Why is Wall Street supporting Obama?

Democrats are attacking Republicans as lackeys for Wall Street.  President Obama has thrown his support behind the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  He wants to pour on more regulations and restrictions to big investors and banks and to take advantage of the public backlash against big corporations.  And yet the denizens of Wall Street are giving Barack Obama much more money than they are giving Republicans.  In fact, Mitt Romney’s old company is contributing more money to Obama  than to their former CEO!

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. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago.

Obama’s fundraising advantage is clear in the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private-equity firm that was co-founded by Romney, and where the Republican made his fortune. Not surprisingly, Romney has strong support at the firm, raking in $34,000 from 18 Bain employees, according to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September — and he needed only three donors to do it.

The battle for Wall Street cash has become a crucial subtext in the 2012 campaign, which is shaping up to focus heavily on federal banking and markets policies and the struggling economy.

Top Republicans have courted major U.S. bank executives and financiers, arguing that Obama’s policies have hurt them, while Democrats are seeking to turn the erosion of support on Wall Street to their populist advantage.

Obama’s ties to Wall Street donors could complicate Democratic plans to paint Republicans as puppets of the financial industry, particularly in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests that have gone global over the past week.

via Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations – The Washington Post.

Can anyone explain why donors would contribute to candidates against their interests?  Or do these donors think that Democrats would be far more likely to bail they out again than Republicans?  What all is going on here?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://dwaynephillips.net Dwayne Phillips

    This is easy. You work for a company that would have gone out of business were it not for the President giving your firm taxpayers’ money. You owe your job to the President. You are inclined to support him. Who cares what the stated policies are? Money talks, bull walks.

  • http://dwaynephillips.net Dwayne Phillips

    This is easy. You work for a company that would have gone out of business were it not for the President giving your firm taxpayers’ money. You owe your job to the President. You are inclined to support him. Who cares what the stated policies are? Money talks, bull walks.

  • Tom Hering

    “What all is going on here?”

    Simple. The donors are Democrats. As well as capitalists who know Obama will rescue them if things get really bad again. Which is very much in line with their interests.

  • Tom Hering

    “What all is going on here?”

    Simple. The donors are Democrats. As well as capitalists who know Obama will rescue them if things get really bad again. Which is very much in line with their interests.

  • Tom Hering

    Which is not to say that either Obama or his Wall Street donors are my ideal Democrats. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Which is not to say that either Obama or his Wall Street donors are my ideal Democrats. :-D

  • WebMonk

    Donating money to the current power. What’s so mysterious about that? Doesn’t matter (much) if the current power is slanted for or against you, you still want to have access and influence with the current power.

    Especially if the firms are predicting that Obama will win another term in office regardless of what they do, they want to get into positions of influence with the person they predict will be the next president.

    This is exacerbated by the current Republican field – muddled and no good choices. Companies don’t donate before the primaries much anyway, and when the field is muddled or looks weak, this puts a further chill on donations.

    Once the Republican nomination clears up, look for financial firms to start donating much more heavily to the Republicans, and if the Republican looks like he will have a good shot at winning the Presidency, expect money to start flooding his way from financial firms, and even moreso if the candidate seems friendly toward financial firms’ goals.

  • WebMonk

    Donating money to the current power. What’s so mysterious about that? Doesn’t matter (much) if the current power is slanted for or against you, you still want to have access and influence with the current power.

    Especially if the firms are predicting that Obama will win another term in office regardless of what they do, they want to get into positions of influence with the person they predict will be the next president.

    This is exacerbated by the current Republican field – muddled and no good choices. Companies don’t donate before the primaries much anyway, and when the field is muddled or looks weak, this puts a further chill on donations.

    Once the Republican nomination clears up, look for financial firms to start donating much more heavily to the Republicans, and if the Republican looks like he will have a good shot at winning the Presidency, expect money to start flooding his way from financial firms, and even moreso if the candidate seems friendly toward financial firms’ goals.

  • Eric Brown

    Who says that Obama is against the interests of Wall Street? He’s done his good share of bailouts – and of course he publicly supports the OWS folks… but what policies has he suggested that would really impact things on the basis of their protests. It’s all politics and currying favor, either with the voters or via lobbying – and little to nothing with policy.

  • Eric Brown

    Who says that Obama is against the interests of Wall Street? He’s done his good share of bailouts – and of course he publicly supports the OWS folks… but what policies has he suggested that would really impact things on the basis of their protests. It’s all politics and currying favor, either with the voters or via lobbying – and little to nothing with policy.

  • SKPeterson

    Like Tom said @2.

    We have on the Obama side – George Soros, Robert Rubin, Jon Corzine et al. The ties between Treasury and Goldman Sachs are downright incestuous. These people are not “capitalists.” As we ahve said here before, “The problem with capitalism is that all the bankers are socialists.” Pretty much sums it up.

  • SKPeterson

    Like Tom said @2.

    We have on the Obama side – George Soros, Robert Rubin, Jon Corzine et al. The ties between Treasury and Goldman Sachs are downright incestuous. These people are not “capitalists.” As we ahve said here before, “The problem with capitalism is that all the bankers are socialists.” Pretty much sums it up.

  • Martin J

    Agree with SK! Obama has surrounded himself with all the players who created the financial meltdown in the first place and are poised to do nothing else but keep the charade going as long as he is in office. Wall Street doesn’t mind, even if all of this does go against the precepts of basic capitalism.
    SK, good quote about bankers and socialism.

