Richest 0.1% Have Launched A War On Us-Fight Back Hold These 400 Billionaires Personally Responsible

[stockholmer]

http://ampedstatus.org/the-richest-0-1-have-launched-a-war-on-us-its-time-to-fight-back-and-hold-these-400-billionaires-personally-responsible-for-our-economic-crisis/


We have endured financial oppression for long enough. In a time of national crisis and shared sacrifice, the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population cannot continue on their merry way, living in obscene wealth and detached from reality, while the majority of the population desperately struggles to make ends meet. We are under attack, and it’s time to fight back.

I work over 60 hours a week and still barely make ends meet. Increased costs of living and thousands of dollars in medical bills have made me and my family move three times in the past three years to downsize and cut living expenses. I’m certainly not alone in this dire economic situation, tens of millions of Americans are fighting this daily war to keep their family fed and healthy with a roof over their head.

In fact, as long as I can keep up this intensive work schedule at my current income level, I’m actually better off than many Americans. Over 46 million Americans are currently relying on food stamps http://ampedstatus.org/exclusive-analysis-of-financial-terrorism-in-america-over-1-million-deaths-annually-62-million-people-with-zero-net-worth-as-the-economic-elite-make-off-with-46-trillion/#food to feed their family, over 50 million http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-09-17-uninsured17_ST_N.htm can’t afford health care, 62 million http://ampedstatus.org/exclusive-analysis-of-financial-terrorism-in-america-over-1-million-deaths-annually-62-million-people-with-zero-net-worth-as-the-economic-elite-make-off-with-46-trillion/#poverty have zero or negative net worth and 64% of Americans have less than $1000 saved. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-most-americans-dont-have-1000-saved-for-emergency-20110810,0,5900830.story As the economic downturn begins to accelerate once again, the majority of the population, which has been struggling for over three years now, is going to be pushed to a breaking point.

Meanwhile, in this time of national crisis, as we keep hearing calls for “shared sacrifice,” tens of trillions of dollars are consolidated within the hands of the economic top one-tenth of one percent of the population. This unprecedented consolidation of wealth continues unabated, as we now have the most severe inequality of wealth in American history. US millionaire households now have over $46 trillion in wealth, http://ampedstatus.org/exclusive-analysis-of-financial-terrorism-in-america-over-1-million-deaths-annually-62-million-people-with-zero-net-worth-as-the-economic-elite-make-off-with-46-trillion/#elite yet only one-tenth of one percent of the population makes over $1 million per year.http://ampedstatus.org/exclusive-analysis-of-financial-terrorism-in-america-over-1-million-deaths-annually-62-million-people-with-zero-net-worth-as-the-economic-elite-make-off-with-46-trillion/#elite


snip

[abelenkpe]

1. K&R please read nt

[brooklynite]

2. Unrec'd

This article simply provides a list of the 400 richest American's. It provides NO INDICATION of which are progressive (remember Warren Buffett asking for his taxes to be raised), and which are conservative.

[Hydra]

3. Hint: A fair number attacked Warren Buffet for his comments

The Progressive Billionaries can speak up if they disagree with the class warfare. They can have any venue they want to do so. I'm sure they are the smallest of small minorities, however, since the 400 club correctly believes that they stoles this place fair and square.

[brooklynite]

4. So, it's okay for Conservatives to attack all Union members as lazy and overpaid...

...the hard-working Union members can speak up if they disagree,

[Hydra]

6. ...Are you actually defending the people who could kill you right now

As well as your entire family, and walk away with a "Good Job!" from the Justice system?

There is no equivalency in your assertion. Warren Buffet can get print time from anyone he asks, and he did. Can any union member? Can even the Unions, the way Obama has been going after them?

If you want to defend the powerful, feel free to take up their flag. It'll only cost you your soul.

[brooklynite]

9. No, I'm defending the people on the list who support progressives...

...rather that resort to simplistic stereotypes

[brooklynite]

12. Patriotic Millionaires

http://patrioticmillionaires.org/

My wife and I were asked to join, but don't think our name(s) add much

[Hydra]

16. 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name

The OP calls out the .1%. There are only 400. They include the Koch Brothers, the Bush Family and many other "Progressives."

