All I've been hearing about in the political press since the financial crisis began is the ties that John McCain allegedly had with Fannie and Freddie and other financial companies, implying that these associations somehow taint him in some special way. Its not enough that Obama is consistently talking about the improper nature of McCain's association with these companies, but the press is lock step behind him, consistently repeating Obama talking points and looking for whatever evidence they can find against McCain. The truth is as follows, from Open Secrets.org. You decide who got more money from who when it comes down to the financial crisis, and who is the media IGNORING when it comes to such "illicit" or "scandalous" funds.
Here are the following contributions received by Obama and McCain from large businesses:
Overall Top 20 - John McCain
Merrill Lynch $298,413
Citigroup Inc $269,251
Morgan Stanley $233,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,487
Blank Rome LLP $150,426
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,787
UBS AG $140,165
PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
US Government $137,617
Bank of America $129,475
Wachovia Corp $122,846
Lehman Brothers $117,500
FedEx Corp $113,453
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
US Army $103,613
Bear Stearns $99,300
Pinnacle West Capital $97,700
Compare those numbers to Obama's numbers
Overall Top 20 - Barack Obama
Goldman Sachs $691,930
University of California $611,207
Citigroup Inc $448,599
JPMorgan Chase & Co $442,919
Harvard University $435,769
Google Inc $420,174
UBS AG $404,750
National Amusements Inc $389,140
Microsoft Corp $377,235
Lehman Brothers $370,524
Sidley Austin LLP $350,302
Moveon.org $347,463
Skadden, Arps et al $340,264
Time Warner $338,527
Wilmerhale Llp $335,398
Morgan Stanley $318,070
Latham & Watkins $297,400
Jones Day $289,476
University of Chicago $278,885
Stanford University $276,038
Securities and Investment - Top 5 Candidates
Obama, Barack (D) Senate $10,059,210
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $7,355,720
McCain, John (R) Senate $7,029,893
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) $5,038,745
Romney, Mitt (R) $4,884,137
Finance/Credit
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $211,296
Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT) Senate $190,250
Obama, Barack (D) Senate $186,753
McCain, John (R) Senate $110,949
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Senate $96,650
I'm not saying that one candidate is more pure than another when it comes to money taken from big business. I'm saying that there is no white knight, and if the media is going to question political contributions on one side, they must do so for BOTH sides or they have invalidated themselves as a news source.
I rarely agree with Sean Hannity, but when he declared that 2008 is the year that journalism died, I don't think he was far off.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-24-2008 at 02:32 PM.
Oh yes yes its the media's fault, they paint John Mcain in a bad light!
Mcain dosent know how many houses he owns and owns 13 cars. Obama owns 1 car.
Also, Mcain is old and cant high five me. Enough said.
Did you even bother to read any of the points I made, or are you just giving a knee jerk reaction based on pure partisanship? Its CLEAR that Obama has taken more money from special interests, by FAR, and the media has not mentioned it a bit. Yet they harp on any tie McCain may have. Doesn't that at least sound like bias?
I swear, liberalism is like a religion to you, Jason. Facts and logic do not faze you as your faith is like granite.
And for the record, McCain can't high-five because his arms were repeatedly broken during his five year stay in a Vietnamese prison camp. Its the same reason he doesn't use a computer, and instead dictates to his wife. He physically can't type. I know you meant it as a joke, but its just a tasteless joke and unfunny to say the least.
I'm less concerned by where somebody gets their money than I am by how they spend it. Obviously there are a few exceptions (Ron Paul taking money from a white supremacist group would be one such, Rudy Giuliani making millions on speeches about 9/11 would be another). I'm not saying it isn't something to be questioned because obviously such things should be public and discussed. But I disagree if the opinion being expressed is that we should be afraid of Obama's ties to big business.
Do you know what I would do if I were a candidate? I would take every penny thrown at me unless there was a really good reason. And if I were a big business I would try to bribe the candidate who wasn't already promising me tax cuts. Then regardless of who won I'd be on my best foot.
