RSS

Chris Dodd (Democrat)

Putting the Champion of the Little Guys Myth to Rest

by Bill O'Connell on April 20, 2010

Share and Recommend:
Share

 

The Democrats are currently trying to roll out that old war horse, “class warfare” in a desperate attempt to arrest their freefall in the polls.  The myth is that they are for the little guy when they are the party of big government.  Businesses, once they get big, are hardly fans of the free market as they would much prefer to settle into a profitable market niche and not have to keep battling against upstarts.

Show Me the Money

An organization known as OpenSecrets.org, has a website that has information on contributions to the 2008 presidential campaign.  The list of top contributors is not a list of contributions by corporations but by contributions from those company’s Political Action Committees, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families, but it does give you a sense of where the people who make up these companies see their bread buttered.

If you look at the top 20 donors to Obama compared to the top 20 donors to McCain, the 20th donor on Obama’s list gave 32% more to Obama than the top donor to McCain.  As with any large organization there will be individuals who support Republicans and individuals who support Democrats, as well as their PACs wanting hedge bets by giving to both.  But the amounts are telling.

What is particularly illuminating is with regard to Wall Street and the Banks.  The Democrats are latching onto the sound bite that they want more regulation to protect the little guy, while the Republicans want less regulation so that Wall Street and the banks can get rich at the expense of the little guy.

Who’s Dumber Wall Street or the Democrats?

Does anyone believe that the leaders of Wall Street would give money to a candidate or party without expecting their point of view to be heard?  Does anyone believe that the Democrats would take contributions and then turn around and burn those who contributed so generously, particularly before a very tough election?  Okay, now that we have that settled let’s look at the numbers.

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to Obama’s election were as follows:

  1. Goldman Sachs — $994,795
  2. Citigroup — $701,290
  3. JP Morgan Chase — $695,132
  4. UBS AG — $543,219
  5. Morgan Stanley — $514,881

The top Wall Street and Bank Contributors to McCain’s election were as follows:

  1. Merrill Lynch — $373, 595 (subsequently sold to Bank of America)
  2. Citigroup — $322,051
  3. Morgan Stanley — $273,452
  4. Goldman Sachs — $230,095
  5. JP Morgan Chase — $228,107
  6. Wachovia — $195,063 (acquired by Wells Fargo)
  7. UBS AG — $192,493
  8. Credit Suisse — $183,353
  9. Bank of America — $166,026
  10. Bear Stearns — $117,498 (subsequently sold to JP Morgan Chase in a fire sale)
  11. Lehman Brothers — $114,357 (Bankrupt)

It looks like four of the companies with people who gave to McCain didn’t survive the meltdown and either disappeared or were swallowed up by the winners.  If you look as people from companies that gave to both candidates, the amounts are significantly different:

  1. Goldman Sachs associates gave $764,700 more to Obama than McCain
  2. Citigroup associates gave $379,239 more to Obama than McCain
  3. JP Morgan associates gave $467,025 more to Obama than McCain
  4. UBS associates gave $350,726 more to Obama than McCain
  5. Morgan Stanley gave $241,429 more to Obama than McCain

I am not suggesting any quid pro quo for the contributions, but people do things for a reason.  Who do you think will be more sensitive to the needs of Wall Street, Obama or the Republicans? 

So look for a Financial Reform package that is a lot of smoke and mirrors that actually does nothing constructive.  Republicans will oppose it, and Democrats will try to flog them as being for Wall Street and the Banks and against the little guy, but facts are facts.  Remember, after passing ObamaCare Democrats tried to paint the picture that they stood up to the insurance companies, when they passed a law that will compel millions of Americans to become customers of those same insurance companies.  Do you think that is why the opposition from the insurance companies was muted?

It’s time to drive home the point that this Administration is allied with Wall Street, GE, health insurance companies against us.  It should not be hard to do.  People are listening closely like never before.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (0)

The Innocent Bystander: Government

by Bill O'Connell on February 22, 2009

Share and Recommend:
Share

Don't Anyone Dare Say Government Caused This Mess

You can never solve a problem if you do not face up to the full scope of the problem.  In listening to President Obama, and reading liberal columnists like Maureen Dowd, in the description of what caused the current economic calamity, the government is always given a pass.

We are in an economic morass because of the eight years of failed Bush policies, greed on Wall Street, tax breaks for the rich, etc.  Government’s culpability which, I believe, is really the gravamen of our economic problems is never mentioned at all.  Democrats and Liberals don’t dare point to Democrats and liberal policies as having anything to do with the collapsing economy.  That is why they always say that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, as they also said when Clinton ran for President.  They don’t dare say it is the worst economy since Jimmy Carter, since that would remind the American people that the Democrats screwed up that one as well.

Unmentionable Causes of the Current Economic Mess

  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of control.  Explosive increases in debt taken on under the leadership of Franklin Raines (Democrat), and Jaime Gorelick (Democrat), remember she also gave us the firewall between the CIA and FBI that hamstrung the investigation of al Qaeda.  Raines made over $90 million while at Fannie Mae and at the same time was accused of overstating earnings by $10.6 billion.  So, where’s the demand for a clawback of Raines’s salary?
  • Barney Frank (Democrat) and Chris Dodd (Democrat) — Frank blocked every attempt to put in place greater regulation over Fannie Mae.  The Bush Administration tried to increase regulation over Fannie Mae, but Frank blocked it.  What you hear today is that the reason for the economic problems are a lack of regulation.  Chris Dodd got VIP mortgage treatment from Countrywide mortgage before they went belly-up.  Asked to come clean on the mortgages, Dodd first said sure, we’ll get around to it.  Then he made some papers available for viewing, but not copying, and has since clammed up.
  • Community Reinvestment Act — Carter (Democrat) administration program to push home ownership for low income people, by forcing banks to report how much they were offering loans in low income neighborhoods and face the consequences if it wasn’t enough.
  • Janet Reno (Democrat) — in the Clinton Administration Reno threatened action against financial institutions if they weren’t lending enough low income individuals.  What bank doesn’t want to be publicly branded a racist institution?

So we have homeowners, who should have never qualified for a mortgage, about to receive bailouts from all the responsible people who took mortgages they could afford, when they could afford them.  Do you ever hear about any of this cast of characters mentioned by President Obama or the main stream media? No.  It wasn’t the government actively pushing social policy on those people least able to handle it.  It was greedy banks and unscrupulous lenders, trying to avoid being branded racists, who took advantage of these poor ignorant people.  Perhaps if the government hadn’t destroyed our education system, these people might have read what they were about to sign.

How Do you Solve Only Half a Problem?

As these characters are never mentioned as having a role in the problem, how can you ever hope to fix the problem if these bad actors are still going about their business doing what caused the crisis and blaming everyone else.  President Obama demonstrates his inexperience more profoundly every day, seemingly making things up as he goes along.  That is not leadership and what we need now in times of crisis is leadership.  Obama has never shown the courage or willingness to take on his own party.  Without rooting out these characters and really fixing the whole problem, it will only happen again down the road.

What we need now is a leader.  Someone who actually has experience running the executive branch of a state.  Someone who is not afraid to take on the entrenched power of their own party and has succeeded in doing so.  Is there anyone out there who fits that bill?  Gee, that sounds like Sarah Palin.

Share and Recommend:
Share
Comments (1)
© 2010 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.