  • Martin J

    Agree with SK! Obama has surrounded himself with all the players who created the financial meltdown in the first place and are poised to do nothing else but keep the charade going as long as he is in office. Wall Street doesn’t mind, even if all of this does go against the precepts of basic capitalism.
    SK, good quote about bankers and socialism.

  • Jerry

    It’s the Chicago style of government…

  • Jerry

    It’s the Chicago style of government…

  • BryanS

    It is more than just bailouts. Even in good times, big business has a symbiotic relationship with big government. Severe regulation of an industry squashes competition and promotes monopolies. The beneficiaries then reward government with contributions.

  • BryanS

    It is more than just bailouts. Even in good times, big business has a symbiotic relationship with big government. Severe regulation of an industry squashes competition and promotes monopolies. The beneficiaries then reward government with contributions.

  • ELB

    It is a myth that all occasions of concentration of capital are capitalistic – the result of competition in a free market. Capital is also concentrated when the government favors one entity over another. Why were the upper echelons of the Soviet powers wealthy? Because they were capitalists?

    Statism has always sold itself with demogoguery and then used the concentrated power to concentrate wealth. And it’s legal! When you make the laws favoring, say, green energy, you put green energy at a competetive advantage. Who knows what entrepreneurial energy alternatives have died on the vine because of the competetive advantage given to the cronies of the regime. Meanwhile investors in green energy are rescued from the mis-steps of a command-economy decision and the taxpayers hold the empty bag.

    Many of the players on wall street are in the remarkable position of being able to make risky investments with the expectation of the taxpayers rescuing them if they fail, and receiving the profits themselves if they succeed. Who wouldn’t support a regime that gave such advantages?! It isn’t capitalism, even if it is wall street.

  • ELB

    It is a myth that all occasions of concentration of capital are capitalistic – the result of competition in a free market. Capital is also concentrated when the government favors one entity over another. Why were the upper echelons of the Soviet powers wealthy? Because they were capitalists?

    Statism has always sold itself with demogoguery and then used the concentrated power to concentrate wealth. And it’s legal! When you make the laws favoring, say, green energy, you put green energy at a competetive advantage. Who knows what entrepreneurial energy alternatives have died on the vine because of the competetive advantage given to the cronies of the regime. Meanwhile investors in green energy are rescued from the mis-steps of a command-economy decision and the taxpayers hold the empty bag.

    Many of the players on wall street are in the remarkable position of being able to make risky investments with the expectation of the taxpayers rescuing them if they fail, and receiving the profits themselves if they succeed. Who wouldn’t support a regime that gave such advantages?! It isn’t capitalism, even if it is wall street.

  • steve

    Even if those bankers were the biggest Republicans ever, it probably wouldn’t make much difference. Like you, Dr. Veith, they’re expecting Obama to be re-elected. And they know his loyalties are for sale. So…

  • steve

    Even if those bankers were the biggest Republicans ever, it probably wouldn’t make much difference. Like you, Dr. Veith, they’re expecting Obama to be re-elected. And they know his loyalties are for sale. So…

  • steve

    BryanS, @9, this is true. Furthermore, when you are fabulously wealthy, is there any better way to secure that position than to ensure the less wealthy have a harder time trying to obtain the same position?

  • steve

    BryanS, @9, this is true. Furthermore, when you are fabulously wealthy, is there any better way to secure that position than to ensure the less wealthy have a harder time trying to obtain the same position?

  • Grace

    This, to the tune of over 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS

    Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland

    By MATTHEW MOSK, BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and RONNIE GREENE
    ABC NEWS and iWATCH NEWS
    October 20-2011

    With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

    Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company’s manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland.

    “There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” the car company’s founder and namesake told ABC News. “They don’t exist here.”

    Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S.,

    ____________ANOTHER EXCERPT

    “An investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News that will air on “Good Morning America” found that the DOE’s bet carries risks for taxpayers, has raised concern among industry observers and government auditors, and adds to questions about the way billions of dollars in loans for smart cars and green energy companies have been awarded. Fisker is more than a year behind rolling out its $97,000 luxury vehicle bankrolled in part with DOE money. While more are promised soon, just 40 of its Karma cars (below) have been manufactured and only two delivered to customers’ driveways, including one to movie star Leonardo DiCaprio

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875

    Read the whole piece – Al Gore is mentioned as well, no surprise – so is the “administration’s failed $535 million investment in solar panel maker Solyndra”

    The jobs are not here in the U.S. there over in Finland -

  • Grace

    This, to the tune of over 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS

    Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland

    By MATTHEW MOSK, BRIAN ROSS (@brianross) and RONNIE GREENE
    ABC NEWS and iWATCH NEWS
    October 20-2011

    With the approval of the Obama administration, an electric car company that received a $529 million federal government loan guarantee is assembling its first line of cars in Finland, saying it could not find a facility in the United States capable of doing the work.

    Vice President Joseph Biden heralded the Energy Department’s $529 million loan to the start-up electric car company called Fisker as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs. But two years after the loan was announced, the company’s manufacturing jobs are still limited to the assembly of the flashy electric Fisker Karma sports car in Finland.

    “There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle,” the car company’s founder and namesake told ABC News. “They don’t exist here.”

