Bootleggers and Baptists

Warren Buffett: Baptist and Bootlegger

How America's favorite billionaire plays politics to make money


In 19th-century America, there was a concerted effort to ban alcohol sales on Sunday. "Blue laws," intended to protect the sanctity and sobriety of the Sabbath, were pushed by what seemed like an odd alliance: Baptists and bootleggers. Baptists backed the ban publicly on moral and religious grounds, while the bootleggers lobbied for the ban privately to boost their own bottom lines. Blocking legal alcohol purchases for even one day each week meant more opportunities for their illegal sales. Bans were enacted state by state, and many blue laws still exist (in Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, and Mississippi, for example), although restrictions have been steadily disappearing in recent years. Economist Bruce Yandle immortalized the phrase "Bootleggers and Baptists" in a 1983 Regulation magazine article of the same name, making the point that ostensibly opposing sides will happily collude when it serves their mutual interests.

The old paradox continues in modern-day Washington. Politicians enrich their friends and allies—and sometimes themselves—by coming off as earnest "Baptists" for a worthy cause. Lobbyists for big corporate interests, by contrast, are widely considered bootleggers, no matter how nobly they cloak their arguments. This arrangement has created an opening for a third way: What if a capitalist could somehow manage to sound like a Baptist?

Consider Warren Buffett. Often seen as a grandfatherly figure above the rough-and-tumble of politics, Buffett appears to be immune to the folly and excess of finance as well. He lives in Omaha, Nebraska, in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,000. He made a fortune for himself and his investors at the business conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway through the humble-sounding approach of value-based investing. He uses folksy expressions: "You don't know who's swimming naked," he said during the height of the financial crisis, "until the tide goes out." He frequently takes to the nation's op-ed pages with populist-sounding arguments, such as his August 2010 plea in The New York Times for the government to stop "coddling" the "super-rich" and start raising their taxes. 

Buffett the Bootlegger

But this image does not always reflect reality. Warren Buffett is very much a political entrepreneur; his best investments are often in political relationships. In recent years, Buffett has used taxpayer money as a vehicle to even greater profit and wealth. Indeed, the success of some of his biggest bets and the profitability of some of his largest investments rely on government largesse and "coddling" with taxpayer money.

During the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, Buffett became an important symbol on television. He filled the role of fiscal adult, a responsible father figure in the midst of irresponsible Wall Street speculators. While pushing for calm and advocating specific market interventions in both public and private, however, he was also investing (sometimes quietly) so he could profit once his policy advice was implemented. This put Buffett in the position of being both Baptist and bootlegger, praised for his moral character while shaking his finger all the way to the bank.

In the summer of 2008, when several investment houses and the government-sponsored mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of financial collapse, Buffett was "uncharacteristically quiet," as the London Guardian observed. It was only on September 23 that he became a highly visible player in the drama, investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs, which was overleveraged and short on cash. Buffett's play gave the investment bank a much-needed cash infusion, making a heck of a deal for himself in return: Berkshire Hathaway received preferred stock with a 10 percent dividend yield and an attractive option to buy another $5 billion in stock at $115 a share.

Wall Street was on fire, and Buffett was running toward the flames. But he was doing so with the expectation that the fire department (that is, the federal government) was right behind him with buckets of bailout money. As he admitted on CNBC at the time, "If I didn't think the government was going to act, I wouldn't be doing anything this week."

 Buffett needed the bailout. In addition to Goldman Sachs, which was not as badly leveraged as some of its competitors, Buffett was heavily invested in several other banks, such as Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp, that were also at risk and in need of federal cash.

So it's no surprise that Buffett began campaigning for the $700 billion Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was being hammered out in Washington. The first vote on the bill failed in the House of Representatives on September 29. But Buffett was in a unique position to help reverse its fate.

During the 2008 presidential campaign Buffett was mentioned as a candidate for Treasury secretary by both John McCain and Barack Obama. But it was clear where his loyalties lay: He had been a financial supporter of Barack Obama going back to 2004, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate. Each had been impressed when they met, and Buffett said at a 2007 fundraiser in Nebraska that the two "had a lot of time to talk." During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama made it clear that while he received plenty of advice on the campaign trail, "Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to." Obama added that the Oracle of Omaha was one of his "economic advisers."

Several senators and congressmen were shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway and therefore in a position to earn big returns by passing the bailout bill. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), for example, held between $1 million and $6 million in Berkshire stock, by far the largest asset in his portfolio. Initially resistant to the bailout bill, Nelson ended up voting in favor of it. Buffett's support was hardly the deciding factor in passing the bill. But his Baptist-bootlegger position was strong in both directions: Many people heeded his advice, then he (and they) made a lot of money after the bailout.

Throughout the financial crisis and the debate over the stimulus in early 2009, several members of Congress were buying and trading Berkshire stock. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) bought Berkshire shares four times over a three-week period in September and October 2008, up to $130,000 worth. He bought shares during the debate over the bailout, during the vote, and after the vote. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) bought the stock, as did Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who bought up to $500,000 worth just days after the bailout bill was signed. Some legislators also followed Buffett's example by buying shares in Goldman Sachs after the bailout. Among them were Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.). 

Early in the financial crisis, Obama, then a senator and his party's presidential nominee, had been cautious and lukewarm about a possible bailout. But in the days following Buffett's multibillion-dollar play for Goldman Sachs, and with fears of economic collapse mounting, Obama became a powerful champion of the government rescue. As the top Democrat in the country, he had an important vote. The New York Times reported that Obama "intensified" his efforts to "rally support for the $700 billion financial bailout package" after September 28, 2008. The plan was necessary, said Obama, "to safeguard the economy."

Publicly, Buffett struck a posture of cheering on the bailout from the sidelines. "I'm not brave enough to try to influence the Congress," he told The New York Times in a September 24 article. But Buffett's actions directly contradicted his words. Days later, he participated in a conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House Democrats during which he pushed them to pass the bill, warning that otherwise the country faces "the biggest financial meltdown in American history." 

The stakes were high for Buffett as well. If the bailout went through, it would be a windfall for Goldman. If it failed, it would be disastrous for Berkshire Hathaway.

