that list was about. Stay on topic please and tell us what changed as it asked you to.

[Taixuquan99]

You asked what changed since a hundred years ago in regards to our economy. The dissapearance of segregation and child labor are relevant. The huge entitlements and breaks for businesses are relevant. Our economy wasn't based on getting our savings into the economy by hook or crook to the extent it is now. The change in corporate law, deregulation, the states ending up having to pay for business costs and damage that corporations and businesses create, but get out of handling, are far more involved now. Nuclear power, oil, the overconsumption of oil, the loss of Iran, the subsequent need to use military power in the middle east for supply chain purposes, all costs beyond what was going on a hundred years ago. The changeover from companies building for war efforts and people rationing to a system where we maintain consumer spending even though consumers haven't, on average, had a real savings in thirty years.

[BJJ-Blue]

What's your opinion on how spending contributes to the problem?

[BJJ-Blue]

The huge entitlements and breaks for businesses are relevant.

What do you do for a living?

If you believe this, I'm sure it's not in manufacturing of any kind. We sure as sh*t don't get any entitlements or breaks. All we get is more and more regulation.

[Taixuquan99]

What's your opinion on how spending contributes to the problem?

Since I think the taxes are too low on the rich, this certainly puts a kibbosh on spending.

Plus, our military expenditures constitute big government, huge government. Parcelling out development of military equipment to different states is a horrible practice. It should be developed rationally, in the best regions for the task.

Afghanistan should always have been just about getting Bin Laden.

Monuments and celebrations are a waste of money. Roads and infrastructure are neglected for these things.

Schools are underfunded by overfunded politicians.

Spending has to happen, and the bottom cannot be allowed to fall out from under the populace.

Tax breaks for businesses failed to make businesses lean and powerful. Entitlements as well.

[Taixuquan99]

What do you do for a living?

If you believe this, I'm sure it's not in manufacturing of any kind.

I have worked in manufacturing, but don't now.


We sure as sh*t don't get any entitlements or breaks.

You don't get any tax breaks?

Remember all the small company owners during Bush's term that got a break for getting a work vehicle, and so many got Hummers, a ton got vehicles they barely used for business, but all got the break. Bunch of frauds. we don't support any troop when we waste oil.

Regardless of your company, there's a lot of money in tax breaks for businesses that are undeserved. I'm all for supporting small business, and all for letting big business support itself for once.


All we get is more and more regulation.

Regulation has never been enforced less. Your industry might be an exception, but most manufacturers are not.

[Taixuquan99]

To point out something important, Buffett mentions that, under higher taxes, and more regulation in the past, he was not aware of anyone stopping because of this, despite the claim often made by people.

[BJJ-Blue]

To point out something important, Buffett mentions that, under higher taxes, and more regulation in the past, he was not aware of anyone stopping because of this, despite the claim often made by people.

Buffett has not ran a munafacturing business I don't believe. Isn't he a lifelong investor?

[BJJ-Blue]

Remember all the small company owners during Bush's term that got a break for getting a work vehicle, and so many got Hummers, a ton got vehicles they barely used for business, but all got the break. Bunch of frauds. we don't support any troop when we waste oil.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. None whatsoever.

Can you give me any examples and tell me what law you are referring to?


Regulation has never been enforced less. Your industry might be an exception, but most manufacturers are not.

LMFAO!!!

The only people who are seeing less regulation are the ones who moved operations to China or India. Not to be rude, but it's almost like you live in a completely different world.

[BJJ-Blue]

Since I think the taxes are too low on the rich, ...

The Top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all Federal income taxes. You say they don't pay enough. So how much is enough in your eyes?

[Taixuquan99]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. None whatsoever.

Can you give me any examples and tell me what law you are referring to?

The intent of the deal wasn't bad, if was to help small businesses, I don't recall the break you got, but it was a substantial tax break related to the purchase of a work vehicle. Unfortunately, everyone was a bit to enamoured of all the huge trucks they didn't need, everyone I knew who got the break got a ridiculous vehicle, then, predictably, gas prices went up, then the economy got dodgy, in every case I've seen, the break ended up costing them in the long run, because of their own greed.(I do blame Americans for their own part of the problem).




LMFAO!!!

The only people who are seeing less regulation are the ones who moved operations to China or India. Not to be rude, but it's almost like you live in a completely different world.

You are saying that regulation has increased since the eighties, even while everyone else is saying that regulation decreased during the same timeframe.

[Taixuquan99]

The Top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all Federal income taxes. You say they don't pay enough. So how much is enough in your eyes?

They should pay at least the same percentage of THEIR OWN income taxes as everyone else. Don't figure from the total, but from their income, that's why it's income tax.

[Taixuquan99]

I will give cudos to all for totally not pointing out that Warren Bussett sounds like a type of girdle.

[BJJ-Blue]

The intent of the deal wasn't bad, if was to help small businesses, I don't recall the break you got, but it was a substantial tax break related to the purchase of a work vehicle.

Can you give me the name of the legislation please? I've never heard of this, so I'd like to see what law(s) you are referring to.


You are saying that regulation has increased since the eighties, even while everyone else is saying that regulation decreased during the same timeframe.

Depends on the industry. The regulations for building/operating manufacturing facilities is more regulated now. Now regulations concerning banking and home loans was indeed deregulated in the 1990s under Bill Clinton.

[BJJ-Blue]

They should pay at least the same percentage of THEIR OWN income taxes as everyone else. Don't figure from the total, but from their income, that's why it's income tax.

You do realize that we do have tax brackets based on income, right? And that it is set up so the more you make the higher the bracket you fall into.

And again, I've shown that CUTTING taxes results in the rich paying a higher share of the tax burden. So if you want that, history show that CUTTING taxes will achieve that result. So why are you against doing something that results in exactly what you want to see happen?

[David Jamieson]

Tax wealth, not income. It's that simple.

A great American (who I credit at the end of the quote) once said:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck

The middle class support the nation and it supports the billionaires.
Time to give back and Warren is right.

