Buffett Should Stick To What He Knows

I don’t know how many times Warren Buffett will have to be wrong before people stop listening to him. I know he is pretty good at investing and he has billions of dollars but he should probably stick to the things he knows in order to avoid looking like a fool. Buffett once quipped about the fact he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary despite making so much more. His income was from capital gains and hers was ordinary income. Both are taxed at different rates (capital gains are lower). The liberals ran with his statement to make the claim the rich do not pay their “fair share.”

Buffett was recently interviewed on PBS and he stated that America needs to go to a single payer health care system like the one in the UK. He stated America could afford it as a wealthy nation and that this is what will solve the health care issues.

To be fair, Buffett did state he was not an expert on health insurance. He probably should have ended there but he kept going and that made him the fool once again.

WOODRUFF: “Something that affects all businesses is the cost of health care in this country and you’ve been vocal about that. You argue right now, in fact, that the cost of paying for health care can affect a company even more than taxes.”
BUFFETT: “Well it does. I mean in terms of our competitiveness in the world; health care in 1960 was 5 percent of GDP. And there’s only a hundred cents to the dollar. So it’s gone from 5 percent to 17 percent. And it keeps going up. Corporate taxes have gone down from 4 percent to 2 percent. So corporate taxes are way less of a factor in American competitiveness than overall business than medical costs.”
WOODRUFF: “As we sit here today in Omaha, the Republicans in Congress are madly trying to figure out what to do to replace ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. Do you have a firm idea in your mind what ought to be done about ObamaCare? Everybody acknowledges there’s been some problems.”
BUFFETT: “I think that’s way outside of my circle of competence. But I would say this. You can’t have that five go to 17 and move on to 20 and 22 or 24 percent, because there are only a hundred cents in the dollar. Health care is gobbling up well over $3 trillion a year. It’s just about the same as federal, the federal budget, I mean it’s getting up there.”
WOODRUFF: “Are we now at the point where the country does need to think about some sort of single-payer system in some more or another?
BUFFETT: “With my limited knowledge, I think that probably is the best system. Because it is a system, we are such a rich country, in a sense we can afford to do it. But in almost every field of American business, it pays to bring down costs. There’s an awful lot of people involved in the medical — the whole just the way the ecosystem worked, there was no incentive to bring down costs.”
WOODRUFF: “It sounds like what you’re saying with a single payer system it’s easier to figure out a way to?”
BUFFETT: “More effective, I think.”

We can’t afford 22 or 24% of GDP going to health care but the government can afford to pay the bill? Now I know that Buffett thinks a single payer system will reduce costs but he is wrong. The government never does anything efficiently and it never does anything UNDER budget. One only needs to look at Medicare (>$79 Trillion in unfunded liabilities) to see how inefficient government is. That program costs billions upon billions more than it was ever estimated to cost and shortfalls are addressed by reducing the amount doctors are paid for the care they provide. And what assurance do taxpayers have that once government controls health care it won’t start adding to the program? Look at Social Security (>$15 Trillion in unfunded liabilities). The government established that socialist program many decades ago and has added to it along the way so that now we have untold numbers of people on disability or some other aspect that was added. We can’t afford to sustain that program because government mismanages it and keeps adding treats to the Christmas tree…

Any person, and Buffett should pay close attention here, who thinks single payer government run insurance is good should look closely at the Veteran’s Administration. That program is a single payer government run program that only involves a small portion of the population as a whole but it is rife with waste and abuse. It is a fiasco that costs so much there are talks of decreasing other military programs to move money to the VA. There are long lists and veterans wait for months, or longer, to be treated. Many die before they are ever seen. This is the kind of program the uninformed like Buffett want for all of us.

Buffett tells you we are a wealthy nation and can afford it. This flies in the face of reality because the government is 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and has unfunded liabilities that exceed 100 TRILLION dollars. We are not a wealthy nation. We are dead ass broke because of people like Buffett and their belief that government can provide, do it all and afford it.

Government can’t because the taxpayer can’t and that is the bottom line.

A few more notes. Buffett is old and will be dead before anything like he proposes would ever take place. He won’t have to deal with it and even if he lived his wealth would ensure he never had to deal with it (neither will his heirs). It is also important to note that in the interview Buffett claims that businesses can’t afford health care costs but government can [so basically, the burden should be shifted]. I have already shown government can’t afford it but the bigger picture here is that Buffett, a business man, is talking about how to make his (and all) businesses more profitable. He wants to do that by putting the burden of health insurance on the government thus clearing businesses of that debt and burden. Of course Buffett would claim government (read the taxpayers) can afford it. He wants people to embrace this socialist crap so his businesses will be more profitable.

