The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, once again puts his money at risk while actually taking less risk than it seems in a scenario that he has a history of doing for quite sometime now. If the US financial crisis is stemmed at all, he is pretty much assured of an outsized investment windfall, one the average person can not even think about with so little risk. So why is that?

And will it be mentioned in the testimony tomorrow by Senators who do not want anyone to profit from the government bailout, that Warren already has? He gets paid interest of ten percent, and if Goldman want to pay him off, they have to pay a 10% penalty for that prepayment. Warren also got the right to buy up to 7% of the company common stock at $115 per share on day the price closed trading at $125 per share. Goldman also has to raise another 2.5 Billion from someone else, whose new investment is in front of Warrens investment, as is all of the common stock. Meaning the common shares go to zero in bankruptcy and Warren’s preferred perpetual exposure has preferred rights in the courts when the shareholders get nothing in a worst case scenario. He can buy those shares anytime he wants. Call your broker and see what you can get from Goldman Sachs.

So, again, why is that?

First of all, he has a skill most of us do not have, leading to a well earned reputation for making mostly very astutely negotiated investments, taking advantage of times like these gleefully while successfully minimizing the inevitable poor returns and losses all investors suffer at some point. The stock and importantly the balance sheet of the Berkshire Hathaway company that he manages and owns a big chunk of, is strong and liquid and has an unabashed unlimited profit objective.

He invested 5 Billion into Goldman Sachs which even as one of the best players on the old Wall Street, which technically disappeared last week, still needed to seek the shelter of the government by quickly “converting” to a bank holding company. Even they are not bigger than the market and it’s excesses they helped create. BTW, my holding company application is still waiting to be opened at the front desk of the Fed.

Secondly, although he is already perhaps the richest American, he nonetheless insisted on better terms than you or I could ever get. And mind you, it was all for the benefit of his shareholders, not the American taxpayer.

He is a harsh critic of Bush and also McCain, saying he (Buffet) would need a “lobotomy” in order to change his support to McCain.

Despite his wealth and access, he was not able to get his favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton nominated by the Democrats he openly supports regularly. He now supports Barack Obama and no doubt will be an unofficial advisor to an Obama administration.

Congratulations Warren.

And thanks for your continued support of American capitalism rather than taking your money out of the market as you could have… you greedy guy you.

NOTE: After his death, about 83% of his estate will go to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation presumably bypassing some of the normal estate taxes he supports, in complex transactions most of us do not understand and which are beyond our reach. Nevertheless, he is a man I admire very much and who has already supported many non political causes and reportedly taken every tax deduction allowable.

On Larry King Live just a few minutes ago, Nancy Pelosi, a self proclaimed Washington OUTSIDER, said this is what will give immediate relief (10 days) to Americans (at the gas pump).

First, Free Our Oil:

Then, Drill where already approved:

And Stop Speculation:

And Use Natural Gas:

Hmmm, maybe an airtight energy policy for America, now and into the future.

I call upon President Bush to open up the SPR, I know it would make some of our enemies happy, not sure about anything else.

What do you think The Nancy Pelosi Energy Policy would do to bring gas prices down and presumably keep them down?

young, self focus,e egotism, narcisism, can do whatever want, invincible no consequences

We have a defacto suicidal oil avoidance policy which makes Bush’s shortsighted oil focus look like a misdemeanor in a world of capital crimes.

Bush once declared he was never part of “big oil,” rather he once was part of “little oil”. Bad, bad man. So punish the entire US population.

Well, I say to you, Cuba and China working together to drill for oil in our neighborhood is about Big Oil, but not what ignorant shortsighted politically motivated environmentalists usually think of. Such Stinging hypocrisy. I am an environmentalist, but do not think we have to commit suicide.

They have their heads in the wrong place and deserve any peculiar awards they get. Any ideas?

