Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 30, 2008

Contrary to campaign claims, Barack Obama's percentage of under-$200 donors was around 25 percent, comparable to President Bush in 2004, according to a study by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. "The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said Michael Malbin of the CFI. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Gimme_a_Scotch

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Obama's largest financial sponsors are the same banker bastards that are robbing the coffers right now.
That's why people that believe Obama stands for change, and a better beginning for the US are bigger suckers than those that backed Bush Jr.
I don't understand how blind people can be.

He's a leftwing shill, designed to placate the left long enough for the bankers to finnish robbing the banks, and getting their military defense into place for when the people find out they have been duped "AGAIN"!
WAKE UP AMERICA!
You're being played. It's a very well choreographed puppet show, controlled by the real powers of this world, the money masters. The Global elite.


Here is a mainstream article telling you the truth rapped in a lie. Typical corporate media spin.
"employees" translation, donations put in dummy names to make them seem legitimate. Or money fronted by the bankers in the names of employees.

Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street
Big Banks' Employees Gave Senator $479,000 in 1st Quarter

By Kristin Jensen and Christine Harper
Bloomberg News
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
www.washingtonpost.com

If you really take a hard look at the 2 party system there isn't a stark contrast between the them... Nothing worth 2 cents anyway...

Most of the difference is social issues that are worthless unless you are deeply religeous.

The rest of it seems to be in perpetual motion.

One has to wonder what in the hell this place will look like in 25 years...

Are these people running for office willing to give up all just for a spot in a history book or a plaque on a Navy boat? I'm beginning to think so.

Next question: what can be done about it?

I suppose nothing... The global market/economy/govt seems comming to a country near you soon and it has a hell of a momentum with it.

There is no more "we take care of ours first" because it is simply impossible. We can't cater to safety and enviornment anymore and be competitive. We can't cater to human rights and employee safety anymore because (for varried reasons and some of it is our own fault)it's impossible to compete.

Manufacturing is gone for a long time. Services are given to illegal immigrants.

My prediction is that we can artifically stimulate the economy for some time here in the US (and I'm not sure how long that is) and we can make it appear that things are not that bad. But eventually this ship will crash and return to grass roots. Thats my prediction.
We will have to start over as a country that prides itself in building the best product the most efficently... With the true American Spirit... If is hasn't escaped us...

From Huffington Post:
Study's Claim on the 'Myth' of Obama's Small Donor Base Is Itself a 'Myth'

www.huffingtonpost.com
Good article that describes how the study is right and wrong at the same time; depending on how you break down the term "small donors".

This, like all the other Obama mythical attributes, were propelled by the press so that they can be looked upon as the king maker.

And so many of you just went along with whatever the press told you.

I wonder what the real count would have been if the Obama staff had not turned off the credit card checker.

To be outspent 2-1, with some of his base against him as well as the national press - it is a wonder that McCain did as well as he did.

Well the dems have had the Congress for two years...and the economy has gone to hell in a handbasket. They are now setting up FHA to be the next Fannie Mae and are keeping the community reinvestment act the same - the one that brought down Fannie and Freddy.

The DEMS will have a majority across the board for at least the next two years. Lets see what happens.

Foshaffer-
re: "This, like all the other Obama mythical attributes, were propelled by the press so that they can be looked upon as the king maker."

Yeah, LOL. Remember when Obama held that BBQ for the Washington press corps folks (off the record, of course) at his home and then when Chris Matthews referred to the media as Obama's "base"?

LOL, they were sooooo in the tank!

"Well the dems have had the Congress for two years...and the economy has gone to hell in a handbasket."

And Bush had led the country for over 7 months when we were attacked on 9/11. You believe that's all Bush's fault...right?

"and are keeping the community reinvestment act the same - the one that brought down Fannie and Freddy."

What a putz.

The CRA didn't cover half the bad loans. And pretending Dems in Congress held a gun to bankers heads and forced them to make 125% LTVs, no-money-down loans, interest-only loans, etc., is foolish. Nor did Congress force the banks to repackage the bad loans, re-rate them, and sell them again and again, leveraging bad paper against bad paper. Lehman was leveraged over 100-1. The problem wasn't the "1".

When I donated to the Obama campaign, I was required to put my place of employment. It does NOT mean my employer fronted me the money (other than in my paycheck which isn't a "front" but money I earned in exchange for providing my skills). I haven't a flipping clue what the political leaning of my employer is.

I also did not "go along" with what the press told me. I did my own research and made my own decisions based on my beliefs and values.

And they call the lefties conspiracy theorists. I think I'm going to make my millions in tin-foil hats for the righties.

Get a grip.

And pretending Dems in Congress held a gun to bankers heads and forced them to make 125% LTVs, no-money-down loans, interest-only loans, etc., is foolish. Nor did Congress force the banks to repackage the bad loans, re-rate them, and sell them again and again, leveraging bad paper against bad paper. Lehman was leveraged over 100-1. The problem wasn't the "1".

You are full of shit Danforth.

It was all Ronald Reagan's fault.

That motherfucker.....I hope he is rotting in hell.