Buffett admitted this was not his expertise. Perhaps he should have left it at that instead of offering his opinion on something he is woefully unprepared to address.

To recap, Buffett does not know what he is talking about, single payer is a terrible idea, increasing the GDP will lower the percent of GDP health care costs and opening the market for insurers will give people choices that will reduce costs without involving the government. The government cannot do anything on a budget.

Anyone who wants single payer should move to the UK and live there for the rest of their lives. They get what they want and the rest of us are not burdened by their stupidity.

Related:
US Debt Clock

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Note To Libs: Muskets Were Weapons Of War

Liberal LogicEvery time there is a shooting in this country, that is every time some deranged liberal or Muslim terrorist shoots a bunch of people, there is always a cry to ban guns. The left wants to ban all firearms in this country regardless of what they say.

Make no mistake about that, they want to ban all firearms and all private ownership. They will do it incrementally but their end goal is a complete ban. If you listen to them you can hear them saying it. One only needs to hear them say we need what Australia has to know they want private ownership to end or be so difficult that no one has anything more powerful than a pea shooter.

The issue is not the gun, it is not the background checks, and it is not the availability of guns or the alleged ease with which a person can buy one (this ease all depends on where you live).

The firearm used was not an AR 15 though anti gun nuts keep calling it that and showing pictures of one when they appeal to the masses. They want control and nothing else.

Removing all guns will not end gun violence and the liberal model of Australia shows us that crime will actually rise as all other categories of crime did in that nation. Background checks exist and every time a person who bought a gun legally uses it to harm others liberals scream we need expanded background checks. What do they actually hope to find that government (the entity conducting the checks) does not already have access to? The government has failed in doing background checks when it fails to discover the future motives of people.

Sound ridiculous? That is what government wants you to believe it can accomplish with “expanded” background checks. It wants you to believe that it can tell what a person will do in the future if only we could look a little deeper.

The reality is most of the gun crimes committed are done by people with illegally purchased firearms and legal gun owners account for a small fraction of the murders.

It is also important to note that the government conducted a background check on the Islamic terrorist who shot up the gay night club and said he could own a gun. They said nothing in his background kept him from buying the firearm. If that is true then we just have a case of a person who had not done anything wrong deciding to do so. That happens all the time in our country though the case of legal firearms owners doing so is rare.

When these things happen we get this outcry of people who want more gun control as if restricting those who follow the law will stop those who don’t. It is more convenient to blame a gun than it is to blame the liberal moron, or in this case the Islamic terrorist, who pulled the trigger. Liberals would rather moan about one guy with a gun and claim him as the problem rather than seeing the issue was the 150 people who did not have a gun. Even if half of the club goers were carry permit holders they were banned from having their firearms in the club. Evidently the Muslim terrorist did not follow that law either.

Look, the reality is bad people do bad things and we can’t predict when they will but we can’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding as some feel good measure to make liberal bed-wetters think they are doing good. We also can’t allow liberal (and sadly some alleged conservative) politicians to take away our rights. Doing so will allow them to control us instead of us controlling them.

When they take away your means to resist they will then do as they wish, just ask some old German and Jewish folks about that.

The problem is not the firearm, it is the person using it illegally (and to some extent politicians who refuse to allow law abiding people to carry firearms). We do not ban cars or alcohol because people drink and drive. We don’t say that some person might drink and drive so he can’t own a car or buy alcohol. We don’t do these things even though more people die in alcohol related accidents than are murdered with firearms. In these cases we hold the driver responsible for his actions.

Blaming firearms for the shooting at the night club is like blaming the planes for 9/11.

I am also tired of hearing liberals tell us we don’t need these assault weapons or these weapons of war.

Alan Grayson, a moron politician and wife beater from Florida, claimed that these firearms could shoot 700 rounds a minute. A semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire depends on how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger. To shoot 700 rounds a minute the shooter would have to squeeze the trigger almost 12 times a second and that does not include the time to change magazines. Misinformed people are easy to control and government is doing the misinforming because it wants to control people. Though in this case it is likely Grayson, who is unintelligent, does not know.

First of all, there are no assault weapons. Assault is an action and people commit that action. They use many things to do so but whatever they use is not an assault item.

