MULTIMILLONARIOS DEMOS NO PAGAN SU JUSTA PARTE DE IMPUESTOS

[siboneyes]

OBAMA'S PREFERRED MULTI-MILLIONARE DON'T PAY HIS FARE SHARE OF TAXES

OBAMA USA A AL PRINCIPAL FINANCIERO DE SUS CAMPAÑAS, DESPUES DE SOROS, COMO PANTALLA PARA AUMENTAR LOS IMPUESTOS SUPUESTAMENTE AL TOP 1% DE LOS CONTRIBUYENTES CUANDO ES LA CLASE MEDIA LA QUE RESULTARA MAS AFECTADA POR EL AUMENTO DE IMPUESTOS QUE QUIERE IMPONER OBAMA. MIENTRAS TANTO, BUFFET, COMO TODOS LOS MULTIMILLONARIOS DEMOCRATAS, SE NIEGA A PAGAR SU FAIR SHARE DE IMPUESTOS Y LLEVA AÑOS PELEANDO CON EL IRS QUE LE RECLAMA $1,000 MILLONES QUE NO HA PAGADO EN IMPUESTOS POR UNA SE SUS COMPAÑIAS Y EL PROPIO OBAMA SE HA VALIDO DE CUANTO TRUCO HAY PARA TAMPOCO PAGAR SU FAIR SHARE DE IMPUESTOS Y ASI TENEMOS AL PUEBLO PAGANDO POR LA EDUCACION FUTURA DE SUS HIJAS Y SUS PRESENTES VACACIONES CON SEQUITOS DE DAMAS IN WAITING.

Hay dos principios éticos básicos que han guiado a Obama toda su vida: "El fin justifica los medios." y "Hagan lo que yo les ordeno, no lo que yo hago."

[siboneyes]

Warren Buffett’s Support for Higher Taxes a Way of Paying Back Politicians for Big-Government Policies that Line His Pockets?

By Daniel J. Mitchell 2/13/2012

President Obama, echoed by the establishment media, routinely trumpets Warren Buffett’s support for higher taxes.

If this rich guy is willing to pay more, the story goes, then surely the rest of us peasants should just roll over and acquiesce to the President’s class-warfare tax policy.

Well, one reason we shouldn’t surrender is that Buffett is either stupid or dishonest. In previous posts, I’ve exposed his fiscal innumeracy and explained that he is understating his own tax rate.

I also posted a video exposing the hypocrisy of rich leftists, who refuse to write checks to Uncle Sam notwithstanding their self-proclaimed willingness to pay more. As far as I’m aware, this also describes Buffett.

But maybe all this tax talk is a distraction. Perhaps the real story is that Buffett is a clever political manipulator and that his support for higher taxes is a way for him to pay back the politicians who have enacted policies to line his pockets.

Here are some very revealing passages from a new Reason column by Peter Schweizer. We start with the image that Buffett is creating for himself.

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.

Schweizer than puts forth an alternative hypothesis.

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.

Buffett’s self-interested behavior during the Wall Street bailout is especially revealing.

…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.

What’s remarkable is that Buffett basically admitted he was investing money in the expectation that Uncle Sam was going to make his investment profitable.

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.”

[siboneyes]

PART 2

QUID PRO QUO

According to Schweizer’s analysis, Buffett very much needed a pipeline to the Treasury because of his investments in Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions.

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. …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 same was true for his investment with General Electric.

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.” …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 ssecure the bailout, and the bet paid off.

I don’t know whether the $1.2 billion and $3.7 billion profits were for Berkshire Hathaway of for Buffett, but he still would be accumulating lots of additional wealth even if it was the former.

It also seems that Buffett’s support for the faux stimulus may have been for pecuniary reasons, or at least has a self-interested component.

[siboneyes]

PART 2

QUID PRO QUO

According to Schweizer’s analysis, Buffett very much needed a pipeline to the Treasury because of his investments in Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions.

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. …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 same was true for his investment with General Electric.

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.” …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 ssecure the bailout, and the bet paid off.

I don’t know whether the $1.2 billion and $3.7 billion profits were for Berkshire Hathaway of for Buffett, but he still would be accumulating lots of additional wealth even if it was the former.

It also seems that Buffett’s support for the faux stimulus may have been for pecuniary reasons, or at least has a self-interested component.