As I said, feel free to sign your soul to defend virtual Gods in our world. Like Warren Buffet, they can speak out on our behalf and be heard if they want to be. Most of the time you hear their voices through the think tanks and PACs, though, talking about "sacrifice."

[whathehell]

30. That would be a right wing talking point...Repukes hate trial lawyers.

and as a group, trial lawyers give mainly, if not solely, to Democrats.

My sister is a lawyer and she's a solid progressive, as are most of

her colleagues.

[Hydra]

34. I had to fight my way through the legal system

And I met 1 good lawyer and 1 non-crooked judge. /fail for RW talking point.

[whathehell]

36. Well, I don't know what your personal experience was, but

you can hardly judge 99% of a given profession on

the basis of one experience.

As to "RW talking points", you may not

have intended it as one, but it IS a fact

that Republicans hate trial lawyers and are rarely

supported by them.

[Hydra]

45. Republicans have no problem with lawyers...

...when they're the ones doing the suing. Mr. "Get a brain, Morans!" immediately comes to mind, as does Pat Roberts. They loved Ken Starr, too.

And while it's possible I may not be accurate in my dismissal of of the (il)llegal profession and of billionaires, evidence of various sorts suggests not.

Remember that there is always a general trend, and then there are exceptions. Republicans are generally low-information assholes. There are, however, Multimillionaire/Billionaire Republicans who vote their interests and are not low information, or Republicans that are environmentally concerned.

Every single thread like this has this logical fallacy injected into it by people who think they're in the "Big Club" as Carlin called it. The idea is that because they know some people with money that are progressives, that everyone at the top should be shown due consideration.

*Bzzzzt!* Wrong! As I pointed out further upthread, these are not powerless or voiceless people, like the seniors living on SSI or the teachers who are getting the boot for "Elite" 6 week taught teachers. If they want to do something to change the dialogue or let us know that they support the left, they can and DO do so.

The rest, like the Koch Bros. or Cheney are fair game and should be. They didn't get their wealth in such a way that they should be considered "Holy," especially when they are destroying people's lives(and the law) for profit.

I probably shouldn't bother correcting these misconceptions, however. No one can learn something until they are ready to.

[whathehell]

52. Who has been calling for "tort reform" for the past twenty years or so?

Repukes dislike lawyers who sue big corporations for personal injury and negligence...They'd rather corporations keep their money and reputations so as to continue to contribute to their campaigns.

"The idea is that because they know some people with money that are progressives, that everyone at the top should be shown due consideration".

First of all, I would hardly conflate lawyers with "billionaires"...The former might make a decent income (unless they are public defenders, for instance) but they are VERY rarely "billionaires" or anything close to it.

Beyond that, your above quote regarding the fact that "some" people with money doesn't necessarily mean that all or "most" are, holds just as true for your judgment that "99 percent of lawyers are untrustworthy" just because you had a bad experience with one or a few of them.

[ret5hd]

26. how does a hard working union member go about buying media time...

or even entire media outlets? or get the ear of his senator? or even harder, a senator who is not his?

how does a hard working union member go about funnelling millions of dollars to form astro-turf groups to get his point of view across?

to pretend that a hard working union member's voice is the same as a billionaires is not just laughable, it is truly one of those "let them eat cake" statements.

:rofl:

[Ignis]

56. One group owns the means of production.

Can you guess which group that would be?

:eyes:

[supraTruth]

40. MOSTLY with the prodding of roger ailes' FIXEDnewsCORP.

[Hydra]

49. Sure, but it was definitely on of those

"Don't rock the boat!" moments. The funny thing is, Warren was the one who was saying "Don't rock MY boat, you idiots!" originally.

[leftstreet]

5. What's a 'progressive' rich person? One who feels bad about stealing the profits of our labors?

Do they go to 12 step meetings?

:eyes:

[brooklynite]

7. Well, it would be someone like me...

...someone who contributes large amounts of money to charities which help people in need

...someone who supports Government spending for social needs and the progressive tax revenues to pay for them

...someone who supports Democratic candidates to implement a progressive political policy

But if you'd like to stick to cliches, just assume that because I'm well-off, I must be conservative...just like every working class person MUST be a liberal.

