Obama
attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough
The Daily
Caller – 18 hrs ago
Despite
his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s
Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money
from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20
years,
including former President George W. Bush.
In
2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take,
according to Reuters.
When
asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when
it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
Former
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the
president’s rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.
“It’s
almost as if President Obama won’t cross across a Wall Street picket line
except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money,” Fleischer
told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president
has been encouraging over the past week. “That sort of support causes him to
look hypocritical.”
Fleischer
continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen.
Charles Schumer, who has received
approximately $8.7 million
from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall
Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.
“They
can’t say we hate Wall Street, but we love their money,” Fleischer said. (RELATED: White House:
Millionaire tax isn’t enough)
Being
Wall Street’s campaign cash king is hardly the image President Obama has been
trying to project in public, where he has been setting himself up as the
champion of the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement and as the avenger of
jilted Bank of America customers.
“Banks
can make money,” Obama said last week, responding to questions during an
interview with ABC News about Bank of America’s decision to levy a $5 monthly
fee on debit card users. “They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning
it.”
In
fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks
lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has
received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back
to 1991.
An
examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign
contributions in 2008 from Bank of America’s executives, PACs and employees,
which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W.
Bush in 2004.
According
to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms also contributed more
to Obama’s 2008 campaign than they gave to Republican nominee John McCain.
“The
securities and investment industry is Obama’s second largest source of
bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9
million for his campaign,” Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive
Politics’s OpenSecrets blog.
By
the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with
Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG,
JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into
his coffers.
Goldman
Sachs contributed slightly over $1
million to
Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, compared with a little over $394,600 to the 2004 Bush campaign.
Citigroup gave $736,771 to Obama in 2008,
compared with $320,820 to Bush in
2004. Executives and others connected with the Swiss bank UBS AG donated $539,424 to Obama’s 2008 campaign,
compared with $416,950 to Bush in 2004. And JP Morgan Chase gave Obama’s
campaign $808,799 in 2008, but did not show up
among Bush’s top donors in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics.
Obama’s
close relationship with JP Morgan Chase was highlighted earlier this year when
he tapped Bill Daley, a former top executive with the bank, to replace Rahm
Emanuel as his chief of staff.
Wall
Street’s generosity to Obama didn’t end with his 2008 campaign either. Wall
Street donors contributed $4.8
million to
underwrite Obama’s inauguration, according to a Jan. 15, 2009 Reuters report.
So
far Wall Street has raised $7.2
million in
the current electoral cycle for President Obama, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics. Obama’s 2012 Wall Street bundlers include people like Jon
Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor; Azita Raji, a
former investment banker for JP Morgan; and Charles Myers, an executive with
the investment bank Evercore Partners.
“When
he calls Wall Street bankers fat cats, then his base cheers, so you’ll see him
constantly trying to shift back and forth, and keep Wall Street happy at one
point and his base happy at another point,” Jim Moorehead, current crisis
adviser at Steptoe & Johnson, LLP and a former Goldman Sachs investment
banker, explained in a July interview with FoxNews.com.
The
Republican National Committee echoed Fleischer’s comments in a statement to
TheDC, similarly accusing the president of Wall Street hypocrisy.
“The
president wants his cake and eat it too,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski
wrote in an emailed statement. “It’s the height of hypocrisy for President
Obama to demonize Wall Street on the stump while looking the other way as they
line his campaign coffers.”
Politcal
analyst Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics
sums up Wall Street’s 2008 infatuation with Obama as having been more about
wanting to back a winner than anything else.
“Two
things have changed that. First, the economy is still rotten. Obama’s policies
just haven’t worked — or at least not so anybody can tell,” Sabato said.
“Second, Obama has to direct the public’s anger and frustration somewhere
if he’s to have a decent chance of reelection.”
“There
is a great deal of animosity still present in the general public about Wall
Street and the banks,” he continued. “The more Obama scapegoats them, the less
inclined they are to back him this time. You don’t get the votes and money of
people you insult.”