[Taixuquan99]

You do realize that we do have tax brackets based on income, right? And that it is set up so the more you make the higher the bracket you fall into.

Not quite that simple once we're talking about some "persons"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html


And again, I've shown that CUTTING taxes results in the rich paying a higher share of the tax burden. So if you want that, history show that CUTTING taxes will achieve that result. So why are you against doing something that results in exactly what you want to see happen?

Again, you talk as if one can endlessly cut taxes without ever running into problems. Is there or isn't there a minimum tax rate below which the tax ceases to fulfill its role?

[David Jamieson]

http://i.imgur.com/gbgC7.jpg

[BJJ-Blue]

Tax wealth, not income. It's that simple.

We already do that. It's called the Inheritance Tax.

[BJJ-Blue]

Again, you talk as if one can endlessly cut taxes without ever running into problems. Is there or isn't there a minimum tax rate below which the tax ceases to fulfill its role?

No I do not. I've never called for repeated tax cuts over and over. I know what a Bell Curve is, so I understand at a certain point you will get less in tax receipts. But at the point we are at now, a large income tax cut would help the economy get moving.

As to removing taxes, I am for getting rid of the Capitol Gains Tax. We already pay Income Taxes, so this is not needed. And if you cut or repeal the Capitol Gains Tax, you will see money flow into the stock market very quickly.

I do have one question for you. How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

[Reality_Check]

No I do not. I've never called for repeated tax cuts over and over. I know what a Bell Curve is, so I understand at a certain point you will get less in tax receipts. But at the point we are at now, a large income tax cut would help the economy get moving.

As to removing taxes, I am for getting rid of the Capitol Gains Tax. We already pay Income Taxes, so this is not needed. And if you cut or repeal the Capitol Gains Tax, you will see money flow into the stock market very quickly.

I do have one question for you. How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

What about hedge fund or private equity managers? Their income is treated as capital gains. So, should they not be taxed at all?

[BJJ-Blue]

What about hedge fund or private equity managers? Their income is treated as capital gains. So, should they not be taxed at all?

They will still be paying Income Taxes.

That's why a Flat Tax is the perfect solution. Everyone pays the same rate, no deductions. If you make 8x what I do, you pay 8x the income taxes I do. What's unfair about that?

[David Jamieson]

We already do that. It's called the Inheritance Tax.

Nuh Uh. Do it at the stock market.

[Reality_Check]

They will still be paying Income Taxes.

That's why a Flat Tax is the perfect solution. Everyone pays the same rate, no deductions. If you make 8x what I do, you pay 8x the income taxes I do. What's unfair about that?

No they won't. They do not pay income taxes on the money they earn managing their funds. That money is taxed as capital gains, not income. Which is why they aren't paid a "salary". So, if you eliminate the capital gains tax, that money will not be taxed at all. Which is the complete opposite of what Warren Buffet is advocating in his op-ed.

[Taixuquan99]

I do have one question for you. How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

Remember when you always inserted Hussein in your posts about him? Back when you were the resident birther? Wasn't that tacky?

[BJJ-Blue]

Nuh Uh. Do it at the stock market.

That's called the Capitol Gains Tax.

Look, you're the guy who said the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, and now you are arguing economics with me? :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

No they won't. They do not pay income taxes on the money they earn managing their funds. That money is taxed as capital gains, not income. Which is why they aren't paid a "salary". So, if you eliminate the capital gains tax, that money will not be taxed at all. Which is the complete opposite of what Warren Buffet is advocating in his op-ed.

FYI, money you earn is called income.

I don't care what it's called now. If you are right, then change it. If you institute a Flat Tax, everything you take in is taxed as income. Period. No deductions, tax shelters, etc.

So if it is taxed right now as Capitol Gains and you eliminate the Capitol Gains Tax, then tax it under the Income Tax. It's not this hard to figure out.

[Taixuquan99]

That's called the Capitol Gains Tax.

Look, you're the guy who said the Federal Reserve is a private corporation, and now you are arguing economics with me? :rolleyes:

Aren't you the guy who said there were no riots in the depression?

[BJJ-Blue]

Remember when you always inserted Hussein in your posts about him? Back when you were the resident birther? Wasn't that tacky?

It's never tacky to refer to someone by their name. If he doesn't like it, he is free to change it. He actually has used different names in the past, he has used the last name "Sotero" before, but now no longer uses it.

But I've explained this before, and maybe you were not around then, so I'll do it again:

I will refer to him as the community organizer because he referred to a group of law-abiding, taxpaying American citizens as "tea baggers" because they did not agree with him. That's disrespectful. So I will show him the same respect he showed that group of Americans. And he was a community organizer, so that description fits him perfectly.

And fyi, his Vice President recently referred to that same group of law-abiding taxpaying American citizens as "terrorists".

[BJJ-Blue]

Aren't you the guy who said there were no riots in the depression?

No, I said this:

"Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time."

You are once again adding things I did not say and cutting out other things I did say so you can use statements I've never made against me. Can you please stop doing that?

[BJJ-Blue]

Can you please answer this question:

How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

[Taixuquan99]

We already covered this, they did riot, loot, attack innocent bystanders, and burn buildings. I even said I'd give you time to do a google search, and then RC did one for you, and you're still claiming the same thing.

This on top of being a birther.

[Taixuquan99]

Can you please answer this question:

How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

Start a thread about it, and maybe someone will talk to you there.

[Taixuquan99]

It's never tacky to refer to someone by their name. If he doesn't like it, he is free to change it. He actually has used different names in the past, he has used the last name "Sotero" before, but now no longer uses it.

But I've explained this before, and maybe you were not around then, so I'll do it again:

I will refer to him as the community organizer because he referred to a group of law-abiding, taxpaying American citizens as "tea baggers" because they did not agree with him. That's disrespectful. So I will show him the same respect he showed that group of Americans. And he was a community organizer, so that description fits him perfectly.

And fyi, his Vice President recently referred to that same group of law-abiding taxpaying American citizens as "terrorists".

