American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Study your history.

The reason there was a Middle Class was because of the Unions.

The reason there are vacations was because of the Unions.

The reason there is a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there is Overtime Laws is because of the Unions.

The reason there is Child Labor Laws was because to the Unions.

The reason some of You have Health Care was because of the Unions.

The reason the Middle Class is dieing is because mainly the Republicans and their Buddies, Big Business.

The main reason their are less jobs at home, is because of "Out Sourcing" that the Republicans and the Democrats Let them do it.

Oh, yes, The right to Work States do not have many of the above Reasons.

"Greed is Good". Gee, who would say that.

Just remember the Republicans have Never been for the Workers.

You don't like Obama Care, but Romney Care is Okay?


[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419317]Why did the company in Maryland that made the best buggy whips in the entire United States go out of business? Their product was obsolete. Same with Unions, there was a time when unions preformed a useful function to the benefit of their workers, but those days have passed. Today unions exist to perpetuate their own existence, deal in political influence and cronyism with the dues they collect from their members and not for the benefit of their members.

Proof you say, look to the South where states have 'right to work' laws, the unions can never get traction in these states and companies are increasingly leaving the unionized North for the right to work states. Unions continually price their employer's right out of the market with their continuing demands for higher wages and greater benefit packages. The auto industry is a good example. The only place the unions are gaining ground is in the governmental sector, the one that devoirs cash and produces no product.

Take a look at the union action up in Washington state, something the liberal news media seems to be ignoring for the most part. A private company builds a facility with private funds and decides to not use union labor, which is their right. The union demands the 'right' to work at the facility and when they are told the owners will not use the union, union workers literally storm the gates of the facility, assault the security guards, destroy equipment and spill grain out of the storage bins. A Federal judge found the union in contempt for the actions and the sheriff is reviewing security video to make arrests in the matter. What does the union do, they March on the courthouse and dare the sheriff to arrest anyone.

The unions are more like the Mafia today with their strong arm tactics. While the Labor Relations Board tries to shutter Boeing's plant in South Carolina, an "at will" state, to benefit the union in Washington state but takes on action with the hooligans on the docks?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419326]Study your history.

The reason there was a Middle Class was because of the Unions.

The reason there are vacations was because of the Unions.

The reason there is a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there is Overtime Laws is because of the Unions.

The reason there is Child Labor Laws was because to the Unions.

The reason the Middle Class is dieing is because mainly the Republicans and their Buddies, Big Business.

The main reason their are less jobs at home, is because of "Out Sourcing" that the Republicans and the Democrats Let them do it.

Oh, yes, The right to Work States do not have many of the above Reasons.

"Greed is Good". Gee, who would say that.

Just remember the Republicans have Never been for the Workers.[/QUOTE]Sorry WT69 but the right to work states have all the same laws you mentioned above and also have a thriving middle class. If unions are the savior of the middle class why are they unable to gain traction in right to work states, losing membership even in states without the "right to work" statutes, and only gaining membership among state and federal government workers?

Unions did great things for employees in the later 1800's and up to the mid 1960's but then morphed into what they originally were against, rich powerful machines. I am sure the union founders would be proud of the unholy alliance between orgainzed labor / crime and the Democratic party.

Get a grip WT, the unions are like the buggy whip company, they have out lived their usefullness.

Any comment on the unions in Washington state?

Mongers-

I am no fan of unions (especially in the public sector, where unions should be illegal) however some interesting observations should be noted regarding unionized states v."right to work" states which in many ways will validate some of WT69's points. The top states in terms median household income are all more "unionized" states whereas the bottom ranked states are all "right to work" states."Right to Work" states are attracting businesses because they can get away with paying workers in those states very low wages; as such, those states have rich capitalists and service providers (lawyers, accountants, doctors) and cheap labor with very little of a middle class in between. Also keep in mind that the public educational systems in the states with the highest median household incomes (and higher rates of unionization) are FAR superior to those found in the states with the lowest median household incomes (not coincidentally the "right to work" states". What made the USA great was not rich capitalists making millions in profits while their employees scrape by with a meager living; what made the country great was the fact that from WWII until very recently the vast majority of Americans could earn a decent wage and expect to lead a middle class existence (own a house, car, vacations, send kids to higher educational institutions) simply by playing by the rules and working hard. The bottom line is that private sector trade unions (plumbers, electricians, roofers, carpenters, construction workers, etc) DO boost the middle class and are still relevant in today's economy.

RH

HR, I agree with you whole heartedly on the unionization of governmental employees, but have to disagree with you on big private sector labor unions.

The unions are pricing themselves out of the market which is why companies are moving to right to work states with lower labor costs. We as a nation are pricing ourselves out of the global market for many goods which we at one time manufactured but now import. The US does not operate in a vacuum we have to compete with the rest of the world and labor cost is one of those componets.

If you look at the unionized states you will see the middle class income levels you are touting are falling and ranks of those considered at the poverty level are rising due to the industries on which they depend failing to be competitive. If you can't compete you go out of business and no one has a job. Labor unions have a sense of entitlement when it comes to pay and benefits, totally ignoring the fact there would be no job at all without the folks who have the guts to take the risks of building companies that provide those jobs.

The problem with Americans is we have become lazy and complacent, riding the wave of the Greatest Generation from the 40's. 50's & 60's and that wave has run out. The majority of Americans no longer have the work ethic their parents and grandparents who provided the skilled workforce driving the American economy from that era but have become dependent on Big Government to take care of them.

Have not hear a word about labor, Boeing, and the Washington state longshoremen.

That as human beings, we tend to make the same mistakes and self destruct. Both individually and collectively. We don't even need to go into ideology, religion, race, class, gender, etc. We are a sorry lot. Everything we touch has a huge dose of self interest. Whether it be who we vote, or who our friends are, who we marry, even what charity do we donate. We always rationalize, and we often lie, yet, when we look in the mirror, we always see near perfection.

I only know that when I gave a 20 baht note to the young mother with the newborn baby on the overpass bridge, she look up as I kept walking and the stare told me that she thought I was a mix of Donald Trump and Gandhi. I felt good even though it was 66 cents.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;419286]Congratulations Stan[/QUOTE]Tiny, you're second best at attempting reasoned arguments from the right.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419260]1. Esten, your education about business in not my job, but if you insist take a look at Stan's response to your nonsense.

2. What no response to writing a check to "share the sacrifice"?

3. What no response to your trying to push your precieved guilt on to everyone else and using that as a pretense to seprate the working class from their money?[/QUOTE]Yes, I reviewed Stan's post and exposed his weak argument on business uncertainty. See my response. In addition your case on how Obama is hurting your business continues to be non-existent.

Lately a number of Republicans have invited Democrats to write a check to the Treasury. Dems have a better idea. Let's close the loopholes and raise the rates on those who can afford it, so ALL of this group contributes to the effort. Much more effective. We'll gladly pay more. It's not about guilt. It's about practical, moral, and sound economic solutions. The wealthy have done extremely well over the past three decades, as various tax rates have been lowered. The middle class has not shared in the prosperity to nearly the same degree.

