8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A "Dishonorable Mention" last year, Senator Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/080111

 

 

$50,000 worth of stock:

 

In another New York Times article it was reported that Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

 

One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

 

He also bought $50,000 woth of stock in a satellite communications business whose backers include four friends and donors of Obama's and they had raised over $150,000 for his political committees.

 

Obama is the corporate lap dog of America along with many others. He's gotten millions of dollar deals for corrupt businessmen and recieved in return hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. The only people he supports are the rich businessmen and the money they contribute to his campaigns. He talks like a man of the people for the people, but his connections are super corrupt leaders in business and he gains a lot of money and power from them.

:dozey:

So you're for funding corrupt businessmen?

 

I'm not, Obama and McCain are. Obama brokered many deals for corrupt millionaires to gain millions of tax payer money. IN some cases the housing Obama helped his friends make is some of the lowest in the nation. Sewage backs up in the sink and there is no heating.

 

Obama's friend the developer made millions while his the apartments are some of the worst in the nation and Obama received hundreds of thousands of dollars. If he's running on the ticket of change, this is not change.

Also Obama supports the 700 billion bail out of wall street because he has many advisor's connected to business's going under and is friends with many in the industry. Bush and Obama are for privatizing profits, but socializing losses. They put their friends making millions over the taxpayers. Man of change? man of corporations is more like it. The only thing separating him from Bush is how he talks.

True, not a one of them are saints. Someone once said that if you want the biggest return on your investment, invest the way a Senator does (for they all do this to some extent, outside of maybe Feingold..) Yes, this is a huge part of the problem!! We, who are aware of the facts, could all vote for third party candidates who are more honest, but the remainder of America will probably select the candidate who runs the most effective campaign, and that usually boils down to who pumps the most money into ads, and where that money comes from. So, unless the race isn't close, I'm voting for Obama. And, I'm advocating for election and campaign reform, which must happen to restore our Democratic process and protect our precious & essential Liberties.

For a complete rundown of the investments and returns, see http://www.votesmart.org

BTW - how about putting something up about McCain's corruption, seeing as you think they are both equally culpable? ;-)

EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN is advocating these bailouts...True Capitalism reall sucks for average people, because yes the ship does right intself in the long run, but in the words of Keynes, "in the long run we are all dead" so the government must intervene out of responsibility to the people. We will have spent more on the Iraq war than on this bailout and people are bitching? We will have accomplished nothing in long term strategic goals and will have spent 1 trillion dollars to do it. Even the most "hardcore capitalists" are advocating this buyout because they know that 90% of Americans would lose most if not all of their savings if this meltdown was allowed to go ahead. Im all for punishing businesses who make bad decisions, but when their fate is intertwined with mine and the rest of the nation's i will just go ahead and advocate the buyout, which is what virtually the entire economic community has done.

Then you're voting for a man who cares more about his rich friends then you. That is the definition of foolish.

 

You speak of campaign reform yet you are destroying that by voting for Obama. You say one thing but you're voting the opposite now. A vote for obama is a vote for bush's policies of wall street socialism.

 

I would if there were McCain supports on here, but there are not. Everyone here knows of McCain's flaw but most here think of OBama as a god.

EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN is advocating these bailouts...True Capitalism reall sucks for average people, because yes the ship does right intself in the long run, but in the words of Keynes, "in the long run we are all dead" so the government must intervene out of responsibility to the people. We will have spent more on the Iraq war than on this bailout and people are bitching? We will have accomplished nothing in long term strategic goals and will have spent 1 trillion dollars to do it. Even the most "hardcore capitalists" are advocating this buyout because they know that 90% of Americans would lose most if not all of their savings if this meltdown was allowed to go ahead. Im all for punishing businesses who make bad decisions, but when their fate is intertwined with mine and the rest of the nation's i will just go ahead and advocate the buyout, which is what virtually the entire economic community has done.

 

Bailouts for the rich, while average american will suffer huge inflation. Even if bailouts were the answer, we don't have the money for it.

 

If a bail out was the answer, then give the money to the people and pay of their debts, that way we'd bail out the American people not the rich on wall stree.

 

If were going to have capitalism, lets have it not capitalism that benefits the rich and government and when it fails we socialize and give the massive losses to the people.

 

PS no one for capitalism is advocating for a bail out . Neocons are but we all know they don't like capitalism.

AND a bailout will let this happen again and again because no one will learn their lesson. We could at least use this 700 billion to bail out the people who are causing this problem but once again that would get in the way of the billions of dollars the rich and government has made from wall street. Our leaders chose their wealth over the nation.

 

PS everyone with a brain is advocating against these bail outs

 

Inflation will go through the roof, and were talking about lowering our governments credit rating. Intelligent economist who aren't corrupt and want their millions to be saved by the buyout are saying its a bad idea.

