SouthernYankee

"But in a twist that puzzles many Berkshire Hathaway followers" -Not puzzled here, was just happy to buy more shares in the last year! (Myth, do we agree on this one?)

"Dammit you beat me to it. I will answer the question, no. Yankee only post on political threads which is unlike any other poster here. Even Ben Graham and that other guy post about LVLT..." -Myth, Thank you for tracking my comments, I did not know you were interested. I notice that you did not mention the answer I gave, if one of those ideas I mentioned were originally yours, I thank you, and my family does as well. The US TREASURY does as well, unfortunately i am paying the most taxes in one year I have ever paid in 2011! CHEERS to my secret follower! ;) -To Ericopoly, You posted a graph comparing Bush spending to Obama spending. Silly! I was not at all happy about the Bush (aided by Congress) spending habits, but that is not really an argument for Obama. It is an argument which says take spending levels back to 2008, even 2006 levels (even 2000 levels??), and then I would gladly talk about higher (Clinton era) tax rates for the wealthy. But cut the spending first! Thanks to all who do reply to any and all questions, and thanks to the Administrators of this forum for not requiring posters to reply to ALL topics equally. I have enjoyed the discussions, even enjoy all of the back and forth, especially with the knowledge that all (most?) posters are employing tactics to keep the tax which they pay as LOW as they can! Deep down, all (most?) of the people on this forum are here to make money for their own use, NOT for politicians to take and re-distribute to those who can keep them in office. (it will be interesting to see who disagrees with these statements!!)

"I keep wondering why the Republicans don't ask questions about why Buffett's taxable income is such a pittance relative to his wealth, then I catch myself... "oh, of course, that's why". They can't shoot back without collateral damage. So we instead get these stupid responses. There, I've explained Christie's comment ." -Who was that woman who famously said, "I don't know how he won (Nixon). I don't know anyone of my friends who would vote for him!" I don't know any Republicans who don't know why his taxable income is such a pittance relative to his wealth, it usually takes about 30 seconds to explain it. And I really don't care how rich he is, in fact I cheered when he decided to give his money to the Gates Foundation. It will be better spent than if the Federal Gov't received it!

"Southern Yankee, have you learned enough to share with us an investment idea?" -Plan Maestro, I can say this. It would probably be easier to buy a new house, than to fix an old one. But, thanks to Walter Schloss (DOW, BSET), an article about net-nets I found 5 years ago (GSIG), Buffett himself (since 2001, BRK-b), maybe Biglari (CAW - a local company I am trying to find out more about), and to this forum (Altius, LVLT), I have the money to spend on the house, and also to pay down some debt. What this has to do with Chris Christie telling Warren Buffett to write a check and shut up, I am not really sure. But I am sure that when it comes time to paying taxes, the majority of the people on this board will take an approach WHICH WILL MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT/YIELD, while MINIMIZING THEIR TAX BURDEN! I know I do (or try to do), I know Buffett does, I know the boys at Fairfax do, Munger does, Obama does (see book deal before he became President!), etc, etc, etc........ But thanks for asking, and THANK YOU for your patience! I am planning on being around for a little bit longer (God willing!), so in the next 50 years (fingers crossed), I will hopefully have an idea which will benefit others on this board. CHEERS!

"Because it's dumb and hypocritical. I don't support spending as much on the military than the next 6 countries combined. Does that mean I can just tell Christie to write a check out of his account for the next F-16 or nuclear submarine and shut up?" -The question posed was not a policy discussion. You have your opinion on military spending, I may actually agree with you. The question is whether Buffett is being genuine or a demagogue. He is asking people (those EVIL rich Republicans!!) who already believe the Fed Gov't is TOO big and spends TOO much money to DONATE money to that same entity. What would be the purpose of that? They don't believe it will be spent wisely. Neither does Buffett, as evidenced by his charitable giving. Christie is standing on principle, as well as Republican Senators in the House and Senate. Buffett is being a shill for President Obama. If he stood on principle, he would organize his rich friends to do as he did with charitable giving, and shame them into DONATING more to the US Treasury. BUT THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF THEIR MONEY, AND HE KNOWS IT!

"What if Christie said "Buffett should shut up about corporate governance!" Or how about "Buffett should shut up about executive compensation!" Better yet, "Buffett should shut up about politics!" -Parsad, You actually prove the point enoch01 (and others) is trying to make. In the area of exec compensation and corporate governance, Buffett has led by example for many years, and in the past 10 years led the fight against stock options and what their costs are. In regards to politics, he should be portrayed as the partisan that he is. Let the media ask him about his support of other Obama/Democratic policies as well, not just talk about money. His image may take a hit if he does that. He has gotten a free ride as the lovable grandfather for a while.

