You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #35: It began before 2006 -- here's the graph. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-20-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. It began before 2006 -- here's the graph.
And although I don't represent John King ( :)) they're not his numbers, I got the graph from Open Secrets, and Goldman IS in the new these days.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -John King is showing a graph comparing what Goldman Sachs contributed to gateley  Apr-20-10 06:18 PM   #0 
  - To the victor go the spoils  Xipe Totec   Apr-20-10 06:21 PM   #1 
  - Right, but it's been going on longer than that:  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:36 PM   #24 
  - My guess: The fat cats knew that Dems were going to win this time  FiveGoodMen   Apr-20-10 06:21 PM   #2 
  - They've been doing it since 1990 -- and big time during the Bush admin - I added  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:30 PM   #13 
  - Hmmm. Okay, revised guess: They've been investing extra money to corrupt the only party that MIGHT  FiveGoodMen   Apr-20-10 06:41 PM   #28 
     - God, maybe. There's some heavy stuff coming down on them now, though --  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:56 PM   #43 
  - this time? can you even read a graph?  paulsby   Apr-20-10 07:23 PM   #54 
     - The graph wasn't there when FiveGoodMen posted the first response -- I added  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:45 PM   #57 
        - i apologize then  paulsby   Apr-20-10 08:26 PM   #64 
           - ...  gateley   Apr-20-10 08:32 PM   #65 
           - ...  gateley   Apr-20-10 08:33 PM   #66 
  - They knew b*sh had destroyed the R's chances.  alittlelark   Apr-20-10 06:23 PM   #3 
  - Good point. Why buy someone with no power?  Ian David   Apr-20-10 06:26 PM   #9 
  - ???  Skittles   Apr-20-10 06:23 PM   #4 
  - No -- I hadn't heard that. But they've been doing it for years, and it really  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:30 PM   #14 
  - Their ship was sinking so they bought off the party coming into power  Oregone   Apr-20-10 06:24 PM   #5 
  - Here's the graph -- they've historically favored Dems it seems. Look at the  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:32 PM   #17 
  - You have to pay at least three times as much to buy a Democrat.  Ian David   Apr-20-10 06:25 PM   #6 
  - You know, you probably have a point there -- interesting. nt  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:33 PM   #18 
  - We can have our cake and eat it too! No problem....nt  Change Happens   Apr-20-10 06:25 PM   #7 
  - I'd be real suspicious of puke suck ass john kings numbers  madokie   Apr-20-10 06:26 PM   #8 
  - It came from Open Secrets, they're not John King's numbers -- here it is:  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:34 PM   #20 
  - how about open secrets?  amborin   Apr-22-10 12:47 AM   #76 
  - ahem...  boston bean   Apr-20-10 06:26 PM   #10 
  - Sigh. I hate that. But it appears they've favored the Dems for years:  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:35 PM   #23 
  - So the Republicans get a free pass on a blanket "NO" filibuster...  high density   Apr-20-10 06:26 PM   #11 
  - No -- not at all. My only point is that I was really surprised at this -- as I said,  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:39 PM   #25 
  - Not surprising. Wall Street has over the last few years donated  madinmaryland   Apr-20-10 06:27 PM   #12 
  - Here -- check out the Bush years:  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:40 PM   #27 
  - No surprise. They hedged their bets on everything else.  Webster Green   Apr-20-10 06:31 PM   #15 
  - Yeah, but look at the difference in the past several years -- it's more than  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:42 PM   #30 
  - '04 is interesting. They knew Kerry was going to win, which he did, of course.  Webster Green   Apr-20-10 06:52 PM   #39 
  - Why post the same image over and over? It's in the OP, we saw it the first time. -nt  Commie Pinko Dirtbag   Apr-21-10 02:37 AM   #69 
  - Point well taken!  alstephenson   Apr-20-10 06:43 PM   #31 
  - Let's Review The Two Major Parties In The US  MannyGoldstein   Apr-20-10 06:31 PM   #16 
  - Hi Manny --  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:43 PM   #33 
     - Yikes! How Did You Know It Was Me?  MannyGoldstein   Apr-20-10 10:39 PM   #67 
        - Exactly. All three. :-) nt  gateley   Apr-21-10 10:44 PM   #72 
  - Because it was OBVIOUS by October 2006 that ANY Dem nominee would win in 2008. Even FOX covered  blm   Apr-20-10 06:33 PM   #19 
  - Robert Rubin Was A Republican?  MannyGoldstein   Apr-20-10 06:35 PM   #22 
  - Listen...we KNOW what they do. And a Pres Clinton WOULDN'T have investigated Goldman-Sachs  blm   Apr-20-10 06:44 PM   #34 
     - I don't think you were addressing this to me, but I don't believe that the  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:04 PM   #47 
  - was it obvious in 1990 that the dem nominee would win in 2008?  frylock   Apr-20-10 06:40 PM   #26 
  - I get the whole money to NY Dems, Rubin, etc,but, GOPs service Wall St at the EXPENSE of the rest  blm   Apr-20-10 06:48 PM   #36 
     - i come here for LBN..  frylock   Apr-20-10 06:56 PM   #42 
        - It's not allegiance to acknowledge most Dems seek stricter guidelines for finance industry while  blm   Apr-21-10 10:21 AM   #71 
  - Pay attention  dems_rightnow   Apr-20-10 06:43 PM   #32 
  - I get that...and have always been uneasy about Rubin, though when Dems are able they impose SOME  blm   Apr-20-10 06:51 PM   #38 
  - Well I've certainly learned that today. And I gotta admit, it's a shocker (which  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:06 PM   #48 
  - It began before 2006 -- here's the graph.  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:47 PM   #35 
     - King is representing this story in a way that diverts attention away from the REALITY of Wall St's  blm   Apr-20-10 06:53 PM   #41 
        - Well conventional wisdom has always been 'follow the money' so that's a valid  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:11 PM   #50 
  - Why do you think Tim Geithner was the Treasury Sec, ?  branders seine   Apr-20-10 06:34 PM   #21 
  - Geithner has always bothered me (but Obama didn't heed my advice to appoint  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:50 PM   #37 
     - me too  branders seine   Apr-20-10 07:00 PM   #46 
  - i'd really like to say that i'm surprised..  frylock   Apr-20-10 06:41 PM   #29 
  - So you know how I feel. We're not naive, we know that it's always all about  gateley   Apr-20-10 06:52 PM   #40 
  - Jon Crozine and Robert Rubin were both Chairmen of Goldman Sachs. Corzine was CEO in 1994 as well.  Jennicut   Apr-20-10 06:58 PM   #44 
  - It's the DLC/CAP third way: Give the bankers what they want in return for money and power.  dorkulon   Apr-20-10 06:59 PM   #45 
  - PhRMA gives much more to Republicans because of the 'tort reform' support. Bill Bradley,  Captain Hilts   Apr-20-10 08:07 PM   #63 
     - look at health corporations' massive donations to Obama:  amborin   Apr-22-10 12:49 AM   #77 
  - Goldman doesnt need to donate much to influence GOPers, they already have them in their back pocket.  DCBob   Apr-20-10 07:09 PM   #49 
  - Yeah, somebody else made that point, and I think it may be a valid one. Although,  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:13 PM   #51 
  - This is not new information. n/t  EFerrari   Apr-20-10 07:19 PM   #52 
  - Boy, it sure is to me! That's why I was so surprised. I still am. nt  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:43 PM   #56 
     - opensecrets.org has all kinds of good information on donations  EFerrari   Apr-20-10 07:48 PM   #58 
        - I used to refer to it during the primaries (so I could holler that others were  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:56 PM   #61 
  - There's a simple reason for this.  Xithras   Apr-20-10 07:20 PM   #53 
  - That makes a LOT of sense. I never think of the simple, logical reason, so thanks. nt  gateley   Apr-20-10 07:48 PM   #59 
  - It proves that Republicans can be bought more cheaply than Democrats.  chollybocker   Apr-20-10 07:32 PM   #55 
  - Wall Street loves their neoliberal salesmen, yes.  Marr   Apr-20-10 07:51 PM   #60 
  - This response makes a lot of sense -- wonder how it would track if we  gateley   Apr-20-10 08:03 PM   #62 
  - Wow, look at everyone scrambling to rationalize this.  dorkulon   Apr-21-10 01:08 AM   #68 
  - Looks like Obama got a $million from them  jeanpalmer   Apr-21-10 05:26 AM   #70 
  - LOL  PBS Poll-435   Apr-21-10 10:48 PM   #73 
  - Obama got more $$$ from Goldman Sachs than any other candidate:  amborin   Apr-22-10 12:44 AM   #74 
     - Obama got $$$19.4 million from health insurance corporations in campaign donations:  amborin   Apr-22-10 12:47 AM   #75 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC