Wall Street Turns on Obama

[Frodo]

They are going to regret this. If President Obama still wins re-election by a solid margin this November due to a steadily improving economy despite everything Wall Street has tried to throw at him, there will be hell to pay when he starts his second term next year, since he will owe them absolutely nothing:

Wall Street turns wrath — and cash — on Obama

By BEN WHITE | 2/12/12 10:38 PM EST

NEW YORK — Profits and bonuses are down across Wall Street. Banks are slicing jobs and shuttering once profitable trading units in the face of new regulations.

But the financial services industry is poised to set records in one arena in 2012: politics.

The beleaguered sector is pumping tens of millions of dollars into campaigns and newly dominant super PACS as one of Wall Street’s own seeks the White House and the industry looks to roll back key parts of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. The goal is to oust a president and some members of Congress whom many bankers view as openly hostile toward them.

Employees of securities and investment firms have already given $52.8 million to candidates and party committees in the 2012 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That makes it the No. 1 industry, up from fourth place in 2010 and third in the 2008 campaign.

Wall Street — the target of Occupy protests nationwide — has swung firmly back to the GOP in 2012 after supporting then-Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain in the 2008 campaign. Obama outraised McCain on Wall Street by nearly 2 to 1, $15.7 million to $9.2 million.

Despite a large overall fundraising advantage, Obama has raised just $5.1 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors so far this cycle compared with $12.4 million for Mitt Romney’s campaign, according to Sheila Krumholz, executive director of CRP.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72772.html#ixzz1mKRnh8Ka

[bgwah]

This is one of Romney's strengths --- he's the only Republican who can take big money away from Obama.

It would be nice to think that maybe Obama wouldn't be as much of a sell-out during his second term if this happened, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

[Joe Biden 2020]

However, President Obama is far from a shoo-in in 8 1/2 months.  A lot of things can still happen and we could easily be looking at a Republican President taking over in 11 months.

[bgwah]

However, President Obama is far from a shoo-in in 8 1/2 months.  A lot of things can still happen and we could easily be looking at a Republican President taking over in 11 months.

Thanks, genius.

[Joe Republic]

However, President Obama is far from a shoo-in in 8 1/2 months.  A lot of things can still happen and we could easily be looking at a Republican President taking over in 11 months.

What sort of vague approximations are these?  We need exact countdowns measured by number of weeks and days at the very least.  You're slacking.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If he had a spine, he'd say "They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." But Obama's handlers have probably convinced him that no one who uses that kind of rhetoric could ever be elected President.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, President Obama is far from a shoo-in in 8 1/2 months.  A lot of things can still happen and we could easily be looking at a Republican President taking over in 11 months.

Or President Obama and Speaker Pelosi could be trying to get Majority Leader Reid to relax the filibuster from 60 to 55, which just coincidentally is the number of Democratic Senators in the next Congress.  Not that I think either scenario is likely to happen.  Alas it looks like we're gonna get at least a couple more years of nonfunctional divided government.

[anvi]

Hardly surprising, in fact, totally predictable.  Obama's willingness to support the bailouts in '08, and not look completely ineffectual in the fall negotiations like McCain did, won them over then.  His support of Dodd-Frank put a quick end to their crush. 

[Pyro]

And he'll still be supporting them as usual.
Romney or Obama, it doesn't matter. Wall Street will still be ruling our country and our politics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And he'll still be supporting them as usual.
Romney or Obama, it doesn't matter. Wall Street will still be ruling our country and our politics.

Yeah, it's too bad that this President is so pathetic. FDR tried being a moderate hero at first, but then realized that the conservatives were going to hate him no matter what, so he threw them under the bus, and got re-elected 3 more times.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

There are many issues with Wall Street but all you folks need to consider something- people have their financial futures in Wall Street. Retirement funds, college savings funds, you name it- Occupy folks hate Vanguard or Fidelity but if those two stop making money I stop making money from the mutual funds I have in each... if Raymond James went under my annuity is gone and guess what- I have to sell off either my valuables or some land that was bequethed me by a dear friend and I cant pass either off to my kids

I undertsand people want to regulate Wall Street but wanting Wall Street to do poorly is naive when millions of Americans are counting on Wall Street to do well so their investments cangive them a better life

[anvi]