    Henrik Fisker said the U.S. money has been spent on engineering and design work that stayed in the U.S.,

    ____________ANOTHER EXCERPT

    “An investigation by ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity’s iWatch News that will air on “Good Morning America” found that the DOE’s bet carries risks for taxpayers, has raised concern among industry observers and government auditors, and adds to questions about the way billions of dollars in loans for smart cars and green energy companies have been awarded. Fisker is more than a year behind rolling out its $97,000 luxury vehicle bankrolled in part with DOE money. While more are promised soon, just 40 of its Karma cars (below) have been manufactured and only two delivered to customers’ driveways, including one to movie star Leonardo DiCaprio

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875

    Read the whole piece – Al Gore is mentioned as well, no surprise – so is the “administration’s failed $535 million investment in solar panel maker Solyndra”

    The jobs are not here in the U.S. there over in Finland -

  • Grace

    Steve @ 11

    YOU WROTE: “And they know his loyalties are for sale. ”

    No kidding? The question is, how are they woven into the fabric? – what are we missing? – or …. perhaps it is transparent, but no one wants to talk about it?

  • Grace

    Steve @ 11

    YOU WROTE: “And they know his loyalties are for sale. ”

    No kidding? The question is, how are they woven into the fabric? – what are we missing? – or …. perhaps it is transparent, but no one wants to talk about it?

  • Rose

    They’re good hedge managers.

  • Rose

    They’re good hedge managers.

  • helen

    Government subsidy should mean all jobs created stay in the US.
    If Fisker can’t find a plant for its flashy car, let it build one.
    Why is our government investing in $100K cars anyway?
    Let the Wall Street bankers do that, out of their own pockets!

  • helen

    Government subsidy should mean all jobs created stay in the US.
    If Fisker can’t find a plant for its flashy car, let it build one.
    Why is our government investing in $100K cars anyway?
    Let the Wall Street bankers do that, out of their own pockets!

  • Grace

    Helen @ 16

    You stated: “If Fisker can’t find a plant for its flashy car, let it build one.
    Why is our government investing in $100K cars anyway?”

    Excellent points – asking Obama the same questions, what do you think his REAL reasons are? Those are the ones I need to know. That is what I asked in post 14:

    “what are we missing? – or …. perhaps it is transparent, but no one wants to talk about it?

  • Grace

    Helen @ 16

    You stated: “If Fisker can’t find a plant for its flashy car, let it build one.
    Why is our government investing in $100K cars anyway?”

    Excellent points – asking Obama the same questions, what do you think his REAL reasons are? Those are the ones I need to know. That is what I asked in post 14:

    “what are we missing? – or …. perhaps it is transparent, but no one wants to talk about it?

  • helen

    It is transparent. The crooks in banking have a revolving door in and out of the executive, and the Fed, to keep things arranged to their advantage no matter who is in the WH. Our presidents live like the uberrich, no matter where they came from.
    That quoted Frenchman said democracy would last until the people figured out that they could vote themselves benefits from the public purse. The rich can do that more effectively than the poor… and they have done it. I don’t know if he didn’t see that coming, if he’s been misinterpreted in the textbooks or if, (like the latest Frenchman in the news), he thought they were entitled to do it.

    Many of the players on wall street are in the remarkable position of being able to make risky investments with the expectation of the taxpayers rescuing them if they fail, and receiving the profits themselves if they succeed. Who wouldn’t support a regime that gave such advantages?! It isn’t capitalism, even if it is wall street.

    People are “occupying Wall Street” because Wall Street profited immensely even when it failed, on the taxpayers dime and the saver’s savings. Who else can do that!? “Wall Street had contractual obligations which had to be ‘honored.”‘, we were told. A lot of workers who got laid off and owners of auto franchises who got shut down had contracts, too.
    My Dad’s job required him to pay dues to Teamsters out of his meagre Depression wage. He was under no illusions, but the union members (who get castigated here) get chump change compared to the CEO’s and financiers of the last 20 years or so.

    [End of rant]

    Obama is the dishonest steward who is lining the pockets of those he hopes will reward him with a high class life when he is out of office. But were the Bushes any different?

  • helen

    It is transparent. The crooks in banking have a revolving door in and out of the executive, and the Fed, to keep things arranged to their advantage no matter who is in the WH. Our presidents live like the uberrich, no matter where they came from.
    That quoted Frenchman said democracy would last until the people figured out that they could vote themselves benefits from the public purse. The rich can do that more effectively than the poor… and they have done it. I don’t know if he didn’t see that coming, if he’s been misinterpreted in the textbooks or if, (like the latest Frenchman in the news), he thought they were entitled to do it.

    Many of the players on wall street are in the remarkable position of being able to make risky investments with the expectation of the taxpayers rescuing them if they fail, and receiving the profits themselves if they succeed. Who wouldn’t support a regime that gave such advantages?! It isn’t capitalism, even if it is wall street.

    People are “occupying Wall Street” because Wall Street profited immensely even when it failed, on the taxpayers dime and the saver’s savings. Who else can do that!? “Wall Street had contractual obligations which had to be ‘honored.”‘, we were told. A lot of workers who got laid off and owners of auto franchises who got shut down had contracts, too.
    My Dad’s job required him to pay dues to Teamsters out of his meagre Depression wage. He was under no illusions, but the union members (who get castigated here) get chump change compared to the CEO’s and financiers of the last 20 years or so.

    [End of rant]

    Obama is the dishonest steward who is lining the pockets of those he hopes will reward him with a high class life when he is out of office. But were the Bushes any different?

  • Tom Hering

    “But were the Bushes any different?”