Second, all firearms can be weapons of war. In fact, the musket was a weapon of war and everyone had a musket. Obviously the Founders made no distinction and neither should we.

The important words are shall not be infringed. There is no qualifier, no sentence about weapons of war or only if you need or only if government says it is ok or anything else. The words are the right of the PEOPLE (all citizens) to keep and bear arms (to have and to carry) shall not be infringed.

Remember, the people telling you that you don’t need these firearms are surrounded and protected by people who have these firearms.

How many more Islamic terror attacks are we going to allow before Obama is held accountable?

The gun is not the problem. Anti-gun politicians, Muslim terrorists and bad people are the issue. But keep pushing for gun control and one day there will be pushback and you will not like it at all.

We will not comply.

MOLON LABE

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

The Apple Does Not Fall Far

Barack Obama is a big government big brother liberal progressive left wing fanatic who believes in government control over the lives of private citizens. He was raised by communists, studied and uses Rules for Radicals, and he violates the Constitution nearly every day. In short, he is un-American and the kind of person the Constitution was designed to stop.

There is a case before the court right now dealing with an Apple iPhone that was used by a few terrorists who shot up San Bernardino. It seems the feds are unable to crack the encryption on the phone, a claim I find preposterous, so the FBI wants Apple to write the code to crack the phone. The problem is, the code would affect all iPhones and make it easier for the government to demand a phone be accessed in the future.

Maybe Obama should ask the Chinese or the Russians to get the data from the phone. These countries seem to be able to hack into our government on a regular basis. Better yet, maybe the government should ask Apple to teach it electronic security…

I doubt the issue at hand is the phone itself. I am sure the highly paid people at the FBI (or perhaps the NSA) could get into the phone. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that the same government hacking into systems all over the world can’t get into a phone? No, this is about setting precedence that would force companies to build backdoors into devices that government could use when it wanted to obtain data.

Obama recently made his views known when he discussed the issue. He believes that PRIVATE companies should not be able to build items government cannot access. That is the basic idea behind what Obama said. Now he laced it with sugar coating by discussing child pornography and such things because, well no one could oppose such common sense things.

Then he got to the real reason. You see, government needs to access your electronic items so it can be certain you are paying your taxes. Obama thinks that without the ability to access phones people will be walking around with Swiss bank accounts right on their devices.

As if most people have the ability to get one. But the rich certainly have them (I would not be surprised to find out many politicians had them) though I suspect they would not be foolish enough to keep that info on their phones.

While Obama thinks no citizen should have absolute privacy he carries an electronic device paid for by the taxpayers that has all kinds of encryption on it to keep it from being hacked. And while Obama thinks government should have the ability to access your information he certainly supports YOU going to jail for accessing anything held on the government’s electronic media.

They work for us but they act like they own us. Their information is very important to them so much so that Hillary Clinton set up a home brew server to route all her communications through other than government channels.

Instead of worrying about some citizen keeping a Swiss bank account on a cell phone perhaps Obama should concern himself with government officials who are hiding their misdeeds from the public.

People have a right to privacy and that right should not be infringed upon because the government can’t access data it wants. But if the court agrees with government and allows this violation of our rights perhaps we should be afforded the opportunity to redact things before they get to see them.

You know, just like they do when citizens request information…

The apple does not fall far from the tree and in the case of Obama it is a rotten apple that fell from the tree of communism.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

Judging From Their History Dems Should Be OK With A Delay

A lot has been going on since Justice Scalia died over the weekend. The liberal left celebrated his death and mocked his life and the job he did in the Supreme Court. They mocked him because he had the audacity to actually use the Constitution when he interpreted law instead of using his feelings or his partisan beliefs like say, Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor.

Barack Obama and Democrats in the Senate, smelling blood in the water and not wanting to let an opportunity to give the court a liberal majority, made demands of Republicans who, thank goodness, hold the majority in the Senate. These Democrats demanded that the Republicans make sure Obama’s nominee gets a shot. They basically want a rubber stamp for whichever left wing socialist America hater Obama nominates.

Republicans, so far, are having none of it. They want to wait and let the next president make the nomination.

The Democrats have a point (besides the ones on top their heads) in that the president, under the Constitution, has a duty to nominate. We can ignore for a moment that Obama has never abided by his duty under the Constitution and focus on what they want. They want Obama to nominate and that nomination not to be blocked.

They seem to forget that the Constitution also says that the president nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate. So the Senate has to consent and they do this by voting yes or no. Obama can put forth all the nominations he wants but there is nothing wrong with voting no on each and every one of them.