A fool is blind; I am not blind. I make the choice I feel is necessary to prevent something worse from happening; not the choice I would prefer to make, but a pragmatic choice. However, I am committed to campaign and election reform, which will be essential to restoring our Republic to it's rightful place as a bastion of individual liberty and justice in the world. Sure, I could vote for a third party clearly in favor of reform and running more honest candidates, and I will if the race is not close. But, if the race is close, then I would rather choose the better of the two in the lead, as unfortunate a choice as that may be. Why call me a fool for this? Is that not rational?? I am as appalled at the corruption in the whole system as anyone, and I'm aware of it's influence in both candidates; but they are not the same, and hence it does make a difference, even if the change is not as substantial as anyone aware of the issues would like it to be.

You have the option to make your vote towards fixing the system(3rd party) yet you perpetuate the system being broke by voting for one of the 2 parties who are the problem.

 

None of the election reforms will come as long as people vote the way you do or vote for McCain, thus you're shooting your own foot. You say one way of reform but vote the way the other way that will make it impossible to happen. Your words and actions are polar opposites.

 

Sadly right now McCain is less of big business candidate then Obama.

Obama sucks!!!.....The only problem i have with McCain is that he supports the war in iraq!!....if it werent for that i would if i could vote for McCain!!

Like I said, I am voting for a Third Party Candidate if the race is not close. None of the election reforms will happen if we don't make them happen, and maybe most unfortunate of all is the fact that it could take a bigger shock to the system to make the average citizen really wake up, regardless of what we think or do. Obviously, the third-party candidates are a long-shot at winning, and yet it could be one way - a source for change in the political landscape. But then what happens in the meantime? Going from bad to worse as we vote our conscience?? Sure, I can see your points, and that would be great if every issue were a referendum on the ballot, so all the elected officials could do would be to do the will of the people by creating legislation based on our will. Unfortunately, sometimes to be pragmatic is practical even if not anywhere near ideal, and there are other ways to push reform measures aside from the political party method. Common Cause is one non-partisan group dedicated to this effort.

One way of looking at the money trail (a truer indication of how a candidate will vote than any news flash will ever be) is to look at who's donating what, and at what level. Call me biased if you will, but I think $200 US should be the cap; and looking at opensecrets.org breaks down the donations for candidates as follows:

Bob Barr - 54% from contributions of $200 or less

Ralph Nader - 51% from contributions of $200 or less

Barack Obama - 50% from Contributions of $200 or less

Cynthia McKinney - 59% from Contributions of $200 or less

John McCain - 32% from Contributions of $200 or less

 

So, looking at it this way, Cynthia and Bob are tops, Barack and Ralph are still pretty good, and McCain looks like the candidate of the wealthy.

Check it out for yourself at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008

well we can either have bad inflation or we can lose everything and not be able to afford retirement....personally ill take the latter. 401k's are tied into the stock market, which is tied into these huge corporations. I dont like it anymore than you do, buying out rich cunts who make bad decisions, but im not willing to suffer the consequences of THEIR actions. Basically you are saying to just go ahead and let this meltdown happen? well have fun with that, that is just idealism and not reality, simply a normative view of real economic situations.

Like I said, I am voting for a Third Party Candidate if the race is not close. None of the election reforms will happen if we don't make them happen, and maybe most unfortunate of all is the fact that it could take a bigger shock to the system to make the average citizen really wake up, regardless of what we think or do. Obviously, the third-party candidates are a long-shot at winning, and yet it could be one way - a source for change in the political landscape. But then what happens in the meantime? Going from bad to worse as we vote our conscience?? Sure, I can see your points, and that would be great if every issue were a referendum on the ballot, so all the elected officials could do would be to do the will of the people by creating legislation based on our will. Unfortunately, sometimes to be pragmatic is practical even if not anywhere near ideal, and there are other ways to push reform measures aside from the political party method. Common Cause is one non-partisan group dedicated to this effort.

 

My main point is the get these reforms we need to vote in a totally new party. We will make things worse if we keep electing the same two parties that are the problem. We are to blame for all the shit that happens in our nations. THe people of the US are keeping the system broke by our voting the same morons into office.

 

We can't fix the system by voting in the people who broke it.

One way of looking at the money trail (a truer indication of how a candidate will vote than any news flash will ever be) is to look at who's donating what, and at what level. Call me biased if you will, but I think $200 US should be the cap; and looking at opensecrets.org breaks down the donations for candidates as follows:

Bob Barr - 54% from contributions of $200 or less

Ralph Nader - 51% from contributions of $200 or less

Barack Obama - 50% from Contributions of $200 or less

Cynthia McKinney - 59% from Contributions of $200 or less

John McCain - 32% from Contributions of $200 or less

 

So, looking at it this way, Cynthia and Bob are tops, Barack and Ralph are still pretty good, and McCain looks like the candidate of the wealthy.

Check it out for yourself at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?cycle=2008

 

Thats still insanely bad no matter how you slice it. Obama's in the pocket of the rich, making his friends richer even when it hurts the people who voted him to office. Time and time again he choses to get his rich friends even more money, that is complete opposite of how he talks and the ideas he's supposedly running on.

well we can either have bad inflation or we can lose everything and not be able to afford retirement....personally ill take the latter. 401k's are tied into the stock market, which is tied into these huge corporations. I dont like it anymore than you do, buying out rich cunts who make bad decisions, but im not willing to suffer the consequences of THEIR actions. Basically you are saying to just go ahead and let this meltdown happen? well have fun with that, that is just idealism and not reality, simply a normative view of real economic situations.

