This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Top Recipient of Political Cash from BP, Goldman Sachs, Defense Contractors AND Healthcare Giants: Barack Obama
Politico reports:
BP
and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal
candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money
going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama apparently also got more contributions from Exxon
and Chevron than McCain.
And Obama had the
most political contributions from Goldman Sachs in 2008 of all
senators. And Goldman gave more to Obama than any
other presidential candidate, and was Obama's second-largest
contributor.
In addition, Obama was the top congressional recipient of defense
industry contributions for the 2008 election cycle. See this,
this
and this.
Obama
was also the top recipient of money from the healthcare
giants in the presidential election.
- advertisements -
Well that explains our continued involvement in the wars, Healthcare reform, and GS's monopoly. Partisan politics is a game played for the benefit of public appeasement.
The proprietary indicators I use can identify trend changes before they occur and they have been warning of a USD rally since last year.
Just posted a new EURUSD chart: showing long term trendline with important support around 1.2770
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/latest-market-outlook-0
Do Americans know what a conflict of interest is? Or are they too busy being free and brave?
So, with all the bad PR around the big O (infidelity, the resistance to audit the Fed, the health-scare and whatnot), is GS quietly issuing CDSs on him not making it in 2012?
O's biggest early corporate backer here in Illinois was Exelon/Comed and their primary law firm Sidley & Austin. I have seen and continue to see pro nuke policies. The only thing I can't figure is the fact that EXC stock has been one of the worst preforming utilities around this past year.
All this was known before the election.
Wall Street gave 5x more to Barry Soetoro than to McCain. Do you think they wanted him to win? Do yu think they paid him to win? Do you think the bankers wanted a ROI?
I don't think it is as easy as "quid pro quo"
After Hilary went down, Obama was essentially the "favorite" to win the presidency.
And of course, everyone is going to gravitate toward the perceived winner, regardless of political ideology.
If you give a cop money it is a >> " Bribe "
and they can arrest you for that..
While it is easy to pick on stinky OB (we all love to) and this is an easy way to do so, it is important to note why he received so much financial support from powers that be. Point blank, those interests had to have a seat at his table and simply could not afford to be left out. To paraphrase the off-record remarks of a chief market strategist from one of the top 5 global 'banks' from 2008: 'we know what we'd get with McCain and we have a very good idea of what Hillary would mean for our investment climate ... we simply cannot afford to not have a central seat at Obama's table if he's elected ... for every dollar that we're giving McCain, we're essentially sending Hillary two dollars and three and change to Obama ... we simply can't afford to not be a part of that table.'
This doesn't negate the bad taste left and is just one possible reason why the financial sector supported him so very much. Would imagine that decision-makers w/in health care affected a similar value play.
And that right there is why we are all slowly going down the tubes. Eventually people will be packing their kids off to "optional" Obama camp every summer so that they can "have a seat at the table" when scarce government jobs are doled out.
Now that is some change you can ...put in your pocket! ha ha!
World's greatest whore ever?
Goldman collectively gave $994,795 to Obama?
Now that's an ROI.
Political correctness works damn it!
obama has a hand up his a$$ making his lips move.
The puppetry is more complex than that as politicians have mastered the art of talking from both ends.
Numbers out of context are meaningless. Let's say Obama got all 3.5 mil and Bush/Cheney got nearly zero. Already that doesn't pass the smell test.
I've read BP hasn't paid US corporate taxes since 1998, and you can figure no oil companies paid during Bush/Cheney.Also that BP has a rig at approximately the same depth in Norway, and the Norwegian government demands BP uses full regulations for safety. Need to know how many BP rigs around the globe, at depths similar or greater to the Gulf of Mexico rig, and what other countries demand of BP.
Back to the alleged 3.5 mil. I asked a paly the other day to estimate: How much tv time does 1 mil buy? How much office space rent does the second mil pay? How much jet fuel does the remaining 1.5 mil buy?
Here's the context. Obama screwed the pooch, er you, when he opted out of the public option on campaign cash so that he could raise $750 million dollars from Wall Street banks and hedge funds, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma and all the other corporate inerests.
OBama put McCain/Feingold 6 feet under with that move. LOL
I'm putting all of you on the No Fly List.
We are not of the Insect Order Diptera, agreed.
obama is rockefeller's medical sock puppet....he was born in kenya and is still today an indonesian citizen....he was installed as president to prove that the military industrial complex junta rules america...
www.obamacrimes.com
"he was installed as president to prove that the military industrial complex junta rules america"
I will buy that... Now tell me why George W, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton "was installed".
To prove it doesn't matter who the President is? .... Depending on what your definition of "is" President "is" ?
Oh please, Obama can't tell the difference between the army and the navy without help.
Last week our Fearless Leader said something heartfelt and important. He said "Some people have enough money."
All right, I've said much the same to friends and family, but when we say it to each other it is a plea for balance, for a full and varied life instead of the all too frequent workaholic syndrome.
When Obama says it, I get the distinct impression he would like to send his goons over and remedy this problem of too-much-money.
Why would an American president say anything so threatening, so divisive, so unAmerican? Where is the MSM on this godawful admission of intent, or have they already signed on all the way to the gulag? Those who have eyes...
"Some people have enough money."
so do some PACs. Bruce should reply with that one line next time the jazz singer hits him up for cash.
