Buffett: Economy Off A Cliff

Buffet is trying to talk himself out of the big mistake he made. Yes he says America works and that American businesses are for the most part good, but he does not acknowledges that Obama is constantly putting that same America that works and those same good businesses on the chopping block by saying that America consumes 25 pc of all the world’s natural resources and that global warming is for the most part our fault. He backed the wrong candidate for president. Now he needs to pay. Open up your wallet Mr. Buffet and pay and nothing will bring your wealth back during the time Obama is president. You are history my friend. Here are a couple of dollars for a Wendy’s chili bowl.

This is what I would prefer to see. A Warren Buffet slapping himself off hysterical and asking for forgiveness.

We all remember those that enabled the Marxist to become president.
Obama represents retreat and defeat for America and economic collapse here at home.

Buffet sold out the US by backing Obama. I guess he is good at picking companies to invest into to but should stay away from politics.

I guess we can all gain solace in the fact that Buffett thinks the economy will come back in
5 years

The economy will only come back after the Republicans win the election in the revolution of 12

As soon as Obama opens his mouth the market drops again. He should just hide and not say anything and let the problem fix it self. Then he could take credit for it. Maybe they will figure that out.

Susan, I’d sure like to know who tipped Buffet off to dump
his stock.

The Republicans had their revolution, and the economy is pockmarked
with their style.

Sorry, you can’t blame this shit on Obama.

Buffet is turning into an other Greenspan. Might have looked good at one time but now seems a bit out of touch. They will loose a lots of money this quarter. He will retire before the year is out and will not hear much of him.

YES WE CAN

No one is blaming Obama. Is Gore who takes the blame. He is the one getting rich off the backs of the every ugly American. Obama is the world messiah of equality. “Whatever it takes”, no? (Obama, 2008)

Poor Lute,
Your revolution is already over. To be more exact..DOA
Obama is bad for business and has shown his hand early and foolishly which has tanked the markets and made everyone in this country much poorer.

Not to worry! Cramer’s Optimistic! Don’t be such “Negative Nellies” Says Cramer!

Jim Cramer has had it with all these people calling for DOW 4000. He’s done the math on his worst-case scenario, and the lowest number he can come up with is 5320.

That’s only another 18% down from here!

Jim’s assumptions?

GM goes to zero
Bank stocks to $1
Microsoft to $13
Merck to $15
Etc.

Only another 18%? After where we’ve come from, that’s no problem. Unless Jim’s wrong…

[which he usually is...].

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-cramer-only-another-18-downside-on-the-dow-2009-3

Just 18% Farther Down on the Dow Says Cramer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdDnWQvS978&eurl=http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-cramer-only-another-18-downside-on-the-dow-2009-3

Perfect.

Lark – I agree that Buffet’s interview was disjointed because while his assessment was correct, he then backed up and said that Obama was still the correct person – even though Obama is doing everything Buffet said not to do.

Only another 18%? After where we’ve come from, that’s no problem. Unless Jim’s wrong…

[which he usually is...].

I’m beginning to think Tarot cards, tea leaves, or coin-flipping would be better predictors than old Jimbo.

Why is there no coverage from the MSM on all the tea parties that are drawing crowds, you would think these events are not happening in the USA.

8000, at one protest 15000 at another and nothing in the media. I don’t know much about this but it sure seems to me from the pictures on the net and information there this movement is growing and growing fast, maybe the media thinks it does not look good for Obama to see people protesting so early in his administration, but the noise is getting louder and soon the outside world will notice.

You are so right Seattle Moss! All of 2008 I read economic forecasts and financial news that stated very clearly by all, Hillary Clinton was best for the economy, John McCain second, Barack Obama spelled death to the market. I tried to show these reports to Bots, to no avail. They poo-pooed anything that didn’t make Obama out as some kind of savior. The only thing I am enjoying about the I todl you so is that I predicted a 5000 market and that those bost would lose their shirts if Obama won. I wonder if they believe me now? I know one of them lost $200,000 in his retirement because he wanted to ride it out. Ok, here’s to no way to recoup that loss in your lifetime, Mr. Ride it out, Bot, who thought Obama would fix all! Good job stupid bots! I really don’t appreciate having to go down with fools!