Passive aggresive. You've never done anything but use terms snidely about him, INCLUDING Hussein, long before the teabaggers existed. I doubt one member here thinks orherwise, despite your lame justifications.

[BJJ-Blue]

We already covered this, they did riot, loot, attack innocent bystanders, and burn buildings.

You showed they burned buildings to commit insurance fraud. That's not whats going on right now in Britain.

And you showed ONE example of an innocent bystander being attacked. ONE. I can upload YouTube clips that show multiple innocent people being assaulted. And the current Philly assaults are all black on white, which appear fit the description of "hate crimes". The ONE example you gave was not of a "hate crime".

And you did not present any examples of them looting designer clothes, shoes, or electronic/luxury items.

[BJJ-Blue]

Start a thread about it, and maybe someone will talk to you there.

Come on, you know that is relevant to this discussion. It's about taxes and the economy. Let's keep it simple, please.

[BJJ-Blue]

Passive aggresive. You've never done anything but use terms snidely about him, INCLUDING Hussein, long before the teabaggers existed. I doubt one member here thinks orherwise, despite your lame justifications.

I don't care what you call it. I explained why I do it and I will continue to do it until he apologizes to those Americans he insulted.

If any GOP Presidential candidate uses a sexual slur to attack the community organizer, I will call them on it. But I bet they dont, they are above that.

[Taixuquan99]

You showed they burned buildings to commit insurance fraud. That's not whats going on right now in Britain.

And you showed ONE example of an innocent bystander being attacked. ONE. I can upload YouTube clips that show multiple innocent people being assaulted. And the current Philly assaults are all black on white, which appear fit the description of "hate crimes". The ONE example you gave was not of a "hate crime".

And you did not present any examples of them looting designer clothes, shoes, or electronic/luxury items.

A further cursory search finds ONE INCIDENT where ninety people were injured.

Ninety.

[Taixuquan99]

I don't care what you call it. I explained why I do it and I will continue to do it until he apologizes to those Americans he insulted.

If any GOP Presidential candidate uses a sexual slur to attack the community organizer, I will call them on it. But I bet they dont, they are above that.

So the justification retroactively explains why you did the same behavior before he called them teabaggers as well. Interesting.

[Taixuquan99]

Come on, you know that is relevant to this discussion. It's about taxes and the economy. Let's keep it simple, please.

It's about Warren Buffett's article. Make your own thread instead of asking this in every single thread you can.

[BJJ-Blue]

A further cursory search finds ONE INCIDENT where ninety people were injured.

Ninety.

Ok.

Were thos 90 rioters? Cops? Innocent bystanders?

And I've yet to see an example of them burning parts of cities for anything other than insurance fraud. Nor have I seen examples of them looting designer clothes and shoes, and electronic/luxury items. Nor have I seen examples of them only assauting people of other races. Keep Googling. ;)

[Taixuquan99]

You showed they burned buildings to commit insurance fraud. That's not whats going on right now in Britain.



Holy splitting hairs, Batman!

[BJJ-Blue]

It's about Warren Buffett's article. Make your own thread instead of asking this in every single thread you can.

Be real.

What do I do, start a thread called "What was the stimulus supposed to do" when you can just answer it here? :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

So the justification retroactively explains why you did the same behavior before he called them teabaggers as well. Interesting.

I did not exclusively refer to him in the fashion I do now before he said that.

Making up more things AGAIN? :rolleyes: Interesting

[Taixuquan99]

Be real.

What do I do, start a thread called "What was the stimulus supposed to do" when you can just answer it here? :rolleyes:

Are you claiming not to understand how to start a thread?

[BJJ-Blue]

Holy splitting hairs, Batman!

Yeah, there is no difference between burning a building for insurance fraud and burning a stranger's building during a riot. Genius.

[Taixuquan99]

I did not exclusively refer to him in the fashion I do now before he said that.


Yes, in the same fashion, using hussein. That was back when you were a card carrying birther, I understand now you're a teabagger, everyone experiments, no problem.

[BJJ-Blue]

Are you claiming not to understand how to start a thread?

No, but thanks for asking.

It's stupid. Just answer it here in the thread about the economy. It's a question about his economic policies.

[BJJ-Blue]

That was back when you were a card carrying birther,

Please prove that.

[Taixuquan99]

Yeah, there is no difference between burning a building for insurance fraud and burning a stranger's building during a riot. Genius.

So it's morally superior to burn a building for insurance fraud than to burn someone else's building. Is that OT or NT?

[BJJ-Blue]

I gotta split. I'll be on later.

Find those examples of looting and burning I asked for, and posts where I said the community organizer was not born here.

And if you really want to be nice, please answer my question about the 'stimulus'. I'll thank you for it if you do. ;)

[Taixuquan99]

Please prove that.

Your coming out will be like Rip Taylor's, not entirely surprising.

[BJJ-Blue]

So it's morally superior to burn a building for insurance fraud than to burn someone else's building.

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!

But the INTENT is different. One you do to for financial gain, the other gains you nothing financially. And one you are burning YOUR OWN property, in the other you are burning someone else's property. Is this news to you? Am I giving you too much credit?

[BJJ-Blue]

Your coming out will be like Rip Taylor's, not entirely surprising.

Cool, I look forward to seeing what quotes you come up with.

Gotta go. See ya later man. ;)

[Taixuquan99]

So Americans were morally superior in the Great Depression because insurance fraud inspired arson is always better than burning someone else's building.

Well, we finally agree. Stick it to the insurance man, Birther Blue!

[BJJ-Blue]

So Americans were morally superior in the Great Depression because insurance fraud inspired arson is always better than burning someone else's building.

No, that's not true. And no, I did not say that.

Burning someone else's property is wrong/immoral, burning property you own for insurance fraud is a form of theft, which is wrong/immoral. But those crimes are committed for different reasons. Get it now?