Why would an American president say anything so threatening, so divisive, so unAmerican?
Basically because he wants this country to cease to exist. That's what he's worked for his whole life, that's what's written in his autobiographies and that's essentially what he promised while running for president. It's really that simple.
Funny how presidents exert real power depending on who they are.
Some are simple puppets, others can exert personal power beyond any means.
Next time, this Obama guy is going to establish slavery on White people in the US and everyone is going to comply because he is the boss.
The stories people who are tossed from the bowl are likely to invent are fascinating.
Because that is the core of the issue: the US scheme no longer works for some people who take for granted it should work for them.
Talking about an entitlement sense...
All right, I've said much the same to friends and family, but when we say it to each other it is a plea for balance, for a full and varied life instead of the all too frequent workaholic syndrome.
When Obama says it, I get the distinct impression he would like to send his goons over and remedy this problem of too-much-money.
You make such an important distinction and so clearly, and one that is totally lost on the rank-and-file political left.
some people have too much of my money...there, I joined the socialist rank & file...you guys who seem to think that there is no such thing as having too much are a big part of the problem. what's wrong with a little balance in a world where 1% own 80%? Just asking...
Here's the problem. If the thugs are going to steal what we earn, we will leave, and creatures like you will freeze and starve in the dark. Count on it. Someone has to be the grownup and produce more than he consumes. We are rapidly running out of grownups. Look and learn, before it's too late.
I hear this argument often, but it seems to pivot on who the thugs are. Most of the thugs I see are living in the Hamptons and such, not the outsourced and out of meaningful work rabble who struggle to make ends meet with part time jobs. Who is stealing what from whom? Afraid that after working 60 hr weeks for nearly 40 years and finding myself downsized while common thieves make a killing in bonuses gambling the people's money has indeed taught me that it may be too late already. I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your immunity to this reality.
i'm struggling with this one too.
for me, when any bankster gets a billion for a year's work, isn't there anyone else in that system that deserves some of that too? janitors? shareholders? bondholders? ??? could we argue that the CEO didn't get too much, but the administrative assistant didn't get enough? or the mutual-fund investor should have gotten more for their risk?
if wealth gotten is really earned with a valued service and voluntarily, i can't knock it. e.g. lots of us see Avatar. should the 'first grip' in the credits get more, or was it their choice to take $15 per hour. and what if the movie flopped? would the 'special effects supervisor' take the hit for the mega loans it took to produce that beast?
but when some bastard puts my 401k at huge risk but only relinquishes 2%... that's wrong. because i assure you they did not tell me about the real risk.
and when it's impractical for the zillions of ETF/Mutualfund shareholders to reasonably affect the salaries of the top-brass (again, the risk premium not going to the proper risk takers)... that's wrong. proxy votes my ass. the board of directors is a good ole' boys club beyond belief.
and when the communities that surround us, relinquish control of our budgets to the best looking TV advert-titties and force us to 'buy' products we would never otherwise buy (e.g. NEA funding)... that's wrong. i can spend my money better than that crap, down at the local craft-fair.
and yet, many of my close and smart friends do absolutely no homework on their retirements - 5 choices from TIAA-CREF and a lot of hope. god bless 'em. god help 'em.
The State are thugs. The government makes its money through extortion and inflation; those are its only two options. The extortion part is taxation; it is a group of people who have a monopoly on legal violence, and they use this to threaten people with violence in order to steal their property. If you doubt the validity of this statement, watch what happens when a person earns their money and just wants to be left alone and not pay the extortion fee, I mean, taxes. They get threatened and then subpoenaed and if they don't show up to court they are forcibly tazed, clubbed, and dragged out. If they resist, they may get killed. I guess that's not thugs to you though.
To people like you, it is far more immoral for one person to VOLUNTARILY enter into exchange with other consenting human beings. If a person gets rich by meeting the most urgent needs of consumers, allocating resources to their most efficient uses, and accurately forecasts the future conditions of the market now that is being evil! How dare they be so successful without using coercion and force!
But of course, it's OK to threaten people who have not committed any aggression towards you whatsoever because they are arbitrarily over the "wealth limit" you declare acceptable. You're the one with an immunity to reality.
The goons leave if you make a sizeable donation to his campaign.
And where are those Columbia transcripts? What could be more damaging than stone-walling forever? Did he major in Black Rage, or Liberation Theology? How many times did he flunk Econ 201???
i heard he majored in Bamboozling with a minor in Hoodwinking.
senior thesis: "How to Okie-Doke the Liberals in 3 Easy Steps"
You mean no squid pro quo.
We are living in a time of insane corruption, this is exactly what the dictionary definition of fascism is, governance by the will and influence of the corporations.
*snort*
I'm SHOCKED! ROFLMAO
Hey George!! You forgot about Fannie and Freddie donating big to Obama too! (Don't worry... the O-man appears to have (publicly) forgotten too.)
See this article from the WSJ:Fannie and Freddie Amnesia
"As a senator, he [Obama] was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870467190457519391068311125...
And yet we continue to delude ourselves that there's no quid pro quo.
Obama's wallet blow out...
Road to riches = go into politics
That would be squid pro quo. Get your latin right.
tantaene animis caelestibus irae?
Can such anger dwell in heavenly minds?
....uh, OK.
think about it...
whoa whoa easy....ummmm...latin on zerohedge....inevitable. go ramblers.
nice...