Is Obama just in it for the money?

Many of his followers deny this, but that doesn%26#039;t mean it isn%26#039;t true. It%26#039;s no secret that Barack Obama is one of the top recipients of corporate campaign contributions in this election -- in fact, he%26#039;s number two in the U.S. Senate behind Hillary Clinton for payoff money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries (which explains his successful gutting of health care reform while %26quot;serving%26quot; in the Illinois state senate).

But the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy go a bit deeper than that. According to Corporate Crime Reporter, the senator has pulled a fast one.

I seriously doubt Obama is unaware that he%26#039;s taking money from lobbying firms. A politician smart enough and slick enough to beat Hillary and Bill Clinton at their own game is smart enough to know where his campaign contributions are coming from. Let%26#039;s take a look at how the bribe money (oops, I forget we%26#039;re not supposed to actually call it that, even though that%26#039;s exactly what it is) is broken down. From the link to OpenSecrets.org:

BARACK OBAMA (D)

Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs -- $421,763

Ubs Ag -- $296,670

Lehman Brothers -- $250,630

National Amusements Inc -- $245,843

JP Morgan Chase %26amp; Co -- $243,848

Sidley Austin LLP -- 226,491

Citigroup Inc -- 221,578

Exelon Corp -- 221,517

Skadden, Arps Et Al -- $196,420

Jones Day -- $181,996

Harvard University -- $172,324

Citadel Investment Group -- $171,798

Time Warner -- $155,383

Morgan Stanley -- $155,196

Google Inc -- $152,802

University of California -- $143,029

Jenner %26amp; Block -- $136,565

Kirkland %26amp; Ellis -- $134,738

Wilmerhale Llp -- $119,245

Credit Suisse Group -- $118,250

What Obama has done is pull a sleight-of-hand trick. By avoiding direct contributions, he manages to appear as though he is keeping his promise not to accept money from federal lobbyists. But in actuality, he is still taking it from the lobbying firms. He gets away with it by claiming that he is taking individual contributions from those not registered as lobbyists. Technically true, but it%26#039;s a cheat: the money is instead going through middle men, employees of lobbying firms who can operate under the proverbial radar.

My friends, we have been well and truly snookered. The corporate media has successfully shut out the real Democrats running for president, so we are now stuck with two corporate-owned candidates who will not do anything to significantly change the status quo. It is well known that Hillary Clinton is beholden to corporate interests. And her efforts to omit her ties from her %26quot;thirty-five years of experience%26quot; spiel have largely failed. Every time I do digging on Obama, who preaches about making a change from the usual business of Washington corruption, I find more and more evidence that he is just another fraud, lying to people so he can obtain political power. He%26#039;s playing us all like a harp from hell.

It is now more imperative than ever that Progressives take the opportunity 2008 presents to expand our presence in Congress, and weaken the hold Big Business has on our legislature. It%26#039;s not enough to just elect Democrats; we have to get the right ones elected. Otherwise the lessons from 2006 shall all have been for nothing.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

Who isn%26#039;t? What%26#039;s so surprising about corporate donors? That%26#039;s just getting them hooked up for all the speaking engagements either after they win or loose.

It%26#039;s all about name recognition and what better way to get it than corporate sponsorship?

Collen Powell did the best job of this. People were throwing money at Powell and he did not even get in the race. However, that name recognition upped his personal appearance fees.

Dude went into the Bush administration with a net worth of less than $2,000,000 and is now worth $60,000,000!

It%26#039;s a win or lose and win proposition.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

Are you kidding? No candidate can be in it for the money.

Do you understand how many hundreds of millions of $ it takes to run a campaign??? It is NOT a sound fiscal investment, and never has been.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

No

Is Obama just in it for the money?

I hope you weren%26#039;t trying to turn his people against him. If you are you suck at it!

Is Obama just in it for the money?

Talk about clueless, those donations go straight to his campign, not to him.