From what I'm reading though, you're underlying point is that the mainstream media (a liberally biased media, as you've described it) isn't drawing attention to the tough questions regarding Obama. Which, I concede is partially true, but think it swings both ways. Quality journalism and reporting has taken a real dive in general. Lots of people in popular culture are voicing their disgust over it. Jon Stewart gave a scathing speech to a group of reporters during a breakfast he had invited them to. Now regardless of Jon's political views, he made the same point you're making.
People are reporting what they want to report and writing it in ways to inflame the public instead of doing quality investigative journalism. A double example: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...933/788/599244
First of all, it's disgusting what The Gallup Daily was going with the election information. But then you have a news article with a title specifically engineered to get people upset over it. It's hardly unique to Republicans or Democrats. I think our real problem is with people who believe any inflammatory remark they hear and repeat it without understanding the underlying issues. And this is how we justify the travesty that is the Electoral College. Two underlying issues need to be addressed. The media needs to be accountable for what they report, and we need to work to educate the public so that everyone with the right to vote is worthy of it.
Last edited by thatmariolover : 09-24-2008 at 11:37 PM.
I'm less concerned by where somebody gets their money than I am by how they spend it. Obviously there are a few exceptions (Ron Paul taking money from a white supremacist group would be one such, Rudy Giuliani making millions on speeches about 9/11 would be another). I'm not saying it isn't something to be questioned because obviously such things should be public and discussed. But I disagree if the opinion being expressed is that we should be afraid of Obama's ties to big business.
I don't blame Obama for taking the money, but I do blame him for continuing to paint McCain as being beholden to special interests because of funds accepted, when Obama has accepted more by far. I also have a huge problem with the fact that Obama's campaign instructed large donors to hide their contributions through 3rd parties, essentially laundering the money in a political sense, so that it appears to the layman that all finances come from individuals or in small amounts.
That doesn't mean that Obama is beholden to big business, it just means he is a hipocrit, and when you are running as a pure statesman unscathed by the political machine, you can't afford to be a hipocrit... unless the media simply refuses to point out the hipocrisy.
Just as the media refuses to acknowledge that his "army of volunteers" are intended to be PAID by the government for their services. He calls them volunteers in his rhetoric, while in his plan gives them a salary.
Just as the media refuses to acknowledge that most of his "tax breaks" are actually grants given to those who pay little to no taxes. But Obama calls them "tax breaks" and not welfare and intedned to be a redistribution of wealth program. It' pure unadulterated socialism, but because its referred to as "tax breaks" no one questions it.
Just as the media inundates the airwaves with questions and criticism of Sarah Palin's experience (I question it too), while conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama has only a little more experience on a national stage, and less experience in an exeutive capacity... and he's running for PRESIDENT not Vice President, which is historically a training ground for national office.
In the end, these numbers do not sway my vote, and philosophically I stand against almost everything barack stamds for when it comes to issues and his solutions. It just shows that there are few lengths the media will go to to try and elect their candidate.
Quote:
From what I'm reading though, you're underlying point is that the mainstream media (a liberally biased media, as you've described it) isn't drawing attention to the tough questions regarding Obama. Which, I concede is partially true, but think it swings both ways. Quality journalism and reporting has taken a real dive in general. Lots of people in popular culture are voicing their disgust over it. Jon Stewart gave a scathing speech to a group of reporters during a breakfast he had invited them to. Now regardless of Jon's political views, he made the same point you're making.
People are reporting what they want to report and writing it in ways to inflame the public instead of doing quality investigative journalism. A double example: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...933/788/599244
First of all, it's disgusting what The Gallup Daily was going with the election information. But then you have a news article with a title specifically engineered to get people upset over it. It's hardly unique to Republicans or Democrats. I think our real problem is with people who believe any inflammatory remark they hear and repeat it without understanding the underlying issues. And this is how we justify the travesty that is the Electoral College. Two underlying issues need to be addressed. The media needs to be accountable for what they report, and we need to work to educate the public so that everyone with the right to vote is worthy of it.
