President Obama has proven he cannot be bought, so Wall Street donors snub him and turn to Romney.

[ClarkUSA]

President Obama has shown he can't be bought, so Wall Street is now snubbing him in favor of Romney. The false narrative that he is a "corporate tool" is again debunked by the facts:

"It is no secret that the relationship between President Obama and Wall Street has chilled. A striking measure of that is the latest campaign finance reports," the New York Times reports.

"The imbalance exists at large investment banks and hedge funds, private equity firms and commercial banks... It could widen as Mr. Obama, seeking to harness anger over growing income inequality, escalates his criticism of the industry, after a year spent trying to smooth ties bruised by efforts to impose tougher regulations."

One example: "Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million -- more than donors from any other private employer in the country -- have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm's employees."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/10/16/wall_street_snubs_obama_in_favor_of_romney.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Wall Street donors should know. His constant critics have shown they have no facts on their side...

... and no lack of false narrative laced with vitriol. Thanks for illustrating my latter point so clearly. :smoke:

[great white snark]

4. So now you speak for Wall St.?

Got it.

[theaocp]

5. As an aside,

I find a disconnect between your graphic and FrenchieCat's. Neither here nor there, but back to our regularly-scheduled wonderings of why Timmeh is still around, ESPECIALLY if WS is snubbing Obama. :shrug:

[SwampG8r]

43. you got to cast a lot of bait

if you expect to fool the fish

[Wilms]

6. .

Obama heads first to a private $35,800-a-head fundraiser at a Fifth Avenue home, then makes his way to a "campaign inaugural gala dinner" at the Waldorf-Astoria's Starlight Roof, and ends with an appearance at a fund-raising concert by The Roots at Town Hall.

The Fifth Avenue fundraiser is being hosted by public relations mogul Michael Kempner and financier Orin Kramer in the home of former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, according to Politico.

The gala at the Waldorf-Astoria, described as "relatively small" in an email to supporters from Democratic fundraiser Sally Minard, has tickets ranging from $2,500 to $25,000.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Obama-Back-in-NYC-on-Wednesday.html

[ClarkUSA]

7. What Warren Buffett said about why Wall Street is "withholding their support" for President Obama...

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, said Wall Street bankers don’t believe they’ve been embraced by President Barack Obama and are consequently withholding their support.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5014041&mesg_id=5014041

Mr. Buffett knows better than any of us how Wall Street views President Obama. A few Democratic donors from Wall Street does not change the veracity of his general point.

[Wilms]

8. The 99% aren't feeling particularly embraced with Obama's cabinet choices.

If he wants to send a message, he could start there.

[ClarkUSA]

9. You don't speak for me or the large majority of liberal Democrats who approve of this President.

And drop the 99% pretense; there are plenty of teabagger conservative Joe the Plumber types across the nation who think President Obama's socialist takeover of government is the problem.

[Jakes Progress]

13. Check the news. There is a thing called OWS.

That is where the poster got the 99% term. Sheesh.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Um, I know.

[Jakes Progress]

20. Not reflected in your reply.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

39. those 99% don't all disapprove of Obama tho so trying to imply that is foolish n/t

[polichick]

10. True - if he made some big changes there it would signal a critical turning point.

[meow2u3]

14. He can start by firing his Wall Street cabinet members and advisors

Geithner, Daley, and all the Wall Street execs turned polticians have to go, and go now! No pensions, no back pay, no severance pay.

He can continue by putting the same pressure on Republicans for his jobs bill that Cheney put on Democrats when it came to the illegal wars and the bailout of the banks.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Why should he? Did you demand this of every Democratic President?

They work for him, not the other way around. Elizabeth Warren never complained about corruption from her colleagues in the WH, so what do you know that she didn't?

[boppers]

40. You speak for the 99%?

I wasn't aware that there was a spokesperson yet.

[Skittles]

11. but those folk aren't BUYING him, Wilms

seriously :rofl:

[LWolf]

12. "Shown he cannot be bought."

:spray: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

17. "can't be bought"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[emilyg]

38. Made me laugh, too.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

19. That's sad, but looks to be true considering how he's tried to stay on their good side...

Maybe now he can clean out his corporate administration and make a new start. I know, that's still clinging to hope but it sure would be nice.

