Michael Moore On Larry King: Goldman Sachs, Obama's #1 Private Contributor

[Dinger]

And he says there should be a CRIMINAL investigation. He is right, period.

[CountAllVotes]

1. agree

:kick: & recommend.

[Dinger]

2. Thank You : )

:)

[phleshdef]

3. Goldman Sachs has been contributing millions to Democratic candidates since 1992.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085

Perspective.

[Dinger]

4. Fine

Doesn't change the fact though.

[phleshdef]

8. 85% of total 2008 contributions came from individuals working for GS. They employ about 32,000 ppl.

My wife once had the misfortune of being employed by Walmart and she contributed to Dennis Kucinich. I guess DK is getting kickbacks from Walmart because of that eh?

[CTLawGuy]

92. Dennis got WALMART money!?

What an outrage!!11!111!

[treestar]

169. Who knew he was a corporatist?

:rofl:

[bvar22]

109. When DK votes to give WalMart a taxpayer funded "bailout",

give me a call.
Until then, you got nothing.


”Unlike the other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.”
---Dennis Kucinich

[ibegurpard]

6. yeah, that explains a lot

[phleshdef]

12. Yea it explains that GS employs tens of thousands of people and some contribute to candidates.

[karynnj]

31. The fact is that Goldman Saks employs a lot of people

mostly in NYC - and most are Democrats. This is not PAC money but money sent in by individuals. What litmus test should they have? In the last two years, people have posted "Obama got $N billion from drug comapanies, health insurers, banks etc. Now, Obama really took very little PAC money - so it is from PEOPLE.

You here's a test for you - and Michael Moore.

Is it ok if the person works for a financial firm?
Is it ok if they work for a bank?
What about an insurance company?
What about a drug company?
A big telecommunications company?
A cable company?
An auto maker?
Any one in the medical profession?

These are PEOPLE contributing.

How many here on DU would you let contribute - I bet some work for one of these.

[rsmith6621]

5. Obama Must Return G&S Contributions

....sooner than later.....k&r

[phleshdef]

10. If I had ever been employed by Goldman, I would not want Obama returning my contributions.

Thats exactly what you are saying.

Newsflash: regular people work for big companies and those regular people contribute to candidates.

[Arkana]

38. I worked for one of the largest insurance companies in New England

and I donated almost 1K to Obama.

I guess that puts Obama in the pocket of Big Insurance.

[jenmito]

7. And Moore owned Halliburton stock. So what? n/t

[itsrobert]

59. Didn't he own it so he could get in their Stock Holder meetings

in case he was going to document something?

[Incitatus]

67. If that was the case, he only needed 1 share, not 2,000.

[itsrobert]

74. Only 2000 shares? He probably had some shares in another company

that got gobbled up by Haliburton. And most likely he didn't know he had it regardless.

[Incitatus]

90. Perhaps and maybe that's the same reason he had stock in Boeing and Eli Lilly. nt

[Zen Democrat]

9. I think he should keep their money, and sign a bill that kicks their Wall Street elite ass. nt

[Phx_Dem]

125. That's exactly what he plans to do. Thank you Goldman for helping with that!

:evilgrin:

[DrToast]

11. Again, Moore is wrong. Goldman Sachs can't contribute to Obama (well, not back then)

It was people who worked there who made donations.

Also, it came out to about 1% of Obama's total donations.

[phleshdef]

13. Now you are just implying that people should do math before running their mouths.

[DrToast]

18. You know who else does math...

Goldman Sachs.

[sabrina 1]

87. Moore is NOT wrong.

Goldman Sachs' Political Action Committee together with individuals who listed their employer as GS, were one of the largest donors to the Obama Campaign. Because Federal Law prohibited a corporation from donating directly to a candidate, they get around the law by using their PACs and encouraging their employees to donate to the candidate they believe will be most 'considerate' of their needs.

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

And the article also points out that Goldman Sachs has always given more money to Democrats than to Republicans. And it has paid off for them, especially during the Clinton administration and now, with the Dem. Congress bailing them out.

It really is time for people to stop pretending that both parties are not bought by big corporations. To deny the obvious doesn't change the facts. Our government doesn't represent us first. They represent Big Business because Big Business can afford to buy them.

[onenote]

128. no you are wrong - Obama has never received a dime from Goldman Sachs' PAC

Obama received a grand total of $1830 in PAC contributions out of a total of $745 million. That's less than 3 one thousandths of one percent, IF you assume that all $1830 in PAC came from Goldman Sachs, which would be a mistake, since Goldman Sachs reported making NO PAC contributions to Obama. Moreover, if you want to check, you'll see that even as a Senator, Obama never received a dime of Goldman Sachs PAC money. Not a dime.

If you want to spin crap, don't spin crap that anyone can show is crap with a simple search of opensecrets.org

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

[sabrina 1]

147. Maybe you should read before

losing your head completely.

I am not responsible for the reports of how much pac money the Obama campaign received from Godlman Sachs.

So here it is again. The link is in the post above:

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

However, rather than attacking people, which is never a good tactic, you might have used Obama's own explanation of why he could not be completely 'pristine' as he called it himself. It certainly makes more sense than trying to explain away the fact, that the Obama campaign DID receive nearly one million dollars from employees of Goldman Sachs even if you refuse to acknowledge any pac money. McCain by contrast, received about one third of that money from the same source.

Obama himself, in response to questions regarding his acceptance of campaign funds from various sources other than grass roots donations:

Barack Obama/Campaign Financing

"An examination of disbursements from the two funds reveals how Obama was able to use legal loopholes commonly used by other presidential contenders to pay for White House testing-of-the-water expenses," Sweet wrote.<3>

"Discussing the issue of campaign finance reform, Obama said, 'The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water, ... The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up," Barack Obama said August 16, 2007, in Des Moines, Iowa.<4>

That is a far better response than going into attack mode as party loyalists tend to do, achieving the opposite of what they intend. Such people are going to drive many away from this party and have already. People respond far better to logic, reason, and facts than to knee-jerk, rightwing-like attacks. His supporters right or wrong, are not helping him at all, and I doubt he himself appreciates the harm they do when they attempt to speak for him in such a negative way. Certainly it is not HIS style of argument. You might want to take a lesson from him.

[mkultra]

152. The simple fact is that opensecrets SHOWS how much was donated

and $1830 is his PAC receipts. So in effect, they lumped people who work for GS in with the PAC to make it look scurrilous. Open secrets uses information from the Center for Responsive Politics.