I agree with most of what you say, except for the part where you are what Jon Stewart thinks. Jon Stewart may be the biggest media hipocrit of them all, and an intellectual coward to boot. His show spends 90% of its time lambasting intellectual opposition, and hiding it in comedy, using entertainment as a rhetorical shield.
The worst part is that he has openly reversed his opinion of John McCain, who was a frequent guest in the past and Jon openly praised him for his independent thinking and moderate legislation... and since the general election began Stewart does nothing but openly question his character and sincerity, and propogated half-truths and misinformation basically because he's running against a Democrat. Its pathetic and just shows me that Jon Stewart is no better or purer of thought than any other leftist mouthpiece.
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Politics - Follow the Money
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
The worst part is that he has openly reversed his opinion of John McCain, who was a frequent guest in the past and Jon openly praised him for his independent thinking and moderate legislation... and since the general election began Stewart does nothing but openly question his character and sincerity, and propogated half-truths and misinformation basically because he's running against a Democrat. Its pathetic and just shows me that Jon Stewart is no better or purer of thought than any other leftist mouthpiece.
I don't think its John Stewart who has changed, I say its John Mccain who has. John Mccain has done nothing but made himself an easy target for the media because of his bad character.
And by the way, you said "..Obama is consistently talking about the improper nature of McCain's association with these companies..". Maybe I missed this somewhere, I don't watch much TV, but I read the paper every day at work, I think I may have missed this. Can you post some links to where Obama himself is attacking Mccain for taking money from them?
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
I don't think its John Stewart who has changed, I say its John Mccain who has. John Mccain has done nothing but made himself an easy target for the media because of his bad character.
I hear this all the time, but I've never heard an example of how John McCain has really changed. People bring up his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, but thats a misnomer. He voted against them because they weren't attached to a spending cut and he knew the cuts would pass anyway. It was a statement vote. Poeple mention drilling, but $4 a gallon gas changes things, and he's STILL against drilling in ANWAR. He's always been for the surge and led the fight for that, and he's never voted for a tax increase in his entire history. He's always been against corporate corruption, fighting for legislation in 2006 that was killed by the democrats (I mentioned this in another post with citations). Please name for me areas where he has changed considerably and there seems to be no reason other than politics.
Quote:
And by the way, you said "..Obama is consistently talking about the improper nature of McCain's association with these companies..". Maybe I missed this somewhere, I don't watch much TV, but I read the paper every day at work, I think I may have missed this. Can you post some links to where Obama himself is attacking Mccain for taking money from them?
Here are two. The second directly links McCain and his ties to the credit industry:
EDIT: Looking back on those, they have more to do with position in a campaign than finances, so I'll concede the point about the Obama campaign ads. Obama was smart not to mention finances I suppose, and found another rout that was affective. Smart politics. But still, I believe my media criticism holds.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-25-2008 at 10:34 AM.
What about the Mcain attack ads that claim Obama will raise taxes for hard working class americans, which is completley and utterly false?
There's no justification to the claims that the media is liberally biased. Its untrue. They swing both ways. Mcain started these dirty attack ads, now that Obama is finally starting to fight back a little the Professor goes and cries about it. Get over it.
What about the Mcain attack ads that claim Obama will raise taxes for hard working class americans, which is completley and utterly false?
Well, that depends on what your looking at. If its stright income, then yes, you are correct and McCain's ads are indeed false. Looking at total tax burden when you combine marginal tax rates, capital gains taxes, social security taxes, etc and how it will affect small business in particular? Its not false at all.