[BJJ-Blue]

Taix:

Let me get this straight. In this thread about the American economy you say a question regarding the stimulus does not belong in this thread, yet you have brought the issue of where our current President was born into the thread. :confused:

So just answer the question:

How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

[Taixuquan99]

No, that's not true. And no, I did not say that.

Burning someone else's property is wrong/immoral, burning property you own for insurance fraud is a form of theft, which is wrong/immoral. But those crimes are committed for different reasons. Get it now?

Since we are discussing(by your prompting) the moral distinction between the London riot and riots during the Great Depression in the U.S., which you painted as more moral(this after saying they didn't exist). Now you claim to be drawing different distinctions that have nothing to do with the discussion.

You did argue exactly this, and now you're shifting.

[Taixuquan99]

Taix:

Let me get this straight. In this thread about the American economy

In this thread about Buffett's comments...


you say a question regarding the stimulus does not belong in this thread,

No, I said make your own thread. Would you quit making up things I'm saying WAAAAAAAAAH...


yet you have brought the issue of where our current President was born into the thread.

No, I brought up that you were a birther, I will bring it up for years. I have not seen any real world reason to question where the president was born.


So just answer the question:

How was the community organizer's 'stimulus' supposed to work? Or put another way, what was theory behind the 'stimulus' money getting the economy moving again?

Start a thread about it. Or find one that already exists. This thread is about Warren Buffett's comments. That's how threads work.

[BJJ-Blue]

Since we are discussing(by your prompting) the moral distinction between the London riot and riots during the Great Depression in the U.S., which you painted as more moral(this after saying they didn't exist). Now you claim to be drawing different distinctions that have nothing to do with the discussion.

No, I did not.


You did argue exactly this, and now you're shifting.

No, I did not argue that. You just said I did. But that's par for the course with you.

I'll try again: :rolleyes: Theft is theft, and it is wrong. But someone stealing designer shoes and someone who is stealing food to survive have different motivations for their stealing. Wrong is wrong, but the reasons/motivations for those doing those wrongs are different.

[Taixuquan99]

No, I did not.

Actually, you did.



No, I did not argue that.

Actually, you did.


I'll try again: :rolleyes: Theft is theft, and it is wrong. But someone stealing designer shoes and someone who is stealing food to survive have different motivations for their stealing. Wrong is wrong, but the reasons/motivations for those doing those wrongs are different.

And now you'll pretend all riots in the depression were food riots again. We already covered this.

[BJJ-Blue]

In this thread about Buffett's comments...

...about the US economy.


No, I said make your own thread. Would you quit making up things I'm saying WAAAAAAAAAH...

If you said to start a new thread, isn't that saying it doesn't belong here?

And if it doesn't, why won't you answer the question?


No, I brought up that you were a birther, I will bring it up for years.

So will lie about someone you are debating/discussing topics with?

I asked for posts of mine showing I'm a "birther". You have not came up with any. Yet you will still call me something you can find no evidence that I am. That says alot about you.


Start a thread about it. Or find one that already exists. This thread is about Warren Buffett's comments. That's how threads work.

Fair enough.

So why did you bring up where the community organizer was born in this thread?

[BJJ-Blue]

Actually, you did.

Prove it. Post where I've said that.


And now you'll pretend all riots in the depression were food riots again. We already covered this.

Well you have presented no evidence they weren't. Am I just supposed to make up things you didn't say in your posts?

[Taixuquan99]

...about the US economy.

Quick lesson.

You cannot discuss "the economy". You can discuss, "Warren Buffett's comments on the economy", or "Trickle-down theory" or what have you, manageable topics. The Economy is not.

This is a thread about Buffett's comments on the economy. Start another thread, or, better yet, show good netiquette and find one that's already out there and revive it.


If you said to start a new thread, isn't that saying it doesn't belong here?

No, it means on a forum, if you want to discuss something with everyone, you don't go to a separate thread each person is on talking about something specific that doesn't directly relate, and expect every one of them to humor your childishness, you act like an adult and start a thread or find one that is directly about your topic.


So will lie about someone you are debating/discussing topics with?

Not a lie, you were our first forum birther.


I asked for posts of mine showing I'm a "birther". You have not came up with any.

I tried to make clear that a coming out party for you as a birther would be like Rip Taylor's coming out party for other things, not exactly necessary, but you apparently don't follow subtleties like Rip Taylor not really needing to come out. You were apparently the 1% shocked by Liberace's life story.


Yet you will still call me something you can find no evidence that I am. That says alot about you.


At least I was never a birther.


So why did you bring up where the community organizer was born in this thread?

I didn't, I brought up that you were a birther. Distinctions are tough for you, aren't they?

[Taixuquan99]

Well you have presented no evidence they weren't. Am I just supposed to make up things you didn't say in your posts?

Anyone who knows anything about the Great Depression knows there were riots other than the food riots. In fact, most are less likely to realize there were food riots. Since you were the one who brought up the Great Depression, I assumed you weren't completely and utterly ignorant of the topic. Are you saying this was a mistake? Are we supposed to provide a secondary school primer for you because your high school history was apparently lacking in this?

[BJJ-Blue]

Not a lie, you were our first forum birther.

Then prove it.


I tried to make clear that a coming out party for you as a birther would be like Rip Taylor's coming out party for other things, not exactly necessary, but you apparently don't follow subtleties like Rip Taylor not really needing to come out. You were apparently the 1% shocked by Liberace's life story.

Just because you say it's obvious and you don't have to prove it does not make it true. Show us my posts saying he was not born here.

Would you like it if I called you a child molester and when you asked me to back it up I said, "It's not exactly necessary. It's as obvious as Rip Taylor's coming out party. You must have been shocked to find out Liberace was queer." Would you like that?

Well I don't like being called names that do not apply to me. So prove it, or stop. If you prove your assertions, I wont say a word if you type it 1000 times a day.


At least I was never a birther.

Nor was I.

But at least I'm not a liar.


I didn't, I brought up that you were a birther. Distinctions are tough for you, aren't they?