And anyone can tell you people like Obama could make a TON more money in the private sector than he could as president.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

I hope he lose period. Barack Obama it%26#039;s not your time, granted you gave it a great run, however step down and allow the Lady to take control of this country. She is better prepared and skilled, plus she brings with her experience.

If I apply for a job without experience they would over look my potential, right? If you come with experience they will hire you first before they would hire me.

Vote Hillary.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

You do know they get to put the money in their pockets right? Where are the %26quot;health insurance and pharmaceutical industries%26quot; you claimed he is getting most of his financing from? you named Law Firms, Universities and Banks.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

who cares. we cant do nothing about it

Is Obama just in it for the money?

There is no surprising about company donors. What surprises is how Obama can stand saying he is against lobbyists. That is hypocrisy and lie.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

Unfortunately, that is politics. Edwards couldn%26#039;t win because he didn%26#039;t take the money. I believe Obama may not want to take it or may have started out not wanting to but you can%26#039;t win without money. The only way things will change is to limit the amount anyone can spend on their campaign and give everyone the same amount. It will never happen. So this is what we get for letting the lobbyist get too powerful.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

Without a doubt but he has a cult type following and they are to blind to see the truth

Is Obama just in it for the money?

You are an ***. You are a Republican propagandist. why don%26#039;t you talk about how good your man is rather than spending all this time and energy trying to destroy your opponent? Does he have nothing to offer?

Is Obama just in it for the money?

But mostly for the power.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

You do realize that

%26quot;The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization%26#039;s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals%26#039; immediate families.%26quot;

That is straight from opensecrets.org.

So in other words, my uncle who works for JP Morgan Chase is one of those donors included in that list. It%26#039;s everyday people like you and I.

Read the bold print before you post next time.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

ummm... welll have u read his logo WE WANT CHANGE yer thats the best answer and his logo tell is all.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

no, because he wants to be the first black president.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

Firts %26amp; Foremost: Your question is farfetched %26amp; left field!

It is evident, you are trying to run a vicious attempt to sway his voters!

This Just In: You won%26#039;t succeed, you are already defeated!

Secondly, he is not in it for the money!

Donations are not given to him directly, they are given to his campaign to fund it!

Unbeknownst to people who are full of hate %26amp; envy, this country is in dire need of CHANGE!!!!

He is the man to bring about such.

I look forward to a country where I can believe %26amp; anticipate these three terms:

CHANGE, HOPE %26amp; UNITY!!!!!

Is Obama just in it for the money?

These type of questions indicate how scared the opposition is.

Is Obama just in it for the money?

he is in it to bring honor to his fore fathers

Is Obama just in it for the money?

they all are, they are all talk and no do

The Traders Did It?

anyone who thinks they can successfully trade or who gives trading advice to others, should take a minute to consider the implications of the following news article:

http://www.forbes.com/home/wallstreet/20...

If professional traders, employed and *trained* by investment banks, end up losing lots of money - something that happens much more frequently than the %26quot;few%26quot; traders mentioned in the article - what makes you think anyone else can do any better?

The Traders Did It?

I will gladly answer that.

You are talking about investments that are done on a day to day or week to week basis. Of course the risk level is the same as betting on a football game.

Most people who ask for advice on Yahoo, or atleast the ones I answer, are asking for long-term investment advice.

I do not even attempt to give people advice on investments of a short term nature. If I do, it is a CD or savings account.

However, your point is well taken. I have subscribed to some of the top Financial Newsletters for many years.

You know what I have learned?

They dont do any better with their picks than you or I. In many cases they do worse.

Unless you want people to put their money in the ground in the backyard, I think informing people that they do have long-term options like ETF%26#039;s or DRIP plans is a good thing.

I think the individuals who ask the question have to look at the answers closely. First off, there are mutual fund salesmen in this forum, trying to push people to their sites. There are people who try to get others to go to their blogs.

I personally will not go to any website that is not put in the source box, otherwise I am assuming they have a motive if they put a link in the body of the message.

I am done rambling........hahahaha......

The Traders Did It?