The biggest affect would be to small businesses making over $250,000 a year, and specifically sole proprietorships and general partners who would jump from a 37.8% tax rate to over 50% under Obama's plan. While I'm sure you say "Hey! They're rich, they can afford it!" keep in mind this accounts for 2/3's of all small businesses according to the IRS and these small businesses are treated far differently than corporations when it comes to tax deductions. Their taxable overhead is enormous and the amount of money of that $250,000 that the owners pocket is far less than what they are being taxed on.
My father is going to close his business if Obama's tax plan is instated. Right now he keeps it running basically for my uncle and cousins who work for him. After taxes, diability, social security, unemployment and everything else that is a cost of business he doesn't clear that much and relies on his retirement savings for income. If Obama's plan is instaed, he's going to close down because he'll begin operating in the red and he just doesn't need the aggravation. I think you'll find a LOT of baby boomers who are small business owners doing the same thing, esepcially in the construction industry which is suffering right now. Thats a lot of jobs lost, and its not the high paying jobs that will be lost.
As for capital gains, anyone who owns a home would be greatly affected by the increased levels in capital gains, which would severely inhibit families from upgrading their housing by reducing the amount of transferable funds from the sale of one home to the pourchase of another. Obama proposes to raise capital gains by 2/3's.
As for esate taxes, Obama proposes a 45% with a 7 $mil exemption freeze while McCain proposes 15% rate witha 10 $mil exemption. Obama's plan would help to crush the tansfer of wealth inside of families, and not just for the rich. Not to mention the fact that estate taxes tax the same money TWICE, along with including it in income and capital gains.
Example: My family. My granddmother bought a lot of land very cheaply 40 years ago. When she died it was worth a LOT of money, but my parents could not afford to pay the combined tax burden and had to take out a second mortgage just to cover the taxes until they could sell the property.
So what happened? My parents were forced into selling property that had been in my family for 40 years (they wanted to make it into a horse or llama farm) to cover the taxes, and they sold it to a rich developer for less than it was worth so he could build giant homes on it and get even richer. I won't lie, my parents cleared enough money to cover their retirement (which they sorely needed) but that should have never been an issue and essentially the government dictated who owned what by taking what they had already taxed when my grandmother owned the property.
So its not a simple as Obama would have you believe. Barack hides a lot of complex policy behind simplistic and misleading rhetoric. he's reducing the income taxes for 95% iof Americans? Sure is... that 95% will pay in other ways besides income tax as Obama's proposed budget would operate billions if not trillions in the red. He has to pay the piper somehow. And just to see if you read this far, Jason, how is you fantasy football team doing?
Quote:
There's no justification to the claims that the media is liberally biased. Its untrue. They swing both ways. Mcain started these dirty attack ads, now that Obama is finally starting to fight back a little the Professor goes and cries about it. Get over it.
I just posted lists of numbers that show justification. Just because you babble something doesn't make it true. You are not a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And McCain attacks have NOTHING to do with the media. Political ads are NOT the media. News organizations and entertainment groups are the media.
Do you understand that?
Now Playing: Shut the hell up and quit asking me questions
Posts: 3,412
Re: Politics - Follow the Money
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
I hear this all the time, but I've never heard an example of how John McCain has really changed.
-EDIT- By the way, I'd rather we not discuss the person in the video, just the points he makes. Personal attacks on him are irrelevant to me.
__________________ "I have been saying this for some time, but customers are not interested in grand games with higher-quality graphics and sound and epic stories,"-Hiroshi Yamauchi
1) Falwell - Who the fuck cares? He sucked up to evangelicals he needed to get the nomination. Its a non-issue. I'll concede a meaningless political flip-flop that has had no effect on McCain's legislative track record.
2) Torture - This "Young Turk's" accusations are at best severe ignorance and at worst intended deception. Here is the bill McCain voted for and the reasons why
Quote:
Mr. McCain, of Arizona, said he believed it would be a mistake to limit C.I.A. interrogators to using only those techniques that were enumerated in the Field Manual, which he noted was a public document.