[siboneyes]

Part 3

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. …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. …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. …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.

By the way, Bloomberg reporte that the President’s decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline was a boon to Burlington Northern.

Was it part of a quid pro quo? We don’t know, but Schweizer’s conclusion is right on the mark.

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

And if you want more info on Buffett’s unseemly connections with Washington, the invaluable Tim Carney has a column about how the political elite coddles Warren Buffett and another looking at how Buffett profits from bailouts.

The bottom line is simple. When people get rich by providing goods and services in a competitive market, that’s capitalism. When they get rich because of subsidies, bailouts, preferences, and handouts provided by the ruling class, that's Argentina.

I have no idea whether Buffett is corrupt, but I know he is benefiting from a corrupt system. So it’s understandable that people like me suspect that his endorsement of higher taxes is not because of a mistaken view of fiscal policy, but rather because he wants to do something nice for the politicians who rig the rules to give him more wealth.

Daniel J. MitchellDaniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute.

Hay dos principios éticos básicos que han guiado a Obama toda su vida: "El fin justifica los medios." y "Hagan lo que yo les ordeno, no lo que yo hago."

[siboneyes]

IT PAYS TO BE CLOSE TO OBAMA, G.E. PAID NO TAXES

G.E. Paid No U.S. Taxes in 2010

Daniel Halper

March 25, 2011 9:29 AM

General Electric paid no American taxes in 2010, the New York Times reports:

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

G.E.'s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is considered Barack Obama's favorite businessman and serves as the head of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Fred Barnes wrote about Immelt here.

Jeffrey Immelt, Obama’s Pet CEO

Fred Barnes

January 21, 2011

In General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, President Obama may not have picked the worst possible corporate executive to head his new panel on job creation. But Immelt is pretty close.

Immelt is a classic example of a rent-seeking CEO who may know what’s good for his own company but not what produces economic growth and private sector job creation. He supported Obama on the economic stimulus, Obamacare, and cap and trade – policies either unlikely to stir growth and jobs or likely to impede faster growth and hiring.

Just before the stimulus was passed in February 2009, Immelt said in a statement: “Bold, visionary action – like that we need from Congress today – never comes easy, but we urge Congress to expeditiously conclude the stimulus package.” GE, he said, favors “swift passage of legislation…that can be promptly signed by the President.”

[siboneyes]

G.E. Paid No U.S. Taxes in 2010

Daniel Halper

March 25, 2011 9:29 AM

General Electric paid no American taxes in 2010, the New York Times reports:

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

G.E.'s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is considered Barack Obama's favorite businessman and serves as the head of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Fred Barnes wrote about Immelt here.

Jeffrey Immelt, Obama’s Pet CEO

Fred Barnes

January 21, 2011

In General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, President Obama may not have picked the worst possible corporate executive to head his new panel on job creation. But Immelt is pretty close.

Immelt is a classic example of a rent-seeking CEO who may know what’s good for his own company but not what produces economic growth and private sector job creation. He supported Obama on the economic stimulus, Obamacare, and cap and trade – policies either unlikely to stir growth and jobs or likely to impede faster growth and hiring.

Just before the stimulus was passed in February 2009, Immelt said in a statement: “Bold, visionary action – like that we need from Congress today – never comes easy, but we urge Congress to expeditiously conclude the stimulus package.” GE, he said, favors “swift passage of legislation…that can be promptly signed by the President.”

[siboneyes]

PART 2

He got his wish. And two months later, Immelt told the Cincinnati Enquirer that Obama had “pumped nearly $1 billion into the economy… and my sense is that, over time, these things will work.” He was wrong. Unemployment has remained well above 9 percent for more than a year and growth has increased slowly and erratically.

On Obama’s health care bill, Immelt said at GE’s annual stockholders’ meeting last April that he hadn’t personally lobbied for it. Instead, he said GE’s pposition was covered through the Business Roundtable, which did indeed lobby Congress to pass the legislation, and later regretted it.

Roundtable chairman Ivan Seidenberg declared last June that “Washington” – code for the Obama administration – had created “a hostile environment” for job creation. Immelt is a big player in Washington, having been a member of the president’s earlier Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The new panel he’ll head is the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Immelt’s support for cap-and-trade was pure rent-seeking. The measure was certain to drive up energy costs and weaken the economy, but GE was expected to benefit enormously. The cap-and-trade bill passed the House, but died in the Senate in 2009. However, the Environmental Protection Agency may, on its own, act to curb greenhouse gases, as cap-and-trade would have.

In an interview on CNBC in 2009, Immelt said he found the science on global warming to be “compelling. So it’s question of when and not if there’s going to be something done on carbon. Give us some certainty and let’s go.”

He said some people argue for a simple tax on carbon. “But I just think cap and trade is the more practical approach.” Cap-and-trade would let Washington impose a national ceiling on carbon emissions, and companies could buy or sell emission rights. GE, by gaining rights in a windfall as a result of the legislation, would have many rights to sell.

Immelt is Obama’s pet CEO. The president traveled today to Schenectady, New York, where he toured the site of the birthplace of GE before delivering a speech.

They did it again: General Electric paid no taxes
By David Freddoso
Washington Examiner Mar 25 2011

They did it again: General Electric paid no taxes

Halper points out over at The Weekly Standard that General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. Importantly, they paid no taxes in 2009, either. This year, they are actually claiming a $3.2 billion tax benefit.

Our own Timothy P. Carney wrote an entire chapter on GE in his book Obamanomics, which the best available study of corporate welfare in the age of Obama. The company serves as proof that big government inevitably works in favor of companies that are best positioned to lobby it.

The bigger government gets, the greater the advantage it will provide for politically connected corporations. The only thing that can solve the problem is smaller government.

[siboneyes]

G.E. AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

In February 2009, Immelt was appointed as a member to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide the president and his administration with advice and counsel in fixing America's economic downturn.[10]

On January 21, 2011, President Obama announced Immelt's appointment as chairman of his outside panel of economic advisers, succeeding former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.[11] The New York Times reported that Obama's appointment of Immelt was "another strong signal that he intends to make the White House more business-friendly."[11] Immelt will retain his post at G.E. while becoming "chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a newly named panel that President Obama is creating by executive order."

Compensation

Immelt at U.S. Climate Action Partnership event in 2007

As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267, which included a base salary of $3,300,000, a cash bonus of $5,800,000, stocks granted of $4,713,000, and options granted of $0.[12] In 2008, he earned a total compensation of $5,717,469, which included a base salary of $3,300,000, stocks granted of $2,044,650, and other compensation of $372,819. He waived his bonus in 2008.[13] In 2009, Immelt earned a total compensation of $5,487,155, which included a base salary of $3,300,000, a cash bonus of $0, stocks granted of $1,791,000, and options granted of $0.[14]

[siboneyes]

POLL: Romney holds massive lead on economy...

OBAMA JOBS PLAN: WORK AND GET UNEMPLOYMENT

Romney scores on economy

4/19/2012

President Obama holds a thin 46 percent to 42 percent lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a Quinnipiac University national poll released Thursday, even as voters give the Republican a major edge on such key issues as the economy, jobs and gas prices.

Mr. Romney is viewed as better on a number of pocketbook issues that both sides agree could be critical come November. Voters disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling on the economy by 56 percent to 38 percent.

"Republican Romney seems to hold an edge on the economy — the top issue of the campaign — and holds his own against the incumbent on being a strong leader," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

OBAMA SE NIEGA A PERMITIR CONSTRUIR EL OLEODUCTO DE CANADA A HOUSTON OBLIGANDO A CANADA A VENDER SU PETROLEO A CHINA, PETROLEO QUE HUBIERA LIBERADO A U.S. DE COMPRARLO A CHAVEZ.... ASI OBAMA CASTIGA A LOS AMIGOS Y AYUDA A LOS ENEMIGOS DE U.S. A LA VEZ QUE LE NIEGA EMPLEO BIEN REMUNERADO A MAS DE 20,000 OBREROS AMERICANOS QUE TRABAJARIAN EN LA CONSTRUCCION DEL OLEODUCTO

OBAMA"Wanted Higher Gas Prices, and He Got Them"
LA GUERRA DE OBAMA CONTRA LA INDUSTRIA DOMESTICA DEL PETROLEO ES RESPONSABLE DE QUE EN CALIFORNIA YA ESTA A $7 EL GALON.

