Obama got 7x more from Goldman Sachs than Bush got from Enron

[1bad65]

"Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

President Bush's connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company's accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, "Bush's Enron Problem." The Associated Press ran with the headline, "Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis." David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton.

But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama's $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That's also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.

It would be fair to say that the total amount the Obama administration has received from those affiliated with Goldman Sachs is ten times that of what Bush received from Enron.

Goldman is being sued for civil fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission for deliberately putting unwitting clients on the wrong side of a mortgage security trade that had been designed to fail."

Source:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-91613449.html

[Reality_Check]

Interesting. That article seems to downplay the actual amount donated to President Bush by Enron.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/21/us...l?pagewanted=1

Enron has given more than $700,000 to Mr. Bush since 1993; no company has given him more. In addition, Enron's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, was one of the ''pioneers,'' raising more than $100,000 for Mr. Bush's campaign, and he and his wife gave a total of $10,000 to Mr. Bush's Florida recount fund. Enron and Mr. Lay also contributed a total of $200,000 to Mr. Bush's inaugural festivities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/bu...l?pagewanted=2

To the Bush-Cheney inaugural gala by Enron, Mr. Lay and his wife, and Mr. Skilling: $100,000 each, for a total of $300,000

That's $700,000 + $200,000 + $100,000 = $1,000,000, at least. Please note, these numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, so in 2010 dollars they'd be higher.

Hmm...Goldman Sachs contributions to George W. Bush:

2000 - $173,774.94 (inflation adjusted) - Source
2004 - $452,313.03 (inflation adjusted) - Source

Total: $626,087.97

[1bad65]

RC, most of your numbers are not campaign contributions. $500k of it was for "inaugural festivities". Now, considering Obama had the most expensive inauguration in our history, I'd bet Obama got alot of big money donors to help foot that bill (of course the taxpayers picked up a good part of it too).

[Reality_Check]

RC, most of your numbers are not campaign contributions. $500k of it was for "inaugural festivities". Now, considering Obama had the most expensive inauguration in our history, I'd bet Obama got alot of big money donors to help foot that bill (of course the taxpayers picked up a good part of it too).

Perhaps you could exclude the $300k for the inauguration. However, the $700k represents campaign contributions. So, most of my numbers are campaign contributions. Which would make that "7x" headline rather misleading, don't you think?

Regarding President Obama's inauguration, I'd be more than happy to include any Goldman Sachs' contributions in the tally. Please let me know how much they were.

As for taxpayers picking up a good part of the bill:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...postcount=1287

Once again, you are missing my point. The $150 million quoted in the article to which you linked, includes security costs. Hence the $150 million for Barack Obama is direct comparable to the $157.8 million for George W. Bush in 2005. If you want to compare costs excluding security, then it is $45 million for Barack Obama versus $42.3 million for George W. Bush. And, as the article to which I linked indicated, the $45 million is coming from donations, just as the $42.3 million for George W. Bush in 2005 came from donations. So, we are paying for security for Barack Obama's inaguration, just as we did for George W. Bush's inaguration in 2005. So, just as in 2005, we are not paying for the party, we are paying for security.

Why you would bring that up is beyond me, as it has been discussed and shown to be a non-issue.

I'd also like your thoughts on the $626,087.97 contributed by Goldman Sachs to President Bush's campaigns vis a vis the economic meltdown that Goldman Sachs was party to and that happened on President Bush's watch.

[1bad65]

I'd also like your thoughts on the $626,087.97 contributed by Goldman Sachs to President Bush's campaigns vis a vis the economic meltdown that Goldman Sachs was party to and that happened on President Bush's watch.

No way. You are not gonna play the 'it happened on his watch, so its his fault' bs card. Because by that logic Richard Jewell is responsible for the Olympic Park bombing because it happened on his watch.

Economists like Alan Greenspan have admitted now that the subprime loans were the spark that set off the powder keg. And that is all Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's fault there. As a matter of fact, not only did Frank receive campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his lover at the time was a Fannie Mae executive.

[kfson]

Why would Goldman Sachs employees support a liberal presidential candidate? Does this make sense to anyone?

[solo1]

wall street now dominated by a younger generation seems to have based their contributions the same way they bought his lies and hype. The jug eared one made it clear early on he was going to make changes on the street of dreams they didn't think he meant them. Since Obama refused to understand that a democrat congress caused the housing failure and subsequent banking fall it became pretty obvious he was going to attack business. No my friends government is never the problem it must be the businesses that caused it. The bill forcing banks to write loans to every schmo who showed up caused the sub prime not the banks. Obama is a miserable failure and is the dumbest guy in the room and it doesn't matter what room that is.

[MasterKiller]

Since Obama refused to understand that a democrat congress caused the housing failure and subsequent banking fall it became pretty obvious he was going to attack business. No my friends government is never the problem it must be the businesses that caused it. The bill forcing banks to write loans to every schmo who showed up caused the sub prime not the banks. Obama is a miserable failure and is the dumbest guy in the room and it doesn't matter what room that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

[Reality_Check]

No way. You are not gonna play the 'it happened on his watch, so its his fault' bs card. Because by that logic Richard Jewell is responsible for the Olympic Park bombing because it happened on his watch.

Well, golly, why would you bring Goldman Sachs up? Unless you're trying for guilt by association.

[SanHeChuan]

"Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

Are you implying that there is some favoritism towards Goldman Sachs on the part of the White house?

[uki]

now that is change we can really, really can believe in!!!

[1bad65]

Well, golly, why would you bring Goldman Sachs up? Unless you're trying for guilt by association.

WTF?? I brought them up because they gave a ton of cash to Obama, yet the press doesn't care much. But when Enron was in the news, they were linked to Bush at every opportunity.

[1bad65]

Are you implying that there is some favoritism towards Goldman Sachs on the part of the White house?

I'm just stating the facts. No need to imply anything.

[SanHeChuan]

WTF?? I brought them up because they gave a ton of cash to Obama, yet the press doesn't care much. But when Enron was in the news, they were linked to Bush at every opportunity.

Fair enough but the conection between washington and Enron was more than just campaign contrabutions. Enron got legislation in there favor, can goldman sachs say the same?

Enron Scandal Points to Bush

In the case of Enron, Congress passed laws that deregulated the company's business activities, allowing the company to avoid government scrutiny of practices that profited insiders but led to its eventual downfall.

[1bad65]

In the case of Enron, Congress passed laws that deregulated the company's business activities, allowing the company to avoid government scrutiny of practices that profited insiders but led to its eventual downfall.

Bush was in Congress???