Suicide. Oil. Policy. Not by Bush.  Get it? Iraq WAS about oil, not our appropriating it, but specifically about keeping oil lanes and supplies open to all of the world including poor countries who are dependent on oil and cannot assure it’s availability in a world where volatile countries own and control a lot of oil. It is important to keep the shipping lanes open and half of our military expenditures may be directed to that end for the BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE FREE AND OTHER WORLDS WHO USE OIL.

Do you know any country that does not use oil?

Do these Energy Brilliants know that while Brazil may be independent of oil thanks to massive forest destroying cultivation of sugar cane and it’s wide use throughout the country they still search for oil? No matter, damn those Exxon profiteers! Boycott their gas stations until they reduce their gas prices. Again, no matter, just fly me in a private jet to the next conference without delay, my limousine and award is waiting.

You follow in a non private plane to take my picture. And don’t be late. And do not us oil products made in the US, be sure to get them off the next boat from half way around the world. Hope any leaks are not on our shores.

Who cares that Venezuela, the country controlled by a mad man who “cares about the people”, owns Citgo. Why bother boycotting them? Well, because they are not Exxon, the Great Satan, who produces, what? Only a small percentage of world wide oil production? How can that be?

No matter. They only give 40% of their political donations to liberals, Democrats or progressive interests so they are bad.

Despite not being dependent on oil, Brazil and it’s sovereign Oil Firm has recently announced that they looked for and found new massive oil reserves in offshore fields. A second one just recently. But only because they looked for it, found it and will drilled it without the permission of god-like US environmentalists. Big Oil again. Taxem, taxem I say.

It is good news for these politically motivated liberal environmentalists because they will get to rejoice that Exxon is not going to make those profits, let along those made off our very own shores. After all if they did, we would have to penalize them and tax the “windfall” for making maybe an 8 to 10% return on equity on a large investment base. That is not a windfall even if measured in billions. Goldman Sachs just announced a poor financial result for the last quarter, just a little over 2 Billion. Where are the cries for a windfall profit on a company that probably makes 60% of their political donations to liberals, Democrats and progressives.

Many industries make a far greater return, but no matter, penalize them. Union pensions own a lot of stock in such companies but that is just hypocrisy, not worthy or mention.

Such shortsighted folks, including those sympathizers in government, do not know what a windfall is. Their extraordinary pensions, health care and other perks and fine china are windfalls and should be taxed at 90%.

Actors or actresses getting 1 to 20 million for a single movie taking 4 months to film, is a windfall requiring poor people to pay $8 to $12 per person for a movie.

An athlete getting similar egregious salaries so that poor people have to pay through the nose to see a single game, is a windfall. Oh and do not forget the 4 dollar popcorn. Unhealthy oil included at no extra charge.

Bill O’Reilly and Larry King’s salary and benefits are egregious and true windfalls.

Al Gore makes windfall profits by scaring us but has no solutions his own worshipful constituency would pay for. Hugh fees for speeches by former Presidents like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are windfalls.

Which US legislator is going to introduce the Windfall Profits Tax on Brazil? Or Reagan’s estate or Clinton’s ventures?

Or Cuba or China or Russia?

Hey, how about this, let’s tax Iran for their windfall profits!

Why didn’t we think about this sooner? Notice something here? Those are countries, not stockholder profiteers owned by our pension funds and universities. All conduct foreign policy and build and buy weapons and train and pay for armies. No conflicts of interest there, is there?

Kind of like several much bigger Exxons, some with nuclear weapons, others wimply with nuclear ambitions like Iraq under Saddam. Where will they get the money for those kinds of programs? Not from Profits but from the entire asset base of the company/country. Wake up.

Moveon.org is circulating a petition amongst it’s loyal followers to get Scott McClellan, current worst nemesis of George Bush afters years of quiet loyal service to give up his profits. Scott rebelled against the ridiculous fifth grade tactics (with real world consequences ) of the Valerie Plame Affair that made him look stupid. After reflecting when he was fired but given an offer of reminiscing at Bush’s Crawford ranch someday, he he fell into the arms of the press and the left. No, I am not going to say there is no difference. Those days are over. The press now has it’s own left wings and right wings. Moveon says:

“But McClellan shouldn’t profit off the role he played in our nation’s largest foreign-policy blunder,” the release reads.