There are many issues with Wall Street but all you folks need to consider something- people have their financial futures in Wall Street. Retirement funds, college savings funds, you name it- Occupy folks hate Vanguard or Fidelity but if those two stop making money I stop making money from the mutual funds I have in each... if Raymond James went under my annuity is gone and guess what- I have to sell off either my valuables or some land that was bequethed me by a dear friend and I cant pass either off to my kids

I undertsand people want to regulate Wall Street but wanting Wall Street to do poorly is naive when millions of Americans are counting on Wall Street to do well so their investments cangive them a better life

I do agree, clarence.  Sensible and actually enforced regulation is what I would like to see.  It's not in anyone's interests for banks to fail and investment to dry up, as that does indeed ruin things for everyone.

[Keystone Phil]

However, President Obama is far from a shoo-in in 8 1/2 months.  A lot of things can still happen and we could easily be looking at a Republican President taking over in 11 months.

Thanks, genius.

My goal today: to randomly quote BushOK almost word for word to someone at work.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Obama should be delighted about this and should use it to his advantage. 

I'm sorry Clarence... but the lax regulation and corrupt "get rich quick" style of investment banking is what ruined the retirement dreams of millions of Americans.  Dodd-Frank is meant to stymie such behavior and prevent it from happening again.

Now your investments can be more stable and recover.

This nation needs to return to being the type of economy where working and generous pay and benefits allow people to save over time... rather than simply working for those with the extra income to invest after they cover their living expenses.

If your investments are going sour... then you need to find safer investments.  Or go back to work!  Your party has made it clear that nobody is too old to be impoverished, sick, and working two jobs to make ends meet.

[Sbane]

There are many issues with Wall Street but all you folks need to consider something- people have their financial futures in Wall Street. Retirement funds, college savings funds, you name it- Occupy folks hate Vanguard or Fidelity but if those two stop making money I stop making money from the mutual funds I have in each... if Raymond James went under my annuity is gone and guess what- I have to sell off either my valuables or some land that was bequethed me by a dear friend and I cant pass either off to my kids

I undertsand people want to regulate Wall Street but wanting Wall Street to do poorly is naive when millions of Americans are counting on Wall Street to do well so their investments cangive them a better life

I agree that those who want Wall Street to do bad don't know what the hell they are talking about. That being said some smart regulations may be needed, and most of all, banks need to pay for their own bailouts by paying into some sort of a bailout fund. I think that is what banks are most hesitant to do when it really makes the most sense. If they want to take great risks with that much of OUR money, they should also back themselves up.

[Politico]

The only regulation necessary is a return of the separation of commercial banking and investment banking. The financial system can handle a lot, but obviously every commercial bank collapsing is not something it can handle. We dodged a bullet in 2008, and the return of the separation of commercial banking and investment banking needs to occur sooner rather than later to avoid a sequel of 2008 down the road.

[TheGlobalizer]

Americans hate Wall Street these days, but that doesn't mean that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.  Obama attacking Wall Street changes nothing for Wall Street, but it makes him look anti-business, even if he's really being anti-greed.  Obama gains little except rallying his base a bit.

[Link]

Americans hate Wall Street these days, but that doesn't mean that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.  Obama attacking Wall Street changes nothing for Wall Street, but it makes him look anti-business, even if he's really being anti-greed.  Obama gains little except rallying his base a bit.

There are plenty of small business owners who have a hellish time dealing with banks.  I don't think telling banks to straighten up and act right is viewed as "anti-business" by those guys.

[TheGlobalizer]

Americans hate Wall Street these days, but that doesn't mean that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.  Obama attacking Wall Street changes nothing for Wall Street, but it makes him look anti-business, even if he's really being anti-greed.  Obama gains little except rallying his base a bit.

There are plenty of small business owners who have a hellish time dealing with banks.  I don't think telling banks to straighten up and act right is viewed as "anti-business" by those guys.

It's all in the delivery of that message.  Obama hasn't figured out how to have an anti-bank but pro-business message, and I don't expect he will.  Just as Republicans haven't figured out how to be pro-business without being pro-greedy-f**ks.

[Jacobtm]

There are many issues with Wall Street but all you folks need to consider something- people have their financial futures in Wall Street.

What a swindling of the American public that has been.