Monday, August 29, 2011


Warren Buffett, hypocrite is the title of an article in the NEW YORK POST. A hypocrite because he said recently that people like him should pay more taxes, yet his company admits, according to the Post article that it owes back taxes.
As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company [Berkshire Hathaway] openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.
Mr. Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway apparently still has unresolved tax issues for tax years 2005 through 2009.
Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?
By the way, there is no law that prevents someone from writing a check to the IRS. In fact the law specifically provides for that kind of payment. Therefore if anyone feels they underpay their taxes, the remedy is simple send a check!

When someone like Warren Buffett makes the claim, that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than many of his employees do, he is being a little disingenuous.
...he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.
Disingenuous because he makes most of his money in the form of qualified dividends. Dividends which are taxed when he receives them at a rate of 15%. (All citizens pay from 0% to a maximum of 15% on qualified dividends.) But the actual rate on those dividends for Mr. Buffett is closer to 40% or more, because they are also subject to taxation when Berkshire Hathaway files their corporation return.
Raise the top tax rate on them by 13 percent, as Obama wants (from 35 percent to 39.6 percent) and you bring in only another $26 billion, tops -- and that’s if your tax hike doesn’t stifle the economy and kill jobs (which it surely would). Yet what’s $26 billion in a world of $4 trillion federal budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits?
The $26 Billion is not enough to pay our $4 Trillion debt, so when Obama and friends say millionaires and billionaires, they also must tax those who make as little as $200 thousand. $200,000 is quite a lot, but it takes five of those taxpayers to get to $1,000,000.

What about the 51% of taxpayers who pay nothing, nada, zip? Shouldn't they pay something? Not only do the top half pay all the income taxes, many in the other half get back all they paid plus some of what the top half payed.

Sunday, August 21, 2011


Warren Buffett thinks Millionairs and Billionairs should pay higher taxes. After all they can afford it. But the fact is Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation
Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.
Why? The answer is simple - there are not enough US citizens who make a Million Dollars or more. It is interesting to note that even though President Obama has used the terms "...millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share...", the fact is President Obama will start taxing at the $200,000.00 level. Why? Because apparently he considers someone who makes $200,000.00 a millionaire?
“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.
Something else to consider. Fortunately for our life savings, the Tax Laws do not tax that which we have already accumulated, only the growth is taxes. That is one reason that Millionaires and Billionaires do not pay as much taxes. They have already earned the money that makes them Millionaires and Billionaires. They have already paid taxes on the ACCUMULATED millions and billions they have.
“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett.
Therefore unless we wish to change the Tax Law to include some sort of "look-back" provision, the fault Mr. Buffett sees is in the past when he acquired his wealth. By the way this is still wrong headed thinking, because if Mr. Buffett and friends had not been "coddled" by Congress, they wouldn't be where they are today. And more importantly, the jobs they created when they earned their wealth would not exist. We would all be a lot poorer if they had not been "coddled
".[A]ccording to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.
The truth is that we cannot pay our national debt with taxes, unless you wish to consider this:
In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said
It is clear that the best way to pay off our National Debt is to reduce spending. Raising the Debt Ceiling should only be a stop-gap measure to insure that our credit standing is maintained. As the Standard and Poor's reasoning for the downgrading of the US Credit rating indicates: The problem is the unstanable level of spending by the Government.

We currently use over 40 cents of every dollar borrowed just to pay the interest on our National Debt. Congress does not have the will power to reduce spending but a Constitutional Admendment requiring a balanced budet would make Congress feel the will power of the people they represent.


Remember a couple of weeks ago when the Democrats said the Republicans were reckless by not passing President Obama's plan? A plan, by the way, that only existed in the mind of our President, because NOTHING was ever put on paper. Well it is time to go to the "Way Back" machine for this from March 3, 2009 when President Obama said this:
"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."
That does not sound like President Obama was only talking in terms of from this day forward and yet consider the latest development at Government General Motors.
General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.
So let us recap. The Democrats denounce Republicans for being reckless over not approving what they demanded, but were unwilling to put specifically on paper. While the Republican House presented 3 different plans, (2 of which passed the House) and a resolution by Michele Bachmann which would have reaquired payment of all legal debts. But the Democrats are not reckless when promises made to all General Motors purchasers that their warantee claims would be paid are not going to be honored. How does that add up?

Tuesday, August 16, 2011


Kirsten Powers has it right as she explaines Biblical Submission in Stop Attacking Evangelicals!
Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked in a debate whether she would be submissive to her husband as president, the punditry has morphed into a morass of armchair theologians pushing flawed interpretations of what submission means in a biblical context.
To the vast majority of Bible reading Christians, the word submission is interpreted to mean respect and love for one another. It applies to more than just Husband and Wife. The original language of this part of the New Testament Bible was translated from the Greek. In this context Submission does not mean to obey. Further the word submission is applied to all Christians in their relationships with each other and the world in general. The meaning is clear to anyone who will take the time to do a little thinking.
It’s also not what any evangelical I’ve spoken to believes is even implied in the doctrine of submission. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who as an ordained Southern Baptist minister knows a few things about the Bible, explained it to me this way: “This is not about a woman being a doormat. It’s about mutual, reciprocal, selfless, sacrificial love.”
Notice the words "mutual, reciprocal, selfless and sacrificial in the last sentence of Mike Huckabee's quote! It does not apply to just wives, as Michele Bachman clearly explained. It is a respect for each other as partners in a marrage.
Kathy Keller, the wife of pastor Tim Keller of the evangelical Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, speaks regularly on the Bible and gender issues. A graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, she knows of what she speaks. She told me: “Women and men who understand the Bible’s actual teaching on headship and submission will see instantly that this issue is being defined by those on the extreme left and the extreme right, who both caricature what the Bible teaches.”
As Kristin correctly points out it is the fringe Left and Right who have perverted the true meaning understood by the vast majority of Christianity.
She [Kathy Keller] said: “A man’s headship in a marriage consists of imitating the way Jesus has died for … the church. In no Christian marriages that I know of does a husband presume to tell his wife how to do her job, whether that is homemaking or heart surgeon or commander in chief. For a woman, being submissive in your marriage means bringing all your giftedness into the marriage in support of both your husband and your marriage. If this isn’t an issue for married men, who if they are professing Christians should be willing to die for their wives, then it shouldn’t be made into an issue for a woman.”
Kristin ends her article with this paragraph.
Furthermore, look at the two highest-profile evangelical women in American politics—Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—and tell me with a straight face that they aren’t treated with respect by their husbands. If you doubt that, I can assure you that five minutes with either lady will set you straight.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011


The Obama Downgrade, Alphabetically is the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal. The author is BRET STEPHENS. Bret goes through every letter of the alphabet to make the point that, as he points out when he gets to letter "L":
L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter.
It is an interesting way to show the failures of President Obama. Bret has to admit that:
H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.
The Letter "D"
D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.
The Letter "E":
E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year
and the Letter "F":
F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.
One of my personal favorited is the Letter "S":
S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.
However the Letter "W" ranks as my number 1:
W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.
I strongly suggest you read Mr Stephens article. Let me know what your favorite is when you finish the article.