“After spending years defending the Bush administration and perpetuating the lies that led our country into war, Scott McClellan is poised to make bank - his tell-all book is a best-seller, and he may make hundreds of thousands or millions,” MoveOn says. “Meanwhile, our troops are still dying in Iraq.”

Moveon wants McClellan to donate his profits under whatever pressure it takes, as Feith did, albeit voluntarily, to veterans groups.

The idiot conservatives on the right, in an open but Plame like tactic to punish, gave moveon the idea by calling for McClellan to match Feith’s altruism.

The attempts to rid Scott of his booty he no doubt feels he earned for the abuse he quietly suffered in the Bush Administrations is just another assault on freedom and free market capitalism with politically motivated applications of power.

Like Maxine Waters wanting to nationalize the oil industry but not wanting to say the word or not remembering it. Later is unlikely.

And like the current proposal to nationalize the property reinsurance industry presumably so that insurance will continue to be available to those who live and build in dangerous areas and at a new lower price than the private market would command. Warren Buffet needs a profit you understand. And he deserves it.

Now the Congress and Senate can get into the action saving the world from Al Gore’s rising ocean waters and save everyone else who is the victim of natural disasters from tornadoes to hurricanes and more. This will come at the expense of adding more liabilities to the taxpayer now and in the future, just as the poorly planned Iraq war has done and just as the bipartisan use of politically and personally motivated use of earmarks does. Maybe in every bill they pass.

If the reinsurance plan goes through, you might want to consider buying Allstate and State Farm stock in a cynical application of capitalism with an invisible hand, different that described by Adam Smith, looking out for you, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Most media outlets have widely reported the discovery by Petroleo Brasileiro SA, also known as Petrobras, the state controlled Brazilian oil company, of a new oil field 155 miles off shore and close to the Tupi oil field found two years ago. The Tupi field was the largest “find” since 1976 in the world

I wonder if they will develop the fields, extract oil, deliver it to downstream users and refiners etc etc? I wonder if they will make a lot of money doing that? Will they gain political power along the way?

In CNN reports this morning there was excitement over the find because it holds the prospect to help in the supply and demand balance currently out of whack from our price perspective only, due to massive increases in oil use in Asia with insufficient corresponding increases in production and because Brazil is closer to the US and more politically stable than the Middle East.

Hundreds of millions of once poor people overseas are now enjoying capitalism and are spending it on cars, gas and so on. Why couldn’t they just be happy remaining poor?

How is it, that “we” are happy when foreign countries find and exploit very profitable polluting energy sources that would be called BIG BAD OIL if it were a US company, owned by shareholders?

It is interesting that these “finds” are the result of aggressive “looking” for oil sources that was unknown to the world before the “find.”

The US, on land and offshore, ostensibly in the interests of environmentalism, has put vast amounts of old energy “finds” off limits which discourages US bases BIG BAD OIL from “looking” for new sources. That forces them to try to negotiate with Foreign Governments to replace waning oil fields and to access new sources for their legitimate business.

How would you like to negotiate to drill for oil in Venezuela, Russia, Iran or other state monopoly circumstances? Think these Capitalist Countries have any conflicts of interests in the deal? Think they meld foreign policy into the deal. They have too much power and US based publicly owned shareholder oil companies enjoy no such advantage although the anti oilers make it sound like US based oil companies are the devil.

Seems we would rather continue to compromise energy security and Hypocritically applaud and continue to use oil found and exploited by foreign governments who will use that oil as a weapon to get what they want.

I am an environmentalist and I thing politically partisan environmentalist deserve all the disdain I hope is heaped on them as our voters, hopefully wake up.

