Dude, there is a specific sector called "Labor" in the Contributions by Sector page on opensecrets.org. The amount of donation from that sector totals $33,046, a paltry 0.04% that cannot even be visible on the bar graph. Companies coercing their employees? What the heck are you talking about? Stay on the topic or take a hike. No, I am not being hysterical. I am calling it like I see it. Truth, apparently hurts you and Obama apologists more than anything. Obama's much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from "federal lobbyists" never covers those who skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying. In other words, he bans lobbyists [even that has yet to be proved] but not the lobbying activities. As Boston Globe reporter Scott Helman put it, there is much "more complicated truth" lurking "behind Obama's campaign rhetoric." Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability depended significantly on the money lobbied by special interest groups, and he retained close and lucrative funding relationships with leading Washington-based lobbyists and lobbying firms while technically avoiding direct contributions from those key campaign finance players. HYPOCRITE
Technically speaking, he was Co-CEO with John Thain. But getting back to Major's example, no wall street bank would actually employ any janitors. Such non-business related stuff would just be sourced out to a third-party cleaning company..
I was guessing you were suggesting that employers were coercing their employees to donate to a certain candidate. Otherwise we come back the point that you list proves nothing... not one thing that could be reasonably called Hypocrisy by Obama. As has been pointed out personal donation stats have been compiled under the list of their employers. You posted the list of employers trying to implicate some kind of influence from companies on Obama's campaign. But if there's no coercion involved then a bunch of individuals donating doesn't really mater who their employers are, so your list proves nothing. Your whole rant on former lobbyists doesn't make sense either unless they are pushing policy influence, which you've shown no evidence of either. You are just throwing out things, and using the most tenuous of threads to try and connect them.
^wnes make sure you mention the Illuminati and the tri-lateral commission next time - it will really tie the whole thing together. Keep posting - your anti-obama campaign is inversely correlated to his success. I attribute this to your widespread popularity on the BBS.
Not John Thain, but Henry Paulson......always used to get them confused... Anyways, GS has traditionally supported Democrat candidates financially and has also encouraged its employees to do so......this was true even before Robert Rubin had been made Treasury Secretary under Clinton...
From my recollection there were no secretaries at GS either.....only in-office girlfriends......secretary was just a term used to fool the wifeys
Very nice comparison between the two. I've seen Bill in person a few times and it really makes a difference in how you look at the candidate. That's what is missing for me with Obama. I need to see him at a rally and get the vibe, if he has it. Apparently he does, but it's something I'd like to experience myself. I may try to see them after the debate at the "watch party," at the Hyatt in Austin. Obama and Clinton(s?) are supposed to go there after the debate and smooze. Impeach Bush.
Great thread by the OP, and you should've expected the conspiracy theorist to come out trying to discredit but what I think is People are tired, they are sick of the same trashing of every candidate, they are tired of this war, they are tired of excuses, they are tired of all talk, they want a change. That's the main thing here. I know im tired of hearing Bush talk, I'm tired of the media, I'm tired of the division and no solutions. If it is true that this man Obama can bring people back together that goes a long way with my vote. Billary has run their course in leadership. If they're having a fit losing in one state, then they'll for sure have issues being in the white house.
McCain much more closely represents the voting issues of the independent center of the political spectrum than does Obama. Take a look at Obama's policy positions (i.e. look past his drama queen teleprompted sermons) and you find a very liberal platform and a very negative message. It's just camouflaged behind his sizzle. It won't be for long...
What do you mean donor's employer is meaningless? If it's meaningless, then you would expect to see a randomly distributed donation pattern -- the strong associations between the amount of donation and specific sectors are anything but random. Of course I did, multiple times, but you Obama nuthuggers chose to ignore repeatedly. For instance, what has Obama done to curb the obscene practices by the none-for-profit University of Chicago Hospital that price-gouges the uninsured by charging them three and half times as much for the exact same care received by those insured, in what Obama said in his own stump speech elsewhere, "terrorized the uninsured"? Maybe it has something to do with his wife's promotion to one of the VPs of the hospital, several top executives of which have donated $100,000 to his campaign over the years? Another example. Obama helped to rewrite an energy bill that weakens federal regulation with each successive draft to reflect changes sought by Exelon, a nuclear energy company that poured more than $220 thousands into Obama's campaign. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Is it just a coincidence that Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate, and in addition, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon? Last but not the least, what due diligence did Obama show when the residents were forced to live without heating in winter and under squalid conditions in deteriorating buildings -- that are only a few blocks away from Obama's state senator office in downtown Chicago -- managed by slumlord Rezko's company, for which Obama helped to secure government funding?
Gladly. Obama's Gloomy Big-Government Vision By Lawrence Kudlow Senator Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he's aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing -- exactly what the nation and the stock market doesn't want to hear. Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers. The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth. This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington. Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business. Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too. The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax. Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital. Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers? Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer." Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers. Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital -- and reaping the economic rewards -- Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages. Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway, and Sweden? That's no way to run economic policy. I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects he is a breath of fresh air. He's an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likeable, and sometimes he gets it -- such as when he opposed Hillary Clinton's five-year rate-freeze on mortgages. But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_gloomy_biggovernment_vi.html
Excellent read by Larry Kudlow. Hussein Ubama's economics are that of a tax and spend liberal. That's far from being a "uniter"
as opposed to decrease taxes and increase spending? doesn't sound fiscally conservative to me. while i personally would like to lower taxes and cut just about all spending (VOTE RON PAUL), it is more responsible, if you're going to increase spending, to increase taxes. in real life if you only bring in $1000/month but live like you bring in $5,000/mo it's not too long until you will be broke, sure you can borrow money. at some point you'll have to begin to pay off debts. we can't continue to borrow money. i think the chinese are going to want a return on their money eventually no?