Jim Cramer:

… After the White House briefing, Rush Limbaugh defended me as a wayward leftist who has seen the light. I am always glad to have any allies and defenders, but I do favor almost all of Obama’s agenda, right down to having the rich pay more of their freight in this great country. It’s just not the right time. We need to declare a war on unemployment and solve it before we let it get out of hand. We need to stop house-price depreciation. Neither the pork-laden stimulus plan nor the confusing mortgage proposal put forward by Obama will defeat either enemy. When Obama trounces both unemployment and house-price depreciation, he will have the power to enact anything he wants. But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction — good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever — and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation’s table. The markets thought he could stop it; hence the giant relief rally when he was elected. But in fewer than 50 days of his ascendancy, the markets’ hopes were totally dashed and the averages are now forecasting the worst decline since the Great Depression. As someone who listens to what the averages are screaming, I think they are accurately predicting the future.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart?page=5

The problem is NOT that Obama is socialist. The problem is that he’s inexperienced and incompetent. He’s trying to follow everyone’s advice so he’s all confused, doesn’t know WHAT to do.

no, Obama is a socialist. He wants to redistribute the success of harworking Americans to hose who aren’t.

It’s time for Warren Buffet to retire where he can’t hurt anyone. He’s losing his marbles.

I believe that Warren owns stock in Dairy Queen, so he would want some money for a dilly bar, instead.

That’s because tea parties are racist hate speech/sarc

YES WE CAN!!! YES WE CAN!!!

This is what happens when you elect an avowed Marxist. He is detroying our wealth and our children’s future. He is the fulfillment of the prophecies of Lenin, Stalin and Krushchev. Confused about what he will do next? Simply ask: WWJSD? What would Joseph Stalin do? I have and so far there are no surprises.

My money (what left of it) is on incompetent

Let me settle this:

OBAMA IS INCOMPETENT AND A SOCIALIST!

Cramer is a bit over the top in his style but the man is not crazy. He moves stock and from the get go, he said that both BO and McCain don’t have a clue on the economy or making it better if we were to go south.

I am developing a theory that any time a leader attacks the rich, it leads to disaster. Hitler’s original justification for attcking the German Jews is that they were rich (Jewish bankers). Lenin, Mao, Chavez, Castro. Etc.

Class warfare rhetoric is the first stage in dictatorship. Be very afraid America.

Obama is taking this house fire that is our economy and throwing gasoline on it. Why shouldn’t we blame him for that?

Everytime precious opens his elegant mouth, the market tanks. Why? Because they are tired of his speeches and vagueness. No more talk, and more action please. Last time I checked, the stimulus bill and Omnibus bill is not being sent to Crawford, Texas.

The Repubs blew it. The Dems are making it worse, plain and simple. I can’t wait for that revolution.

Just look at Obama, especially when he tries to talk about the economy. Do you see him projecting Confidence in his ability to explain the subject. NO. Do you see Obama’s Treasury guru projecting confidence when he speaks about the economy or his knowledge of it. NO.

OBAMA IS TO THE US ECONOMY AS GEORGE BUSH IS TO THE WAR OF TERROR. AND TIM THE TREASURY GURU IS BROWNIE DURING KATRINA. BOTH ARE DOING A HECK OF A JOB.

People blamed Bush for using our fears after 9/11 to grain our understanding for his invasion of Iraq. Now Obama is using our economic fears to get what he wants.

We can definitely blame the current situation on Obama. If he had taken office and assumed a wait and see posture on the economy, let banks and auto manufacturers fail, (as they probably should have; they need to restructure) and didn’t float all kinds of scary solutions, then the economy would still be Bush’s. But the moment Obama signed the draconian stimulous bill, the economy became his. That bill is so huge in scope, and so long ranging in it’s effects, that even before a single dollar of it was spent, the fear and uncertainty of it drastically changed the course of the economy and history. The new and very different trajectory our country is now taking belongs solely to the lousy aim of Obama and the Democrat Congress. God help us all.

I was hoping Obama would be a centrist but instead he is a retreat and defeat liberal who uses class warfare as a wedge to polarize and divide America.
Obama will enact his Marxist agenda regardless of what it does to our economy and the wealth of all Americans.

Is it really or is it that what is starting there is not going to make Obama look good and its a bit too soon for the voting public to start to protest.

I am sure if it was a rally or several rallies all over the country calling for Bush head it would of been on every front page and media headline by now.

I sure wish the media would stop blocking for Obama seems to me a lot of people are now wishing they could redo their vote.