“When we passed the Military Commissions Act, we said that the C.I.A. should have the ability to use additional techniques,” Mr. McCain told reporters Friday in Oshkosh, Wis. “None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”
The bill that McCain voted for did not violate ANY of his principles that he has maintained on torture from the Detainee Treatment Act. As for the first bill, Bush vetoed it and the person in this video says "he (McCain) did nothing, and thats not the worst part"? He voted for the bill! He's a Senator, not The Punisher. Was he supposed to challnge Bush to a duel? He did what he could and has maintained his stance on this issue.
As for this person's claim that McCain voted for a bill that allowed torture like he experienced in Vietnam, well this person is a flat out liar and a disgusting liar at that.
This is some of what McCain went through, in his own words:
Quote:
..the guards, who were all in the room—about 10 of them—really laid into me. They bounced me from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes. Then I was taken to a small room. For punishment they would almost always take you to another room where you didn't have a mosquito net or a bed or any clothes. For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards. My left arm was broken again and my ribs were cracked.
Waterboarding is the worst example people have of US torture, which tends to be mentally torturous and not physical. Waterboarding never hurts a detainee and the detainee is never in any danger, they just THINK they are. For this person to even make a comment like "you voted for the same treatment" disgusts me beyond words.
3) Immigration - Not exactly a flip flop. This was McCain's response that the person in the video is referring to:
Quote:
No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that proposal. We will secure the borders first when I am president. I know how to d that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary. I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. Then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.
The facts are that the bill that McCain initially supported entailed everything that he said he would do in this quote. In fact, the original bill would not come into effect UNTIL a border fence was completed! And for the record, read the response, and McCain states more to the effect that the bill is DEAD, and won't come back, so the question is a non-issue.
I will admit the answer he gave was... hazy... but it wasn't quite as clear as this person would have you believe. Here is a quote McCain also made regarding this issue that the person in the video DIDN'T mention.
Quote:
Q: If the Senate passed your bill, S1433, the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill, would you as president sign it?
A: Yeah, but look, the lesson is, it isn't going to come. The lesson is they want the border secured first. I come from a border state. I know how to fix those borders with walls, with UAVs, with sensors, with cameras, with vehicle barriers. They want the border secured first. And I will do that, and, as president, I will have the border state governors certify those borders are secured. And then we will have a temporary worker program with tamper-proof biometric documents, and any employer who employs someone in any other circumstances will be prosecuted. That means a lot of people will leave just normally because they're not going to be able to get their job. Then we have to get rid of two million people who have committed crimes here. We have to round them up and deport them. As far as the others are concerned, we were in an ongoing discussion when this whole thing collapsed.
The funny part is, what he talks about here isn't all that different from the bill that failed. He's essentially trying to repackage it as being more strict, when its really not that much toughter at all, to satisfy the millions of people who were very much against the first bill mainly because of misunderstanding it.
By the way, what happened to this issue since the Republican primary? You never heard about it in the Democrat primary and its been non-existant in the general election!
4) Taxes - This is the accusation that cracks me up the most. I will repeat this again, as I've posted this at LEAST 4 times now:
MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST THE BUSH TAX CUTS AT FIRST AS A PROTEST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT INCLUDE SPENDING CUTS.
In fact McCain had his own tax proposal that included spending cuts at the time. In the end, McCain knew the legislation would pass so he voted to show his displeasure with the lack of cuts to spending.
Quote:
"I voted on [against] the tax cuts because I knew that unless we had spending under control, we were going to face a disaster. We let spending get completely out of control. Those tax cuts have to remain permanent, otherwise people experience a tax increase [McCain has NEVER voted for a tax increase]. We let spending get out of control. We presided over the biggest increase in the size of government that with--since the "Great Society." We let it get out of control. If we had had the spending restraints that I proposed, we would be talking about more tax cuts today.
In essence, the only thing that this person was correct on was Falwell, which is a non-issue.
__________________
Last edited by Professor S : 09-25-2008 at 10:03 PM.
Politics - Follow the Money
Linear Mode
