Buffett Lies

[hypocritexposer]

Kochs don't own the pipeline- Trans Canada Corp. does... Kochs only own some (25%?) of the Canadian oil that will be transported thru it... The pipeline would not have even been that long term a benefit to MT if our Governor hadn't blackmailed TransCanada and required them to allot room for MT/US/Bakken Field oil to be carried on the line...
Kochs just stand to make more money off their Canadian investments if the pipeline is built to transport oil to their refineries- but aren't the ones building it...

You should do some further research into Koch Industries. And also how volume commitments and pipelines work

:roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Kochs don't own the pipeline- Trans Canada Corp. does... Kochs only own some (25%?) of the Canadian oil that will be transported thru it... The pipeline would not have even been that long term a benefit to MT if our Governor hadn't blackmailed TransCanada and required them to allot room for MT/US/Bakken Field oil to be carried on the line...
Kochs just stand to make more money off their Canadian investments if the pipeline is built to transport oil to their refineries- but aren't the ones building it...

You should do some further research into Koch Industries. And also how volume commitments and pipelines work

:roll:

Well neither of those boys sit on the board of TransCanada Corp- and they are the ones building it:

Members of the board of directors of TransCanada (as of April 25, 2008) are S. Barry Jackson (Chair), Russ Girling (President and CEO), Kevin E. Benson, Derek Burney, Wendy K. Dobson, E. Linn Draper, Paule Gauthier, Kerry L. Hawkins, Paul L. Joskow, John A. MacNaughton, David P. O'Brien, W. Thomas Stephens and D. Michael G. Stewart.

I don't deny Kochs stand to gain-and probably made promises to TransCanada as they will make billions off their Canadian oilfield profits...And MT will profit by getting an employment boom for a few months during building- and taxes off the pipeline (but northern border pipeline owned by TransCanada already goes thru here- and after the building there are few permanent employees left)...

But that is chickenfeed to the taxes and money Buffets BNSF puts into the state- nor the hundreds of permanent employees they have in the state...

I find it comical (actually sad) that you seem to fight so hard against government entitlements and subsidies-- but seem to fully support the Kochs and folks like them getting government entitlements/subdidies thru being allowed to pay far less than real market value for their government owned land leases -- which rips off all the taxpayers of the State- and lessens the amount of funds available for education... :???:

More Hypocrisy :???:

 

[hypocritexposer]

Kochs don't own the pipeline- Trans Canada Corp. does... Kochs only own some (25%?) of the Canadian oil that will be transported thru it... The pipeline would not have even been that long term a benefit to MT if our Governor hadn't blackmailed TransCanada and required them to allot room for MT/US/Bakken Field oil to be carried on the line...
Kochs just stand to make more money off their Canadian investments if the pipeline is built to transport oil to their refineries- but aren't the ones building it...

You should do some further research into Koch Industries. And also how volume commitments and pipelines work

:roll:

Well neither of those boys sit on the board of TransCanada Corp- and they are the ones building it:

Members of the board of directors of TransCanada (as of April 25, 2008) are S. Barry Jackson (Chair), Russ Girling (President and CEO), Kevin E. Benson, Derek Burney, Wendy K. Dobson, E. Linn Draper, Paule Gauthier, Kerry L. Hawkins, Paul L. Joskow, John A. MacNaughton, David P. O'Brien, W. Thomas Stephens and D. Michael G. Stewart.

I don't deny Kochs stand to gain-and probably made promises to TransCanada as they will make billions off their Canadian oilfield profits...And MT will profit by getting an employment boom for a few months during building- and taxes off the pipeline (but northern border pipeline owned by TransCanada already goes thru here- and after the building there are few permanent employees left)...

But that is chickenfeed to the taxes and money Buffets BNSF puts into the state- nor the hundreds of permanent employees they have in the state...

I find it comical (actually sad) that you seem to fight so hard against government entitlements and subsidies-- but seem to fully support the Kochs and folks like them getting government entitlements/subdidies thru being allowed to pay far less than real market value for their government owned land leases -- which rips off all the taxpayers of the State- and lessens the amount of funds available for education... :???:

More Hypocrisy :???:

Who said I fully support the subsidies that the Kochs get? But I can guarantee they have given more back to the Country than you will, compared to the subsidies you have received in your lifetime.