Have a look at this chart:
Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show
[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 419288][url]Http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mortgage-default-warnings-apf-157937671.html?x=0[/url]

More [i][b]'shallow analysis'[/i][/b] I guess, just like the voters in New York and Nevada appear to have been [i][b]'driven by emotion'[/i][/b] Yesterday. LOL[/QUOTE]Since you simply posted an article title and link, in your case this would be an example of 'no analysis'.

The housing and foreclosure problem is largely a result of free-market capitalism. The rich elite (for the most part) profit from the boom and bust cycles, but when the mass layoffs come, it's the middle class that takes most of the hit.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;419261]Trying to make the poor rich by making the rich poor just doesn't work.[/QUOTE]That is not a liberal goal. We believe you don't build a great society by policies that worsen economic inequality. That is the trajectory we have been on for three decades and the middle class has barely made a gain.

[QUOTE]Europe is learning that lesson the hard way right now, the Euro's collapsing and the domino effect will follow. Just a matter of time.[/QUOTE]Have a look at Germany. Private enterprise and prosperity can easily co-exist with higher taxation and a stronger government.

[QUOTE]Keynesian Economists and their f*cked-up thinking is what led us to this mess.[/QUOTE]Probably one of the most absurd statements I've read here. Please, provide your analysis of how Keynesian Economists are responsible for the events and fallout from the Great Recession.

Good to see President Obama has finally wisened up on tax rates. Word has it, he's going to proposed that "millionaires and billionaires" pay the same tax rates as the middle class. This excerpt from today's spin:

[i]A White House official said the proposal would be included in the president's proposal for long term deficit reduction that he will announce Monday. The official spoke anonymously because the plan has not been officially announced.

Obama is going to call it the "Buffett Rule" for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers. [/i]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/obama-seek-tax-rate-wealthy-225820977.html[/url]

Well, it's about time. I'm all for this. The middle class pays exactly 4. 7% in taxes on their income. Really. That's their effective federal tax rate:

[i]Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4. 7 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the third-lowest percentage in the past 50 years, after 2008 and 2009. [/i]

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151[/url]

I would love to pay 4. 7% in federal taxes. Well, maybe I've got it wrong. Maybe he's saying that the "millionaires and billionaires" should pay the same in federal taxes when everything is taken into consideration, including medicare, social security and federal tax rates. Well, in that case. The middle class pays less than 14. 3% in federal taxes when everything is considered:

[i]Households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid an average of 14. 3 percent of their income in overall federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which data are available, according to CBO. [2] This is just slightly above this group's effective tax rate of 13. 8 percent in 2003, which was the lowest level since at least 1979.

Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare, than they do in income taxes. Thus, the 14. 3 percent figure reflects the impact of payroll taxes far more than income taxes.

Due to the impact of the recession and the temporary tax cuts in the Recovery Act, particularly the Making Work Pay tax credit, CBO data will likely show that middle-income families faced significantly lower effective overall federal tax rates in 2010 than in 2007. [/i]

[url]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151[/url]

Well, what's a 10% difference? My effective federal tax rate last year was 27 percent. My marginal tax rate last year was, of course, 35 percent. So, I'll take 4.7 percent or 14. 3 percent at the federal level. Glad to see this socialist nut is coming around.

Anyone want to bet that this clueless President of ours is going to try to find a way to argue that the middle class is actually paying much more than what the statistics show? Please, check my cites and review the math. There is no argument, none, that the middle class is paying more in tax than "millionaires and billionaires." Even Warren Buffet's argument holds no water. If his secretary is paying a 19% federal tax rate, it's because he's paying him or her more than $200, 000 a year. This means that he or she qualifies as one of the "millionaires and billionaires" under Obama Math. It also means that Buffett is too cheap to give his secretary much (if any) stock, such that he or she would pay tax at lower long term cap gains rate of 15 percent, which still is [b]higher[/b] Than the rates at which the middle class pays taxes, no matter how you measure it.

My argument isn't that the middle class should pay more. They pay less than the rich, even uber-billionaires like Warren Buffett who intentionally pays tax only on capital gains and dividends. That's fine by me. My argument is simple. To paraphrase James Carville: [u]It's the spending, [i]stupid. [/i][/u]

To quote James Carville, there's one word that sums up what this administration should be doing now: [i]Panic![/i] In thirteen and a half more months, we'll be rid of this sorry excuse for a President. Until then, it's all class warfare rhetoric, all the time. It's all he's got left; the last refuge of scoundrels.

[quote][quote=Punter 127][url]Http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mortga.37671.html?x=0[/url]

More 'shallow analysis' I guess, just like the voters in New York and Nevada appear to have been 'driven by emotion' Yesterday. LOL[/quote][QUOTE=Esten; 419338]Since you simply posted an article title and lin[k, in your case this would be an example of 'no analysis'.

The housing and foreclosure problem is largely a result of free-market capitalism. The rich elite (for the most part) profit from the boom and bust cycles, but when the mass layoffs come, it's the middle class that takes most of the hit.[/QUOTE][/quote]Sorry I didn't have time to [strike]child[/strike] esten proof my post, most of the readers have the ability to read the article and don't need an explanation. However if you are willing to learn we will try to take you by the hand.

The housing problem was caused by the manipulation of interest rates and the money supply. Also government regulations that required the the lowering of loan qualification standards contributed to the foreclosure problems.

Obama promised the American people he could fix our problems, he has failed big time. He will be held accountable by the voters.

[quote][quote=Punter 127]Trying to make the poor rich by making the rich poor just doesn't work.[/quote][QUOTE=Esten;419338]That is not a liberal goal. We believe you don't build a great society by policies that worsen economic inequality. That is the trajectory we have been on for three decades and the middle class has barely made a gain.[/quote][/quote]I agree that the middle class has always carried the load in this country. But I don't see the left as helping the middle, rather they seem more interested in expanding the lower class. Would you like to tell us what percentage of Americans now pay zero income tax? Who was that guy that said [i]'Spread the Wealth Around'[/i]?

[quote][quote]Europe is learning that lesson the hard way right now, the Euro's collapsing and the domino effect will follow. Just a matter of time.[/quote][QUOTE=Esten; 419338]Have a look at Germany. Private enterprise and prosperity can easily co-exist with higher taxation and a stronger government.[/quote][/quote]Sorry I trust the private sector more than I do government and I prefer freedom to government dictates. If you like 'higher taxation and a stronger government' may I suggest you consider relocating? One word of caution though, when the Euro breaks up it may not be so nice there.