 The first vote failed, as Congress faced enormous heat from voters angry about the prospect of aiding Wall Street. On the eve of the second TARP vote in the House, Buffett moved toward the fire again, buying a $3 billion stake in corporate giant General Electric (GE). As with Goldman, he was able to negotiate advantageous terms, receiving a 10 percent dividend on his shares. He also purchased the option to buy $3 billion in stock at discounted terms. GE was in even worse financial shape than Goldman, thanks to its financial arm, GE Capital. Eventually it would receive $140 billion in taxpayer capital to stay afloat.

Buffett, a genius at public relations, said he had "confidence in Congress to do the right thing." He appeared to be the private-sector savior of Goldman Sachs and GE, while giving members of Congress much-needed cover to bail out what had recently been among Wall Street's most favored firms.

Crony Capitalism Pays

With the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the Treasury Department was authorized to loan financial institutions a total of $700 billion, which gave it unprecedented authority to pick winners and losers. Access to TARP money was not guaranteed, and the terms of the loans were unclear. The process was opaque. As American Prospect Editor Robert Kuttner put it, the TARP proceedings were conducted "largely behind closed doors, and the design is by, for and in the interest of large banks, hedge funds, and private equity companies. Because there are no explicit criteria, it's very hard to know" if anyone got special treatment. The entire process, he said, "reeks of favoritism and special treatment."

Having the correct political connections was critical. A National Bureau of Economic Research study by four researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, documented the power of such connections. Economist Daron Acemoglu and his colleagues found that when Timothy Geithner, a man who had spent his career shuttling back and forth between Wall Street and Washington, was announced as President Obama's nominee for treasury secretary, it "produced a cumulative abnormal return for Geithner-connected financial firms of around 15 percent from day 0." The stock market reflects the thinking of all investors, and they clearly believed Geithner would be able to reward his friends directly or indirectly.

Conversely, when there was word that Geithner's nomination might be derailed by tax issues, those same firms were hit hard with "abnormal negative returns." Acemoglu et al. systematically examined companies that had corporate ties to Geithner, had executives who served with him on other boards, or had other direct relationships. They found that "the quantitative effect is comparable to standard findings" in Third World countries with weak institutions and higher levels of corruption. In other words, markets react to government actions in the U.S. the same way they do in a corrupt developing country. Crony capitalism pays, and the market knows it.

Buffett, of course, was not the only one with connections in Washington. Goldman Sachs had a direct line to Bush administration Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, its former managing partner, as well as incoming officials in the Obama administration. But Buffett was far better liked by the American public than were the executives at Goldman Sachs. He was therefore a much more effective advocate for bailout funds than Paulson could ever be.

An April 2011 working paper by researchers at the University of Michigan School of Business found that "firms with political connections" were much more likely to get TARP funds than firms that were not well connected. The study looked at how much money companies contributed to election campaigns through PAC contributions and donations by executives as well as how much companies spent on lobbyists. Finance professors Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura found that politically connected firms, despite the infusion of federal funds, were outperformed by unconnected firms. In other words, poorly run but well-connected companies got the loot.

The fact that politically connected banks got good deals from the Treasury was not lost on the banking industry. Robert Wilmers, the chairman and CEO of M&T Bank, told shareholders in April 2009, "The pattern is clear: The bailout money and the perks are concentrated among the big banks, the ones who pay the lobbyists and make the campaign contributions, while the healthy banks pay the freight."

Buffett needed the TARP bailout more than most. In all, Berkshire Hathaway firms received $95 billion in TARP money. Berkshire held stock in Wells Fargo, Bank of America, American Express, and Goldman Sachs, which received not only TARP money but also Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) backing for their debt, worth a total of $130 billion. All told, TARP-assisted companies constituted a whopping 30 percent of Buffett's publicly disclosed stock portfolio. The folksy outsider with his home-spun investment wisdom, the Houston Chronicle concluded in an April 2009 investigative piece, was "one of the top beneficiaries of the banking bailout."

Buffett received better terms for his Goldman investment than the government got for its bailout. His dividend was set at 10 percent, while the government's was 5 percent. Had the bailout not gone through, and had Goldman not been given such generous terms under TARP, things would have been very different for Buffett. As it stood, the arrangement with Goldman Sachs earned Berkshire about $500 million a year in dividends. "We love the investment!" he exclaimed to Berkshire investors. The General Electric deal also was profitable. As Reuters business columnist Rolfe Winkler noted on his blog in August 2009: "Were it not for government bailouts, for which Buffett lobbied hard, many of his company's stock holdings would have been wiped out."

By April 2009, Goldman share prices had more than doubled. By July 2009, Buffett had already received a return of $2.5 billion from his investment.

Later, astonishingly, Buffett would publicly complain about the bailouts in his 2008 letter to Berkshire investors, claiming that government subsidies put Berkshire at a disadvantage. As he put it, funders "who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government's umbrella have money costs that are minimal," whereas "highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are experiencing borrowing costs that…are at record levels." Berkshire, of course, is simply a holding company representing a long list of investment assets—including investments in eight banks that were helped by the FDIC's Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. As Winkler put it, "It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage."

Unseemly but Legal

One financial observer, Graham Summers of Phoenix Capital Research, claimed on the finance blog site Seeking Alpha in October 2008 that Buffett's conduct during the financial crisis involved a "a serious conflict of interest…seriously bordering on insider trading." But what Buffett did was entirely legal. It may have been an exercise in crony capitalism and manipulation, but he broke no law. He simply used his political connections to secure huge profits with taxpayer money.

There are two main questions to ask about Buffett's behavior. First, why do so many people continue to heed his policy advice without considering his enormous self-interest? Second, and more important, how did our politics get so warped by deep-pocketed, heavily invested advisers?

After the bailout bill passed, Warren Buffett sat down and wrote Treasury Secretary Paulson a four-page letter proposing a larger solution to the financial crisis: a quasi-private fund backed by the U.S. government that would buy bad loans and other rapidly sinking investments. He proposed that for every $10 billion put up by the private sector, the federal government would kick in $40 billion. As Paulson put it in his memoir, "I knew, of course, that as an investor in financial institutions, including Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs, Warren had a vested interest in the idea."

The bootlegger's interest does not necessarily mean the Baptist's ideas are wrong. The Treasury Department considered Buffett's proposal, but with Paulson leaving at the end of President George W. Bush's term, it would fall to the incoming secretary, Tim Geithner, to act on it. Geithner tweaked the plan and announced the Public-Private Investment Program in March 2009. It was largely seen as a boon to banks, especially large banks with a lot of bad debt.