[ClarkUSA]

22. No, he pushed through Wall Street reform, which put him on their bad side of Wall Street.

[polichick]

23. "Wall Street 'Popping Champagne' Over Watered-Down Financial Reform Bill"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/wall-street-popping-champ_n_589323.html

[ClarkUSA]

24. "U.S. Chamber of Commerce Coordinating Wall Street's Stealth Lobbying Campaign To Kill Reform"

As the Politico Playbook reported yesterday morning, “financial-services giants are going grassroots” to lobby against reform. ThinkProgress has learned that the banks and financial conglomerates are using the same stealth lobbying operation the health insurance industry employed last year to mobilize opposition. Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Master Card, and other industry players are working through “Democracy Data & Communications” (DDC) — a firm that specializes in helping corporations activate their employees and customers into grassroots advocates — to join the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s effort to kill reform.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/04/24/93244/stealth-chamber-banks

They were unsuccessful in killing this bill, thanks to President Obama's and his Congressional allies' determination.

[polichick]

25. "They were unsuccessful." LOL - keep telling yourself that.

[ClarkUSA]

26. It's a fact, dear. Read all about it. -->

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dodd-frank+bill&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[polichick]

29. They were very successful in watering it down, "dear." Keep dreaming.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Happy? Not nearly enough, Precious. --> "Volcker Rule Unveiled: May Slash Wall Street Bonuses"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799121&mesg_id=799121

Those who pop champagne last... laugh most, dear.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

21. That's a false narrative. Empty negative rhetoric is such a bore.

[Scurrilous]

28. K & R

:thumbsup:

[robinlynne]

32. and yet his largest donor IS wall street. not employees. Wall Street. period.

[ClarkUSA]

34. Prove it. FYI: Out of 760,000 donations in Q3, 98 percent came in increments of $250 or less.

In 2008, his largest donor was The University of California.

During the last quarter, 606,207 people donated to BarackObama.com, including more than 250,000 who had never contributed to the president before:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x796168

Unlike all other modern major presidential candidates - past and present - he doesn't take donations from PACs or federal lobbyists, either.

[bhikkhu]

36. How it looks so far (vs romney, for instance):

I think the problem with donors is the same as the problem with taxes - you can complain that rich people pay so much more money in taxes than the rest of us, because they have all the money,

And you can complain that wealthy donors donate so much more than the rest of us, but I think that too is because they have all the money.

[robinlynne]

50. AND because they are allowed to. Elections should all be publicly funded, period.

[boppers]

41. Blatantly false. This is what happens when people omit qualifiers.

His biggest donors to his presidential campaign:
(From http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638 )

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

[robinlynne]

49. You proved my point. Add up the amounts by sector.

[ClarkUSA]

54. So what? By your logic, you proved my OP's point.

[robinlynne]

56. Your Op's point is pure conjecture. Obama hasn't proven anything to anyone.

He is bought. the moment he put his cabinet together, it was pretty obvious.
or else he is simply working for the wrong side.
your choice.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Those are false statements. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

"Why Wall Street Hates Obama":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=798833&mesg_id=799810

[boppers]

73. Okay, we can do that:

University of California $1,648,685
Harvard University $878,164
Stanford University $595,716
Columbia University $547,852
Educational dollars: $3,760,597

Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Morgan Stanley $512,232
UBS AG $532,674
Banking/Financial dollars: $3,603,567

Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
IBM Corp $532,372
Tech dollars: $2,199,079

Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
Latham & Watkins $503,295
Legal sector dollars: $2,197,800

Time Warner $624,618
National Amusements Inc $563,798
Entertainment dollars: $1,188,416

General Electric $529,855
Huge-hard-to-classify-business-empire dollars: $529,855

US Government $513,308
Government dollars: $513,308

Seeing as how my breakout does not seem to have the same conclusion as you proposed, perhaps you could explain how you would " Add up the amounts by sector."?

[robinlynne]

33. so when and how did he prove he can't be bought?

[ClarkUSA]

35. Did you bother to read the OP? Follow the money trail detailed in campaign finance reports.

[robinlynne]

48. Did he turn down money from a big bank?

[ClarkUSA]

53. Moving the Blame Obama goalpost now that I've proved you wrong twice?

:nopity:

[SwampG8r]

44. it was a lease with an option to buy

they may have decided to try a new model

[mitchtv]

37. proven eh?

sounds like 180 degree turn around, and big news. I'll be waiting.

[SwampG8r]

42. it seems like every post by you should begin

"Once upon a time...."

[polichick]

46. And end with: "Super Obama lived happily ever after!"

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. oh for fuck sake!!! I'll support Obama. There is no choice. And I even think he might move in a more

progressive direction. But PLEASE!!! Don't insult peoples' intelligence.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Facts add to people's intelligence: "Why Wall Street Hates Obama" (Slate)

Wall Street hates Barack Obama. That much, we know. But why? Just three years ago, he was Wall Street’s favored candidate. After being elected, he helped bail them out. He stopped Congress from going after their pay. He rejected proposals for radical reforms like breaking up the biggest banks. You would think Wall Street would give Obama a big Christmas bonus this year. Instead, they’re mobilizing against him.

There have been several competing theories for why the finance industry has turned on the White House. One is policy: The administration pushed through the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill, which tamps down on proprietary trading, leverage, and other tools banks use to increase profits. Another is ideology: Wall Street fingered Obama as a socialist, seeking to redistribute its hard-earned capital gains to the lazy and poor. A third explanation is psychology: Obama clearly doesn’t respect Wall Street. Therefore, Wall Street hates him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x799808

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. The fact is they think Romney is probably going to win.

All things being equal, yes they would still prefer a right-wing President who gives the financial industry everything they want to to a centrist who gives them most of what they want - especially if they think the right-wing candidate is going to win. The financial industry did not flock to Obama in 2008 contributing more to him than to McCain by an almost two-to-one margin because they preferred Obama's proposal - they did so because they were quite aware that conventional principles of political science indicated that Obama would probably win. And as the article your linked to says, "Just three years ago, he was Wall Street’s favored candidate. After being elected, he helped bail them out. He stopped Congress from going after their pay. He rejected proposals for radical reforms like breaking up the biggest banks."

No doubt Obama's change toward more economic populist language in addition to their thinking that he will probably lose decreases fund raising ability from Wall Street interest. And again as the article you referenced points out, "Some of that may actually be their renewed strength and the president’s increasing weakness. But some of it is doubtlessly that Wall Street is, all of a sudden, suffering a bit, and like so many Americans, they blame the president."

[ClarkUSA]

58. Let 'em think it. They thought Hillary was "inevitable" in 2007, too.

We all know how that turned out. ;)

<< He rejected proposals for radical reforms like breaking up the biggest banks >>

Such a proposal would never have passed. The Blue Dogs and Republicans in the Senate would've made sure of that. The bailout has worked out well considering one of the first things President Obama did was add strict payback terms (which has enriched the Treasury by many billions with more to come) to Bush's NSA TARP.

<< But some of it is doubtlessly that Wall Street is, all of a sudden, suffering a bit, and like so many Americans, they blame the president.>>

Yes, Blame Obamaville is getting crowded with spoiled, entitled whiners from both sides of the aisle.

[Skittles]

59. yeah, we DO know how THAT turned out

THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM

[Beacool]

61. Yeah, things are going sooooooooo well in the country.

:rofl:


Actually, it's not funny. The stakes are too high.

:(

[ClarkUSA]

65. It's getting better --> Gallup: "U.S. Unemployment Down Sharply in Early October"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x799391

Just imagine what the numbers would be if Congress passed the jobs bill.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

64. "THE FUCKING PROBLEM" = Republicans and Blue Dogs who block Pres. Obama's liberal bills

The latest example is the jobs bill.

[Skittles]

67. Obama bears NO responsibility whatsoever

the buck NEVER stops with Obama :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

70. No, he doesn't bear responsibility for how Republicans in Congress vote. Review Civics 101.

And no, he doesn't bear responsibility when DINO Blue Dogs in Congress vote with Republicans, either.

[progsrock]

115. Can't blame the Obama for congressional obstruction

When the President puts forward a reasonable plan including approaches that have been supported by past reasonable politicians of all political stripes and congress blocks it - they get the blame. They are playing pure political games and not thinking for a second about how to help people or improve the country.

[Douglas Carpenter]

60. right now there is a new wave of popular rebellion that may very well give

the boost Obama needs to win in spite of falling far short of what they are seeking. This new wave can create a whole new Democratic Party and whole new country and world. To dismiss them as spoiled entitled whiners helps no one including President Obama's reelection campaign. It sounds like even President Obama may have realized that he has made mistakes and has not ceased opportunities. Even he seems to have gotten the message. It would seem like those who seem to be as removed from reality as those he insist that Obama is going to face a major primary challenge and possibly lose the nomination fight could do a little bit of strategic thinking themselves.