No, but being called something I'm not doesn't make me happy. Would you like it if I started assigning labels/manes to you that don't fit?

[BJJ-Blue]

Anyone who knows anything about the Great Depression knows there were riots other than the food riots. In fact, most are less likely to realize there were food riots. Since you were the one who brought up the Great Depression, I assumed you weren't completely and utterly ignorant of the topic. Are you saying this was a mistake? Are we supposed to provide a secondary school primer for you because your high school history was apparently lacking in this?

Just back up your assertions. If it's so easy, you should have no problem.

Of course i've noticed you aren't claiming they also attacked people solely on the basis of race as is being done in Philly. Or showed examples of them stealing designer clothes and shoes, or luxury items.

[Taixuquan99]

Just back up your assertions. If it's so easy, you should have no problem.

Of course i've noticed you aren't claiming they also attacked people solely on the basis of race as is being done in Philly. Or showed examples of them stealing designer clothes and shoes, or luxury items.

How would you discern Jim Crow era attacks on blacks before and after the depression from ones during the depression in order to make such an assertion?

You don't come equiped to a debate, and it does not become the other guy's responsibility to inform you.

Google it, Birther Blue.

[Taixuquan99]

Would you like it if I called you a child molester and when you asked me to back it up I said, "It's not exactly necessary. It's as obvious as Rip Taylor's coming out party. You must have been shocked to find out Liberace was queer." Would you like that?

If I spent my first months on the forum sharing links on why teen pageant stars are HOT, I'd be asking for it, wouldn't I?

Since I didn't do that, I live in a great place of peace, my young Birther friend.

[BJJ-Blue]

How would you discern Jim Crow era attacks on blacks before and after the depression from ones during the depression in order to make such an assertion?

We are discussing what happened DURING the Depression.

Don't move the goalposts.


Google it, Birther Blue.

Whatever Chester the Molester.

[BJJ-Blue]

If I spent my first months on the forum sharing links on why teen pageant stars are HOT, I'd be asking for it, wouldn't I?

Since I didn't do that, I live in a great place of peace, my young Birther friend.

I didn't say the community organizer wasn't born here.

So since those are the standards YOU set, i'll just keep calling you names that fit you under YOUR standards. Or you can stop, and I will too. Or you can prove I said it and I'll apologize to you and have to take my medicine.

[Taixuquan99]

We are discussing what happened DURING the Depression.

Don't move the goalposts.

So, Jim Crow laws and attacks on blacks stopped during the Depression?

[Taixuquan99]

I didn't say the community organizer wasn't born here.

So since those are the standards YOU set, i'll just keep calling you names that fit you under YOUR standards. Or you can stop, and I will too. Or you can prove I said it and I'll apologize to you and have to take my medicine.

Let's see who would win this exchange. Since the standard I set was, for you to call me a molester, I would have to have spent months on here posting links suggesting teen pageant girls are hot, this presumes that, for me to call you a birther, you would have to have spent months posting links suggesting that Obama was not born here.

I win! Birther!

[BJJ-Blue]

So, Jim Crow laws and attacks on blacks stopped during the Depression?

Where is the "facepalm" icon when you need it?

[BJJ-Blue]

Let's see who would win this exchange. Since the standard I set was, for you to call me a molester, I would have to have spent months on here posting links suggesting teen pageant girls are hot, this presumes that, for me to call you a birther, you would have to have spent months posting links suggesting that Obama was not born here.

Well I've presented as many links of you saying you like little kids as you've presented of me saying the community organizer wasn't born here.

[Reality_Check]

Just back up your assertions. If it's so easy, you should have no problem.

Of course i've noticed you aren't claiming they also attacked people solely on the basis of race as is being done in Philly. Or showed examples of them stealing designer clothes and shoes, or luxury items.

He really doesn't need to back up his assertions regarding there being other forms of rioting. I've already done that, which you would know if you had taken the time to read the links I posted in the other thread.



Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time.

There were riots, as even a cursory Google search would show.

http://www.cleveland.com/recession/index.ssf/2009/03/cleveland_eviction_riot_of_193.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/rails-timeline/

Assault, looting, rioting, no arson though.


February 1931

"Food riots" begin to break out in parts of the U.S. In Minneapolis, several hundred men and women smash the windows of a grocery market and make off with fruit, canned goods, bacon, and ham. One of the store's owners pulls out a gun to stop the looters, but is leapt upon and has his arm broken. The "riot" is brought under control by 100 policemen. Seven people are arrested.

Resentment of "foreign" workers increases along with unemployment rolls. In Los Angeles, California, Mexican Americans are accused of stealing jobs from "real" Americans. During the month, 6,024 Mexican Americans are deported.

http://museumca.org/picturethis/timeline/depression-era-1930s/watsonville-riots/info

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/unemployed-councils-eviction-riots-and-new-deal

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CB8QFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdepts.washington.edu%2Fdepress%2F bellingham_families_depression.shtml&ei=UrVKToKVKsHAtgfFoIikCg&usg=AFQjCNHQYdXEYpgBZEQgptly0mmiq8WcDg

Whoops...there is the arson.


While the majority of Whatcom families managed to cope with the Depression hardships, some were not so fortunate. Driven by desperation, a number of people turned to stealing. More often than not, these burglars stole small amounts of cash but paid for it with jail time. One drug store bandit was so desperate that he held the owner at gun point for twenty-seven dollars.[22] Another money-yielding crime was arson. An arson gang set fire to several properties in an attempt to benefit from false insurance claims, though they were caught and imprisoned.[23] Even though many did not turn to crime, the stress of constant economic hardship manifested itself in other ways, as some couples found themselves looking for a divorce. Legal fees and supporting two families proved very expensive however, so a number of frustrated and hopeless men simply walked out on their families without officially getting a divorce. National reports showed that by 1940, 1.5 million married women had been abandoned by their husbands.[24]

From the very first link I posted:


Cleveland eviction riot of 1933 bears similarities to current woes

If one insists on proof, one is obligated to read said proof before making a fool of oneself by insisting said proof was not offered.