[leftstreet]

8. Are you single?

[brooklynite]

11. No, I'm married to a progressive who makes 30 times my salary...

I love her but the top hat, cape and curly mustache get in the way...

[Dorian Gray]

25. Tell her that she should shave

and consider a new wardrobe!

(I'm totally teasing you. I agree with your point. That there are certainly rich progressives who do a lot for our party and the people in our country. Broadbrushing an entire wealthy population is actually adding to the feeling of class warfare.)

[Dorian Gray]

24. You're a billionaire?

I live in Brooklyn! Let's hang out!

:)

[DrunkenBoat]

15. Warren Buffett talks out of both sides of his mouth. Deeply implicated in the mortgage scam &

fallout.

[Hydra]

17. Face it, you don't get in the 400 club without blood on your hands

Or in the family closet.

He's not speaking out of both side of his mouth, though- he realizes, perhaps unlike the rest of the 400s, that he needs this stable system in order to continue to make his fortunes/have things to steal.

It's almost FDRish. FDR saved capitalism for the rich, but he is marked as their greatest betrayer. Ironies abound.

[whathehell]

29. "FDR saved capitalism for the rich"?....By intent?....Is that what you are saying?

Historians rank FDR as the third greatest American President, coming in only after Washington and Lincoln.

If you are saying that the programs of FDR were designed to help only the rich,

you'll have to show us a link, as he was hated by the rich of his day and

continues to be hated by the reich wing rich of the present day.:eyes:

[Hydra]

33. I don't have the quote handy, but FDR said as much

He basically said that he was saving the bacon of the Robber Barons by saving capitalism, and that they would go back to their usual looting never having realized that he was to thank for it.

I would have brushed that off, but now it seems very clearsighted. He did his level best to build programs that would create the stability needed for "business as usual," like keeping SSI out of the general fund. I think his full idea was to introduce more worker protections, such as the "Second Bill of Rights," but it never happened. Meanwhile, Prescott Bush was staging attempted Coups and consorting with the Nazis.

IMO, capitalism should have been declared a failure with the great depression and dustbinned at the time...but like climate change and pollution, we seem to want to do the wrong thing until we have no choice.

[whathehell]

35. He may have known he was saving capitalism, but that doesn't mean the Wealthy were his 1st concern.

He said Capitalism was a "lousy system", but thought it was the "best" of all the other lousy ones.

I think his concern was for the country as a whole...He DID intend more worker protection, as a matter of fact, he had planned on pushing for national healthcare, but he didn't live long enough.

He thought his style of Capitalism was better than the Soviet style Communism, and looking back on it, I'd have to agree.

[supraTruth]

38. Capitalism provides VARIETY, & variety is the SPICE of life; but we need our SOCIAL SAFETY-NETS

to help US have the comfort to invest in capitalism, EXPECTING to at least have SOMETHING even if all of our other investment bets fail.

[whathehell]

41. I agree with you ONE THOUSAND percent!

I'm APPALLED at the idea that a President with

a "D" after his name had the gall to put Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

on the Table!!..I'm also completely DISGUSTED that we seem

now to be right of Dwight D. Eisenhower in NOT being "wary"

of the freaking Military Industrial Complex

which seems, along with Tax Cuts for the Rich,

to be bankrupting the country!

[supraTruth]

48. EXACTLY!

[Hydra]

42. He didn't save it for the wealthy(unlike the most recent "fix")

But he understood that ours is an exploitative system and that the rich would greatly benefit once the economy was back on track. Other than his projected worker reforms, I never got the sense that it bothered him that the crooks that had caused such a mess and tried to have him removed were still sitting pretty and would go on to be the treasonous billionaires that they have.

*Meh* Nobody's perfect, but if they aren't, we have to fill in the gaps. Seems we're lagging on that.

[whathehell]

53. No, he didn't, and I think you underrate him.

"But he understood that ours is an exploitative system and that the rich would greatly benefit once the economy was back on track".

He may have "understood" this, but that doesn't mean that that was his principle objective or that he was advancing that particular goal....You seem to be blaming him for not changing the entire system...Do you think that would have even been POSSIBLE?...For God's sake, he was almost ASSASSINATED for doing as much for average people as he did!

