SouthernYankee

"I dont plan on using any of them, but if they are going to exist they should be paid for in full using open and honest accounting." Well said, I agree with you! (I will be doing more jobs for cash up front, and will take advantage of every loophole these politicians put in place.) Long live the Tea Party! Let the Republican Party wither on its vines! Cheers!

Myth, Ezra Klein's facts are one of the reasons why changes need to be made. Social Security is a program designed inthe 1930's for retirees at a time when the average life expectancy was 59!!!!! Which means that most people NEVER reached it. NOTHING TO CHANGE HERE! Medicare is a 50 year old program whose assumptions were off by factors of 10! They are PONZI schemes, far worse than Madoff's. If these are not facts, please let me know. Cheers, SouthernYankee

Myth, With all due respect, my mind could be changed, if presented with compelling evidence. Those facts that I laid out before, if I am wrong, please show me where I am wrong. I never claimed to be a know it all, which is one of the reasons I do not like to tell others how to spend their money! Cheers, SouthernYankee

When Medicare was introduced in the 1960's, they estimated that it would cost $12 Billion come 1990. That year came, and it cost over $100 billion. Paul Ryan's assumptions may be off (per Krugman), but the United States government's assumptions are usually WORSE, and I am being charitable when I say that. This government is a classic example of how people spend other people's money! It is always EASIER to spend! And to echo RRJ, but not too assume he is on my side, I don't mind reading a liberal viewpoint, but I will probably argue against it. And if I am not courteous, please tell me so.

I will read all those links shortly. I did notice, very quickly, the names Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman. You may want to read some articles written by Thomas Sowell, Walter E Williams, Milton Friedman etc. Fact: The stimulus bill, which was so-called EMERGENCY spending, is now included in the BASELINE for the next years budget. Why don't we just start the new budget with spending levels from 2007 (the last year a budget was passed by a Dem Congress and a Repub in the White House)? The Tea Party "crazies" would probably go for that. Fact: The debt ceiling was raised 18 times during the Reagan Administration, and average of every 6 months. Why does our President Obama want it to be raised through the 2012 election? Fact: The Senate, led by Democrats, and the White House, led by Democrats, have not submitted a budget plan. The House, led by the radical T-Party Republicans, have passed several. Why doesn't Harry Reid let the members of the Senate actually vote on one of those Republican plans? Is he afraid that it would receive 51 votes? Are any of these facts wrong?

Thank you for noticing me, first of all. As Dale Carnegie tells us, each and every person wants to be seen as special/important! It is true, most of my responses are political in nature. I have come to this forum, for the most part, to LEARN. And I have learned a lot about investing. Thank you all very much, it is much appreciated! In the next 5-10 years, I hope I will feel comfortable enough to reply to, or actually start, an investing thread. The reason why I like to reply to the political topics is because I feel that I have an ability to give an opinion. And also because the reasons given for support of certain policies are often based on emotion, as opposed to the numbers. It seems like there is such a disconnect between the value investor's way of investing, and their support of certain political policies. I hope this is good enough for you. Or is it too muddied?

I understand about 2008-2009, but the supposedly EMERGENCY spending for Obama's stimulus bill, $787 billion, is now part of the BASELINE! The Democrats WILL NOT go back to a baseline from 2007! Again, I would take FY2000 spending levels and Clinton tax-rates!! So please don't call me radical!

Paul Krugman, Bill Maher - why would I waste my time arguing with people who look to them for a BALANCED view? It's funny, look at the states that are in trouble - overwhelmingly Democratic and unwilling to change! California & Illinois being the biggest examples. How is Cut, Cap, and Balance such a radical idea?? Or for that matter, Paul Ryan's budget plan? 2 plans passed by the House, still waiting for Harry Reid to let the Senate vote on them!

I believe the Bush Administration's largest deficit was around $400 billion, and that is why the Republican Congress was relieved of their duties in Nov 2006. 2007, the deficit was lower, mainly due to Republican White House and Democratic Congress. There was no budget passed for 2008, it was held over until Obama was in office. The deficits are now $1 trillion and up. In a prior reply, I said go back to 2000 spending levels. Let's go back to 2006 spending levels, are you with me?? Because if you are not, then you are the problem, not the Tea Party!