*
Co-founder
and co-editor, The American Prospect
Obama,
Geithner, and the Next Financial Crisis
*
Over
the past few weeks, President Obama has at last "pivoted," in the
widely used term, from emphasizing deficit reduction to focusing on jobs and
taxation of millionaires. Spontaneous protest has done what the organized left
failed to do; it has made Wall Street the appropriate target of diffuse economic
frustrations. The labor movement has added its weight and institutional skills
to these protests, and even President Obama has had some kind words for them.
Fox
News and the Republicans have been usefully flummoxed, since it is awfully hard
to rise to the defense of the Wall Street banks that caused the financial
collapse and to retain credibility with anyone, even the Tea Party base.
But
here comes the next phase of the financial crisis, and it will test President
Obama's leadership like nothing else. It will also make or break the faltering
credibility of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
In
recent days, it has become clear that several large banks, most notably Bank of
America, are teetering. Though the backlash against the giant bank's proposed
five-dollar-a-month charge for debit cards has gotten the headlines, this is
the least of its problems. The profits from this new charge would be chump
change measured against the bank's chasms of losses, the legacy of its
ill-advised purchases of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch in 2008.
Worried
investors have driven Bank of America stock down to the range of 5 to 6 dollars
a share. Bank of America's books are still glutted with non-performing mortgage
loans, and a grand solution to the mortgage crisis seems further away than
ever.
Meanwhile,
Citigroup and Morgan Stanley with their large holdings of Greek government
bonds are also in some jeopardy, which adds to the general crisis of
confidence. The Federal Reserve has been throwing "liquidity,"
otherwise known as nearly interest-free money, at the banks as necessary, to
keep inter-bank markets from freezing up as they nearly did in 2008.
As
recently as three weeks ago, at a "Delivering Alpha" financial
conference, Geithner assured his audience that despite
the European crisis American banks were in great shape:
Our financial system --
because of the actions we took early in the crisis -- is in a much stronger
position to deal with these new risks than it was before this crisis. Much,
much stronger position. Way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of making
sure they have a stronger financial foundation to handle any type of shock.
This
has been Geithner's strategy since the earliest days of the crisis: work with
the Federal Reserve to throw money at the big banks, resist fundamental changes
in their business model, and talk up their solvency even in the face of
contrary evidence.
Given
the proprietary data that Geithner surely sees as Treasury Secretary, he must
know that these words are wishful at best and downright deceptive at worst. If
his assurances turn out to be so much baloney, then Geithner, President Obama's
re-election chances, and the economy could all be in big trouble.
The
fact is that European banks are functioning only because the European Central
Bank in spite of its reluctance has been flooding the system with liquidity,
and at least one U.S bank -- Bank of America -- is barely solvent and heavily
reliant on the Fed.
If
events turn critical again and we face a repeat risk of the seizing up of
financial markets as in the fall of 2008, the Obama administration's rhetorical
populist turn will be of no use. The president will need to make a fateful
decision.
Worst
of all would be to let a large institution like Bank of America just fail.
Outside of the hard-core Tea Party right, nobody supports this.
The
second worst policy would be to just keep throwing money at a zombie
institution to keep up the pretense that it is solvent. We tried that policy in
2008 and 2009. It helped entrenched bankers keep their jobs and their outsized
profits, but a wounded banking system continued to be a lead weight on the rest
of the economy.
So
now President Obama, if faced with a repeat crisis of large banks, may get a
do-over.
In the spring of 2009, when the leading zombie bank was Citigroup, then chief economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Geithner took the position that they could not seize, clean out, and break up Citi because they lacked the legal authority or the tools to do it. It's also clear from several accounts, including my own A Presidency in Peril
and most recently Ron Suskind's new book Confidence Men that Summers and Geithner did not want to do it. According to Suskind, Obama himself wanted to break-up of Citi as his preferred option, and Geithner slow-walked the president until the issue was moot.