What did Buffett do in the six months between writing the letter and watching the adapted policy get approved? He bought more bank stock. According to Berkshire's quarterly reports, Buffett's firm bought 12.4 million shares of Wells Fargo during this period and another 1.5 million shares in U.S. Bancorp. When Geithner announced the Public-Private Investment Program, bank stocks rallied and Buffett's holdings did very well. We don't know the exact price that Buffett paid for these millions of shares because he is not legally required to list the dates he bought them. But we do know those bank stocks all jumped after Geithner unveiled his program. Wells Fargo, which was trading around $20 per share early in 2009, jumped to $30 a share in the weeks following Geithner's announcement. U.S. Bancorp did even better: It had hit a low of $8 a share in February 2009 but vaulted to more than $20 a share by May. And of course Buffett already owned tens of millions of shares in a host of financial companies, such as American Express and M&T Bank, which also benefited.

Buffett did very well with Goldman Sachs and GE too after they received their bailout money. His net gain from General Electric as of April 2011 was $1.2 billion. His profits from the Goldman deal by then had exceeded the gains of July 2009, reaching as high as $3.7 billion. He had bet on his ability to help secure the bailout, and the bet paid off.

In the fall of 2010, Buffet wrote a "Thank You, Uncle Sam" op-ed piece in The New York Times, praising the role that the government played in stabilizing markets throughout the crisis. There was no disclaimer or disclosure of how much he personally gained from TARP or the Public-Private Investment Program. He simply endorsed both as good public policy. At the bottom of the article he was identified this way: "Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company."

With tongue in cheek, journalist Ira Stoll, the former managing editor of the New York Sun (and current columnist for, suggested the bio might have been more accurate with a bit of rewriting: "Warren Buffett, the largest crony capitalist in the world, shareholder of GE, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bancorp, M&T Bank, and American Express, as well as competitor of private equity and hedge fund firms that have been threatened with new taxes and regulations, and behind the scenes, insider adviser to most of the government officials mentioned above."

Again, to be clear, even though Buffett was the one who proposed the public-private partnership, there is absolutely nothing illegal about lobbying for a policy while investing in the companies that stand to gain most if that policy is adopted. But consider this: Had Buffett instead pushed a private investment house to make an acquisition that would benefit certain stocks while quietly buying shares in those same stocks, he would have been vulnerable to charges of insider trading. 

Indeed, this is what his lieutenant David Sokol was accused of doing in 2010, landing him in legal hot water. Sokol, who resigned amidst insider trading accusations, apparently bought shares in Lubrizol, a chemical company, and then encouraged his employer, Berkshire Hathaway, to buy a large stake in the company, thereby driving up the price of the stock. All Buffett did differently was use the federal government instead of a private company to boost the fortunes of certain stocks. This is why crony capitalism is so perennially attractive to financiers: It's legal, and it's often more remunerative than the illegal private-sector version might be. Because government officials are dealing with other people's money, they are less likely than a private firm to drive a hard bargain.

Buffett has long believed that corporate-government partnerships provide excellent investment opportunities. While he's famous for owning Dairy Queen and other all-American private companies, two of his largest holdings are in railroads and regulated utilities. He regularly lobbies on their behalf and counts on significant public money to make them more profitable.

After the 2008 financial crisis appeared to be easing, Buffett turned his attention to championing the Obama administration's stimulus program. When he went on television to hawk the stimulus, he was never asked what he might personally be getting out of the deal. A candid answer would have taken up many valuable minutes of airtime.

Railroad Job

In late 2009, Buffett made his largest investment ever when he decided to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). It was not just an endorsement of the railroad industry's financials; it was also a huge bet on the budget priorities of his friend Barack Obama. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s planned purchase of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. represents a bet that upcoming Washington policies to improve infrastructure and combat climate change will be a boon to the freight-railroad industry. President Barack Obama has said railroad investment will be a cornerstone of his transportation policies, given the environmental benefits and improved mobility that come with taking cars and trucks off roads."

Others in the railroad industry saw Buffett's involvement as very helpful, precisely because he was so politically connected. "It's a positive for the rail industry because of Buffett's influence in Washington," Henry Lampe, president of the short-haul railroad Chicago South Shore & South Bend, told the Journal.

Buffett bought BNSF just as the Obama administration was beginning a series of initiatives to rapidly expand the government's spending on railroads. After Buffett took over the railroad company, he dramatically increased spending on lobbyists. Berkshire spent $1.2 million on lobbyists in 2008, but by 2009 its budget had jumped to $9.8 million, where it more or less remained. Pouring money into lobbying is perhaps the best investment that Buffett could make.

Obama's plans to invest heavily in railroads, including a commitment to high-speed rail, put BNSF in a position to benefit handsomely. BNSF already has talked to Seattle officials about leasing or selling its rail lines for an intercity project, and that's just a start. A map of BNSF lines around the country overlaps nicely with the government's proposed high-speed rail lines, from Seattle to Florida, California to the Northeast. Buffett is geographically and strategically positioned to profit from those government-funded rail systems, should they be built.

The 2009 stimulus package includes $48 billion (of the total $787 billion) for infrastructure improvement, a chunk of which is headed for railroads. How much will BNSF benefit? It's hard to calculate. Type "BNSF" on the website, which tracks grants, subsidized loans, and contracts signed under the stimulus, and you find 1,800 entries, including everything from a $36 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security to money from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Buffett also owns MidAmerican Energy Holdings, which received $93.4 million in stimulus money. General Electric, in which he owns a $5 billion stake, was one of the largest recipients of stimulus money in the country.

Buffett famously puts his folksy investment ideas in an annual letter to Berkshire investors. He rarely mentions the bootlegger stuff involving lobbyists, government funds, bailouts, and stimulus grants, preferring the Baptist language of social good. "We see a 'social compact' existing between the public and our railroad business, just as it is the case with our utilities," he said in his 2010 letter to shareholders. "If either side shirks its obligations, both sides will inevitably suffer. Therefore, both parties to the compact should—and we believe will—understand the benefit of behaving in a way that encourages good behavior by the other. It is inconceivable that our country will realize anything close to its full economic potential without it possessing first-class electricity and railroad systems." He added that both businesses "require wise regulators who will provide certainty about allowable returns so that we can confidently make the huge investments required to maintain, replace, and expand the plant."