[ClarkUSA]

66. I doubt if Republicans will change their Congressional votes because of OWS.

But I agree with your general hope that popular sentiment will give Obama what he needs to win in 2012.

<< To dismiss them as spoiled entitled whiners helps no one including President Obama's reelection campaign. >>

I was referring to those on both sides of the aisle who make sport of attacking President Obama for the past 2.75 years. It's so easy to complain, though. Some people think that's enough. Well, it isn't. That attitude is a one-way street to Blame Obamaville.

People shouldn't ask any more effort from President Obama than they are willing to give. It was never "Yes He Can", it is "Yes We Can".

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yurbud]

51. since it's chilled anyway, he might as well go ahead and fire all their tools on his economic team

and never hire anymore of them.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Why should he? Did you demand this of every Democratic President?

They work for him, not the other way around. Elizabeth Warren never complained about corruption from her colleagues in the WH, so what do you know that she didn't?

[yurbud]

83. That Ron Suskind book made it sound like Geithner doesn't think he works for Obama

Also, would you put a cop in charge of your domestic violence task force who beat his wife himself? Or an active drug addict in charge of your narcotics unit?

Pols pick the person who will do the kind of job they want. If Obama keeps these people, it means he wants to continue to placate Wall Street to some degree.

[ClarkUSA]

95. Ah, so Ron Suskind is your unimpeachable news source. That explains so much.

[yurbud]

98. you didn't address the other half of my reply--doesn't someone's resume show the kind of job they

will do?

If you pick a lax, industry captive regulator, isn't it reasonable to expect them to continue to be so?

[yurbud]

99. who would you consider a more reliable source? He seems to be pretty well regarded in establishment

circles, and not part of the ''professional left'' you guys hate so much.

[Leontius]

62. Oh he's been "bought" already, they're just hedging their bet

and hoping for an even more accommodating Republic candidate to move their program a little further and faster to completion.

[ClarkUSA]

63. There's no proof of what your claim and plenty of evidence against your accusation, of course.

But don't let that stop you. :rofl:

[MadHound]

72. Ah, I see you're trying out to be a comedian,

Good joke, for that is all it is, a joke. Obama has been bought and paid for for years, one has but to have an unbiased mind and access to Open Secrets to see that.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Ah, I see you're ignoring factual analysis in favor of a "joke" of a conspiracy theory.

:tinfoilhat:

[Union Scribe]

75. "has chilled" "could widen" "escalates his criticism"

An interstellar alien with remedial English skills could read that and be capable of inferring that this was not always the case. Of course he's trying to distance himself from them, as thousands of people are literally shouting the hatred most of the country has for Wall Street. So yeah, it has "chilled" between them. That means it has changed, not that Obama has always been some paragon of anti-corporate principles.

[Umbral]

76. Rather, can't be bought 'cheaply', the pharmaceutical industry managed to find his number.

Does no one remember the healthcare 'debate'?

[ClarkUSA]

79. This is yet another false narrative that is not backed up by any facts.

[slay]

77. Oh please. He was bought by the heathcare industry, the banking industry, the pharmacutical industr

y, i could go on and on.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

81. Yes, you do "go on and on" making baseless false accusations. The Democratic base knows better.

CNN poll: renominate Obama jumps 9 points, now 81 percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799534&mesg_id=799534

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

84. It is sad.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." ~ British statesman Edmund Burke

That goes double for purposeful propaganda based on lies by both sides of the aisle. However, I appreciate your wise words. Nice to meet another 81 percenter:

CNN poll: renominate Obama jumps 9 points, now 81 percent
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799534&mesg_id=799534

Welcome to DU! It looks as if you've caught on quickly. :hi:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

109. The facts in my OP are not "blind" but your refusal to acknowledge them is.

[Odin2005]

85. You think Obama isn't bought? ROFLMAO!!!

[ClarkUSA]

86. I and most liberals in the Democratic base do. You are in a small minority of 18 percenters.

CNN poll: renominate Obama jumps 9 points, now 81 percent

Do you think the Democratic party should renominate Barack Obama as the party's candidate for president in 2012, or do you think the Democratic party should nominate a different candidate for president in 2012?