Simple. A small trader at home, can get in %26amp; out of relatively small positions (compared to Mutual Funds, Banks, Brokers, Instituitions etc.) without effecting the market. It%26#039;s a totally different type of investing. Very hard, but achievable for about 5% of those that try (good trader psychology is the most important aspect of this skill).

The Traders Did It?

I would really like to ask Liz, the author of the article you mention, whether she was being sarcastic. Reread it, and you might catch some sarcasm showing through?

Oh sure, all of this mortgage problem was caused by a very few, apparently inexperienced, traders? yeah... right

People could not pay mortgages, that is the bottom line... but the economy has been relatively strong, so why cant 2.2 million homeowners (well, they ~were~ homeowners) stay out of foreclosure?

A combination of the borrowers desire to overspend and buy houses that they could never truly afford, and the bank industries desire to give loans to those borrowers because that class of borrower must may crazy big fees %26amp; interest to get those ill-advised loans!

How many of ~your~ friends over the last few years have jumped into interest-only ARMS because it allowed them to buy a much more expensive home? Or refinanced all their equity to %26#039;invest%26#039; into someone%26#039;s scheme.. or worse yet, refinanced to the hilt to head to Cabo for a week...

The problem was/is caused by irresponsible borrowers, and a banking system that wanted to collect the greatest amount of fees %26amp; interest without regard to the true risk of lending more money to someone than is really appropriate.

If the author %26amp; others truly believe this whole mess was caused by a few traders acting badly.... well, would you be interested in an 18% variable rate, interest only refi for your house... it%26#039;ll only cost you 6 points...

and %26quot;common sense%26quot; has a good %26#039;pro%26#039; point for small traders, agility is a fundamental requirement for true %26quot;trading%26quot;... and a $2 billion portfolio will ~never~ be agile! :-)

The Traders Did It?

I worked in fixed income(bonds) and on any given day traders would loose money,,,but at the end on the month and the end of the year, over 80% in my area were up a lot....their bonus was partially based on their profits.............I was there over ten years and every year was the same...Those who did not make money were replaced.............

I have work experience this year. I love commerce plz help.?

Hi, im in yr 10 this yr. i love comerce and im the first by far in my year. mark 99.5% Average 55%. my dads friends gave me an offer to work in URS. but i really dont know. I want to be doing something along the lines of business and finace later on, but should i be doing this for work experience or doing something else for fun?

My dad also told me i should be going for Credit Suisse and MLC which are probably the companies i want to work for when i finish school. Is this a good idea. Thanks!

I have work experience this year. I love commerce plz help.?

Please do it for work, experience, and fun. Why does work have to be boring? It does not. We should do what is good for us and makes us happy and healthy.

I have work experience this year. I love commerce plz help.?

www.googlescholar.com

How are you adjusting in the real estate industry with lenders falling?

As a Realtor it is hard to even trust that a deal will close now-a-days with the lenders going out of business and leaving buyers stuck out at closing. This has been a terrible experience for me.

Here in Houston mortgage brokers and loan officers are hurting and some are even given up. As a Realtor I have other options but rearranging my structure and client base will take me a minute to start building back up.

It would be interesting to know how others in the real estate industry are doing these days.

As the mortgage shakeout forces dozens of home lenders into bankruptcy, some are merely going into something like suspended animation -- shutting down temporarily and hoping to escape intact once the crisis has run its course.

Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, August 26, 2007

The total volume of subprime loans nationally fell less than 4 percent in 2006, even as defaults and foreclosures were starting to spike, according to data compiled by Credit Suisse. Some big lenders never really did apply the brakes: New Century%26#039;s loan volume was down a mere 1.3 percent through the end of February, or about two weeks before trading in the company%26#039;s stock was suspended.

Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, August 24, 2007

Former branch manager Heather Fern-Luzzi, foreground, and Heidi Freiberg clean up as the Roseville office of First Magnus Financial Corp. shuts down. As lenders cut back because of a credit crunch and slack housing demand, 13,000 mortgage jobs disappeared nationwide in the past week.

How are you adjusting in the real estate industry with lenders falling?