If I were them, I'd give the "greenie weenies" and the other marxists in the US what they want and move all operations off shore, and give nothing back to the US.

Is that what you want?

 

[Anonymous]

You should do some further research into Koch Industries. And also how volume commitments and pipelines work

:roll:

Well neither of those boys sit on the board of TransCanada Corp- and they are the ones building it:

Members of the board of directors of TransCanada (as of April 25, 2008) are S. Barry Jackson (Chair), Russ Girling (President and CEO), Kevin E. Benson, Derek Burney, Wendy K. Dobson, E. Linn Draper, Paule Gauthier, Kerry L. Hawkins, Paul L. Joskow, John A. MacNaughton, David P. O'Brien, W. Thomas Stephens and D. Michael G. Stewart.

I don't deny Kochs stand to gain-and probably made promises to TransCanada as they will make billions off their Canadian oilfield profits...And MT will profit by getting an employment boom for a few months during building- and taxes off the pipeline (but northern border pipeline owned by TransCanada already goes thru here- and after the building there are few permanent employees left)...

But that is chickenfeed to the taxes and money Buffets BNSF puts into the state- nor the hundreds of permanent employees they have in the state...

I find it comical (actually sad) that you seem to fight so hard against government entitlements and subsidies-- but seem to fully support the Kochs and folks like them getting government entitlements/subdidies thru being allowed to pay far less than real market value for their government owned land leases -- which rips off all the taxpayers of the State- and lessens the amount of funds available for education... :???:

More Hypocrisy :???:

Who said I fully support the subsidies that the Kochs get? But I can guarantee they have given more back to the Country than you will, compared to the subsidies you have received in your lifetime.

If I were them, I'd give the "greenie weenies" and the other marxists in the US what they want and move all operations off shore, and give nothing back to the US.

Is that what you want?

Sorry- I didn't know we were comparing me to the Kochs :???: Give me a list of the subsidies I've gotten since you know so much...

 

[hypocritexposer]

Sorry- I didn't know we were comparing me to the Kochs :???: Give me a list of the subsidies I've gotten since you know so much...

I have no idea the subsidies you have taken advantage of, nor does it matter. I can guarantee that on a dollar for dollar basis the Kochs have given back more than they have received in subsidies and then some.

Have you?

 

[hypocritexposer]

August 17, 2011
Stop Coddling Warren Buffett
Jon N. Hall

Long ago tycoon Warren Buffett famously observed that his secretary had a higher tax rate than did the great investor himself. On August 14 in The New York Times, Buffett once again trotted out that factoid in "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich."

Mr. Buffett wants the super-rich to pay more in taxes. The big question for Buffett is why he wants to give the feds more money when he knows they'll just waste it. The problem in D.C. is spending, not revenue.

Warren Buffett seems a good man. He's certainly generous, as he's given away billions to charities. But now he wants his fellow billionaires to "give" more to the I.R.S. Plus, he seems to be advocating taxing all types of income -- including capital gains, dividends, "carried interest," etc. -- at the same rate, which will surely get a rise out of some toffs. I'll leave that item to others and address the following issues:

First, Buffett lumps payroll taxes in with federal individual income taxes, as when he writes of "my federal tax bill -- the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf."

He shouldn't lump them in together, because the payroll tax is a dedicated tax for Social Security and Medicare. Progressives refer to these programs as "social insurance." People are paying for a benefit they themselves will someday receive. So one could think of payroll taxes just as easily as insurance premiums.

Income taxes, on the other hand, aren't dedicated; they go into the general fund and are used for every expense of the federal government.

So lumping these two revenue streams together muddies Buffett's argument, and allows him to claim tax rates for his secretary and underlings that are higher than the highest statutory income tax rate. Using Buffett's logic, one could also lump the cost of health insurance mandated by ObamaCare onto one's "federal tax bill" and get one's tax rate up even higher.

Buffett would have made a stronger case by separating payroll and income taxes. But then he may be trying to pave the way for taking the cap off the Social Security portion of the payroll tax. The better way to address tax reform is one tax at a time. Buffett goes on to write:

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion -- a staggering $227.4 million on average -- but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

If the I.R.S. confiscated the entire income of these 400 Americans, all $90B of it, it would reduce a $1.5T deficit by 6 percent. One might conclude that Buffett's primary interest is equity or fairness rather than the budget deficit.