[quote][quote]Keynesian Economists and their f*cked-up thinking is what led us to this mess.[/quote][QUOTE=Esten; 419338]Probably one of the most absurd statements I've read here. Please, provide your analysis of how Keynesian Economists are responsible for the events and fallout from the Great Recession.[/quote][/quote]Now our self appionted teacher is not only grading our post, he's also assinging home work. Dude Keynesian theory has dominated economics in this country for years. Obama has used Keynesian economics through government stimulus programs, which has just kicked the can down the road and buried us in debt. And we have more unemployment now than we had when Obama took office. Try studying the theory of business cycles provided by Austrian economists.

Austrian business cycle theory is that artificial credit expansion through central bank policies ultimately results in unsustainable booms, leading to asset price bubbles, which leads to recessions. Theoretically, this is the most precise explanation of the Great Recession.

Esten since you only seem to be able to find left wing propaganda pages let me help you a little. 'Austrian Business Cycle theory basically points out the disastrous effects credit expansion can have on the economy, and with highly developed financial markets where slight movements in interest rates are channeled quickly towards investment movements, these disastrous effects are likely to be more profound. Hence, there is a need for a change in the way monetary policies, fiscal policies and every other policy which affects business are operated. This change is particularly essential in developed countries with highly developed financial markets. Policy makers in those as well as other countries should not depend on Keynesian economics or Monetarist ideologies, but should learn from the events which led to the global recession. '

OK Esten let me walk you through it, but I am sure at the end of the discussion you will respond with either it was 'George Bush's fault' or 'Obama inherited a terrible economy and he actions kept it from being worse'

My firm provides management and accounting information system support for our clients. For you Esten I will employ the KISS principle, keep-it-simple-stupid.

For single and multi-specialty medical group clients:

The problem is folks don't have the money for co-pays and deductibles or want to hold on to the cash and seek only that care which is urgent reducing my client's gross receipts while expenses continue to rise causing layoffs of physicians and support staff which means they have less money to pay my firm as well for our services. Don't give me ObamaCare will turn medicine around, my clients see it for the unmitigated disaster it will be and they are the ones delivering the services.

Commercial construction clients:

No new significant construction projects are being initiated by their clients and those that were slated for starts in 2009, 2010 and this year have been shelved unless they were already out of the ground. Their clients are holding on to their money and waiting to see what happens within their individual business sectors, ie uncertainty. My clients are getting by doing what smaller jobs are available and again we are looking at cut backs which include my firm's services.

General business clients:

Same problem here, folks are not spending so their receipts are down with the same results as the other two groups of clients.

Conclusion:

My company is tied to the fiscal health of my clients and they are a pretty gloomy bunch. Their income has declined each year since 2008 and none of us see any hope of it becoming better any time soon.

Obama:

Nothing he has done as improved the economy and no one is buying the 'It would have been worse' argument any more. Class warfare, sky rocketing deficit spending and blaming Bush is not cutting the mustard any more either. After nearly 3 years, two of which the Democrats controlled it all, Obama has produced the same stagflation we saw under Jimmy Carter. Its Obama's polices and his economy and unemployment which put him out of the White House, and none too soon IMHO

As an addendum to my earlier post I present for your consideration Esten the following which affects a broad spectrum of companies:

When Obama took office diesel fuel was $2. 29 / gallon, today it is $3. 86 / gallon.

Why the 68% rise in the price for a gallon of diesel fuel?

It's simple, oil is denominated in Dollars when Obama and company continued to pump / print more dollars thereby devaluing the Dollar on the world market the cost of diesel fuel went up in the United States even though the true cost of oil rose less than 20%.

Why is this important?

Transportation costs have risen driving up the cost of everything from cotton to concrete. Ask anyone in the construction business about the cost of materials shipped to a job site.

I think we should award medals to whoever can wade through Esten's nonsense.

However, I don't think Esten expects his posts will be embraced by people with IQ's greater than their shoe size.

Esten's targets are braindead morons incapable of independent thinking. For this group Esten's nonsense probably ranks alongside the Gettysburg Address, Magna Carta and the Holy Bible

Yesterday, I sent FactCheck. Org Obama's bogus claim that many of the wealthy pay less in taxes than the middle class. They're quick. They refuted it in less than 24 hours. That's a reflection on how fast they take up issues, but also how easy it is to show Obama's a liar on this issue:

[i]President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday."That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1.470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237, 000 returns with incomes above $1 million. [/i]

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html[/url]

So, all of Obama's rhetoric is about less than one percent of "millionaires and billionaires?" Sure. Sure. How is it that he consistently fails to mention that the vast, vast majority of high income taxpayers pay much, much more taxes than the middle class? Or, that much of the middle class pay zero federal income tax? Obviously, because none of this is about any real effort to solve the deficit, or even about fairness. This is about Obama Campaign 2012. He had no intention of proposing anything to create jobs or stimulate the economy. His jobs speech was just a campaign speech, plain and simple.

Now, we should see some enterprising journalist investigating Buffett's bogus claim that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. But, since this is the Left Wing media, they'll spend time trying to dig up Rick Perry's transcripts, but they can't find any time to scrutinize the latest Obama sound bite. C'mon Warren. Show us the details. You want to go public with comments like that? Pony up.

It's all a bunch of nonsense. Buffett is in thick with this administration. I guarantee you there are all sorts of behind the scenes discussions with him that we'll never hear about, ranging from how the administration would backstop GE and Goldman Sachs, to the administration's plans to ensure B of A doesn't fail. Knowing those details means a lot. Buffet loaned both GE and Goldman billions on sweetheart terms and made billions in the process. He's just done the same with B of A. He's a shrewd investor. But, he's also smart enough to know that it's easier to make money when the administration has a thumb on the scales in your favor.

And, notice how Buffett hasn't mentioned anything about supporting a "wealth tax" that would affect him, unlike the so-called Buffett Rule? If you want to see Buffett's true spots, ask him about that. He may have given billions to charity, but he's stashed plenty away for himself. Ask him whether it's a good idea to take 2 percent of that a year and hand it to the government. Then, you'll see how "fair" Warren Buffett is.

According to new figures released by the IRS the income group Obama wishes to target with the "Buffett Rule" are already paying taxes at a much higher percentage rate than the typical middle class families Obama is allegedly attempting to protect. The "Buffett Rule" was intended to insure the evil "rich" pay "their fair share" of taxes, but guess what according the IRS they already are and then some!

Esten consider this, the top 0. 2% (that's two tens of a percent not two percent) of tax payers are paying 21% of all taxes.

Does this mean the evil rich get a TAX CUT under the "Buffett Rule"? I doubt it but this clearly shows Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is pure class warfare politics at its most cynical.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 419300]I hope all mongers, are not thinking this thread is a Independent News Thread.

This is a Republican Business Man Thread.

They are not for the Workers, they are for taking away your Dreams of a House, Home, and a Living wage, Away.

Democrats are not much better, but they are the only Working Man's Hopes.[/QUOTE]The operative word here is 'Republican'. Businessmen are not the problem per se.

What we've learned in this thread I think is that Republican businessmen think very highly of themselves and their business achievements. Moreover, they also think the government's top priority should be business success and profitability.

