OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Cin]

I would imagine they are all in Wall St.'s pocket, but the way the numbers were interpreted is a tad off.

Romney's Raised More Than Twice the Wall St. Cash as Obama... Why Does the WaPo Say the Opposite?

Compare and contrast. Here, via Open Secrets, are the top recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to FEC filings:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012

Candidate Office Amount
Romney, Mitt (R) $5,047,797
Obama, Barack (D) $2,464,605
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $1,398,945
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $1,195,864
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $1,159,137

And here is the lede from a Washington Post story that's been getting a lot of play:

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.

What's going on? Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee, which, it notes, "will aid in his reelection effort."

That's not an entirely inappropriate analysis -- Obama raised that cash, which is news-worthy if for no other reason than we have a lot of Wall Street execs taking to various opinion pages to whine about how mean Obama has been to them and promising to take their balls and go home if he's not nicer. And of course Obama was the Darling of Wall Street in 2008. But there are a few problems with it.

First, this is simply an advantage of being an incumbent at this point in the cycle. Eventually the GOP will have a nominee and he (it won't be Bachmann) will go to Wall Street and raise money for the RNC.

So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The RNC has already raised about $3.3 million from finance and real estate, according to OpenSecrets.

The other problem is that while the DNC will "aid in his re-election effort," it will also spend some of that cash on party infrastructure and for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

I note this mainly because we use contributions to the campaigns themselves in our report on Wall Street's influence in Washington, merely noting in parentheses that the figures don't include money raised for the two parties' national committees. So, a clarification seemed to be in order.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I would imagine they are all in Wall St.'s pocket, but the way the numbers were interpreted is a tad off.

Romney's Raised More Than Twice the Wall St. Cash as Obama... Why Does the WaPo Say the Opposite?

Compare and contrast. Here, via Open Secrets, are the top recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to FEC filings:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012

Candidate Office Amount
Romney, Mitt (R) $5,047,797
Obama, Barack (D) $2,464,605
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $1,398,945
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $1,195,864
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $1,159,137

And here is the lede from a Washington Post story that's been getting a lot of play:

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.

What's going on? Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee, which, it notes, "will aid in his reelection effort."

That's not an entirely inappropriate analysis -- Obama raised that cash, which is news-worthy if for no other reason than we have a lot of Wall Street execs taking to various opinion pages to whine about how mean Obama has been to them and promising to take their balls and go home if he's not nicer. And of course Obama was the Darling of Wall Street in 2008. But there are a few problems with it.

First, this is simply an advantage of being an incumbent at this point in the cycle. Eventually the GOP will have a nominee and he (it won't be Bachmann) will go to Wall Street and raise money for the RNC.

So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The RNC has already raised about $3.3 million from finance and real estate, according to OpenSecrets.

The other problem is that while the DNC will "aid in his re-election effort," it will also spend some of that cash on party infrastructure and for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

I note this mainly because we use contributions to the campaigns themselves in our report on Wall Street's influence in Washington, merely noting in parentheses that the figures don't include money raised for the two parties' national committees. So, a clarification seemed to be in order.

forgot to add link to source for the previous post:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews..._the_opposite/


To Be With the 99%, President Obama Must Fire Tim Geithner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-...b_1021972.html

[Cin]

Interesting article. Well, I think it is anyway.

http://www.alternet.org/world/152802...llion_/?page=1

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Interesting article. Well, I think it is anyway.

http://www.alternet.org/world/152802...llion_/?page=1

me too. it was very thought provoking and it enlightened me to an aspect of the system that i hadn't thought of before. but it clicks with me as a parent of a kid in the public school system. i've had more than a few convos with teachers over the years about my child. i have to remind them that i'm not raising a kid to automatically do what adults say just cuz their adults. my son is capable of thinking for himself and it's created some communication problems within the school system. he's also not afraid to point out adult injustice. they don't like that very much either. so when i get called in over an incident like that, the teacher is shocked when i take my son's side. the experience has been very much like swimming upriver for the past 10 years. so this thought process actually makes perfect sense to me. i just never knew what to call it other than i knew something was really fucked up.

[Cin]

Here is a link to what I found to be a great article. It’s quite long, 30 pages, kind of like a short story - a non-fiction horror story. It’s an analysis of financial terrorism and it explains to some degree the process by which global bankers plunder nations.

It wasn’t a lot of new material exactly, but it cleared up a lot of stuff for me. It connected a lot of dots. Maybe someone else will get something out of it as well.

If it wasn't so long I would have posted the whole article because i've noticed that sometimes just a post with a link can get lost. Oh well here's hoping...


http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/07/15/167/

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I would imagine they are all in Wall St.'s pocket, but the way the numbers were interpreted is a tad off.

Romney's Raised More Than Twice the Wall St. Cash as Obama... Why Does the WaPo Say the Opposite?

Compare and contrast. Here, via Open Secrets, are the top recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to FEC filings:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012

Candidate Office Amount
Romney, Mitt (R) $5,047,797
Obama, Barack (D) $2,464,605
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $1,398,945
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $1,195,864
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $1,159,137

And here is the lede from a Washington Post story that's been getting a lot of play:

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.

What's going on? Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee, which, it notes, "will aid in his reelection effort."

That's not an entirely inappropriate analysis -- Obama raised that cash, which is news-worthy if for no other reason than we have a lot of Wall Street execs taking to various opinion pages to whine about how mean Obama has been to them and promising to take their balls and go home if he's not nicer. And of course Obama was the Darling of Wall Street in 2008. But there are a few problems with it.

First, this is simply an advantage of being an incumbent at this point in the cycle. Eventually the GOP will have a nominee and he (it won't be Bachmann) will go to Wall Street and raise money for the RNC.

So, it's an apples to oranges comparison. The RNC has already raised about $3.3 million from finance and real estate, according to OpenSecrets.

The other problem is that while the DNC will "aid in his re-election effort," it will also spend some of that cash on party infrastructure and for the campaigns of other Democratic candidates.

I note this mainly because we use contributions to the campaigns themselves in our report on Wall Street's influence in Washington, merely noting in parentheses that the figures don't include money raised for the two parties' national committees. So, a clarification seemed to be in order.

Yes I totally get what you are saying. However, the fact remains that Obama and the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of big banks and corporations as are the Republicans.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Yes I totally get what you are saying. However, the fact remains that Obama and the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of big banks and corporations as are the Republicans.

LOL, yes, I believe you are exactly right. They are all in the pocket of the Wall Street. And it looks like both parties are equally compensated for their efforts. I just came across the article and thought it was interesting how The Washington Post interpreted the numbers. Doesn't change a thing except WaPo got it backwards.