[BJJ-Blue]

Here is what I said in regards to the "birther" issue:


I'll say this on the topic--At first, I figured the people saying he wasn't born here were the typical wingnuts who see conspiracies on every corner. Then I looked at evidence, I actually took the time to research what they saying, rather than be like you and label them and write them off. They have some relevant points. For example, he went by another last name. His father was not a citizen. His early education took place overseas. His wife's quote. The fact he has not released his birth certificate. There is a good bit of evidence here. Is it enough to sway me? Not yet, but I am really starting to wonder if indeed on this subject, where there is smoke there is fire. But right now, I still can't say they have proven he wasn't born here.

See, nowhere did I say he wasn't born here, or that I believed he wasn't born here.

[BJJ-Blue]

If one insists on proof, one is obligated to read said proof before making a fool of oneself by insisting said proof was not offered.

Where are the examples of people stealing designer shoes, clothes, and luxury/electronic items? Where are the examples of EVERY assault being committed by one race on another as is the case in Philly?

I've repeatedly asked for that and not gotten it. Of course you've somehow found it in your posts, but I don't see it. Can you highlight those parts for me please?

[Taixuquan99]

Here is what I said in regards to the "birther" issue:



See, nowhere did I say he wasn't born here, or that I believed he wasn't born here.

Yes, passive aggresiveness prevents actually stating your stance as a birther, I understand.

[BJJ-Blue]

Cleveland eviction riot of 1933 bears similarities to current woes

Are you saying the riots in Britain and/or Philly are over people being evicted? :confused:

[BJJ-Blue]

Yes, passive aggresiveness prevents actually stating your stance as a birther, I understand.

No, the fact that I said "I still cant say" does.

I say what I mean, anyone on here knows that. I don't *****foot around things, I'm very upfront.

[Taixuquan99]

Where are the examples of people stealing designer shoes, clothes, and luxury/electronic items? Where are the examples of EVERY assault being committed by one race on another as is the case in Philly?

I've repeatedly asked for that and not gotten it. Of course you've somehow found it in your posts, but I don't see it. Can you highlight those parts for me please?

If you want to show a higher moral quality to one rioting group over another, and the points you ask for proof of don't prove such a thing, people are not gonna waste their time searching for irrelevancies.

[Taixuquan99]

I say what I mean, anyone on here knows that.

This is funny.

[BJJ-Blue]

If you want to show a higher moral quality to one rioting group over another,

Yet again the "facepalm" icon would be appropriate.

[BJJ-Blue]

This is funny.

That is true.

[Taixuquan99]

That is true.

I hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't.

[Taixuquan99]

Yet again the "facepalm" icon would be appropriate.

Oh, so you've shifted your argument again? Now it's "you didn't see Americans riot in the depression(cause of my central moral issue conclusion), oh wait, rioting for food is different morally, oh wait, rioting for insurance money is technically different than rioting for designer shoes, but I never said morally"?

[Reality_Check]

Here is what I said in regards to the "birther" issue:

See, nowhere did I say he wasn't born here, or that I believed he wasn't born here.

Here are some other things you said regarding the birther issue:


It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the Constitution and the rule of law.


Probably. It appears he has the documentation, but his own wife said his home country was Kenya. And since he admits to never living in Kenya, that is suspicious.


Not to harp on this, but his wife said his home country was Kenya. She could have said he was from Hawaii, or Kansas, or even (gasp!) America.



Put it this way: If what I posted about him being from Kenya is racist, then I'm as much a racist as the Founding Fathers. They made the rule, after all.


What about his mother's side? She is American. If he was born here, and is half American origin, why would his wife say Kenya is his home country when he is half Kenyan origin, but wasn't born there? Hmmm.....


Please explain how the Constitution is irrelevant when it says the President must be a natural born citizen, and we are discussing whether Obama was a natural born citizen?:confused:


There are reasons people question his citizenship, and you just provided one of the reasons. Speaking only for myself, his race has nothing to do with it.


His wife said it first. Not me. How is it disrespectful to call a man whose home country is Kenya a Kenyan? My home state is Texas, and I don't get mad when I'm called a Texan.


I'll say this on the topic--At first, I figured the people saying he wasn't born here were the typical wingnuts who see conspiracies on every corner. Then I looked at evidence, I actually took the time to research what they saying, rather than be like you and label them and write them off. They have some relevant points. For example, he went by another last name. His father was not a citizen. His early education took place overseas. His wife's quote. The fact he has not released his birth certificate. There is a good bit of evidence here. Is it enough to sway me? Not yet, but I am really starting to wonder if indeed on this subject, where there is smoke there is fire. But right now, I still can't say they have proven he wasn't born here.

And If I'm a "birther" or "xenophopic", so were the Founders. So while I despise labels that simple-minded people use, it's not exactly an insult to be called that.


As to me saying his home country was Kenya, I did say that. I do not deny that. However, I clearly stated the man's own wife said it.

Plus there was your insistence that he hadn't released his birth certificate...when he had.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Taixuquan99]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It's Birther Blue.

[Reality_Check]

Are you saying the riots in Britain and/or Philly are over people being evicted? :confused:

And yet you complain about people reading into your posts....:rolleyes:

Do as I say not as I do, eh?


He really doesn't need to back up his assertions regarding there being other forms of rioting. I've already done that, which you would know if you had taken the time to read the links I posted in the other thread.

So, where did I say the riots in the UK or Philadelphia were about evictions? Oh wait, I didn't. I was pretty clear that I was addressing there being forms of rioting other than food riots. Reading is fundamental.

[BJJ-Blue]

rioting for food is different morally,

I never said that.


oh wait, rioting for insurance money is technically different than rioting for designer shoes,

I didn't say that either.

I said this:


But the INTENT is different. One you do to for financial gain, the other gains you nothing financially. And one you are burning YOUR OWN property, in the other you are burning someone else's property. Is this news to you? Am I giving you too much credit?