Democrats would have you believe this is out of the ordinary and unprecedented but our history shows it has been done before and that one vacancy existed for over two years because the Senate and president did not see eye to eye.

Now that was a long time ago but blocking nominees has happened in the recent past. Hell, Chuck Schumer, a guy who looks like his neck threw up, vowed that any vacancy in the Court that happened during George W Bush’s lame duck term would be blocked. Schumer made this declaration 19 months before Bush’s term would end. No vacancy came up but it was already out there that if one did no nominee would be considered.

In 1960 Democrats passed a resolution that presidents could not nominate during an election year.

Many Democrats now screaming for the vacancy to be filled have records of voting against nominations and of holding up the process. So the reality is there is no reason for Republicans to give in and allow Obama to get another liberal on the SCOTUS.

If they do not like it well that’s just too bad.

But if he does nominate anyone I think it would be reasonable to expose their entire life, make a mockery of their judicial experience, chastise them for their views, pick apart their judicial opinions, and generally make their life and the lives of their family miserable until they decide to withdraw from consideration.

Oh how horrible!

Two words, Robert Bork.

Now liberals, please quit your whining and sit back and accept that which you were so willing to do when you were in the majority.

And Republicans, do not give in to these morons. Mitch McConnell, you have a history of caving to Obama. If you do then you can rest assured you will lose control of the Senate and Trump will likely be the nominee for the Republican Party. Screw us over and we will strike back.

Do not let Barack Obama get another young liberal partisan hack on the court so the rest of us will be forced to live with their anti-American decisions for decades to come.

It is time to sack up and fight.

References:
The Hill
The DC

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

So Obama Did Lie, Shocker

You can’t see it but I have my shocked face on display. It is not like saying Obama lied is some startling revelation since he lies constantly. I don’t need to go through the list so I will just cite one; if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

When Obama was selling us the snake oil known as Obamacare he and the Democrats who supported it (all of them) told us it would bend the cost curve down and that it would be wonderful. We knew it was a pack of lies (they need to control health care in order to carry out rules for radicals rule #1) but now that it has been in effect for a few years the truth and what we believed all along are on full display.

Obamacare costs too much money, it makes health insurance unaffordable for many people, it adds to the nation’s debt and the individual’s tax burden and it is being dropped by many insurance companies that once supported it (for big money, no doubt).

Lost in all the Obamacare lies is the whopper he told about illegal aliens not being able to get Obamacare coverage. Joe Wilson, a Congressman, once famously shouted “you lie” when Obama said illegal aliens would not be covered. Wilson held the view that bill would provide government subsidies to illegals. He had to apologize for his breech of decorum but apologizing for saying it does not mean he was incorrect in his assessment.

In fact he has been proven right to the tune of $750 MILLION. A Senate report shows that the federal government provided 750 million dollars in subsidies to illegal aliens. These are people known to be here illegally or who failed to provide the required documentation to show they were here legally.

In true government fashion, rather than wait for proof to provide coverage the government provided the money and now wants it back.

Yes, the law technically does not allow illegals to receive this handout (and all subsidies are handouts, period) but that did not stop illegals from getting the money. This was all by design. You see, now that the money was dispensed the government will have one hell of a time getting any of it back. This was certainly by design. Obama needed millions to sign up for his disaster of a law and blindly giving away money got people signed up. The government does not care that 750 MILLION dollars went into the garbage bin as long as illegals were covered and the numbers looked better (they never looked good).

Yes, the law prohibited illegals from getting subsidies but it did not verify status and it did not stop them from buying their own coverage on the exchanges.

All by design.

Wilson was right and we are out 750 MILLION dollars.

Obamacare has been a failure and a disaster. So it was a success for Obama. He needed it to be to push for more government control (rules for radicals). Remember that when you go to the polls this November. Hillary and Bernie supported Obamacare and Bernie wants to give you even more costly socialized medicine. When you get your penalty notice (the Supreme Court calls it a tax and the IRS calls it a shared responsibility but the law calls it a penalty) and have to pay the IRS or your change (it is not a refund it is the change due you from your remittance) is lower than it should have been you can blame Obama and his Democrats and know that Clinton and Sanders mean more of the same.

America needs to be free again and it can only do so if we remove the shackles the government has placed upon us.

That starts by rejecting the task masters on the left (and that includes the tyrants in the House and Senate).

We need to replace as many of them as we can while we still have a republic (no, not a Democracy).

God Bless America.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline