PDA

View Full Version : Mitt's the Wall Street candidate-- this time



Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 03:30 PM
Mitt's top contributors, from Open Secrets

Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php)

Mitt Romney (R)
1 Goldman Sachs $493,430
2 JPMorgan Chase & Co $314,900
3 Morgan Stanley $280,350
4 Credit Suisse Group $278,160
5 Citigroup Inc $267,050

Although Obama has raised somewhat over twice Mitt's money haul to date, if any of these donors (or really, their employees) have given to his race, it amounts to less than $127,895

pooltchr
02-19-2012, 04:02 PM
Since many of the Obama administrations top staffers came from some of those organizations, I'm sure they feel confident that they have that side covered. This just makes sure they have a solid footing in Washington, no matter who wins in Nov.

Steve

DiabloViejo
02-19-2012, 04:15 PM
Foolish Hue Mons!

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lydwxau5St1qzq52eo1_500.jpg

LWW
02-19-2012, 05:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitt's top contributors, from Open Secrets

Here (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/head2head.php)

Mitt Romney (R)
1 Goldman Sachs $493,430
2 JPMorgan Chase & Co $314,900
3 Morgan Stanley $280,350
4 Credit Suisse Group $278,160
5 Citigroup Inc $267,050

Although Obama has raised somewhat over twice Mitt's money haul to date, if any of these donors (or really, their employees) have given to his race, it amounts to less than $127,895 </div></div>

Glad to see you using a credible source for a change, but your spin is disappointing.

Romney isn't the Wall Street candidate. He is the Wall Street back up plan in case dear leader loses.

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 08:36 PM
No, the backup is the guy you give the smaller amount to.

You give the most to your main guy, especially if he's the incumbent president.

You certainly don't give your main guy less than 25% of what you give the backup.

eg8r
02-19-2012, 08:54 PM
What is their incentive to giving to Obama at this point in time? Don't you think at this point they are positioning the Rep they want to win the confirmation so that they can then shift their giving back to Obama who has made them rich beyond their wildest dreams when it matters most?

eg8r

eg8r
02-19-2012, 08:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, the backup is the guy you give the smaller amount to.

You give the most to your main guy, especially if he's the incumbent president.
</div></div>But you don't do that when you "main guy" is not in the middle of a Rep confirmation process and is already holding the seat you treasure. You wait to give him the money till the point in time when he needs it. At this point Wall St is merely saying if Obama loses to a Rep then they want that Rep to be Mitt. Jeesh, this common sense stuff seems to trip you up every time.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-19-2012, 09:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is their incentive to giving to Obama at this point in time? Don't you think at this point they are positioning the Rep they want to win the confirmation so that they can then shift their giving back to Obama who has made them rich beyond their wildest dreams when it matters most?

eg8r </div></div>

That doesn't seem unreasonable, but it's speculative. It will either prove out once the fall campaign season begins, or it won't.

The reason to give to Obama now, however, is that he's the POTUS (which office has many unique powers), he's running for re-election, and he needs a lot more money to meet his goals.

As for making them rich beyond their wildest dreams, a) mainly he got them even after huge losses (they were already rich btwd), and b) he's caused their cherished bonuses to be cut in half on average, as of this year's past bonus season.

LWW
02-20-2012, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, the backup is the guy you give the smaller amount to.

You give the most to your main guy, especially if he's the incumbent president.
</div></div>But you don't do that when you "main guy" is not in the middle of a Rep confirmation process and is already holding the seat you treasure. You wait to give him the money till the point in time when he needs it. At this point Wall St is merely saying if Obama loses to a Rep then they want that Rep to be Mitt. Jeesh, this common sense stuff seems to trip you up every time.

eg8r </div></div>

Now you went and injected logic into a debate fueled by hyper-partisan hate.

eg8r
02-20-2012, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason to give to Obama now, however, is that he's the POTUS (which office has many unique powers), he's running for re-election, and he needs a lot more money to meet his goals.
</div></div>He is not doing anything right now. No one has been nominated from the other side and they already know no one is running against Obama. No reason to give Obama money right now when he doesn't need it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for making them rich beyond their wildest dreams, </div></div>Talk to qtip about that. He is the one you are in disagreement with. Well that is until he flip flops and that can happen at any moment depending on who he is in disagreement with.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
02-20-2012, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason to give to Obama now, however, is that he's the POTUS (which office has many unique powers), he's running for re-election, and he needs a lot more money to meet his goals.
</div></div>He is not doing anything right now. No one has been nominated from the other side and they already know no one is running against Obama. No reason to give Obama money right now when he doesn't need it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for making them rich beyond their wildest dreams, </div></div>Talk to qtip about that. He is the one you are in disagreement with. Well that is until he flip flops and that can happen at any moment depending on who he is in disagreement with.

eg8r </div></div>

He's not running in an opposed primary. But he is in primaries, and has required that enough signatures be raised to qualify for these primaries or caucuses.

For not doing anything, as you claim, somehow he's outspent Romney in this cycle so far by $9.2 million dollars, and yes, since Mitt has spent $36.5 million, that means Obama's spent $45.7 million. Plenty of money has found a usage, and there is a patent need and desire for a whole lot more money to be raised, and now.

eg8r
02-20-2012, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For not doing anything, as you claim, somehow he's outspent Romney in this cycle so far by $9.2 million dollars, and yes, since Mitt has spent $36.5 million, that means Obama's spent $45.7 million. Plenty of money has found a usage, and there is a patent need and desire for a whole lot more money to be raised, and now. </div></div>LOL yeah right. He is out spending money laying groundwork and appeasing those that have already given to entice them to give more. However NONE of this has anything to do with the solid assumption that Wall St is backing the Rep they prefer to win should Obama lose.

eg8r