Oct. 14-16 2011
Renominate Obama 81%
Different candidate 18%
No opinion 1%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=799534&mesg_id=799534

[Odin2005]

88. I'm not a Dem. I'm an independent Leftist.

The 2-Party corporatocracy can go straight to hell.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

110. lol! Why am I not surprised? That means your opinions are among an even smaller minority.

<< The 2-Party corporatocracy can go straight to hell. >>

Oy. Such empty slogans are the stuff of :boring:

The vitriol towards President Obama, the Democratic Party and Obama supporters on this thread reminds me again how I can't wait until this DU rule will be strictly enforced: "when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees"

[Fearless]

87. Yup that single payer health care is really doing well!!!

[ClarkUSA]

89. "Single Payer Advocates Say Bernie Sanders 'Not A Fighter'" (Nov. 27, 2009)

“We have had a history of fighters in the Senate,” Mokhiber said today. “Bernie Sanders is apparently not that.”
http://network.greenchange.org/news/11431-single-payer-advocates-say-bernie-sanders-not-a-fighter

Sanders, a Vermont independent, continues to focus his attention on a single-payer bill, although he acknowledges that there are not enough votes to pass it. Sanders says, "That bill will lose."
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/10/senator-bernie-sanders-vs-insurance

[Fearless]

90. We're talking about Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

91. No, you're "talking about Obama." I'm talking to you about historical FACTS which I've proven.

Sanders, a Vermont independent, continues to focus his attention on a single-payer bill, although he acknowledges that there are not enough votes to pass it. Sanders says, "That bill will lose."

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/10/senator-bernie-sanders-vs-insurance

[Fearless]

112. I am talking about Obama... who did not support single payer.

Why is that I wonder? Hmm... thousands of dollars in donations ring a bell? This has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.

[Kitsune]

93. The man whose economic policy is written by Goldman Sachs alums can't be bought.

Yyyyyyyyyyeah.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Your simplistic insinuation is not fact-based. Funny how Elizabeth Warren never accused Pres. Obama.

"Why Wall Street Hates Obama"
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=why+wall+street+hates+obama&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Beacool]

96. Maybe he can't be bought, but he can sure be rented.........

:eyes:



:D

[ClarkUSA]

97. Well, Pres. Obama isn't selling the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder like the Clintons did.

Or were the Clintons "renting" the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder while Bubba was President? You tell me. ;)

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. I'll grant you this - Clinton was worse than Obama - Clinton just had the good fortune

of being President during the time of an economic bubble and before the Internet was a significant force in politics. But all of that is besides the point. I don't believe in hero worship politics. Realty is what it is. Moneyed interest dominated the policies of both presidencies and they both owned their presidencies to a large degree to moneyed interest. No one in the last 30 years has been has mounted a credible campaign without that.

[ClarkUSA]

104. Are you implying that all Obama supporters are indulging in "hero worship politics" or just me?

You lost me with that snide insinuation.

"Reality" is the conclusions drawn in my OP from facts in the campaign finance reports and verbal verification from credible sources such as Warren Buffett:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/others-go-but-buffett-stays-on-side-of-president/?hp

The Koch Bros, who personify Wall Street, may own Gov. Andrew Cuomo but they have pledged at least $100 million to defeating President Obama in 2012: http://mediamattersaction.org/message/onepagers/201110030001

Your opinion is made up of gross generalizations which are invalid, given the facts above and below.

Wall Street Trader: “Pretty Much Everyone Hates Obama.”
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-01-27/wall_street/30009733_1_proprietary-trading-volcker-rule-discount-window

Why Wall Street Hates Obama:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Wall+Street+hates+obama&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

When's the last time a president was hated so by Wall Street players? That's been the reality when President Obama insisted on and succeeded in pushing through the toughest regulations since the Great Depression:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/06/26/879555/-Rachel-Maddow-Compares-Obamas-Legislative-Record-to-FDR-

Anyone who ignores these facts is pushing a false narrative.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. oh Obama still gets lots of Wall Street money - just not as much as Romney this time around

and it is down from 2008. That is true:

Jul 22, 2011 5:08pm

Wall Street Elites Open Wallets for Obama, DNC

Eighty wealthy and well-connected volunteer fundraisers, or bundlers, from the financial sector have together raised at least $11.8 million for Obama’s re-election campaign, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan government watchdog.

