Thread: For Veterans and Military personnel only.[W:651]

Originally Posted by cpwill

So you were a McCain voter in 2008?

Both McCain and Obama proposed finance reform in 08. So the big money donors were more even.

This election, after Obama passed finance reform and Romney has pledged to undo it, Romney is getting funded 5 to 1 over Obama from Wall Street, and also collecting more super pac donations.

Originally Posted by Catawba

Don't know about you, but I'm going for the viable candidate that is getting the least money from the 1%.

The least money from the 1% huh? Are you purposely baiting people into making fun of you?

"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."


University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

Originally Posted by Catawba

Both McCain and Obama proposed finance reform in 08. So the big money donors were more even.

I think MarineTpartier has already pretty thoroughly embarrassed you for this hilarious claim. Obama raised significantly more than McCain did from the 1%.

Originally Posted by cpwill

I think MarineTpartier has already pretty thoroughly embarrassed you for this hilarious claim. Obama raised significantly more than McCain did from the 1%.

Well, it wasn't really hard to do man. I don't deserve too much credit for that one.

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

Well, it wasn't really hard to do man. I don't deserve too much credit for that one.

fair enough. The blind ignorance of Catawba's argument is only barely less entertaining than the fact that he will not allow the standard that he has proposed to actually effect his vote.

Originally Posted by cpwill

fair enough. The blind ignorance of Catawba's argument is only barely less entertaining than the fact that he will not allow the standard that he has proposed to actually effect his vote.

Well said sir.

Originally Posted by jamesrage

That is a load crap. A candidate is the front runner because the media says so. The media did pick these candidates.

No, he's a front runner because he's accomplished something. Won the latest primary, polled better, got more support. It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

The least money from the 1% huh? Are you purposely baiting people into making fun of you?

"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."


University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295
Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets

As compared to McCain from the same site:

"Merrill Lynch $375,895
JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505
Citigroup Inc $338,202
Morgan Stanley $271,902
Goldman Sachs $240,295
US Government $202,929
AT&T Inc $201,938
Wachovia Corp $199,663
UBS AG $187,493
Credit Suisse Group $184,153
PricewaterhouseCoopers $169,400
US Army $169,020
Bank of America $167,826
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $160,346
Blank Rome LLP $155,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $147,437
US Dept of Defense $146,356
FedEx Corp $131,974
Lehman Brothers $126,557
Ernst & Young $114,506


And that was in 2008, before Obama's finance reform, proposal to increase capital gains taxes, and proposed cuts to the military/industrial complex. This election the big wall street money is going 5 to 1 in Romney's favor who has pledged to dismantle finance reform, increase the tax cuts for the wealthy, and increase spending to the military/industrial complex.

All music to Wall Street's ears.

Originally Posted by Catawba

As compared to McCain from the same site:

"Merrill Lynch $375,895
JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505
Citigroup Inc $338,202
Morgan Stanley $271,902
Goldman Sachs $240,295
US Government $202,929
AT&T Inc $201,938
Wachovia Corp $199,663
UBS AG $187,493
Credit Suisse Group $184,153
PricewaterhouseCoopers $169,400
US Army $169,020
Bank of America $167,826
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $160,346
Blank Rome LLP $155,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $147,437
US Dept of Defense $146,356
FedEx Corp $131,974
Lehman Brothers $126,557
Ernst & Young $114,506

Well that's interesting - It seems most of McCain's donations are 1/2 to 1/3 of Obama's . Rather the direct opposite of your claim that Both McCain and Obama proposed finance reform in 08. So the big money donors were more even.

This election the big wall street money is going 5 to 1 in Romney's favor

This is not correct. Some companies may be betting more on Romney than Obama, but the fact remains that Obama's fundraising is indeed concentrated on the 1%, and any discrepancy is in no way similar to the orders of magnitude you are describing.

According to the Same source, for example, Romney has raised (as of April 30) $97,963,836 12% of which was small individuals. Obama (same date) has raised $217,052,304, 44% of which was small individuals.

88% of $97,963,836 is..... $86,208,175 for Romney from large donors.
56% of $217,052,304 is.... $121, 549,290 for Obama from large donors.

Meaning that Obama actually currently has raised roughly $35,341,114 more than Romney has from large donors.


Let me know when you decide to switch your vote to Romney based on the earlier standard you described of voting for the person who got fewer donations from the rich

Catawba, aren't you tired of getting pwned? Just admit it, you are voting for President Obama because he has a (D) beside his name and nothing else. So far, you have claimed to believe in the following things:
No useless war: President Obama has waged war at the same rate as his predecessor.
The 1%: President Obama is as in bed with the 1% as any other politician is. I don't see any "middle class" people paying $40K to get into a dinner at Clooney's house. Do you?
Romney is a flip flopper: President Obama hasn't closed Guantanamo. He hasn't repealed the Bush Tax Cuts. Increased taxes on families making under $250K despite promise not to. I could keep going.