Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

23 Oct 2011 13:00

VeloCity wrote:Not really.
http://wpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html

He's not too popular on Wall St these days.

You're not keeping up. They already started a while ago (actually they started last April with that "Mitt Romney: Wall Streets Best Friend" ad).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html

http://www.thechurchreport.com/index.cfm?objectID=141804

Even some on your side are a bit concerned with Romney's coziness with the big bankers et al.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/10/cozy-relationship-wall-street-hurts-romney

Besides, it's Romney himself who keeps saying things like "Wall St is connected to Main St" and of course the infamous "Corporations are people too". Not to mention that Romney has received almost 25% of his campaign funding from "the finance sector", far more than any other candidate.

All the Dems have to do is package it all up and let Mitt and the campaign contribution numbers speak for themselves.


http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/securities-investment/0af3f418f426497e8bbf916bfc074ebc

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html?_r=1

From your posted Washington Post article that you clearly didn't read;

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
.


So, Obama is going to paint Romney as too close to Wall St when Obama even has more support than Romney from the VC firm that Romney founded.

Yeah, I'm sure this won't come up at all:rolleyes:
Scott SoCal
 

23 Oct 2011 13:09

VeloCity wrote:Sorry, I must have missed something - when did debates become about anything of substance?

Put Obama and Romney together on stage and people will remember why they voted for Obama in the first place, and why they've never really warmed up to Romney.


Romney may not get it.

The take away here is that there's nothing domestically Obama can run on. Even Obamacare is in disarray (not to mention unpopular).

Unemployment will be his undoing. He's toast.
Scott SoCal
 

23 Oct 2011 14:12

auscyclefan94 wrote:Certainly is in Australia. You get a hefty fine if you don't vote, vote more than once or don't enrol with the electoral commission.

BroDeal, I was more saying that because it seems a little odd that you could have a large variation in the people who are voting in elections which causes inconsistencies with the number of people voting and could make it a nightmare to for political analysts to predict results.


Strictly speaking you are not forced to vote, you just need to get your name crossed off the list. Also you don't have to vote if you have religious beliefs against voting.
Australian Supporter of BMC and Cadel Evans
User avatar Luke Schmid
Junior Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 21:53

23 Oct 2011 16:58

VeloCity wrote: Romney's got two problems: first, he has no real record to run on. His economic record while gov of Massachusetts is mixed at best - a balanced budget, but only because corporate and property taxes were raised, while the state was something like 46th or 47th in terms of job creation during his years as governor. Public job growth - ie the government - in Mass grew twice as fast as private job growth did during Romney's term. And his one big accomplishment - health care - he's trying to distance himself from.

(Oh the irony: the Republican candidate is most likely going to be a tall, awkward, French-speaking guy from Massachusetts who while governor raised taxes, increased the size of government, and introduced public health care.)

Second is that he's tied himself to Wall St and the bankers. Actually, he's tied himself big-time to Wall St and the bankers. And while a lot of people may not be happy with Obama, no one is happy with Wall St and the bankers these days.

Once Romney is settled as the Republican candidate, the Dems will start hammering all those messages home.


Why do you say he's trying to distance himself from healthcare? I haven't got that impression at all. In each debate, he's owned up to it and even said he wouldn't take it to the federal level. If anything he is proud of what he accomplished in Mass. I would absolutely put that and his business record against Obama's presidency.

The dems can hammer all those messages all they want, but think about how the GOP can fire back. Last election, they tried to tell you what would happen, if you elected Obama. Obviously the message didn't sink in. This election they can say, "LOOK what happened." That's far more powerful.

rhubroma wrote: This is precisely why the nation and the world is in such chaos. Everything is in chaos.

Because political considerations have actually nothing to do with anything about this election, or at any rate anything other than economic political considerations.

For this reason, the entire business of democracy these days is totally wearisome and depressing to me.

I'd rather be voting in Tunisia today, where there would at least be something actually worth voting for.


I wish the election was about more than the economy. Ultimately, that's what it will come down to though, so all I can do is vote for who I perceive as the most viable and effective candidate. I wouldn't say that personally I'm to the highlighted point, but it is depressing.
User avatar ImmaculateKadence
Member
 
Posts: 1,095
Joined: 29 Oct 2009 16:33

23 Oct 2011 21:35

The interesting thing about that is the President has the most amount of autonomous control not over the economy, but foreign policy. Any laws, tax, spending, otherwise come from Congress. The President can submit plans to Congress, and he can veto what they send him, but it's Congress that writes and passes the bills (or doesn't).

