Why conservatives hate Warren Buffett

[SouthernYankee]

I am surprised that I missed this "political" discussion, but I am sure the "Greek gods" have had their say.

 

As a conservative Republican, one who does not consider himself to be of a certain class, but does enjoy the FREEDOM of not relying on Big Brother to feed his family, I do not hate Buffett at all. In fact, I tell my liberal friends about him all the time, when speaking about someone with a great way to invest money.

 

But when it comes to politics, I will rely more on the outlook of our Founding Fathers than on the opinions of Warren Buffett. The founding of this nation was based upon the INDIVIDUAL. As Munger would say, simplify.

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric,

 

I know you have dual....but is it actually possible for a us citizen to become a citizen of Australia?

 

Thanks guys

 

 

a permanent resident of Australia may become a dual citizen by becoming an Australian citizen.

 

Prior to 4 April 2002, Australian citizens who became citizens of another country lost their Australian citizenship automatically.

 

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/dual_citizenship/

 

[twacowfca]

Eric,

 

I know you have dual....but is it actually possible for a us citizen to become a citizen of Australia?

 

Thanks guys

 

 

a permanent resident of Australia may become a dual citizen by becoming an Australian citizen.

 

Prior to 4 April 2002, Australian citizens who became citizens of another country lost their Australian citizenship automatically.

 

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/dual_citizenship/

 

Just curious. Does the US allow dual citizenship?

[BSB]

1 out of 4 American children go to bed hungry. For more empirical evidence, concerning the NEEDS of American citizens, please read "The Price of Civilization" by respected economist, Jeffrey Sachs.

[BSB]

"As a conservative Republican, one who does not consider himself to be of a certain class, but does enjoy the FREEDOM of not relying on Big Brother to feed his family, I do not hate Buffett at all. In fact, I tell my liberal friends about him all the time, when speaking about someone with a great way to invest money. "

 

We all rely on government (in part) to feed our families as noted by Martin Whitman in his most recent shareholder (Third Avenue) letter. Also, Malcolm Gladwell in his book, "Outliers".

[Tim Eriksen]

1 out of 4 American children go to bed hungry. For more empirical evidence, concerning the NEEDS of American citizens, please read "The Price of Civilization" by respected economist, Jeffrey Sachs.

 

The 1 in 4 statistic is widely quoted but never substantiated.  It implies every night when it likely refers to at one time during the year.  It also implies malnourishment/starvation which is not a problem in our society.  Obviously no one wants a child to be starving.  If a child goes to bed hungry in this country (meaning they did not get any dinner) it is due to the failure of their guardians.  There are significant resources (food stamps, school lunch programs, etc.) set up in order to make sure the poor are fed.  For example in my city (rural) a family of four with an income of $41,000 or less qualifies for free school breakfast and lunch.  Larger families qualify even more easily.  A family of 6 with an income below $55,000 qualifies. 

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric,

 

I know you have dual....but is it actually possible for a us citizen to become a citizen of Australia?

 

Thanks guys

 

 

a permanent resident of Australia may become a dual citizen by becoming an Australian citizen.

 

Prior to 4 April 2002, Australian citizens who became citizens of another country lost their Australian citizenship automatically.

 

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/dual_citizenship/

 

Just curious. Does the US allow dual citizenship?

 

Yes. 

 

My mother gave up her Australian citizenship when she became a US citizen.  Then after 2002 she got her Australian citizenship back (while still keeping her US citizenship).  Now she is a citizen of both.

 

 

 

[BSB]

 

 

"The 1 in 4 statistic is widely quoted but never substantiated.  It implies every night when it likely refers to at one time during the year.  It also implies malnourishment/starvation which is not a problem in our society.  Obviously no one wants a child to be starving.  If a child goes to bed hungry in this country (meaning they did not get any dinner) it is due to the failure of their guardians.  There are significant resources (food stamps, school lunch programs, etc.) set up in order to make sure the poor are fed.  For example in my city (rural) a family of four with an income of $41,000 or less qualifies for free school breakfast and lunch.  Larger families qualify even more easily.  A family of 6 with an income below $55,000 qualifies."

 

Tim Erikson  You do not "know" what you think you know. For substantiation, read "The Prize of Civilization" by economist Jeffrey Sachs.

 

[Tim Eriksen]

 

"The 1 in 4 statistic is widely quoted but never substantiated.  It implies every night when it likely refers to at one time during the year.  It also implies malnourishment/starvation which is not a problem in our society.  Obviously no one wants a child to be starving.  If a child goes to bed hungry in this country (meaning they did not get any dinner) it is due to the failure of their guardians.  There are significant resources (food stamps, school lunch programs, etc.) set up in order to make sure the poor are fed.  For example in my city (rural) a family of four with an income of $41,000 or less qualifies for free school breakfast and lunch.  Larger families qualify even more easily.  A family of 6 with an income below $55,000 qualifies."