Notice the word "morals" isn't even there. But you STILL didn't get it, so I posted this:


Burning someone else's property is wrong/immoral, burning property you own for insurance fraud is a form of theft, which is wrong/immoral. But those crimes are committed for different reasons. Get it now?

Again, nothing about "morals". And yet again, you still didn't get it. So I typed this:


I'll try again: :rolleyes: Theft is theft, and it is wrong. But someone stealing designer shoes and someone who is stealing food to survive have different motivations for their stealing. Wrong is wrong, but the reasons/motivations for those doing those wrongs are different.

Once again, nothing about "morals". And still you don't get it. :rolleyes:

Can I type it in crayon or something? Do I need a Special Ed teacher to tell me how to type it so you will get it? You can't be this stupid, you just cant. Are you trolling? Or playing around? Please tell me you aren't serious.

[BJJ-Blue]

Oh, so you've shifted your argument again?

No, you've shifted my argument. Again. :rolleyes:

[Taixuquan99]

I never said that.



I didn't say that either.

I said this:



Notice the word "morals" isn't even there. But you STILL didn't get it, so I posted this:



Again, nothing about "morals". And yet again, you still didn't get it. So I typed this:



Once again, nothing about "morals". And still you don't get it. :rolleyes:

Can I type it in crayon or something? Do I need a Special Ed teacher to tell me how to type it so you will get it? You can't be this stupid, you just cant. Are you trolling? Or playing around? Please tell me you aren't serious.

Fascinating how you exclude the entire context of how you introduced the Great Depression into the topic. Which was morals.

I'm not sure I've seen someone take their own words out of context before.

[BJJ-Blue]

Here are some other things you said regarding the birther issue:

And nowhere do I say he wasn't born here.


Plus there was your insistence that he hadn't released his birth certificate...when he had.

Incorrect. I said he had not released his LONG FORM birth certificate when he hadn't yet done so.

[BJJ-Blue]

It's Birther Blue.

Whatever Chester. Just stay away from those kiddie beauty pageants you said you like to attend.


And yet you complain about people reading into your posts....:rolleyes:

Notice I used the words "Are you saying".

I was unclear what he meant, so I asked him what he meant. I did not say I knew what he meant to say but didn't. I was asking for clarification.


So, where did I say the riots in the UK or Philadelphia were about evictions? Oh wait, I didn't. I was pretty clear that I was addressing there being forms of rioting other than food riots. Reading is fundamental.

I didn't say you did. I asked if that's what you were saying.

So I could read it just fine, I just needed it clarified. So I asked for clarification.

[Taixuquan99]

But if those people were raised with a strong moral compass they wouldn't riot when unemployment is high. That's my point. There are alternatives to rioting; peacefully protesting, voting, getting involved in your community, etc.

I'm not saying that high unemployment is not a reason. It may well be the primary reason. But my point remains, if they were raised right and had morals, they wouldn't riot. Unemployment during our Great Depression was alot higher than it is now and you didn't see Americans rioting, looting, assaulting innocent bystanders, and burning down parts of the cities during that entire time.

An entire speech about having a high moral compass, clearly related to the lack of riots in the Great Depression. That was how the Great Depression got introduced into discussion, it is the entire context you were fighting to support, EVEN AFTER finding out that there were riots in the Great Depression. So, of course, you changed your point to, "stealing designer shoes and arson for insurance fraud are different," a point no one was ever arguing except you, once your central point fell apart.

[BJJ-Blue]

Fascinating how you exclude the entire context of how you introduced the Great Depression into the topic. Which was morals.

I also introduced Japan into it, but you said they "didnt count". :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

Taix,

Now you really have me lost. You've introduced the riots into the Warren Buffet thread. I thought you were pointing out we needed to stay on topic? :confused:

Do you need to start a new thread or put that topic in another thread? ;)

You did type this, right?


You cannot discuss "the economy". You can discuss, "Warren Buffett's comments on the economy", or "Trickle-down theory" or what have you, manageable topics. The Economy is not.

This is a thread about Buffett's comments on the economy. Start another thread, or, better yet, show good netiquette and find one that's already out there and revive it.

No, it means on a forum, if you want to discuss something with everyone, you don't go to a separate thread each person is on talking about something specific that doesn't directly relate, and expect every one of them to humor your childishness, you act like an adult and start a thread or find one that is directly about your topic.

Don't we have TWO different threads on the riots? One one hasn't been locked.

[Taixuquan99]

I also introduced Japan into it, but you said they "didnt count". :rolleyes:

In an argument about unemployment as a link to rioting, Japan does not qualify at the current juncture, sorry.

[BJJ-Blue]

In an argument about unemployment as a link to rioting, Japan does not qualify at the current juncture, sorry.

Within the last 2 years or so, Japan has had record unemployment. And no riots....

So if record levels dont count, what does?

[Taixuquan99]

Taix,

Now you really have me lost. You've introduced the riots into the Warren Buffet thread. I thought you were pointing out we needed to stay on topic? :confused:

Do you need to start a new thread or put that topic in another thread? ;)



After you introduced the federal reserve into the discussion, I pointed out that you were in a glass house vis a vis your knowledge of the depression, then the topic went that way.

Since your original statement re: morals and the lack of all riots in the Great Depression has been entirely refuted, there's really nothing more to say on that.

So, if you would like to discuss Warren Buffett's statements, you have my permission.

[BJJ-Blue]

After you introduced the federal reserve into the discussion, I pointed out that you were in a glass house vis a vis your knowledge of the depression, then the topic went that way.

If you would like to discuss Warren Buffett's statements, that would be fine.

To be honest, I was ok with anything related to the current economy, especially in terms of solutions to our current problems. Buffett was proposing a solution to our current economic problems, right?

[Taixuquan99]

Within the last 2 years or so, Japan has had record unemployment. And no riots....

So if record levels dont count, what does?

Record does count. Their "record" unemployment is way lower than both Phillie's and Massively lower than London's. 4.6%, which I already quoted.