What they repeatedly ignore is that the government's role goes beyond creating conditions to help business. The role of government is to serve all people through the programs and services it provides. And this is a reflection of the will of the people.

If the government tries to do something that may benefit many people, but may have some downside for a particular business or industry, it is the Republican businessman who will complain first and loudest.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;419340]Austrian business cycle theory is that artificial credit expansion through central bank policies ultimately results in unsustainable booms, leading to asset price bubbles, which leads to recessions. Theoretically, this is the most precise explanation of the Great Recession.[/QUOTE]I give you credit for bringing up a worthy angle in the discussion, on credit expansion and interest rates. I've heard the argument before that Greenspan kept interest rates too low too long, which drove investment seeking higher returns elsewhere. Is that your argument as the main cause of the housing bubble?

[QUOTE]Would you like to tell us what percentage of Americans now pay zero income tax? Who was that guy that said [i]'Spread the Wealth Around'[/i]?[/QUOTE]Sure it's a big number, due to Republican low-tax philosophy, and the effect of capitalism shifting wealth from bottom and middle to the top. From an economic perspective, the single most important thing we can do now is to shift that wealth back from the top down, in a manner which still encourages and rewards individual effort.

[quote= Punter 127]Austrian business cycle theory is that artificial credit expansion through central bank policies ultimately results in unsustainable booms, leading to asset price bubbles, which leads to recessions. Theoretically, this is the most precise explanation of the Great Recession.

[QUOTE=Esten;419354]I give you credit for bringing up a worthy angle in the discussion, on credit expansion and interest rates. I've heard the argument before that Greenspan kept interest rates too low too long, which drove investment seeking higher returns elsewhere. Is that your argument as the main cause of the housing bubble?[/quote][/quote]Esten I'm not an economist but here are some 'Recession Facts and Explanations', I didn't write it but I think it has merit.

[quote]A chain of events led to the economic recession of 2007 – 2010. After the bursting of the NASDAQ Bubble or the Dot Com Bubble in 2000 (where bubble refers to temporary and unnatural price hikes) the Federal Reserve System started lowering the Federal funds rate to historic levels (up to around 1%) and eased credit conditions, where the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which private depository institutions (mostly banks) lend balances (federal funds) at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions, usually overnight.

This expanded the money supply to such an extent that financial institutions started offering loans to buyers with low credit scores, where a credit score represents the creditworthiness of a person. These borrowers are called 'subprime borrowers'. Government Sponsored Agencies such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae) , Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) etc. Channeled a large number of these credit flows into the real estate market to expand the secondary market for mortgages through mortgage backed securities. Due to lower federal funds rates, the adjustable rate mortgages charged lower interest rates, and since asset prices are inversely related to interest rates, this credit flow led to increases in housing prices.

After the initial success of offering subprime mortgages, the practice expanded dramatically and the terms on which borrowers were given loans started becoming more creative and risky. Now, financial institutions consider the current value of the borrowers' property to find out whether a person is eligible for mortgage refinancing or not. For this reason, since housing prices were rising, many of these subprime borrowers took loans they could not afford in the anticipation that they would be able to refinance at more favorable rates once the prices of their houses increased. Easy credit also resulted in excessive investment on housing as well, as a result of which demand for housing started rising and more and more houses were being built.

By late 2004, the Federal Reserve System thought that the US economy was growing fast enough and started raising the federal funds rate up to 5. 25% in January of 2007. As an immediate result of this, it became much more expensive to borrow money, so less people could afford to buy a house. This caused a fall in the demand for housing and house prices, which had been increasing rapidly in the previous years, began falling moderately. For this reason, subprime borrowers could not refinance their loans, which caused many of these borrowers to default and their houses were foreclosed on. The values of the 'Mortgage-backed securities' in USA declined sharply as a result of those defaults. These events led to a decline in mortgage cash flows for the banks, banks started facing losses, capital levels of the banks depleted and banks started failing. This created the 'Liquidity crunch' or Credit crunch' in USA, which slowed down business activities, decreased the values of stocks of the banks and businesses and created massive unemployment. Through the financial markets, this crisis spread throughout the world.[/QUOTE]It really doesn't matter what caused the recession, what's important is the fact that Obama said he could cure what ailed us and he has failed miserably.

[quote][quote=punter 127]Would you like to tell us what percentage of Americans now pay zero income tax? Who was that guy that said 'Spread the Wealth Around'?[/quote][QUOTE=Esten;419354]Sure it's a big number, due to Republican low-tax philosophy, and the effect of capitalism shifting wealth from bottom and middle to the top. From an economic perspective, the single most important thing we can do now is to shift that wealth back from the top down, in a manner which still encourages and rewards individual effort.[/quote][/QUOTE]We've all heard your jiberish before but no intelligent person believes such tommyrot, it's utter foolishness, and complete nonsense.

Look I'm sure you think your theory is very Robin-Hoodnistic but you need to remember Robin Hood was a thief.

Esten, we all wait with bated breath for your latest missive on Obama's 'Buffett Rule'.

Since the IRS just blew Obama and company out of the water with the actual rates the approximate 320, 000 Americans making $1 million or more pay an effective rate of 27% while the average middle class family pays an effective rate of 15.

What a shock that must have been for Obama to be stabbed in the back by one of his own agencies, not only does this small segment of Americans pay the bulk of the taxes, not only do 47% of Americans pay no income taxes at all, these evil rich are paying an effective rate 80% higher than the average middle class American.

I just can't wait to see you try to turn this one around as Obama purportedly tries to save the middle class from the evil rich with an outright lie.

By the way, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway acknowledges it owes back taxes from 2002 to 2004 and 2005 to 2009 totaling nearly $1 Billion dollars. I would think Mr. Buffett would get his personal and professional house in order before he starts preaching to the rest of us about tax matters.

Punter,

I read the piece you quoted. I think there is wide agreement that there were multiple reasons for the housing bubble. I have no problem believing interest rates and easy credit were among them.

But you just haven't made a convincing case that these factors, or that "Keynesian Economists", are mainly responsible for our current situation. The Stimulus is what is commonly referred to these days when talking about Keynesian theory, and that has actually been a big part of how we stabilized the economy and avoided a Depression. You claim the Stimulus buried us in debt, which is untrue since Stimulus spending is a very small piece of current debt.

It appears you expand the definition of Keynesian theory to include efforts to stimulate the economy through interest rates. Fine. But the argument you present makes it sound like the bubble was almost entirely policy driven, with interest rates in effect the first domino setting in motion all the other dominos. What a convenient scapegoat! I am sure some of the best and brightest minds on Wall Street have spent many hours refining this explanation, to divert attention away from the central role that reckless Wall Street behavior played.

