Obama: Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, & Lehman Brother

If you watched the news last night, you saw Senator Barack Obama criticizing Senator McCain for being obligated to the financial industry which as we all know is in a deep crisis. I actually thought it was a good attack until I did some research.

It turns out it is Barack who is in the back-pocket of the financial industry according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. As a United State Senator, Barack took over $170,000 from Fannie Mae officials. The junior Senator ranked number 2 in donations behind Chairman Chris Dodd.

During this Presidential campaign Obama has taken $370,000 from Lehman Brother officials. On the other hand, McCain has only received $117,000. Goldman Sachs people are also big contributors to Barack. They donated $691,000 to him while McCain got $208,000.

Barack claims that voters are going to get more of the same if you elect Senator McCain. However, it is Barack who is more obligated to the financial industry that is causing this economic crisis not Senator McCain.
BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Lone Republican» Blog Archive » Obama Hypocrisy

What a horrible, depressed economy when the candidate of gloom and doom (sorry, hope and change) is close to raising $400 million for his campaign and is having a dinner for $28,500 a plate contributors. I hope those gamblers haven't taken away from the profits at "The Boat."

Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the candidates of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, whose former managers now are economic advisers to Obama's campaign, either to tell him mistakes that have cost the American people or to give him new scams to further fool the American people.
Obama, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- chicagotribune.com

Candidate of "Change"....what a joke!

Have a good one!:s4:

These attacks based on who candidates accepted money from are a joke. Obama has the most donations period, so it stands to reason that on average he would have more donations from any given source than other candidates.

When I donated to his campaign, I had to state what industry I worked in. The company I worked for at the time made pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment (mostly for vaccines), so I checked the "pharmaceutical" box. Then a while later, someone was criticizing Obama, talking about all the money he accepted from pharmaceutical company employees. So yeah, some of that money was me. I have no special desire to help the pharmaceutical industry. Hell, I hated my job. But the way it was framed, it lumped us all together as pulling for "big pharmaceutical" companies.

Besides, the only reason this information is available is because of the ethics bill that Obama was instrumental in passing.

Both Obama and McCain have taken money from the financial services industry. So?

McCain's philisophy of deregulation is responsible for this mess!

The failures of these various financial institutions is mostly due to deregulation and lack of oversight, and that is something that McCain bears direct responsibility for. McCain serves on the Senate Commerce Committee and has responsibility for regulating these insittutions. He describes himself as a "strong deregulator" and in the past has taken "credit" for deregulating these industries. Now that the lack of oversight has resulted in a financial meltdown, he is calling for more regulation and oversight! What a liar! He spends his career rolling back regulation and oversight and now he wants us to believe he is the one who will bring responsible regulation these industries? The man is so full of shit!

Phil Graham was coathur of the act that rolled back the protections of the Glass-Steagle act and deregulated the derivitives markets. That's the same guy who was McCain's campaign manager until he called us all a "nation of whiners" and the economy a "mental recession." McCain's campaign manager wrote the law that allowed this shit to happen! McCain has no credibility on this subject at all!

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry â?? decades in the Senate â?? and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick â?? Clinton Justice Department official â?? worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain â?? Sen. Obama â?? was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.
FOXNews.com - Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection - John Gibson Radio

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isc4N4ERKww[/YOUTUBE]

Like I've said before, Obama could shit in the middle of the road and some would say "what a beautiful pile of enviromentally safe material".

Have a good one!:s4:

Both McCain and Obama were against the government takeover of AIG. Do these two very wealthy people have any concern at all about what the collapse of AIG would have meant to the world economy? Now they're both changing their stories again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Now remember, he's only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry â?? decades in the Senate â?? and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them.

Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington Democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's White House Budget Director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected $50 million. Jamie Gorelick â?? Clinton Justice Department official â?? worked for Fannie and took home $26 million. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee, has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae CEO job.

Now remember: Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and Republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain â?? Sen. Obama â?? was at the head of the line when the piggies lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks.

Sen. Barack Obama: No. 2 on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the Senate.
FOXNews.com - Barack Obama's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Connection - John Gibson Radio

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isc4N4ERKww[/YOUTUBE]

Like I've said before, Obama could shit in the middle of the road and some would say "what a beautiful pile of enviromentally safe material".

