OK. We get it. Wall Street hates Obama.

[ericlp]

http://www.salon.com/news/wall_street/?story=/tech/htww/2010/08/31/wall_street_is_the_villain


I saw a the numbers someplace... When Obama was elected wall street was funding the dems by 70%.

Now the numbers show wall street is funding the R's 69%. I have to imagine that wall street pays out a pretty penny. If you don't have a BIG bank roll... face it! Your not going to get elected. The more money you got the bigger the seat you can fill.

I know it's sad to that we base the dollar on who get's elected tho it is what it is. Obama tried to shift the huge bonuses and pay outs to the top while we the tax payer just bailed their ass's out. I can see why wall street hates Obama. They want business as usual. You know when Bush had it's way... Why rock the boat? Why try to change anything? With big business not even the president can change that.

I'm wondering if this is why we are seeing some of the big gains to why the "R"s are leading in the polls. Money talks BS walks. With out the funding Obama is burning himself on both ends. Trying to help the tax payer that bailed their asses out meanwhile getting burned by maybe even not getting elected for his next term with no funds for to fill the airwaves.

I guess his old saying of being a one term is coming to a reality.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think so. I think Wall Street puts it money on whoever it perceives will be the winning horse at a given point in time. In this case, the following sequence is about right:

Wall Street helps to tank the U.S. economy.
Wall Streets knows that the GOP, who was in power when the economy tanked, will likely be the losing horse.
Wall Street gives money to the dems.
Fast foward to 2010, the economy remains in ruins. Wall Street knows the dems, who are in power during the still bad economy, will likely be the losing horse.
Wall Street gives money to the reps.

In short, you may have confused the cause and effect to some degree.

- wolf

 

[PricklyPete]

I don't think so. I think Wall Street puts it money on whoever it perceives will be the winning horse at a given point in time. In this case, the following sequence is about right:

Wall Street helps to tank the U.S. economy.
Wall Streets knows that the GOP, who was in power when the economy tanked, will likely be the losing horse.
Wall Street gives money to the dems.
Fast foward to 2010, the economy remains in ruins. Wall Street knows the dems, who are in power during the still bad economy, will likely be the losing horse.
Wall Street gives money to the reps.

In short, you may have confused the cause and effect to some degree.

- wolf

I think you make a very good point. They want to make their bed with whomever the current leader(s) are.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Lol wallstreet doesn't give a rats ass who is in charge. They get to fuck everyone either way.

 

[ericlp]

In short, you may have confused the cause and effect to some degree.

- wolf

Well, you can spin it any way you like....

I didn't see them giving 70% to Dems when they knew McSame was gonna lose. Nice try tho......

Not only that, but, you can't predict the outcome. I haven't heard that spin in the news ... Here let me sprinkle some salt and butter on that theory. I'm not buying it. Next your gonna tell us with 10 bucks you too can be president! Damn must be nice living in fairy land.

 

[PokerGuy]

Big bad evil wall street. Do you really think they care what ideology is in office? They'll fund whoever they think will further their interests and they back the winning horse. That's how it works. You're just a sad little libtard who doesn't understand how reality works.

 

[hal2kilo]

Big bad evil wall street. Do you really think they care what ideology is in office? They'll fund whoever they think will further their interests and they back the winning horse. That's how it works. You're just a sad little libtard who doesn't understand how reality works.

I think it's pretty obvious where Wall Streets political heart is just watch the non-stop bashing of Democratic policies and any business show including CNBC. Never skipped a beat whether the Dems were in power on not.

Like Woolfy pointed out, they want to be on the side of the winner when it comes to who's in power. There they have no shame.

 

[squirrel dog]

More like Barry Sorento hates wall street.

 

[nyker96]

I don't think Wall Street is stupid, even if they bet on the winner, they will hedge their funds so just in case, it turns the other way, they will not get wiped out entirely.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think either cause and effect has got it right yet.

Their interest is in donating to whoever can win - to keep big money needed to win, so that the threat to remove that money can be used as leverage.

That's the essential way the rich keep a larger share of political power than democracy intended - paying for budgets for ads essential in shaping public opinion.

Honest politicians will talk all day about how much they hate the huge need for fundraising.

 

[piasabird]

Wall street does not hate or love anyone. It is the policies of the administration that they do not like. Wall street does not like instability. They like to know what the tax situation is going to look like next year and they want to see stability in the budget. They also do not like to see all of these things like home buyer credits and mishandling by government bailouts. The longer the government bails people out the longer it takes for the market to determine the real state of the economy. The market wants to see balanced budgets and real cutbacks in government spending. Even more important the government wants to see real leadership and a positive attitude from the government.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think either cause and effect has got it right yet.

Their interest is in donating to whoever can win - to keep big money needed to win, so that the threat to remove that money can be used as leverage.