The role of Wall Street and other private sector (real estate) players is glaringly absent in your argument. Your article states "... asset prices are inversely related to interest rates...". So with record-low rates now, how come we don't have another housing bubble forming now? Oh wait, it's a different asset now. Maybe gold. This proves there is nothing automatic about low interest rates fueling housing bubbles. Investors will put their money where they see the best, or safest, opportunities depending on their risk appetite. Wall Street created what was marketed as a safe and attractive investment in MBSs, sold not just to GSEs but also global investors with huge pools of cash seeking good returns. I see no evidence that investors would not have purchased them if rates had been a few points higher. The entire trail from mortgage origination to securitization was well-greased to enrich private sector players at every step. To keep the money flowing, more and more mortgages needed to be fed in, like fueling a train with coal. This encouraged even lower payment ARMs and laxer underwriting. And then there was speculation. Even the Austrian theory proponents agree that speculation played a huge role, and this is evidenced by the corresponding bubble in commercial real estate. Not to mention the "get rich through real estate" mentality that people like Donald Trump peddled while the bubble was growing.

In short, the private sector was the protagonist in the housing / financial bubble. Greed, fraud, and poor risk management were key elements. Charles Munger, vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and a Republican, described it colorfully: "The bubble in America was caused by some combination of megalomania, insanity and evil in, I would say, investment banking, mortgage banking." To ignore these factors and blame it all on 'Keynesian Economists' is absurd.

Face it, our current situation is largely a result of reckless free-market capitalism.

Still nothing to say Esten? Your silence is deafening!

Strange you only wish to argue abstract theory regarding the housing bubble and economic theory rather than address issues you have raised.

Regarding the housing bubble, it is pretty obvious the root cause was the Democrats attempt to expand home ownership by using lower credit thresholds at Freddy and Fanny which led to the conditions allowing the market to take advantage of the situation with mortgage backed securities. All the items you list regarding greed are true to a certain extent but you ignore the fact the SEC was asleep at the switch, failing to enforce the statues in place to prevent these excesses from occurring. Instead the SEC was watching porn.

As far as Obama's 'Buffett Rule', he is still beating the class warfare drum in the face of hard evidence provided by the IRS directly contradicting his statements.

I can only assume Obama attended the Paul Joseph Goebbels' school of public communication.

Goebbels' quote:

[quote]If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and / or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.[/quote]

Our President is now out stumping on the theme that his soak-the-rich tax proposal "isn't class warfare. It's math."

This has to be one of the most absurd statements to come out of his mouth. If it truly is "math" then we should all be very afraid. He's relying on a lie, told by Warren Buffett, that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than Buffett. That's pure drivel and has been exposed as such repeatedly this week. The truth is starting to come out that the so-called rich pay far, far more than the middle class in taxes, measured by dollars or rates. Obama knows this but couldn't pass up on the opportunity for a sound bite. Unfortunately for him, this one bit him in the arse. When he talks about "shared sacrifice" someone needs to ask: How much more are those paying zero being asked to contribute?

In his recent NY Times article, Buffett didn't actually say that he paid a lower rate of tax than his secretary. I think that's because he knows that's a lie and got away with saying it several years ago. Instead, he said he paid a lower rate of tax than any of the other 20 people in his office, which may or may not include his secretary. He also made a bunch of wild claims that they all pay between 33 and 41 percent.

Back in 2007 when he was campaigning for Hillary Clinton, Buffett [b]did[/b] _ say that he paid a higher tax rate than his secretary. Here was his claim back then:

[i]Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17. 7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60, 000, was taxed at 30 per cent. [/i]

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece[/url]

Buffett, of course, is lying. The top tax bracket for someone earning $60, 000 is 25 percent, and that only applies to income over $35, 000. Income below that is taxed at a much lower rate. Plus, Buffett expects us to believe that his secretary: (a) had no deductions; (be) had no exemptions; (see) did not contribute to a 401k, etc, etc. No retirement plan contribution by Buffett's secretary? That's a laugh. Plus, there is no top tax bracket that would push anyone into a 41% rate, as Buffett recently claimed. He'll argue that he was bundling up a whole bunch of taxes, medicare, social security, SDI and state taxes. I still think he's lying on that. But, of course, then he's comparing apples (his own federal income tax rate) to oranges (the sum of all taxes paid by others) to arrive at a misleading proposition.

There are a whole variety of reasons why someone like Warren Buffett would tell these lies. But, the more interesting phenomenon is, why hasn't a single member of the left wing media bothered to investigate this obvious fabrication? Now that Obama has turned this into a campaign theme, and simultaneously demonstrated that he doesn't understand taxes or math, will the left wing media investigate? Remember how they called for Trump to release his tax returns after he challenged Obama's birth certificate? Why don't these same folks ask for the equivalent from Buffett and his secretary, especially since Buffett (unlike Trump) put his own taxes directly at issue?

Unfortunately, these are the sorts of things that happen every day in the United States. It's the primary reason why Fox News is such a huge success. People got tired of being lied to by left wing acolytes, who took them for granted. Fox may not be any better in the Truth Department, but if you're going to watch the news, you may as well get your slant from someone who shares your perspective.

[QUOTE=Esten; 419370]But you just haven't made a convincing case that these factors, or that "Keynesian Economists", are mainly responsible for our current situation. The Stimulus is what is commonly referred to these days when talking about Keynesian theory, and that has actually been a big part of how we stabilized the economy and avoided a Depression. You claim the Stimulus buried us in debt, which is untrue since Stimulus spending is a very small piece of current debt.

It appears you expand the definition of Keynesian theory to include efforts to stimulate the economy through interest rates. Fine. But the argument you present makes it sound like the bubble was almost entirely policy driven, with interest rates in effect the first domino setting in motion all the other dominos. What a convenient scapegoat! I am sure some of the best and brightest minds on Wall Street have spent many hours refining this explanation, to divert attention away from the central role that reckless Wall Street behavior played.[/QUOTE]It's not my place to convince you of anything, I present my opinion and you can take it or leave it. But I will point out a few things and then move on. The USA Was already in a hole and all the excess spending has buried us. The USA Economy is fucked and it will take drastic changes to dig our way out of this [strike]hole[/strike] grave.

I'm not expanding the definition of 'Keynesian theory', monetary policy (including interest rate) and the use of stimulus is very much Keynesian economics. Perhaps you should research Keynesian economics a bit.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics[/url]

[b]All your finger pointing is just a smoke screen to direct us away from the fact that Obama promised he could cure what ailed us and he has failed miserably.[/b]

[i]Obama: 'The Economy's Gotten Better Than It Was When I First Took Office'[/i]

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-the-economys-gotten-better-than-it-was-when-i-first-took-office-really/[/url]

Lets take a look at that claim and the economy over the last two-and-a-half years.

The president advocated a $787 billion stimulus bill that would keep unemployment below 8 percent. Since then, our economy has lost more than 1.3 million jobs and the unemployment rate has averaged over 9 percent.