Given the system, of course the rich benefited, as did everyone else, but for once, in historic terms, the poor and middle classes benefited FAR more than they ever had.

"I never got the sense that it bothered him that the crooks that had caused such a mess and tried to have him removed were still sitting pretty and would go on to be the treasonous billionaires that they have".

I'm not sure how or from where you would get "this feeling"...Frankly, it sounds as if you can't give him more than feint praise because he had the temerity to be born rich.

Meh..No one is perfect...Some of us sadly biased.:eyes:

[russspeakeasy]

27. When Warren talks, he talks for Warren.

:evilgrin:

[stockholmer]

18. Buffett deserves to be at or near the front of the prison queue

Do 'progressive heroes' do things like this?


Buffett – trading on inside information – steals $3.7 billion from the American taxpayer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-18/buffett-generates-3-7-billion-from-goldman-investment-made-during-crisis.html

"Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) has made about $3.7 billion, including paper profits, from its $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) at the depths of the financial crisis in 2008.

Goldman Sachs today said it will pay $5.65 billion to redeem preferred stock it sold to Berkshire. The price includes the original investment, plus a 10 percent premium and first- quarter dividend. Berkshire still holds warrants to buy $5 billion of the New York-based bank’s common stock with a strike price of $115 per share, which have generated a paper profit of more than $1.9 billion, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Buffett invested in Goldman Sachs following the collapse of rival securities firm Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Under terms of the deal, Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire collected a $500 million annual dividend on the preferred stake. Goldman Sachs closed at $159.96 today on the New York Stock Exchange, compared with $84.39 at the end of 2008..................................."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

key quote "Goldman Sachs’s redemptions are “unwelcome,” Buffett said Feb. 26 in his annual letter to shareholders. “After they occur, our earning power will be significantly reduced"

In other words, Buffett wants to keep his hand further in the Goldman Sachs till, as they continue to financially rape and pillage.

flashback video

Charlie Munger (Buffett's long time Berkshire partner), tells the US people that "Thank God that bank bailouts came before handouts" to them and that the Americans need to just "Suck it up and cope"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYHQLNb3zGA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What bailouts you might ask? The $700 billion in Tarp? No no no, how does over $23.7 TRILLION (much to foreign banks) sound?

U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says (article from 2009)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, many said that this figure would NEVER come into play, that at most the totals would be another 700 billion (similar to TARP).

well.......................................... HELLO:

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

Senator Bernie Sanders: The FedRes Audit – “U.S. Provided a Whopping $16 Trillion in Secret Loans To Bail Out US And Foreign Banks”

http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf (go to page 144, 3 of Buffett-related banks,Wachovia, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, got over $1.1 TRILLION in guarantees and zero or near zero interest loans)

and this

(another disclosure, different from Bernie Sanders' audit)

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/the-feds-secret-12-trillion-bailout-of-wall-street/243938

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

Wall Street Aristocracy Got $1.2 Trillion in Fed’s Secret Loans

http://www.bloomberg.com/data-visualization/federal-reserve-emergency-lending

Goldman Sach's (whilst Buffett was a significant share holder (see above), got around $70 Billion in bailouts and loans, Wells Fargo, another $45 Billion, and Wachovia got $50 Billion. That is another 165 billion to Buffett-related banks.


Between just these 2 Federal Reserve disclosures, 3 of the Buffet-related, partially or majority Buffett-directed received almost $1.3 TRILLION in secret bailouts, guarantees, and zero or near zero loans (which they turned around and leveraged out for billions in skimmed profits.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buffet and Drug Laundering Money:


Wachovia (now Wells Fargo under Warren Buffett) laundered $378.4 BILLION in drug cartel money, yet paid a fine of only $160 million.