So somebodies facts are wrong. If you come to the table with false facts and smear a candidate, you are the one in attack mode.

[sabrina 1]

156. Yes, someone's facts are wrong. However what they all

agree on is that Obama's campaign got almost three times the amount of money from GS 'employees' 'pacs' or whatever, that McCain did. And everyone knows that back then the law forbade corporations from making donations directly to campaigns and this is how they would get around that law.

As I pointed out, Obama himself has not denied the fact that he had to take donations from corps but pointed out that he had to 'swim in the muddy waters' or lose basically. He acknowledges what his supporters here are attempting to deny.

The reason he acknowledges it is because it is a fact of life at the moment. He states that he is different from others in that he realizes the muddy waters he is forced to swim in, doesn't like it and would like to do something about it.

So, I see no point in attempting to argue whether the huge amount of money from GS employees, pacs or otherwise actually happened, it did. The argument should be that we need, as Obama himself says, Campaign Finance reform and laws that have zero loopholes, such as pacs, forced donations from employees etc. which does happen btw.

[onenote]

163. So the union employee who gave money to Obama was trying to get around the law?

You can't be serious. Individuals give money. They do so for an infinite variety of reasons. Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that GS employees might have given to Obama not thinking of themselves as GS surrogates, but rather because they might be women who wanted to elect a Democrat who would be more likely to protect the right to choose than McCain, or they might have preferred Obama's position on the war or on other issues; maybe they were inspired by the idea of an African-American being elected. Maybe they were scared shitless of Sarah Palin. Maybe they had the same range of reasons that individual contributors who worked for other industries, or were self-employed, or were students or retired all might have.

Finally, the article you cite claims Obama took more than $1 million from PACs. That is true: During the 2004 election cycle accepted $1.2 million in PAC money. Since then, however, he has accepted virtually no PAC money. His career amounnt of PAC money is aroun $1.3 million going back to 2001 (and he shows no PAC money for 2006 and only $1830 for 2008. (One of the charts linked from your link claims he raised over $1 million in 2004 and again in 2006. But the 2006 number is, in fact, a number for 2001-2006, not just 2006. The following pages reflects this information, particularly the bar chart for the 2001-2006 period

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?id=ILS2&cycle=2004
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00009638&cycle=2006#fundraising

Finally, and you seem confused about this: PACs don't get money from corporations. They, like campaign committees, get money from individuals.

[sabrina 1]

175. There is no confusion for me. I have stated clearly

that whatever the reasons, Obama received far more donations from GS employees, than McCain. Bush, eg, received far more donations from employees of other corps than Kerry, several sports teams eg. When that happened, ironically, people were all over the fact that those corps were 'Republican' and there was no argument on boards like this that it did mean something. Now, while Obama himself is not in denial about donations he would rather not need, party loyalists are bending over backwards to explain something that he, Obama, has explained very clearly himself.

Goldman Sachs has always contributed more to Democrats than Republicans. Imformation that I find not only interesting but troubling considering the issues they are interested in. The charts in this Open Secrets link tell the story:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

Heavy Hitters
Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. A number of high-ranking government officials in recent years have spent part of their careers at Goldman Sachs.

Qutie frankly, my interest in individual politicians at this point compared to the issues that this country is facing, is practically nil. I learned, eg, from this election that a question that badly needs to be asked of any presidential candidate, wasn't asked. Next time, I hope it will be and that is 'who will you nominate for your cabinet, COS etc.

Goldman Sachs wants to privatize SS. Of course they do, that is a ten trillion dollar fund they would like to get their corrupt hands on. They are also, naturally, against any regulation of the financial industry. They got that from the Clinton Administration.

You can argue about the details all you want, the fact is that GS loves Democrats and that is very, very disturbing. I would prefer if they loved Republicans more, that would seem natural.

We need to get these people OUT of our government. That's what I hoped Democrats would be working towards. Instead we have Geithner and Summers and Bush's holdover Bernanke, and Paulson pulling strings to get his hands on tax payer dollars to bail out GS. This is what needs to be changed. I hope Obama meant it when he said he wanted to change this system.

[mkultra]

185. ill ignore the general evolution of your assertion

that Micheal Moore was "right" as you put it to address the more nuanced points of this discussion which seemed to be lost on those upset about this.

For starters, no candidate will tell you who his cabinet picks are going to be. If you think that through, im sure you can figure out why.

second, the finance system is essentially printed on the election system. changing it will be a slow process, like all other federal changes, but one we hope happens. I would have grave doubts that campaign finance reform would happen in a first term. There are many people that think they can work on more than one thing at a time but the simple fact is that they are naive. One piece of major legislation is about all congress can handle at one time and so far they have seen several large reform measures with more to come.

Finally, i think its more reasonable to assume that the GS employees may have seen the Obama economic plan and stimulus as a better choice than those ideas put forth by republicans during the election. Those fiscal democrats on this board(yours truly included) felt that the Obama stimulus was a jagged pill to swallow as it helped the vary people who caused the problem but it also helped everyone in America by avoiding the Japanese lost decade of economic recovery. That's a small price to pay in order to save millions upon millions of jobs. We are at the mercy of our capitalist pig slave owners and nothing will change that aside from a move away from capitalism.

To put it simply, we where heading into the tank fast and in my opinion the quick action on the part of Obama saved us from a 24 month recession and a decade of recovery. There are many economists who agree and a few who don't. There are also people on this board that disagree but i have never found any of them to have real financial depth(even ones currently working in the industry)

In summary....Who gives a fuck. I mean really.

[onenote]

159. maybe you should fact check before citing a statement as proving your point

No you're not responsible for the reports. You're responsible for not fact checking them and asserting them as true and for still refusing to admit it. And it was you, not those reports, that claimed that GS made PAC contributions to Obama to "get around the law" when in fact, GS's PAC did not give any money to Obama. All of it came from individuals. Was some of it "bundled" -- yes it was, but the money still came from individuals and just because a "bundler" works for GS or the Uniersity of California or DreamWorks or some law firm doesn't mean that that entity will get special favors. My wife, who is self employed, made a sizable contribution to the Obama campaign through a bundler who also is self employed - someone she had met professionally when she was pursuing a different career path. That person wasn't seeking to push the interest of a particular corporation or entity by bundling. THey were trying to help a campaign they felt strongly about by contacting friends, relatives, former colleagues, etc. and encouraging them to donate. Sure, they could've just provided the person the web address or mailing address and hoped they would write a check. But one of the benefits of bundling is that the personal appeal often gets results that are merely promised but not followed through on when people are left to donate directly on their own.

