BP In Tune With The Democrats
by Big Dog on Jun 10, 2010 at 04:50 Political
The common perception among those on the left is that the Republican party is the party of the rich companies and that all those companies contribute to Republicans while poor Democrats must scrape money together so they can take care of the downtrodden.
The reality is that the Democrats are the ones who reap big benefits from the rich companies. This is not to say that Republicans do not get donations from those companies but Democrats, by and large, reap benefits from the very companies they then pretend to admonish.
The Wall Street crowd is in the pockets of Democrats. Goldman Sachs donated tons of money to Obama and his Democrats and a number of former Goldman employees now roost in the Obama regime. Obama and the Democrats tout reform of Wall Street and talk about putting the screws to the financial world but the regulations will benefit the big companies, those that donate to Democrats.
BP is in the news because of the Gulf oil leak and Obama and his regime are going after them, keeping their boots on the BP throats as it were. But BP has been a big supporter of Obama and the Democrats. BP donated a lot of money to them and that company has been on board with many of the items on the Obama agenda.
While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels. Washington Examiner
BP has been on board for all of this and it lobbies the government for things that will benefit the company. Since it is on board with these items it is reasonable to assume that they will benefit the company.
BP is currently the whipping boy for the Obama regime and that might help Obama with his street creds but when the time comes he will have his hand out looking for BP money. When the time comes Obama will be looking for BP support for more of his agenda.
Obama has been slow to respond to the mess in the Gulf and his base is starting to see how he lacks the experience and leadership to handle a crisis and this has frustrated him. This is why he has ratcheted up his rhetoric and is looking for some “ass to kick.”
Don’t be fooled by these people. They are in the pockets of big and powerful companies and they are beholden to those who have helped them achieve power.
They can talk about how they are looking out for the little guy but little guys do not have the money required to get an audience with Obama and his Democrats.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bp, donations, goldman sachs, lies, money, Obama, oil spill
“The common perception among those on the left is that the Republican party is the party of the rich companies…”
Do people really try and argue that? I certainly wouldn’t. Party of rich people? Yes. Party of big oil? Yes. Party of the rich company? I guess it depends on the company we’re talking about.
Companies like Google, Pfizer and Starbucks give more to Democrats while companies like Exxon, AT&T, and Walmart give more to the GOP. Each side has their deep pockets.
Palin and Fox spread around the idea that Obama was the largest recipient of BP money. The truth is though that BP’s donations to Obama were mostly from employees, not from the company PAC, and it amounted to about 0.01% of the money Obama raised. BP’s PAC gave far more to McCain and big oil in general gives the vast majority to the GOP for obvious reasons. Don’t lose track of that while you’re spinning tales about Democrats being beholden to companies like BP.
The problem that you fail to acknowledge is that Democrats are the party of rich people as well. And if you could provide some numbers for the PAC donations and others from BP it might be helpful. We are talking about Obama here, the guy who claims not to have taken special interest money during his campaign when he most certainly did.
And of course, the Alinsky in you can’t help but ignore that there is no mention of companies like BP when discussing oil. It is just BP and the post deals with BP supporting the Democrats agenda. Also, there are plenty of companies that give to fat cat Democrats. Look at Wal Mart, the one you said was mostly Republican. It all depends upon the year and who is in power.
Things that make you go hmmmm…
During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
And to use the George Soros site to spread disingenuous information like it was only 0.01% of OBAMA’s total take is only designed to obscure the issue.
What are the total dollar figures? That is what matters. You could use fuzzy math all day long since Obama took in 3/4 of a billion dollars (and some of it was PAC money despite his claims. Some came from illegal sources overseas) any donations would be a small part of the total.
What were the total dollars. Historically oil and energy have given more to Republicans but that does not negate the fact that BP gave more to Obama. His claims that none of it was PAC money is not proof enough. The source says otherwise.
And, BP’s PAC is an employee PAC so how do we know the money donated under their names was not PAC money as well?
“The problem that you fail to acknowledge is that Democrats are the party of rich people as well.”
Do many rich people vote for Democrats? Sure they do. Do most rich people vote for Democrats? No, they don’t. FiveThirtyEight tackles this question in visual form.
“Also, there are plenty of companies that give to fat cat Democrats.”
I agree and I didn’t attempt to say anything counter to that in my comment.
“And to use the George Soros site to spread disingenuous information like it was only 0.01% of OBAMA’s total take is only designed to obscure the issue.”
