fish82;1062483 wrote:The part that makes me chuckle is how widespread the ignorance is that it's even a "tax cut."

Yeah, just a deferred payment like every other tax cut we have had in this country for 30 years now.

The Bush tax cuts are up at the end of the year, and even though we are $15 trillion in debt we will have a huge fight about extending those as well even though it just means borrowing more money and putting off the day the bill is due.

IggyPride00;1062549 wrote:Yeah, just a deferred payment like every other tax cut we have had in this country for 30 years now.

The Bush tax cuts are up at the end of the year, and even though we are $15 trillion in debt we will have a huge fight about extending those as well even though it just means borrowing more money and putting off the day the bill is due.

They're not really the same, but I get the point you're trying to make.

I'm at the point where I'm fine with letting the tax cuts expire...as long as they all expire, not just for the Satanic Rich People. And that should cover about 35% of the current deficit. Everyone seems to think that somehow there isn't still over a trillion a year in excess spending still sitting there.

Barry has to be the most incompetent POTUS of all time - http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-stiffs-obama-oil-deal-exposing-presidents-incompetence-181200200.html

Can't allow oil to flow through America on the Keystone pipeline because it's somehow "unsafe", but drilling for it in the oceans, where leak containment is far more difficult and clean-ups are far more expensive is perfectly OK. Hmmm...Brazil again. Sure would be nice if the Woodward and Bernstein Juniors of the sycophant media would look into the love affair with Barry and the Brazilians. It appears he wants to do more for them than the homeys.

Samuelson: Obama's Keystone XL Decision Is An Act Of National Insanity. In a Washington Post (1/21) op-ed, Robert Samuelson wrote that "President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity." Samuelson writes that Obama's decision shows that he "is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances." Samuelson adds that aside "from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much" since stopping the pipeline won't stop the development of tar sands.

KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

You actually believe this to be an argument AGAINST? If we could be guaranteed that in 19 years, this new pipeline would leak a total of 6200 barrels, that is a no-brainer in the "yes" column.

I think the administration is prudent in delaying the pipe line until everything is worked out. As you can see by this article even the lobbyist for the environmental supporters know it will be built.

In perhaps the most unkind cut of all is that the president's two-paragraph statement of denial makes no mention of the pipeline's impact on climate or agriculture but rather refers to a new environmental assessment and that "this announcement is not a prejudgment of the merits of the pipeline" and further that this decision "does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil." What the president is saying between-the-lines is that his denial of the pipeline is a temporary one, pending submission of an amended application with a route that will steer clear of the sand hills and the Ogallala.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-parsons/keystone-pipeline-rejected_b_1218829.html

GUYS its cool...Warren Buffets railroad will carry the oil....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

There is nothing prudent about delaying a major project that has already been studied out the arse for over 3 years, a $7 BILLION private, "shovel ready" project that will create tens of thousands of much needed jobs, bring greater energy security to the U.S., and strenghten relations with a friendly Canada. There is no legal stipulation for a delay in this project because of a puny 100 mile re-route.

There is however, something political about it ....... and everybody knows it. It is a national and international disgrace to nix this deal, but not at all unexpected from the most anti-business, anti-employment, anti-private enterprise, anti-American president to ever occupy the White House.

This project is a slam dunk, no-brainer for all the right reasons. The GOP congress is right in now seeking alternatives in giving FERC the authority to implement the project. Once again, a clear difference between the repub's and the dem's.

November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.

Just when one thinks American crony capitalism couldn't hit new lows, here comes Warren Buffett and his personal puppet, the president, proving everyone wrong once more. Because if one thinks there is no (s)quid pro quo for all that "sage" advice that Buffett has been giving to Obama on extracting as much wealth as possible from future wealthy Americans (before they decide they have had enough with this crony shit and leave the country for good), one would be fatally wrong. As it turns out, it is not just natural resources and aquifer purity that Obama had in mind when sealing the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline. No - it appears there were far more relevant numerial metrics that determined Obama's decisions. Such as the bottom line number of Buffett's Burlington Northern, which according to Bloomberg, is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit. '“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A), said in an interview. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul." And quite delighted to reap the windfalls of unfounded populist fears she forgot to add. Because while the whole "carbon-credit" multi-trillion top line expansion scheme for Goldman under the pretense of actually caring for the environment may have collapsed, it is not preventing others from trying and succeeding where even Goldman has failed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-puppetmaster-warren-buffett-biggest-winner-keystone-pipeline-rejection

bases_loaded;1063954 wrote:GUYS its cool...Warren Buffets railroad will carry the oil....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

Gee, imagine that. And of course his secretary is going to have a box seat at the State of the Union tonight ....... what a joke.