[mkultra]

150. "together with individuals who listed their employer as GS"

[Incitatus]

14. These were personal donations by thousands of employees, not the CEO

writing him a corporate check, right?

[DrToast]

19. Correct

Much ado about nothing.

[Enrique]

41. where's the ado?

mentioning who gives money to our president is much ado? That's all the OP says. Moore is very fair to Obama.

[DrToast]

43. No, he's not. Goldman Sachs didn't give Obama money

This has been repeated several times in this thread.

[Enrique]

48. I like the real Obama

the Obama that took a lot of money from Goldman Sachs. I like Obama, but he took a lot of money from Goldman Sachs. He might be tough on Goldman and the rest of Wall Street, but he took a lot of money from Goldman Sachs. Through their employees, the way many politicians take money from corporations.

You seem to like the imaginary Obama, that didn't take a lot of money from Goldman Sachs. How do you feel about the real one?

[DrToast]

50. No, he didn't take a lot of money from Goldman Sachs

If it's beyond your mental capacity to comprehend the difference explained countless times in this thread, then I don't know what else to tell you.

[Enrique]

51. that's the way Open Secrets tabulates the money

I've seen that site cited plenty of times over the years and I don't recall their counting employee contributions as being controversial, or as making the numbers less valid.

[Enrique]

53. how come no one brought that up when it was Baucus?

because Obama is good and Baucus is bad, of course. Real smart way to think!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5602825

[olegramps]

103. Your comprehension is zero.

[bvar22]

111. Wrong.

"According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/index.html

[chill_wind]

114. bvar22, could you say that a little louder-

I don't think anyone heard it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

120. Obama's total PAC money (all PACs combined) was $1,830.

Are you telling me he was bribed for the price of a crappy used car?

"According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees."

So in other words, 99.9% of the contributions "from" GS were from individual employees, NOT the Goldman PAC.

[onenote]

129. Obama has never received a dime from GOldman Sachs PAC - even as a Senator

Not only did Obama only receive $1830 in PAC contributions in 2008, none from Goldman Sachs, even as a Senator he never received a dime from the Goldman Sachs PAC.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00350744&cycle=2008

[sabrina 1]

153. I posted that already, but to the party loyalists

it won't matter. I have been attacked for lying, even with the link lol!

Obama himself did not deny taking money from sources he says he would rather not. In defense of doing so, he pointed out (I posted this above also) that he 'is not pristine' and that he too 'swims in the muddy waters' but, he pointed out, that while he does swim in those waters, he is different in that he doesn't like it, is aware of it and would like to do something about it.

If only his rabid supporters would take a lesson from him and explain it the way he himself has, rather than try to deny the undeniable.

[sabrina 1]

151. The law did not permit Corporations to donate to a campaign

directly. This is how they get around that law.

[Jane Austin]

15. It makes sense for Wall Street employees to donate to Democrats.

The economy nearly always does better under Democrats.

[asphalt.jungle]

16. yes we need to start punishing americans for where they work

you can't participate in the political process if you don't work for the "right" company.

[rsmith6621]

17. Why Cant Some Here Face the Truth about Obama

....Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth saying we must regulate the industry but still saying thank you G&S for your contributions to getting me elected....YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS..

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[phleshdef]

21. Truth = GS contributions made up 1% of his total contribution intake.

Is math hard for you.

[rsmith6621]

22. Ever Heard of Money Laundering

....One percent by one demographic group is still a lot of money.....

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[onenote]

132. that "demographic group" is people employed by Goldman Sachs

all of whom are members of other demographic groups who had plenty of reason to support Obama.

[Dinger]

24. Keep Spinning And Unreccing. I Don't Care (nt)

[phleshdef]

28. Wheres the spin? You and Michael Moore jumped the shark and now you've trapped yourself.

You can't refute any of the facts that have been presented to you that prove this is bogus bullshit and means absolutely nothing. Either start refuting or just admit you were wrong. Its not hard.

[Dinger]

40. Back At Ya Sweetie (nt)

[rsmith6621]

52. Folks.... Keith O and Rachel M.. Has even Supported this Claim

........Are they WRONG TO?????

[sabrina 1]

154. They have been refuted, read the thread.

And as I have already pointed out, Obama himself does not deny taking money from sources he would rather not have to. So why are you trying to deny what he himself does NOT?

[ShortnFiery]

23. They can't ... they will not open their minds enough to see the negative. eom

[phleshdef]

30. There is no negative in this story and you know it.

FACT: People work for Goldman Sachs, a LOT of people

FACT: A lot of these people donated to Democratic candidates over the years

FACT: One of these Democratic candidates was Barack Obama

FACT: These contributions, althought completely just and not the least bit shady, still made up a FRACTION of contributions the Obama campaign received. They were literally PENNIES compared the the total haul.

FACT: You can't refute any of the above and all of the above together makes the (non) point Michael Moore and the OP were attempting to make to be nothing more than worthless drivel.

[SwampG8r]

63. i can take the denial

its the demand that you join them in imaginationland that chafes

[Arkana]

39. Are you even bothering to read the article?

85% of the money from GS came from Joe Schmoe working in HR and his buddies in Accounts Payable. The cash didn't come out of the pocket of the CEO.