 

Tim Erikson  You do not "know" what you think you know. For substantiation, read "The Prize of Civilization" by economist Jeffrey Sachs.

 

I don't have the time or inclination to read Sachs' book.  I did read Paul Ryan's review of the book from the WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576589090204327736.html

Philosophically I would disagree with most of Sachs assessment and proposals as presented by Ryan.  Sachs' philosophy is not the one this country was founded on and not one I prefer.  That is not to say that some tax increases are not warranted to help balance the budget, but I don't think most Americans want what Sachs' is proposing.  If Sachs actually said "Yes, the federal government is incompetent and corrupt—but we need more, not less, of it," it tells most of what I need to know about him and his book.

 

 

 

[onyx1]

1 out of 4 American children go to bed hungry. For more empirical evidence, concerning the NEEDS of American citizens, please read "The Price of Civilization" by respected economist, Jeffrey Sachs.

 

Where in America are all the dying children??  Where in America do all the malnourished kids that don’t have food live?? 

 

I have not read the book, but if there is a better source of information on this topic than the US Census I'd like to see it.  Here are a few facts from the US Census about children defined as poor:

 

• Their average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals is the same as that of the middle-class and well above recommended amounts.
   
  
• Poor children consume 100% more meat (protein) than higher-income children.
   
  
• Most poor children are over-nourished and grow up on average to be one inch taller and 10 lbs. heavier than the GIs who fought in WWII.
  

 

That these are averages is not intended to hide the fact that there are poor in America who go without.  But those numbers are small as 92% claim they have “enough food to eat”, and only 1.5% claim “often not enough food to eat”.  Most relevant to this topic, only 4% of poor children (less than 300,000 children in total) experienced even a single instance of “reduced food intake due to lack of financial resources”.  (see http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR108/ERR108.pdf, page 12).  There is already an ample network of food pantries, emergency kitchens and charities in place to deal with those in need. 

 

There is a lot of bad information and misunderstanding about poverty and the poor in America.  The media (and others with vested interests) routinely feature poor families as hungry and leave the impression that all poor families are hungry.  Sadly, this exaggeration and misinformation is then used to try and set public policy.  This benefits no one in the long term.

 

[SouthernYankee]

"We all rely on government (in part) to feed our families as noted by Martin Whitman in his most recent shareholder (Third Avenue) letter. Also, Malcolm Gladwell in his book, "Outliers"."

 

I guess another reading assignment has been handed down by the professors who inhabit this site.

I can say that I do rely on government for certain things, they do maintain the infrastructure (for the most part) and keep the peace (again, for the most part). The taxes I pay go to help pay for those things. I am not an anarchist. I simply believe that each individual born in this country, and every immigrant who comes here, should be told over and over that no one is responsible for their well-being except for themselves. For an individual to receive aid from the government, you should have to prove your need, on a continuing basis.

I will look up those suggestions as well, to see what those very intelligent people are saying. Thanks for the tips.

[SouthernYankee]

That 1 in 4 statistic is pretty interesting as well. As far as I know, most public education systems throughout this country spend a lot of money on breakfast and lunch programs for the students, yet 1 in 4 are still going hungry. Maybe we should give that money to McDonalds or Denny's instead. Cutting the overhead would be one savings, and a nice GRAND SLAM BREAKFAST or a SAUSAGE BISCUIT w/ EGG beats cafeteria food any day! Buffett might buy Mickey D's common stock if that happens!!!

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

That 1 in 4 statistic is pretty interesting as well. As far as I know, most public education systems throughout this country spend a lot of money on breakfast and lunch programs for the students, yet 1 in 4 are still going hungry. Maybe we should give that money to McDonalds or Denny's instead. Cutting the overhead would be one savings, and a nice GRAND SLAM BREAKFAST or a SAUSAGE BISCUIT w/ EGG beats cafeteria food any day! Buffett might buy Mickey D's common stock if that happens!!!

 

The trouble is that the taxpayer has to pay for the health care.  So it's shortsighted to teach these eating habits to children.

 

Look, if Republicans want to cut healthcare entitlement spending then they should bring a healthier menu to school cafeterias.

 

It's just like investing in infrastructure -- arteries can be jammed just like aging highway systems.  It probably couldn't hurt to formally teach nutrition in schools -- after all, we have PE class.