    And the man or woman who succeeds Obama, in 2012 or 2016, may talk a different game (ideologically). Certainly he or she will toss his or her base a big bone now and then. But he or she will operate the same way his or her predecessors operated. Owing a lot to those who spent a lot getting him or her into the White House. This can’t be changed, because anyone who really wants to change the way things work in Washington won’t be given the huge amounts of money they need to get elected. America is not an exception to the way a deeply fallen world works.

  • Tom Hering

    “But were the Bushes any different?”

    And the man or woman who succeeds Obama, in 2012 or 2016, may talk a different game (ideologically). Certainly he or she will toss his or her base a big bone now and then. But he or she will operate the same way his or her predecessors operated. Owing a lot to those who spent a lot getting him or her into the White House. This can’t be changed, because anyone who really wants to change the way things work in Washington won’t be given the huge amounts of money they need to get elected. America is not an exception to the way a deeply fallen world works.

  • Grace

    Helen and Tom

    “But were the Bushes any different?”

    President Bush did not hand over 1/2 billion dollars to another country, as did Obama, to start a car company, making hundred thousand dollar cars.

    No one has made such a farce of themselves then Obama. He has apologized for everything he can think of, regarding this country – all but saying he’s sorry we haven’t given every individual from a third world country a free vacation and travel expenses to the United States once a year. He’s thrown money at everyone. Obama believes this is his money, not ours, it’s his choice as to how the purse is spent, no matter how ignorant the goal.

    Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing a strong man with morals to someone who is a Marxist, who claims socialism as his game, who doesn’t give one damn about this country, only the ones he’s obviously attached to, the ones we never dreamed he would support or apologize to. He is nothing but a sham!

  • Grace

    Helen and Tom

    “But were the Bushes any different?”

    President Bush did not hand over 1/2 billion dollars to another country, as did Obama, to start a car company, making hundred thousand dollar cars.

    No one has made such a farce of themselves then Obama. He has apologized for everything he can think of, regarding this country – all but saying he’s sorry we haven’t given every individual from a third world country a free vacation and travel expenses to the United States once a year. He’s thrown money at everyone. Obama believes this is his money, not ours, it’s his choice as to how the purse is spent, no matter how ignorant the goal.

    Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing a strong man with morals to someone who is a Marxist, who claims socialism as his game, who doesn’t give one damn about this country, only the ones he’s obviously attached to, the ones we never dreamed he would support or apologize to. He is nothing but a sham!

  • Carl Vehse

    So it’s no surprise then that the LCMS Prayer of the Church for the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost (October 23, 2011) reads in part:

    “Give us honest bankers, accountants, and other workers in the financial industry, that our economy may be set on a firm footing and that the lives of many in our society may come to know stability once again.”

    I guess if you want to pray for our politicians, there’s always Psalm 109:8.

  • Carl Vehse

    So it’s no surprise then that the LCMS Prayer of the Church for the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost (October 23, 2011) reads in part:

    “Give us honest bankers, accountants, and other workers in the financial industry, that our economy may be set on a firm footing and that the lives of many in our society may come to know stability once again.”

    I guess if you want to pray for our politicians, there’s always Psalm 109:8.

  • Grace

    Read the rest, it’s well worth it!

    Obama’s Red October Uprising
    By Mark Alexander · Thursday, October 13, 2011

    The Resurgence of the American Socialist Movement
    “We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson

    By now, you’re aware that the seeds of socialist dissent are being sown across our great nation, mostly within the fetid soil of urban centers, where cadres of activists coalesce under the aegis of “Occupy [fill in the blank].” It would be difficult to avoid the fanfare, given the amount of Leftmedia coverage (read: promotion) that these protests receive.

    According to my colleague Brent Bozell at Media Research Center, the protests were the subject of “more broadcast network stories in the first nine days than the Tea Party drew in the first nine months.”

    __________another excerpt

    “Conservative political observers have uniformly written off these protests because they’re populated by the usual suspects — a mix of leftist protagonists supported by Ivy League ignorati, collegiate lemmings, paid union thugs, the socially disenfranchised, and a handful of unwitting poor folks. Though these protestors exhibit limited “intellectual occupancy,” I would caution that underestimating the threat to Liberty that these Occupier protests pose is a serious error. Reputable polling firms find that more than 35 percent of likely voters support the protests.
    Just who is behind the Occupiers?

    Here’s the short answer: Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie.

    As our editors have comprehensively revealed through the pages of The Patriot Post, from the time Obama first emerged on the national political scene in 2004, to the rise of his present-day regime, Team Obama has crafted a perilous national security crisis bent on “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” by imploding free enterprise and replacing it with Democratic Socialism.”

    _____________another excerpt

    “Obama’s “Red October” uprising takes its inspiration from the 1917 Social Democratic Labour Party protests in Russia, which gave rise to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Then, as now, the economy was in serious decline. Then, as now, Bolshevik revolutionaries were young, some 85 percent of them under age 30. Then, as now, they issued decrees giving rise to “the most militant and class-conscious” protests.

    When their protests had grown to sufficient strength, the Socialist Democrats concluded, “an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe.”

    It was a brief and bloody revolution, and at its conclusion, the protestors implemented policies that mirror proposals advocated by SDLP of today, the Occupiers: All real property was seized and redistributed, companies and factories were nationalized, all private wealth was confiscated by the state, Church properties were seized, and debts were repudiated.

    http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/10/13/obamas-red-october-uprising/

  • Grace

    Read the rest, it’s well worth it!