[url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/08/13/GOP-Obama-made-weak-economy-worse/UPI-79031313237917/[/url]

In March, the average price for a gallon of gas doubled Since President Obama took office. It Averaged $1.79 then. It averages $3.59 today.

[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/[/url]

The national debt totaled about $10.7 trillion in December 2008. Today the national debt stands at almost $14.6 trillion.
[url]http://nationaldebtbusters.blogspot.com/2009/01/newest-national-debt-statistics-posted.html[/url]

[url]http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/[/url]

Standard & Poor's downgraded the USA credit-rating for the first time in history.

[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/standard-poors-downgrades-u-s-credit-rating-for-first-time-in-history/[/url]

And those are just a few stats,' for you to spin.

I was getting around to you Doppel.

I appreciate you took the time to try to explain more how Obama is hurting your business. I am open to listening to legitimate arguments.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419341]For single and multi-specialty medical group clients:

The problem is folks don't have the money for co-pays and deductibles or want to hold on to the cash and seek only that care which is urgent reducing my client's gross receipts while expenses continue to rise causing layoffs of physicians and support staff which means they have less money to pay my firm as well for our services. Don't give me ObamaCare will turn medicine around, my clients see it for the unmitigated disaster it will be and they are the ones delivering the services.

Commercial construction clients:

No new significant construction projects are being initiated by their clients and those that were slated for starts in 2009, 2010 and this year have been shelved unless they were already out of the ground. Their clients are holding on to their money and waiting to see what happens within their individual business sectors, ie uncertainty. My clients are getting by doing what smaller jobs are available and again we are looking at cut backs which include my firm's services.

General business clients:

Same problem here, folks are not spending so their receipts are down with the same results as the other two groups of clients.

Conclusion:

My company is tied to the fiscal health of my clients and they are a pretty gloomy bunch. Their income has declined each year since 2008 and none of us see any hope of it becoming better any time soon.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, you let me down. I was hoping you'd have some specific example of how Obama is hurting your business, like a tax or regulation which was clearly, demonstrably affecting your business.

But all you got is the 'general malaise' argument. That things aren't better, people don't have money, or aren't spending, and it's Obama's fault.

That's the type of 'shallow analysis' I was talking about. Yes, Obama did inherit the worst economic downturn in decades, and things WOULD likely have been even worse without the steps that have been taken. You can stay in your pretend-world where you believe things would have magically been much better with a Republican president, but I prefer to look a little deeper than that.

I suspect that despite the facade, you recognize that free market capitalism itself is at the root of much of your clients situation and behavior. Giant real estate bubbles (commerical and residential) and mass layoffs, all contribute to the factors you described. I understand it's hitting your wallet, but that's no excuse for a superficial analysis.

Face it, you're just another casualty of boom-and-bust capitalism. Looking for an easy scapegoat that doesn't conflict with your ideology.

BTW, if nothing Obama has done has improved the economy, how do you explain the chart below. I shall await your answer.

[url]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/09/315347/gop-second-stimulus/[/url]

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 419377]Our President is now out stumping on the theme that his soak-the-rich tax proposal "isn't class warfare. It's math."

This has to be one of the most absurd statements to come out of his mouth. If it truly is "math" then we should all be very afraid. He's relying on a lie, told by Warren Buffett, that his secretary paid a higher rate of tax than Buffett. That's pure drivel and has been exposed as such repeatedly this week. The truth is starting to come out that the so-called rich pay far, far more than the middle class in taxes, measured by dollars or rates. Obama knows this but couldn't pass up on the opportunity for a sound bite. Unfortunately for him, this one bit him in the arse. When he talks about "shared sacrifice" someone needs to ask: How much more are those paying zero being asked to contribute?

In his recent NY Times article, Buffett didn't actually say that he paid a lower rate of tax than his secretary. I think that's because he knows that's a lie and got away with saying it several years ago. Instead, he said he paid a lower rate of tax than any of the other 20 people in his office, which may or may not include his secretary. He also made a bunch of wild claims that they all pay between 33 and 41 percent.[/QUOTE]This is too funny! LOL

Ranting and accusing Obama and Buffett of lying. I guess this guy just doesn't understand effective tax rates and how investment income is taxed.

Esten you make this too easy. What a liberal rag of a web site. Your cited chart is titled "Job Changes" and uses the same slippery terminology as Obama with the touchy feely "created or supported" jobs. That's right up there with "equivalent jobs".


By looking at your little graph I am at a loss to understand how we could be still be at 9. 1% unemployment since you graph shows "Job Changes" above that prior to the recession in 2007 and 2008. Well what can I expect from you but the same old tired liberal trash with cooked numbers.


By the way just in case you missed it, the top tax rate is 35% on TAXABLE income, that is line 32 income which is after all deductions and adjustment and it's been 35% for several years. How in the world Obama and Buffett came up with his employee paying, depending on which version of the story you hear. 36% up to 41% in federal income tax is beyond me but as you can see below is a bald face lie. Here are the actual rates from the IRS, now remember these are TAXABLE income.


2011 IRS Tax Brackets.

2011 IRS Tax Brackets
Here are the 2011 tax tables, which make it easy to find which marginal tax bracket you are in:
Tax Bracket Single Married Filing Jointly Head of Household
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 $0 – $17,000 $0 – $12,150
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 $17,000 – $69,000 $12,150 – $46,250
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 $69,000 – $139,350 $46,250 – $119,400
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 $139,350 – $212,300 $119,400 – $193,350
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 $212,300 – $379,150 $193,350 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150+ $379,150+ $379,150+

Esten, guess you did not read the diesel post or just have a problem with the facts. That one post on just one item which has caused expenses to rise explains why my clients, especially in construction are having problems.

Still waiting on you 'Buffett Rule' missive. Probably going to wet my pants LMAO on that one.

Esten the one who does not understand the tax laws is you. Go to www.irs.gov and do a little reading so you don't continue to screw it up.

Federal income tax is progressive, meaning higher incomes are taxed at higher rates. But there is an important exception. The tax rate on certain types of investment income such as long term capital gains and dividends is capped at 15%.

The greater the share of your taxable income comprised of such investment income, the closer your overall, net tax rate will be to 15%. This is called the effective tax rate --- total tax / total taxable income. Many wealthy people derive a large share of their total income from such investments, which significantly lowers their effective tax rate.

The Buffett Rule would ensure the effective tax rate of filers with 1-million+ taxable incomes would not be lower than that paid by middle-class filers, which can be up to 28% or higher depending on how you define middle class.

PolitiFact gives Buffett's claim a 100% True rating
Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/[/url]

Esten, wrong again!

I guess you didn't read the Internal Revenue Service's release of the ACTUAL tax rates paid by households making $1 million per year or more.

There are only 320, 000 households in this group.

The average "middle class" households paid an effective rate of 15%

The households making $1 million and greater paid an effective rate of 29%

I'm not even going to try to explain "effective rate" to you since you already know what it is but continue to ignore the FACTS for political expediency.

