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.
Wall Street-Related Political Contributions Shift Toward Republicans
Financial firms and the people who work for them are increasingly donating their political cash to Republicans, according to a preliminary Center for Responsive Politics analysis of second-quarter federal campaign finance data.
The Center's preliminary study indicates that political action committees and individuals associated with the broad finance, insurance and real estate sector have given more money to federal-level Republican interests during every month since December. The gap continued to grow during that time, reaching its widest point in June.
President Barack Obama's re-election campaign is refunding the donations of five registered federal lobbyists who gave to the committee last year, OpenSecrets Blog has learned. Some of these refunds were triggered after OpenSecrets Blog brought the contributions to the campaign's attention.
The Obama campaign has pledged to refuse contributions from lobbyists, continuing a policy it set during the 2008 campaign.
The GOP are not just a bunch of good'ol'boys at the local bar. They are taking huge sums from Wall Street because the Democrats are protecting the public from Wall Street banksters. Do you really think that Wall Street isn't rewarding the GOP for holding up financial reform?
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,525,155 times
Reputation: 2038
It's really tiresome, hearing the Cons talk about spending, spending, spending, on Obama's part....
without talking about having the millionaires and billionaires, pay their fair share of taxes....calling that communism and socialism. I don't think a millionaire or billionaire, is going to lose sleep, seeing his taxes go up by an extra 2%. If he/she has to make adjustments by firing someone or something like that....then they weren't really that fiscally responsible to start with.
If Obama wanted to raise taxes, by 15% on the billionaires and millionaires, then MAYBE (not for sure though), these cons would have a point...
If Obama wanted to raise taxes, by 15% on the billionaires and millionaires, then MAYBE (not for sure though), these cons would have a point...
What makes one think that the tax-rates under Clinton have to be the upper-limit under consideration? The tax-rate under Reagan was brought down to 50%; capital gains was 60% (short-term) and 40% (long-term)and according to conservatives, life under Reagan was wonderful.
Greek multi-millionaires illegally defrauded Greece's IRS of 5 times as much money as would have enabled them to pay their debts. America's billionaires are legally exempt, every year, for the current deficit. Obama... ... Obama what? Spending? If Bush had spent 10 Trillion helping American's, there probably wouldn't be an Obama to worry about. America needs very little encouragement to line up Republican. The socially conservative Republican values sit right with the vast majority of Americans and ethnic immigrants to America. The economic bloodbath that the poor and middle class take everytime a Republican is elected is the main reason why other parties survive at all. The main objection to Obama is that his spending is not on pork projects favored by the rich. That said, many are! Obama is a win/win for the 1%. He does what they want and the Republicans don't have to suffer the loss of political capital that doing nasty things to the poor and middle class engender and they get to play total ingrates and call Obama everything but a child of God.
In 1999 when no one knew if there would still be a world left on the morning of Jan 1, 2000, computer consulting companies could write their tickets because every Fortune 500 IT manager wanted their teams insulated from the damage that a failed migration to Y2K compliant systems might generate. I had to sit out hundreds of hours of overtime while consultants made huge sums doing work I could and did do every day. But they were expendable, more to the point, their employers were liable for any poor outcomes. An important core of 1%'ers want Democrats liable for the deficit and want the Republican Party in the clear to be able to blame Obama for the coming default. Obama will win in 2012 but not for the reasons I would want.
The GOP are not just a bunch of good'ol'boys at the local bar. They are taking huge sums from Wall Street because the Democrats are protecting the public from Wall Street banksters. Do you really think that Wall Street isn't rewarding the GOP for holding up financial reform?
You're not a gambler are you? Campaign donations are a form of betting. When it comes to donations, they bet their money where they feel the reward is most likely. In elections, that means betting on the entity that they feel will win in the next election.
Please spare us from whatever notion you've concocted that this has anything to do with any specific legislation. In Washington DC, it's all about the totality of circumstances. Donors are betting on the GOP winning this time around. That's how the pendulum swings in DC.
You're not a gambler are you? Campaign donations are a form of betting. When it comes to donations, they bet their money where they feel the reward is most likely. In elections, that means betting on the entity that you feel will win in the next election.
Please spare us from whatever notion you've concocted that this has anything to do with any specific legislation. In Washington DC, it's all about the totality of circumstances. Donors are betting on the GOP this time around. That's how the pendulum swings in DC.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the Obama takes most of the Wall St. money then when challenged say that Wall St. is betting on winners. They want to affect the outcome.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the Obama takes most of the Wall St. money then when challenged say that Wall St. is betting on winners. They want to affect the outcome.
Obama is a single person. Who are you comparing him to? Because comparing Obama to the GOP or vice versa is not an apples to apples comparison. If the argument is Elephants vs Jackasses, then my point stands. But you can't say that Obama didn't take in as much as the GOP and have a valid argument.
PS..i'll admit to not having read every post on this thread, so this might have been clarified already.
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.