Since Buffett is contrasting the tax rates of the 1990s with those that came after, I recently pointed out that the highest effective tax rate on the top 1 percent of taxpayers during the 1990s was 24.2 percent. Would Buffett be satisfied if Congress set the top statutory rate in 2011 to the top effective rate of the 1990s? If so, that brings up a glaring omission in Buffett's article, and that is what he thinks about exemptions for the super-rich. Congress can raise the tax rates on high-earners, but if they retain exemptions it may all be for naught. Mr. Buffett deserves special thanks for the following paragraph:

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

What this 12-member commission should do is recommend balancing the federal budget within 3-5 years, and began by cutting $300B-$500B out of the FY2012 budget baseline. If Congress followed through on such a recommendation, I daresay that Standard and Poor's, Egan-Jones and the other ratings agencies would give America back her AAA rating immediately.

NOTE: You might also check out this.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/stop_coddling_warren_buffett.html

 

[Tex]

August 17, 2011
Stop Coddling Warren Buffett
Jon N. Hall

Long ago tycoon Warren Buffett famously observed that his secretary had a higher tax rate than did the great investor himself. On August 14 in The New York Times, Buffett once again trotted out that factoid in "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich."

Mr. Buffett wants the super-rich to pay more in taxes. The big question for Buffett is why he wants to give the feds more money when he knows they'll just waste it. The problem in D.C. is spending, not revenue.

Warren Buffett seems a good man. He's certainly generous, as he's given away billions to charities. But now he wants his fellow billionaires to "give" more to the I.R.S. Plus, he seems to be advocating taxing all types of income -- including capital gains, dividends, "carried interest," etc. -- at the same rate, which will surely get a rise out of some toffs. I'll leave that item to others and address the following issues:

First, Buffett lumps payroll taxes in with federal individual income taxes, as when he writes of "my federal tax bill -- the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf."

He shouldn't lump them in together, because the payroll tax is a dedicated tax for Social Security and Medicare. Progressives refer to these programs as "social insurance." People are paying for a benefit they themselves will someday receive. So one could think of payroll taxes just as easily as insurance premiums.

Income taxes, on the other hand, aren't dedicated; they go into the general fund and are used for every expense of the federal government.

So lumping these two revenue streams together muddies Buffett's argument, and allows him to claim tax rates for his secretary and underlings that are higher than the highest statutory income tax rate. Using Buffett's logic, one could also lump the cost of health insurance mandated by ObamaCare onto one's "federal tax bill" and get one's tax rate up even higher.

Buffett would have made a stronger case by separating payroll and income taxes. But then he may be trying to pave the way for taking the cap off the Social Security portion of the payroll tax. The better way to address tax reform is one tax at a time. Buffett goes on to write:

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion -- a staggering $227.4 million on average -- but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

If the I.R.S. confiscated the entire income of these 400 Americans, all $90B of it, it would reduce a $1.5T deficit by 6 percent. One might conclude that Buffett's primary interest is equity or fairness rather than the budget deficit.

Since Buffett is contrasting the tax rates of the 1990s with those that came after, I recently pointed out that the highest effective tax rate on the top 1 percent of taxpayers during the 1990s was 24.2 percent. Would Buffett be satisfied if Congress set the top statutory rate in 2011 to the top effective rate of the 1990s? If so, that brings up a glaring omission in Buffett's article, and that is what he thinks about exemptions for the super-rich. Congress can raise the tax rates on high-earners, but if they retain exemptions it may all be for naught. Mr. Buffett deserves special thanks for the following paragraph:

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country's finances. They've been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It's vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

What this 12-member commission should do is recommend balancing the federal budget within 3-5 years, and began by cutting $300B-$500B out of the FY2012 budget baseline. If Congress followed through on such a recommendation, I daresay that Standard and Poor's, Egan-Jones and the other ratings agencies would give America back her AAA rating immediately.

NOTE: You might also check out this.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/stop_coddling_warren_buffett.html

I don't think Buffet advocated taking all of these rich guy's money. He just wanted the effective tax rate to be the same for the rich as it is for the working people who are not rich.