That's the essential way the rich keep a larger share of political power than democracy intended - paying for budgets for ads essential in shaping public opinion.

Honest politicians will talk all day about how much they hate the huge need for fundraising.

You don't think that Wall Street puts the lion's share of their lobby money on whichever party they think is the odds on favorite to win, just like they put their investment money on whichever security is the odds on favorite to appreciate in value? Of course they do.

The rest of your post I agree with. Yeah, the rich spend their money in the political arena in order to make themselves richer. And they've been damn successful at it.

- wolf

 

[theeedude]

Wall street loves itself. When they wanted someone to keep the bailouts rolling, they supported Obama, now that they want to keep their taxes and regulations low so none of this bail out burden gets passed to them, they love GOP.

 

[Darwin333]

Well, you can spin it any way you like....

I didn't see them giving 70% to Dems when they knew McSame was gonna lose. Nice try tho......

Not only that, but, you can't predict the outcome. I haven't heard that spin in the news ... Here let me sprinkle some salt and butter on that theory. I'm not buying it. Next your gonna tell us with 10 bucks you too can be president! Damn must be nice living in fairy land.

What are you smoking? Aside from the smoke and mirrors bullshit he talks, his ACTIONS have been extremely kind to "wall street" and the banks.

Hell, the economy is still in the shitter but they seem to be making money just fine. Even got Obama to sign into law a guarantee for their bonuses... Not a single indictment for their fraudulent actions that fucked over the entire economy and stole untold trillions, .gov purchased all of their worthless paper at face value, blatant front running, bid rigging, insider trading, market manipulation, etc... Either Wall Street is blowing Obama or Obama is blowing them, either way one of them is getting off. Even a majority of the programs that were sold as helping the average joe were nothing more than backdoor bailouts to the banks. I am not sure that Obama could possibly give them anymore money or special privileges without causing riots.

As far as the funding, Wall St. generally invests in who they think will win. Its kinda what they do for a living but they often hedge their bets as well. A lot of time you will see a company funding both sides almost equally. If they are funding Reps right now that is because they think they will win not because they actually like them. Can't let someone get into office that isn't already bought and paid for.

 

[Darwin333]

I think it's pretty obvious where Wall Streets political heart is just watch the non-stop bashing of Democratic policies and any business show including CNBC. Never skipped a beat whether the Dems were in power on not.

Like Woolfy pointed out, they want to be on the side of the winner when it comes to who's in power. There they have no shame.

To add to that point a bit, split rule is probably exactly what they want. Obama in the White House and a Republican house because not much gets done that way. They like the way things are right now and would probably really like nothing getting done.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think either cause and effect has got it right yet.

Their interest is in donating to whoever can win - to keep big money needed to win, so that the threat to remove that money can be used as leverage.

That's the essential way the rich keep a larger share of political power than democracy intended - paying for budgets for ads essential in shaping public opinion.

Honest politicians will talk all day about how much they hate the huge need for fundraising.

It doesn't help that most of our politicians are rich too. I have never met a rich man who actively tried to become less rich. A few might exist but I have yet to meet one.

 

[Craig234]

It doesn't help that most of our politicians are rich too. I have never met a rich man who actively tried to become less rich. A few might exist but I have yet to meet one.

Politicians generally aren't rich.

The corruption isn't the simple type, like when the rulers of England passed bills that helped themselves as the richest people in the country.

Rather, politicians are - the bad ones - 'hired hands' who serve an agenda and get a few crumbs for doing so.

Some are rewarded with well-paid lobbyist or consulting roles after they help the right people.

Like Rubin, VP at Citibank after passing financial regulation, or the Republican who led the Medicare Part D bill and was made head of big pharma lobbying for a couple million annually.

But generally, the politicians are very poor compared to real rich people, and you will miss the corruption if you look for it as benefitting them personally.

 

[BoberFett]

Politicians generally aren't rich.

It doesn't help that you and the rest of the loony left can't even keep what the meaning of "rich" is. Apparently in the private sector being in the top 2% of income makes you "rich" but when you become a public servant and live better than 99.9% of Americans you're not "rich."

What's truly "rich" is the joke that the elite have pulled on people like Craig who believe that wealthy Democrats truly care about him.

 

[JS80]

I think it's pretty obvious where Wall Streets political heart is just watch the non-stop bashing of Democratic policies and any business show including CNBC. Never skipped a beat whether the Dems were in power on not.

Like Woolfy pointed out, they want to be on the side of the winner when it comes to who's in power. There they have no shame.

I hope you are kidding. CNBC has a bunch of Obama's knob polishing populist pushing piece of poops.

 

[PokerGuy]

watch the non-stop bashing of Democratic policies and any business show including CNBC. Never skipped a beat whether the Dems were in power on not.

Perhaps if the dims would stop pushing anti-business policies and legislation that's going to destroy the economy, the business community might be more supportive? Ya think?