In the spring of 2009, when the leading zombie bank was Citigroup, then chief economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Geithner took the position that they could not seize, clean out, and break up Citi because they lacked the legal authority or the tools to do it. It's also clear from several accounts, including my own A Presidency in Peril
and most recently Ron Suskind's new book Confidence Men that Summers and Geithner did not want to do it. According to Suskind, Obama himself wanted to break-up of Citi as his preferred option, and Geithner slow-walked the president until the issue was moot.
But
the Dodd-Frank Act now gives the treasury secretary explicit authority to find
that a large, systemically significant financial company is "in danger of
default"; to designate the FDIC as receiver; and to seize, break up, and
reorganize failing large banks. Though there is surely contingency planning for
the collapse of a large bank, Geithner seems loathe to use his new authority.
So,
consider three possible scenarios in coming days or weeks.
First
scenario: the big banks, thanks to advances from the Federal Reserve, keep
barely afloat. Geithner's credibility survives, but the real economy continues
to be a shambles. This is not exactly auspicious, either for economically
frustrated Americans or for an incumbent president facing re-election.
Second
scenario: Investors keep fleeing Bank of America, the giant bank finds itself
frozen out of short term lending markets as Lehman Brothers was, and the bank
finally turns to the government for emergency aid. There is a new financial
crisis in the headlines, and it falls in on President Obama and his Treasury
Secretary, who was been reassuring everyone that all is well with the large
banks.
Third
scenario: President Obama decides to get other opinions besides Geithner's and
to get out ahead of the crisis. If things turn critical, he directs his
Treasury Secretary to seize the bank, as authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act.
Obama tells the citizenry that the alternative was endless bailouts or a
Lehman-style collapse (just imagine the right trying to defend either), and
that this way those who caused the crisis will be appropriately removed from
their suites and bonuses while the bank is returned to health so that the broad
economy can prosper.
Serious
consideration of this last approach would take much more of a "pivot"
on Obama's part than we have seen to date. I recall, in reading biographies of
Presidents Kennedy and Roosevelt, how both leaders sought multiple sources of
advice. Kennedy would pick up the phone and speak to a relatively junior desk
officer at the State Department to get his own information unfiltered by his
gatekeepers. Roosevelt made sure he had direct access to multiple advisers who
disagreed with each other. But Geithner has been astute at blocking access to
the president for others who have different views, and Obama has been
startlingly incurious and compliant. The man needs to get on the phone.
It
also happens that Bank of America is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Caroline, site of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and the bank is
expected to be one of the convention's top-tier corporate sponsors. Oh, my.
Moving to resolve and break up the bank under Dodd-Frank, should it prove to be
insolvent, would take uncharacteristic nerve.
In
September 2008, the financial collapse fell in on George W. Bush and won the
election for Barack Obama. A repeat collapse, if handled badly, would fall in
squarely on Obama.
Populist
rhetoric when angry people are in the streets demanding accountability for
bankers is a start, but talk is cheap. If the banking mess turns critical
again, we will see what this president has learned, and what he is made of.
Robert
Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His
latest book is A Presidency in Peril.
*
OBAMA HAS TWO AGENDAS. SERVICING BANKSTER DONORS, AND PUSHING
OUR BORDERS OPEN FOR MORE ILLEGALS. HE KNOW WE WON’T BE PUNKED BY HIS
PERFORMANCES THE SECOND TIME AROUND!
*
THE BELOW FIGURES WERE PRE-FIRST TERM. OBAMA HAS SO SERVED
HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THEY HAVE PUMPED
EVEN MORE OF THEIR LOOTINGS INTO THIS CLOWN!
“Records
show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial
industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase
($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”
*
An initial term sheet outlining a possible settlement emerged in March, with institutions including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo being asked to pay about $20 billion that would go toward loan modifications and possibly counseling for homeowners.
An initial term sheet outlining a possible settlement emerged in March, with institutions including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo being asked to pay about $20 billion that would go toward loan modifications and possibly counseling for homeowners.