    Obama’s Red October Uprising
    By Mark Alexander · Thursday, October 13, 2011

    The Resurgence of the American Socialist Movement
    “We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.” –Thomas Jefferson

    By now, you’re aware that the seeds of socialist dissent are being sown across our great nation, mostly within the fetid soil of urban centers, where cadres of activists coalesce under the aegis of “Occupy [fill in the blank].” It would be difficult to avoid the fanfare, given the amount of Leftmedia coverage (read: promotion) that these protests receive.

    According to my colleague Brent Bozell at Media Research Center, the protests were the subject of “more broadcast network stories in the first nine days than the Tea Party drew in the first nine months.”

    __________another excerpt

    “Conservative political observers have uniformly written off these protests because they’re populated by the usual suspects — a mix of leftist protagonists supported by Ivy League ignorati, collegiate lemmings, paid union thugs, the socially disenfranchised, and a handful of unwitting poor folks. Though these protestors exhibit limited “intellectual occupancy,” I would caution that underestimating the threat to Liberty that these Occupier protests pose is a serious error. Reputable polling firms find that more than 35 percent of likely voters support the protests.
    Just who is behind the Occupiers?

    Here’s the short answer: Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie.

    As our editors have comprehensively revealed through the pages of The Patriot Post, from the time Obama first emerged on the national political scene in 2004, to the rise of his present-day regime, Team Obama has crafted a perilous national security crisis bent on “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” by imploding free enterprise and replacing it with Democratic Socialism.”

    _____________another excerpt

    “Obama’s “Red October” uprising takes its inspiration from the 1917 Social Democratic Labour Party protests in Russia, which gave rise to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Then, as now, the economy was in serious decline. Then, as now, Bolshevik revolutionaries were young, some 85 percent of them under age 30. Then, as now, they issued decrees giving rise to “the most militant and class-conscious” protests.

    When their protests had grown to sufficient strength, the Socialist Democrats concluded, “an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe.”

    It was a brief and bloody revolution, and at its conclusion, the protestors implemented policies that mirror proposals advocated by SDLP of today, the Occupiers: All real property was seized and redistributed, companies and factories were nationalized, all private wealth was confiscated by the state, Church properties were seized, and debts were repudiated.

    http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/10/13/obamas-red-october-uprising/

  • Grace

    The post above @ 22 is attributed to, The Patriot Post

  • Grace

    The post above @ 22 is attributed to, The Patriot Post

  • steve

    Everyone here is so cynical. I’m sure the fact that a large investor in Fisker was the same investment house that raised $2 million for Obama’s campaign and on whose board sits one Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. had nothing to do with it getting half a billion dollars in loan guarantees. And it certainly had nothing to do with the White House helping them get a manufacturing plant in Joe Biden’s home state.

    You guys are just fishing for things to blame on Obama.

  • steve

    Everyone here is so cynical. I’m sure the fact that a large investor in Fisker was the same investment house that raised $2 million for Obama’s campaign and on whose board sits one Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. had nothing to do with it getting half a billion dollars in loan guarantees. And it certainly had nothing to do with the White House helping them get a manufacturing plant in Joe Biden’s home state.

    You guys are just fishing for things to blame on Obama.

  • Grace

    Steve

    You stated: You guys are just fishing for things to blame on Obama.

    We don’t have to fish, the garbage jumps right out of the water, stinking up our country and what it stands for. The stench can be found everywhere, not hard to find where it comes from.

  • Grace

    Steve

    You stated: You guys are just fishing for things to blame on Obama.

    We don’t have to fish, the garbage jumps right out of the water, stinking up our country and what it stands for. The stench can be found everywhere, not hard to find where it comes from.

  • helen

    American jobs have been shipped overseas for the last 30 years, and the companies which sent them got subsidies, too. This isn’t a new phenomenon on Obama’s watch.

    What’s true it that anyone who expected this to “change” was “mistaken in their judgements” .

  • helen

    American jobs have been shipped overseas for the last 30 years, and the companies which sent them got subsidies, too. This isn’t a new phenomenon on Obama’s watch.

    What’s true it that anyone who expected this to “change” was “mistaken in their judgements” .

  • Grace

    Helen

    People who own factories have sent their business oversees for years, I have a very good friend who did just that as a designer of womens clothes – that however does not mean our government gave her a subsidy, .. it didn’t.

    It is the owners, or board who decide more often than not to ship their manufacturing abroad. MUCH different than Obama handing over 1/2 billion to Finland for cars which cost 100 thousand dollars.

  • Grace

    Helen

    People who own factories have sent their business oversees for years, I have a very good friend who did just that as a designer of womens clothes – that however does not mean our government gave her a subsidy, .. it didn’t.

    It is the owners, or board who decide more often than not to ship their manufacturing abroad. MUCH different than Obama handing over 1/2 billion to Finland for cars which cost 100 thousand dollars.

  • Tom Hering

    “President Bush did not hand over 1/2 billion dollars to another country …”

    Say what? Millions upon millions of dollars didn’t vanish when sent overseas to his private contractor buddies who were “rebuilding” Iraq? Or his private mercenary buddies who were “securing” Iraq? Whew! Glad to hear all that never happened!

  • Tom Hering

    “President Bush did not hand over 1/2 billion dollars to another country …”

    Say what? Millions upon millions of dollars didn’t vanish when sent overseas to his private contractor buddies who were “rebuilding” Iraq? Or his private mercenary buddies who were “securing” Iraq? Whew! Glad to hear all that never happened!