The term social compact sounds benign. But when did American voters agree to turn one of the richest men in America into one of the biggest recipients of taxpayer subsidies?

In August 2011, Buffett vacationed with President Obama on Martha's Vineyard, and they discussed the economy. Shortly after that, he agreed to host an Obama re-election fundraiser in New York City where contributors could buy $35,800 VIP tickets to meet Buffett and talk about the economy.

As fellow investor Steven Rattner pointed out in his 2010 book Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry, "Warren Buffett has shown that superb investing need not entail the months of due diligence and deliberation that private equity firms typically apply to a deal. Buffett has been known to make successful multibillion-dollar bets on the basis of a few meetings or phone calls." That is particularly true if he calls Washington.

Warren Buffett is a financial genius. But even better for his portfolio, though worse for the rest of us, he is a political genius.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article is adapted from his book Throw Them All Out by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

NEXT: Guantánamo Bay is Popular and Going Green

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *fap* *fap*

    1. Warren Buffett has devoted his whole life to making money that he doesn’t know how to spend.

    2. looking for the bilover?===Datebi*cO’m=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

    3. We’re all Russians now. Historians will remember our era as the Age of Oligarchy.

      Russia has Putin and his circle. Italy had Berlusconi. The Chinese have the party and the army. And we have Warren Buffett and the US Senate.

  2. Hmm, politicians use politics to make money and so does business; its a slutty party…next story: how humans use oxygen to live

    1. I agree in principle, but I think the point here isn’t just that the rich use government, but that in this case – this idiot is specifically telling people to pay more money in taxes, while taking tax dollars to make himself richer.

      Hypocrisy and all that…

      1. and all this wailing n gnashing over a 4% diff in tax rates for teh wealthy. pretty tough to argue teh wealthy create jobs from cayman & swiss accounts.

        1. fucking loans, how do they work?

          1. show ur work water boy

        2. o3|2.9.12 @ 3:10PM|#
          “…….pretty tough to argue teh wealthy create jobs from cayman & swiss accounts.”

          Any one as stupid as you has a tough time arguing the sun rising in the east.

          1. You neglected to give a reason for your disagreement, libertarian punk.

            1. dont bother, sevo luvs em sum water carries. hell, he pays for the honor

        3. Well, I guess in the case of Buffett I might be in a corner b/c he doesn’t spend money. But typically it’s not the poor being Patek’s, Porsche’s, 5000 sq ft homes etc etc. All those things and the rest of the stuff the rich consume generate quite a bit of economic activity. And if I’m going to take your point seriously, why would having Cayman and Swiss accounts negate job creation? You don’t typically get rich and then create jobs, you create jobs as part of getting wealthy (in a lot of cases, I fully realize there are ways to get wealthy without any job creation) Other than taking cheap shots at people who’s made better economic decisions than you have, what’s your point exactly?

        4. That “four percent diff” won’t fill the holes dug by Team Red and Team Blue, stOOOpid.

    1. Thinking is hard. Stick to what you do well, posting T&A links.

      1. Miranda Kerr looks tasty on vacation!…..Flynn.html

        1. You’re starting to find the right compromise between land whale and toothpick!

          1. Honestly Kerr doesn’t do much for me. Something about her face. Like she’s some creepy elf who had Legolas’ baby or something.

            Katharine McPhee on the other hand?


            Can I have seconds please?

            1. I like Uma too. She’s definitely MILF material.

              1. I have always loved Uma.

            2. She looks like a Leprechaun in those awful pants. A hot leprechaun granted.

              1. The only problem with those pants is that they’re not on my bedroom floor where they belong.


  3. Thanks for putting this one up: been wanting to link to it for a while.

  4. But…but…Boobs!

      1. I think the new healthcare plan has treatment for your sex-change
        -are you sure?

      1. Sorry but next to that awesome boobage link, your link fails to elicit any kind of reaction whatsoever.

      2. Best leave the links to the cleavage exposing pros, I agree.

        1. Here’s one for you baby.

          BTW, pick a new handle; I’m bored

    1. Hooray for boobs!

      1. I have my priorities in hand.

  5. I’m not sure accusing a guy of “running twords the fire” is such a bad knock. Thats what investors *do*. I bought BP during the gulf oil spill. Advisors I know recommended Japanese equity during the earthquake (didn’t work out). Chasing after things other people are panic-selling is generally a good strategy (caveat: only if the reason for panic is overblown, short term, and you trust there’s not more bad news lurking behind) Like the saying – “when there’s blood in the streets: Buy Real Estate”

    I get the point he’s been broadly hypocritical re: TARP… but what’s he going to do, cackle with joy that he’d duped everyone, and was even filthy-richer now? I think most of his ‘quastionable’ tactics and political jawboning etc are largely a consequence of him being the poker player with the most chips. When he wants to use that muscle to force people to fold/bluff suckers, he will.

    basically, I think there’s a tad of playa-hatin in this. (probably ever since that “tax me more”/”My secretary pays more than me!”-BS that Obama latched onto, he’s become a more targetable figure of libertoid-hate)

    1. Oh, poop. forgot to change the name.

      1. Cut down on disclosing investment moves, mmmkay?

    2. I get the point he’s been broadly hypocritical

      Hyprocritical? How about corrupt? Mendacious? I’ll just go with plain, fucking evil.

      I have no problem with investors taking advantage of adverse market conditions and profiting from them, that’s normal and we need the risk takers.

      Buffet’s playing poker with the house’s money.

      1. But that’s what makes him so darn cuddly.

      2. Hyprocritical? How about corrupt? Mendacious? I’ll just go with plain, fucking evil

        I think maybe you’re starting with the ‘evil’ assumption, and working backward to find facts.

        Seriously though, I think a lot of this is overblown. shrike (shockingly) below cites a number of reasons why.

        1. Warren Buffett flatly stated that he made investments in Goldman specifically because the government would come in and bail everyone out.

          You don’t see how that’s immoral?

        2. I think maybe you’re starting with the ‘evil’ assumption, and working backward to find facts.

          Not at all.

          If wasn’t such a mendacious, scheming rent seeker, he could make all the money in the world betting on bad deals and I wouldn’t care. Hell, I would want to get in on the action.