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Ha ha! You keep making the case that Obama recieved contributions --- there's no argument there. They both took contributions from the industry. But it's McCain who actually took action to deregulate these industires and create the environment where these problems could develop.

I like the video clip of McCain this morning on the news where he said when he got into office he was going to clean up all that corruption on wallstreet.lol
That is so damn funny. Who do think's paying for his campaign? What a hypocrit.

Do you think it's possible that they think that Mccain will just cause more problems? So that makes them want to donate more money to Obama because they see him as someone that will correct problems instead of create them.

The reason I see it like this is because it is all DONATED money. It's not like anyone twisted there arm and told them that they need to give money to Obama. It's completely voluntary and any "drain" on the industry it might do is by personal choice of the industry. Perhaps if they thought Mccain was the right choice, then the figures would be reversed. I bet Mccain supporters wouldn't be complaining about it if that were the case.

BOTH of the candidates are saying shit about change and cleaning up the system but yet BOTH are receiving funds from organizations like this that are ripping us all off. Is it so hard to say that when a man shits in the street it stinks?

Good reason for a complete "change" of the political election system if ya ask me. Free airtime for ALL parties...not just the favored two. Election money comes from the government and not in the 100's of millions to waste. When ya take the lobbyists money out of their pockets we'll have a better chance of driving them completely out of Washington.

Have a good one!:s4:

Yeah there will be no changes for the next 4 years and I can't see either candidate being a positive influence on the economy. This is why I wish we were a democracy instaed of a republic. Then if a president is doing a really shitty job we could kick there ass out before there term is up. Of course then you would have the VP running the country or worse yet the speaker of the house. Could you imagine Pellosi as interim president? It would be a nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Good reason for a complete "change" of the political election system if ya ask me. Free airtime for ALL parties...not just the favored two. Election money comes from the government and not in the 100's of millions to waste. When ya take the lobbyists money out of their pockets we'll have a better chance of driving them completely out of Washington.

---

That shit's like a poem :hippy: Good post P4B :rasta:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronik

These attacks based on who candidates accepted money from are a joke. Obama has the most donations period, so it stands to reason that on average he would have more donations from any given source than other candidates.

---

Hrm.. I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but weren't you and a number of other people on this forum bashing McCain for being in the back pocket of "big oil".....

pot...
kettle..
black..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Hrm.. I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly but weren't you and a number of other people on this forum bashing McCain for being in the back pocket of "big oil".....

pot...
kettle..
black..

---

Me? No, although our current administration certainly is, and their ties go far beyond campaign donations. John McCain though, I don't believe has any special ties to the oil industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

BOTH of the candidates are saying shit about change and cleaning up the system but yet BOTH are receiving funds from organizations like this that are ripping us all off. Is it so hard to say that when a man shits in the street it stinks?

Good reason for a complete "change" of the political election system if ya ask me. Free airtime for ALL parties...not just the favored two. Election money comes from the government and not in the 100's of millions to waste. When ya take the lobbyists money out of their pockets we'll have a better chance of driving them completely out of Washington.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I couldn't agree with this any more.

The way our election system is just does not work for the interest of the people. It's just a big thing that makes people feel like they have some sort of control. I hope to be able to see it change for the better before my final days come. At least then I'll know that my children and grandchildren would have a better life.

Maybe he's getting so much money from the types of corporations he is against because they hope he'll reverse himself on his policies.

That sounds ludicrous, but there are many reasons someone would donate to a campaign that don't just revolve arouond helping to elect someone. And, as a candidate, are you really going to argue with someone who's offering your campaign buttloads of cash?

Personally, even if it was money coming from the most despicable industries in the world, I wouldn't say no.

Unless they told me to do something for them in exchange for the cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

Maybe he's getting so much money from the types of corporations he is against because they hope he'll reverse himself on his policies.

That sounds ludicrous, but there are many reasons someone would donate to a campaign that don't just revolve arouond helping to elect someone. And, as a candidate, are you really going to argue with someone who's offering your campaign buttloads of cash?

Personally, even if it was money coming from the most despicable industries in the world, I wouldn't say no.

