Did Goldman Sachs Declare War on Obama and Try to Defeat Him?

[FrankRep]

Obama is no socialist.

He is a Goldman Sachs Corporatist.

I decided to fact check Kotin to see if Obama is a "Goldman Sachs Corporatist." Goldman Sachs supported Obama's first election, but GS turned to Mitt Romney in the second election because of Obama's "regulatory attacks on their business and personal attacks on their character."

Obama is NOT a "Goldman Sachs Corporatist."



Goldman Turns Tables on Obama Campaign


Wall Street Journal
October 10, 2012


When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, no major U.S. corporation did more to finance his campaign than Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

This election, none has done more to help defeat him.

Prompted by what they call regulatory attacks on their business and personal attacks on their character, executives and employees of Goldman Sachs have largely abandoned Mr. Obama and are now the top sources of money to presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.

In the four decades since Congress created the campaign-finance system, no company's employees have switched sides so abruptly, moving from top supporters of one camp to the top of its rival, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign-finance data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Employees at Goldman donated more than $1 million to Mr. Obama when he first ran for president. This election, they have given the president's campaign $136,000—less than Mr. Obama has collected from employees of the State Department. The employees have contributed nothing to the leading Democratic super PAC supporting his re-election.

By contrast, Goldman employees have given Mr. Romney's campaign $900,000, plus another $900,000 to the super PAC founded to help him.

Underscoring the magnitude of the reversal, Goldman has been the No. 1 source of campaign cash to Democrats among companies during the 23 years the Center for Responsive Politics has been collecting such data.
...


Full Story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444752504578024661927487192.html




Related Articles

2013 - Black Business Leader: Obama “Tyrannical,” “Borderline Communist”

2012 - Communists Happy With Obama Reelection

2011 - Obama's Communist Connections Revisited

2012 - Obama Belonged to Radical Socialist "New Party" in 1996

2011 - College Mate: Obama Was an “Ardent” “Marxist-Leninist”

 

[Warlord]

thank you for your service.

 

[FrankRep]

Other sources:

Goldman Sachs Leads Split With Obama, as GE Jilts Him Too
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ads-split-with-obama-as-ge-jilts-him-too.html

Goldman Sachs Employees Abandon Obama Campaign Finance Ship
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/goldman-sachs-employees-abandon-obama-campaign-ship/story?id=17465701

 

[Prominence]

I don't buy this for a second. I think more plausible the reason Goldman switched to support Romney is because Obama was a shoe in and they needed puppet #2 to gain mainstream support. Obama is a puppet for Goldman, Pharmaceuticals and all fascist corporate entities that pull the strings in our gov. Don't kid yourself.

 

[FrankRep]

All the big banks dumped money into Mitt Romney's Campaign


Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286


Goldman Sachs $1,033,204
Bank of America $1,013,402
Morgan Stanley $911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co $834,096
Wells Fargo $677,076
Credit Suisse Group $643,120
Deloitte LLP $614,874
Kirkland & Ellis $520,541
Citigroup Inc $511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers $459,400
UBS AG $453,540
Barclays $446,000
Ernst & Young $390,992
HIG Capital $382,904
Blackstone Group $366,525
General Electric $332,875
EMC Corp $320,679
Bain Capital $285,970
Elliott Management $281,675
Rothman Institute $259,500



Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

No banks?

University of California $1,212,245
Microsoft Corp $814,645
Google Inc $801,770
US Government $728,647
Harvard University $668,368
Kaiser Permanente $588,386
Stanford University $512,356
Deloitte LLP $456,975
Columbia University $455,309
Time Warner $442,271
US Dept of State $417,629
DLA Piper $401,890
Sidley Austin LLP $400,883
Walt Disney Co $369,598
IBM Corp $369,491
University of Chicago $357,185
University of Michigan $339,806
Comcast Corp $337,628
US Dept of Justice $334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956

 

[Kords21]

If Obama being defeated was their goal, they failed miserably. I don't think Goldman Sachs is in the business of placing losing bets, it's not what they do. If anything, an Obama 2nd term was their goal all along.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Goes against worldview... does not compute.... will deny...

 

[Kotin]

LOL.

Guess I should have put quotes.. Are you that dense? "Goldman Sachs" Corporatist basically is a generalized term.. It has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs.


LOL Frank.. Did you really spend time on this??

 

[FrankRep]

If Obama being defeated was their goal, they failed miserably. I don't think Goldman Sachs is in the business of placing losing bets, it's not what they do. If anything, an Obama 2nd term was their goal all along.

CEO, Lloyd Blankfein: "Goldman Sachs will not support Obama"


SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/goldman_switch_E4hhnt8pMa0JtFySyd1JgJ

Goldman Sachs may be the most hated firm on Wall Street, vilified by protesters and banking rivals alike, but one reason the firm has so many detractors is envy of its uncanny ability to bet on winners.