          The fact that he is such a rent seeker, but yet actively projects, and is abetted by the media, a wise, honest sage and if we bitter gun clingers would only shut up and buy into his statist prescriptions we’d all be so much better off, is where he loses me.

        3. shrike (shockingly) below cites a number of reasons why.

          You’re presuming that shriek has credibility greater than zero and isn’t being blocked as a result of his past bad faith behavior. He brays, but I don’t hear a word.

          1. past bad faith behavior

            How is this pertinent in an anarchist forum?
            No rules, babe. Reap what you sow.

            1. Anarchy is not an absence of rules.

              It simply means there are no rulers.

              1. Anarchy is not an absence of rules

                Yup. It’s an absence of objectively defined rules (laws).

                Do your own thing, man.
                Where have I heard that before…?

          2. Every Goddamn thread concerning finance has his lies clinging to it like a lunatic’s shit on the walls of his padded cell.

  6. So many errors.

    GE received no TARP – much less “$140 billion”. They did go through the FDIC for debt backing in a technicality due to their ownership of a small bank. Obama killed that loophole.

    The Obama administration now wants to close such loopholes as it works to overhaul the financial system. The plan would reaffirm and strengthen the wall between banking and commerce, forcing companies like GE to essentially choose one or the other.…..ectric-628

    Wells Fargo and US Bank made no subprime loans and never wanted TARP but it cost them plenty of interest anyway.

    Goldman benefited from TARP in 2008 via Paulson – hardly a Buffett crony. Buffett’s warrants would expire worthless today (as would his GE warrants).

    Buffett didn’t own Bank of America until recently. TARP was repaid before he bought in last fall.

    P-PIP was a failure and did not cause bank stocks to go up in 2009. Other programs did (QE, SCAP, ARA). Buffett buying was a coincidence.

    Even if everything had melted down Buffett was liquid enough to buy more at distressed levels. To imply he was more interested in temporary gain than he was in American altruism is just nutty.

    1. So does fellating TEAM BLUE come naturally or did you have to work at it?

      1. It’s a sockpuppet. Ignore it.

        1. Are you the thread cop here? I have some complaints about the Frisbee story.

        2. FUCK! I forgot it’s Thursday, and responded to rather in a previous thread.

          1. That’s not just for Thursdays. It’s for every day.

            1. It should always be Thursday. In your heart.

              1. Look in your heart, NutraSweet. LOOK IN YOUR HEART.

                1. All I saw was you, staring back at me and panting.

                  1. Well, that’s what’s in your heart. ME.

          2. FULL IGNORE means FULL IGNORE, brah. Join our TEAM.

            1. Does the Big Ignore finally start today? At what time, specifically?

              1. Ohh the Big Ignore …you’re so pathetic

                1. Even the squirrels coadjute!!!

              2. Ohh the Big Ignore …you’re so pathetic

            2. I just have one question, Warty: Who is going to crazy glue your fingers to the delete key?

              1. Email SugarFree for the real lowdown.
                It’s both fascinating and disturbing.

                1. yes, I have that email but now I have to get your info too…something about making it worthwhile
                  -please tell me your ass isn’t broke too

                  1. I have no info, as I am superfluous.

                    1. Declarations against interest?

    2. Didn’t Wells swallow the AltA king? and didn’t SNL make a skit about that?

      1. yeah, First Wachovia bought it (Golden West) then the Alt-A shit poisoned them, they were Too Big To Fail and Wells Fargo bid near-nothing for them and won.

        Wells also got a sweetener in the Wachovia heist – about $30 billion in tax credits.

        All in 2008.

        1. GE did the Fed’s CPFF when it had 200+ billion short term debt to roll over.

          1. The US economy cannot operate without Commercial Paper. The Fed had to step in there.

            They made McDonalds payroll too. Credit was completely hosed.

        2. Wachovia paid 24-25 billion for Golden West. Wells paid 15 billion stock for Wachovia + aforementioned IRS policy change on losses from acquired financial institutions. Citi offered 2 billion for Wachovia with FDIC assistance… so they obviously need better lobbyists.

      2. Which bank had those commercials where they claimed they locked their bankers up in a pen and never let them interfere with business?

    3. Surprisingly, most everything he says is accurate.

      Except for the ‘American Altruism’ bullshit.

      1. The thread cops insist that you ignore him.
        Why won’t you obey the thread cops?

        1. I AM THE LAW

          1. I thought Episiarch/Warty/SugarFree were the law. No?

            My mistake, perhaps, but they have that scent of…how do you say…authoritarianism about them…

    4. So many errors. GE received no TARP – much less “$140 billion”. They did go through the FDIC for debt backing in a technicality due to their ownership of a small bank. Obama killed that loophole.

      Reuters disagrees: GE wins U.S. approval to exit TARP program (July 22, 2009, specifying a drawback from $126 billion in credit.

      due to their ownership of a small bank.

      Wow. GE Capital Aviation Services, GE Capital Real Estate, GE Energy Financial Services and GE Money… Which one is a small bank? In the U.S. GE Money is one of the largest issuers of private label credit cards and bank cards, auto loans, mortgages, corporate travel cards, home equity loans and credit insurance. It has over a hundred million customers in the U.S., Canada, Britain, Japan, Australia and India.

      1. Here is an updated TARP list.

        No GE so Reuters is in error. GE was in TLGP which did not pay or loan funds. GE set up a debt offering and the FDIC approved it.

        I know GE Capital is huge. But GE accessed the FDIC through a small Utah deposit bank they owned. They gamed the system for sure but again – got no payout.

        Fox News often says GE(NBC) got TARP – its a lie.

        1. so some lefty blog has better fact checkers than Reuters? Whatever Shrike.

          And if you RTFA it says GE exited TARP in 2009. Your list is for people still in it. So your list doesn’t refute the first.

          1. GE never got a penny of TARP.

            Prove it and I will never post here again.*

            *must have amount borrowed, date, and amount repaid (if any).

            1. Reuters is the proof

              GE Capital will stop issuing commercial debt backed by the government as a result of the move and will gain the right to issue bonds maturing before Dec. 30, 2012 outside of the program. A spokeswoman said the move will allow GE to raise money in the bond markets more cheaply.

              The FDIC will lower its available credit limit to GE under the program to $75 billion from $126 billion. GE has issued about $12 billion in debt not backed by the government since November.

              The news comes as GE Capital’s smaller rival CIT Group Inc flirts with bankruptcy and GE management faces the threat that the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of the U.S. financial regulatory system could force it to spin off the finance arm, which has businesses ranging from investing in commercial real estate to financing sales of heavy equipment made by its parent.

              GE has “already gotten the benefit out of the program and this indicates a sign of confidence from the company about its funding needs for next year,” said Steven Winoker, senior analyst at Bernstein Research. “Why subject yourself to the negative image of ? a government program, as well as the uncertainty of whether the program will be extended?”

              GE’s hefty finance arm has been the subject of intense investor concern over the past 16 months, as it has been the heaviest drag on profits at the world’s largest maker of jet engines and electricity-producing turbines.
              Troubles at GE Capital, as well as a general downturn in demand caused by the brutal recession, contributed to the major ratings agencies’ decision to strip the blue-chip company of its top-tier “AAA” credit ratings this year.
              Even without official government backing, some investors expressed confidence that GE would retain Washington’s support if needed.
              “The market knows the U.S. government will stand behind GE and GE Capital if necessary,” said Mirko Mikelic, a portfolio manager at Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “It removes any U.S. government oversight while keeping the implicit guarantee.”

              They got a lot of TARP. Sorry but Reuters is not lying.

              1. Yay! Shreek will never post here again!

              2. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo…!

                *disappears in a poof of smoke*

              3. Read the rest of the article:

                “Today’s plan to exit from TLGP affirms the strength of GE Capital’s funding and liquidity position, including reduced reliance on government funding programs and our ability to access nonguaranteed debt markets,” GE Treasurer Kathryn Cassidy said in a statement.
                The Fairfield, Connecticut-based company has issued about $51 billion of long-term debt and has $17 billion in outstanding commercial paper under the TLGP program, spokeswoman Anne Eisele said.

                The headline says TARP, but TARP is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. It seems that the headline writer figured that TARP and TLGP are interchangeable, but they aren’t the same program. Either way, GE still took government money, though.

                1. Bloomberg should save you the time.

                  GE and GE Capital didn’t participate in the better-known Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.


                  1. Ok Shrike they didn’t do TARP but they did another program that gave them a bunch of tax money. I feel so much better now.

                    1. TLGP paid GE nothing.

                    2. You were right the first time.


                      Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Information

                      The federal banking and thrift regulatory agencies encourage all eligible institutions to use the Treasury Department’s Capital Purchase Program and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. government announced a series of initiatives to strengthen market stability, improve the strength of financial institutions, and enhance market liquidity. Treasury announced a voluntary Capital Purchase Program to encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy. Under the program, Treasury will purchase up to $250 billion of senior preferred shares on standardized terms.

                      Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program and the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program complement one another. Through these programs, fresh capital and liquidity are available to foster new lending in our nation’s communities.


      Overall, Berkshire owns more than $13 billion of stock in the top recipients of TARP funds ? including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., US Bancorp, American Express Co. and Bank of America Corp., all considered by analysts to be in deep trouble before the federal infusion. The more the bailout props up these financial companies, the more secure Berkshire’s investments.

      That total, The Bee found, ranks Berkshire fifth among all investors in TARP-assisted companies. Berkshire’s TARP holdings constitute 30 percent of its publicly disclosed stock portfolio. That proportion reflects at least twice as much dependence on bailed-out banks as any other large investor.

      Buffett increased his bank holdings in September, while openly pressing Congress to pass the bailout.…..dman-sachs

      At a time when all the tough guys in Washington are making plans to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for high-living seniors and to cut Head Start for low-income kids, it was generous of Warren Buffett to point out that we taxpayers gave over $1 billion to Goldman Sachs through TARP. Buffett probably didn’t intend to point out this fact to the country, but it is an unavoidable implication of his $2 billion profit on his loans to Goldman.

      Buffett made his $5 billion loan to Goldman about a week before the Treasury lent $10 billion to Goldman through the TARP program. Buffet got 10 percent interest on his loans, while the Treasury got 5 percent on its loans. In addition, Buffett got a much more generous commitment of stock warrants, which is the basis of the $2 billion in profits that he is now set to pocket.

      The Treasury boasted of getting a $1.1 billion profit on its loans to Goldman, but as Mr. Buffet showed, this was far below the market rate of interest on loans to Goldman at the time. The difference between the return received by Buffett and the return received by the Treasury was in effect a gift from taxpayers to the top executives at Goldman and their shareholders. When Treasury Secretary Geithner and other officials claim that the government made money on the TARP loans it is either due to their ignorance of the workings of financial markets or a deliberate effort to deceive the public.

      1. Irrelevant.

        Goldman was TOLD by Treasury Sec Paulson that they would be loaned money along with eight other banks. They were in the top three in health (JP Morgan and Wells). Then they paid a couple of billion in interest on a loan they never asked for.

        1. You: Even if everything had melted down Buffett was liquid enough to buy more at distressed levels. To imply he was more interested in temporary gain than he was in American altruism is just nutty.

          Above Quote: Buffett made his $5 billion loan to Goldman about a week before the Treasury lent $10 billion to Goldman through the TARP program. Buffet got 10 percent interest on his loans, while the Treasury got 5 percent on its loans. In addition, Buffett got a much more generous commitment of stock warrants, which is the basis of the $2 billion in profits that he is now set to pocket.

          You’re irrelevant, now get the fuck out of here.

          1. You’re not following shrike’s impenetrable logic:

            a) Warren Buffet made billions exploiting political connections with Democrats.

            b) All Democrats are pure-souled altruists.

            c) Therefore, Warren Buffet is an altruist.

  7. Also, without TARP Buffett could have picked up the pieces of AIG for pennies. Buffett’s specialty is insurance and AIG was the world’s largest. TARP put AIG into the US Government’s basket where it partially is today.

    1. but then who would bailout AIG counterparties? too connected for capitalism.

    2. http://www.businessinsurance.c…../301249978

      STAMFORD, Conn.?General Re Corp. last week agreed to pay $92.2 million and dissolve a subsidiary in Dublin to end investigations into the reinsurer’s role in transactions that allegedly defrauded investors of American International Group Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc.

      Gen Re, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., agreed to pay $12.2 million to settle the charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Gen Re also agreed to pay the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Consumer Fraud Fund $19.5 million to settle a Justice Department investigation, and $60.5 million through settlement of a civil class action lawsuit brought by AIG shareholders, the SEC said in a statement.

      Gen Re previously forfeited to the government $5 million in fees it earned for its participation in what the government said was sham reinsurance scheme with AIG. As part of its agreement with the Justice Department, Gen Re agreed to dissolve subsidiary Cologne Re Dublin, which helped structure the deals.

      Calls placed to Gen Re seeking comment on the settlement, for which court approval is needed, were not returned.

      According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Gen Re entered into two sham finite reinsurance transactions in 2000 with AIG. The transactions inflated AIG’s loss reserves by $250 million in the fourth quarter of 2000 and $250 million in the first quarter of 2001, hiding a downward trend in loss reserves and premiums written, according to the SEC’s investigation.

  8. onetime I taught myself how to swim but then I stopped because a toilet seat kept hitting me in the head.

    1. Oh sarcasmic, your spoofing surpasses Oscar Wilde in luminous wit.

    2. Was that also the day you were born?


      1. Sarcasmic, dude! You should be, like, writing for the sitcoms!

      2. Is there a fee I’d have to pay to set up my own Rather franchise?

        1. Tim, I really don’t need a picture of your dick too -feel free

  9. Warren bought a piece of NetJets because his wife and mistress kept fihting over the one business jet that he owned.

  10. OT :
    Internet selling guns to criminals:
    n fact, 34 people are murdered every day in gun violence, with many of the weapons traced back to private sales. Jitka Vesel, for example, was killed by a stalker ? a Canadian man who crossed into the U.S., bought a gun online in Seattle, then shot her 11 times as she got in her car.

    1. 34 people are murdered every day in gun violence

      Let’s get all the guns off the streets? OK, cops first!

      “Would you feel better if they was pushed out of windows, little girl?”

      One person dies in a car accident every 13 seconds, poor guy!

      You know, if all the free people each had a gun too, the Canadian would have died instantly of perforated heart failure.

      (Too many answers!)

      1. How do I get one of theses violent guns? Mine just lay there and don’t do a damn thing. The assault rifles don’t rifle through anything, much less assault anyone. Lazy American guns. Sigh.

        1. You need one of those illegal guns that will do the violent work that those lazy American guns won’t do.

      2. It’s spelled “Confucius.”

    2. but soo many arent murdered due to their guns n bibles…in the burbs…mumble jumble gifford’s in trouble

    3. 34 people are murdered every day in gun violence

      34 people in a country with a population of more than 300 million? We’re supposed to freak out over guns because literally 1 in 10,000,000 people are killed?

  11. The phrase in the title is how openly gay New York State Senator Tom Duane characterized the New York Senate after the senate Judiciary Committee rejected the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act, or GENDA by a vote of 12-11.

    Democratic Senator Ruben Diaz joined all the Republican members of the committee in voting against equal rights. You may recall Diaz from his opposition last year to the marriage equality bill.

    Can’t someone get rid of this guy?

    It is now yet again confirmed that the Senate is a cesspool of homophobia and transphobia.–Tom Duane

    Once again, the fear of transwomen, apparently named Bubba and weighing in at 250 pounds (description from a press release by Republican candidate for Assembly David Kimmel), using women’s restrooms has been used to deny transfolk equal rights in housing, employment, credit, and public accommodations.

    The bill passed the Assembly 100-43.

    1. If this bill is enacted, how safe will our most vulnerable be? Will sexual predators be able to stalk victims by claiming they are allowed to enter the restroom because they are protected by law? Proponents of the bill say they are the ones being discriminated against, but what about the rights of the majority of New Yorkers who expect restrooms to accommodate their sex only?

      –The Conservative Party

      I have been told many times that transgender people just have to wait their turn…that we should pass protections for GLB people first and then come back for the gender-variant.

      I offer this as evidence against that strategy.


      1. pretty sure nobody cares if you’re a tranny dude. I’m still not sleeping with you.

      2. Two-spirited? Will we have a Department of Multi-spirited Americans soon?

      3. Your like a gender confused version of White Idiot…. god rest his soul!

      4. Is this a spoof? It’s kind sad that I can’t tell. It’s the “two spirited peoples” thing that makes me think maybe it’s a spoof. WTF does that even mean?

        Yep, there’s definitely more than one children in there.

      5. “Transphobia”

        Great. Like we need *more* stupid fucking meaningless terminology.

      6. While I am in no way a supporter of Occupy…it baffles the mind to think we would deny equal rights to a majority of individuals based on scare tactics. It’s as bad as saying you shouldn’t let black men in the restroom with white men, what if a small number out of millions do something in there! Listen up social conservatives, I don’t want guns taken away, I want the people using them violently taken away. Transgender individuals should not be punished because someone came up with the idea that there will be sexual predators using this to their advantage. I hope that never happens and I sincerely doubt it will ever be a legitimate avenue in the first place.

        There should be no place for the type of hatred both the left and the right throw around at each other in a country like America. We should all be striving to become better people, more focused on our own success and less focused on controlling other people’s actions when it DOES NOT CONCERN YOU. Two men marrying does not change your marriage, or mine for that matter. I am happily married to a member of the opposite sex, however I have the ability to understand that love between two people and a family is innately human, be it gay or straight.

        Part of the American ideal is greatness in the face of adversity and we cannot claim to moral greatness while we deprive our citizens of choice and try to legislate their personal life. Get the hell out of my private life, government.

    2. [blockquote]Can’t someone get rid of this guy?[/blockquote]

      Eliminationist rhetoric from an Occutard?

  12. But see, it’s okay if he’s rich. He’s loyal to the jug-eared Jesus. That makes him a good fatcat.

    1. Selling out to the Nazis and getting convicted for insider trading is A-OK, too, I hear.

    2. so jesus is a muslim from kenya?

      who knew?

    1. That is funny.

      1. The Sin of Onan is no laughing matter, John.

        1. Between this and sort of kind of hoping the Occutards have some kind of a throw down with Santorum or Gingrich at CPAC, I am so burning in hell.

        2. However, the Sea of Oman is.

    2. You know what creeps me out the most about Santorum? His skinny little nose. Look at it. It’s absolutely tiny.

      1. I think the fact that he’s made of Santorum is probably creepier, dude.

      2. It is easier to cover in brown that way.

      3. RACIST!

    3. +10…That is a keeper.

  13. “Huge breasted model -31- walks away from crash.”…..irbag.html


    1. u sure a santorium thread about santorium is the proper forum for boobage?…well, unless santoriumed that is

  14. Warren Buffet: Douchebag

  15. He lives in Omaha, Nebraska, in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,000.

    Does Buffett really live in this house?

    Or, does he still just own it and actually live on an estate ranch farm somewhere else?

    Or, perhaps lives in a 5 star hotel 364 days per year, but lives in the house one night to be able to say he still lives there with a straight face?

  16. He lives in Omaha, Nebraska, in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,000.

    Does Buffett really live in this house?

    Or, does he still just own it and actually live on an estate ranch farm somewhere else?

    Or, perhaps lives in a 5 star hotel 364 days per year, but lives in the house one night to be able to say he still lives there with a straight face?

    1. I thought I was so clever, I needed to make the comment twice.

  17. “First, why do so many people continue to heed his policy advice without considering his enormous self-interest?”

    Dumb question. Warren Buffet is affiliated with Democrats. That is proof his intentions are noble. It proves that his self-interest is a mere coincidence. It’s sort of like how Scott Brown’s Wall Street donations prove he’s in the pocket of the bankers, while Elizabeth Warren’s Wall Street donations proves there are at least a few pure-souled altruists on Wall Street. Gosh, you libertarians ask the silliest questions!

  18. Sorry, shrike’s done for now. He has my cock in his ass, and Buffett’s blowing another wad in his mouth.

    1. Cool! It’s coming out his nostrils!

  19. You missed one of his most profitable investments of all time..and the one primarily responsible for the financial melt-down of 2008; Moody’s. By rating junk-bond type Mortgage backed derivatives as AAA..they were able to get the Fed’s to essentially guarantee these financial products.The guilt that Warren must feel each night when his head hits the pillow must be immense, knowing that millions of American’s lost their retirement and homes due to his ‘boys’ going rogue and putting his and their financial best interests ahead of the country. So the thought of him pushing for higher taxes on him is tantamount to a sinner willing to tithe 10% of his/her income to the church in exchange for absolution and forgiveness. Only, America isn’t in too forgiving a mood, and this BeanBag from Omaha needs to actually confess his sins rather than hide behind the President’s coat-tails by parroting the plea for higher taxes.

  20. I seem to remember Buffet increasing his holdings of tax free Muni bonds just before the debate started about raising high income tax rates. Is this another case of gaming the process?

  21. Now we know why Buffett is such a huge democrat. He would never be allowed to get away with this chicanery if he were a Republican or an independent

  22. BNSF is making money hauling North Dakota oil to the gulf refineries. The Keystone pipeline has granted 20% of its capacity to Montana and North Dakota oil.

    Buffet benefits again from an Obama decision.

    Check this out. I have my information from contacts in the Bakken field area.

  23. We’re trying to demonise Uncle Warren now. Good luck with that one.

  24. We should all be able to follow what Buffett practices:
    Buffett avoids the Buffett Rule
    In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: “I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter’s foundation, my two sons’ foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government.”
    So Mr. Buffett thinks he and his family can put their money to better use than the government can. I guess he’s really not so different from the rest of us after all.”

  25. Good old Warren – “folksey”. What a con artist. For many years he had a mistress while he was married. He married her when his wife died of cancer. By his own admission he was an absentee father. Great human being who only goal in life as a young boy was to be the richest man in the world(which he has failed at). Money is his score card- he does not care about anything else.

  26. This can’t be true, Republicans are the ones tied to Wall St and crony capitalists !

  27. Interesting article. Not the first story about the dissonance between free market capitalism and cronyism, and how Warren advocates the politically popular, while knowing better.

    However, Warren was buying WFC and USB, two of the STRONGEST, most conservatively run banks that DID NOT NEED NOR WANT government dollars and concomitant regulatory ‘strings’, long before Obama happened along.

    Also, the infrastructure dollars vis a vis the railroads were being slanted toward passenger rail (boondoggle) construction projects. As far as BNSf is concerned, railroads make their money in freight. Passenger service just gets in their way.

    You have got to remember that it ALWAYS plays well (PC PR wise) to bash the rich, even if you are.

  28. Y’all are brilliant!

  29. “He lives in Omaha, Nebraska, in a house he purchased in 1958 for $31,000”

    Yeah but it is 6,300 square feet now and he also owns a beach house in California worth over 4 million.

    Boo Hoo!

  30. Buffet has been handed tons of $$$$$ by 0’s actions to push higher taxes. Now it is appropriate for him to voluntarily pay the same percentage as his secretary pays. Pay up or shut up

  31. Ah, it’s a profit deal! What a naive article.

  32. who cares just another slime ball schemer

  33. Warren Buffet is the biggest con man of our time Attached to the Democrat party, he sings the tune of “tax the rich”. “The rich need to pay their fair share”. “fix the loop holes in the tax code”. He’s been preaching this for 10 years, and for the last 10 years he’s been fighting the IRS legally over 1 Billion in back taxes. What a POS. Just look at him, he’s exactly what the Democrats despise, only they are uninformed and/or in denial to see it.

  34. This article is part truth, and part half-truth.

    For example, he writes: “Indeed, this is what his lieutenant David Sokol was accused of doing in 2010, landing him in legal hot water. . . . . . . All Buffett did differently was use the federal government instead of a private company to boost the fortunes of certain stocks.”

    At the very least, there are two major differences:
    1. Sokol lobbied Buffett (his boss) without disclosing his personal investment. That’s a clear violation of his ethical duty to his employer.
    2. Sokol purchased the stock as a private investor, and probably intended to never disclose the investment. Buffett buys stocks via Berkshire Hathaway, a public company. Therefore, every material stock decision (to buy or sell) becomes public sooner or later.

    So, without any research, I know that the author’s explanation of this event is only half-true.

    I don’t have the time or interest to conduct further fact checking.

    I do know that the author is biased against Buffett. I don’t know why.

    I believe that half-truths (particularly from a clever source) are dangerous.

  35. Buffet is a great man.More tighter the rules ,it’s easier to make money.Though spending does not always find an easier path to spend.Hat’s off to Buffet.

  36. Thanks for the information. Keep it up.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.