 

[werepossum]

http://www.salon.com/news/wall_street/?story=/tech/htww/2010/08/31/wall_street_is_the_villain


I saw a the numbers someplace... When Obama was elected wall street was funding the dems by 70%.

Now the numbers show wall street is funding the R's 69%. I have to imagine that wall street pays out a pretty penny. If you don't have a BIG bank roll... face it! Your not going to get elected. The more money you got the bigger the seat you can fill.

I know it's sad to that we base the dollar on who get's elected tho it is what it is. Obama tried to shift the huge bonuses and pay outs to the top while we the tax payer just bailed their ass's out. I can see why wall street hates Obama. They want business as usual. You know when Bush had it's way... Why rock the boat? Why try to change anything? With big business not even the president can change that.

I'm wondering if this is why we are seeing some of the big gains to why the "R"s are leading in the polls. Money talks BS walks. With out the funding Obama is burning himself on both ends. Trying to help the tax payer that bailed their asses out meanwhile getting burned by maybe even not getting elected for his next term with no funds for to fill the airwaves.

I guess his old saying of being a one term is coming to a reality.

Well, you can spin it any way you like....

I didn't see them giving 70% to Dems when they knew McSame was gonna lose. Nice try tho......

Not only that, but, you can't predict the outcome. I haven't heard that spin in the news ... Here let me sprinkle some salt and butter on that theory. I'm not buying it. Next your gonna tell us with 10 bucks you too can be president! Damn must be nice living in fairy land.

Seek medical attention quickly, dude, for you've had a stroke. "When Obama was elected" WAS "when they knew McSame was gonna lose." Wolfe is right; Wall Street tends to like the progressives, but perceived victory trumps ideology in determining donations.

Wall street does not hate or love anyone. It is the policies of the administration that they do not like. Wall street does not like instability. They like to know what the tax situation is going to look like next year and they want to see stability in the budget. They also do not like to see all of these things like home buyer credits and mishandling by government bailouts. The longer the government bails people out the longer it takes for the market to determine the real state of the economy. The market wants to see balanced budgets and real cutbacks in government spending. Even more important the government wants to see real leadership and a positive attitude from the government.

Very profound analysis, thanks. I still think Wolfe is correct though in that as much as Wall Street (and really, all business) admittedly hates uncertainty, if it looked like the Democrats were going to remain in control they'd be receiving the bulk of the donations.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Wall street does not hate or love anyone. It is the policies of the administration that they do not like. Wall street does not like instability. They like to know what the tax situation is going to look like next year and they want to see stability in the budget. They also do not like to see all of these things like home buyer credits and mishandling by government bailouts. The longer the government bails people out the longer it takes for the market to determine the real state of the economy. The market wants to see balanced budgets and real cutbacks in government spending. Even more important the government wants to see real leadership and a positive attitude from the government.

I was going to post, but this post does it for me. 100% spot on.

 

[MacFatty]

It doesn't help that you and the rest of the loony left can't even keep what the meaning of "rich" is. Apparently in the private sector being in the top 2% of income makes you "rich" but when you become a public servant and live better than 99.9% of Americans you're not "rich." What's truly "rich" is the joke that the elite have pulled on people like Craig who believe that wealthy Democrats truly care about him.

Have you ever looked up the pay rates of "public servants"?
President's Salary = $400k per year.
Vice-President's Salary = $233k per year.
Average Congressman's Salary = $174k per year.

Considering their expenses these salaries are fair (imo) and wouldn't be considered "rich". If you want to get into a debate about the meaning of "rich", well I don't think that's the point of the thread.

Politicians generally aren't rich. The corruption isn't the simple type, like when the rulers of England passed bills that helped themselves as the richest people in the country. Rather, politicians are - the bad ones - 'hired hands' who serve an agenda and get a few crumbs for doing so. Some are rewarded with well-paid lobbyist or consulting roles after they help the right people. Like Rubin, VP at Citibank after passing financial regulation, or the Republican who led the Medicare Part D bill and was made head of big pharma lobbying for a couple million annually. But generally, the politicians are very poor compared to real rich people, and you will miss the corruption if you look for it as benefitting them personally.

Absolutely right.

 

[Darwin333]

Have you ever looked up the pay rates of "public servants"?
President's Salary = $400k per year.
Vice-President's Salary = $233k per year.
Average Congressman's Salary = $174k per year.

Considering their expenses these salaries are fair (imo) and wouldn't be considered "rich". If you want to get into a debate about the meaning of "rich", well I don't think that's the point of the thread.



Absolutely right.

What did they make BEFORE they became a "public servant"?

 

[Double Trouble]

What did they make BEFORE they became a "public servant"?

..... and, what would they make based on their skills and performance if they worked in the private sector instead of the government?