  • Grace

    Tom,

    There is no point in arguing over Bush vs. Obama. There is no president that has been as phony, ill equiped to be president, or has blundered, and thundered with the most outrageous demands, health care plans, than Obama.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    There is no point in arguing over Bush vs. Obama. There is no president that has been as phony, ill equiped to be president, or has blundered, and thundered with the most outrageous demands, health care plans, than Obama.

  • Tom Hering

    Who’s arguing one versus the other – except you, Grace? I’m saying there isn’t much difference between the two, other than the different bases they’ve had to satisfy (or, rather, satisfy just enough). This will hold true for the next President as well.

  • Tom Hering

    Who’s arguing one versus the other – except you, Grace? I’m saying there isn’t much difference between the two, other than the different bases they’ve had to satisfy (or, rather, satisfy just enough). This will hold true for the next President as well.

  • Grace

    Nonsense Tom, —–

    There is a huge chasm between President Bush and Obama. One is a loyalist to what the United States was founded upon, it’s principles, captialism… the other is a Marxist socialist who believes spreading the wealth is an honest endeavor.

    Obama is a sham, everyone who wants a free ride jumps on his scooter.

    Those who choose to stand on their own, understand the ‘work ethic.. start businesses, work hard, and expect those who work for them to do the same ….. without the same priveleges as the owner, those have taken ALL the risk, often times putting their home up for collateral so the banks will loan them money to expand their business – but IN NO WAY, do those who work for the individual who took all the chances, put the ideas into motion, invested all he had, including his home should share in the larger profit of the company.

    COMPREHEND?

  • Grace

    Nonsense Tom, —–

    There is a huge chasm between President Bush and Obama. One is a loyalist to what the United States was founded upon, it’s principles, captialism… the other is a Marxist socialist who believes spreading the wealth is an honest endeavor.

    Obama is a sham, everyone who wants a free ride jumps on his scooter.

    Those who choose to stand on their own, understand the ‘work ethic.. start businesses, work hard, and expect those who work for them to do the same ….. without the same priveleges as the owner, those have taken ALL the risk, often times putting their home up for collateral so the banks will loan them money to expand their business – but IN NO WAY, do those who work for the individual who took all the chances, put the ideas into motion, invested all he had, including his home should share in the larger profit of the company.

    COMPREHEND?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 20: “Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing a strong man with morals to someone who is a Marxist …”

    Grace @ 29: “There is no point in arguing over Bush vs. Obama.”

    Grace @ 31: “There is a huge chasm between President Bush and Obama.”

    I’m getting dizzy. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Grace @ 20: “Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing a strong man with morals to someone who is a Marxist …”

    Grace @ 29: “There is no point in arguing over Bush vs. Obama.”

    Grace @ 31: “There is a huge chasm between President Bush and Obama.”

    I’m getting dizzy. :-D

  • helen

    When Dubya invested in the Texas Rangers, he made a profit.
    The buddies who went in with him somehow lost money.
    When Dubya invested in oil, same story.

    Dubya, as President, invested in the war machine.
    His buddies, most notoriously Cheney, got their money back big time!

    I am only slightly less impressed with Obama than with Bush II.
    Fraid we part company on this one, Grace.

  • helen

    When Dubya invested in the Texas Rangers, he made a profit.
    The buddies who went in with him somehow lost money.
    When Dubya invested in oil, same story.

    Dubya, as President, invested in the war machine.
    His buddies, most notoriously Cheney, got their money back big time!

    I am only slightly less impressed with Obama than with Bush II.
    Fraid we part company on this one, Grace.

  • helen

    Grace @ 31:
    …but IN NO WAY, do those who work for the individual who took all the chances, put the ideas into motion, invested all he had, including his home should share in the larger profit of the company.

    Most businesses which pay out the really big bucks these days are not run by individuals who built them.
    And most of the Ueberrich got their money the old fashioned way: they inherited a large pile.

    The business which really is a start up takes hard work. It also takes loyal and honest employees whose wages should go up along with the company’s profits since they are doing the work that earns it.

  • helen

    Grace @ 31:
    …but IN NO WAY, do those who work for the individual who took all the chances, put the ideas into motion, invested all he had, including his home should share in the larger profit of the company.

    Most businesses which pay out the really big bucks these days are not run by individuals who built them.
    And most of the Ueberrich got their money the old fashioned way: they inherited a large pile.

    The business which really is a start up takes hard work. It also takes loyal and honest employees whose wages should go up along with the company’s profits since they are doing the work that earns it.

  • Grace

    Helen

    YOU WROTE:

    “Most businesses which pay out the really big bucks these days are not run by individuals who built them.
    And most of the Ueberrich got their money the old fashioned way: they inherited a large pile.”

    OK Helen, here ya go.

    Forbes notes that while one-third of the world’s 46 billionaires who make their money in real estate inherited and then grew their fortunes, two-thirds are self-made.

    Donald Bren the wealthiest man in American real estate. This self-made millionaire, with a net worth of $4.3 billion

    Self-made billionaire Carl Berg was a loan processor before investing in Silicon Valley commercial real estate with John Sobrato in the 1960s. He struck out on own, forming Mission West Properties, a real estate investment trust (REIT) in Silicon Valley. portfolio of $1.2 billion.

    George Argyros is the grandson of Greek immigrants. Argyros began by running a Palm Springs grocery. He has a net worth of $1.2 billion.

