Buffett: GOP Threatening To 'Blow Your Brains Out' Over Debt Ceiling
 

Warren Buffett

Debt ceiling was raised 7 times during Bush Administration.......

it's only ok if the repubs do it

I don't know when the story will end, but I do know it doesn't have a happy ending when it does.

Prepare accordingly.

Why is the left so in love with the federal reserve? We do not need to raise the debt limit. We need to demand the fed forgive the debt it bought, with our money that it printed and gave itself, and stop paying interest on our current debt to the fed, with our money that they printed and lent out. After all it is our money, not the feds. This would free up tons of money and hold us over until we can actually cut the budget and balance the budget.

Edit: Just so you know I am not calling Buffett a leftist, I know he is on the right.

yes, this is the major problem that people are uneducated about..

the FED needs to be overhauled...






.

The rich already pay too much, it's time for the poor to get off their lazy fat asses and do some work and pay some taxes.

Brought to you by Sarcasm. It's a shoe polish, it's a floor wax, it's a dessert topping, it's Sarcasm.

'"We had debt at 120 percent of the GDP, far higher than this, after World War II and no one went around threatening that we're going to ruin the credit of the United States or something in order to get a better balance of debt to GDP."'

interesting statement

The big spenders, progressives, and socialists of all parties need to be booted out of Congress.

At this point, I think everyone is on board with spending cuts. However, the democrats want tax hikes to help close the gap, and the Republicans are very against this (they will look like a bunch of liars in the next vote since they won a lot on no tax hikes).

We can demand all that we want... the "Federal" reserve is not a part of our government.. people talk about overhauling it or doing this or that with it all of the time, but, you can't do it and neither can our government. It's NOT ours. It is privately owned. If you can manage to find out who owns and controls it (forget about it - all you see is their stand up media boys) you might ask them VERY nicely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War

this is true, but you can't go around saying it because you get labeled a tinfoil hat..

so, you must say things like overhaul...





.

Repeal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

:thumbsup

But no one has the balls to. Or the president can sign an executive order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
:upsidedow

IE instead of doing what is needed to start fixing the economy, they would rather play politics and are more worried about their next election campaign than doing their job.

Hard to compare. Morale was completely different and they didn't have massive pensions due with Social Security money running short.

Where are the jobs mister boehner? You promised that the republicans took over the leadership because the people wanted someone to bring some jobs back. Where are they? Oh more tax cuts will create jobs? Please tell us how many jobs were created since the time the bush tax cuts went into effect. Oh, zero? Oh. Well show me how many job creating bills you've put forward. Oh, zero? You're fired.

Same will be said about Obama. Lets get rid of 95% of them :thumbsup

here is a great animated short about the federal reserve produced by none other than John Stagliano. Does a good job of explaining why things are going to shit now...

WTF do you even know what you are saying? Point 1: Bush was a full on idiot and a poor excuse of a president, almost as bad as what we have now. Just because he did it, doesn't that mean it's OK for this president to do it does it? Bush was a fuck up so we can be fuck ups too?

2. If we don't raise the debt ceiling we go into default? Is anyone paying attention to this? We need to raise the debt ceiling to borrow money to pay our debt?

Jesus folks, this has become insanity! We're doomed.

Re:1 - I thought the OPs (and Buffets) point was that the republicans are using this as a political gambit, that they had no qualms about raising the debt limit when they were in power.

So, your comments aren't a rebuttal to the OPs point.

When the republicans are back in power, this model predicts, they will again raise the debt limit under their watch, as they did before.

Re: 2 - I'm not sure this argument makes a lot of sense. I think you may be conflating Greece with the US.

I could be worng, but as I understood it, we want to borrow operations money, not money to pay off the debt - altho one could say the two are linked, we aren't talking about that kind of default.

Perhaps you can point to references about what the borrowed money would be used for?

You CAN NOT cut the deficit without tax hikes. People that argue otherwise are ignorant or stupid or both.

Let's look at the 2010 budget as an example.