"Buffett chooses to use his wealth to farcically goad senators, who've never agreed that sending more money to Washington is the solution to the nation's problems, instead of writing a check to the Treasury. He knows they won't take him up on the offer, but he also knows they don't agree with his premise. So who is being a demagogue, again?" -A simple enough statement, followed by a simple question. This should not be a contentious issue. State your opinion, backed up with the facts which support it.

"It has nothing to do with Nicaragua, not really sure why you would bring it up. (I didn't mention the Federal Government)" -Ericopoly, The argument Buffett makes is for Federal tax rates, that is why I said it has nothing to do with New Jersey, or Nicaragua, or any other place/thing/entity. Regarding the property taxes, I am at an income level where I just want to keep a higher percentage of my labor, so that I can prepare for my family's education, retirement, health-care bills coming due in the near future. Which one is better for New Jerseyans has nothing to do with this conversation. Not one person has answered a simple but straight-forward question put forward by another poster, "Are you going to offer an argument for why Christie was wrong for what he said, or why on this issue Buffett isn't more of a demagogue than Christie?"

Ericopoly, There are certain restrictions imposed by the NJ Supreme Court (some say unconstitutionally, as theirjob is not to determine what amount is constitutional),which bind the hands of the Governor and legislator when it comes to spending on education. His choice of lowering the income tax instead of the property tax is directly related to those restrictions. It also has nothing to do with the policies of the Federal Government, not really sure why you would bring it up.

hardincap, Asinine is government policy which outspends revenues by 40%. I believe people like Christie believe spending is the main problem, not the taking of more money from productive citizens.

If I may echo the sentiments of most on this thread, I was actually LISTENING to the game on the RADIO! I have not done that since 1994, or so! WOW! What a story! I like the remark about the "Moneyball" aspect of Lin's game, ESPN radio was mentioning something to that effect this morning. In regards to turnovers, stay AGGRESSIVE! CHEERS!

Rabbit, Point taken, I may have to read the comments again. "Obama hatred" was used by someone, effectively making this a political discussion. I am just not sure where Romney giving money to his kids has a place on a value investing seminar blog, unless someone is trying to make a point about politics. Otherwise, pose the question in a generic form.

"I don't want that message projected from the White House." -When a thread is titled "Romney Kids trust fund", the only thing you are projecting is your bias. What image would you like to be projected from the White House? Personally, I would like to see one of sacrifice, thrift, hard work. I think that presenting a budget with a $1.3 TRILLION deficit is not sacrifice, is not thrift, and was not worked on very hard. It was an act of political cowardice, knowing full well that the media will NOT hammer him for his lack of leadership. But you want to speak about the Romney's PERSONAL wealth which he will give to his kids. "The moral message is that if you're getting rich then you're doing something right -- money as the measure of success." - I have not heard Romney say you should vote for him because he is wealthy. In fact, it kind of annoys me that he seems to be embarrassed by his wealth. I want someone in that office who will take the boot of the Federal government off of the private sector, and get rid of a LOT of bureaucrats who do jobs which can be done by the private sector for a lot less money. For starters, maybe get rid of the barbershop which is losing money!! I am not sure if Romney is that person, but we all know Obama is not that person! http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/13/021312-news-senate-barbershop-1-4/

To those who have an opinion about Mitt Romney leaving trust funds to his children: Why is this any concern to you AT ALL? If the so-called "poor" would look up to men and women who have succeeded in life, be it financially, spiritually, whatever, those people would benefit themselves more than looking for the next hand-out from their masters in some government department. How can a persons desire for the "poor" to learn and produce be hateful towards the current President of the United States? If people receive a trust fund, and misuse it, how does that affect anyone here? They have made their own decisions. I am amazed when I read some of the comments at the beginning of this thread, are the children of President Obama not as favored, going to the $30,000 Sidwell school (or whatever the name of it is)? Why are these so-called "champions of the poor" Barack and Michelle supporting their local public schools? Just a ridiculous thread! People who have enough time to try to invest in companies which will then make money so that the same person will have MORE money in his/her pocket, but if a REPUBLICAN candidate for President makes millions LEGALLY, but not up to certain posters higher standards, well, by golly, that is a problem!! Thanks for the free forum for my rant, I hope all of you are independently wealthy, so that you rely on no one else! Cheers!

