BP In Tune With The Democrats
Jun 10, 2010 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
Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision
Jan 25, 2010 Political
This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.
Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.
Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.
I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.
I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.
We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.
I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.
Source:
WSJ
[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: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court
Obama Breaks Pledge On Inauguration Donations
Jan 11, 2009 Political
The sainted one supposedly did not take PAC money during the campaigns though he took it from people associated with PACs. He also received large sums of money from questionable, and probably illegal, sources. For his inauguration he promised that the money that came in for his coronation would not come from interests.
The Wall Street Journal has reviewed the donations for the event and concluded that Obama has not kept his word.
Wall Street employees have been the largest single source of private donations, and many of the contributions have been channeled through financial-services executives who have put together bundles of donations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“The preponderance of large donors and the fact that so many come from an industry receiving government handouts comes as the president-elect has sought to keep his inauguration free of special interests,” The Journal observed.
Bundlers from the financial sector include executives from Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., two firms that have accepted billions of dollars each in bailout money from the federal government.
Where did these entities get the money to donate? If they were in such dire straits that they needed money from the government to survive, where did they come up with funds to donate for the inauguration?
Was the money donated taxpayer money? Was this a method to get around directly using taxpaer money for the event?
Regardless of where it came from it seems like an extreme conflict for them to donate when they have their hands out and when Obama has promised the most expensive use of taxpayer money in history.
I thought he promised that electing him would end the business as usual practices of DC.
Looks like the sainted one is nothing more than a politician who has his own best interests at heart.
Not to worry though, he will say Hope and Change a few times and people will swoon and forget the whole thing.
However, I am reminded of the lipstick and pig thing…
Source:
Newsmax
[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.[/tip]
Tags: coronation, donations, inauguration, Obama, special interests, taxpayer
Obama Funded with Drug Money
May 22, 2008 Opinion, Political
The Democrats love to tell stories about how they are for the little guy, the working class schmoes who only need the government to help them move along. The Democrats love to tell everyone how companies are screwing them over at every turn. According to the left the problems with oil right now are because of the oil companies and not the policies of Congress. One favorite of the left is the pharmaceutical companies. The liberals love to take shots at drug manufacturers and how Republicans favor them and let them charge whatever they want. Drug prices, the left says, are high because of the drug company’s policies that hurt the working class. Once again, the policies of the government that contribute to the mess are overlooked.
While they are out there accusing the right of taking drug company money the left is raking it in themselves. For the first time in quite some time Democrats are getting more money from the drug companies than are Republicans. Barack Obama has received $639,124 from drug and medical device companies and that is the highest amount given to any of the three.
Have we heard anything about Obama giving the money back? Have we heard anyone suggest that Obama is the reason drug prices are high? Have we heard about how he must be in bed with them and that he is responsible for the problems of the middle class and working poor who just want reasonably priced medication? No we have not and we likely never will. Political donations from big business are only evil when they go to Republicans. Democrats accept the money to do God’s work.
I want all the liberals out there to keep this information in mind when Barry Obamessiah starts talking about health care and drug companies and how evil they are. I want you to remember this when he talks about drug companies giving money to Republicans or how drug companies have too much influence in Congress.
I would say that Obama’s position of criticizing Congress for taking the money and then taking it himself amounts to nothing more than the Audacity of Dope…
Source:
WBAL (via the AP)
Tags: donations, drug money, hypocrisy, Obama, pharmaceutical companies
Why Did they Fail to Amend FISA?
Feb 18, 2008 Political
The Democratically controlled Congress recessed (more time off) last week without providing an amendment to FISA. The sticking point was language that granted immunity to telecommunications companies that had cooperated with the government in the past. The immunity was reasonable given that the companies acted in good faith and should not be sued for providing information that they believed to be (and probably was) legal to provide.
The Congress chose to grill baseball players about steroid use rather than provide a tool needed to prevent terror attacks. Why would they ignore the security of our country (besides the fact that they are Democrats)? Perhaps it is because the trial lawyers who stand to make a fortune from suing the telecommunications companies have given a huge sum of money to the Democrats. Amanda Carpenter, writing for TownHall.com, reports:
Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.
All of the trial lawyers combined only contributed $4,250 to Republicans in comparison. Those contributions were made to: Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), Sen. Mel Martinez, and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
In order to find the truth in politics it is often necessary to follow the money. The money trail here leads to Democrats and shows that they took lots of cash from the people who would benefit from the exclusion of immunity. The Democrats have, once again, sold out this country. This list includes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, two people who claim to be qualified to run this country.
While the Congress enjoys a 13 day President’s Day holiday, the rest of us are a little less safe because they put special interests first.
Others with interesting posts:
Pirate’s Cove, Leaning Straight Up, A Newt One, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, and Shadowscope, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.