Total Revenue $2.381 trillion

"Sacred Cow" Expenditures

$695 billion ? Social Security
$664 billion ? Department of Defense
$453 billion ? Medicare
$290 billion ? Medicaid
$164 billion ? Interest on National Debt

TOTAL $2.266 trillion

ALL OTHER EXPENDATURES TOTAL $1.286 trillion

Now interest on the debt HAS to be paid you can't cut that. Social Security, Defense, Medicaid/Medicare are considered "sacred cows". So if you don't cut those and if you don't raise revenues( aka TAXES ) then you have to cut EVERYTHING else by 91% just to get a balanced budget. But wait, balancing the budget doesn't lower our $14 trillion deficit it just stops it form getting bigger. Even if you cut the remaining 9% from those other programs that only lowers the deficit by $115 billion a year. So that would take 122 years to pay off the deficit. Even if you additionally cut, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare and the DOD budgets by 20% you're still talking 26 years before the debt is paid off. Now who here wants Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Defense cut by 20% and everything else cut by 100% for the next 26 years? Not me.

You know who can bring jobs back? BUSNIESSES. I just says piece on ABC news about business not hiring. Stupid as busines owners said they aren't hiring until everyone else does and/or the economy picks up. Well ok Mr. I-don't-know-how-you-became-a-successful-business-owner

A) If everyone waits on everyone else to start hiring then NO ONE is going to hire anyone.

B) The economy will pick up as soon as these morons start to hire people because then they will have money to SPEND which will get the economy going.

Also these business people said they are waiting for the government to do something about jobs. Um THEY are the ones that do something about jobs by HIRING people.

This isn't fucking rocket science. It's pretty simple stuff.

Hey I'm loving this! I think this is the first time I've clicked quote+reply to one of your responses while being in a state of "ocean pouring over me" euphoria as opposed to the - now absent and uninteresting - - <--- k this is a bouble dash which sucks - "at times very slightly left, and others very slightly right" teeth grinding near insta posting bla bla bla I forgot what I was wanting to type.

Anyway what I wanted to say that I liked your reply for a few reasons. The first is that I read it while drinking home brewed wind from a moustached rig driver from Harrison Hot Spring (shout out to the Shemp here) plus I came to this thread because of a need for a change from reading business ones and clicked on it in a way that I (the royal "I" as in being a member of a community of clickers)... that I (?) sorry I'm watching an old episode of Ultimate Big Brother UK while typing. The point is that there's the same system in all countries (to a varying degree) and it sucks to think about having an entity (non-governmental though doesn't need to be) institution making bank off of interest from a product that was just created on a whim. TBC.

Continued. That was only a sec I just didn't feel like starting another post just to whine about some dudes that have a hell of a deal when in reality I wish I could pull off the same scam :)

P.S. I didn't re-read what I typed but after recalling my semi-relex arc finger movements I have to put a plea out to all "frothing at the mouth conservatives" to not insta-quote and type a flame. :) :) :)

P.P.S. K type away I'm hitting send now and watching who got booted out of BB.

Fuck Warren Buffett.

k I just thought of this! Now bear with me, the US (as far as I can tell from what I've read and not what I've watched) was and has been build from recovering from adversity. First you had the Brits (we still do in a parliamentary minimal way), then you had the abolishionists, then you had the Spanish, then you had the Haitians (non-reported/discussed military trauma), then you had the comunists, then you had the Vietnamiese (not sure if I can label them as the same socialists that threatened 1930's America), then you had the [insert asshole that didn't do as we you said from the 80's), followed by of course the leader of Iraq, which was followed again (and excuse the run on sentence) the leader of Iraq, 'till now which seems to comprise a collection of assholes spread all over the non-free trade world (excuse the ending of that sentence I had no other way of describing it without sounding like an Air America fanboy).

As far as I can tell your country has become the better after each and every threat. And <--- yes this sentence required beginning with a conjunction -- after each and every struggle your country had become better! Yeah!!!

The bonus is that everytime this even of importance has occured Canada has benefited :) Go USA!

That was well done.

Thanks. I was wondering why he went in the wrong direction on that reply....

Have you hired anyone recently? Have you hired more people than you need?

Obama has scared the shit out of the business community. Many of my big business friends, bigger than you can imagine, who voted for Obama, have said they have no confidence in what he has done and they feel that Obama's policies have stalled the economy.

stalled the economy? the economy was nearly wiped out when obama took office thanks to Bush, how could anyone expect a rebound in 3 years?