 

At the very least they should cap the salaries of everyone there to 100,000 and take away the bonuses.

 

THe meltdown is going to happen, it's already in the works. America's future is a dark one thanks to our leaders from both sides. Huge amounts of wealth have left our nation to Asia and most of the money won't return. We're completely and utterly broke(our government). Unless I'm wrong and the artificial economy is the best, we are all fucked. THis bailout will only delay it for a short term but also give the super rich and corrupt in power more money for when things go south. This won't stop it but help the rich in the long term.

Obama has taken influence money, but hasn't totally slid off the deep end. I'm not pleased with his connections with some of the Wall street Financiers that are unethical and responsible for the housing market scam and the credit scam "industries", but the breakdown for his contributions goes as follows: 50% from donations of $200 or less; 29% from donations of $2300 or less; and 8% from donations of $4,600... Even Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney take from the upper bracket range (1% and 5% respectively), albeit much less so. Ralph Nader gets 9% from the $4,600 bracket, but looking at the list, it's not the usual suspects, so I'll cut him some slack. Compare that to John McCain's jewel-encrusted platter of donors: 32% from donations of $200 or less; 54% from donations of $2,300, and 17% from donations of $4,600.. Heavy on the mining industries, light on unions, and ties to Bush's old "pioneers" are probably a likelihood.

Obama may have wealthy donors, but McCain is even more so by the percentages; And I think there are two paths to reform - one can be through party activity, and the other can be through grass-roots organizations that are non-partisan in nature. You might choose the party path, but I'm choosing the non-partisan route.

any list of corrupt politicians that doesnt have Ted Stevens on it is automatically invalidated because of ignorance. Oh, and remember the Keating 5?

Also, McCain and Obama's position on the bailout is basically the same, except that mccain arrived at his position a couple of days after Obama did, after failing miserably trying to claim that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. A line that was initially uttered by ... HOOVER!!!... yes, that president responsible for the great depression.

Also, look up Rick Davis. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?bl&ex=1222315200&en=47c6f0e27b93a6ef&ei=5087%0A He was paid millions of dollars to lobby for freddie mac. This man is also know as McCain's campaign manager.

And dont forget William Timmons. He lobbied for Freddie Mac from 2000 up until this past month. He is in charge of planning the transition in the case of a McCain victory.

Hmmm, McCain has 7 lobbyists in his top 10 advisors. Are they working their asses off for mccain so that they can lose their jobs? i dont think so.

Obama sucks!!!.....The only problem i have with McCain is that he supports the war in iraq!!....if it werent for that i would if i could vote for McCain!!

 

care to explain why you think Obama sucks?

Also Obama supports the 700 billion bail out of wall street because he has many advisor's connected to business's going under and is friends with many in the industry. Bush and Obama are for privatizing profits, but socializing losses. They put their friends making millions over the taxpayers. Man of change? man of corporations is more like it. The only thing separating him from Bush is how he talks.

 

 

Which advisors are you talking about? If it is Raines then various factcheckers have proven that he is not and never was an advisor to barack Obama.

Maybe you have confused the two candidates. Look up Rick Davis.

Funny how Obama is deeply connected to these wall street firms going under from receiving money to close friendships with their leaders. He has proven to be the big business candidate, and so has McCain, thus we are all screwed when both candidates are wall street's loyal bitch. At least no matter how you vote, we'll make sure to make a few rich and keep the middle class under attack.

Funny how Obama is deeply connected to these wall street firms going under from receiving money to close friendships with their leaders. He has proven to be the big business candidate, and so has McCain, thus we are all screwed when both candidates are wall street's loyal bitch. At least no matter how you vote, we'll make sure to make a few rich and keep the middle class under attack.

 

source please.

Franklin Raines former leader of Fannie Mae advised Obama.

 

"Oh yeah, and who tabbed the former head of Fannie Mae to head up his Vice Presidential search team? OBAMA, that’s who. Back in May Barack turned to Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae."

 

"Fannie Mae lobbyists have given Barack Obama $123,000 since 2004 - only 4 years. In Contrast John McCain has received only $19,000 in the past 20 years."

 

 

"Furthermore, The Lehmann Brother’s Global Investment Bank (recently went under) lobbyists gave Obama $365,922 since 1989 and gave McCain $115,800 in the same time period."

 

Obama is in the pocket of wall street

 

This from the July 16th edition of The Washington Post:

 

" In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

 

http://nmorton.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/barack-obama-fannie-mae-lobbyists-second-favorite-senator/

 

 

Securities & Investment: Money to Congress (Open Secrets)

Top 2o Members (influence and lobbying money)

 

Top 20 Members

Candidate Amount

Obama, Barack (D) $10,059,210

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $7,355,720

McCain, John ® $7,029,893

Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) $2,932,532

 

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/09/obama-who-got-u.html

 

 

John McCain got $36,875 from AIG

Barack Obama raked in $75,899 (+205%)

 

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/17/who-was-in-wall-streets-pocket/