How is Paul Krugman able to write what he writes about President Obama? The one budget he introduced this year received no votes. He OUTLINED some changes in April but never submitted it to the CBO. The head of the CBO said "they don't score speeches!" So when you submit something by Mr Krugman (or Mr Brooks), the answer is yes, you are a partisan hack! Once again, here is the grand bargain - I'll give you Clinton era tax rates, if you give me Clinton-era spending levels! "It's the spending stupid!"

"Like I said, truly, there is a feeling in my caucus, and in me specifically, I can say, that I feel we are willing to compromise by coming to the table and saying we understand we'll have to raise the debt limit specifically, but we have to get ourselves on a fiscal trajectory, because look, we've spent too much money. We have the same tax rates, the same two wars, the same prescription drug benefit in 2007, but the deficit then was $161 billion. This year it's $1.5 trillion.” 

 -This is a quote from Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). If those numbers are correct, and I did not know there was such a huge disparity, then this is a little bit more than political posturing. The number is 10x as large. You could liquidate Apple, Microsoft, BRK, Intel, Google, and you would pay off the debt for ONE year! What would you do next year??

Sorry about bringing up hockey, I just skated the other night (100 degrees at 8:00 P.M. will drive you indoors!) and I am getting the bug again! Can't wait to lace them up again come October!

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272690/debt-ceiling-chicken-thomas-sowell -Another person who agrees.

How is this for a grand bargain? 1) Go back to Clinton-era tax rates, Glass-Steagal becomes the law for financial industry, reduce spending to baseline of FY2000. 2) Repeal Obamacare, No Child Left Behind, & Dodd-Frank. All regulations revert to year 2000 as well. 3) Raise debt ceiling $2 trillion. 4) Get out of Afghanistan, and Germany, but make Iraq our new base (instead of Germany). 5) Make all budgets start at ZERO for the next fiscal year. Each program should have to acknowledge it was formed to SOLVE a problem. If the problem is not solved, the American people should know WHY NOT!! How is that for a constructive lunch break? Cheers, and since I haven't mentioned it yet, Congrats to the BRUINS!

I just hope no one looks behind the curtain tonight. Keep that damn TOTO out of the White House! The Reid bill - no specifics, all savings over the next 10 year period, while each year another trillion in debt. YES, A VERY SERIOUS PLAN! ::)

"There is a reason the federal government isn't run like a business. In a recession, businesses cut costs. What do you think would happen if the government did that?" -What would happen? Are we too scared to find out, or are the people in power too worried they will lose power? The more we kick the can down the road, I believe, it gets more frightening to think what might happen. On the other hand, it is just as frightening (to myself) to see the amount of power being given to a SMALL number of fallible human beings!

“All it does is slow down a process and divert people’s energy, causes people to posture. It doesn’t really make any sense,” the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said in an interview with NBC News on Monday afternoon at the White House. The interview followed a meeting Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates had with President Barack Obama about charitable giving." -To clarify, this is why I made the remark about Buffett and Munger. Munger does not meet, as far as I know, with the biggest posturers, Obama and/or Bush (politicians in general)! He does not, as far as I know, lead a group of people to give charitably instead of letting the government confiscate 55% of wealth if that same person died, while also pushing for that estate tax to be enforced in full. Buffett and Munger, as usual, entirely rational, full of wisdom and great advice, I am glad I found out about them around 1998. My life is RICHER in more ways than one, the least of which concerns my wallet! Munger simply keeps a lower profile and leads his private life as I ASSUME he would lead a government, frugally and with an eye on what it does best (Circle of Competence). Buffett's attitude towards government, I believe, has been affected by his awful experiences as a child and as a teen/young adult who did not really fit in. He wants to please EVERYONE, and he ends up pleasing NO ONE, which sounds a lot like our dysfunctional, heavily in debt government. Cheers, and thanks for your opinions and knowledge-sharing.

I like Charlie Munger more and more every day!

