Originally Posted By RoadTrip Who can we trust to take on the big Wall Street banking firms? Not Obama!! Lehman Brothers contributions Top ten members of Congress: campaign contributions from Lehman Brothers employees, 1989-2008 Member Contribution received Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. $409,980 Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. $395,574 Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. $181,450 Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. $165,800 Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. $165,450 Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. $151,664 Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. $145,100 Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. $38,650 Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. $38,500 Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. $37,250 Source: Center for Responsive Politics Updated: 12:36 p.m. ET Sept. 15, 2008 © 2008 MSNBC.com URL: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26723715/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26723715/</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh Is it too late to get Romney back in the mix? It is? Shoot. I guess we missed that opportunity.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I was going to point out that McCain is on this list, but his time in the senate compared with Obama's is huge. I'd love to see the same list from the dates 2006-2008.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I was going to point out that McCain is on this list, but his time in the senate compared with Obama's is huge.>> Even with the huge time differential, McCain has taken only 37% of what Obama has.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Even with the huge time differential, McCain has taken only 37% of what Obama has.<< Taken? You mean "has been given," don't you? Not sure what this proves. Are you saying, once again, that educated people tend to support Democrats?
Originally Posted By mawnck And I suppose Obama's $395,574 is going to alter how he deals with the mess, while McCain's $145,100 makes him totally independent? Where's the line?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I just thought it was curious in light of the day's events. I don't know that it means much of anything, but that wouldn’t have kept you guys from posting if the numbers for Obama and McCain `had been reversed!! ;-)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Where do we get the list of contributions from oil companies? Defense contractors? Pharmaceutical companies? HMOs? School teachers? Labor Unions? Belly dancers? Firemen? Lawyers? etc. Your list, while interesting, provides no context with which to compare these contributions in the larger scheme of campaign financing. As a single data point, it provides no relevancy to the rest of the landscape. In general, the amount of money in politics is sickening. It is corrupting. But that's how the game is played these days. You would be hard pressed to find a politician that is going to turn down a political contribution that is derived from a legal source. I'd also like to see if there's a correlation between the contributions by Lehman (forced into liquidation) and Bear Stearns (saved by the Fed). That would be an interesting bit of data to see if there was any correlation between contributions and the end state of those two firms.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This list proves nothing and certainly doesn't support the premise of the thread.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'd also like to see if there's a correlation between the contributions by Lehman (forced into liquidation) and Bear Stearns (saved by the Fed).> I don't know anything about that, but I do not the list above is similar to the contributions by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which both got bailouts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I was going to point out that McCain is on this list, but his time in the senate compared with Obama's is huge.>> And let's not forget that he was one of the Keating Five.
Originally Posted By ecdc We're making the case that McCain is better to take on Wall Street? Really? Once again up is down and black is white for McCain's supporters. Just today, McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. How much more fundamental do you get than banks? Housing? Jobs? And of course, today Alan Greenspan, who only the most far-right wingers could accuse of partisanship, said this is a once in a century event, and far and away the worst economy he's seen in his career (and he ain't exactly a young guy; he makes McCain look positively spry). But yes, the fundamentals of our economy are strong. And I'm dating Natalie Portman after breaking up with Scarlett Johansson.
Originally Posted By ecdc I mean, I know McCain's old, but I didn't actually realize he was Herbert Hoover with a different name and suit.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Geez, can't you guys EVER tell when I'm just having a little fun? Maybe I need to invent a new smilie which means "This is just my attempt at a little humor -- Please don't take it too seriously". I figure I have two good options for this smilie: 1) TIJM3ALH (This is just my attempt at a little humor) 2) NTTPOX (Not trying to piss-off X) Which one do you prefer??
Originally Posted By ecdc Sorry RT, I've pretty much lost my sense of humor when it comes to McCain/Palin right now. I know it's childish of me (seriously, I do) but I remain in total awe of what I've observed over the last two weeks. I watched a crazy lady who thinks Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church join the ticket and that actually makes people *more* excited for McCain. I still walk around having to pick my jaw up off the floor. So yes, I'm more oblivious to humor these days when it comes to politics. My apologies.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But yes, the fundamentals of our economy are strong. And I'm dating Natalie Portman after breaking up with Scarlett Johansson.<< Obviously lies. No one would break up with Scarlet Johansson to date Natalie Portman.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So yes, I'm more oblivious to humor these days when it comes to politics. My apologies.>> I actually do understand that. Obama had a very good lead and then in comes this ditzy hockey mom and turns it all to crap. Since I have a rather sincere appreciation for the bizarre (What can I say? The Coen brother's (Fargo) father teaches economics at the U of M) I just can't help loving it up!!