[impik]

108. It's your "truth", it's hardly *the* truth.

[amborin]

25. Goldman Sachs was huge donor to Obama & look at all the banksters in the administration:

eta: oh, and look at huge donations Obama got from health ins corporations:

Health

Obama, Barack $19,462,986
McCain, John $7,389,547
Clinton, Hillary $6,397,849
Romney, Mitt $2,283,350
Giuliani, Rudy $2,075,197
Paul, Ron $828,483
Richardson, Bill $778,170
Edwards, John $587,941
Thompson, Fred $537,429
Huckabee, Mike $491,202
Dodd, Chris $339,850
Biden, Joe $283,880
Brownback, Sam $108,580
Thompson, Tommy $67,811
Nader, Ralph $62,251
Kucinich, Dennis $54,357
Vilsack, Tom $32,800
Tancredo, Tom $31,600
Hunter, Duncan $27,930
Barr, Bob $22,550
Gilmore, Jim $15,600
Gravel, Mike $11,721
Keyes, Alan $11,600
Baldwin, Chuck $6,050

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=H

Finance Industry Campaign Donations:

Finance/Insur/RealEst

Obama, Barack $39,480,169
McCain, John $28,930,292
Clinton, Hillary $19,249,595
Romney, Mitt $13,710,157
Giuliani, Rudy $13,411,959
Dodd, Chris $5,480,286
Richardson, Bill $2,916,752
Edwards, John $2,125,162
Thompson, Fred $1,943,704
Biden, Joe $1,504,861
Huckabee, Mike $1,320,265
Paul, Ron $1,249,206
Brownback, Sam $248,637
Vilsack, Tom $175,900
Thompson, Tommy $120,409
Hunter, Duncan $109,650
Nader, Ralph $77,996
Gilmore, Jim $63,150
Kucinich, Dennis $56,910
Tancredo, Tom $53,260
Barr, Bob $39,259
Gravel, Mike $14,825
Keyes, Alan $8,901
Baldwin, Chuck $7,342
McKinney, Cynthia $4,050

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=F


and, Goldman Sachs was the #2 donor to Obama's prez campaign:


list of top donors to Obama's campaign:


Goldman Sachs $994,795 ***********
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290 ************
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 *************
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881 *****************
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835





The Bankers on Obama's Team

The latest round of Wall Street muckety-mucks now in charge of regulation.

— By Andy Kroll


Here's a short list of Obama officials who got their start in the private sector—many, like Paulson, at "Government Sachs."


Neal Wolin
Deputy secretary of the treasury (Tim Geithner's No. 2)
Exec at one of the largest insurance and investment firms

Mark Patterson
Treasury secretary's chief of staff
Goldman Sachs lobbyist

Gene Sperling
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made nearly $900,000 advising Goldman Sachs

Larry Summers
Obama's chief economic adviser
Made $5 million as managing director of a hedge fund

Rahm Emanuel
White House chief of staff
Made $16 million as a partner at a Chicago investment bank

Herbert Allison
Assistant secretary of the treasury (oversees TARP)
Longtime exec at Merrill Lynch; headed Fannie Mae

Kim Wallace
Assistant secretary of the treasury for legislative affairs
Managing director at Barclays Capital and Lehman Brothers

Karthik Ramanathan
Acting assistant treasury secretary for financial markets
Foreign exchange dealer at Goldman Sachs

Matthew Kabaker
Deputy assistant secretary of the treasury
Made $5.8 million at the Blackstone Group in 2008-2009

Lewis Alexander
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Chief economist at Citigroup; paid $2.4 million in 2008-2009

Adam Storch
Managing executive of the SEC's Division of Enforcement
VP of Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group

Lee Sachs
Counselor to the treasury secretary
Made more than $3 million at a New York hedge fund

Gary Gensler
Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Commission
18 years at Goldman Sachs, where he made partner

Michael Froman
Deputy assistant to Obama, deputy nat'l security adviser
Managing director of a Citigroup investment arm

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/henhouse-meet-f ...

[karynnj]

32. Obama's numbers are in line with Hillary's and Mccain's

McCain took public funds, so he got donations just for the primary - as did HRC because she didn't have a GE.

[phleshdef]

36. Obama raised so much money that you could connect those contributions to EVERYONE.

There is a reason why its one of the most successful, if not THE most successful campaign in history.

[amborin]

47. Obama got more from Goldman Sachs than any other candidate; and 2x-3x from health ins corps

[phleshdef]

55. Obama got more money than any candidate in the history of the United States of America.

And you continue to ignore the fact that the way its tabulated is by employees of the company. If YOU worked even as a frickin' security guard for Goldman Sachs or an insurance company as your direct employer, YOUR contributions count in that company's tab. And its been proven all ready that MOST of the contributions came that way, from normal people, with a JOB.

[sabrina 1]

177. The Finance Industry gave over 39 million to the Obama

campaign. Clearly they were betting on him for some reason. Read Amborin's link, and read the list of banksters in this administration.

[amborin]

46. Obama got double what McCain got from health ins corps

[karynnj]

49. true - for the primary and the general election

mcCain could not raise money for the general election

[JVS]

174. That's not the issue.

[golfguru]

58. WOW Amborin, you have compiled heckuva data in your post!

Where do you find the time?

[ShortnFiery]

96. +1000

:thumbsup:

[namahage]

180. GS is #2? So who's number 1?

Funny how your list of "top donors" starts at #2. Here's number 1. Wouldn't want to be accused of providing misleading facts, would you?

1. University of California $1,591,395

I'll even provide the link, since you conveniently forgot to include it in your post:

http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

[amborin]

181. so what? that doesn't change anything or the point being made: banksters backed Obama

[ecstatic]

26. So are you saying people who work at certain corporations

shouldn't be allowed to donate to candidates? Is there a list you can show me of which jobs are acceptable for Obama supporters? I work in the healthcare industry...should I be banned from donating too?

[phleshdef]

29. According to the OPs logic,almost anyone that has a job should not be allowed to contribute.

[Nikki Stone1]

33. K & R

.

[FrenchieCat]

34. So Goldman Sachs employees gave to the Obama campaign.....

and now Obama's SEC is kicking Goldman Sachs ass.

Is there a conflict of interest here?
...cause if so, I don't see it. :shrug:

[phleshdef]

35. Anyhow, the conspiratorial aspects of this nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

I think we can safely call this phony poutrage and move on.

[ProSense]

37. Michael Moore should be smarter than this. It's the typical BS the media does. Right there

in red on the Open Secrets' site it states:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

As for PACs, Obama took $1,830 PAC contributions.

[amborin]

64. Fail! You are saying it's Goldman Sach's PAC, and that means

Goldman Sachs promoted that PAC


"Some PACs are sponsored by a corporation, business, or LABOR UNION. Corporations, business interests, and LABOR UNIONS that sponsor PACs are prohibited from contributing their organizations' funds to the PACs they sponsor, but employees or members of the sponsoring organizations may contribute."

Read more: Political Action Committee - Further Readings http://law.jrank.org/pages/9252/Political-Action-Committee.html#ixzz0mMjSAJSB

[phleshdef]

72. Obama took 1,830 dollars in total PAC money from ALL contributing PACs.

How in the hell is that a fail again? You are embarassing yourself.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

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

[salguine]

42. Unrecc'ed into oblivion...no surprise there...

[Dinger]

44. Yup

But I really don't care.