I was hoping that Obama would prove all of my predictions wrong, and make me eat my words. I would love to admit that I was wrong if it meant that the country was prospering. It is only with a mix of anger and regret that I can say “I told you so!” to all of the people I literally pleaded with, on my knees, to vote for McCain. I remember that it quite often seemed as though I were talking to zombies. Obama Zombies; kinda rolls off the tongue

It is only with a mix of anger and regret that I can say “I told you so!”

For me they’re just a bunch of Drones

I also like the word Sheeple

The Republicans didn’t do this by themselves. The Democrats refused to have regulation. There are videos that show the hearings. Barney Frank said it is not broken no need to do anything. I personally believe the Dems let this happen intentionally to use it against the Republicans to win the election.
They have a bigger hand in the current economic situation than a lot of Dems admit. I have until 2008 been a Democrat, I learned this election, it is the Democrat party that keeps people down, convinces them they are victims. I really opened my eyes this election. I am going to question any president, if I think his policies are wrong. I don’t care whether he is Democrat or Republican.

Just stop blaming this on the Republicans alone. The Dems have been in control of congress the last 2 yrs of Bush. They could have blocked spending or done something, but then they couldn’t use the economy against the Republicans for the GE if they did. So they Chose to do nothing. The Democrat party and leaders, are not innocent victims of the Bush administration.

And those Obama supporters who keep just saying, he didn’t cause this, he inherited it. He didn’t inherit it, he helped create it, and bought the position that should be doing something about it. He is not a victim of the Bush administration either. He wanted the job so bad he spent almost a billion dollars to buy it. He needs to deal with the heat or get the hell out of the kitchen.

My sentiments exact.

“Obama’s Labotomies”? How about that?

You are right but just don’t forget that Greenspan used to make the rounds in Congress and used to woo them with his big big pair of glasses.

Very balanced Cathy, you touched on many valid points.

I heard that Obama is going to bail out the Russians by paying 2 trillion GringoBuck$ for Lenin’s Corpse.

Gonna keep it in the White House…

Huh? Have you looked at the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

The republican authored Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act , got rid of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933. The act separated investment and commercial banking activities to guard against banks taking undue risk with investors money.

It also got rid of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

“The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. § 1841, et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress that regulates the actions of bank holding companies.

“The original law (subsequently amended), specified that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors must approve the establishment of a bank holding company, and prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state. The law was implemented in part to regulate and control banks that had formed bank holding companies in order to own both banking and non-banking businesses. The law generally prohibited a bank holding company from engaging in most non-banking activities or acquiring voting securities of certain companies that are not banks.

The interstate restrictions of the Bank Holding Company act were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA). The IBBEA allowed interstate mergers between “adequately capitalized and managed banks, subject to concentration limits, state laws and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) evaluations.” Other restrictions which prohibited bank holding companies from owning non-financial institutions were repealed in 1999 by Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In the United States, financial holding companies continue to be prohibited from owning non-financial corporations in contrast to Japan and continental Europe where this arrangement is common.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

This Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was written by 3 republicans, Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

also
“the appointment of free-market disciple Wendy Gramm, wife of U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm , R-Tex., as chairperson, would result in her successful 1989 and 1993 exemption of swaps and derivatives from all regulation.”

“On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining) [3] [4] The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[3] [5] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [6] and by the House 362-57.[7] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[8]”

So as much as the republicans like to rail about Barney Frank and Bill Clinton being responsible for the current mortgage meltdown, it was a republican authored bill, passed unanimousely by both house of a republican controlled congress, in the final year of Bill Clinton’s Presidency that created the tools that forged this mess. It made sub-prime lendors a possibilty and allow mortgage companies to open shop and buy and sell mortgages without assets to back them up.

As far as Bill CLinton Cinton dropping lending standards and giving away mortgages to low income people, this for the most part happend under Bush’s watch courtesy of that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.

Reply to Cathy6224
My apolgies if this posted earlier.

Republican deregulation play a big role in this meltdown.

The republican authored Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act , got rid of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933. The act separated investment and commercial banking activities to guard against banks taking undue risk with investors money.

It also got rid of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...

“The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. § 1841, et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress that regulates the actions of bank holding companies.