Individuals working in finance, insurance or real estate markets contributed roughly one-third of all money raised by Obama’s 244 bundlers –- more than any other industry –- the Center found.

Nine of the 27 financiers who each brought in more than $500,000 during April, May and June have tied to the financial industry. They include former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine; Evercore Partners executive Charles Meyers; Greenstreet Real Estate Partners CEO Steven Green; and former UBS executive Blair Effron.

The findings contrast with an erosion of support for Obama among employees of Goldman Sachs, who were once among his top financial backers. They donated overwhelmingly to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the second quarter, a computer-assisted analysis of the FEC data by Bloomberg found.

Some financial sector employees have been rankled by the 2010 financial overhaul because it imposed stiff new rules on banks, added regulation of hedge fund managers and limits on some executives’ bonuses, among other things. Romney opposes the law.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/wall-street-elites-open-wallets-for-obama-dnc/

No I did not mean you personally. I frankly frequently find two extreme ends of the spectrum here on DU. People who have complete naivete about how the political system works and thought that Obama was going to bring in the new New Deal and are thus disappointed and those who seem to think Obama can do no wrong. I will say that those who think that Hillary or some other leading Democrat would have been significantly more progressive than Obama to be completely outside of the world of reality. I was not terribly disappointed - because Obama is doing not much worse than what I expected. The problem is in that sense is not Obama - but the influence of money in politics. To change all of this we have to first change the political culture. The OWS movement gives me hope that this is possible. I do think he did miss a golden opportunity when he was swept into office with a mandate for change. But I suspect that Hillary or any other prominent Democrat would have done pretty much the same. Having said that - I ABSOLUTELY do support President Obama's reelection. Because the alternative is far, far worse. No argument there.

[ClarkUSA]

108. No, he is not getting "lots of money of Wall Street money" relative to 2008. Quite the opposite.

That's the point of my OP. Also, $11.8 million is hardly "lots". As a former NJ resident who supported his candidacy, I know that Jon Corzine was former NJ Governor so his "ties" to the financial industry are hardly up-to-date. Furthermore, your news story underlines the point of my OP:

There is "an erosion of support for Obama among employees of Goldman Sachs, who were once among his top financial backers. They donated overwhelmingly to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the second quarter, a computer-assisted analysis of the FEC data by Bloomberg found.

Some financial sector employees have been rankled by the 2010 financial overhaul because it imposed stiff new rules on banks, added regulation of hedge fund managers and limits on some executives’ bonuses, among other things. Romney opposes the law.

:redbox: << No I did not mean you personally. I frankly frequently find two extreme ends of the spectrum here on DU. People who have complete naivete about how the political system works and thought that Obama was going to be bring in the new New Deal and are thus disappointed and those who seem to think Obama can do no wrong. >>

I disagree with you re: your last "can do no wrong" point but otherwise agree with you. There's no need to resort to insults, either. Obama supporters acknowledge the facts that his 24/7 critics seem completely unwilling to do. That's not "hero worship"; that's progressive pragmatism. In other words, the positives about his tenure as POTUS far outweigh the negatives thus far.

:bluebox: << I will say that those who think that Hillary or some other leading Democrat would have been significantly more progressive than Obama to be completely outside of the world of reality. I was not terribly disappointed - because Obama is doing not much worse than what I expected. The problem is in that sense is not Obama - but the influence of money in politics. To change all of this we have to first change the political culture. The OWS movement gives me hope that this is possible. >>

President Obama has changed the political culture by example. He's the only president in modern history whose presidential campaign does not accept money from PACs or federal lobbyists. He was also the only presidential candidate who did that. If other politicians followed suit, just imagine the result. President Obama also stopped the revolving lobbyist door for retired Congresscritters by imposing a two-year moratorium after leaving Congress. His Wall Street reform has imposed the toughest regulations since the Great Depression. Those who don't acknowledge these facts are pushing a false narrative.

:redbox: << I do think he did miss a golden opportunity when he was swept into office with a mandate for change. >>

I'd call the historic passage of HCR, Wall Street reform, credit card reform, and DADT repeal using his "mandate for change".