After all that babel about lenders and buyers that have committed to questionable loans and lending policies.

What Is Your Real Question??

How are you adjusting in the real estate industry with lenders falling?

Its a simple answer. Work with well qualified buyers who can use banks like bank of America, or wachovia. Use large banks who do not allow subprime, they will be staying in business for many years. If you have first time home buyers use your states program to get a loan. There are many ways around it, but the best is make sure your clients have a credit score of 680 or above, or 20% down payment

How are you adjusting in the real estate industry with lenders falling?

Minnesota is experiencing some similar situations. My business has been pretty bad. My husband and I both work in the industry. We had been selling exclusively for a builder until a year ago. We saw the downturn in Sept 04 during the Parade of Homes here. We agonized over moving our licenses to a regional broker to expand our business into the existing market. But it has been like starting all over from the beginning. We have 5 listings, two have had some activity, but only low ball offers the sellers couldn%26#039;t accept. So we%26#039;ve only managed one closing this year. I also appraise real estate and when the sub prime market died, so did my appraising business. So we%26#039;re looking at our options right now too. Not many companies will hire 50+ yr. olds.

How are you adjusting in the real estate industry with lenders falling?

check this link its good

http://buyingandsellingshares.blogspot.c...

.

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

Halliburton閳ユ獨 revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, %26quot;The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal.%26quot;

**************

Sorry libs!

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

NO

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

answerman is quite the liberal dandy..in fact i think he may be a lobbyist for the communist or socialist party Report It

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

My assumption that these pages were designed to ask questions, not just use it as a forum to spout your opinions. Report It

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

Non Energy private corruption will be attacked by Bush. Government corruption is going unchallenged. Oil companies can do what ever they want.

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

I never try to convert a Republican they are just to narrow minded. But the answer to your question %26quot;yes%26quot; big Companies should have no more access to Govermment officials, than the street people.

Are the Bush administration and govt contracts just corrupt politics?

Oh gee, no bid government contracts to a former employer has no smell to it. I really think that the Bush administration will go down as the most corrupt in history. Regardless of your Repuglican Rhetoric. The proof is in the pudding if you know what I mean. It is about as clear as mud and that in itself is corruption.

Why is Senator Schumer in such a panic to bail out mortgage defaulters?

His largest donors, Goldman Sachs ($350,850), Citigroup Inc ($227,550), JP Morgan Chase %26amp; Co ($195,900), Credit Suisse First Boston ($191,294), Morgan Stanley ($186,500), Bear Stearns ($154,250), (Merrill Lynch ($125,100), AOL Time Warner ($114,000), UBS Americas ($108,500), and Lehman Brothers ($107,000) made billions that everyone knew were unethical. And now Schumer is proposing to use taxpayer money to bail them out, borrower and lender. What about those who bit the bullet and paid? This is the equivalent of the 1980s Savings and Loan scandal. Now you have to steal the money in someone else閳ユ獨 name.

Why is Senator Schumer in such a panic to bail out mortgage defaulters?

I think you are making unnecessary allegations regarding these mortgage originators or investors and their ethics. The mortgage industry is like a pendulum, they are encouraged by government to make loans available to low-income individuals and then they are later told what they were encouraged to do was ethical. There may have been some unethical acts by some people (especially many brokers), but there is no way many people who are now homeowners would have ever been so without special products. Most of the people who purchased ARMs or other specialty loans knew what they were getting into or should have. There are few exceptions to a contract from being binding, and most of these should be. I think government should be very careful before they go imposing new regulations and looking for companies to make scape goats. It is sad there are and will be many people who may not be able to make their payments, and some people may need some help (and many mortgage companies are working, and always have, with their borrowers to ease their burdens), but I would hate to see too much intervention. The pendulum will swing back, there will be people crying out that they can%26#039;t get loans, but that%26#039;s just how the cookie crumbles. If there were illegal acts someone must be accountable, but we shouldn%26#039;t be reaching.

Why is Senator Schumer in such a panic to bail out mortgage defaulters?

Streets look ugly when every other house is abandoned.