[PopSixSquish]

45. That Much is Obvious

[ShortnFiery]

56. Hang in there.

You are not alone. :-)

[phleshdef]

57. You obviously don't care about the facts that have been presented that tear your OP to shreds either

[CTLawGuy]

94. nah

the 5%-ers have their own facts.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

61. Look at post 37 and make a comment please

[Starbucks Anarchist]

89. You should, considering you've been debunked.

Despite what Moore says, contributions "from" GS came from their employees (of which there are tens of thousands), and Obama's total PAC money was literally under $2,000. In other words, people who happened to work at GS (which encompasses many types of jobs) donated to his campaign.

But playing devil's advocate here -- even if you and Moore were right, the total amount "from" GS was around $1 million -- very small potatoes considering Obama raised $700 million, isn't it?

[Patriot 76]

54. Posts like these make puke.

Aren't there enough issues to legitimately criticize?

Shows me all I need to know.

[woolldog]

60. Goldman hasn't done anything wrong,

imho.

[dana_b]

62. I love MM but as others have said, he's wrong here.

2008 Top Donors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557


The top donor was the UC system?? The broke ass UC system that is furloughing people and raising tuition?
No. That number is from individual contributors, like me, who work within the UC system.

Look - I'm as unhappy as the next person about Obama's relationship with Geithner and friends but this isn't right.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

65. Those are individual contributions from employees, not checks from the top brass.

So Moore is technically correct in one aspect but also very misleading.

The biggest donor according to this metric is the University of California system, which beats out GS' contributions. I.E., individuals who work for the UC system donated.

[amborin]

70. to a PAC promoted by Goldman Sachs

corporation can form and promote their own PACs, to which their employees may donate

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[phleshdef]

81. Where was the contradiction?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

115. Calling somebody a liar is against the rules. Flat out against the rules. nt

[dionysus]

134. are the umapays outingpay ?

;)

[DevonRex]

139. esyay !

:evilgrin:

[phleshdef]

73. So considering that Obama took $1,830 total from all PACs, you are looking pretty bad here.

[onenote]

133. WRONG - Obama has never received a dime from Goldman Sachs' PAC

Even as a senator they never contributed to him.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00350744&cycle=2008

I'm going to keep posting this every time you post the phony claim that Obama got Goldman Sachs PAC money.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

171. And watch as the wingnut brigade seizes on that opportunity to use MM's words

against Obama and the Dems.

I love Mike, but he didn't need to go there and not tell the *entire* truth.

[jgraz]

66. Obama's approach to financial "reform" speaks volumes

No regulation of derivatives
No consumer protection
No leverage caps
No transaction tax
No criminal investigations

Whoever Obama's listening to, it ain't us.

[Dinger]

95. +1,000,000

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[Bobbie Jo]

141. +1,000,001

Unrec.

Shit like this puts Faux "News" to shame.

[AtomicKitten]

68. MM is wrong. Sorry to say it, but he's wrong.

That "just under $1 million" came from individuals who listed Goldman Sachs as their employer and from the GS PAC. It's a mixed bag to be sure, but saying he got it from Goldman Sachs is simply not correct and is misleading.

I believe MM knows this, hesitated for a moment, but chose not to acknowledge the distinction. I laughed when King then said it took some chutzpa for Obama go after GS. Misguided but slightly cool.

Granted it is the SEC and not the Justice Department doing the deed, but if truth be told it's the SEC's damn job, something they've neglected for decades. Plus it makes it less easy for the wingnuts to say it's a partisan move.

---> My thoughts. I didn't read the thread, just the OP.

[Enrique]

77. was that distinction made before Obama?

I've been reading about corporate contributions to politics at DU for years. I use Open Secrets a lot and I find it useful the way they compile the numbers.

I don't recall their methodology being challenged before, regarding counting employee contributions as money from the company or the industry. It's been perfectly acceptable to say so-and-so got $x.00 from Enron, or Massey Mines, or from insurance companies, or whatever.

He hesitated because he likes Obama and he knows a lot of people like Obama and don't like to see Obama criticized. But he also made a movie about Wall Street and he cares about the issue.

[amborin]

79. posters will twist themselves into pretzels to try to sanitize the campaign donation

[phleshdef]

80. There is nothing to sanitize. Debunking this BS took almost zero effort.

[amborin]

84. yet, you haven't debunked anything

[Starbucks Anarchist]

85. You've been debunked repeatedly.

Goldman Sachs is a large employer with tens of thousands of rank-and-file employees, some of whom donated to Obama. You were called out on that, so you said it was PAC money funneled in there, but then you were shown how Obama's total PAC money was under $2,000 total.

And despite all that, you still cling to some wild conspiracy based on nothing but poor reading comprehension.

[phleshdef]

86. Your inability to read and comprehend facts does not equal an inability to be debunked.

[sabrina 1]

179. So Bush didn't get 'money from corporations either'?

He was wrongfully accused by your logic. The fact is that Obama received more money from both the financial industry and the health insurance industry than any other candidate. Now spin that any way you like, but it is a fact. What he does with his presidency, whether he pushes for campaign finance reform, goes after the Wall St. criminals who brought this country to its knees, will decide whether those industries placed their bets well.

[AtomicKitten]

88. Great movie.

I recall the gradual evolution of better and more specific election financial data available over the last several election cycles.

In this situation, I think it's fair to mention the fact that Obama received a lot (and most of his primary funding) from small amount, individual donors. That distinction is important when people are insinuating something that simply isn't true when they say he got $1 million from Goldman Sachs.

I'm cool with Michael Moore. I believe we both support the president and understand he's been handed a wrecked economy, and we scream and tear our hair out from time to time when President Obama makes a move we don't like. It's cathartic.

[SpartanDem]

91. In other words who cares about the details

[bornskeptic]

145. Actually President Obama got nothing from the Goldman Sachs PAC.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.php?cmte=C00350744&cycle=2008

Everything he got from Goldman Sachs came from individual donors.