Recently I met a very liberal Canadian who complained that under NAFTA Canada is obligated to delivery a certain amount of oil to the US while they have to buy some from foreign countries. He blamed it on the Bush Administration! Another reason to impeach him.

Were it true I would help pay for the filing of impeachment papers. We need to “impeach” those who force the US to pursue a suicidal oil avoidance policy.

So, is it good new or bad news?

Is Al Gore a hypocrite if he uses Petrobas oil to continue his disproportionate use of energy? Yes, and he should be retroactvely impeached for doing nothing about energy security as a powerful VP in the Clinton Administration,. Nothing except prepare to get rich enough to use egregious amounts of polluting energy which is enriching our enemies.

It seems striking to me that the talking heads who are obviously Obama supporters (Chris Matthews et al) seem most completely distressed by the witty performances of Rev Wright.

There is a poll out saying that 41% or more say the Reverend’s non bombastic debut on the national stage “with a difference” has harmed Barack Obama. Thrown him under the bus according to Keith Olberman and others.

What if those 41% were already McCain or Hilary supporters? If so, is this just so much hysteria about nothing? Could the media actually be guilty of making the news rather than reporting it?

The death of Charlton Heston reminds us of the abusive and misleading techniques perfected and unjustly rewarded that Michael Moore uses while prosecuting the Moore Mojo.

See this post for more detail on Moore Abuse of a lifelong liberal who just happened to support the Second Amendment, a fatal mistake among many, not all, of those who misleadingly call themselves liberal and progressive. They are actually very accomplished hypocrites with great bumper sticker skills.

The Obama campaign is increasingly about how wonderfrul the Obama campaign is. Not sure if that is with or without the Obama girl.

Joel Stein of the LA Times thinks the message is becoming too self referential…..

For sure, the Obama movement is about Clinton and Bush fatigue, is a creature of our pop culture and everyones desire for more peace.

Romney evidently agrees that he said - paraphrased, “There is no question Bush and Maliki must have a series of private timetables they speak about (between themselves) but we do not want them (terrorists in Iraq) to wait in the weeds until we are gone”

McCain has characterized that statement as supporting a timetable during the time frame when McCain very publicly campaigned against any kind of time table and for the Surge and against Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld finally fell under the weight of McCains’ continuing criticism.

At the time, many thought he was politically dead because of his support for the very unpopular Surge. How is it, that it seems to have become even more unpopular today because nobody is talking about it

Her position is that for the first time women have a chance to have someone who will represent all women in America, which can not be done by any man including African American Barack Obama. The gender and race war tensions are breaking out all over the Democratic Party.

In my humble opinion, Hillary has certainly earned her shot at the top spot,

This was written January 23 and now that the voters, especially younger college age ones are confirming it’s forecast and awarding Obama state after state and delegate after delegate, one wonders if the Super Delegates will follow suit:

It seems growing numbers of the Democratic press, pundits, money types, king makers etc are joining Arianna some counterparts on the right and are either behind This Movie or want to avoid having to talk about and relive it’s contents during a Clinton Third Term.

The Black African American Barack O’bama, may be the least controversial Democratic candidate remaining. This despite his unique background, with a white mother from Kansas, whose father was from Kenya and barely knew Barack, and whose step father took the family to Muslim Indonesia to live. And this despite relatively radical politics of his youth when he at least experimented with serious drugs by his own account.

This from Bill Clinton from a pulpit while applauding Martin Luther King for bringing this about.
But why is Bill getting directly in the face of Barack Obama in a way a Vice President in most administrations plays the heavy instead of the President, or in this case Hillary as the candidate.

Is it working or hurting the campaign is the tough question. Obama wants to keep his hands clean so maybe he should leave the responses to Bill for someone else in his campaign. After all in this race, Obama is a level above R. First Dude.

Rich Lowry calls Bill Clintons’ antics against Barack Obama as that of a man child.