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

wall street's man

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, "The Washington post" three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all -- than all eight Republicans combined. I don't want to say that, because if that's the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we've got a much bigger problem.

But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?

MORGAN: It's fascinating to find out why they're doing it. I'll ask him.

MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here's what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.

Why hasn't that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don't steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it's going to be.
 

dennybob

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Location
West central Pennsylvania, USA
There are no "poor" politicians on either side of the isle. They are there to stuff their own pockets and do not give a flipin hoot about you, your family, your job, your security (southern border for example) or your retirement. They only care about saying whatever it takes to get re elected and stuffing their pockets more.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Lonecowboy said:
MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, "The Washington post" three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all -- than all eight Republicans combined. I don't want to say that, because if that's the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we've got a much bigger problem.

But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?

MORGAN: It's fascinating to find out why they're doing it. I'll ask him.

MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here's what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.

Why hasn't that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don't steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it's going to be.

Michael Moore has been right so many times, no wonder both partys fear him and btw he supports the ows'ers. As I have said for years, the time is ripe for a 3rd party, if everyone would not worry about losing their vote and just vote their connscience a 3rd party candidate would have a chance.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Wallstreet wants another 4 years of the status quo.....they sure wouldn't want to see a Tea Party Candidate win.....
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
Wallstreet wants another 4 years of the status quo.....they sure wouldn't want to see a Tea Party Candidate win.....

They probably do, they got used to it in the 8 yrs. prior to Obama's election.
BTW who said a 3rd party candidate would have to be a Tparty representative???
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Wallstreet wants another 4 years of the status quo.....they sure wouldn't want to see a Tea Party Candidate win.....

They probably do, they got used to it in the 8 yrs. prior to Obama's election.
BTW who said a 3rd party candidate would have to be a Tparty representative???


Please explain to us how they got used to Tea Party candidates in the 8 yrs. prior to obama?

You do realize that one of the reasons the Tea Party was established was because they felt Bush was too liberal in his spending......


Wallstreet and corporations under obama are profiting more than they did under Bush


Wall Street firms have earned more in profits so far under President Obama than during all eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, according to The Washington Post.

The securities industry earned $82.52 billion in profits during the first two and a half years of Obama's presidency, compared to $77.17 billion total under President Bush, according to data compiled by The Washington Post, giving legs to the claim that even while Obama has publicly denounced "fat cat bankers on Wall Street," banks are now as profitable as ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-earnings-obama_n_1079482.html



Let me do the math for you......$33.008 billion per year under obama and $9.646 billion per year under Bush


I bet the status quo looks pretty good to them, eh?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Wallstreet wants another 4 years of the status quo.....they sure wouldn't want to see a Tea Party Candidate win.....

They probably do, they got used to it in the 8 yrs. prior to Obama's election.
BTW who said a 3rd party candidate would have to be a Tparty representative???


Please explain to us how they got used to Tea Party candidates in the 8 yrs. prior to obama?

You do realize that one of the reasons the Tea Party was established was because they felt Bush was too liberal in his spending......


Wallstreet and corporations under obama are profiting more than they did under Bush


Wall Street firms have earned more in profits so far under President Obama than during all eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, according to The Washington Post.

The securities industry earned $82.52 billion in profits during the first two and a half years of Obama's presidency, compared to $77.17 billion total under President Bush, according to data compiled by The Washington Post, giving legs to the claim that even while Obama has publicly denounced "fat cat bankers on Wall Street," banks are now as profitable as ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-earnings-obama_n_1079482.html



Let me do the math for you......$33.008 billion per year under obama and $9.646 billion per year under Bush


I bet the status quo looks pretty good to them, eh?

Thanks for the link! Now anyone interested can read the ENTIRE post and use their judgement in determining the reason for the earnings. Thanks again. :)
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
TSR said:
They probably do, they got used to it in the 8 yrs. prior to Obama's election.
BTW who said a 3rd party candidate would have to be a Tparty representative???


Please explain to us how they got used to Tea Party candidates in the 8 yrs. prior to obama?

You do realize that one of the reasons the Tea Party was established was because they felt Bush was too liberal in his spending......


Wallstreet and corporations under obama are profiting more than they did under Bush


Wall Street firms have earned more in profits so far under President Obama than during all eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, according to The Washington Post.

The securities industry earned $82.52 billion in profits during the first two and a half years of Obama's presidency, compared to $77.17 billion total under President Bush, according to data compiled by The Washington Post, giving legs to the claim that even while Obama has publicly denounced "fat cat bankers on Wall Street," banks are now as profitable as ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/bank-earnings-obama_n_1079482.html



Let me do the math for you......$33.008 billion per year under obama and $9.646 billion per year under Bush


I bet the status quo looks pretty good to them, eh?

Thanks for the link! Now anyone interested can read the ENTIRE post and use their judgement in determining the reason for the earnings. Thanks again. :)


You're welcome and from here on you probably won't ever again criticize Bush for helping out his "securities industry" "buddies" again, when obama has helped them out more than 3x more, correct?
 

Latest posts

Top