"The right wing" - Parsad, when you write those 3 words, something tells me that you won't see it differently, no matter what the argument someone would make. Tonight, when Obama gives his State of The Union address, whenever he says fair, or fairness, or fair share, make a donation to your favorite charity, it will help many people. Or, better yet, donate to the US Treasury. We may put a sizable dent in that deficit tonight!

"I believe that both Parties are irresponsible idiots. However, I would rather have the party that openly wants to reduce taxes and gov't spending, then the one that wants to clearly raise taxes and increase gov't spending. My interest as an individual taxpayer is to keep as much of my hard earned dollars as possible, period. The more money I have, the greater my wealth, the less dependent I will be on gov't largesse, the more FREEDOM I will enjoy. I believe this is a rational, irrefutable, logical position." -This is a pretty good summation of how I personally think. And when oddballstocks wrote, "Democrats spend your money while raising taxes, Republicans spend your money while raising deficits", unfortunately this is how the Republican brand has just about ruined itself. They did not live up to their principles. Oddball also mentioned how people do NOT get involved locally. That is actually where the Tea Party is concentrating their power, hopefully that effort will lead to more freedom for ALL people. (this is my opinion, thanks for allowing me to express it!) One other note: While I like Ron Paul and some of his stated domestic policies, I will not support him in the Republican primaries. I do not think the time is right for him. And I also beg to differ on him starting "The Tea Party". I have to give that credit to the Koch Brothers! ;D

One side says we should cut expenditures first, because that is where the main problem lies. The other side says we need more revenue, because all of these programs are VITAL! Let each side run on their beliefs, and let's see who would win. Quick question: Should we keep taking money from the Social Security program, which is what has been happening with that cut in the FICA tax?

I am not sure why you have to call Republicans "dolts". They believe (or the voters in their districts do) the Federal government is too big and too powerful. One of the ways to reduce it is to cut spending for things the Federal government should not be responsible for. Is that not a valid discussion to have? You have for this year, about a $1.3 trillion deficit. They think it is too big, and they think that the PEOPLE already pay enough. Expenditures need to be cut. Again, WEB donated a vast chunk of his fortune, because they will do a better job of spending the money than the Federal government would.

The simple act of Buffett donating so much money to Bill Gates and his childrens foundations is the clearest example of his disillusionment in the manner which government spends taxpayer money. Yet now he is challenging Republicans in Congress to go against their thinking, as well as his own!??

"He's just pointing out, as blatantly as he can, that the GOP talks a big game but are as selfish as the Democrats and won't shell out a dollar." -You can classify the GOP as selfish if you like, I don't want to pay more because I think I pay enough already. And I would like to keep more so that I could make sure my children get a better education, or I can put some more into my 401K, or I can plan to have a Long-Term care insurance policy in place for when I get older. I DO NOT want to rely on the largesse of these turds from both parties to give me a pittance in 30 years when i look to retire, or simply work less!

"it's for show. why? because no republican is going to reach into his wallet and give money to the US Gov. Buffett is just trying to get them to shut up." -Let me understand this, Peter Burke, CEO. People who think the Federal Government spends too much money and has too much power should reach into their own pocket and pay more money. And this is because Warren Buffett, he of donating most of his fortune to the Gates Foundation before he dies, so that in his own words, it gets used properly and for a good use, as opposed to that same huge FEDERAL leviathon he professes to support, makes them a bet? I think Warren does not understand the thinking of the Republican Party. He may think it is wrong, but this bet is just silly.

"Eventually the States will be the odd one out." -Hopefully, we will continue to LEAD! When growth for government is ASSUMED at a 5%-7% level every year, eventually you will run out of other people's money! Let's see zero growth out of government, and tell young people to start saving NOW for their GOLDEN YEARS! I know I am, that is one of the reasons I come to sites like this instead of watching sports and reality shows every night. Oh, and I love Amazon! Cheers, and to all a Happy, Safe, and Prosperous New Year!

"With that being said I refuse to believe that _________ contributes anything to anything" -This is the motto for the American Open Mind Institute, isn't it?? :(

Whether she said it with a wink, or a nod, she said what a lot of people feel about persons who prey on young children! I just had to go to a 2 hour course because I may become a coach for kids, and they showed a video of convicted pedophiles and their victims (portrayed by actors). Chilling stuff, and the pedophiles are not remorseful at all. If they ever get out, they will probably do the same thing again. I say good for Sarah, and she would have said it if she was running (my opinion).

Wow! Why do I keep being reminded of the Lion in the scene from "The Wizard of OZ", when he is tearing and holding his tail while Dorothy rips him a new one! (could anyone imagine McCain/Palin punting like this? The one with the balls would have made the old man make a decision!) Absolutely pathetic!