Obama is in the Sewerage Lines between Wall Street & Protesters

Bankrupted President Caught between Bankrupting Banks & Bankrupting Voters.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11291143/1/big-banks-line-up-against-obama.html

Big Banks Line Up Against Obama
By Philip van Doorn 10/27/11 - 11:12 AM EDT

Article

Stock quotes in this article:BAC, C, JPM, WFC, MS, GS, UBS, BX, BCS, TCB
Tweet

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Financial services companies making big presidential campaign contributions typically hedge their bets, but maybe this time they won't.
More on BAC

Euro Deal Triggers Bull Stampede: Dave's Daily
Goldman Sachs To Present At The Bank Of America Merrill Lynch 2011 Banking & Financial Services Conference
Citigroup Has a Mortgage Settlement Setback

Market Activity

Barclays PLC| BCS
Blackstone Group LP| BX
The Goldman Sachs Group Inc| GS

With the industry tired of being kicked around by President Obama and reeling from the continued regulatory onslaught in the wake of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act -- with federal regulators' convoluted proposal to implement the Volcker Rule being a prime example -- the top financial services contributors are leaning heavily Republican.

Michael Beckel, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said that "the trend is clear, that the finance, insurance and real estate sector has overwhelmingly been backing Mitt Romney," while adding "that's not to say that Wall Street is monolithic. The sector has been a major source of campaign cash for both parties over the years."

President Barack Obama

Wall Street has already gotten behind Romney -- generally considered the "most electable" of the aspirants to the GOP nomination -- in a big way, with finance, insurance and real estate companies contributing $7.5 million as of Sept. 30, even though the Republican nomination is far from settled.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, President Obama had raised only $3.9 million in bundled contributions from finance, insurance and real estate companies as of Sept. 30, with only two of the top financial sector contributors from the previous election cycle included among the top 20 contributors. Goldman Sachs (GS) has contributed $49,124 to Obama's reelection campaign so far, and Bank of America (BAC) has provided $46,699 in bundled contributions.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama managed to $656 million in individual contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (which cites Federal Election Commission data), mainly through an innovative web-based fundraising effort, but the candidate garnered major support from the financial services industry, with $42 million coming to the campaign coffers from companies categorized as "Finance, Insurance and Real Estate."

Top financial services contributors to Obama during the 2008 campaign included Goldman Sachs, with $1.6 million in bundled campaign contributions; JPMorgan Chase (JPM), kicking in $808,799; Citigroup (C), contributing $736,771; UBS AG (UBS), giving $532,674; and Morgan Stanley (MS), which forked over $512,232.

The Center for Responsive Politics explains that the above figures represent the bundling of "many individual contributions," which "can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families)," with some companies hedging their bets "by supporting multiple candidates."

During the 2008 campaign, Republican presidential nominee John McCain garnered $31 million in bundled contributions from finance, insurance and real estate companies, with Merrill Lynch at the top among financial services companies, with $375,895 in bundled donations. Merrill was acquired by Bank of America in January 2009. Bank of America contributed $167,826 to McCain's 2008 campaign, but was not among the top 20 contributors to Obama.

Top Wall Street contributors to Obama who hedged their bets with bundled contributions to McCain's campaign included JPMorgan Chase, donating $343,505, Citigroup, giving $388,202, Morgan Stanley giving $271,902, and Goldman Sachs, which provided $240,295 to McCain's campaign.

While we're still quite early in the 2012 election cycle, with several GOP nomination aspirants clobbering each other over the head, it would appear that the financial services crew will do a little less hedging of bets this time around.

At the party level, the Democratic National Committee had received $8.8 million in bundled contributions from finance, insurance and real estate companies during the 2012 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive politics, based on Federal Election Commission data released on Sept. 26. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee had received $4 million from finance, insurance and real estate companies.

Of course, on the party level, the picture is likely to change, once the Republicans settle on a nominee, who will no doubt form a separate election committee to funnel contributions to his or her own campaign, as well as to the GOP.

The following is a quick rundown of financial sector campaign contributions to the five top GOP candidates:
Tweet
1 2 3 4 5 6
Last » Next ›

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rty_1968_antiwar_movement_chicago_111826.html

Why Obama Cannot "Occupy Wall Street" and Win

By David Paul Kuhn - October 27, 2011

Share

Email Print

Comments ShareShare

President Obama’s re-election campaign reportedly plans to embrace the populist cause of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The critical question is whether he will ally with the movement itself. Obama might delight liberals if he does. He would also jeopardize his own re-election.

Liberals today, understandably, take comfort in public opinion polls that show a majority of Americans agree with activists’ broad populist views. But protesters can fight the majority’s cause and still lose the majority in the fight.

In August 1968, a slim majority of Americans believed the Vietnam War was a “mistake.” That same month, the Democratic National Convention convened in Chicago. Chaos ensued. Cameras captured police pummeling protesters. “Demonstrators were afterward delighted to have been manhandled before the public eye,” Norman Mailer wrote.

