|
I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less.
|
2008 Presidential Campaign: Top Donors
Obama
1.) University of California $1,648,685
2.) Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
3.) Harvard University $864,654
4.) Microsoft Corp $852,167
5.) Google Inc $814,540
6.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
7.) Citigroup Inc $736,771
8.) Time Warner $624,618
9.) Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
10.) Stanford University $595,716
McCain
1.) Merrill Lynch $375,895
2.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505
3.) Citigroup Inc $338,202
4.) Morgan Stanley $271,902
5.) Goldman Sachs $240,295
6.) US Government $202,929
7.) AT&T Inc $201,938
8.) Wachovia Corp $199,663
9.) UBS AG $187,493
10.) Credit Suisse Group $184,153
Pretty scary groupings. Note. Obama refused all taxpayer contributions to his campain after obtaining the D nom. First!
Source
|
Did you mean that Democrats are in the pocket of Wall Street? (ie, most hedge fund managers contribute money to Dems, with 2010 being a rare exception)
Slate was talking about the Democrats and Wall Street being strange bedfellows a decade ago:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2002/10/the_democratic_dividend.html
This is one of the major frustrations liberal voters have with the influence of big campaign money on politics. The only way a candidate in either party can get a slice of that money (or perhaps more importantly, get "independent" PACs/527s/503c's/etc to run ads attacking their opponents) is by giving the bankers what they want.
For stock brokers and managers, it's both a matter of:
a) trying to essentially bribe Democratic politicians to back off of the progressive policies they campaign on (specifically bank regulation and more progressive tax structure)
b) rational self interest. Unless Democrats made huge huge increases to tax rates, they're better off with 12% growth (using the stock aggregates as an example) than 8%.
|
On October 08 2011 00:59 Logo wrote:I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less.
Since when is repeating the stance/platform of a political party a dig? That's what really gets me with political discourse these days, much of what comes out of the tea party and the republican party sounds so stupid that even they think its offensive once read back to them. Not that you are a tea partyer, it just seems odd that you'd take issue with a fairly to the point op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the NYT for it having an opinion.....
|
On October 08 2011 01:18 BioNova wrote: 2008 Presidential Campaign: Top Donors Obama1.) University of California $1,648,685 2.) Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 3.) Harvard University $864,654 4.) Microsoft Corp $852,167 5.) Google Inc $814,540 6.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 7.) Citigroup Inc $736,771 8.) Time Warner $624,618 9.) Sidley Austin LLP $600,298 10.) Stanford University $595,716 McCain1.) Merrill Lynch $375,895 2.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505 3.) Citigroup Inc $338,202 4.) Morgan Stanley $271,902 5.) Goldman Sachs $240,295 6.) US Government $202,929 7.) AT&T Inc $201,938 8.) Wachovia Corp $199,663 9.) UBS AG $187,493 10.) Credit Suisse Group $184,153 Pretty scary groupings. Note. Obama refused all taxpayer contributions to his campain after obtaining the D nom. First! Source
nice list didn't know university's gave money for presidential campaigns makes you wonder if that money isn't better invested in better education.
|
On October 08 2011 01:46 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 01:18 BioNova wrote: 2008 Presidential Campaign: Top Donors Obama1.) University of California $1,648,685 2.) Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 3.) Harvard University $864,654 4.) Microsoft Corp $852,167 5.) Google Inc $814,540 6.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 7.) Citigroup Inc $736,771 8.) Time Warner $624,618 9.) Sidley Austin LLP $600,298 10.) Stanford University $595,716 McCain1.) Merrill Lynch $375,895 2.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505 3.) Citigroup Inc $338,202 4.) Morgan Stanley $271,902 5.) Goldman Sachs $240,295 6.) US Government $202,929 7.) AT&T Inc $201,938 8.) Wachovia Corp $199,663 9.) UBS AG $187,493 10.) Credit Suisse Group $184,153 Pretty scary groupings. Note. Obama refused all taxpayer contributions to his campain after obtaining the D nom. First! Source nice list didn't know university's gave money for presidential campaigns makes you wonder if that money isn't better invested in better education.
The educational system in the US is becoming overvalued and is experiencing the same bubble we had in real estate. The government sponsors these ridiculously expensive loans with high interest rates. Its a racket. And the youth are all too willing to enslave themselves to this debt because Mr. Obama and friends tell them they should.
|
Yes, the UoC actually caught me way offguard. The rest of the list isn't exactly boring to look at either.
Offhand Wachovia was involved in the 400 billion drug money launder story, then bought out by Wells Fargo after a slap on the wrist.
Time Warner and the increase of RIAA(my speculation). Obama did say he would have supported 150,000 per track for fines on DL's as opposed to the current 30k per track. Whole list is full of story material.
|
On October 08 2011 00:59 Logo wrote:I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less.
