Politics and Religion

Buffet
AznWhtTailHntr 17 Reviews 2847 reads
posted
1 / 26

No bigger hipocrite or lucky individual out there.  Love to hear the answers, but please keep in mind those on the EC might have already gone to bed.  We have to get up early to make this country work.  I'll enjoy laughing at the response in the morning.  

-- Modified on 5/7/2017 10:12:23 PM

macdaddy1944 51 Reviews 204 reads
posted
2 / 26

i will make sure and check in with Shawshank tomorrow morning..

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 209 reads
posted
3 / 26
AznWhtTailHntr 17 Reviews 122 reads
posted
4 / 26

To know that he is a smart businessman that maximizes his advantages.  However, he is also a hypocrite preaching for higher taxes when he's structured deals that are tax avoidance strategies.  Trump gets a lot of flack for tax minimization.  Uncle Warren shouldn't get a pass because the left loves his folksy image.  

AznWhtTailHntr 17 Reviews 192 reads
posted
5 / 26

Uncle Warren opposed the Keystone Pipeline, but he also owns a railroad that ships a lot of oil.  Very convenient for him to join the Liberal opposition, but also protect his interests.  

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 166 reads
posted
6 / 26

Critics of Buffett and his tax strategies don't really understand that what he does is not illegal and is socially progressive.  He doesn't avoid taxes.  What he does is avoid taxable income.  He does this by buying high cash flow companies that pay dividends and then canceling the dividends and using the extra income to buy more companies.  Additionally he improves efficiency where he can.  The result is no or very little taxable income.  So his wealth is on paper.  If he should ever sell any of his holdings, he will be taxed at the maximum possible rates.  But he's giving it all to charity.  This is all known as the Buffet Loophole and the IRS doesn't seem to care too much about it.  Why should you?

In doing what he does, he has created tens of thousands of good high paying jobs with excellent benefits that avoid governmental exposure for such things as health care and social security.  In his view, the private sector is better equipped and more efficient than government redistribution of wealth.  

He lives very frugally and does not flaunt his wealth at all.  He eats at McDonalds, literally. His  view is that if you are wealthy, capitalizing your gains then you should pay the taxes on it.  Note that he would be subject to the same tax hikes he preaches, so he too would be paying higher taxes than he does now.  And he's OK with that.

Your comment about him owning trains that haul oil but that he's against Keystone XL is laughable.  Trains carry all sorts of freight and they are a lot safer hauling oil than a pipeline, that is sure to leak, that runs under watershed and reservoirs that supply drinking water to millions of people downstream.

Add to that, he is genuinely nice person.  So your beef with him is what again?

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 243 reads
posted
7 / 26

Every time I read one of your posts, hoping there will be some substance, all I get is a temporary drop in my IQ.   What do you have against pets and tantric healing?  Oh yeah.  Ignorance.

AznWhtTailHntr 17 Reviews 132 reads
posted
8 / 26

Is that he's a lucky coin flipper who now gets to influence public policy under the guise of a folky image.  CNBS eats this shit up, and spits its back out to the public that they should be agreeing with Uncle Warren because look at what I nice guy he is.  Other billionaires are a bit more open about their agendas instead of running a con game.  

I know his tax planning is not illegal, and is smart given the current tax code.  However, when he says someone should pay more taxes, he knows it won't be him, and likely someone whose marginal tax rate is in the stratosphere because s/he had earned income, not delayed capital gains.  That lucky taxpayer gets to foot the bill in there here and now for his views.  

Your last comment about the safety of pipelines vs trains is debatable as well.  Trains loaded with oil have been known to wipe out small Canadian towns.  Of course trains haul lots of different freight.  However, BNSF's business would really 'boom' as their network competes directly with the Keystone Pipeline.

-- Modified on 5/8/2017 3:48:37 PM

GaGambler 164 reads
posted
10 / 26

I don't think there is any debate at all. Pipelines are by far the safest, not to mention economical way to transport oil.  

The Keystone pipeline only makes sense for the US if we can ship that nasty crap the Canadians produce out of the country somewhere else. Otherwise, it's a great deal for the Canuks, but a lousy deal for the US.

Warren Buffet is not the "devil incarnate" but he's hardly a saint either.

BigPapasan 3 Reviews 129 reads
posted
11 / 26

...I wasn't talking to you.

Hey everybody, I'm bullying another hooker!!!

Hpygolky 234 Reviews 160 reads
posted
12 / 26
mrhuck 15 Reviews 192 reads
posted
13 / 26

...GAG is correct on safety records but the  KEYSTONE  is going to cut directly through the center of our nations largest aquafer  (underground water supply)  & a leak in that Korean & Chinese made steel pipe could destroy thousands of acres of farmland & make crop farming there a thing of the past, not to mention the fresh water supply for millions of people. In general I'm not against pipelines but the KEYSTONE does nothing for America, it carries dirty sulfur laden Canadian crude oil (that's use is banned in America) from Canada to a refinery in Houston to be loaded on tanker ships & distributed for the rest of the world to burn. It seems foolish for America to take that risk & only get the benefit of about 100 refinery jobs in Houston. I believe most U.S. citizens support for this dangerous boondoggle project was based on resisting government regulations for business projects, exactly one of the common goals of the Trump administration & the republican party.

ROMMEL 54 Reviews 174 reads
posted
14 / 26

Obama stalled the pipeline for years and years to please some doners.  And now obama will fly free on their private jets for the rest of his freeloading existence.  The pipeline will be ok snowflake.  Don't start a march about it.

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 127 reads
posted
15 / 26

That's some funny stuff there.  Personal attack that accuses me of being "submasculine" for leveling personal attacks.   Truth is definitely stranger than fiction sometimes.

AznWhtTailHntr 17 Reviews 185 reads
posted
16 / 26

Ok snowflakes.  All gather round now for a group hug.  Include Fido.  It's tough out there. Tear.

mrhuck 15 Reviews 154 reads
posted
17 / 26

...Quite typical to get nothing but MORON right wing responses to anything factually submitted here , & I never said anything about a march that was the nazi's comment.

GaGambler 155 reads
posted
18 / 26

The oil shipped via the Keystone pipeline is some very nasty stuff, and quite frankly should NEVER be allowed south of the US/Canada border. The immediate risks of a leak are actually quite minimal, but keep in mind this pipeline is going to be used for decades and eventually there will be a leak, and although it's MUCH safer than moving the crude by rail, it's certainly not risk free and with no real benefits to the American people, except for a few thousand temporary jobs to build it and a much smaller handful of permanent jobs.

Yes, there will be many benefits to the Keystone Pipeline, but virtually all those benefits are to the Canadians, not to us. This is basically a US subsidy to the Canadian oil industry, and makes ZERO sense to do. Let the Canuks build their own damn pipeline to the Pacific and then ship their nasty ass oil to China. Yes, it will probably add five bucks a barrel or more to the cost of getting the oil to market, but that's the Canadian's problem, not ours, nor should it be as reducing costs for the Canadians only serves to hurt American producers already struggling to survive in this very soft market for oil.

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 81 reads
posted
19 / 26

I hope you were drunk.  We basically agree on all of what you said about Keystone  except that you think it is safer than it really is.  The negative replies to my post are mindless driveling insults to progressives, and yet you somehow think they are somehow more correct on the issue?

Wow.  My estimation of your intelligence just bottomed out.

GaGambler 147 reads
posted
20 / 26

Where we do agree is that Keystone is NOT in the interest of the American people.

Building a pipeline to transport the oil is much safer than sending it down here by rail, but what is even safer is to not allow that toxic sludge within our borders in the first place.

I NEVER said the Keystone Pipeline was safe, just that it's MUCH safer than rail. Have you been taking reading comprehension lessons from Jake? I also said it was contrary to American interests, I suppose you missed that part too.

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 167 reads
posted
21 / 26

Read what I said.  I was talking about Keystone XL specifically because of where it is.  As you say it will leak eventually and if it does so beneath a major reservoir system, it's going to be catastrophic.   Pipelines are safer than rail in general, but not Keystone at all.

GaGambler 207 reads
posted
22 / 26

Your words from a few posts above.

"Your comment about him owning trains that haul oil but that he's against Keystone XL is laughable.  Trains carry all sorts of freight and they are a lot safer hauling oil than a pipeline, that is sure to leak, that runs under watershed and reservoirs that supply drinking water to millions of people downstream."

 
If you had said then what you are saying now, I would have had no disagreement with you. Pipelines are safer than rail, but "nothing" is 100% safe when moving hundreds of millions of barrels of toxic sludge thousands of miles across the heartland of your country on an annual basis. I can't help it if you spoke badly, I read what you said, If you would like to simply say "you didn't mean it that way" I'll accept that and we can move on, but please quit trying to deny you said it. Your words are still there for all to see. Hey, I will even accept PUI as an excuse. lol

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 150 reads
posted
23 / 26

Focus on just this part of the sentence:  "than a pipeline, that is sure to leak, that runs under watershed and reservoirs that supply drinking water to millions of people downstream."  

Does that sound like a description of all pipelines everywhere?  Or does that describe anything specifically to you?  Like for instance the Keystone Pipeline everybody in the thread is talking about?

GaGambler 139 reads
posted
24 / 26

"Trains carry all sorts of freight and they are a lot safer hauling oil than a pipeline"

Does that sound like a Keystone Pipeline specific statement to you?

Now before we get into Matt/Jake territory for arguing minutia, can we please put this "agreement fight" out of it's misery?

Lets just agree that despite your words to the contrary, pipelines are safer than rail, but that in the case of the Keystone pipeline, even a slight risk isn't worth is as the American people aren't getting any of the benefits and any risk at all  is much too large to be acceptable.

Jinx_The_Cat 33 Reviews 150 reads
posted
25 / 26

You are taking a third of my sentence and absolutely misconstruing it by isolating it from the rest of the sentence, thereby changing the meaning of my statement.  That is not a valid reading of what I said.  Thats the kind of shit President Dumbo tries to pull and nobody is buying it.  I know you are smarter than that, but its been beaten to death, so I will just consider this diatribe over.

JakeFromStateFarm 221 reads
posted
26 / 26

First of all, he's not -- except in his own alleged mind.  This is what he does.  He really has convinced himself that he's right and he'll ride it until he gets frustrated he can't beat you down with his pedantry.  You'll know this has happened when he tell's you you're TSTTT or threatens to award you a SPOTY.  Or compares you to me.  When he does the latter, be flattered because you'll know you've won.

Register Now!