And yet, every election we concentrate so much on the President and the economy as if he - no matter whom he is - has some sort of super powers to implement sweeping budget, taxes, spending legislation.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

23 Oct 2011 21:41

Alpe d'Huez wrote:The interesting thing about that is the President has the most amount of autonomous control not over the economy, but foreign policy. Any laws, tax, spending, otherwise come from Congress. The President can submit plans to Congress, and he can veto what they send him, but it's Congress that writes and passes the bills (or doesn't).

And yet, every election we concentrate so much on the President and the economy as if he - no matter whom he is - has some sort of super powers to implement sweeping budget, taxes, spending legislation.


While technically true... take a look at what the EPA is doing by executive fiat.

Obama likes his czars and to some degree they go right around congress.

The ecomomy will be on Obama. There's no way around that.

And yet, every election we concentrate so much on the President and the economy as if he - no matter whom he is - has some sort of super powers to implement sweeping budget, taxes, spending legislation.


And this is a big reason Obama's jobs bill and the fight over the debt ceiling are so divisive. Promised spending cuts never happen. The spending happens and the cuts don't.
Scott SoCal
 

23 Oct 2011 22:31

Image
User avatar usedtobefast
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,367
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 23:19
Location: southern california

23 Oct 2011 22:36

Scott SoCal wrote:While technically true... take a look at what the EPA is doing by executive fiat.

Obama likes his czars and to some degree they go right around congress.

The ecomomy will be on Obama. There's no way around that.



And this is a big reason Obama's jobs bill and the fight over the debt ceiling are so divisive. Promised spending cuts never happen. The spending happens and the cuts don't.


""According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/voters-blame-bush-more-obama-economy-143014602.html

Bush... That guy you voted for..TWICE
redtreviso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 23 May 2010 12:55

23 Oct 2011 22:43

From the Washington Post article that you clearly didn't read:

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.
In other words, most of that cash is being given to the DNC, not to the Obama campaign. Which you would've picked up on if you'd bothered to look at the breakdown chart:

Contributions from the financial sector:

Romney: $7.5 million
Obama: $3.9 million

So, Obama is going to paint Romney as too close to Wall St when Obama even has more support than Romney from the VC firm that Romney founded.
You really didn't read that article very closely, did you? 18 Bain employees contributed to Romney, 3 contributed to Obama. Not sure how that constitutes "more support".

Then there's this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-16/goldman-favors-romney-over-obama-in-race-for-wall-street-funds.html

Never mind Goldman Sachs, that bit about the lobbyists is interesting.

And boy, I hope this comes up again at some point:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,0,3457481.story
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

23 Oct 2011 23:05

Scott SoCal wrote:Romney may not get it.

The take away here is that there's nothing domestically Obama can run on. Even Obamacare is in disarray (not to mention unpopular).

Unemployment will be his undoing. He's toast.
Yet despite the state of the economy, the frustration with Washington, unemployment, and despite the Republicans being in the spotlight, etc, Obama still leads every one of them in the polls. Only Romney is even close. Why do you suppose that is? You'd think that the Republican candidates would be outpolling Obama by a long shot at the moment.

In some ways I almost hope Romney does win and you guys got everything you wish for, economically and socially.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

23 Oct 2011 23:13

redtreviso wrote:""According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/voters-blame-bush-more-obama-economy-143014602.html

Bush... That guy you voted for..TWICE
Yes, but Obama's a failure because he isn't cleaning up their mess fast enough.

btw I am totally confused - is Obama a Marxist/socialist/commie or is he in bed with Wall Street and big business? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 00:56

VeloCity wrote:From the Washington Post article that you clearly didn't read:

In other words, most of that cash is being given to the DNC, not to the Obama campaign. Which you would've picked up on if you'd bothered to look at the breakdown chart:

Contributions from the financial sector:

Romney: $7.5 million
Obama: $3.9 million

You really didn't read that article very closely, did you? 18 Bain employees contributed to Romney, 3 contributed to Obama. Not sure how that constitutes "more support".

Then there's this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-16/goldman-favors-romney-over-obama-in-race-for-wall-street-funds.html

Never mind Goldman Sachs, that bit about the lobbyists is interesting.

And boy, I hope this comes up again at some point:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,0,3457481.story


btw I'm totally confused - is Obama a Marxist or is he in bed with Wall Street? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 03:58

VeloCity wrote:

You really didn't read that article very closely, did you? 18 Bain employees contributed to Romney, 3 contributed to Obama. Not sure how that constitutes "more support".