Why is Senator Schumer in such a panic to bail out mortgage defaulters?

They estimate that in the next few years up to 4 million sub-prime borrowers will be at a high risk for default. That means millions of families will be bunkrupted as well as hundreds of lenders. On top of that the legal system will be swamped with foreclosure cases and the housing market will be flooded with repo%26#039;d homes. Add to that the dustruction of the marginal loan market (which has worked well in the past) will disappear and the requirements for a mortgage will become even more stringent.

Hillary Clinton and lobbyists?

I have a question for you Clinton fans, have you seen this and why are you voting for her.. ?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/l...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton is being taken to task by her two closest rivals for accepting $400,000 in campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Sen. Hillary Clinton dismissed criticism that she took money from lobbyists, saying it would not influence her.

Over the weekend, Clinton was booed by an audience of liberal bloggers in Chicago when she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists, something both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards have vowed not to do.

%26quot;I don%26#039;t think, based on my 35 years fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I%26#039;m going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group,%26quot; Clinton said.

%26quot;A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.%26quot;

The former first lady said that she welcomed the debate on the issue.

%26quot;I%26#039;ve been waiting for this. This gives us a real sense of reality with my being here,%26quot; Clinton said, prompting a loud rumble from the audience at a candidates%26#039; forum sponsored by The Daily Kos.

Edwards%26#039; response was to ask, %26quot;How many people in this room have a Washington lobbyist working for you?%26quot;

%26quot;You are not represented by Washington lobbyists. We need to cut these people off,%26quot; he said, to cheers.

Don%26#039;t Miss

Clinton, Obama report more than $30 mil in bank

Obama: My presidency would be a %26#039;transformation%26#039;

However, while eschewing contributions from Washington lobbyists, Edwards has accepted about $10,000 in contributions from lobbyists in his home state of North Carolina, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Edwards campaign said there is no inconsistency because his pledge did not extend to lobbyists representing local interests.

Monday, the Edwards campaign also said it would return a $4,600 donation from the Credit Suisse bank, which is registered to lobby in Washington.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lobbyists actually provide less campaign cash than political action committees or donors directly affiliated with large corporate interests.

%26quot;But they do get a lot of attention because it%26#039;s very easy to point at them and say, well, these are the special interests, these are the people who most represent these big moneyed interests that are trying to influence policy,%26quot; said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the center.

And while the grassroots interests of many ordinary Americans are represented by Washington lobbyists, as Clinton noted, some political experts think that could be a hard case for her make.

Stu Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report said that while Clinton is making an %26quot;analytical argument%26quot; about the way the political system works, Edwards %26quot;is simply getting the emotional advantage of portraying her as somebody who is close to lobbyists and big business and the establishment.%26quot;

Excuses! Excuses! Excuses!

Hillary Clinton and lobbyists?

My first thought was that I guess Obama and Haircut boy can%26#039;t get enough lobbyist money for it to matter. I highly doubt either one these guys is really doing it out of a matter of morals.

Hillary Clinton and lobbyists?

John Edwards has NEVER accepted donations from lobbyists or PACs - as a senator or presidential candidate.

OTOH - Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is sponsoring fundraisers for Hillary and funding her campaign. And Murdoch is affiliated with Bill Clinton%26#039;s empire comprised of the powerful and wealthy - now funding Hillary%26#039;s campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0...

Oh - and Rupert Murdoch also bought Tony Blair in 1997 - promising positive media coverage in exchange for Blair allowing Murdoch to expand his media empire.

He bought Blair - now he%26#039;s bought Hillary - and the media provides pro-Hillary coverage 24/7.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/57376

John Edwards is the only candidate offering real solutions for the working poor and middle class - and that%26#039;s why the CORPORATE media smears him 24/7. But people are waking up - and aren%26#039;t relying on the CORPORATE media to shape their opinions about the candidates - because they know the media represents CORPORATE interests - not ours. And the corporate media promotes candidates who are raking in the corporate moolah and most likely to be in the corporations%26#039; pockets.