The "rich" or some of them, have convinced us all that investment income should not be taxed as much as working people's income but that the SS surplus should be considered as part of the budget balancing. They have had their free ride on that one.

I don't want any rich guy's assets to be confiscated unless he is using those assets in illegal ways to get rich at the expense of breaking the laws and hurting others in the economy.

The "rich" don't belong in one category, and I hope that when I talk about the "rich" you understand this. Some are influencing the political policies to benefit themselves or to protect themselves when they break the law so they can get away with it.

The fact that they can do this shows a deep corruption in our system that benefits them.

Tex

 

[Steve]

Not that I'm a fan of the man, but we have a train track near our
place and it hasn't been kept up very well. Now that Warren
Buffet bought the RR, it's a different story. Lots of maintenence
going on. The guys working on it said he was putting a lot of money
into the tracks, something that needed done as they had been
so neglected. I see some nice RR ties by the crossing which
is in bad need of being replaced. The crossing in town was a
bugger and that's all been redone. So it's not like he isn't taking
care of business. FWIW

I guess I'm posting this to show that no one is totally bad or
totally good, I guess. :?

not taking sides,.. but we have a nice new recently redone unused track through our country.. seems there is a ton of FED grant money available for track upgrades and repairs..

 

[Steve]

Buffet is far from controlling the railroad business- but he is tying up the unlimited amount coalfields and the tracks/railroads that run from those coalfields-

nothing is unlimited.. ever wonder why he is tying up the RR?

maybe the control isn't that far off?

 

[Steve]

All I've seen Koch's do in Montana is play the government subsidized entitlement program

so if Buffet is doing the same with the RR it is ok?

 

[Mike]

Sorry- I didn't know we were comparing me to the Kochs Give me a list of the subsidies I've gotten since you know so much...

$16,252.98 should be close. I guess you're not a crook unless you get a larger amount? :roll:

 

[Steve]

Ifind it comical (actually sad) that you seem to fight so hard against government entitlements and subsidies-- but seem to fully support the Buffets and folks like them getting government entitlements/subdidies -- which rips off all the taxpayers and lessens the amount of funds available

in a few seconds of research..

Back on November 3, after Berkshire Hathaway's (BRK.A) deal to acquire the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (BNI) was announced, ...

$8 billion in federal stimulus funding and you can get a sense of some of the opportunities for Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett.

rail projects getting funding, and, sure enough, a lot of the big ones mesh pretty well with the BNSF route map.

and that is not even mentioning the $95 billion in fed money firms he is invested in received in the bailout..

 

[Faster horses]

That was most revealing and interesting. Thanks, Steve.

Some will probably class it as "needed infrastructure"...

 

[Steve]

I realize buffet is the current liberal fantasy rich guy.. but do you liberals really think he doesn't have a motive in his op-ed?

why would the guy advocate more taxes.. will the answer is simple.. they will not effect him..

it gas already been proven he has evaded the death tax he wanted increased a few years back...

it has already been proven he does not get an income. yep he doesn't pay the income tax we do..

the guy has shares, and pays a chunk of capital gains tax.. and it has been proven he doesn't even pay his full share of that..

it has already been proven his investments had a hand in the FED till for $95 billion in bailout money..

his railroad investment is reaching out for over $8 billion in stimulus funds..

so why do you love him? why is it that you keep falling for people that have already taken so much?

do you really think they are authentic?

 

[Tex]

I realize buffet is the current liberal fantasy rich guy.. but do you liberals really think he doesn't have a motive in his op-ed?

why would the guy advocate more taxes.. will the answer is simple.. they will not effect him..

it gas already been proven he has evaded the death tax he wanted increased a few years back...

it has already been proven he does not get an income. yep he doesn't pay the income tax we do..

the guy has shares, and pays a chunk of capital gains tax.. and it has been proven he doesn't even pay his full share of that..

it has already been proven his investments had a hand in the FED till for $95 billion in bailout money..

his railroad investment is reaching out for over $8 billion in stimulus funds..

so why do you love him? why is it that you keep falling for people that have already taken so much?

do you really think they are authentic?

I think Buffet was actually talking about the 18 percent he pays compared to his secretary's SS of about 18 percent (half paid by him) and then income tax on top of that.