PolitiFact = PolitiCrap and so does your argument. Buffett and Obama's argument is a lie start to finish.

The number of households deriving their entire income from long term gains at the 15% tax level, which is the group we are talking about here, is so small as to be irrelevant when discussing tax policy. If I recall the number correctly it is one one hundredeth of a percent of the population. Just another attempt to raise the capital gains tax.

Hope you looked at who else will be affected by the 'Buffett Rule'. Like everything else coming out of Obama's mouth it's smoke, mirrors and half truths.

Obama's 'Buffett Rule' is a lie, he knows it, you know it and so do most folks with a wit of intelligence. I look for him to make some 'adjustment' to his pitch shortly as his new class warfare pitch fails to get traction.

There has been some excellent pushback exposing Obama's and Buffett's lies about taxes. This is one of the better ones, in my opinion:

[i]President Obama is right. It is time for 'fairness. ' It is time to ask some Americans to do more, contribute more, sacrifice more. But like most things Mr. Obama does, he has singled out the wrong group. The rich and business owners already pay far too much in taxes. They already sacrifice too much. They already share their wealth too much. The top 1 percent of income earners (almost all of whom are small-business owners) already pay 40 percent of the personal income taxes in America, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.

The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost 100 percent of the income taxes in this country. That means 80 percent of the population pays almost no income taxes and a full 50 percent pay zero income tax.

Mr. Obama said, 'Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. ' The problem with that statement is that it's a lie. Let's get the facts straight. The typical household with more than $1 million in income will pay an average of 29. 1 percent in federal taxes this year. The typical household making between $50, 000 and $75, 000 will pay 15 percent in taxes. Lower-income households (below $50, 000) will pay an average of 12. 5 percent in federal taxes (most in the form of Social Security taxes). In dollar terms, that means the typical millionaire will pay $290, 000 in taxes and the typical middle-class family earning $50, 000 will pay $7, 500. But most importantly, almost all of that $7, 500 is Social Security taxes, which theoretically they will get back after they retire.

Why doesn't Mr. Obama quote the actual numbers and ask Americans if this sounds fair? One American pays $290, 000 in taxes. The other pays $7, 500. Mr. Obama calls this 'unfair. ' As you can see, he's right. It's definitely unfair. Unfair to the 20 percent of the citizens who pay virtually 100 percent of the cost of government benefits, which are enjoyed for free by the other 80 percent of the population. [/i]

Full article here:

[url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/21/obama-is-right/[/url]

The author also makes a good point. The majority of middle class taxes at 15% or less are made up of the social security and medicare portions. According to those who don't believe that social security is a ponzi scheme, these taxes are being set aside for these taxpayers when they retire or need medicare. It's like counting 401k or IRA contributions as a "tax." Again, the premise is that you don't believe social security is a ponzi scheme, and that all the money [i]you[/i] Put aside today will be there when you retire.

The final point here is one that is simmering just beneath the surface. The truth is that social security [b]is[/b] A ponzi scheme. It relies on "fresh" money coming in to pay benefits promised to those who already contributed, and the promised benefits exceed what was contributed. Not through investment gains. But what are the Left's latest proposals to fix this mess they've created? To means-test social security so that the rich wouldn't be able to get [u]anything back. [/u]

Sadly, this and other fixes will absolutely be necessary to even start fixing this poorly designed social program. But, then, what's the upshot? The "millionaires and billionaires" will pay a much higher tax rate, much, much higher absolute tax dollars, and will pay the full bore of their social security contribution which literally will become just another tax on them since they will never see any benefit. In other words, the same guy in the example above, who paid $290, 000 in taxes, can flush the $7, 000 or so allocated to social security down the drain. To him, it's other people's money. He'll see no benefit. Meanwhile, the middle class taxpayer whose $7, 500 in tax was made up of about $4, 000 in social security, will see $7, 500 in benefit from that program. He'll necessarily get more benefits than he paid in. That's the whole reason to do means-testing.

Where is the fairness in this?

Esten's response will be simple.

They can pay more so they should pay more. Fairness is a sham arguement, Obama's Trojan Horse.

Doppel and Stan insist that Obama and Buffett are lying, about whether millionaires pay a lower federal income tax rate than the middle class.

Oddly, I can't find any articles that back them up. No article I've seen (including ones on WSJ and Bloomberg) dispute the claim, and most provide a similar explanation to what I did. See, Obama and Buffett weren't comparing averages, or saying that all millionaires pay lower rates. They are just saying it happens. Everybody seems to understand that, except Doppel and Stan.

So guys, where's the proof of the lie? Where's the beef?

That Wendy's commercial is a classic....
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten; 419420]Doppel and Stan insist that Obama and Buffett are lying, about whether millionaires pay a lower federal income tax rate than the middle class.

Oddly, I can't find any articles that back them up. No article I've seen (including ones on WSJ and Bloomberg) dispute the claim, and most provide a similar explanation to what I did. See, Obama and Buffett weren't comparing averages, or saying that all millionaires pay lower rates. They are just saying it happens. Everybody seems to understand that, except Doppel and Stan.

So guys, where's the proof of the lie? Where's the beef?

That Wendy's commercial is a classic.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0[/url][/QUOTE]So Esten you could not find any quotes from Buffett which were contradicted by fact. I had no problem at all finding these quotes. Just Google 'Warren Buffett Tax Quotes Secretary'.

Ok Esten here are Warren Buffett's quotes:

Source of the first quote:

[url]http://tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren_buffet_has_a_lower_tax.html[/url]

[QUOTE=]Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.[/QUOTE]Source of the second quote:

[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece[/url]

[QUOTE=]Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.[/QUOTE]Now Esten Google 'IRS 2010 Tax Brackets' or just go to [url]www.irs.gov[/url]

HERE IS THE PROOF BUFFETT IS LYING!

Since we are talking about 2010 income and Buffett clearly states his secretary makes $60, 000 dollars per year according to the IRS the income levels from $34, 000 up to $82, 400 per year is taxed at 25% and these brackets are for the highest tax rate of Single with no Deductions!

The 25% tax rate is applied only to earnings at that level, $34K to $82.4K. The income earned between $0 and $8. 375K is taxed at 10% while the next level of $8. 375K to $34K is taxed at 15%. Which means Buffett's secretary's marginal rate is 18% max if she was taxed on the entire $60K without benefit of even the STANDARD PERSONAL DEDUCTION afforded to anyone in that tax bracket.

So Buffett's claim his secretary paid 30% is a bald face LIE.

According to the IRS the next tax levels are 28%, 33% and the top rate is 35%, nope no 30% tax rate so you can not say he was talking bracket and not effective rate.

Don't choke on the beef big guy.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;419424]So Esten you could not find any quotes from Buffett which were contradicted by fact. I had no problem at all finding these quotes. Just Google 'Warren Buffett Tax Quotes Secretary'.[/QUOTE]He's not worth your time of day. The guy just ignores the facts when proven wrong.