:bluebox: << But I suspect that Hillary or any other prominent Democrat would have done pretty much the same. >>

I doubt it. She's DLC through and through while President Obama is a liberal at heart. Last year, Hillary wanted to surge 80,000 troops into Afghanistan for 10+ years as per Gen. McCrystal. She also recently stood by Gates in wanting as few troops as possible withdrawn from Afghanistan as slowly as possible. Her husband is Poppy Bush's adopted son. Thank God she never became CIC.

:redbox: << Having said that - I ABSOLUTELY do support President Obama's reelection. Because the alternative is far, far worse. No argument there. >>

I know you do, having seen your posts before this thread. On this, all Democrats and left-leaning independents should agree. Unfortunately, there are many who would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. Regardless, I am working hard to make sure 2012 results in a victory for the Democratic Party and its titular leader, President Obama.

[Douglas Carpenter]

114. granted the term "hero worship" is probably not fair

It is more like partisan stridency that would have made Mao Tse-Tong blush.

Facts are facts and the Obama campaign is still receiving lots of Wall Street money. Romney is simply receiving more. To date Obama is still by fair the largest recipient of financial industry money of any candidate in the history of the world.

Nationalizing Romney care based on a Heritage Foundation proposal is hardly a step toward a progressive health care system like every other industrialized democracy on the face of the earth. His Wall Street reform and credit card reform are heavily watered down proposals that any moderate Republican would have supported twenty years ago. Although in that respect he is only partially undoing the harm of the Clinton years. On DADT and on other issues of social liberalism he has been liberal. That is is the standard DLC, third way approach - Republican-lite on economics and foreign policy - liberal on social issues. Nonetheless, on those kind of social issues he has done well.

You can sell the idea and I will do my best to sell the idea that Obama MUST be reelected because the alternative is far, far worse. To represent him as something he is not is not being honest.

Tens of thousands of people are in the streets right now largely because they saw that simply electing a president who promises, "Change We Can Believe" is not enough. No doubt many are thinking, "fool me once - shame on you - fool me twice - won't get fooled again."

[Beacool]

111. Oh, Clarkie pooh, what would your days be like if you didn't obsess on the Clintons?

Poor baby.........

:rofl:

[LiberalLovinLug]

101. It is more the Democratic Party they snub

Obama has probably been a pleasant surprise from their point of view, at least in comparison to how he came off during the primaries and election.
But look at which party has representatives that are more anti-Wall Street (or more pro-regulation). Even though the DLC is working hard on replacing all progressive candidates with Blue Dogs, there still are a few nagging liberals for them to deal with.

Then look at the base of both parties, the ones that push from the bottom. The Democrats have MoveOn, DU, and others that generally want more financial regulation, not to mention justice for white collar crimes.

The Republicans have the Tea Baggers. They take to the streets to SUPPORT Wall Street and the Koch Brothers that finance them. Yes they mumble under their breath about Wall Street bailouts, but their main message is no new taxes or regulations (or even a return to Bush Sr. levels) for those top 1% even if it means cutting their own government services. The angry imbeciles and brainwashed morans who don't think too much and follow orders.

The DLC and Obama are peddling as fast as they can to catch up to the Repubs in policy and behaviour, but not fast enough for the 1%.

[great white snark]

105. Not really but you have to think that way to support your "Obama peddling fast to the right" theory.

"Obama has probably been a pleasant surprise from their point of view"

That statement don't hunt given the facts in this thread.

[GSLevel9]

103. yeh I will believe that AFTER i see the donor logs for 2012. nt

[ClarkUSA]

106. Start now. There's already been far more OFA donations than all of 2007 & early 2008 combined.

There's a link to the campaign finance reports in my OP if you click on the link. I assure you, reporters have been combing through them for red flags all year. There are none... which is why they reached the conclusion they did, which I have reflected in my OP content.

[loyalsister]

113. Thanks for posting

That "Obama is owned by WS" talking point is so very tiresome.

[Fokker Trip]

116. Um no. Wall Street bought him and then used him up.

Now they are looking for their next Trojan horse/corporate frontman. Obama was bought, no doubt about that.

He seems like a great guy personally, but he is from the Chicago school so what can one expect?

If this >>> "Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million" isn't being bought, then what is? Obama supporters do seem rather blind to the evidence that is right there to be seen.

He IS likely the best alternative, but that sure isn't saying much.

[iamthebandfanman]

117. bwahahahahahahaha

then you woke up.


its no doubt they know who would benefit them the most, but dont kid yourself.