People of opposing views to the Tea Party involves over 90% of the first world.
|
What is unfair?
...and why is it unfair?
It can only really come down to some people having privileges over others. This ties into licenses, subsidies, tax exemptions, bail-outs and more.
So what are the protesters directing their anger against? Wall Street? Why on earth would you do that? Wall Street is playing the hand that was given to them. The people there act in their own self-interest and are doing what the market currently allows and what makes them the most profit (the same as, and as greedy as, everybody else).
The people who make the rules are the ones to be angry against. The create defecits, they give away privileges, they let themselves be influenced through donor money, they create rules and regulations to make it hard for the average person to do something.
I'd join the movement if only they directed their protests properly.
|
Can somebody explain to me what Universities can gain by sponsoring? Can they be prioritized over other Universities or something like that? I don't really understand it but I don't know much about US University system.
|
|
|
On October 08 2011 02:13 BlackFlag wrote:
Can somebody explain to me what Universities can gain by sponsoring? Can they be prioritized over other Universities or something like that? I don't really understand it but I don't know much about US University system.
Federal research grants. You also have to keep in mind that contributing to someone as signficant as the president gets you access to a very exclusive network of powerful people that can pull all sorts of strings for you. For example, even if the feds don't give the universities research grants, the politicians can arrange for their other supports to pony up the money.
|
On October 08 2011 01:35 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 00:59 Logo wrote:I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less. Since when is repeating the stance/platform of a political party a dig? That's what really gets me with political discourse these days, much of what comes out of the tea party and the republican party sounds so stupid that even they think its offensive once read back to them. Not that you are a tea partyer, it just seems odd that you'd take issue with a fairly to the point op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the NYT for it having an opinion.....
Nah not even that much. I just meant saying something like, "...unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." doesn't help to further the point of the other 90% of the article. I can't see that statement, even if true, doing anything besides having a bunch of people take an immediate close-minded position against the rest of the article. The support for my argument with that comment is that the Tea Party isn't mentioned at all for the remainder of the article because they're irrelevant to the actual point of the article.
|
On October 08 2011 02:14 yarkO wrote:
Money sucks.
Yes, because bartering is so much easier. Money is nothing more than a common medium eliminating the need to find someone who needs whatever product or service you provide, in exchange for what you need.
|
On October 08 2011 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:13 BlackFlag wrote:
Can somebody explain to me what Universities can gain by sponsoring? Can they be prioritized over other Universities or something like that? I don't really understand it but I don't know much about US University system. Federal research grants. You also have to keep in mind that contributing to someone as signficant as the president gets you access to a very exclusive network of powerful people that can pull all sorts of strings for you. For example, even if the feds don't give the universities research grants, the politicians can arrange for their other supports to pony up the money.
Research money is granted to specific Universities? Didn't know that, the rest makes sense too. Thanks.
|
On October 08 2011 02:31 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2011 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2011 02:13 BlackFlag wrote:
Can somebody explain to me what Universities can gain by sponsoring? Can they be prioritized over other Universities or something like that? I don't really understand it but I don't know much about US University system. Federal research grants. You also have to keep in mind that contributing to someone as signficant as the president gets you access to a very exclusive network of powerful people that can pull all sorts of strings for you. For example, even if the feds don't give the universities research grants, the politicians can arrange for their other supports to pony up the money. Research money is granted to specific Universities? Didn't know that, the rest makes sense too. Thanks.
University research is big business in the US. Both the government and the private sector significantly invest in university-based research. In particular, the private sector often enters into joint venture agreements with universities for research projects.
|
On October 08 2011 02:29 Kaitlin wrote:Yes, because bartering is so much easier. Money is nothing more than a common medium eliminating the need to find someone who needs whatever product or service you provide, in exchange for what you need.
except when you can have everything you need without money what use is it then?
|
On October 08 2011 02:29 Kaitlin wrote:Yes, because bartering is so much easier. Money is nothing more than a common medium eliminating the need to find someone who needs whatever product or service you provide, in exchange for what you need.
Oh, I'm not saying that it doesn't facilitate things. I guess it's more accurate to say it's mis-managed.
|
On October 08 2011 01:18 BioNova wrote:
Obama
1.) University of California $1,648,685
2.) Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
3.) Harvard University $864,654
4.) Microsoft Corp $852,167
5.) Google Inc $814,540
6.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
7.) Citigroup Inc $736,771
8.) Time Warner $624,618
9.) Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
10.) Stanford University $595,716
McCain
1.) Merrill Lynch $375,895
2.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505
3.) Citigroup Inc $338,202
4.) Morgan Stanley $271,902
5.) Goldman Sachs $240,295
6.) US Government $202,929
7.) AT&T Inc $201,938
8.) Wachovia Corp $199,663
9.) UBS AG $187,493
10.) Credit Suisse Group $184,153
Can you say "bribe?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