That is equal to laundering a million, and paying a 423 dollar fine. A speeding ticket is more than that in certain cities. Buffett was completely involved in the negotiations to lower the fines.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/04/wachovia-paid-trivial-fine-for-nearly-400-billion-of-drug-related-money-laundering.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buffett and the Mortgage Fraud Class Action Lawsuit (Buffett now has massive shares in 2 Huge Banks, Wells Fargo and Bank of America that are squarely in Schneiderman's Target Zone):

Buffett Is Betting Against Eric Schneiderman

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11231295/1/buffett-is-betting-against-eric-schneiderman.html


Perhaps. But, if so, the next time banks get government help won't go down like it did last time.

Warren Buffett announced Thursday he will take a stake in Bank of America, paying $5 billion for 50,000 cumulative preferred shares, each with a liquidation value of $100,000.

This investment has already raised red flags in the investment community, with the announcement coming days after Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan vehemently denying that the bank needed capital. Also, the terms of the deal -- specifically the outsized dividend -- have led at least one prominent analyst to declare: "There's no way the bank can make money." http://www.thestreet.com/story/11230870/1/buffett-to-invest-5-billion-in-bank-of-america.html

So what exactly are Bank of America(BAC_) and Warren Buffett up to?

They're betting against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Schneiderman is investigating the foreclosure practices of major banks; http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233633-schneiderman-removed-from-mortgage-deal-committee opposing any mortgage/foreclosure settlement that gives banks a release from criminal investigations in exchange for civil fines.

In this sense, he's a lone wolf, getting booted from multi-state mortgage-settlement talks http://www.thestreet.com/story/11229482/1/new-york-ag-booted-from-mortgage-talks.html while facing pressure from the Obama administration to accept "blood money" in exchange for banker immunity. http://www.thestreet.com/story/11226640/1/obama-wants-schneiderman-to-back-off-banks-report.html
The proposed settlement of $20 billion would protect mortgage servicers such Bank of America, Wells Fargo(WFC_), JPMorgan Chase(JPM_), Citigroup(C_) and Ally Financial from further mortgage investigations. For perspective, the laughably small settlement is less than a single year's Wall Street bonus pool.

clip
-----------------------------------------------

my thoughts

The $20 billion settlement is is actually 7 and a half times less than Wall street paid itself in bonuses for just 2010.($150 billion) http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/video/wall-street-bonuses-150-billion/383180

Buffett despises a true investigators like Schneiderman, and actively worked, along with the other bankster oligarchs behind the scenes to pressure his removal.

Furthermore, Buffett, per the terms of his $5 billion investment in Bank of America, gets paid back before ANYONE else, even the US government, in the event of BOA's demise.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buffett also played his typical disinfo campaign in regards to the rating agencies (talking trash about them, but reaping huge profits through his large holdings in Moody's, as they blatantly mis-rated mortgages in the sub-prime debacle)

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062202/warren-buffett-rating-agencies-and-corruption

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffett and derivatives:

Let’s Hold Benedict Arnold Billionaire Warren Buffett Accountable

http://www.alternet.org/story/146795/let%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s_hold_benedict_arnold_billionaire_warren_buffett_accountable


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lastly, let me turn to Buffett and his widely played remarks calling for higher taxes on the rich for capital gains and dividends.

Buffett owns HUGE shares in companies, he cannot easily pull out of a stock without destroying its market value. He also is known for long term holding, and reaping huge profits, and if his companies get in trouble, he goes running to the government to bail him out.

So, what better to ensure a stock's price than raising the penalty on ALL OTHERS for pulling out by taxing that capital gain at a much higher rate. He is actually calling for the government to force people to stay in stocks much longer than they would have, due to tax penalties. Meanwhile, he completely benefits, as this captive group of investors now is much less likely to abandon the firms that he holds huge shares in. Meanwhile Buffett and his fellow ilk will use ultra-complicated (and previously illegal) accounting methods to offset the increase in taxes he would have paid via losses that he will say he incurred.


I completely agree the truly rich should pay more, as the US tax system is designed to smash small and medium sized firms, whilst the big multinationals, who basically wrote the tax code through lobbyist pressure, pay next to nothing. But Warren Buffett's plans are a sham, a scheme, and also will hurt, once again the small investor and small businesses, who employ 70% of all Americans.


--------------------------------------------

If Warren Buffett, (a billionaire who has consistently used his privileged position to suckle off a bastardized version of crony capitalism which has morphed into corporate fascism through its confluences with the deepest cores of state power) is a 'hero', then........... HOW LOW the thresholds for the heroes of our age have fallen..........