    John Sobrato of Sobrato Development Companies calls Atherton, home, but he made his fortune in Silicon Valley – for more than 40 years, Sobrato’s SDC has developed real estate in Silicon Valley – specializing in facilities for high tech and R&D companies. Another self-made man. Portfolio of $1.5 billion.

    8. Live in California. Of the 21 U.S. billionaires who made their fortune in real estate, more than one-third live in Atherton, Los Angeles, Newport Beach, Palo Alto, or Stockton.

    9. Get, and stay, married. Of the 43 real estate billionaires whose marital status is known, according to Forbes, 37 are married, while only three are divorced and three are widowed.

    10. Go back to school. Of the 26 real estate billionaires whose educational attainments are known, 20 have a college degree or higher. Five made it on high school diplomas, and one is a high-school dropout. John Arrillaga is a big donor to alma mater Stanford University. Arrillaga + Richard Peery are two of 2 of Silicon Valley’s biggest commercial landlords. In the 1960s, they converted farmland into pricey office space. Peery and Arrillaga are lifelong business partners who avoid debt, and the media. Each has net worth of $1 billion.”

    http://ezinearticles.com/?10-Common-Traits-of-Real-Estate-Billionaires&id=1373525

    Read the rest.

  • Grace

    Helen

    YOU WROTE:

    “Most businesses which pay out the really big bucks these days are not run by individuals who built them.
    And most of the Ueberrich got their money the old fashioned way: they inherited a large pile.”

    OK Helen, here ya go.

    Forbes notes that while one-third of the world’s 46 billionaires who make their money in real estate inherited and then grew their fortunes, two-thirds are self-made.

    Donald Bren the wealthiest man in American real estate. This self-made millionaire, with a net worth of $4.3 billion

    Self-made billionaire Carl Berg was a loan processor before investing in Silicon Valley commercial real estate with John Sobrato in the 1960s. He struck out on own, forming Mission West Properties, a real estate investment trust (REIT) in Silicon Valley. portfolio of $1.2 billion.

    George Argyros is the grandson of Greek immigrants. Argyros began by running a Palm Springs grocery. He has a net worth of $1.2 billion.

    John Sobrato of Sobrato Development Companies calls Atherton, home, but he made his fortune in Silicon Valley – for more than 40 years, Sobrato’s SDC has developed real estate in Silicon Valley – specializing in facilities for high tech and R&D companies. Another self-made man. Portfolio of $1.5 billion.

    8. Live in California. Of the 21 U.S. billionaires who made their fortune in real estate, more than one-third live in Atherton, Los Angeles, Newport Beach, Palo Alto, or Stockton.

    9. Get, and stay, married. Of the 43 real estate billionaires whose marital status is known, according to Forbes, 37 are married, while only three are divorced and three are widowed.

    10. Go back to school. Of the 26 real estate billionaires whose educational attainments are known, 20 have a college degree or higher. Five made it on high school diplomas, and one is a high-school dropout. John Arrillaga is a big donor to alma mater Stanford University. Arrillaga + Richard Peery are two of 2 of Silicon Valley’s biggest commercial landlords. In the 1960s, they converted farmland into pricey office space. Peery and Arrillaga are lifelong business partners who avoid debt, and the media. Each has net worth of $1 billion.”

    http://ezinearticles.com/?10-Common-Traits-of-Real-Estate-Billionaires&id=1373525

    Read the rest.

  • Grace

    So Helen

    As Forbes notes:

    1/3rd of the worlds 46 billionaires in real estate inherited

    2/3rd’s are SELF MADE

    The MAJORITY are SELF MADE, they didn’t inherite money!

    I have known those who have made it with and without a college degree – who made millions, they earned every penny, they took all the chances – it was NOT inherited money that helped them, it was their hard work.

  • Grace

    So Helen

    As Forbes notes:

    1/3rd of the worlds 46 billionaires in real estate inherited

    2/3rd’s are SELF MADE

    The MAJORITY are SELF MADE, they didn’t inherite money!

    I have known those who have made it with and without a college degree – who made millions, they earned every penny, they took all the chances – it was NOT inherited money that helped them, it was their hard work.

  • Tom Hering

    18% of America’s billionaires inherited their wealth, while only 10% of billionaires in social-welfare state Britain inherited theirs. The only nation on earth where 100% of the billionaires are self-made is Russia. So, according to the measure you’re using, Grace, Britain is a better place to live, and Russia is the best place of all. When are you moving?

  • Tom Hering

    18% of America’s billionaires inherited their wealth, while only 10% of billionaires in social-welfare state Britain inherited theirs. The only nation on earth where 100% of the billionaires are self-made is Russia. So, according to the measure you’re using, Grace, Britain is a better place to live, and Russia is the best place of all. When are you moving?

  • helen

    You really think they built a business all by themselves?

    Sounds like the man who thought he produced and raised a family with no help from his wife!

  • helen

    You really think they built a business all by themselves?

    Sounds like the man who thought he produced and raised a family with no help from his wife!

  • Grace

    Tom @ 37

    You wrote: “’18% of America’s billionaires inherited their wealth, while only 10% of billionaires in social-welfare state Britain inherited theirs. ”

    SLOW DOWN…..

    America is much larger than Britain – so it would stand to reason that their percentage would be larger. :lol:

  • Grace

    Tom @ 37

    You wrote: “’18% of America’s billionaires inherited their wealth, while only 10% of billionaires in social-welfare state Britain inherited theirs. ”

    SLOW DOWN…..