-Danni

Foshaffer-
re: "Well the dems have had the Congress for two years...and the economy has gone to hell in a handbasket."

I tried this line on some lib friends of mine and they asked me how, since Jan 2006, the Dems had altered the course of Republican/Conservative dominance in Washington. And I couldn't think of anything.

Can you help me out? (I guess I could send them an email...)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I know I never contributed money to a campaign before I gave a little something to B.O. This doesn't surprise me, though, after reading many months ago about how Wall Street was putting its money into the Dem party because they wanted own the winning team. Money runs everything, and (less and less) people do not equal money.

Eberly-
re: Your "Danni" dialogue:

One of the cool things about this place is that you don't have to play with your imaginary friends anymore, Eb. You don't have to fill their Weeble mouths with dialogue, because they actually exist, and can speak for themselves!!!!

(No joke!...actual people!)

("Jan. 2007"...my bad)

One of the cool things about this place is that you don't have to play with your imaginary friends anymore

what a great day it must have been for you when you realized that!!!!

Remember Betlegboydbadweekcooper,

I could just change my name so I can converse with myself with no help whatsoever.

moron

We are really in a bad economic and political situation. Understatement? Yes.

Our system contains incentives to people to "do deals," be it ot sell real estate, make loans, bundle loans, sell merchandise, whatever. And coupled with government policies designed to "help the poor," and to secure votes, such as the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac fiascos based on the Community Redevelopment Act requiring investment in the form of loans in specific areas and to specific groups that lacked the resources to repay them, disaster resulted.

This is madness. The sharpies satisfied their political overlords by making the loans to bad risks without being able to even verify income. But they did not retain the loans. Government programs provided for quasi-governmental agencies to "buy" the bad loans, and then they were packaged by the Wall Street sharpies, who sold interests in the packages as if they were well-secured paper. So, the sharpies exploited the market created by the politicians.

You sometimes hear the proposition advanced that only a portion of the loans were issued through the Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac channel. I invite your attention to the oil price structure. A relatively small reduction in use has resulted in what, a 65% decline in the price of oil?

The reverberations of the bad loan packages which were bundled has resulted in foreclosures on conspicuously overpriced properties, and an overall decline in value so that possibly most of the outstanding loans of the past few years now are not fully secured. The debt exceeds the value of the property. With ownership being so dispersed that connecting the "holder" with individual loans is a logistical impossibility, these properites are entering the foreclosure market, and without owner equity, the inducement to retain ownership is low at best.

Enter the government as savior of the institutions. These "bad boys" overwhelmingly supported Obama. Their agendas are unrelated to those that propel "the masses." they care little or naught concerning homosexuals being married, the glory of a black as President, the teaching of sexual abstinence to students, the conflict in Iraq, or other matters unrelated to their financial agendas. These other "issues" are just talking points for those who don't know where the action is, and what it is about, and are indulged to secure voter support.

And guess what? While everyone was distracted by phony "issues," the foxes were in the henhouse. Now those Democrats who are not in on the thievery are ignorant, or willing to go along with or promote programs that will result in economic disaster, such as the perpetuation of the Community Redevelopment Act supervised legislatively by those two unqualified people, Congressman Franks and Senator Dobbs.

The people of this nation will be impoverished by an elite using the government to tax and redirect money to the interests of avaricious profiteers. They are in the seats of power with the Obama administration. And while his goal is socialization, which may indeed occur, this is the installation of the same statist economy that underlay that of recovering Nazi Germany, to the detriment of political freedom. Individual enterprise will be curtailed as funds are absorbed by the large government funded companies. We are going to hell in a handbasket. And the justifications were created by the very creeps now stealing from us. But it is the system that facilitates its misuse.

"such as the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac fiascos based on the Community Redevelopment Act "

The CRA was a factor in less than half those loans, and didn't force ANYONE to leverage bad paper against bad paper.

But it's easier to blame the fuckups by the B-school graduates on the poor than the guys who should have known better...isn't it?

Parenthetically, and I don't have the actual figures before me, a loan was made in central California to a Mexican man working as a gardener making some $14,000 per year. Income was determined on a declaration system. He bought a home costing more than $700,000.

Er. Uh. Repayment was "not feasible?"

Our economic system in action with the inducements resulting in people following their own agendas under the loose rules. After all, "the good guys" help "the poor" by providing them with housing, making housing "affordable" by the poor. The converse has occurred with the cost of housing escalating beyond reason because of the infusion of cash into the market.

Our accounting systems need to be redevised so as to reflect the realities of the functioning of our economy and government, including accounting for the actual cost of "green measures."

What is remarkable is that with the same productive and distributive capacity that we had before, people have access to less in the form of goods and services because of the malfunction not of the production and distribution system, but of the paper balancing of the system. Why should people have less today than they did yesterday because of paper transactions that immobilize the actual physical functioning of the system?

"Income was determined on a declaration system."

If you can show where this was forced on all banks, you might have a point.

Otherwise, you're just an apologist for bad business practices, enacted by greedy guys who supposedly knew better.