[sirjohn]

Unbelievable: Jon Corzine still bundling mega-bucks for  Obama’s campaign

Hotair ^ | 04/20/2012 | AllahPundit

The information's hiding in plain sight but it’s still a nifty  catch by the Standard’s Daniel Halper. You know why? Because the idea  that Jon Corzine is still raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for The One  is so insane and implausible, virtually no one would have thought to check. Of coursethat's not happening. Of course.

And yet.

He's in the $500,000+ club for the first quarter of this year,  the most elite group there is among O's cash cows. You know what else happened  during that quarter? News broke that more than a billion dollars in MF Global  client funds had apparently been “vaporized” in the firm’s collapse, with investigators  clueless as to where the money might have gone. As recently as last month, new  evidence emerged pointing to Corzine’s direct involvement in using clients’ cash to cover  the firm’s debts. And yet, presumably, he was squeezing his rich friends for  dough for Obama the whole time. Ace asks a good question: “Why is a man under  investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who  controls that agency?” Wouldn’t be the first time Corzine’s used his political leverageto personal advantage.

If you missed it a few days ago, read Ed’s post on Patrick  Kennedy claiming that the White House rewards its rich donors with certain quid pro quos. Can’t wait to see what Jon Corzine gets in return for his extreme  diligence on behalf of the “Not a Republican” reelection effort. Exit question: Does  Team O understand that transparency is supposed to act as a deterrent to  impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? They love to pat themselves on the  back for voluntarily disclosing the names of their bundlers, but the point of  disclosure is that it dissuades you, at least in theory, from dealing with  cretins lest you be scrutinized for it. Where’s the dissuasion, guys?

LA MADRE DE TODOS LOS DEFALCOS,  CORZINE DONA MILLONES A OBAMA MIENTRAS DEFRAUDA ¡$1,800 MILLONES A SUS  CLIENTES!!!



OBAMA/ CORZINE, UNA MANO LAVA LA  OTRA...

LA MAFIA DEMOCRATA EN PLENA  ACCION

QUID PRO QUO...  LA MAFIA  DEMOCRATA

[siboneyes]

Media Ignoring Michelle Obama’s Expensive Wardrobe

by Andrea Ryan May 2, 2012

By: Andrea Ryan

Unreal.
Last month at the Kids’ Choice Awards, Michelle Obama wore an outfit designed by New York-based, uber-expensive designer, Wes Gordon. His clothing commands prices in the thousands of dollars and can only be found in the elite stores of the super wealthy. If you enjoy spending more than $4,000 on a pair of shorts…yes that is three zeroes after the comma…then you might like this little jacket from one of Michelle Obama’s favorite designers. It’s a steal for only $2,250. Of course, we never heard one peep out of the Liberal mainstream media on Michelle Obama’s high-priced clothing.

But, that all changed now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

Suddenly, the media is very interested in Ann Romney’s choice of pricey clothes…

The fashion house that makes the nearly $1,000 blouse worn by Ann Romney on morning television earlier this week tells ABC News that they had nothing to do with the wardrobe choice, remarking that they’d prefer to stay out of politics.

“We had nothing to do with it,” a rep for designer Reed Krakoff said. “She must have bought it from Saks or Bergdorf’s, we definitely didn’t send it to her.”

“It’s 100 percent a Reed Krakoff shirt, but we 100 percent didn’t send it to her,” the rep added. “We don’t get involved politically.”

The shirt, an item in the label’s 2012 Spring/Summer collection, retails for $990, and for those shopping, is called the “The Reed Audubon Silk Shirt.”

The price of the shirt was first reported by Stylite.com.

Mrs. Romney does not have a stylist, according to an aide with the Romney campaign, and is likely to have purchased the shirt on her own.

A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign declined to comment on Mrs. Romney’s fashion choices.

This isn’t the first time that Mrs. Romney has been tweaked on her fashion choices.

In March, a little girl on the ropeline at a campaign event in Illinois asked Mrs. Romney if her watch was “real.”

Since the MSM has developed a new interest in high-end clothing, here’s a glimpse of Michelle Obama’s expensive, designer wardrobe worn during her $4M tax payer-funded jaunt to Hawaii last December.

So what's the special occasion this time and why is she overdressed for it?