Well, I agree that we need to look at both sides and both sides show you how big of a joke the suggestion that Obama is in the pocket of BP is. The facts is $77,051 out of $745,000,000 earned is still just 0.01%.
“And, BP’s PAC is an employee PAC so how do we know the money donated under their names was not PAC money as well?”
The source for these numbers comes from OpenSecrets which differentiates between individuals and PACs and they list only $1,830 total as money from PACs for Obama. So Even if 100% of that was a BP PAC clearly you can see why it’s correct saying the vast majority of the BP money is individual donors.
And yes, it’s technically incorrect when Obama or his admin says they didn’t receive a dime from PACs. A whopping 0.000245637584% of their money came from them, after all…
Once again, you are using a fraction to obscure a fact. He took special interest money and he took more than reported. He also took lots of money from non citizens in the Middle East. Obama and his bundlers took money from Soros organizations under the names of individuals.
The issue is not what percent BP money was of the total, the issue is that total number.
But remember this when you bash a Republican for taking money when we can make it a small fraction of the total taken.
I know it is hard for you but start paying attention to how many Democrats are in bed with these guys. And fivethrityeight is another blog guy. We do not know who most rich people vote for but we know lots and lots of rich people vote for both parties.
However, the smart ones vote for people who will not redistribute wealth so I do not blame them for voting Republican. The losers who want the money of others vote Democrat.
The rich folks who vote Democrat know they have given enough money that they will be protected through some scam.
Keep your eyes open Adam and you will see Obama is neck deep in lobbyists and special interests as well as BP and Wall Street.
Yes, he might have fooled you into believing he was a regular guy who would change politics but he is a Chicago thug politiican who uses the Chicago way to get stuff done. he bribes, he takes money from anyone and he will break a leg if he needs to.
He is inexperienced and has no leadership ability but he is a menace nonetheless.
“The issue is not what percent BP money was of the total, the issue is that total number.”
Doesn’t matter either way because the money did not come from a BP PAC. The $77,051 OpenSecrets figures Obama has recieved from BP is from individuals that work at BP, not the company PAC itself.
How do we know that? Because OpenSecrets also tells us Obama only received $1,830 total PAC money from all sources in the 2008 while getting $71,000 in “BP-related donations” for that same period.
We’re talking lawyers, engineers, traders that just happen to work for BP. How is Obama beholden to BP through these people?
The 88 grand that is not categorized? How do we know those folks were not the names put on the PAC money. That happens a lot with politicians.
“And fivethrityeight is another blog guy.”
Don’t tell me it’s wrong simply because it’s a “blog guy” whatever that means. Let me know if you find a flaw in the methods used.
“Keep your eyes open Adam and you will see Obama is neck deep in lobbyists and special interests as well as BP and Wall Street.”
I have never thought or said otherwise.
“Yes, he might have fooled you into believing he was a regular guy who would change politics…”
I didn’t get fooled and I don’t have any regrets. I’d vote for Obama again today if he were running for re-election. You may think we all run around in a fog where Obama can do no wrong. The fact is Obama hasn’t pleased all of us but most of us would vote for him again because he’s a hell of a better leader than Bush and a hell of a lot better than anybody else on your side.
I know you would vote for him again. You, like him, have no idea what leadership is. You have no idea what personal responsibility is. You want the government to take care of you and your family. You said as much when you said how much you wanted your parents cared for by the government.
“You, like him, have no idea what leadership is.”
This coming from a guy who voted for Bush…twice?
“You have no idea what personal responsibility is. You want the government to take care of you and your family.”
Ah jeeze. Here it is. Backed into a corner over your abuse of the truth and once again you have to roll out tired attacks on me and my family like this? Give it a rest.
You said: “But BP has been a big supporter of Obama and the Democrats.” You were wrong.
The funniest thing here is that OpenSecrets numbers are good enough to quote when you think it proves Obama is beholden to BP but when I cite the fact that the same group suggests Obama had almost no PAC money (proving their numbers are from individual BP employees) then you start to question their facts. You can’t have it both ways, but I know you’ll try to anyway…
Bush was more of a leader than Obama and has real world experience. As for my voting for him you might could make a case for the responsibility part but my leadership ability has nothing to do with my vote though I would rather have Bush as my CINC than Obama. My experience would dictate my leadership ability not my vote but I did not expect you to know that since you would have to understand what leadership is.
You are the one who said you wanted the gubmint to take care of your family. How is mentioning it with regard to responsibility an attack on them?
