• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

obama calls out fat cat bankers.

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

* Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, was paid $5.2 million for his part-time work for a massive hedge fund in 2008 alone. He also took in more than $2.7 million in fees for speaking engagements at such places as Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs -- including one visit alone that netted him $135,000 from Goldman Sachs.

* Michael Froman is deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, and a hugely influential White House player with key roles in both the National Security Council and National Economic Council. He made more than $7.4 million at Citigroup from January 2008 to January 2009, including a year-end bonus of $2.25 million that he received just days before coming to work at the White House -- though well after he had already served in a key post in the transition. Froman was a senior executives at Citigroup's Alternative Investment division, which "ran up hundreds of millions of dollars in losses [in 2008] on their esoteric collection of investments, including real estate funds and private highway construction projects, even as they collected seven-figure salaries and bonuses."

* David A. Lipton, a presidential special assistant who also serves on both the national security and economic councils, made $1.5 million from Citigroup in 2008, managing its Global Country Risk group -- another shining Citigroup success. He received a bonus in 2009, right around the time he started work at the White House, of $762,000.

* Jacob J. Lew, a deputy secretary of state, is another key player in international economics. He, like Forman, was at top officer of Citigroup Alternative Investments, earning $1.1 million in 2008 - plus an as-yet undisclosed bonus in 2009.

* Gene Sperling, a top adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in 2008 earned $887,727 from Goldman Sachs simply for providing "advice on charitable giving." He also made $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies.

* Lee Sachs, another top Geithner aide, "reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund." When he took his new job, he reported that he was still owed a bonus where the value was "not ascertainable."

* Lewis Alexander, yet another top Geithner aide, is the former chief economist at Citigroup, for which he was paid $2.4 million in 2008 and the first few months of 2009.

* Mark Patterson, Geithner's chief of staff, was one of the top lobbyists at Goldman Sachs before joining the Obama campaign. He took in what seemed at first glance to be a relatively modest-by-Goldman-standards salary of $637,230 in 2008. But it turns out that was only for three months' work -- he left Goldman in early April. Until then, his title had been vice president for government relations, and he acted as a lobbyist on a wide range of issues including tax treatment of corporate reorganization transactions, nonbinding shareholder votes on executive compensation, and over-the-counter energy derivatives.

That's just a partial list. And hovering somewhere just slightly offstage is the man who made it all possible, the great role model, mentor, and iconic door-revolver Robert Rubin. Rubin went from running Goldman Sachs to the Clinton Treasury Department and back to Citigroup. As Robert Kuttner wrote at Treasury, Rubin was one of the "key Democratic architects of the extreme financial deregulation that brought the economy to this pass. At Citi, he was one of the grand strategists of the speculation in securitized loans and off-balance-sheet gimmicks that has brought Citi to the edge of bankruptcy."

Nevertheless, Rubin managed to leave having earned $126 million for his trouble. His proteges now run the country. And Rubin recently had the gall to author an article called How To Make Capitalism Work Again, for Newseek (which had the gall to print it.)

Voters Who Lost Faith In Dodd Wouldn't Trust Obama's Economics Team Either
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/voters-who-lost-faith-in_n_424834.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Top Donors to Obama's campaign were

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

I wonder how these guys like being called fat cat banks after they helped fund Obama's Campaign :shock:

And what Obama will promise them to get them to fund his 2012 campaign? :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Wall St. Giants Reluctant to Donate to Democrats

Published: October 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Wall Street giants that received a financial lifeline from Washington may have no compunction about paying big bonuses to their dealmakers and traders. But their willingness to deliver “thank you” gifts to President Obama and the Democrats is another question altogether.

»Mr. Obama will fly to New York on Tuesday for a lavish Democratic Party fund-raising dinner at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel for about 200 big donors. Each donor is paying the legal maximum of $30,400 and is allowed to take a date. Four of the seven “co-chairs” listed on the invitation work in finance, and Democratic Party organizers say they expect that about a third of the attendees will come from the industry.

But from the financial giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup that received federal bailout money — and whose bankers raised millions of dollars for Mr. Obama’s election — only a half-dozen or fewer are expected to attend (estimated total contribution: $91,200).