In exchange, the attorneys general participating in the deal would
have agreed to sign broad releases preventing them from bringing further
litigation on matters relating to the improper bank practices.
*
ONE REASON WHY DALEY WAS ASKED TO JOIN OBAMA’S LA RAZA
INFESTED ADMINISTRATION IS BECAUSE HE EMBRACES OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS AGENDA TO
KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED WITH HORDES OF ILLEGALS HOPING OUR BORDERS AND JOBS.
(Bloomberg)
-- President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase
& Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level
administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with
the matter said.
*
YOU HAVE TO BE A BANKSTER OR LA RAZA SUPREMACIST FOR OPEN
BORDERS TO WORK IN OBAMA’S CORRUPT WHITE HOUSE.
FROM CREOLE FOLKS
Obama Seeks Brother of "Chicago
Mob Boss" for Top White House Post
The
roaches and con-artist, fake journalist on cable news are all lying about
William Daley being all this and all that, this man is an open borders, down
with America, free trade globalist. MSNBC and Greta "the
Scientology" Van Susteren from Fox News are knowingly deceiving the
public about D. Issa & his letter to "business owners"=which they
made into such a BIG DAM DEAL, but no one says anything when Barrack
Hussein Obama, comes around with all of these shady bankers, hedge fund managers
and Wall St. Tycoons, which he puts in his cabinet. All of Obama's
meeting with Wall Street asking, "What can I do for you?" is never
something covered by Keith Oberman or Rachel Maddow.
(Bloomberg)
-- President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase
& Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level
administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with
the matter said.
*
Obamanomics:
How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends,
Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
BY TIMOTHY P
CARNEY
Editorial Reviews
Obama Is Making
You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman
Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack
Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from
Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and
consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs
up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you
wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate
socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s
corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Congressman
Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.”
And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics
is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the
Obama years.”
If
you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows
up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit
exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam.
Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger,
somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book
names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
*
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman
Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack
Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from
Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and
consumers.
Investigative
reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and
the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is
delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling
corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s
Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:
* The
Great Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell
corporate profits and more government control
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
* The Global Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
* Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
If
you’ve wondered what’s happening to our country, as the federal government
swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts
deficit exploding “stimulus packages” that create make-work government jobs,
this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils
down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and
those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will
make your blood boil.
*
Praise for Obamanomics
Praise for Obamanomics
“The
notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free market is one of
progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to demonize corporations by
day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is conservative
muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is exploiting the big
business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it to entrepreneurs,
taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide to the Obama
years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author
“‘Every
time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich.’ With this astute
observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare the Obama
administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the president’s
populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read for anyone
who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against Barack Obama
“Every
libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large
corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to
read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions
of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul
—Congressman Ron Paul
“It’s
understandable for critics to condemn President Obama for his ‘socialism.’ But
as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once more subtle and more
sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while disproportionately punishing
everyone else. So-called progressives are too clueless to notice, as usual,
which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
*
·
Hardcover: 256 pages
·
Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30,
2009)
·
Language: English
·
ISBN-10: 1596986123
·
ISBN-13: 978-1596986121
*
Wall Street firms dole out record pay to executives
By Tom Eley
13 October 2010
While for millions of Americans 2010 has been a year of unemployment and wage-cutting, executives at a handful of finance firms will be paid a record $144 billion, according to a new survey by the Wall Street Journal. The sum is up 4 percent from last year’s haul of $139 billion, which was also a record.
The Journal found that executive pay for 2010 has gone up at 29 of the top 35 surveyed banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money management firms, and securities exchanges. The payroll increase will slightly outstrip the growth in revenue at these firms, which increased by 3 percent from $433 billion in 2009 to $448 billion in 2010. About a third of total Wall Street revenue is given over to employees.
While profits at the big finance houses have rebounded from the lows of 2008, when the entire financial system teetered on the brink of collapse, they remain 20 percent below the record set in 2006, or $61.3 billion now versus $82 billion four years earlier. Yet over the same period executive pay has increased by 23 percent.