[SouthernYankee]

Ericopoly,

 

I was trying to make a joke, TRYING being the operative word! McDonald's is not my usual place for meals. I was just trying to highlight another government program, which, if the 1-in-4 starving kid statistic is taken as true, does not do what it is supposed to do. Which is the reason why conservatives do not UNDERSTAND Mr Buffett's fascination with this President or his policies. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TRIED BEFORE, AND WE KEEP GETTING THE SAME RESULTS!

[Kiltacular]

So 1 in 4 are "hungry"? 

 

Meanwhile, the other 3 are obese.

 

It's an insult to those that have truly starved to suggest that 1 in 4 U.S. children are starving -- with not enough to eat.

 

This idea -- that 1 in 4 children in the U.S. -- are "hungry" is obviously absurd.

 

The question those believing this nonsense should be asking themselves is why / who is telling them these lies?  What is their goal?

 

Seriously, spend some time reading about what people do if / when they are starving.  Read about Red China.  Read about WWII concentration camps.  Read about modern day North Korea or the (intermitent) famines in parts of Africa.

 

It's just preposterous on its face to make this claim about 1 in 4 U.S. children.  Just think about what you would do -- in the U.S. -- if you were hungry.  There is food -- huge amounts -- just thrown away.  You'd start with the trash.  If you couldn't find food there, you'd eventually just steal it -- given the abundance in the U.S. 

 

I can't bear to have my intelligence insulted in this way and to see the memory of those that have starved to death insulted. 

 

Disgusting.

 

Again, think about why those that believe this are being fed these obvious lies.

 

There is not enough cynicism when absurd claims like this are tossed about.

 

If you want to (help) solve the problem of real starvation, think about how to prevent the next North Korea from happening. 

 

It's complicated.  You might have to be willing to go to war.  Like the U.S. did on the Korean peninsula.  Today, you have S. Korea -- one of the wealthiest places in the world.  North of that, you have people literally starving.  Was that war a just war?

 

Of course.

 

[Myth465]

Sachs is on point, despite what you think about his poverty stats. He is really on point regarding the gimmicky stimulus that we are doing.

 

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11925

 

[Myth465]

Buffett is a class act and when he passes it will be a sad day.

 

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/147308/buffett-on-the-economy-taxes-and-obama

 

About 5 minutes in he talks about his outspokenness and political activeness. He was the president of the young republicans club at 17.....

[ERICOPOLY]

Buffett is a class act and when he passes it will be a sad day.

 

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/147308/buffett-on-the-economy-taxes-and-obama

 

About 5 minutes in he talks about his outspokenness and political activeness. He was the president of the young republicans club at 17.....

 

 

Did you notice that he cut back on his bullishness for the US economy?  He tells my blonde that they will only be spending $7 billion this year.

 

However in his shareholder's letter he claimed it would be $8 billion.

 

He also said to my blonde that if we let a million wealthy people into the country it would solve the housing overhang.  So he must be thinking the housing overhang is no more than 1 million units.

[twacowfca]

Eric,

 

I know you have dual....but is it actually possible for a us citizen to become a citizen of Australia?

 

Thanks guys

 

 

a permanent resident of Australia may become a dual citizen by becoming an Australian citizen.

 

Prior to 4 April 2002, Australian citizens who became citizens of another country lost their Australian citizenship automatically.

 

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/dual_citizenship/

 

Just curious. Does the US allow dual citizenship?

 

Yes. 

 

My mother gave up her Australian citizenship when she became a US citizen.  Then after 2002 she got her Australian citizenship back (while still keeping her US citizenship).  Now she is a citizen of both.

 

But does the US know about her Australian citizenship?  Did she notify the US?  I have it in the back of my mind that with the US it has to be either/or, not dual.  Is that correct? 

 

Way back when, it was not allowed for US Citizens to have divided citizenship.  There was even a story required for US schoolchildren to read, "The Man Without a Country."  Some people thought Lindberg should have his US citizenship revolked when he accepted an award from Hitler, as receiving awards from foreign governments was not allowed for US Citizens.  It didn't go quite that far, but he was disqualified for military service.  Later, he did manage to sneak into the war as a civilian consultant and shoot down five Japanese planes, as well as making significant contributions to US air operations. 

 

What if the US went to war with Australia?  Stranger things have happened.  Would your mother then be an enemy alien?  Or if she owned a firearm, perhaps an enemy combatant?  Would she then be carried off to a concentration camp as possibly having divided loyalty?

 

These are absurd suggestions, of course, but they do highlight the complexities of dual citizenship.  I think that particularities of exclusive citizenship should be liberalized.  This is an anachronism in a mostly peaceful world.  But what is the current US position on this?