Part of the reason, several Democratic fund-raisers and executives said, is a fear of getting caught in the public rage over the perception that Wall Street titans profiting from their government bailout may use their winnings to give back to Washington in return. And the timing of the event, as the industry lobbies against proposals for tighter regulations to address the underlying causes of last year’s meltdown on Wall Street, has only added to the worry over public appearances.

“There are sensitivities there,” said Scott Talbot, a lobbyist for the industry’s Financial Services Roundtable. Political contributions “can make a donor a target,” Mr. Talbot said. Many involved, though, say the low attendance from those Wall Street giants also reflected a broader disenchantment with Mr. Obama over the angry language emanating from the White House over the million-dollar bonuses and anti-regulatory lobbying.

“There is some failure in the finance industry to appreciate the level of public antagonism toward whatever Wall Street symbolizes,” said Orin Kramer, a partner in an investment firm who is a Democratic fund-raiser and one of the event’s chairmen. “But in order to save the capitalist system, the administration has to be responsive to the public mood, and that is a nuance which can get lost on Wall Street.”

Dr. Daniel E. Fass, another chairman of the event who lives surrounded by financiers in Greenwich, Conn., said: “The investment community feels very put-upon. They feel there is no reason why they shouldn’t earn $1 million to $200 million a year, and they don’t want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown.” Dr. Fass added, “How much that will be reflected in their support for the president remains to be seen.”

Mr. Obama remains a potent fund-raising draw. Plunging into the 2010 midterm campaigns last week, he raised more than $3 million in one night in San Francisco, speaking at a similar $30,400-a-couple dinner and a larger rally with tickets at $1,000 and under.

In addition to the big-ticket dinner on Tuesday, Mr. Obama will also address a more small-d democratic event at New York’s Hammerstein Ballroom, where roughly 2,500 donors paying $1,000 or less will also make cellphone calls to promote his health care overhaul. Over the next five days he will appear at fund-raisers for Bill Owens, a candidate for a House seat in New York; Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey (himself a former Goldman Sachs banker); Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts; and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.

Democratic fund-raisers say the economic slump has dampened fund-raising across every industry. Wall Street has lost Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers to consolidation in last year’s credit crunch. Some former Obama fund-raisers on Wall Street have ascended to jobs in the administration, like Michael Froman, a former top Citigroup executive who is now an adviser on economics and national security.

Current Democratic fund-raisers say their 2008 take from Wall Street may also have benefited from the personal connections of the party’s chief fund-raiser that year, Philip D. Murphy, a former top executive at Goldman Sachs. (He is now ambassador to Germany). And as in recent years, Democrats are raising far more from Wall Street executives than Republicans, according to campaign finance data sorted by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democrats, including House and Senate party committees and the party itself, have raised about $5.4 million through the first eight months of the year, while the Republicans took in just $2.7 million.

So far in the current election cycle, though, Wall Street accounts for less than half as much of the Democratic Party’s fund-raising as it did in 2008: 3 percent, or about $1.5 million out of a total $53.6 million in the eight-month period, compared with about 6 percent, or $15.3 million out of $260.1 million during the last election. (Republicans relied more heavily on their party to support their presidential candidate in 2008, and the party’s Wall Street fund-raising has fallen even further.)

Fund-raisers say that smaller but lucrative businesses like hedge funds and private equity firms now account for more of Wall Street’s political contributions than the big banks that received bailout money, with the possible exception of the famously generous executives of Goldman Sachs.

Employees associated with the financial firms that received bailout money from the federal government contributed almost $70,000 to the Democratic Party in the first half . Most of that, $60,800, came from one couple who each contributed the legal limit. At the time of the donation, the husband, John M. Noel, had recently retired as head of a unit of the insurance giant AIG called AIG Travel Guard.

Mr. Obama, though, still has the loyalty of other powerful friends on Wall Street. Among the other chairmen of the Tuesday dinner in New York is Robert Wolf, head of the American investment banking division of the Swiss giant UBS Group. Mr. Wolf raised more than $500,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaign and sits on a White House panel of outside economic advisers.

