Finance industry (read: Wall Street) bets on Obama

[Si modo]

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations


By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam, Published: October 19

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.

As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. ....

[Emphasis added]

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

Hmmmmm. Will Obama get in bed with the OWS or will he keep his bank (no pun intended) from Wall Street?

He might do both. If he directly supports the OWS, the OWS aren't the brightest bulbs in the box so they likely won't even know that Obama is Wall Street's favorite.

But, if he doesn't deflect from his record in some way, that's a dicey path to pursue for 2012.

 

[8537]

His rhetoric will offer limited support to the concerns of OWS and the middle class.

His actions will offer slightly less limited support to Wall Street.

Fear not, all bases will be properly covered!

 

[Si modo]

His rhetoric will offer limited support to the concerns of OWS and the middle class.

His actions will offer slightly less limited support to Wall Street.

Fear not, all bases will be properly covered!

Well, we already know he has no substance.

At this point, that's a given.

 

[G.T.]

I think that doing something like protesting the corruption of big banks and wallstreet isn't making a blanket assertion that all banks and all of wallstreet are corrupt. That's how the dynamic works where you can be endorsed by some Wallstreeters and Bankers, while protesting others.

 

[8537]

His rhetoric will offer limited support to the concerns of OWS and the middle class.

His actions will offer slightly less limited support to Wall Street.

Fear not, all bases will be properly covered!

Well, we already know he has no substance.

At this point, that's a given.

Personally, I think there really is some substance behind him - but he's done a poor job of managing the narrative. Too inclined to please all of the people all of the time.

 

[Si modo]

Obama plans to turn anti-Wall Street anger on Mitt Romney, Republicans

Good luck with that, Mr. President.

 

[8537]

I think that doing something like protesting the corruption of big banks and wallstreet isn't making a blanket assertion that all banks and all of wallstreet are corrupt. That's how the dynamic works where you can be endorsed by some Wallstreeters and Bankers, while protesting others.

I agree - It's logically consistent to say that AIG execs shouldn't be getting 100M bonuses and certain Wall Street institutions are partly responsible for our current mess, while also acknowledging that Wall Street firms play an important role in our economy and generally do so in a positive manner.

But that doesn't fit into a sound bite.

 

[Truthmatters]

shame on him for trying to represent all the people.


Even wall street knows the current republican party will bring futher disaster than they already did last time they were in office.

 

[Si modo]

I think that doing something like protesting the corruption of big banks and wallstreet isn't making a blanket assertion that all banks and all of wallstreet are corrupt. That's how the dynamic works where you can be endorsed by some Wallstreeters and Bankers, while protesting others.

I agree - It's logically consistent to say that AIG execs shouldn't be getting 100M bonuses and certain Wall Street institutions are partly responsible for our current mess, while also acknowledging that Wall Street firms play an important role in our economy and generally do so in a positive manner.

But that doesn't fit into a sound bite.

I agree as well, but he will have to give up his plans to focus Wall Street anger on Republicans. That won't wash with his being their favored candidate - by far their favored candidate.

 

[Dragon]

I agree that Obama is a corrupt stooge of Wall Street. I also agree that his attempt to make use of the passion of the Occupy movement while remaining a corrupt stooge of Wall Street is cynical, insulting, and doomed to failure.

No man can serve two masters. Either he's with them, or he's with us. Either he serves the 1% or the 99%. To do both is impossible.

 

[Katzndogz]

Obama plans to turn anti-Wall Street anger on Mitt Romney, Republicans

Good luck with that, Mr. President.

It's not helping.

Obama Job Approval Average Slides to New Low in 11th Quarter

Since obambam announced his support of OWS, he's only slid deeper into the hole.

 

[G.T.]

I think that doing something like protesting the corruption of big banks and wallstreet isn't making a blanket assertion that all banks and all of wallstreet are corrupt. That's how the dynamic works where you can be endorsed by some Wallstreeters and Bankers, while protesting others.

I agree - It's logically consistent to say that AIG execs shouldn't be getting 100M bonuses and certain Wall Street institutions are partly responsible for our current mess, while also acknowledging that Wall Street firms play an important role in our economy and generally do so in a positive manner.

But that doesn't fit into a sound bite.

I agree as well, but he will have to give up his plans to focus Wall Street anger on Republicans. That won't wash with his being their favored candidate - by far their favored candidate.

why won't it wash?

In my opinion, if Obama gets the majority of the support of big business and banking, etc. then he is being cosigned idealogically by the people Republicans "say" Obama's policies are bad for, and that's pretty damning for their position.

It is, in fact, logical to assume that perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there - perhaps they agree with Obama's economic views and are more-so inclined to disagree with the Republican obstruction that's been going on against what he's trying to implement.

Why?