    America is much larger than Britain – so it would stand to reason that their percentage would be larger. :lol:

  • helen

    Tom,
    I didn’t mean to suggest they inherited ALL of it.
    But it surely helps to start with a nice nest egg.

  • helen

    Tom,
    I didn’t mean to suggest they inherited ALL of it.
    But it surely helps to start with a nice nest egg.

  • Grace

    Helen @ 38

    You wrote: “You really think they built a business all by themselves?

    Sounds like the man who thought he produced and raised a family with no help from his wife!”

    Yes I do believe for the most part they did build it by themselves. Their wives did help, but in most cases it was the husband who was gifted to go out, with his dream, and put it together.

    I happen to know one of the wives of these men. She was very helpful, but she did not put the business together. God put men in charge, that’s why they do such a superior job, to we who are wives.

    As the piece mentioned 43 were married – a stable marriage is very important, a wife who cares for the children, and provides a haven of comfort and peace at home.

  • Grace

    Helen @ 38

    You wrote: “You really think they built a business all by themselves?

    Sounds like the man who thought he produced and raised a family with no help from his wife!”

    Yes I do believe for the most part they did build it by themselves. Their wives did help, but in most cases it was the husband who was gifted to go out, with his dream, and put it together.

    I happen to know one of the wives of these men. She was very helpful, but she did not put the business together. God put men in charge, that’s why they do such a superior job, to we who are wives.

    As the piece mentioned 43 were married – a stable marriage is very important, a wife who cares for the children, and provides a haven of comfort and peace at home.

  • Tom Hering

    “America is much larger than Britain – so it would stand to reason that their percentage would be larger.”

    Uh, do you understand what a percentage is? The way it works is … oh, never mind.

  • Tom Hering

    “America is much larger than Britain – so it would stand to reason that their percentage would be larger.”

    Uh, do you understand what a percentage is? The way it works is … oh, never mind.

  • Grace

    Tom

    I stand corrected. However the data still shows that the vast majority of billionaires earn rather than inherit their wealth, much to the chagrin of many who complain NON-STOP about the wealthy.

  • Grace

    Tom

    I stand corrected. However the data still shows that the vast majority of billionaires earn rather than inherit their wealth, much to the chagrin of many who complain NON-STOP about the wealthy.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    Is the site you used for your post @ 37? – without giving the link?

    Made VS Inherited Billionaire Fortunes
    “The other thing that stood out to me is that the only women on the list inherited their fortunes, none of them earned their fortunes. Take that as you will but the fact remains. In the future this may change. 60 years ago segregation and all kinds of social prejudice ran rampant. Only time will tell if this will change.

    Lastly, I looked for any correlation between countries that fostered entrepreneurs (thus having more self-made billionaires) and the average income per capita. Using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) as a guide to the average person’s wealth I found some interesting factors.

    Country/Region PPP

    USA – 46,716

    Hong Kong – 43,922

    Europe – 35,381

    Middle East – 31,960

    Russia – 16,139

    India – 2,972

    http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes

    Check out the site and graphs – VERY INTERESTING!!

  • Grace

    Tom,

    Is the site you used for your post @ 37? – without giving the link?

    Made VS Inherited Billionaire Fortunes
    “The other thing that stood out to me is that the only women on the list inherited their fortunes, none of them earned their fortunes. Take that as you will but the fact remains. In the future this may change. 60 years ago segregation and all kinds of social prejudice ran rampant. Only time will tell if this will change.

    Lastly, I looked for any correlation between countries that fostered entrepreneurs (thus having more self-made billionaires) and the average income per capita. Using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) as a guide to the average person’s wealth I found some interesting factors.

    Country/Region PPP

    USA – 46,716

    Hong Kong – 43,922

    Europe – 35,381

    Middle East – 31,960

    Russia – 16,139

    India – 2,972

    http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes

    Check out the site and graphs – VERY INTERESTING!!

  • Grace

    This is what the graphs represent from the site I posted @ 44 :

    Inherited wealth – Self Made

    The Middle East
    42% – 58%

    U.S.A.
    31% – 69%

    Hong Kong

    29% – 71%

    Europe
    50% – 40%

    India
    79% – 21%

    Russia
    0% – 100%

    http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes

  • Grace

    This is what the graphs represent from the site I posted @ 44 :

    Inherited wealth – Self Made

    The Middle East
    42% – 58%

    U.S.A.
    31% – 69%

    Hong Kong

    29% – 71%

    Europe
    50% – 40%

    India
    79% – 21%

    Russia
    0% – 100%

    http://moneytipcentral.com/self-made-vs-inherited-billionaire-fortunes

  • Grace

    The Roman church now wants to direct the finances of the world?

    Reuters

    Vatican calls for global authority on economy, raps “idolatry of the market”

    By Philip Pullella

    Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:08am EDT

    “The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.

    “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.
    It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems. “In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.

    “If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.

    It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.

    Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the “indignant ones”, who have criticised global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, said: “The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good. “We are calling for all these bodies and organisations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024

  • Grace

    The Roman church now wants to direct the finances of the world?

    Reuters

    Vatican calls for global authority on economy, raps “idolatry of the market”

    By Philip Pullella

    Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:08am EDT

    “The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.

    “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions. “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.
    It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems. “In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.

    “If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.

    It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.

    Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the “indignant ones”, who have criticised global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, said: “The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good. “We are calling for all these bodies and organisations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X