Topic: The Rumors about Bill Clinton are TRUE | |
---|---|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, |
|
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 01/08/12 09:13 AM
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. nope. IM saying that accepting donations from INDIVIDUALS who have some association with WAll Street is not the same as accepting cash from WALL STREET and that individuals within wall street may want to see changes to wall street as much as any other voter,,, and that things arent always as they seem, and because OBAMA has no pac money his donations can appear more exceptional than others whose wall street contributors may just be contributing under the name of PACS and SUPERPACS where other candidates are concerned,,, |
|
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. nope. IM saying that accepting donations from INDIVIDUALS who have some association with WAll Street is not the same as accepting cash from WALL STREET and that individuals within wall street may want to see changes to wall street as much as any other voter,,, and that things arent always as they seem, and because OBAMA has no pac money his donations can appear more exceptional than others whose wall street contributors may just be contributing under the name of PACS and SUPERPACS where other candidates are concerned,,, So you really think that wall street wants to see reforms where they pay higher taxes, are more regulated and have less ability to make money for their stockholders? If that is the case then you might be on to something. I would bet that any CEO that went to their board and shareholders with this plan would be fired immediately. |
|
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. nope. IM saying that accepting donations from INDIVIDUALS who have some association with WAll Street is not the same as accepting cash from WALL STREET and that individuals within wall street may want to see changes to wall street as much as any other voter,,, and that things arent always as they seem, and because OBAMA has no pac money his donations can appear more exceptional than others whose wall street contributors may just be contributing under the name of PACS and SUPERPACS where other candidates are concerned,,, So you really think that wall street wants to see reforms where they pay higher taxes, are more regulated and have less ability to make money for their stockholders? If that is the case then you might be on to something. I would bet that any CEO that went to their board and shareholders with this plan would be fired immediately. aside from personal opinions about what supporting OBama will lead to, one never knows I know and have heard in media ALOT of people who make big bucks who are more than willing to pay more to do their share the big execs dont always speak for EVERY employee,,,and wall street has plenty of employees,,, |
|
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. nope. IM saying that accepting donations from INDIVIDUALS who have some association with WAll Street is not the same as accepting cash from WALL STREET and that individuals within wall street may want to see changes to wall street as much as any other voter,,, and that things arent always as they seem, and because OBAMA has no pac money his donations can appear more exceptional than others whose wall street contributors may just be contributing under the name of PACS and SUPERPACS where other candidates are concerned,,, So you really think that wall street wants to see reforms where they pay higher taxes, are more regulated and have less ability to make money for their stockholders? If that is the case then you might be on to something. I would bet that any CEO that went to their board and shareholders with this plan would be fired immediately. aside from personal opinions about what supporting OBama will lead to, one never knows I know and have heard in media ALOT of people who make big bucks who are more than willing to pay more to do their share the big execs dont always speak for EVERY employee,,,and wall street has plenty of employees,,, The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that we need more separation between government and big business. This financial system collapse was caused in large part due to close collaboration between government and the financial sector. The more money wall street makes the more revenue that comes into the government coffers. The elimination of crony capitalism and special interest influences on policymakers is real reform. Anything else is more of the same. |
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 01/08/12 09:38 AM
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. nope. IM saying that accepting donations from INDIVIDUALS who have some association with WAll Street is not the same as accepting cash from WALL STREET and that individuals within wall street may want to see changes to wall street as much as any other voter,,, and that things arent always as they seem, and because OBAMA has no pac money his donations can appear more exceptional than others whose wall street contributors may just be contributing under the name of PACS and SUPERPACS where other candidates are concerned,,, So you really think that wall street wants to see reforms where they pay higher taxes, are more regulated and have less ability to make money for their stockholders? If that is the case then you might be on to something. I would bet that any CEO that went to their board and shareholders with this plan would be fired immediately. aside from personal opinions about what supporting OBama will lead to, one never knows I know and have heard in media ALOT of people who make big bucks who are more than willing to pay more to do their share the big execs dont always speak for EVERY employee,,,and wall street has plenty of employees,,, The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that we need more separation between government and big business. This financial system collapse was caused in large part due to close collaboration between government and the financial sector. The more money wall street makes the more revenue that comes into the government coffers. The elimination of crony capitalism and special interest influences on policymakers is real reform. Anything else is more of the same. balance is hard to find sometimes BIG businesss is often made up of a whole lot of small employees and we cant disenfranchise them or their ability to participate and be heard in the process because we dont like what their employers or doing,,,, or at least in my mind,, we shouldnt considering a corporation a person is crazy, considering those responsible for paying taxes on the corporations income is not |
|
|
|
![]() Clinton and Obama are most certainly working together on this issue. ![]() Along with the guys on Wall Street that are funding the re election campaign.. except more than half of OBAMAS campaign is being funded by SMALL donors (under 200 dollars) http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance That is nice.. It doesn't change the fact that the man rails against wall street excess that plays to his base and then turns around and actively seeks their cash for his re election. If you don't think accepting large sums from special interest groups comes with strings attached then I guess I see why this doesn't bother you. if you dont think changing a group has to happen from WITHIN A group, I can see why it does bother you,,, So your theory is that Obama taking cash from wall street is going to help reform them? I think my saying that special interest groups dominating the political agenda with their money and influence is a vast majority opinion. I would suggest that the idea of taking their money to change them from within is an illogical position. nope. IM saying that accepting donations from INDIVIDUALS who have some association with WAll Street is not the same as accepting cash from WALL STREET and that individuals within wall street may want to see changes to wall street as much as any other voter,,, and that things arent always as they seem, and because OBAMA has no pac money his donations can appear more exceptional than others whose wall street contributors may just be contributing under the name of PACS and SUPERPACS where other candidates are concerned,,, So you really think that wall street wants to see reforms where they pay higher taxes, are more regulated and have less ability to make money for their stockholders? If that is the case then you might be on to something. I would bet that any CEO that went to their board and shareholders with this plan would be fired immediately. aside from personal opinions about what supporting OBama will lead to, one never knows I know and have heard in media ALOT of people who make big bucks who are more than willing to pay more to do their share the big execs dont always speak for EVERY employee,,,and wall street has plenty of employees,,, The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that we need more separation between government and big business. This financial system collapse was caused in large part due to close collaboration between government and the financial sector. The more money wall street makes the more revenue that comes into the government coffers. The elimination of crony capitalism and special interest influences on policymakers is real reform. Anything else is more of the same. balance is hard to find sometimes BIG businesss is often made up of a whole lot of small employees and we cant disenfranchise them or their ability to participate and be heard in the process because we dont like what their employers or doing,,,, or at least in my mind,, we shouldnt considering a corporation a person is crazy, considering those responsible for paying taxes on the corporations income is not If I make a donation of $1000 and my boss bundles 10,000 donations of $1,000, who do you think gets the invitation to a private function? We are both contributing, we are both "small" employees.. |
|
|
|
If I make a donation of $1000 and my boss bundles 10,000 donations of $1,000, who do you think gets the invitation to a private function? We are both contributing, we are both "small" employees.. Neither. Because neither of you have fake boobies. Slap some silicone. Red lipstick. And give the promise that your knees are in good shape. That's all you need. Save the money. Seriously. |
|
|