[Blue-Jay]

69. Damn you Fartbama!

*shakes fist*

[Whisp]

76. disappointed that Michael didn't properly explain the GS donations

and who they really came from, the majority.

but he made up for it when King asked him what he thought of the TeaBaggers. Moore said they are basically a smallish group that the media spends too much time on and makes them look bigger. He then said why aren't they picketing at GS and Wall Street, then he added that there is a huge march planned on Wall Street by Unions, etc., and that the media is not likely to cover That but will meetings of a few hundred TeaPartiers.

then King the doofus opens his ignorant yap and asks:

What Protest, where, who? lol. Made Michaels point even pointier.

what a dumbass.

[Uzybone]

157. Why would he explain the truth

Idiots wouldn't get ginned up and outraged if the facts were fulkly explained.

Unfortunately some on our side rely on ignorance and misinformation to make their points. The only saving grace if that Moore works on the side of working men and women while RW demagogues work to punish the middle class.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted sub-thread

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

[boppers]

93. Obama takes money from mine workers, is accused of being in the pocket of mining company.

Je accuse!

[jgraz]

97. No, it's because he still talks about "clean coal".

[ShortnFiery]

98. Oh yeah, they played that lame quote of his about "Clean Coal" seemingly forever

on M$NBC. :crazy:

[jgraz]

99. Nothing is more discouraging than hearing quotes like that from a supposedly intelligent president

Every time he says "clean coal", I hear "I think all y'all are fucking stupid".

[ShortnFiery]

100. Yes, it hurts most with the super-intelligent politicos. It's sad that ...

despite one's IQ and gregarious nature, insight and arrogance are always inversely related.

We should be thankful for such "red flags" because otherwise we'd not be able to prepare for the worst.

My heart goes out to people who will continue to OVERLY TRUST our current crop of POLITICAL leaders.

[Perky]

101. Oh give me an effing break... If he thinks there is criminality in legal donations he is an idiot

Goldman Sachs employees are highly paid, well educated love and work in the most progressive parts of the country and have lots of disposable income. The max anyone could contribute is $4,600 and we all know they have lots of disposable income.

The mere fact that their Employer happens to be Goldman and they voluntarily populated the name of their employer on the online contribution form does not not suggest any criminality.


The argument that this is criminal is utterly bogus,

Now there are AC Dollars going to Obama as well as McCain and their primary opponents. But there is nothing criminal in that. And the fact that Goldman faced Criminal charges certainly ought to suggest to anyone with more sense than a teabagger that the dollars spent by the PAC did not amount to a hill of beans in the final analysis.

If Moore REALLY thinks this is criminality. he is an idiot. If he doesn't then by by God, he is just trying to Raise the Rabble, for the sake of being controversial or so sell videos.

[MadHound]

102. Criminal, no, previous generations of politicians have insured that such self serving donations

Are legal.

But moral, ethical, no, they're not. And that's not just concerning donations from Goldman Sachs. Frankly we need to do away with all corporate money in our government, PAC money, industry money, etc. What is needed is to restore power to the people via publicly funded elections. Corporate money simply exerts to much influence in our current political process.

[Perky]

104. So employees of corporations should not be allowed to contribute to Political campaigns?

[MadHound]

105. I found bundling of individual donations abhorrent when Bushco did it,

I still find it abhorrent when Obama does it. Bundling, which is what this is, is simply a way for corporations to get around limits on campaign donations, yet still enable them to wield enormous influence.

Frankly the best thing that we could have happen is publicly financed elections, but I doubt that will happen. Instead corporations will continue to buy off politicians who will do what is in the best interests of their corporate masters and screw we the people.

[Perky]

106. Oh good grief

Yo think all of these contributions cam in from bundling? Why?

[MadHound]

107. No, I didn't say "all"

But bundling does happen on both the Democratic and Republican side. From my second link above,

"Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families)."

Further proof:

"Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html>

"Senator Obama has benefited significantly from “bundling,” which involves supporters collecting smaller contributions, putting them all together, and giving them to a politician. According to Public Citizens’s White House for Sale Web site, Barack’s had 262 “bundlers” each gather at least $50,000 for him. One is Commonwealth Edison chairman Frank Clark. Perhaps the utility’s millions of customers who saw rates skyrocket by 24 percent on average wish he’d spend less time on politics and more on providing energy at a reasonable cost."

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing>

Bundling happens, we were aware of it in Bush's campaigns, so why dismiss it when Obama does it? If it was wrong when Bush did it, why is it OK when Obama does it?

[uponit7771]

110. ***********Mike Moore Is Wrong, GS did NOT contribute to Obama's Campaign********

[MadHound]

112. Really, umm the facts say otherwise.

<http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638>

JP Morgan and Citigroup were big contributers as well:shrug:

[BklnDem75]

121. Yet you keep ignoring this fact in the link

"The organizations themselves did not donate"

Why not be honest?

[MadHound]

122. These organizations themselves did not donate to the Bush campaign either

They did so through the bundling method. Yet we all decried that, rightfully, as big business buying off Bush. So if that is the case, then how can we not say the same about Obama?

[BklnDem75]

123. Neither you nor your link offers proof of bundling

Can we stick to facts?

[MadHound]

130. Check post 127 below, I mistakenly answered your previous post,

But 127 contains the answers. Educate yourself.

[Whisp]

172. so true! so many of us are So uninformed.

has the donation system changed that much since Bush? I will confess I was willing and ready to believe that about Bush and his corporate donations. The sad fact is the Media spews this shit and we believe it even if we don't believe the Media. ugh.

some difference tho betwen the Bush and Obama. Bushs are mired in big money for generations. CIA, arms companies, drugs, etc, and who knows what, o yeah, trading with the Enemy in WW2, and all the extras the supr rich and powerful have at their behest, Obama has nothing going for him in that way. I think he is doing okay for a new guy on the block without all the necessary history and nefariousness.

If he really is the super big corporate shit many seem to think, he's hardly on the starting block.

[MadHound]

127. Here, educate yourself

From Open Secrets,

"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates."

Here is more,

"Senator Obama has benefited significantly from “bundling,” which involves supporters collecting smaller contributions, putting them all together, and giving them to a politician. According to Public Citizens’s White House for Sale Web site, Barack’s had 262 “bundlers” each gather at least $50,000 for him. One is Commonwealth Edison chairman Frank Clark. Perhaps the utility’s millions of customers who saw rates skyrocket by 24 percent on average wish he’d spend less time on politics and more on providing energy at a reasonable cost."