Because obviously the more robust is the middle class, the better they do, but the R's are instead focusing their attention on making the Upper class more robust, who have much less of a populace to go on spending sprees at their big Businesses, en masse.

 

[G.T.]

I agree that Obama is a corrupt stooge of Wall Street. I also agree that his attempt to make use of the passion of the Occupy movement while remaining a corrupt stooge of Wall Street is cynical, insulting, and doomed to failure.

No man can serve two masters. Either he's with them, or he's with us. Either he serves the 1% or the 99%. To do both is impossible.

I disagree and think that this sort of rhetoric is bad for the country and also bad for the cause. It assumes an "us vs. them" mentality and assumes that the entire 1% are some corrupt sleazebags, which they're definitely not.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

He will do both.
Wall Street is not concerned about what politician SAY...they are only concerned in what politicians DO.
If Obama was elected again, and if [shudder] Democrats regained the house...Wall Street would have enormous chances of coming out smelling like roses.
The republicans have to contend with the Tea Party (the true anti-wall street crowd) which would politically hang Republicans if they even mention the word stimulus...the Dems...they just name it something else to easily fool their constituents and Wall Street wins BIG.

 

[Sallow]

Don't really have access to the web but from what I've read the Street is giving more to Romney then Obama. They want Dodd Frank gone and Mitt has said he would get it repealed.

 

[Dragon]

I disagree and think that this sort of rhetoric is bad for the country and also bad for the cause. It assumes an "us vs. them" mentality and assumes that the entire 1% are some corrupt sleazebags, which they're definitely not.

While it is true that there are wealthy individuals who are not the enemy, the wealthy as a class are, and those individuals who are not obtain that non-inimical status by going against the interests and the behavior of their class.

It's time for some class warfare and I make no apologies for it. The alternative under the present circumstances is class surrender.

Regarding Obama, here's an important thing to remember. Both political parties have centers of gravity that lie to the right of what the people want on economic issues. A majority of the people want a single payer health plan. A majority of the people want narrower income gaps, and a focus on jobs rather than the deficit. A majority of the people believes that corporations have too much influence on the government.

The Democrats are to the right of all of these positions, bar a few individual Dems. We know they're not in favor of a single payer health plan because if they were we'd have one; they controlled both houses of Congress plus the White House for two years. Same with all the rest of that. Because of the corruption of the government by corporate money, the things that the people want can't be voted on because they're not even on the ballot. The people support them, but none of the people's representatives do.

The electoral system is broken. We no longer have a representative democratic republic. We have a bought-and-paid-for plutocracy. And the only way we're going to change that is if we recognize exactly what the problem is, and call -- er -- a shovel a shovel. So to speak.

 

[8537]

I agree - It's logically consistent to say that AIG execs shouldn't be getting 100M bonuses and certain Wall Street institutions are partly responsible for our current mess, while also acknowledging that Wall Street firms play an important role in our economy and generally do so in a positive manner.

But that doesn't fit into a sound bite.

I agree as well, but he will have to give up his plans to focus Wall Street anger on Republicans. That won't wash with his being their favored candidate - by far their favored candidate.

why won't it wash?

In my opinion, if Obama gets the majority of the support of big business and banking, etc. then he is being cosigned idealogically by the people Republicans "say" Obama's policies are bad for, and that's pretty damning for their position.

It is, in fact, logical to assume that perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there - perhaps they agree with Obama's economic views and are more-so inclined to disagree with the Republican obstruction that's been going on against what he's trying to implement.

Why?

Because obviously the more robust is the middle class, the better they do, but the R's are instead focusing their attention on making the Upper class more robust, who have much less of a populace to go on spending sprees at their big Businesses, en masse.

While the Republicans might offer more pure ideological appeal to Wall Street, those same Wall Streeters aren't going to like hearing about how terrible TARP and Stimulus program were, and how the Republican Candidate would never, ever do such things.

 

[Si modo]

Don't really have access to the web but from what I've read the Street is giving more to Romney then Obama. They want Dodd Frank gone and Mitt has said he would get it repealed.

Not according to this report. Obama is taking in more bank from Wall Street than all the current GOP candidates combined.

 

[G.T.]

Don't really have access to the web but from what I've read the Street is giving more to Romney then Obama. They want Dodd Frank gone and Mitt has said he would get it repealed.

Not according to this report. Obama is taking in more bank from Wall Street than all the current GOP candidates combined.

Gee, I wonder if he's as bad for the "job creators" as the Republicans say?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

His rhetoric will offer limited support to the concerns of OWS and the middle class.

His actions will offer slightly less limited support to Wall Street.

Fear not, all bases will be properly covered!

Well, we already know he has no substance.

At this point, that's a given.

Personally, I think there really is some substance behind him - but he's done a poor job of managing the narrative. Too inclined to please all of the people all of the time.

Uhm, you're joking, right?