Unless they told me to do something for them in exchange for the cash.

---

Do you realize what you just said. Maybe people are donating SO MUCH MONEY in hopes he'll REVERSE HIS POLICIES.

Think that through and get back with me; because what you said is true and makes perfect sense but not in the way that you meant it. It involves selling out :) :hippy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Do you realize what you just said. Maybe people are donating SO MUCH MONEY in hopes he'll REVERSE HIS POLICIES.

Think that through and get back with me; because what you said is true and makes perfect sense but not in the way that you meant it. It involves selling out :) :hippy:

---

Selling out would be Obama asking for the money in return for his favor, or the companies offering the money only if he agrees to enforce policies that will help them make more money.

Not sure what you want me to see, so please help me out here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

Selling out would be Obama asking for the money in return for his favor.

---

First thing that come to mind with this statement was the HUGE pay raise his wife received from the University of Illinois and the HUGE amount of earmarks they received in return.

REAL change isn't an option in this election.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

If you watched the news last night, you saw Senator Barack Obama criticizing Senator McCain for being obligated to the financial industry which as we all know is in a deep crisis. I actually thought it was a good attack until I did some research.

It turns out it is Barack who is in the back-pocket of the financial industry according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. As a United State Senator, Barack took over $170,000 from Fannie Mae officials. The junior Senator ranked number 2 in donations behind Chairman Chris Dodd.

During this Presidential campaign Obama has taken $370,000 from Lehman Brother officials. On the other hand, McCain has only received $117,000. Goldman Sachs people are also big contributors to Barack. They donated $691,000 to him while McCain got $208,000.

Barack claims that voters are going to get more of the same if you elect Senator McCain. However, it is Barack who is more obligated to the financial industry that is causing this economic crisis not Senator McCain.
BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Lone Republican» Blog Archive » Obama Hypocrisy

What a horrible, depressed economy when the candidate of gloom and doom (sorry, hope and change) is close to raising $400 million for his campaign and is having a dinner for $28,500 a plate contributors. I hope those gamblers haven't taken away from the profits at "The Boat."

Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the candidates of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, whose former managers now are economic advisers to Obama's campaign, either to tell him mistakes that have cost the American people or to give him new scams to further fool the American people.
Obama, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- chicagotribune.com

Candidate of "Change"....what a joke!

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Just as bad as mccain...Which is why it's so sad that we technically only get to choose between the two..I think we should be able to vote for whoever the fuck we want to and it be counted..I shouldn't be forced to vote for someone who isn't even actually running for true republican values..

I just want to rip up every mccain sign that I see in people's yards..but it's okay, if he gets elected that'll be punishment enough..and then some..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

Selling out would be Obama asking for the money in return for his favor, or the companies offering the money only if he agrees to enforce policies that will help them make more money.

Not sure what you want me to see, so please help me out here.

---

So it's ok with you if he takes the money regardless of what people's intentions are?

Shrug, I prefer more character in a person than that. I'm not saying McCain or any politician would do anything different. I think everyone on this forum knows that politicians will do anything for money, but to say what you did and then say that he's not in the pocket of these people is naive in my opinion.

You don't get something for nothing. An idea that most people in this country seem to have forgotten.

i disagree. accepting money from lobbyists and special interests groups is not inherently bad. There is so much money being thrown around that it is often two different positions on an issue are both contributing to a campaign. Sort of like, "hey I know you have supported oil in the past, but heres a couple million so tell me what you think about natural gas instead". I think it is naive to think that all politicians are tied down by ALL contributions.
Trust me when i say i believe the system is f*cked, but i do not think sweeping generalizations should be made about anyone. Unless your a Washington insider!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allrollsin21

i disagree. accepting money from lobbyists and special interests groups is not inherently bad. There is so much money being thrown around that it is often two different positions on an issue are both contributing to a campaign. Sort of like, "hey I know you have supported oil in the past, but heres a couple million so tell me what you think about natural gas instead". I think it is naive to think that all politicians are tied down by ALL contributions.
Trust me when i say i believe the system is f*cked, but i do not think sweeping generalizations should be made about anyone. Unless your a Washington insider!:thumbsup:

---

So you think highly of someone who takes money from another entity that is obviously trying to manipulate them? yes money is thrown around between opposing factions to a candidate, but obviously the highest bidder wins. People don't give something for nothing. It's been true since the world began.


