Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not only pointing Bush at least did not intend to.
Why didn't you know that GS made out far better under Obama than they ever did under Bush? Also, note that GS was one of Obama's largest campaign contributors: Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
Why didn't you know that GS made out far better under Obama than they ever did under Bush? Also, note that GS was one of Obama's largest campaign contributors: Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
Again. Thank you for the information but I am not comparing them. I am including them, and all other presidents, in what I see as a bigger mess / challenge.
The lists you provided are interesting. I am not familiar with all the companies so their interests are unknown to me. I have heard differing versions of these contributions but that is the nature of the internet...one never knows...that being said, let's assume the lists are spot on. In Dubya's list, the top 20 contributed 6.6 million of which GS added just under 400k or 5.85% of the total. Investment / banking related amounts are in excess of 55% for that period. In Obama's, contributions were 13.4 million of which GS added just under 1 million or 7.39% of the total. In Obama's the overall shift went away to a degree, from banking (that was around 25.61% of the total), to education and technology.
Special interests / lobbying has always been a factor in a candidates platform / campaign and to a great degree in what they do while in office and the resulting policy and legislation. According to that website, GS ranks 20th in lobbying dollars since 1989 so they are a major player, through many administrations, without a doubt. IMO, looking deeply into these contributors would illuminate who's interests are being attended to, to a great degree. At very least, it is a good political conversation starter.
Again. Thank you for the information but I am not comparing them. I am including them, and all other presidents, in what I see as a bigger mess / challenge.
That's not how your post came off. I mentioned Obama's entanglement with GS which has netted GS the most profits, ever, and you insisted on blaming Bush who is small potatoes in comparison to the Obama/GS corruption.
Here is your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Floyd
GS was Dubya's master too. Does that concern anyone out there?
If this is true, they are the masters of all, right and left.
Saying they both did it is no excuse for Obama's far worse corrupt relationship with his GS donors.
Obama was supposed to be 'Hope and Change.' Instead, he's screwed the country farmore than any of his predecessors ever did.
That's not how your post came off. I mentioned Obama's entanglement with GS which has netted GS the most profits, ever, and you insisted on blaming Bush who is small potatoes in comparison to the Obama/GS corruption.
Here is your post:
Saying they both did it is no excuse for Obama's far worse corrupt relationship with his GS donors.
Obama was supposed to be 'Hope and Change.' Instead, he's screwed the country farmore than any of his predecessors ever did.
I am reading my posts and don't see me blaming, or insisting on blaming, anyone per se. What I am saying is that all presidents, including GWB and BO, are influenced by lobbyists, corporate America and Big Money. I think this may be the biggest financial challenge we as a country face. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.
Your point of view is clear..."Obama was supposed to be 'Hope and Change.' Instead, he's screwed the country farmore than any of his predecessors ever did."
As can be seen / heard on news casts and forums 24-7, that is a highly debatable issue. Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions. That is the beauty of being an American. That being said, none of us have proved anything. Are we looking for blanket agreement in our discussions? What is the use of that? I am interested in learning something new which often comes from areas of disagreement.
Even here, reviewing those lists you attached gave some insight. Thank you for that. Did I conclude anything definitive or new? Maybe that GS was not the top contibutor but certainly a top ten. That is useful information from an over all accuracy point of view but it did not change my opinion.
Your point of view is clear..."Obama was supposed to be 'Hope and Change.' Instead, he's screwed the country farmore than any of his predecessors ever did."
As can be seen / heard on news casts and forums 24-7, that is a highly debatable issue.
It's not highly debatable that Goldman Sachs has made the most profits, and reaped the most in bonuses, ever, under Obama's admin. That's a fact.
It's also not debatable that the Black unemployment rate is the highest under Obama's admin than it's ever been since the Great Depression. That's also a fact.
It's not highly debatable that Goldman Sachs has made the most profits, and reaped the most in bonuses, ever, under Obama's admin. That's a fact.
It's also not debatable that the Black unemployment rate is the highest under Obama's admin than it's ever been since the Great Depression. That's also a fact.
OK. So those are two parts of the equation. I won't attempt to value their significance in the big picture, or debate the reasons for them (don't know enough facts to do so), but they are not absolute proof of Obama's alleged, unprecedented screwing of his country. Care to expand?
But at least our discussion is touching upon specifics and moving a little from partisan generalities. And we are focusing on the corporate aspect of things albeit in a slightly different way. That's a step in the right direction, IMO.
BTW, who really believed the "We Can Change" rhetoric? Who for that matter, believes anything these politicians say when campaigning? Aren't they all just telling us what "they think we want to hear" to get our votes? Bachmann will evoke images of God and "good, old fashioned American values" when her campaign hits its stride to attract the conservative vote I would assume.
Originally Posted by kevinm Unions are for high school dropouts and people too stupid to negotiate the value of their own labor.
Or for those whose labor has little value, but want to be grossly overpaid at someone else's expense - and given benefits way beyond what their skillsets would normally earn them.
Kevin nailed it on the first page of this running scared, thread.
The UK learned a lesson from Wisconsin!!!
Yes the UK, is following Walkers lead!
How is that for you?
Kevin nailed it on the first page of this running scared, thread.
The UK learned a lesson from Wisconsin!!!
Yes the UK, is following Walkers lead!
How is that for you?
I work for the State of California. I have worked in private industry as a cost accountant, done a bunch of consulting (which I still do) and in a couple small CPA firms doing tax and tax planning. I did not care for the former jobs. I am not a union member but a supposed entitled civil servant. Does that make me semi or fully retarded or just plain stupid?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