[girl gone mad]

20. Thank you for saving me the trouble.

Buffett is not on our side.

[Hydra]

21. He's on his own side

Status quo = big bucks

Crashing the system permanently? Not so profitable.

[joeglow3]

28. I challenge you

I skimmed through what you had and one thing caught my eye:

"Meanwhile Buffett and his fellow ilk will use ultra-complicated (and previously illegal) accounting methods to offset the increase in taxes he would have paid via losses that he will say he incurred."

What are these "ultra-complicated (and previously illegal) accounting methods" that will be used??? And, I ask this as a tax CPA (someone who has spent time years ago auditing Berkshire). If you could please let me know what these are so I can clue in my ex-coworkers still on the engagement.

[stockholmer]

44. mark-to-model asset & liability accounting (instead of mark to market), off-shore,off-balance sheet

parking of both liabilities and assets (as the situation dictates)for starters. Even mark to market is much more open to abuse than historical cost accounting rules. The horrid Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 further opened the door for additional fraud, as did the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, allowing the co-mingling of investment,commercial, and thrift banking, and paving the way for the explosion in OTC derivative abuses, such as the hundreds of billions lost by AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns, et al.

The Fed and the SEC have also become more and more opaque, and are basically unaccountable for much beyond a superfluous shallow-pool glance into their machinations. Dark Pools and HFT via co-located mainframe algorithmic trading computers have further led to even more labyrinthine avenues of financial malfeasance. The entire system is a quant-designed cesspool/vacuum cleaner of upwardly vertical wealth consolidation.

[joeglow3]

55. So, the very thing Buffett has spoken out against and opposed???

http://www.fintools.com/docs/Warren%20Buffet%20on%20Derivatives.pdf

[stockholmer]

57. you really have to learn that there's what Buffett spins for the public sheeple & what Buffett DOES

http://www.alternet.org/story/146795/let%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s_hold_benedict_arnold_billionaire_warren_buffett_accountable


The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal. (Berkshire Hathaway annual report, 2002)

Those were some wise words from Warren Buffett, the Will Rogers of the financial world. He used to say such things at his stockholder meetings, where tens of thousands come to savor his homilies and celebrate their own good fortune--a kind of Woodstock for people who dig money more than sex, drugs and rock n roll. His fans love to party with the iconic multi-billionaire from Omaha with the sparkle in his eyes. The guy makes people feel proud to be Americans and capitalists, big and small.

Buffett's reputation is as a straight shooter. For years he had only contempt for fantasy finance securities that contain nothing but air and risk. He was among the first to see that if we let toxic securities like synthetic collateralized debt obligations run wild, we'd soon be engulfed in a financial crisis. (For an easy to read account of these "financial weapons of mass destruction" please see The Looting of America.)

But times have changed. Today, Buffett is all about the bottom line. He's taken to defending the biggest shysters in the country--and argues that his own questionable derivatives should be shielded from government regulators.

If this were just about Warren Buffett, it wouldn't be worth giving him more ink. But his betrayal comes at a time when Congress is finally realizing that most of us are truly upset with Wall Street's looting of America. While big bank profits and bonuses are reaching record highs, April's unemployment statistics show that there are over 29 million of us without work or forced into part-time jobs. The BLS U6 jobless rate is at 17.1 percent.

There's a genuine populist upsurge that might force the Senate to pass legislation that would bust up the largest banks, reintroduce Glass-Steagall, control dangerous derivatives and provide consumer financial protection. Buffett has decided instead to lend his credibility to defend Wall Street against Main Street. (Hey Warren, how about that high speed trading that tore the stock market apart yesterday. Are you for that too?)

Apparently something happened on the way to the bank--or actually, on the way to the bank bailout. Good old Mr. Buffett is no dummy. When he saw the Goldman Sachs alumni and groupies in government (like Henry Paulson at Treasury and Tim Geithner at the Fed) shoveling billions (not millions) of taxpayer dollars into Goldman, one of the richest financial institutions in history, he knew where next to put his own money. (Bob Kuttner's Presidency in Peril provides a virtual yearbook of Goldman Sachs graduates now in top government posts.)