How can it be a coincidence the mortgage meltdown never happened, with loans as JOHNSON alluded to, until the barriers making it illegal to sell securities (credit derivatives) to fund mortgages were torn down by Phil Gramm's little 250 page deregulation of those practices?

Before Bush, you either put down 10% minimum for a conventional mortgage, or you got an FHA (minimum income requirements) or VA loan.

Why are 'conservatives' so unconservative and unwilling to put the blame squarely where it belongs?

What is remarkable is that with the same productive and distributive capacity that we had before, people have access to less in the form of goods and services because of the malfunction not of the production and distribution system, but of the paper balancing of the system. Why should people have less today than they did yesterday because of paper transactions that immobilize the actual physical functioning of the system?

Interesting, I find this as not the actual problem but a manifestation of the actual problem. It isn't the amount of paper, it is who is the majority paper holder. The only way to redirect temporary holding of paper is through wages.

This report is seriously flawed. By their methodology a person like myself would not be considered a small donor because in total my donations would have added up to more than $200.

I don't remember the media ever saying that a large chunk of Obama's money wasn't coming from the traditional big donors who have a history of trying to buy influence. The point I remember them making was how Obama expanded the pool of donors to offset the influence of the big donors writing out checks for the max.

Another study written by a right wing mouthpiece, and the media quotes it as if it was gospel. Tell me again how the media is so left wing? Read the Huffington Post column, it's much more enlightening than the spinning of the study written by a former Cheney speach writer.

More phoney fodder for the never ending right wing circle jerk. P.T. Barnum ("There's a sucker born every minute") is the father of modern republican politics.

Even if were spelled right, you are indeed an ignoramus....as are all BO lib mouse-brains....following the phoney piper like the whordes of low IQ dullards you are...slick BO played you slack-jawed psuedo-intellectual suckers like a violin...

Bernanke, Gramm, Greenspan, Paulson, Rubin, Summers are but six very powerful players that set the stage for wholesale pillaging.

Two (R&S) have been put back in the drivers seat. This tells you who is running the show.

The percentage of bad real estate loans is 7%. This could not topple the financial system. Phoney Mortgage Insurance embeded in a legalized system of gambling has destroyed it. They destroyed it, you must pay to fix it, because they hold power and must be made whole, fly around in "free" private jets and receive bonuses from stolen payrolls and bailout money. Democracy???? Who is bullshitting who here?????

Oh! So Granny wasn't choosing between her meds & "change" afterall because she felt good about a candidate for the first time ever? There's a shocker! Both parties are up to their eyeballs in corporate money and banking money and all those evil rich bastards that the left claims to hate. Its a good thing we've got new leadership to change all that. Clinton leftovers now mean change or haven't you heard? The 2 party system will be the death of us all as long as its these 2 parties.

Good article that describes how the study is right and wrong at the same time; depending on how you break down the term "small donors".

#3 | Posted by rjgonzalez at


I will have to read this on because 'good article' and huffington post dont really go together.
biased and mean spirited and out and out lies and exagerations.......yes, but good articles..

well lets see.

its okay, I guess

but this whole subject was brought up by us on the right before the election and we were met with the usual distain.

so whats different?

could it be the far left being PISSED at his appointments so far???

No Bushwhacker2. Obama has appointed a fine team. Far better than any low life rethug could appoint. We tell the truth. That is the difference between us.

WHAT??

why are you saying that?
and even one of you own has said something on another thread about these appointments could have been made by mccain.
I am on record just this morning at not being too scared of any of his appointments ..YET...........
well maybe rhombo............he is a loose cannon waiting to go off.....

and will he EVER be able to fire hillary

and OH YEAH>.......these are all okay I think hillary OUT of the senate is always a good idea.........


and OH YEAH

back off jack..its monday.., try and be nice for once

whats funnier to me is I heard a quote from pelosi this weekend on one of the shows..

it was from 2006 and it went a little something like this

THIS NEW CONGRESS WILL BE A "PAY AS YOU GO" congress.


hee hee..........well so much for that.........

Obama has stated numerous times that most of his donations are from small donors and he does not accept any money from special interests.

I believe him no matter what the facts say.

I believe him no matter what the facts say.


#32 | Posted by FreddyK at


ah damn good one

it says it all without coming out and saying it

nice work

I gave Obama $100 at the start of the campaign, $100 near the middle, and $100 in the last quarter. It was all I could afford. Does that make me a Big Political Donor?

to fund mortgages were torn down by Phil Gramm's little 250 page deregulation of those practices?


Before Bush, you either put down 10% minimum for a conventional mortgage, or you got an FHA (minimum income requirements) or VA loan.


Why are 'conservatives' so unconservative and unwilling to put the blame squarely where it belongs?

#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008


I guess because CLinton signed the bill..

And it was the banking practices of giving loans to every one who applied with a pulse regardless of income to pay the loan back.


The bill that Phil Gramm had the financial banks allowed to do commercial banking or credit card companies being allowed to do banking.


That in of itself did not cause this meltdown.

I guess because CLinton signed the bill..

#35 | Posted by MURPHY

What bill?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable