or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Goldman-Sachs Obama Connection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Goldman-Sachs Obama Connection

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/2...-to-white.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON — While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's political action committee, its employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...0/2275442.aspx

Quote:
Reid dodges questions on Goldman $$$

After criticizing Republican leaders yesterday for having a secret, closed-door meeting with Wall Street executives, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today faced his own questions about a fundraiser he attended this year hosted by the president of Goldman Sachs.
Oh and for the record, Obama is not giving back the million dollars he received for his presidential campaign from Goldman-Sach's PAC.
post #2 of 19
And all the pundits are clearly stating that the entire government has been in bed with the financial institutions for many years now, with a stronger tie to the republicans than the democrats.

What is your point in this trying to single out Obama and Reed? How much money did McCain (and other republicans) collect from the financial institutions?

I'll get excited when you disclose a complete list of contributions to all politicians from all financial institutions.
post #3 of 19
They were hardly the only ones, most financial institutions make huge contributions and to both parties
http://www.followthemoney.org/press/...067cfb31196da7

Quote:
The wealthy securities and investment industry, for example, went from giving 2 to 1 to Democrats at the start of 2009 to providing almost half of its donations to Republicans by the end of the year, according to new data compiled for The Washington Post by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Quote:
Obama had unusually strong backing from Wall Street for a Democratic presidential candidate. He raised more than $18 million from bank and brokerage employees, for example, compared with rival John McCain's $10 million. (Obama did not accept money from PACs.) Prominent among Obama's bundlers -- individuals who raised at least $50,000 -- were private equity executives and hedge fund titans, including billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel Investment Group, who had previously backed Republicans.
Both from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022305537.html
post #4 of 19
I see 2 possibilities.

1. Barack and Goldman give each other private Oscar awards behind closed doors a year from now (The awards would be for duping Main Street and leaving us none the wiser)

or

2. This is huge betrayal. Barack wins and "proves" that he is just chock full of integrity
post #5 of 19
Maybe they were just hedging their bets. They are pretty good at that. I have to hand it to someone who can figure out how to make a bundle off of a mortgage crisis.
post #6 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
And all the pundits are clearly stating that the entire government has been in bed with the financial institutions for many years now, with a stronger tie to the republicans than the democrats.

What is your point in this trying to single out Obama and Reed? How much money did McCain (and other republicans) collect from the financial institutions?

I'll get excited when you disclose a complete list of contributions to all politicians from all financial institutions.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/25/mark...tion/index.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar...a-wallstdems21


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...&cid=n00009638
Above are Barack's top contributors in the election.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...=7&goButt2.y=7
Above is John McCain's Top Contributors in the 2008 presidential election

I guess Wall Street and Corporate America fell for Barack's hopey-changey thing too. Barack got five times what Senator McCain got from Goldman-Sachs.
post #7 of 19
Well, once Palin started talking on the campaign trail, an awful lot of Republicans started hedging their bets financially. So, not surprising that contributions went way up. McCain probably would have done better with almost any other VP nominee.
post #8 of 19
Funny, I just saw the same debate between a republican and democratic politician. If you look at the period leading up to the 2008 election, the democrats did receive more money from financial institutions. But if you look at the current situation, repubs are bringing in more than the dems.

The pundit asked both of them if they would swear to never take a nickle from a financial institution in the future. Both got really quiet at that point.

I think they should ban all politicians from taking money from any institution where there is government oversite, regardless of the industry and regardless if the politician works at the federal or state level. Wouldn't that level the playing field and keep things a bit more honest?
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by darlili View Post
Well, once Palin started talking on the campaign trail, an awful lot of Republicans started hedging their bets financially. So, not surprising that contributions went way up. McCain probably would have done better with almost any other VP nominee.
McCain's numbers went WAY up when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
post #10 of 19
Not on Wall Street and Corporate America, obviously. That's where all the financial hedging came from - most people realized McCain would lose once Palin actually got on the campaign trail - her state of readiness and his age were simply not a good combination.

Sure, she has charisma - but not even her best friend would say she's a policy wonk, then or now.
post #11 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by darlili View Post
Not on Wall Street and Corporate America, obviously. That's where all the financial hedging came from - most people realized McCain would lose once Palin actually got on the campaign trail - her state of readiness and his age were simply not a good combination.

Sure, she has charisma - but not even her best friend would say she's a policy wonk, then or now.
What is a "policy wonk?"