Here's the quote from the article I posted below, right before Esten claimed he was searching in vain for any article saying that Obama or Buffett was lying: "Mr. Obama said, 'Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. ' [u]The problem with that statement is that it's a lie."[/u]

The article went on to prove it with numbers. I linked the article. Here's another one: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/09/buffett-rule-is-based-on-anecdotal.html You can only miss these if you deliberately blind yourself to them.

It's no use arguing with Esten. He essentially puts his hands over his ears and shouts,"LALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU," whenever he doesn't like the results. As I've said before, he's a lost cause.

Esten, I don't know how you define "middle class", but since 40% to 50% of "taxpayers" actually don't pay income taxes, statements coming from Obama, Buffet, and you don't make a lot of sense. The three of you believe that social security and medicare should be lumped in with the income tax. Could you tell me why payments towards pensions and medical insurance should be considered income taxes?

The 15% tax on dividends and capital gains received by shareholders is on top of a 35% tax paid by corporations. If Obama, Buffet and you have your way, it will be a 43% tax on top of a 35% tax. Because Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, doesn't pay dividends, and because Buffet doesn't sell Berkshire Hathaway stock, he doesn't pay taxes. Buffet's positions are self serving. I prefer Art Laffer's proposal. A 50% tax on the wealth of all billionaires. I'd make Laffer's proposal more restrictive though. Confine the tax to individuals like Buffet who pay minimal tax while accumulating great wealth. Buffet paid $6. 9 million tax in either 2009 or 2010 according to the editorial he wrote for the New York Times. Taking a wild guess, he may pay 20 times that, or $140 million over his lifetime. His net worth, depending on when you measured it, has been in the range of around $30 billion to $50 billion in recent years. He will pay a fraction of 1% of his net worth in taxes over his lifetime. If measures proposed by you, Obama, and Buffet are implemented, he'll still just pay a fraction of 1%.
I'm being disingenuous here because I actually believe that Berkshire's corporate income taxes caused Buffet to indirectly pay more than his fair share of the income tax. But the man is a hypocrite -- if he wants to promote higher taxes on dividends and the estate tax, fine, but he should call a spade a spade. A high tax on dividends makes a non-dividend paying company like Berkshire comparatively more attractive to investors. The estate tax helps Berkshire accumulate family-owned businesses -- whose owners have to sell out to Buffet or someone else in order to pay the estate tax. From his personal perspective, taxes on dividends and capital gains and the estate tax don't matter, because Buffet won't pay them.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 419394]I guess you didn't read the Internal Revenue Service's release of the ACTUAL tax rates paid by households making $1 million per year or more.

There are only 320, 000 households in this group.

The average "middle class" households paid an effective rate of 15%

The households making $1 million and greater paid an effective rate of 29%[/QUOTE]I agree with the 29% for $1 million+ households, but the 15% for middle class looks too high. Based on IRS statistics for 2009, the middle class paid around 10% to 12.5%. Go to [url]http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html[/url]. Then click on "2009" under "All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items," and download the Excel spreadsheet. Look at column S.

The tax rate in 2009 for those with $1 million+ income was about 2.5X the tax rate for those with $30,000 to $100,000 income.

I searched for credible references beyond the one article that was posted. I found none claiming a lie. Citing IRS tax tables isn't proof that Buffett lied about his secretary. There's a good reason reputable news media aren't making such accusations. You need evidence.

Since you guys know so much about the finances of Warren Buffett's secretary, tell us:

What was her bonus? And what taxable income did she report on her Form 1040?

[QUOTE=Esten; 419448]I searched for credible references beyond the one article that was posted. I found none claiming a lie. Citing IRS tax tables isn't proof that Buffett lied about his secretary. There's a good reason reputable news media aren't making such accusations. You need evidence.

Since you guys know so much about the finances of Warren Buffett's secretary, tell us:

What was her bonus? And what taxable income did she report on her Form 1040?[/QUOTE]It's not a lie. Neither was Bill Clinton's statement,"I did not have sex [sexual intercourse] with that woman."

The way you and Obama and Buffet calculate income tax rates is misleading and just as bad as a lie. You call social security and medicare payments income tax. You ignore the taxes Buffet pays indirectly by virtue of his ownership of Berkshire Hathaway. And you extrapolate Buffet's tax situation to every other person who makes over $1 million per year.

I think you're onto something though. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffett's secretary is getting paid $250,000+ per year, so that her tax rate is higher than someone you'd consider "middle class."

Esten, Buffett has referenced in many statements his secretary made $60, 000 in salary on which she paid according to Buffett 30% in income tax.

Those are Buffett's perimeters not mine.

For her to have paid an effective rate of 30% in income taxes she would have had to have been in the top 2 to 3% of wage earners. You're now trying to tell us she got over $940K in bonuses? This is beyond absurd; the math just does not work unless you operate in an alternative universe where 2+2=6 billion.

Guess you failed math and reading as well as critical thinking. ROFLMAO.

Stan's right, discussions with you is like a discussion with a petulant child. But I have to disagree with Stan on the age, not a 3 year old but more like one that is not quite potty trained yet.

The main stream media has not called out Buffett for the lie, what a shocker! They have not called out Obama on his either. Other news agencies and political writers have, but I am sure you consider them part of the great right wing conspiracy and untrustworthy.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;419450]I think you're onto something though. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren Buffett's secretary is getting paid $250,000+ per year, so that her tax rate is higher than someone you'd consider "middle class."[/QUOTE]Doppel's right, and I quoted it earlier in this thread a few days back. Buffett claimed his secretary earned $60, 000 and paid a 30 percent tax rate.

At $60, 000, and assuming his secretary is single, takes only the standard deductions, made no retirement plan contribution and had no other exemptions, the secretary would pay 16. 1 percent. A simple tax return, assuming the worst case scenario, proves the point. The tax wouldn't even approach 30 percent, even if you included payroll taxes, which no one doing this comparison would include.

Now, if Buffett paid some huge bonus to his secretary, which is the same as income, but didn't disclose that, well, then, he's lying. He simply omitted a crucial fact. Lies are defined two ways: The positive misstatement of a known fact, or the intentional omission of a material, known fact which would render a statement misleading.

If I say,"Give me $500 and I will paint your house," that statement would be a lie in either of two scenarios. First, if I take the $500 and have no intention of paining your house, I have lied. Second, if I take the $500 and fail to disclose that I don't intend to paint the house for 50 years, I have lied. Only by engaging in Clintonesque semantics can someone say that the second scenario is not a lie. So it is with Buffett.

Stan, to come up with the 18% effectice tax rate, I had to consider the entire amount, $60K, as line 32 / taxable income no deductions what so ever.

If you run the numbers at our current tax bracket's to find out what level of income was necessary for a 30% effective rate, Esten, Buffett and Obama's argument is a joke.

Esten is using the Clinton defense,"that dependends on what is, is".

Esten is just trying to jerk our chain. We already smoked him.