Sorry about the alternating caps yesterday, and didn't mean to shout. My mother would be APPALLED! I do like the term "deficit peacocks", that about sums up the leadership from the GOP, of which I am a member. I would like to offer my solution, though. Tax-rates go back to 2000 level, to make the Democrats happy and the Republicans mad. Spending also goes back to 2000 level, making the Dems mad and the Republicans happy. Obamacare is repealed because it is unconstitutional (I am holding out hope) & Medicare Part D is rescinded because it is not paid for. The wars will still be with us, but that is when I would reach out to the unfunniest comedian out there, Bill Maher, and use his idea of just taking Iraqi oil. I would also decree Level 3 to be the backbone of choice for all electronic communications, but I am probably getting a bit out of control at this point. "Power corrupts, absolute powers corrupts absolutely." Oh, one last thing, let's go SHARKS! (my Dad is rooting for the Canucks because he likes the green guys!)

mYTH, dEMOCRATS AREN'T KNOWN FOR THEIR BOLDNESS?? THEY RAMMED THROUGH HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION LAST YEAR, MAKING THE FEDERAL GOV'T RESPONSIBLE FOR 1/6TH OF THE ECONOMY, THEY RAMMED THROUGH AN $800 BILLION "STIMULUS", A $45O BILLION OMNIBUS BILL, HAVEN'T PRODUCED A BUDGET IN 2 YEARS. THAT IS PRETTY BOLD, MY LOOKING-FOR-VALUE FRIEND!

If you go near Tortilla Flats in the West Village this evening, you'll find me with 5 other over-40 somethings trying to act cool for 25 year old, long-legged, immature, but oh-so-fun cosmopolitan women! We'll be the ones sucking our guts in!

"Woman's rights: I wish my wife were home to type this. First there is his treatment of women in his own party: Rona Ambrose, Helena Geurgis, Bev Oda et al. Why do his male MPs never get strung out to dry like the women? Then there is the whole stance on Universal daycare, childcare etc. They have been reversing years of progress to help women into the workforce. My wife tells me that specifically the Harper government has attacked programs aimed at improving the lot of women. The guy believes that women belong in the home. I believe that he personally detests women." Can someone explain this to me? A woman gets pregnant but still wants to have a job, so tax-payers have to pick the tab up for child to go to day-care? That is called progress? Why doesn't her husband stay home and watch the kid? By getting rid of these programs, it is up to the "adult" to make choices in his/her life, and that is called reversing progress? As a tax-payer, am I allowed to tell the family which receives benefits how to spend their money? Do they have cable? I don't have cable? Do they buy new cars? Both my cars are used, and the only reason why we have 2 cars is because my in-laws passed at a young age and it was a 10 year old car in good shape!! Now I know these questions are more suited to a political website, but it astounds me that people who are rational, value-oriented investors, who look for bargains instead of the next hot stock, can't see the fallacy of government being a good steward of tax-payer dollars!!

"Incidentally, here is a short, but terrific article by David Frum, who is a right-winger Canadian and former speech-writer for the Bush Administration." If "right-winger Canadian and former speech-writer for the Bush Administration" is another word for MAJOR LEAGUE PUTZ, then we agree on something. I would vote to raise the debt-ceiling if part of the new debt went to pay Canada to take back Frum. The other money would go to Luongo, to fill in the cracks in his psyche.

Parsad, Obama has continued Bush-era policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has actually gone further than Bush was allowed to. I applaud President Obama for DISREGARDING the fact that Pakistan may get upset that they were not asked first before we invaded their country. Bush should have DISREGARDED international opinion a lot more, IMHO! I wonder if Obama's foreign policies are good for this country, but since he is the duly-elected President of my country, I support those policies. But when it comes to domestic policies, he is a person who believes in government more than the individual. That is my problem with our President, not his race, not our lack of knowledge about his birth, his schooling, or his associates. (I do have a problem with our so-called journalists, I would like them to treat ALL politicians and government workers by the same standard!) Otherwise, you have your opinion and I have mine. (Let's go HARPER!) Regards.

I keep hearing so much about the government "investing in the future", I thought for a second I was living in the United States of Berkshire Hathaway, and our President and Vice President was Buffett and Munger!! Imagine what they could have done with all of THAT FLOAT (tax revenues)! Except we all KNOW (I think) that our government is more MADOFF than Buffett/Munger/Graham!