Sorry, you have your opinion and I still believe it's naive to think otherwise. :hippy:

All of the money in the system is definitely a corrupting influence and a serious problem. Donations from big donors, like corporate donors or special interest lobbyists, are generally not about getting one candidate elected over another candidate, because often the same big donors give to BOTH candidates. They want to get them BOTH elected? No, they are hoping their money will have some influence over the eventual winner, whoever it turns out to be.

For the most part, I don't think most politicians make any kind of commitment to support or oppose any particular policy in exchange for contributions --- that would be true bribery and corruption. It happens, but I do not think it is very common. I think mostly the donors are hoping for access. They know that a candidate may not actually side with them in the end, but they know that if they give a decent amount of money, the candidate will likely at least hear them out on their positons. Having a face-to-face sit-down with a candidate is worth a lot of money to some interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

All of the money in the system is definitely a corrupting influence and a serious problem. Donations from big donors, like corporate donors or special interest lobbyists, are generally not about getting one candidate elected over another candidate, because often the same big donors give to BOTH candidates. They want to get them BOTH elected? No, they are hoping their money will have some influence over the eventual winner, whoever it turns out to be.

For the most part, I don't think most politicians make any kind of commitment to support or oppose any particular policy in exchange for contributions --- that would be true bribery and corruption. It happens, but I do not think it is very common. I think mostly the donors are hoping for access. They know that a candidate may not actually side with them in the end, but they know that if they give a decent amount of money, the candidate will likely at least hear them out on their positons. Having a face-to-face sit-down with a candidate is worth a lot of money to some interests.

---

Jim Johnson
Chris Dodd
Tom Craddick
Ted Stevens
Tom Delay
Bob Ney
Ryan Fraizer (local city council in Colorado.. yes even the small fries do it)

Hillary Clinton (top donator, Norman Hsu plead guilty to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme. It just doesnt' look good)

John Coyers (no donation problems but used government resources to act as his servants, babysitters.. etc etc. Just as bad IMO).

Diane Feinstein (gave government military contracts to two companies that were owned by her husband)

Mike Huckabee.. I won't even get into this one.. oh boy.

Barack Obama (I won't even explain this.. look at the link below for more information)..


Judicial Watch Announces List of Washingtonââ?¬â?¢s ââ?¬Å?Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politiciansââ?¬Â� for 2007 | Judicial Watch

There are more politicians that I haven't listed that are in that link.. and probably explanation into a few of them better than I did.

Point being. It does happen.. and it is common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Barack Obama (I won't even explain this.. look at the link below for more information)..


Judicial Watch Announces List of Washingtonââ?¬â?¢s ââ?¬Å?Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politiciansââ?¬Â� for 2007 | Judicial Watch

There are more politicians that I haven't listed that are in that link.. and probably explanation into a few of them better than I did.

Point being. It does happen.. and it is common.

---

First of all: Judicial Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Judicial Watch" is an organization run by Richard Mellon Scaife, a conservative billionaire. It does a decent job of pretending to be nonpartisan though.

The anecdotes about Barack Obama don't seem to be so much corruption, as bad decisions, where he didn't realize how it looked. I mean, he bought $5000 worth of stock of a company that his actions later benefited. But really, would he have knowingly done that for only the increase in value of $5000 worth of stock? I mean, the amount he made on that deal was probably less than I make in a week. Considering that Obama received practically nothing from his supposedly corrupt deals, I'm not sure why he's on the list. Unless of course, whoever made the list wants to make him look bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronik

The anecdotes about Barack Obama don't seem to be so much corruption, as bad decisions, where he didn't realize how it looked.

---

Like with Rev. Wright, the Trinity Church, William Ayers, the D.C. city gun ban, and the list goes on and on. Just who I want for a President, somebody that consistantly makes bad decisions.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Like with Rev. Wright, the Trinity Church, William Ayers, the D.C. city gun ban, and the list goes on and on. Just who I want for a President, somebody that consistantly makes bad decisions.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Um, none of those were actually bad decisions. And the DC gun ban thing was actually a mistake by one of his staffers.