That being said, obama is doing nothing different. he tows the corporate line like everyone else, which is what has destroyed the u.s.

if obama really wanted change he would rescind NAFTA and all NAFTA-like programs and bring all factories back to the u.s. and he would dismantle the federal reserve.

then your corporate buddies would have to pay real wages and make real money like everyone else, not get their asses bailed out by the govt (read:taxpayers) everytime there's a crisis.

No one was expecting it to rebound in 3 years. But with the amount of tax payer money wasted, it should have shown some progress.

Agreed, that Obama is Bush's 3rd term. And not all corporate people got a bail out. And not all corporations are evil :winkwink:

Edit: Since we are on the subject. Have you create any living waged jobs $60k+ a year and hired more people than you needed?

:thumbsup AWESOME! :thumbsup

I'm not a huge ass fucking corporation ninny.

Obama has scared the shit out of the business community. Many of my big business friends, bigger than you can imagine, who voted for Obama, have said they have no confidence in what he has done and they feel that Obama's policies have stalled the economy.[/QUOTE]

BS. Just fucking hire people this will cause two things

A) Unemployment will drop. FEWER people on welfare and foodtsamps which means a LOWER deficit.

B) People will have money to spend. Consumer spending is 70% of the economy. Thus the economy will improve.

No Obamas policies have NOT stalled the economy the lack of JOBS have and business control that. Hire baby hire!

Also the "more than I need" comment. I don't know about you but going into my local wal-mart shelves are bare( because lack of stockers ) and I see 3 cash registers open even though they have 17 thus creating long lines. because of this many people like me rather pay a little extra and go to places like Fred's and Dollar Store because they have what we want and it doesn't take all day just to get a couple of things. And of course genius wal-mart solution is to cut back hours and not replacing people who quit/get fired, which is what caused the issues that caused me to not shop there as much in the first place. So naturally let's make that situation worse.

Actually, you might want to do some research and you'll find Buffett tends to lean left not right... :winkwink:

Huh? The majority of politicians recognize a central bank. Also, the interest is paid back to the treasury. Forgive the debt? Where do you get your economics from?

Buffett is on the right? News to me. Buffett feels the way you do about the FED. Nope.


.

Wrong and wrong. The jobs you speak of are never coming back for several reasons none of which have anything to do with what you think is operative.


.

Yup I had a brain fart my bad :thumbsup

If you want to resort to cute videos to understand FRB and FED, try these videos instead...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=E-HOz...CDA315A8848B99


.

http://crfb.org/blogs/swiss-version-...dget-amendment

Zurbruegg explained how the Swiss debt brake works. After years of rising deficits and debt in the 1990s, Switzerland's citizens adopted the debt brake as a constitutional amendment in 2001 (with 85% approval!) The rule was to be implemented starting in 2003. It stated that each year, the budget must be in balance, adjusted for economic conditions. They do this adjustment by multiplying expenditures by a cyclical factor (the ratio of trend real GDP to expected real GDP), thus either allowing for deficits during recessions or forcing lawmakers to have surpluses during booms. Essentially, the rule calls for structural balance in each year and absolute balance over the course of a business cycle. So if lawmakers want to have expansionary fiscal policy during recessions, they need to pay for it by saving up during good economic times. The rule did initially allow for "extraordinary spending" if a qualified parliamentary majority approved, but recent changes have made this spending count as normal expenditures.
In practice, there is obviously limited experience to pull from, but it has worked out well so far, according to Zurbruegg. Upon finding out that the Swiss budget had structural imbalances in 2003, lawmakers undertook a three year plan to put the budget back in balance (and in surplus). Using the surplus from the good years, they were able to weather the economic downturn without resorting to using any emergency spending. Zurbruegg though did express some concern that lawmakers were so focused on abiding by the debt brake that they risked ignoring their longer term fiscal challenges.
Carlo Cottarelli then gave the criteria for a good design for a fiscal goal/rule. He said that it should have the following: broad coverage (not excluding any category of the budget); transparency, like in the form of an independent fiscal agency; constitutional power if possible, so lawmakers can't just change it whenever convenient; flexibility for economic conditions; and finally, a mechanism for enforcement. Certainly, the debt brake measures up well to these criteria.
Overall, our own lawmakers could learn a lot from the Swiss example. They designed a budget rule that neatly walks the tightrope between too rigid and too soft. In doing so, they made a rule that wasn't so hard to follow that lawmakers tried to ignore it, and one that wasn't too easy to find a way around. It will be interesting to see how the debt brake works out for Switzerland in the future.

Well said.

Obama has spent 700b above and beyond what would have been spent.... Bush spent almost 4 trillion above and beyond what would have been spent & we lost 1/3 of our citizens wealth under Bush. And today, our GDP and spending today are almost equal.

You can't really compare the two, it just isn't possible.

Corps are sitting on trillions of dollars. Jobs create money flow, which creates more demand for products and services, which means you're not hiring more than you need, when the demand is being created by people having jobs.



The term evil corp refers to greed. Corps today have the same rights as people without any of the legal ramifications. As well, they were originally only allowed IF they helped the people, they were limited on allowed profits, they could not buy property, each owner was directly responsible for everything - personally, and all were limited to the exact business the corp was created for - often with a time limit put in place. All of which, and much more, is why they are refereed to as evil corps today - that's before the fact that they know control our Gov.

So what you are saying is corporations are not being greedy? If they were greedy they would be creating as many jobs as they can to make more money right? So what is stopping them from creating jobs? When asked, they will say the government and uncertainty.

If demand is being met now, why would they hire? To start the process you are talking about you have to HIRE MORE than you need. What would that do to their profits and their stock?

Have you hired more people than you needed to do your part to help the economy?

Your logic is very twisted.....

They were making trillions and laying people off... to make more money. Now that the eco has stalled on them, they have the cash, but nobody to buy.

Nothing is stopping them from creating jobs, the gov doesn't stop them... and uncertainty? Less staff equals more profits, which overall has created less buying power, thus increased costs of good, increasing the overall gross profits, thus stock values go up, and they make more money, without selling a damn thing more. That's how greed works.

If I had a few trillion dollars, yeah I might open a few extra companies, try my hand in a few new markets, expand my current business, improve my production, hire better staff, train them more, etc, etc, etc... oh wait, that is what I do now, I don't really need a few trillion to do that.

My peak is 26 staff, my average is about 10, and between my two companies I have roughly that many on staff today, and I'm sure I could get rid of one or two, but we're actually looking to expand into more cities, so not hiring, isn't going to make my business grow - at all.

It's rather simple how it works.

Everyone should be required to watch this. Very well done.

End the Fed = solve the problem.. End of story.

But your staff is creating you money, they are productive, how does walmart hiring more greaters, stock people, cashiers ect make them more money? Which is what you are saying would happen.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it all ways. You said if they hired they would make more money, but claim they are doing the opposite to make money. Why would corps fire people when they could make more money hiring people? Because hiring non productive people does not make you money, your stock holders (401k people, you know the middle class) money and does not bring a profit.

And government regulations, new laws, new restrictions and threats of new laws and restrictions sure as hell does slow job growth and create uncertainty.

Ignoring all the other bullshit in the thread, this is the thread winner :thumbsup

This actually ties in well with the excellent Federal Reserve video previously posted in this thread...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=k_6kimMf7h8

Are you asking how Walmart opening more stores in more areas and hiring more staff makes them more money? You're not looking at the big picture here, at all....

My company's goals aren't to make my stock values look pretty for investors I don't have. Clearly your understanding of business is limited to the very small business structure or you wouldn't ever ask those questions.

We have regulations because of problems, because of greed. The sad part is, greed knows no boundaries and simply modifies itself based on the regulations. But no regs, for damn sure, is not a good thing and damn sure, does not mean the free market will work itself out, we have plenty of history to prove that. Another words, it's not a one way door.

There is no demand! I dont know what you don't get about that. Companies are not going to be expanding until the demand is there. You can not put the cart before the horse and hope for the best. This is not the Field of Dreams. If there is no demand, explain to me how walmart building these new buildings with nonproductive workers filling them will make them more money?

By the sounds of it, is your business model. You are acting like you know more than these ceos :1orglaugh