Yet most Americans sided with the cops. They believed the activists were not challenging the war but, instead, the concept of law-and-order itself.

The Chicago experience still haunts liberals. Several analysts have already discussed Occupy Wall Street through the lens of ’68. But the key lesson has been overlooked: Americans may side with activists’ cause but not necessarily with the activists.

Today, polls show the majority of Americans believe a major culprit in this recession is Wall Street. They think the gap between the rich and the poor is too large. That the rich should pay higher taxes. That wealth should be more evenly distributed. This is the bridge between Occupy Wall Street and Main Street. Americans have not, however, made up their minds about the activists. A quarter of the public approves of the protests, a fifth opposes them and 55 percent doesn’t “know enough to say,” according to Gallup.

Most Americans will likely not develop strong feelings about the movement, barring a dramatic event. Ideological commentary forever distorts the moderate temperament of America. The chattering class has fixated on the Tea Party movement for years. But Gallup finds that a large plurality of Americans consider themselves neither supporters nor opponents of the Tea Party.

Democrats crave a grass-roots counterweight to the Tea Party -- and for good reason, as polls show that Democrats do not match the passion of Republicans, and that enthusiasm gap could foretell weak Democratic voter turnout in 2012.

That’s a key reason Obama and his team have decided harness public anger at Wall Street. According to The Washington Post, that theme is “a central tenet of their re-election strategy.” But it’s one thing to vent public anger. It’s quite another to ally with the angriest.

So far, Obama has struck the right strategic balance. The president has affirmed Occupy Wall Street’s motive but not endorsed the movement. “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works,” he said earlier this month at a White House press conference. “They’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party. Both on the left and the right, I think people feel separated from their government. They feel that their institutions aren’t looking out for them,” he added in an interview with ABC News.

That too was more affirmation than embrace. And it’s smart. Liberal activists must tread more carefully than their conservative counterparts in modern America. For decades, there have been roughly twice as many self-identified conservatives as liberals.
1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page››

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...nZh8ZA?docId=63900b47a0cc49a18aa35679334f8646

Obama lost many donors from '08 presidential race

By JACK GILLUM, Associated Press – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has lost millions of dollars in support from former donors in Democratic strongholds and in districts that he won narrowly four years ago, according to an Associated Press analysis of the most recent federal campaign finance data.

Tens of thousands of supporters who gave him hundreds of dollars or more in the early stages of the 2008 campaign haven't offered him similar amounts of cash so far in this campaign. And in some cases, former Obama contributors gave to GOP candidates, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Obama's re-election effort is hardly hurting for cash: His campaign and the Democratic Party raised more than $70 million for Obama's re-election in the July-September period, outstripping all Republicans combined by tens of millions of dollars.

But the AP's analysis indicates that Obama, beleaguered by a struggling economy, has lost early support from some of his larger financial supporters and will have to work harder to win back party stalwarts and swing voters alike. Obama's approval ratings have slumped to 41 percent in a recent Gallup poll, as steadfast supporters have found themselves less able or less willing to open their wallets again.

"He was our state senator, and when I looked at the Republican side, I thought, 'We need some fresh blood in the campaign,'" said Janet Tavakoli, 58, a financial analyst from Chicago who gave $1,000 to the president in 2008. "But I was dead wrong about it," she said, and isn't supporting any candidate this time.

Obama faced then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008. This time he is running unchallenged and has no primaries or caucuses looming, as the Republican candidates do, so potential Obama donors may not be feeling any sense of urgency. But typically early donors tend to give again, as money is a sign of enthusiasm — something Obama had in spades four years ago.

For its analysis, the AP compared the names and addresses of Obama contributors who gave between $200 and $2,500 from April to September 2008 with those who gave amounts in the same range during the same period this year. The AP adjusted its analysis to compensate for contributors who might have moved and listed a new address, or whose name or address was listed slightly differently last time.

The Obama campaign said most of its contributors gave small donations this year; it is not required under federal law to provide names of donors who gave less than $200. About 40 percent of total fundraising came from amounts greater than $200 this year, not adjusting for inflation, compared with more than 75 percent during the same period in 2007.

Obama's missing contributors live across the country, mostly concentrated in the Northeast and the West Coast. Obama also missed support from early donors in parts of Texas, Illinois and Michigan — areas he narrowly won in 2008. But he also picked up some new sources of cash in those places.

"I have little discretionary money, and I just have to take care of myself," said Roger Hodges, 45, an urban designer in Richmond, Calif. Hodges gave Obama $250 four years ago but doesn't plan on donating in this election. Hodges said friends in the liberal-leaning San Francisco Bay Area have become disappointed in Obama.