Uh, I highlighted that part in bold.

Typically that will mean the poster actually read the passage.
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 04:03

VeloCity wrote:Yes, but Obama's a failure because he isn't cleaning up their mess fast enough.

btw I am totally confused - is Obama a Marxist/socialist/commie or is he in bed with Wall Street and big business? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?


Yes, but Obama's a failure.


Stop there.

btw I am totally confused - is Obama a Marxist/socialist/commie or is he in bed with Wall Street and big business? Can you guys just pick one and stick with it?


Try not to get too worked up about it. Obama is a complex guy.
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 04:09

VeloCity wrote: And boy, I hope this comes up again at some point:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,0,3457481.story



Yep (December 17, 2007).

I think (December 17, 2007) Romney's got real (December 17, 2007) problems with this recent development.

Probably a game changer.
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 04:34

Scott SoCal wrote:And this is a big reason Obama's jobs bill and the fight over the debt ceiling are so divisive. Promised spending cuts never happen. The spending happens and the cuts don't.

Bush was the king of signing papers as well. But did that hurt him?

It also seems to me that even that massive debt ceiling issue doesn't poll well for Republicans. According to this USA Today poll:

"Only one in five see it as a step forward in addressing the federal debt."

And

"Though Tea Party conservatives succeeded in setting the parameters of the deal, supporters of the Tea Party are among those most unhappy with the outcome: 22% of Tea Party supporters approve of the agreement, compared with 26% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats."

Paradoxical figures indeed. But I don't know how a Republican could look at this and optimistically view it as being a tool to use against the President?

People may indeed ultimately blame Obama. I just don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of it? I don't see where that assurance is coming from? I think the lens you are looking through is too polarized to be honest.
User avatar Alpe d'Huez
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,055
Joined: 11 Mar 2009 03:51
Location: New England

24 Oct 2011 12:53

Alpe d'Huez wrote:Bush was the king of signing papers as well. But did that hurt him?

It also seems to me that even that massive debt ceiling issue doesn't poll well for Republicans. According to this USA Today poll:

"Only one in five see it as a step forward in addressing the federal debt."

And

"Though Tea Party conservatives succeeded in setting the parameters of the deal, supporters of the Tea Party are among those most unhappy with the outcome: 22% of Tea Party supporters approve of the agreement, compared with 26% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats."

Paradoxical figures indeed. But I don't know how a Republican could look at this and optimistically view it as being a tool to use against the President?

People may indeed ultimately blame Obama. I just don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of it? I don't see where that assurance is coming from? I think the lens you are looking through is too polarized to be honest.


Bush was the king of signing papers as well. But did that hurt him?


You could ask the same question of Reagan. Clinton to a lesser degree as well.

It also seems to me that even that massive debt ceiling issue doesn't poll well for Republicans.


I don't think most that vote for republicans are in love with them.

Paradoxical figures indeed. But I don't know how a Republican could look at this and optimistically view it as being a tool to use against the President?


The central theme is more than $4T more debt under this prez and an economy that is (still) on life support.

People may indeed ultimately blame Obama. I just don't understand how you can be so absolutely certain of it? I don't see where that assurance is coming from? I think the lens you are looking through is too polarized to be honest


Obama will have to re-write history to get re-elected. He'll have to out do FDR and he's not as good as Jimmy Carter. I'm very optimistic he'll be a one-termer.

But we will see.
Scott SoCal
 

24 Oct 2011 14:46

Scott SoCal wrote:Uh, I highlighted that part in bold.
And then you said that it shows that Obama has more support from Bain than does Romney. Still not sure how 18 Bain employees donating to Romney and 3 Bain employees donating to Obama constitutes "more support".
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 14:57

Scott SoCal wrote:Stop there.
You've got to love Republicans. Their solution to the mess is to put back into power people who share the same philosophy and policies as the people who created the mess while blaming the people who are trying to clean up the mess for creating the mess in the first place.

What was that definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?

Try not to get too worked up about it. Obama is a complex guy.
Just asking, is he a socialist or is he in bed with Wall St? I'm just curious to see how far you guys are able to twist these pretzels that you make.
User avatar VeloCity
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,638
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

24 Oct 2011 14:58

don't see how you could not be in favor of Ron Paul
User avatar Bavarianrider
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,994
Joined: 07 Apr 2011 18:14
Location: Bavaria

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Back to top