Mr. Wolf does not have to worry about the same appearance problems as Wall Street rivals, however. His firm was bailed out by the government of Switzerland, not the United States.

Griff Palmer contributed research from New York.

And he calls them Fat Cat Bankers on Wall Street. Isn't that like cutting off the hand that feeds you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Wall St. Giants Reluctant to Donate to Democrats

Published: October 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Wall Street giants that received a financial lifeline from Washington may have no compunction about paying big bonuses to their dealmakers and traders. But their willingness to deliver “thank you” gifts to President Obama and the Democrats is another question altogether.

»Mr. Obama will fly to New York on Tuesday for a lavish Democratic Party fund-raising dinner at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel for about 200 big donors. Each donor is paying the legal maximum of $30,400 and is allowed to take a date. Four of the seven “co-chairs” listed on the invitation work in finance, and Democratic Party organizers say they expect that about a third of the attendees will come from the industry.

But from the financial giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup that received federal bailout money — and whose bankers raised millions of dollars for Mr. Obama’s election — only a half-dozen or fewer are expected to attend (estimated total contribution: $91,200).

Part of the reason, several Democratic fund-raisers and executives said, is a fear of getting caught in the public rage over the perception that Wall Street titans profiting from their government bailout may use their winnings to give back to Washington in return. And the timing of the event, as the industry lobbies against proposals for tighter regulations to address the underlying causes of last year’s meltdown on Wall Street, has only added to the worry over public appearances.

“There are sensitivities there,” said Scott Talbot, a lobbyist for the industry’s Financial Services Roundtable. Political contributions “can make a donor a target,” Mr. Talbot said. Many involved, though, say the low attendance from those Wall Street giants also reflected a broader disenchantment with Mr. Obama over the angry language emanating from the White House over the million-dollar bonuses and anti-regulatory lobbying.

“There is some failure in the finance industry to appreciate the level of public antagonism toward whatever Wall Street symbolizes,” said Orin Kramer, a partner in an investment firm who is a Democratic fund-raiser and one of the event’s chairmen. “But in order to save the capitalist system, the administration has to be responsive to the public mood, and that is a nuance which can get lost on Wall Street.”

Dr. Daniel E. Fass, another chairman of the event who lives surrounded by financiers in Greenwich, Conn., said: “The investment community feels very put-upon. They feel there is no reason why they shouldn’t earn $1 million to $200 million a year, and they don’t want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown.” Dr. Fass added, “How much that will be reflected in their support for the president remains to be seen.”

Mr. Obama remains a potent fund-raising draw. Plunging into the 2010 midterm campaigns last week, he raised more than $3 million in one night in San Francisco, speaking at a similar $30,400-a-couple dinner and a larger rally with tickets at $1,000 and under.

In addition to the big-ticket dinner on Tuesday, Mr. Obama will also address a more small-d democratic event at New York’s Hammerstein Ballroom, where roughly 2,500 donors paying $1,000 or less will also make cellphone calls to promote his health care overhaul. Over the next five days he will appear at fund-raisers for Bill Owens, a candidate for a House seat in New York; Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey (himself a former Goldman Sachs banker); Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts; and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.

Democratic fund-raisers say the economic slump has dampened fund-raising across every industry. Wall Street has lost Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers to consolidation in last year’s credit crunch. Some former Obama fund-raisers on Wall Street have ascended to jobs in the administration, like Michael Froman, a former top Citigroup executive who is now an adviser on economics and national security.

Current Democratic fund-raisers say their 2008 take from Wall Street may also have benefited from the personal connections of the party’s chief fund-raiser that year, Philip D. Murphy, a former top executive at Goldman Sachs. (He is now ambassador to Germany). And as in recent years, Democrats are raising far more from Wall Street executives than Republicans, according to campaign finance data sorted by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democrats, including House and Senate party committees and the party itself, have raised about $5.4 million through the first eight months of the year, while the Republicans took in just $2.7 million.