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing>

Get that, 262 bundlers. But wait, there's more,

" * Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

* Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html>

Money from bundlers in the oil industry. Wait, isn't that where Bushboy got some of his money? And didn't we righteously criticize him for that? But wait, there's more, the Obama campaign itself admitted to bundled donations.

" A bundler list provided by the committee shows that more than a third of the at least $41 million raised was collected by just 56 people. Each gathered at least $200,000 from donors.

Many are well-known moneymen and women in Democratic circles. Those leading the list raised at least $300,000. They include Penny Pritzker, billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress and a top Obama campaign fundraiser."

<http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/011508dninaugdonors.19305b7.html>

It gets better, apparently Obama appointed some bundlers to ambassadorships. Again, isn't that something we criticized about Bush, but now are giving Obama a pass? Why?

"President Barack Obama's pick for the post is from a different mold: John Roos, a San Francisco Bay area lawyer, was the president's chief Silicon Valley fundraiser and contributions "bundler." He has no diplomatic experience."

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124658149328689699.html>

I could go on and on about this, but the fact of the matter is that corporations donated, via bundling, to the Obama campaign, much like they did to the Bush campaign. We criticized this, rightly so, under Bush. Shouldn't Obama be scrutinized and criticized for it as well?




"

[onenote]

136. Also from Open Secrets: McCain relied more on Wall Street bundlers than Obama

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/bundlers-for-mccain-obama-are.html

You can find a list of Obama's bundlers on Open Secrets. Here are some facts:
Obama had over 550 "bundlers" rasing $50K or more for a total of around $76 million in bundled money
Of these around 45 raised more than $500K and another 135 raised between $200K and $500K.

Of those 560 bundlers, two had ties to Goldman Sachs. Neither was among the top 45 bundlers (they were both in the 200-500 range, meaning that they represented somewhere between $400,000 and $999,999 of the $76 million in bundled money.

The bundlers: Vicki and Bruce Heyman of Chicago, who have personally donated thousands to Democratic candidates and campaign committees over the years and have never given a dime to a repub, and David Heller of New YOrk, who has a similar track record of making tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to Democratic candidates and campaign committees over the years.

[MadHound]

142. Ah, so Obama was/is less corporately controlled than McCain? Is that what you're saying?

If so, it's not a very good rebuttal.

[Ignis]

143. "Democrats: We're not *quite* as corrupt as the other guys."

Someone please, please tell me this is not our 2010 campaign strategy!

:argh:

[BklnDem75]

138. As was already stated from your Open Secrets link,

"The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

As for your SourceWatch link, you do know you're quoting the section under the heading 'Criticisms from the Right', right? Now if you consider sources like National Review and New Media Journal as credible, there's just not much point in continuing this discussion. Perhaps you should think twice before posting a section that calls the President 'Barry.'

Your Fact Check link is basically saying the same thing that Open Secrets is saying which we all know already. It's merely focusing more towards donations by people who work in the Oil Industry.

Your final link is to a Murdoch owned rag complaining about an appointment by Obama who happened to be a donor. Look, if going on and on means posting more right wing crap, please save it.

[MadHound]

144. LOL!

You conveniently leave out part of that Open Secrets quote, namely

"Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates."

Did you get that? BUNDLING!

You're also using the tried and true tactic of a person who is short on facts, basically you can't attack the facts so you attack the source. Sad.

Well, for your further edification and education, let's look into this further

"But Obama is not exactly ignoring those supporters with deeper pockets and extensive connections. An analysis of his campaign’s 328 bundlers, who have raised anywhere from $50,000 to more than $200,000, reveals that they have brought in at least $31.65 million, accounting for at least 11.9 percent of Obama’s total fundraising haul of more than $265 million. Of those 328 bundlers, 78 individuals brought in about $15.6 million dollars to the campaign — at least 5.8 percent of his total funds.

In the interest of full disclosure, the Obama campaign has published its list of bundlers online, but at least one name seems to be missing. Robert Blackwell, a Chicago entrepreneur who has known Obama since his days in the Illinois State Senate, is a longtime supporter of the candidate."

<http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/336/>

Wait, Obama disclosed his list of bundlers:wow: He must be some sort of RW anti-Obama plant.

From an AP article

"More than a third of the money was collected by just 56 people, the committee's bundler list shows. Each gathered at least $200,000 from donors."

<http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/14/2311324-obama-inaugural-committee-reaches-money-goal>

Ah yes, those Teabaggers at the AP, at it again.

Again, Obama, as Bush did, used bundled donations, both from corporations and special interest groups to fund his run. We condemned Bush for this, but somehow it's OK for Obama? Hypocrisy much?

[

[BklnDem75]

146. So what?

It's not an illegal practice and really has nothing to do with Moore's claim. Honestly, if you want your candidates to handcuff themselves while the opposition takes full advantage, don't get mad your guy becomes the third guy in a two way race. Welcome to politics. It's not a game about fair and square.

[MadHound]

149. No, it's a game about who gets bought and sold

Moore is right, Obama is beholden to Goldman Sachs. A million dollars beholden, we'll see just how much a million dollars buys over the upcoming weeks.

So you were one of those who was fine with Bush getting bundled donations? You must really not give a damn about your government being bought and sold by the highest bidders.

[BklnDem75]

160. Hate to break it to you...

but Bush wasn't the first and Obama won't be the last. Being beholden to anyone that donated a fraction of a percent towards anyone's campaign is a million dollar pipe dream, but keep smoking it.

[MadHound]

161. So in other words, since everybody is doing it,

It's OK that that Obama and others put themselves up for sale to the highest bidder.

And that's the whole problem with our government, the massive amount of influence that corporations and corporate money have on our government. Thanks for being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[BklnDem75]

162. Other than complaining on a political forum,

what are you doing? Your kind of candidate is sitting on the sidelines while the realists are making actual changes. I'm really sorry, but your way of doing things just isn't working and hasn't worked in the past few decades.

[MadHound]

164. LOL, my "kind of candidate" got the swift boot to the ass by the Democratic party decades ago

I originally got involved in the McGovern campaign, but since he wasn't corporate enough, or military enough, the Democratic party essentially cut their support to him and left him on his own to face Nixon. Way to rally behind the candidate, eh?

Even so, I have worked for and/or donated to every single Democratic candidate since then. Of course the question is why? The left wing of the party has become ever more marginalized. My own profession, teaching, is now under assault from both the Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are now supporting two illegal, immoral wars. And both parties have sold their souls to their corporate masters.