[leftcoast]

But does the US know about her Australian citizenship?  Did she notify the US?  I have it in the back of my mind that with the US it has to be either/or, not dual.  Is that correct? 

 

Way back when, it was not allowed for US Citizens to have divided citizenship.  There was even a story required for schoolchildren to read, "The Man Without a Country."  Some people thought Lindberg should have his US citizenship revolked when he accepted an award from Hitler as that was not allowed for US Citizens.  What if the US went to war with Australia?  Stranger things have happened.  Would your mother then be an enemy alien?  Or if she owned a firearn, perhaps an enemy combatant?  Would she then be carried off to a concentration camp as possibly having divided loyalty?

 

These are absurd suggestions, of course, but they do highlight the complexities of dual citizenship.  I for one think that particularities of exclusive citizenship should be liberalized.  But what is the current US position on this?

 

 

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

 

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

[Myth465]

  What if the US went to war with Australia? 

 

Australia would be defeated in 15 minutes, maybe 20. No camps would be needed...

One thing the US can still do more effectively then anyone else is kick ass, occupying is a different conversation though.....

[twacowfca]

But does the US know about her Australian citizenship?  Did she notify the US?  I have it in the back of my mind that with the US it has to be either/or, not dual.  Is that correct? 

 

Way back when, it was not allowed for US Citizens to have divided citizenship.  There was even a story required for schoolchildren to read, "The Man Without a Country."  Some people thought Lindberg should have his US citizenship revolked when he accepted an award from Hitler as that was not allowed for US Citizens.  What if the US went to war with Australia?  Stranger things have happened.  Would your mother then be an enemy alien?  Or if she owned a firearn, perhaps an enemy combatant?  Would she then be carried off to a concentration camp as possibly having divided loyalty?

 

These are absurd suggestions, of course, but they do highlight the complexities of dual citizenship.  I for one think that particularities of exclusive citizenship should be liberalized.  But what is the current US position on this?

 

 

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

 

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

 

Thank you.  That makes sense.  :)

[Myth465]

Things arent so bad and protests are springing up all over the country. Republicans inmo are killing the golden goose (Democrats are helping via incompetence), I hope someone is paying attention. As I have said in many prior messages / posts, I have always thought Warren Buffett was primarily interested in self preservation, and have found him to be very forward thinking.

 

This is copied from Fatwallet, but says things much better then I ever could. It was in response to Herman Cain. I am asking for common sense, not economic dogma.....

 

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1129975/?start=120

 

Posted by MACV55 - Preserving Capitalism falls to the comfortable and the wealthy. if this group is too rigid and uncompromising, defending the status quo in all scenarios, the result is a given. self-preservation in humans requires the understanding that self-preservation is universal, even if it appears undeserved. Economic revolution may seem to begin with the "have-nots", but it's really begun by the "haves" not using their intelligence in the face of economic reality.

 

[ubuy2wron]

1 out of 4 American children go to bed hungry. For more empirical evidence, concerning the NEEDS of American citizens, please read "The Price of Civilization" by respected economist, Jeffrey Sachs.

 

The 1 in 4 statistic is widely quoted but never substantiated.  It implies every night when it likely refers to at one time during the year.  It also implies malnourishment/starvation which is not a problem in our society.  Obviously no one wants a child to be starving.  If a child goes to bed hungry in this country (meaning they did not get any dinner) it is due to the failure of their guardians.  There are significant resources (food stamps, school lunch programs, etc.) set up in order to make sure the poor are fed.  For example in my city (rural) a family of four with an income of $41,000 or less qualifies for free school breakfast and lunch.  Larger families qualify even more easily.  A family of 6 with an income below $55,000 qualifies.

Are there no work houses.... Tim do you know how much of the philosophy of Scrooge you are espousing. Who cares WHY the kids are going hungry you feed them first and then work on finding long term solutions. Paul Ryan thinks that Tiny Tims demise is just one of the unfortunate causalties of the noble crusade he is leading.

[ubuy2wron]

Ericopoly,

 

I was trying to make a joke, TRYING being the operative word! McDonald's is not my usual place for meals. I was just trying to highlight another government program, which, if the 1-in-4 starving kid statistic is taken as true, does not do what it is supposed to do. Which is the reason why conservatives do not UNDERSTAND Mr Buffett's fascination with this President or his policies. THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TRIED BEFORE, AND WE KEEP GETTING THE SAME RESULTS!

Southern and LIBERALS keep being frustrated by consrvatives wanting to institute policies that have been tried before and failed. The dark ages was a wonderful period of no big government. Dickensonian England was a wonderful period of no taxation and no government services. Has there ever been a tax that the wealthy have not fought against tooth and nail ?