“The original law (subsequently amended), specified that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors must approve the establishment of a bank holding company, and prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state. The law was implemented in part to regulate and control banks that had formed bank holding companies in order to own both banking and non-banking businesses. The law generally prohibited a bank holding company from engaging in most non-banking activities or acquiring voting securities of certain companies that are not banks.

The interstate restrictions of the Bank Holding Company act were repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA). The IBBEA allowed interstate mergers between “adequately capitalized and managed banks, subject to concentration limits, state laws and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) evaluations.” Other restrictions which prohibited bank holding companies from owning non-financial institutions were repealed in 1999 by Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In the United States, financial holding companies continue to be prohibited from owning non-financial corporations in contrast to Japan and continental Europe where this arrangement is common.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

This Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was written by 3 republicans, Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

also
“the appointment of free-market disciple Wendy Gramm, wife of U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm , R-Tex., as chairperson, would result in her successful 1989 and 1993 exemption of swaps and derivatives from all regulation.”

“On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining) [3] [4] The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[3] [5] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [6] and by the House 362-57.[7] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[8]“

Buffett is trying to have it both ways: blame the Dems insulate Obama. But Obama the responsibility for leading us of this mess IS of Obama. And in that he is failing miserably!!

This is very telling:

BUFFETT: Well, I was going to mention to Joe that you’ve heard this comment recently from some Democrats recently that a `crisis is a terrible thing to waste.’

BECKY: Yeah.

BUFFETT: Now, just rephrase that and since it’s, in my view, it’s an economic war, and–I don’t think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we’re going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and–but we expect to–expect the other party to unite behind us on the–on the big problem.’ It’s just a mistake, I think, when you’ve got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.

That Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act was written in part to allow Citibank to exist by elimnating thye regs that proibited such merger. I think we spent $320 billion on Citibank in the first bailout and are in the process of buying a protion of it.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley also made sub-prime lendors a possibilty and allowedortgage companies to open shop and buy and sell mortgages without assets to back them up.

lute:

Okay, let’s agree he inherited a mess (and that no one “beg him” to be POTUS BTW). Then:

We can’t blame President Obama for the mess he inherited. But we can definitely blame him for making it worse. Stocks are off 28.4% since his election, 15.2% since his inauguration, and 17.2% since his so-called “stimulus” bill was enacted. To say the very least, whatever he’s doing, it ain’t working.

http://www.smartmoney.com/Investing/Economy/Even-Worse-Than-the-Great-Depression/

So, lute: Yes we can blame the current funk of the markets on him. Obama is acting in an utterly irresponsible and incompetent manner. This says it best:

It is curious indeed to have a single crisis this enormous, one which was in large part responsible for the candidate’s victory, and have such a lackadaisical attitude toward solving it. You would think every policy move, every “summit,” and the budget itself – which is a blueprint for the administration’s agenda – would focus on that singular mission: economic recovery. The fact that the administration is running off in a dozen different directions suggests they have either not the inclination or the know-how to address the most critical issue of our time.

No wonder the markets are in a funk.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/57802

When a Nobel laureate like economist Paul Krugman and a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist like Charles Krauthammer both reject BO’s ‘fix’ for what ails the financial services sector, specifically chastising that he failed to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the precursors of the fall; pointing out that both GSE’s flourished into bankruptcy under a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate that failed to even propose legislation aimed at reigning these GSE’s in; then, I have to agree, BO is up to here in fecal matter.

Are the bookies laying odds on BO having a Swiss Bank account?

Sassy, these are my sentiments as well. He’s hiding money somewhere, and we know it’s not in our banks!

well, don’t worry; he also wants to pay off his fat-cat friends and maintain the shift in the tax burden onto the working class that has occurred over the last few decades. so it all evens out.

well, the rich have a lot of power. i suppose that if any leader attacks the rich the consequences may be more severe than attacking the poor. that’s probably why most leaders (obama included) ally themselves with the rich instead of attacking them. btw, isn’t “class warfare” english for “let them eat cake?”

CentralMas:

Do you know why WJC signed it into law? I recall someone asked him recently if he was sorry Gramm convinced him to sign it; but can’t remember what he answered…(so you?).

Thanks!

SM, That One is a, a, words fail me. I’ll take you two of your pitchforks in exchange for a few bags of Snickers – the candy bar if that would be okay.

SM, That One is a, a, words fail me. I’ll take two of your pitchforks in exchange for a few bags of Snickers – the candy bar if that would be okay.