The Open Secrets numbers are fine. But as stated, they can only report what they receive and they certainly did not receive info about the PAC money or the illegal overseas contributions.
BP has been a big supporter of Obama and the Democrats. You assume that it is all about money but the post is about support for the agenda, bailouts, cap and tax, etc. Support comes in more than one package and the money spent on those endeavors is indeed support.
As a rich Democrat, I feel the need to comment here.
“Goldman Sachs donated tons of money to Obama and his Democrats and a number of former Goldman employees now roost in the Obama regime”
Dog, would you like a list of Goldman alums in the Bush regime? Are you familiar with Josh Bolten? How about Hank Paulson? I realize that your knowledge of finance is limited, but surely you must have heard of Paulson.
“The reality is that the Democrats are the ones who reap big benefits from the rich companies”
The reality is that both parties reap big benefits from rich companies. Failure to recognize this exposes you as the partisan hack that you are. Campaign finance reform is without question one of the more important topics of the day. It’s too bad that the republicans were the ones who stood in the way of progress in this area. There is too much money in politics on both sides of the aisle. Those who disagree, whether republican or Democrat, are fools.
I had to approve this so people can see what a moron you are (as if they did not already know). I defy you to find where I said that this was not something that affects both parties. As for GS employees, I am well aware they were in Bush’s administration but if you can show me where Bush said that he would not put these folks in his admin I will concede. Obama promised a new way of doing business and he is just more of the same.
And let me add the part you deliberately left out:
This is not to say that Republicans do not get donations from those companies but Democrats, by and large, reap benefits from the very companies they then pretend to admonish.
So as a moron how does it feel to insult a person’s intelligence by showing how stupid you are?
As for understanding finance, I do just fine. And saying you are rich is no big deal. The definition has been watered down. Soon everyone will be rich.
So Adam, like me, only makes it exactly half way through Bigd’s first sentence before he notices something smells.
Then he roasts it. Nice.
Bigd plays the old “those companies contribute to Republicans” while confusing employees with “companies.” A most juvenile mistake.
Then he floats the genetic fallacy (a favorite) but drops the ball again:
Bigd: “fivethrityeight is another blog guy.”
DAR
No Bigd, you’re “another blog guy,” and one who can’t make it though sentence number one without mucking it up. Nate Silver’s writing at 538 has been top notch for a very long time and now it has gone big time:
FiveThirtyEight to Partner with New York Times.
Let us know when the local county register picks up your hack work would ya?
D.
New York Times. Well let me bow down to Nate. The stellar NYT, the one that ran the hit job about McCain having some affair? The one that exposed our national secrets.
Darrel, I have this little hack blog here and you are welcome not to come by. Gop read Nate and his blog.
Open Secrets can only report what is given to them. The Obama campaign was caught taking donations from illegal sources overseas. It has a 90% reporting rate (not bad really) and 88 thousand not characterized) and you all take it as gospel he too no PAC money.
They manipulated the system and played games with money and donations. Sorry Darrel, I just do not believe that all the money came from individual employees when the PACs use employees to funnel the money.
It happens a lot and I know it happened with Obama. You cannot trust him, he lies quite a bit.
What the chart at 538 shows is that the people who pay to bills in this country supported the Republican candidate and those who do not pay the bills, or live off the others if you will, voted for a guy who has lived off others all his life and who has championed taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy.
It is not surprising that this would be the case with Obama and his redistribution schemes.
You could make the same charts using drug users vs non drug users, people in jail vs those not and illegals vs legals and would get the same results.
Nothing to see here except wealthier people (if above 150k makes you “rich”) know Obama is out to take their money.
“My experience would dictate my leadership ability not my vote…”
I simply question your ability to judge good leadership in a president since you still regard Bush as a good leader and not the miserable failure that he was.
“How is mentioning it with regard to responsibility an attack on them?”
First of all I never said I want the government to take care of my family, and second it isn’t even relevant to the conversation. But hey, if your facts fail then you have to move on to some other line of attack. I get it…
“BP has been a big supporter of Obama and the Democrats. You assume that it is all about money…”
No, that’s simply the part of your argument easily refuted by the facts.
Bush was not a miserable failure. He had problems with some things and did quite well in others.
You suffer from the same thing you accuse me of with Obama.
Bush is certainly a better leader with regard to the military and he led us through 9/11. He was lauded for the efforts after 9/11 except by the left fringe that thinks he caused it or was stunned and unable to act while reading goat books.
Newsflash, everyone in this country was stunned.