Yes, I think that is an authentic argument. He made it here:

From The Times
June 28, 2007
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.
Related Links

Business Editor's comment: Rich pickings

Buffett turns fire on British disclosure

They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain's private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists "paying less tax than a cleaning lady".

Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was "poisoning democracy". He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world's most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: "I'm making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate."

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: "You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?"

Click here to have your say on the tax paid by private equity.

It is the Koch founded and well funded Heritage Foundation and others that keep feed you all this other stuff that tries to cloud the issue and keep the rich from having to pay the same rates as everyone else.

Warren Buffet knows this is hurting the economy. He probably read about how it helped lead to the leveraging that lead to the Great Depression and our current one.

The issue is becoming a world wide one because it is so strong of an issues despite the rich's propaganda to the contrary.

And oh, by the way, the Kochs have lots and lots of dipping into the same kind of overspending that put us in this hole.

I do think one of their industries, the steel, has some merit because of our sorry trade policy that allowed politicians to leverage up our economy by selling out industries like steel to other countries.

Where did some of y'all say those profits were that U.S. companies were making?---- Overseas or something?

They are stealing the wealth of the country and the earning ability of the middle class while amassing these huge profits over seas while we have perennial trade deficits.

Tex

 

[Steve]

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year

The amount an investor is taxed depends on both his or her tax bracket, and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year

The amount an investor is taxed depends on both his or her tax bracket, and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary income tax rate,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.

Steve, was income from stimulus contracts taxed at the same rate as "non stimulus income"?


I don't know if I have read or seen whether it was anywhere.

 

[Frisco]

I'm a director on our electric cooperative and we purchase our power from Basin Electric in Bismarck, ND, just like most of eastern MT electric coops.

Before BNSF sold, the STB ruled that the railroad was illegally gouging its users on its rates to ship their goods. BNSF owes Basin Electric $119 million in overcharges. BNSF also owes other entities, like grain elevators and so on. So, now that Buffet has BNSF, which he bought for far above its "book" value, he is now trying to use the system to RAISE the rates so he can recoup his investment. So, he really doesn't have Montana's best interests at heart in my opinion. Farmers and electricity users are going to take it in the shorts just a little worse now in just a short while. My husband farmed at Culbertson, MT his whole life before we bought the place down here and I can tell you, that all the grain buyers along the Hi line were held hostage by BNSF and that grain prices were less there and prices were based on available cars and the rates charged by BNSF. Those rates are going to get higher.


http://www.basinelectric.com/News_Center/Publications/Feature_Articles/a-fight-for-fairness.html

 

[Anonymous]

Buffet is far from controlling the railroad business- but he is tying up the unlimited amount coalfields and the tracks/railroads that run from those coalfields-

nothing is unlimited.. ever wonder why he is tying up the RR?

maybe the control isn't that far off?

You are correct- nothing is unlimited...But the figures I saw for the amount of coal available in MT, ND, WY (where BNSF prevails) would sure handle the countries energy needs for many generations... The geologists estimates are that that area alone could provide all the coal needed to power the entire US for between 600 and 1000 years...

I don't have to wonder why he is tying up the RR-- he has said so many times...For the coal business that comes with it...

I could care less if Buffett is getting subsidies- since he is investing so much back into progress and the states...And I'm not the one screaming about saying NO to everything including progress...

But what I do think is very comical is all you folks that scream and yell about government subsidies and entitlements- that think everyone should be off the government teat- that still moddycoddle the Kochs who, as the article I posted explained, are profiteering off their federal entitlements and ripping off the federal taxpayers of the state and country... And whining about it when asked to pay their fair share...

Hypocrits ? Or do all you follow RR preachings- "speak no evil against another Republican"... :???:

 

[lightninboy]

Porkulus bill of Obama was $1.2 TRILLION, payback to his campaign donors at the expense of taxpayers. George Soros received between $4 billion to $5 billion from Obama's Porkulus Bill, investment for oil exploration in Venezuela. George Soros invested $20 million from 2006 to 2008 with socialist/commie democrat party; not a bad payout for a drop in the bucket contribution to Obama's party. Warren Buffett, another supporter of Obama, received money from Porkulus Bill for his railway project.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=4661849&start=481&CurrentPage=17