Boom. Just read that. Also worth noting that conoco Phillips owns Burlington northern and they have no oil sands leases and they are competitors of the companies that stand to benefit from keystone.

This seems like it should be a huge story, but I'm sure the liberal media will ignore it. To be fair, Buffet is closely tied to perhaps hundreds of companies between Berkshire and his other investments, so maybe not hard to make a connection to something looking a bit shady. It is, however, REALLY HARD to take his "tax the rich" schtick seriously when he's spent millions minimizing his and his companies' taxes, and his own son takes over $300k in farm subsidies.

bases_loaded;1063954 wrote:GUYS its cool...Warren Buffets railroad will carry the oil....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html

Yeah, after all railroads are environmentally safe and accident-proof...especially if Warren Buffet owns them.

Shockingly, this story is getting zero play.

fish82;1064812 wrote:Shockingly, this story is getting zero play.

Much like how 60 Minutes barely blinked (and not a peep anywhere else) at Buffet's son taking $300k+ in farm subsidies. Was almost shocked they even mentioned it, the 60 Minutes is far more objective & fair than most.

Pandering to a liberal democrat earns an automatic media pass. Some things never change.

QuakerOats;1063963 wrote:Gee, imagine that. And of course his secretary is going to have a box seat at the State of the Union tonight ....... what a joke.

Here's some interesting reading on Buffet's famous secretary: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/

There is, of course, more than meets the eye.

fan_from_texas;1066332 wrote:Here's some interesting reading on Buffet's famous secretary: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/

There is, of course, more than meets the eye.

She "apparently" makes $60k? Must just be a base with a very steep bonus, because I HIGHLY doubt that's what Buffet's Executive Assistant makes. $200k for a position like that is probably more likely, certainly at least double $60k. Exec Assistants to Fortune 500 CEO's routinely make $100k+. There is no fucking way that Buffet, with his vast fortunes and apparent deep concern over the plight of the middle class worker, is only paying his secretary $60k (unless they are excluding a hefty bonus, which would be an unusual comp structure for such a position and done only to minimize taxes).

Henry Waxman on the House Energy Committee is demanding to have the Koch brothers testify about any potential financial gain they may receive from the pipeline, as there is a liberal conspiracy theory that it is why the Republicans are pushing so hard for it.

Waxman and his ilk would prefer to kill shovel ready jobs than see one more dollar go into the pockets of the Kochs (and no one even knows what if anything they have to do with Keystone).

Is this really how policy is going to be decided from now on in this country?

gut;1066823 wrote:She "apparently" makes $60k? Must just be a base with a very steep bonus, because I HIGHLY doubt that's what Buffet's Executive Assistant makes. $200k for a position like that is probably more likely, certainly at least double $60k. Exec Assistants to Fortune 500 CEO's routinely make $100k+. There is no ****ing way that Buffet, with his vast fortunes and apparent deep concern over the plight of the middle class worker, is only paying his secretary $60k (unless they are excluding a hefty bonus, which would be an unusual comp structure for such a position and done only to minimize taxes).

She just bought a second home...poor thing.

fish82;1067016 wrote:She just bought a second home...poor thing.

No...her husband and her did.

gut;1066823 wrote:(unless they are excluding a hefty bonus, which would be an unusual comp structure for such a position and done only to minimize taxes).

Bonuses are paid to minimize federal tax liability? Really? Bonuses can and are paid to reduce corporate taxes...not personal income taxes.

Footwedge;1067031 wrote:No...her husband and her did.

He must be doing well. I wonder what his tax rate is?

Footwedge;1067033 wrote:Bonuses are paid to minimize federal tax liability? Really? Bonuses can and are paid to reduce corporate taxes...not personal income taxes.

Agreed. Every bonus I ever received had the shit taxed out of it...If I was lucky, I take home half.

fan_from_texas;1066332 wrote:Here's some interesting reading on Buffet's famous secretary: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-rich-is-warren-buffetts-secretary/252056/

There is, of course, more than meets the eye.

The author's piece is full of factual errors. She should research her subject before throwing her stones.