Well Palin had more experience than Barack, sad to say. And she mopped the floor with Biden in their debate.

But the "gimme, gimme" crowd went for who would give them the most for free (well, not free, someone is paying for all the entitlements but sure isn't the government) and Independents were naive enough to believe that Barack would govern from the center, I knew that was a crock from the get go.


I think the Independents have wised up, Barack's only hope for 2010 is to get all the illegal alien's legal and registered to vote by 2012. Then make sure they actually get out and vote. But I'm sure they will be told if they don't vote for Barack the Republican's will deport them.
post #12 of 19
Actually, I think a lot of people consider Obama a policy wonk. Bill Clinton was renowned as a policy wonk. Here's a quick definition found on the internet (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/policy_wonk). It's hard to talk about politics without knowing what a wonk is - it's been such a popular word over the last twenty or so years.

George Bush, while not a policy wonk himself, had some folks on his staff who were. Palin? As I said, not even her best friend would say she herself is a policy wonk. It's possible to run a good campaign on charisma, but a person really needs some bright people on their staff, and listen to them. I'm not sure who Palin listens to, actually.

Long term, extremists have never done well in this country (and have led to disasters in other nations). Most reasonable people do not see Obama as an extremist, I think. In fact, he gets hits from both sides, which pretty much means he's a heck of a lot more centrist than some of the fringe right would have you believe.
post #13 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by darlili View Post
Actually, I think a lot of people consider Obama a policy wonk. Bill Clinton was renowned as a policy wonk. Here's a quick definition found on the internet (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/policy_wonk). It's hard to talk about politics without knowing what a wonk is - it's been such a popular word over the last twenty or so years.

George Bush, while not a policy wonk himself, had some folks on his staff who were. Palin? As I said, not even her best friend would say she herself is a policy wonk. It's possible to run a good campaign on charisma, but a person really needs some bright people on their staff, and listen to them. I'm not sure who Palin listens to, actually.

Long term, extremists have never done well in this country (and have led to disasters in other nations). Most reasonable people do not see Obama as an extremist, I think. In fact, he gets hits from both sides, which pretty much means he's a heck of a lot more centrist than some of the fringe right would have you believe.
So say you. Believe me, it isn't, "hard to talk about politics without knowing what a wonk is". What make you say that?

Just because you don't know who Palin's advisors are, doesn't really mean to much except that you don't know who Palin's advisor's are.

Hey! I made it to the "fringe right." I don't believe I ever said Barack was an "extremist" though.
post #14 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post


Hey! I made it to the "fringe right." I don't believe I ever said Barack was an "extremist" though.
I don't believe you...say something "fringey".
post #15 of 19
Some eggheads are saying the gov't will win no matter what, i.e., even if Goldman Sachs wins and gloats, the gloating will anger the American people, who will then demand reform. I think that's flawed because sadly, Americans nowadays don't know how to effectively demand anything. And, if you know anything about the Wall Street giants, Goldman Sachs can be compared to Mr. Spock of Star Trek. They won't gloat.
post #16 of 19
[quote=darlili;2865123]Actually, I think a lot of people consider Obama a policy wonk. Bill Clinton was renowned as a policy wonk. Here's a quick definition found on the internet (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/policy_wonk). It's hard to talk about politics without knowing what a wonk is - it's been such a popular word over the last twenty or so years.

I never heard of a policy wonk. I asked my husband and he never heard of one either. Guess we missed something somewhere.
post #17 of 19
I had heard of a policy wonk but I don't think it defines a person's knowlege of politics, you can describe a person as one without ever using the word
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
And all the pundits are clearly stating that the entire government has been in bed with the financial institutions for many years now, with a stronger tie to the republicans than the democrats.
That much is true. And generally, a corporation or PAC will give to both sides, just to hedge their bets.

However, in this instance, it was way lopsided to Obama, and it was much more than they had ever given to a campaign.

However, they knew they were in trouble, and they knew things could go very badly for them if they didn't work proactively. Just ask Lehman Brothers, who were NOT donating.
post #19 of 19
Imagine if the gov't wins this case via the old-fashioned way -- strongarming. And against a titan, no less. It would be sending the strongest of messages to ALL American businesses and consumers. "We are the gov't. We win and have the final say no matter what or who you are. Even a titan."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Goldman-Sachs Obama Connection