This year, the firm appears to be betting on Mitt Romney.

Keep in mind Goldman’s track record. Well before the financial crisis, it successfully bet against all that toxic subprime-mortgage debt, a move that spared it the worst ravages of the banking collapse in 2008. Around the same time, it also rolled the dice on a US senator from Illinois named Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination and then the presidency.

Which makes the firm’s bet this election cycle all the more interesting.
....​

 

[FrankRep]

Guess I should have put quotes.. Are you that dense? "Goldman Sachs" Corporatist basically is a generalized term.. It has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs.

I'm a researcher. I fact checked you.

Even your "generalized term" is wrong.

 

[Kotin]

I'm a researcher. I fact checked you.

Even your "generalized term" is wrong.

LOL!!!! K, thanks frank.

 

[Working Poor]

I don't buy this for a second. I think more plausible the reason Goldman switched to support Romney is because Obama was a shoe in and they needed puppet #2 to gain mainstream support. Obama is a puppet for Goldman, Pharmaceuticals and all fascist corporate entities that pull the strings in our gov. Don't kid yourself.

^^^this...

 

[FrankRep]

LOL!!!! K, thanks frank.

I researched into the Obama-Goldman Sachs connection and Kotin gave me a negative rep.

I feel that is an abuse of the Rep system. I shouldn't be punished for researching an issue.

 

[CaptUSA]

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

No banks?

University of California $1,212,245
Microsoft Corp $814,645
Google Inc $801,770
US Government $728,647
Harvard University $668,368
Kaiser Permanente $588,386
Stanford University $512,356
Deloitte LLP $456,975
Columbia University $455,309
Time Warner $442,271
US Dept of State $417,629
DLA Piper $401,890
Sidley Austin LLP $400,883
Walt Disney Co $369,598
IBM Corp $369,491
University of Chicago $357,185
University of Michigan $339,806
Comcast Corp $337,628
US Dept of Justice $334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956

I'm not sure I buy this data, but if true, this portends an incredibly troubling future. This means the government is actually funding its own winners.

You think it's bad when the banks pick the President, but what about when the State selects its own leader?! That list seems to show that government has grown so large that its different agencies are able to fund its own candidate. It seems strange that they would separate "US Government" from "US Dept of State", "US Dept of Justice", and "US Dept of H&HS". Throw in the University system that is actively funded by the State and the State-run media and we are in big trouble.

The State has become self-determining.

 

[Kotin]

I researched into the Obama-Goldman Sachs connection and Kotin gave me a negative rep.

I feel that is an abuse of the Rep system. I shouldn't be punished for researching an issue.

I gave you a neg rep for being so rigid in your thinking.. Hence the comment, "learn some critical thinking skills"

And I stand by my suggestion. Not sure how this is a punishment since anyone can neg rep you for the same reason and I'm sure others have.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I'm not sure I buy this data, but if true, this portends an incredibly troubling future. This means the government is actually funding its own winners.

You think it's bad when the banks pick the President, but what about when the State selects its own leader?! That list seems to show that government has grown so large that its different agencies are able to fund its own candidate. It seems strange that they would separate "US Government" from "US Dept of State", "US Dept of Justice", and "US Dept of H&HS". Throw in the University system that is actively funded by the State and the State-run media and we are in big trouble.

The State has become self-determining.

From Frank's link:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Part of the reason that's so big is the US gov has more employees than pretty much any other organization by far. Which is troubling in and of itself.

 

[Prominence]

Yes Goldman wants to defeat Obama.... as long as Romney is the one that defeats him. Look at 2008 donations to Obama that you posted. Obviously Goldman does not mind Obama.

 

[FrankRep]

From Frank's link:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Part of the reason that's so big is the US gov has more employees than pretty much any other organization by far. Which is troubling in and of itself.

I noticed that too. Big teacher's unions and government employee unions and were the force behind Obama. Banks abandoned him. Most corporations (except for Microsoft, Google, etc...) abandoned him. He's bad for business.

 

[Prominence]

I researched into the Obama-Goldman Sachs connection and Kotin gave me a negative rep.

I feel that is an abuse of the Rep system. I shouldn't be punished for researching an issue.

Where was that post again about internet shills who are paid to post? You really seem to fit the bill. If I knew how to neg rep, it would be coming your way from me as well.

 

[FrankRep]

Yes Goldman wants to defeat Obama.... as long as Romney is the one that defeats him. Look at 2008 donations to Obama that you posted. Obviously Goldman does not mind Obama.

I find this quote pretty enlightening:


CEO, Lloyd Blankfein: "Goldman Sachs will not support Obama"

SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/goldman_switch_E4hhnt8pMa0JtFySyd1JgJ