The government, led by Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs CEO, pumped $10 billion of TARP money into Goldman Sachs at 5 percent interest. But the oracle of Omaha, put in $5 billion and got 10 percent interest plus extra goodies if the stock price rose. Now that's a smart businessman.



snip

[Starry Messenger]

54. just saved a link to this post on my desktop.

Thank you for this valuable compilation.

[LadyInAZ]

10. hold them responsible? how?

do we even have a person to head up such a task? at least i haven't seen one...

[amborin]

13. kr

[Initech]

14. So why do 400 fucking scumbags get to decide how the rest of us live?

[Hydra]

19. Oligarchy

Codified with money. ..which is funny, considering how the money is created.

[hifiguy]

31. They own everything, or at least nearly everything

and that includes us. We are disposable property in the minds of the plutocracy. Just like slaves were in the antebellum south.

[w0nderer]

22. k&r for reading later n/t

[woo me with science]

23. K&R nt

[JackInGreen]

32. I keep hearing

folks tell me that some of these are good people, and by the odds, they're probably right...which means, imo, that when it comes time for the rest to pay their fair share, these 'progressive wealthy' will stand with us,or start to supplement missing services while fighting for state solutions....or at least stand and be counted loudly, publicly, severing connections and business ties to the conservative establishments and forces that would see the whole of us undone for their profit..calling them out and showing the proper way and leading by example in the progressive spot light.
Until we start to see that movement start amidst the people listed as part of the 400, we cannot consider anyone there to be a friend of liberty, or to be 'on the peoples' side when the money meets the meat
tl;dr - when there are torches and pitchforks at the gate of one of your several homes, be ready to billet the crowd, feed them, and supply material support to change the way things work or you're just as guilty as those that would bulwark themselves against the coming change, and just as likely to meet a messy conclusion.

[supraTruth]

37. We need MORE tax brackets; NOT fewer as the CONS keep selling to Americans.

http://supratruth.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864039-a-proposal-for-real-tax-reform

[Dreamer Tatum]

39. Good...I can't wait to kick Steve Jobs SQUARE IN THE NUTS.

That BASTARD.



(um...get it?)

[WDIM]

43. The money belongs to...

the labor that produced it!
Demand fairness in the pay scale!!!!

[alfredo]

46. The should give a little or lose it all.

[robertpaulsen]

47. Who Runs the World? I thought this study might complement the article.

It's important to understand what we're up against is slightly more serpentine than 400 super-rich individuals. And yet, it's somewhat less complicated. The real control of the world lies in the hands of transnational corporation:



Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

August 28, 2011

In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Their results have revealed a core of 787 firms with control of 80% of this network, and a “super entity” comprised of 147 corporations that have a controlling interest in 40% of the network’s TNCs.


Strongly Connected Component (SCC); layout of the SCC (1318 nodes and 12,191 links). Node size scales logarithmically with operation revenue, node color with network control (from yellow to red). Link color scales with weight.

(Note to the reader: see the very end of this article for a ranking of the top 50 'control holders')

When we hear conspiracy theorist talk about this or that powerful group (or alliance of said groups) “pulling strings” behind the scenes, we tend to dismiss or minimize such claims, even though, deep down, we may suspect that there’s some degree of truth to it, however distorted by the theorists’ slightly paranoid perception of the world. But perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.

But now we have the results of a global network analysis (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) that, for the first time, lays bare the “architecture” of the global ownership network. In the paper abstract, the authors state:

“We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure* and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.” (emphasis added)

more...

http://planetsave.com/2011/08/28/who-runs-the-world-network-analysis-reveals-super-entity-of-global-corporate-control/

[katty]

50. go to youtube and search Michael Ruppert-chock full of

information on how u.s. got to the shambles we are in today while international zillionaires roll around in their greed.

[femrap]

51. Can we get the addresses, too?

I'd like to know where to get some food!

And where are the Rothschilds? Rockefellers? Or did I miss them? Is there $$$ all offshore or in Trusts?

It just kills me about the Waltons.....so fucking wealthy and yet treat their employees like slaves.