Has the Fed "put" eliminated the need for bonds in a portfolio? 60/40 NG?

I think bonds are not a good choice and prefer the Buffet 90 10 concept: 90% stocks, 10% short term treasuries. I do invest 10% in value as part of my stock portfolio, so this can be viewed as a bond proxy.. Why? I believe the bond/stock markets have been fundamentally changed by the Fed' change. Since the mid 80s, Greenspan and the fed have used policy to protect the stock market, at the expense of the bond market. The Greenspan "Fed Put" was a market term for the Federal Reserve policy under Chair Alan Greenspan of cutting interest rates and injecting liquidity during financial crises to rescue the stock market from major declines. Thus, the stock market downturns, where bond market rise, are rare. And the performance of the band market are terrible, especially when including inflation. And the deficit grows. In the past, the Fed stayed on the sidelines and let the stock market crash, layoffs and the economy reform. The Fed Put now emboldens investors, because they are rescued later. Most of the 60/40 split uses data from 1950 onward. This assumes the Fed has not changed it policies since then. That is untrue. The Fed has increased its role in the markets. The bond market's glory days were from the 80s to 2000 as interest rates were always falling from those high rates set by Volker. Falling rates are great for Bonds. That is now over. The Fed will continue its "put" until the deficit makes treasuries run high beyond the fed's control. maybe 20 years from now.