So far in the current election cycle, though, Wall Street accounts for less than half as much of the Democratic Party’s fund-raising as it did in 2008: 3 percent, or about $1.5 million out of a total $53.6 million in the eight-month period, compared with about 6 percent, or $15.3 million out of $260.1 million during the last election. (Republicans relied more heavily on their party to support their presidential candidate in 2008, and the party’s Wall Street fund-raising has fallen even further.)

Fund-raisers say that smaller but lucrative businesses like hedge funds and private equity firms now account for more of Wall Street’s political contributions than the big banks that received bailout money, with the possible exception of the famously generous executives of Goldman Sachs.

Employees associated with the financial firms that received bailout money from the federal government contributed almost $70,000 to the Democratic Party in the first half . Most of that, $60,800, came from one couple who each contributed the legal limit. At the time of the donation, the husband, John M. Noel, had recently retired as head of a unit of the insurance giant AIG called AIG Travel Guard.

Mr. Obama, though, still has the loyalty of other powerful friends on Wall Street. Among the other chairmen of the Tuesday dinner in New York is Robert Wolf, head of the American investment banking division of the Swiss giant UBS Group. Mr. Wolf raised more than $500,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaign and sits on a White House panel of outside economic advisers.

Mr. Wolf does not have to worry about the same appearance problems as Wall Street rivals, however. His firm was bailed out by the government of Switzerland, not the United States.

Griff Palmer contributed research from New York.

And he calls them Fat Cat Bankers on Wall Street. Isn't that like cutting off the hand that feeds you.

At the end of the day the only ones that will suffer because of anything obama does will be the little guy.

seiu spent 60 million getting him elected and they did not do it without guarantees that they would be paid back.

I hope the Brown election is just one example of taking this country back and stopping all the political paybacks. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Pig Farmer said:
At the end of the day the only ones that will suffer because of anything obama does will be the little guy.

seiu spent 60 million getting him elected and they did not do it without guarantees that they would be paid back.

I hope the Brown election is just one example of taking this country back and stopping all the political paybacks. :wink:

Brown Leads Poll, Last Push for Votes in Mass
January 18, 2010 - 11:47 AM | by: Molly Line
The latest Public Policy Poll shows Republican state Senator Scott Brown with a lead over the Democratic candidate, the state's Attorney General Martha Coakley, in the Massachusetts Senate Race- 51% to 46%.

Several recent polls have shown Brown with the advantage among likely voters, this in a state where Registered Dems have a 3 to 1 advantage over Republicans.
A GOP candidate has not won a U.S. Senate seat in the Bay State since 1972, making Brown's last minute surge even more remarkable.

White House aides have quietly expressed fears that the race is lost and some Washington insiders and political strategists are throwing the blame on the Coakley campaign for taking a contest that was expected to be an easy win for Democrats and turning it into a toss-up. Criticized for not doing enough to connect with voters early on, Coakley is braving blustery weather today, traveling hundreds of miles across the state to shake some hands.

"We've got an incredible momentum out there. We know it from the phones. We know it from traveling around the state and we look forward to not resting until we get every vote," Coakley said, working the crowd at Johnny's Luncheonette in Newton before heading toward the state's New York border to rally supporters in Pittsfield.

Fox News Channel's Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron asked Coakley about the pessimism signaled by White House staffers on the eve of the election.

"The White House is supporting us. I think the President has come here because he knows that I'm going to win tomorrow and he's trying to get that message out," Coakley responded.

Another tough blow in this latest Public Policy Poll shows Brown is also leading by a wide margin among independents- 64% to 32%.
That is a critical voting bloc, making up roughly half of Massachusetts voters.

Scott Brown has banked on retail politicking to bring in supporters, spending much of his campaign criss-crossing the state in an old pick-up truck. Saturday he launched a three day bus tour, holding rallies, hitting diners and today shaking hands outside the Boston Garden.

"We've always know it would be an uphill climb to overcome the entrenched Democratic establishment," Brown said today in a campaign release. "We have come a long way but we still have much work to do. Between now and Tuesday night, we will be reaching out to every independent-minded Massachusetts voter and ask them to play a role in this important election."

Go Scott Go
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Calling them "Fat Cat Bankers" is only for the average citizen's benefit. Nothing has changed, except that the Dems are not whining and crying about it now.
 
Top