So the question becomes what the hell is left for me in the Democratic party other than hanging on out of sheer inertia? I recognized that I'm not going to get everything I want from the Democratic party, but I expected I would get something every once in awhile. Instead my livelihood is under assault and my beliefs seem out of step with the rest of the party:shrug:

So yeah, I guess your right, being treated with respect, having my profession respected, and getting a bone thrown my way once in awhile is just so old fashioned. So tell me, why the fuck should I stick around? You're not making a very good case for that.

[BklnDem75]

173. Demoralization sure isn't the answer

The party you knew didn't change overnight and trying to demonize a president that's trying to work with a shitty hand won't bring us any closer to those days. You want the party to shift left, you elect Democrats. It's that simple. In time, we'll replace right leaning dems with middle of the road dems. Middle of the road with left leaning dems. The changes you want won't happen immediately, but, at least, we'll be going the right direction. The 'punish democrats' strategy only benefits conservatives.

[boppers]

184. "My own profession, teaching"?

You did see in this thread who the number one organizational contributor to Obama was, and thus, he was theoretically beholden too, right? (Hint: Not Goldman Sachs)

[amborin]

182. wow! great find, thanks for posting it! Obama makes his donors Ambassadors, w/ no exp; $$$ talks!

[bvar22]

113. We reformed the Democratic Party the Old Fashioned Way....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We BOUGHT it !!!!!

Hahahahahahahahaha!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party
who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works, you will know them."

[tammywammy]

116. I work for a large defense company

Does that mean I shouldn't donate to democratic candidates since it would be listed as my employer?

[Arkana]

117. You're clearly not progressive enough.

...do I really need the sarcasm tag? Please tell me I don't.

[tammywammy]

140. Actually I'm sure plenty of people here agree with that

Since the MIC is what gives me my paycheck each week.

[greencharlie]

118. well...

can't say I'm surprised. Politicians + Money... equals nothing good.

[WI_DEM]

119. so Obama took money from them and is going after them--good for Obama!

[amborin]

183. this Wall street "reform" doesn't touch the real problems:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8229595&mesg_id=8229595

[Phx_Dem]

124. So what. Obama isn't doing the bidding of Goldman in exchange for

their donations. He's actually trying to toughen regulations in spite of their political donations. If Goldman wants to spend its money helping elect people that will work against them by strengthening financial reform, I'm all for it.

I hope they keep donating to him. Though I'm guessing they won't.

[Hippo_Tron]

131. Of course they did, it was really fucking obvious he was going to be elected

And one rule of politics is that you give to the winner, no matter what.

Also as I've pointed out before, Obama isn't going to sell out on financial regulation for the paltry sum that Goldman employees gave to him. Wall Street regulation is worth far more in political points than a few million dollars in campaign contributions. When Goldman can raise nine figures for the President's re-election campaign then we'll start talking about bribery. Until then, I don't see how the benefits could possibly outweigh the costs.

[onenote]

137. Debunking a myth repeatedly found in this thread

Goldman Sachs PAC gave zero to Obama. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Moreover, that was true not only for Obama's presidential campaign, but its also true for his tenure as a Senator -- he never took anything from the Goldman Sachs PAC.

As a presidential candidate, he received a lot of money from a lot of Goldman Sachs employees. Undoubtedly, the reasons that they gave money are as varied as the reasons individuals working for other companies gave money. Some may have been men or women terrified at the idea of a republican getting elected and getting to name replacements for Souter, Stevens and Breyer on the Supreme COurt, resulting in the overturning of Roe. Others may have cared about the attitude of the repub party towards gay rights, or the war, or any of the many other reasons members of the public contributed to the Obama campaign.

Yes, Obama employed bundling and some of those bundlers were from Wall Street firms, although through the primary campaign period, Wall Street bundlers were more important to McCain than to Obama and were not the most important category of bundlers for Obama. Yes, two bundlers for Obama were from GOldman Sachs. But they were not among the top bundlers and represented a fairly minute (less than 2 percent) of the bundled money raised on Obama's behalf.


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. How insane!

Please don't give the RWers any ideas if they steal back one or both houses this November unless you like being the party with back-to-back presidential impeachments.

Mike, I love your work brother but now is not the time for this kind if nonsesne.

[ShortnFiery]

155. Yes, go back to work fellow American Patriots - Nothing to see here. Move along!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

158. I've always enjoyed your posts as a principled progressive

So let's talk principled applications of the law.

Do you think if the GOP takes/steals back one or both houses of congress in November there will be fair and principled investigations into law breaking or will they be kangaroo courts designed to bring down America's best--and first African America--president?

Whatever we may think of GS do you trust the GOP to handle this matter?

That's all I'm askin'.

[ShortnFiery]

165. I respect your person as well.

I am saying that the current crop of our Democrats in "leadership" positions will continue to serve the large corporations above the needs of the people.

I'm proposing that we weed-out the right-wing corporate democrats. Sadly, IMO, little to nothing substantial will change - in fact it will get worse - under either party rule UNTIL we rid ourselves of the Corporate Conservatives within both parties.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

167. I'm with you on this one

I think there is definitely some room for housecleaning in the democrat side of the house.

Where I part with the OP is that congress should investigate the president.

Assuming your scenario imagine the president investigating congress. He could clean-out any dirty democrats and have enough politcal capital to go after the GOP.

Imagine if all the corrupt, bribe-taking, staffer-fondling GOPers were put on public display. What might our next congress look like?

Single-payer?
Carbon caps?
No wars?
Fiscal justice?

Dare we dream such dreams?

[ShortnFiery]

168. Yes, we agree.

I'm still in the grieving process and my anger ekes out sideways sometimes.

President Obama COULD have done so much for social justice and the rule of law.

It was a beautiful concept but not the right person to lead the way.

No, but Obama needs to investigate Bush Co. sooner rather than later. :shrug:

[and-justice-for-all]

166. GS contributed to several of the candidates as I recall...nt

[treestar]

170. Why is it criminal?

Every candidate has a #1 contributor.

[Whisp]

176. if I stole a 1000 bucks from a bank, I'd not be in civil court.

way too much difference in laws between the pleebs and the owners.

but, maybe the civil can trench to something criminal.

[Radical Activist]

178. That makes it even more impressive that he's going after them.

Nice.