Romney, a leading GOP contender, has closed in financially in areas of the country that gave a solid stream of checks to Obama in the 2008 campaign, including Southern California, Florida and New England. Records show a handful of Obama contributors from 2008 donated to Romney this time; few, if any, appeared to give to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, another front-runner.

Lynda Marren, 48, of Hillsdale, Calif., usually supports Republican politicians, but she paid $500 to hear Obama speak four years ago.

"I wasn't persuaded then, and still am not," she said, and gave $1,000 to Romney this past June.

Many Obama supporters said they will vote for his re-election even if they don't write big checks. About 4 out of 5 of those who voted for the president in 2008 say they are likely to do so again, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But Obama's contributions this recent fundraising quarter — absent support from the Democratic National Committee — are less than the combined cash given to all GOP candidates, hinting at an influx of money to whomever Republicans chose as their nominee. Observers have said this election likely will cost more than $1 billion.

The Obama campaign, for its part, said more than a million people have given to the president's 2012 re-election efforts, a mix of hundreds of thousands of new and returning donors that spokesman Ben LaBolt said points to "evidence of a growing organization." All told, Obama received donations from a wide swath of the United States from the Plains, the Midwest and parts of the South since April, the AP's analysis found.

Among those donors was Laurel Cappa of Washington, who gave $300 to the president four years ago and opened her wallet again this year.

"It was a birthday gift to myself," she said, having turned 70 this year, "and I expect to be giving more."

The campaign reports offer a complicated financial picture for Obama this election cycle. Recent reports show a mixed level of financial support from Wall Street, and an AP analysis earlier this month found Obama garnered continued donations from the nation's most economically hard-hit areas.

The campaign figures, however, didn't capture money raised by new, outside groups known as super political action committees, which can collect unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections. Obama and leading GOP candidates all have super PACs working in their favor, not counting groups like the GOP-leaning American Crossroads that have raised hundreds of millions ahead of the general election.

Follow Jack Gillum at http://twitter.com/jackgillum

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2011-10/28/c_122209596.htm

华尔街向总统“开炮” 华尔街为何这么恨奥巴马？
2011年10月28日 11:23:29
来源： 人民网-《国际金融报》

分享新华微博

分享到腾讯微博 分享到QQ空间
【字号：大 中 小】【打印】

　　华尔街为何这么恨奥巴马？3年前，他还是华尔街的宠儿。当选后他拉华尔街上岸，帮着他们挡国会的枪子儿。有人要分拆大银行，他也拦了下来。你可能觉得，华尔街今年就该给奥巴马送上一份特别的圣诞礼物。可现在他们不这么想。

　　原因有不少：其一是政策。白宫推行的多德-弗兰克金融监管改革法案打压自营交易、负债经营和其他银行常用的盈利途径；其次是意识形态。华尔街觉得奥巴马老想着把他们辛苦挣来的钱分给穷人懒汉；其三是心理原因。奥巴马显然对华尔街不屑。

　　这可能只是故事的一个侧面，但现在情节又有了新发展。华尔街目前境况糟糕，多家大型投资银行几近破产，有的虽然还保持盈利，但与一年前，甚至半年前相比相去甚远。由于盈利下滑，金融机构被迫大幅裁员，同时削减红利。据悉，纽约金融业从2008年起已经裁员20%。纽约之外情况更糟。美国银行裁员3万人。一年半以前，号称创下公司盈利历史纪录的高盛也裁员1000人。而在奖金方面，据《华尔街日报》报道，各银行的奖金可能下滑三到四成。

　　公认最安全的投资公司摩根大通在上周发布报告称，其第三季度利润下滑25%。其他一些大型投行也在本周相继披露三季报，账面估计也好看不到哪里去。分析人士正下调对投行的预期，比如高盛的季度收益可能从去年的107.1亿美元下滑到今年的49.3亿美元。

　　究其原因，首先，经济不景气拖垮了银行。美国消费者消费欲望不高，商业增长缓慢。企业宁愿留着手头的现金勉强度日，收购和兼并偃旗息鼓。今年初，科技类公司掀起的IPO大潮现在已不见踪影。欧债危机和长达数月的美国政局分歧令金融界雪上加霜。这已经触及了投资银行的生存底线。

　　本月，花旗银行对众多投资者展开调查，询问他们对后市的看法和当下的感受。Business Insider透露，有30%的受访者觉得“大萧条”将再次来临。多数人认为奥巴马将在明年大选中失利，而且绝大多数投资者最担忧的是政府的政策失误。

　　对奥巴马的恨由来已久，且原因多种多样。在收益下滑之前，大批金融界人士就对他没有好感。那时金融界的惟一抱怨就是奥巴马成天称他们为“硕鼠”，并扬言进行整顿。而如今，华尔街的冷面相向变成了怒目而视。说到底，就是华尔街的日子突然不好过了，于是和众多美国人一样，朝总统“开炮”。《国际金融报》 (2011-10-28 第04版)