Among the surveyed firms are Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Barclay’s Capital, Blackstone Group and Fortress Investment Group.
The record payout to the same financiers responsible for setting into motion the economic crisis shows, if any further proof were needed, that the bailout of the financial industry—backed by both Democrats and Republicans—had as its central aim the promotion of a tiny layer of the extremely wealthy.
It is of a piece with the rapid increase in corporate profits—even as workers’ wages stagnate—and the increase in net wealth of the very richest Americans, 400 of whom now control nearly $1.4 trillion. (See: “Forbes 400 list: 2010 has been very good to the richest Americans”.)
The increase in executive pay also demonstrates that the Obama administration’s appointment of “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg to oversee compensation at federally bailed-out financial firms was merely a smokescreen to pave the way for further self-enrichment. Or, as the Journal put it, the spiraling Wall Street pay shows that firms “continue to base their pay on economic and market conditions rather than the level of pressure coming from regulators in Washington and overseas.”
Since the financial crisis of 2008, there have been only cosmetic changes to Wall Street executive pay. Some firms have promoted payment in stock and other incentivized forms of remuneration to lend the appearance that there exists an identity of interests between executives and stockholders. But these changes in no way signal a reduction in compensation, the new figures make clear.
The huge payout of $144 billion to a relative handful of financiers is socially obscene. If the figure were ranked as national GDP—a measure of the value of all goods and services produced in a year—the Wall Street bankers would come in 49th, just ahead of Algeria, Hungary and Peru. If the figure were a discretionary item on the 2010 US budget, it would come in second place after defense spending and far ahead of housing, transportation and education. And it is about $20 billion greater than the combined budget deficits of all 50 states.
While the executives gorge themselves, just beyond Wall Street incomes are plummeting. According to data released by New York state’s Office of the Comptroller, personal income fell by 3.1 percent in 2010, the first decline in 70 years, and the average paycheck fell by 5.4 percent.
*
US banks and corporations announce
huge pay packages for 2009
Wells Fargo executives double their compensation
By Andre Damon
11 March 2010
11 March 2010
US
corporations are beginning to release figures on CEO pay for last year.
Multi-million dollar packages are the norm in a year that saw the continued
deterioration in the living conditions of the vast majority of the population.
Each of the top five
executives at Wells Fargo at least doubled their compensation last year over
2008. The five men each received over $11 million in 2009, while Wells Fargo’s
chief executive, John Stumpf, took home $21.3 million, far higher than his 2008
package of $8.8 million.
Mark
Oman, the head of consumer business for Wells Fargo, nearly quadrupled his
previous pay package to $13.5 million. Howard Atkins, the chief financial
officer, received $11.6 million. The other Wells Fargo executives who received
huge payouts were David Carroll, the head of the brokerage unit ($14.3
million), and David Hoyt, the head of wholesale banking ($13.5 million).
These
latest reports come in the wake of Barack Obama’s statement last month that he
does not “begrudge” the bonuses of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. Blankfein got a $9 million bonus lat year,
while Dimon received $16 million. (Their total packages have not yet been
released).
“I’M
NOT HERE TO PUNISH MY BANKSTER DONORS THAT DESTROYED THE LIFE SAVINGS OF MOST
OF THIS NATION. I’M HERE TO SERVICE THEM FOR ANY AND ALL THEY WANT!” Barack
Obama, the Bankster President (La Raza Party).
Obama defended the bonuses on
the grounds that Blankfein and Dimon are “savvy businessmen.” This statement
gave what amounted to official carte blanche for the multi-million-dollar
bonuses paid to hundreds of other “savvy businessmen,” even as the government
oversees a massive attack on the living conditions of the vast majority of the
population.
*
EMAIL THIS POSTING TO YOUR
FRIENDS AND FAMILY FROM THE BLOG
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
No comments:
Post a Comment