[BJJ-Blue]

Record does count. Their "record" unemployment is way lower than both Phillie's and Massively lower than London's.

So if they had no riots during record levels of unemployment, that would back up my assertion, correct?

[Taixuquan99]

To be honest, I was ok with anything related to the current economy, especially in terms of solutions to our current problems. Buffett was proposing a solution to our current economic problems, right?

So you agree that we need to tax the freekin rich.

I'm glad we were able to finish this out on a productive note.

[BJJ-Blue]

So you agree that we need to tax the freekin rich.

Once again, the "facepalm" is needed.

I said he proposed a solution. I did not say I agreed with his proposed solution.

[Taixuquan99]

So if they had no riots during record levels of unemployment, that would back up my assertion, correct?

Apples and oranges. The two rioting cities have much higher unemployment rates, Japan simply doesn't have the same unemployment problem, regardless of it's record status. It is a record because it has not been that high before, it is not equivalent to the other two, because it is a much smaller percentage.

[BJJ-Blue]

Apples and oranges. The two rioting cities have much higher unemployment rates, Japan simply doesn't have the same unemployment problem, regardless of it's record status. It is a record because it has not been that high before, it is not equivalent to the other two, because it is a much smaller percentage.

So if Wladimir Klitschko can weight 230lbs and not be overweight, that means I can weigh 230lbs and not be overweight, right?

It's all relative. If it's a record for them, it's high in regards to them. They faced record unemployment and didn't riot. We are rioting and not facing record unemployment.

[Taixuquan99]

Once again, the "facepalm" is needed.

I said he proposed a solution. I did not say I agreed with his proposed solution.

Yes, but, by way of your shifting debate approach, I'm just skipping the entire period of shifting what your argument is, and assuming, vis a vis The Great Depression Informational Deficit Factor, that you are BSing your way through all this, so we've merely skipped to the end, where you've not made a compelling argument, and I win again by default.


Tax the freekin' rich!

[Taixuquan99]

So if Wladimir Klitschko can weight 230lbs and not be overweight, that means I can weigh 230lbs and not be overweight, right?

London's young males have a 20% unemployment rate. It's simply not equivalent.

Nor is Phillie's.


It's all relative.

No, it's not.


If it's a record for them, it's high in regards to them.

It's not on the same level at all.

[BJJ-Blue]

So you're justifying you making up my positions on issues? :rolleyes:

[BJJ-Blue]

It's not on the same level at all.

So a country facing record levels of unemployment is not facing high unemployment in their country because other countries have higher unemployment levels, right? :confused:

[BJJ-Blue]

So if we see inflation levels at 80%, we wont have an inflation problem because Zimbabwe is facing 79,600,000,000% inflation levels, correct?

[Taixuquan99]

I've found using your justifications as a foundation for more sound justifications saves the trouble of responding to empty rhetoric.

It's rather nice, really. Enjoyable, and you get to focus more time commenting on Yahoo news regarding how Obama was the cause of the cancellation of Kate Plus 8.

It's a win-win.

[BJJ-Blue]

"In 2009, Fuerteventura recorded the highest EU regional unemployment rate at a NUTS3 level, at 29.2 percent."

Sources:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/regional_statistics/data/main_tables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerteventura

If high unemployment causes rioting, where were/are the Fuerteventura riots? They have unemployment levels higher than in Britain and in the US.

[BJJ-Blue]

It's rather nice, really. Enjoyable, and you get to focus more time adding and subtracting things from BJJs posts.

Fixed that for ya. ;)

[Taixuquan99]

"In 2009, Fuerteventura recorded the highest EU regional unemployment rate at a NUTS3 level, at 29.2 percent."

Sources:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/regional_statistics/data/main_tables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerteventura

If high unemployment causes rioting, where were/are the Fuerteventura riots? They have unemployment levels higher than in Britain and in the US.

It's kind of hard to get enough people together to riot when your entire country's population doesn't even match the population of one of the cities we're talking about. Their entire population, in the whole country, is not a hundredth of London's, and Phillie's population is over twenty times the size of the entire nation's population as well.

Not to mention that people working in the tourist trade tend to be unemployed most of the year.

[Taixuquan99]

So if we see inflation levels at 80%, we wont have an inflation problem because Zimbabwe is facing 79,600,000,000% inflation levels, correct?

Let's assume that, if a country that hasn't, for a long time, experienced much unemployment, and is now experiencing unemployment less than others, but more than they did before, is going to feel the same stresses that countries facing more unemployment are.

First, this would hardly make a good claim that their superior moral system makes them less likely to riot, since less unemployment is stressing them the same.

But let's ignore that. Let's assume it's true.

Your new argument is now "Japan is more moral than London, or Phillie, or Americans during the Great Depression."

It's a strange argument, but, if we allow those points, dubious as they are, then you are absolutely right. The Japanese, with their atheistic-agnostic majority of citizens, are more moral than these other groups.

[Reality_Check]

Incorrect. I said he had not released his LONG FORM birth certificate when he hadn't yet done so.

Incorrect:


The fact he has not released his birth certificate.

Nothing about long form there.


It is, especially considering the community organizer could have just released it 2 years ago instead of spending millions to keep it hidden.

Nothing there either.

[Taixuquan99]

If high unemployment causes rioting.

High unemployment of young males has been shown, time and again, to be a good indicator of the possibility of unrest in a nation.

[BJJ-Blue]

High unemployment of young males has been shown, time and again, to be a good indicator of the possibility of unrest in a nation.

Poland, India, Turkey, France, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Ireland, Georgia, Lithuania, and Spain, (and many more smaller nations) all have unemployment higher than the US and Great Britain. Where are the riots in those countries?

[BJJ-Blue]

Nothing about long form there.

Parse words if you must. The fact is he released the "Certification of Live Birth" as proof enough. So when I typed it, I knew that, and I assume you and the rest of us knew that too. So it's pretty obvious what I meant.

If you read Post #62 in that thread you pulled that quote of mine from, it's made very clear.