Weekdays at 12noon on 770 AM: The Truth
 Michael Medved
Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

Why Do "Fat Cats" Support the President Who Insulted Them?

July 10, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

President Obama attacks bankers and hedge fund managers as greedy "fat cats," but the financial industry continues to lavish generous donations on his campaign. The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics shows the Securities and Investment industry in third place among all interest groups in supporting the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Financial sector donors have already provided $14.5 million, ahead of their record-breaking pace in 2008.

Why would Wall Street titans continue to back the president, when he rips them rhetorically and threatens harsh new regulations? Because many industry leaders dread an increasingly hostile federal government and want to protect themselves by buying special consideration and connections. Political givers sometimes donate because they love a certain candidate and sometimes donate because they fear him. When it comes to Obama and Wall Street, fear could be a more powerful motivator than love.

More Michael Medved

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (13)


  • Add A Comment

  • Anton wrote...
    Why would Wall Street titans continue to back the president?
    July 10, 2012 6:15 pm
    Easy!

    Dow Jones upon Obama's inauguration = approx 7,700 and falling.

    Dow Jones today = still over 12,600

    answer: results!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    As if we actually needed any proof that Wall Street is NOT Main Street-----------
    July 10, 2012 6:35 pm
    Heck, Wall Street would be happy if the Dow went to 2,000 and unemployment went to 20%. Those 'fat cats' care absolutely nothing about the people.

    So, why wouldn't they back Obama? And as for Oz? Who needs the Munchkins when the Emerald City throws money at you.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    number typo:
    July 10, 2012 6:37 pm
    ..happy of the Dow went to 20,000...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lysander wrote...
    Maybe
    July 10, 2012 10:07 pm
    It is because they feel they have been a horrible option of Romney and Obama? Maybe it is because both of them are great at protecting rich peoples interests? The bigger question is why the middle and lower class are accepting of these two choices? Why not revolt against the media people like Medved that jump on the bandwagon and push these choices on us? Travis Pahl Free Cascadia
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ddwhitney wrote...
    The answer is simpler than you think...
    July 11, 2012 7:32 am
    Because the Financial Industry got bailouts from "private citizens" via Lemon socialism. Economic Fascism is another interesting study that will help you connect the dots. If you look at the data of record profits that were because of the bailouts, you see why they would support anyone offering them a good deal. How much of the money borrowed from the private citizen have been returned to the people? Did most of it go to the government? Here is the short list of earmarks requested by politicians in exchange for their support for the Health Care Law... Obviously since the Republicans were not interested in this law, I will only list the big hitters in the democrat party. Here are the earmark amounts requested by the 11 House Democrats in the 2011 bill: Rep. Jerry Costello of Illinois.: $1,418.7 million ($256.4 million in 2010) Rep. Solomon Ortiz of Texas: $618 million ($726.1 million in 2010) Stupak of Michigan: $578.9 million Rep. Steve Driehaus of Ohio: $332.2 million Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio: $294 million ($305.7 million in 2010) Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania: $236.8 million ($54 million in 2010) Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota.: $207 million ($226 million in 2010) Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana.: $115.4 million ($82.3 million in 2010) Rep. Charles Wilson of Ohio: $84 million ($62.3 million in 2010) Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania.: $67.1 million Rep. Joseph Donnelly of Indiana: $19.8 million ($11.65 million in 2010) Bank Bailouts: 1. Citigroup (NY): $45 billion 2. AIG (NY): $40 billion 3. JPMorgan Chase (NY): $25 billion 4. Bank of America/Merrill Lynch (NC): $25 billion 5. Wells Fargo (CA): $25 billion 6. General Motors (MI): $14 billion 7. Goldman Sachs (NY): $10 billion 8. Morgan Stanley (NY): $10 billion 9. PNC Financial Services (PA): $7.58 billion 10. U.S. Bancorp (MN): $6.6 billion Where did the Taxpayers money go from the 2nd Bailout? -- Solyndra, which received $535 million in loan guarantees and whose chief investor was Obama campaign bundler, George Kaiser; -- Brightsource Energy, which received $1.6 billion and whose senior adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr., an early Obama backer; -- Solar Reserve, which got a $737 million loan, and whose major investor, Michael Froman, was a deputy assistant to the president. Froman bundled up to $500,000 for the president's 2008 campaign; -- Granite Reliable Wind Generation, which received a $168.9 million loan. The company's majority owner is Nancy Ann DeParle, a White House deputy chief of staff and former head of the president's health care communications team during the reform debate; -- Abound Solar, which received $400 million in grants. A key investor is billionaire heiress Pat Stryker, who gave $87,000 to Obama's inauguration committee, and hundreds of thousands more to Democratic causes. The List is growing... Here are some numbers on the "Contributions" made to Obama to help ensure his rise to the 2008 residency. $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex... $351,900 from Goldman Sachs One of the myths is that Obama is a liberal socialist, trying to redistribute the wealth to the poor. The facts are that the wealth is moved upward, pushing a larger percentage of the middle class downward and oppressing the lower class by making them dependent to the point they are paralyzed. Obama is a Marxist that is using crony capitalism to fund his Marxist agenda. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise.. aka bailouts!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    07-11-2012 Why do "Fat Cats" Support the...
    July 11, 2012 7:33 am
    Socialist structures are more rigid than capitalist structures. Economic mobility decreases as socalistic rules increase. Larger government regulatory structure permits more influence buying and therefore more hidden competitive advantage. The illusion of stability is essential to keeping retail money in the markets. Massive increases in money supply represents enormous opportunities for speculators.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • spanish johnny wrote...
    Why do fat cats support Obama?
    July 13, 2012 7:48 am
    Pretty easy. His position on social issues, namely gay marriage, is more inline with the "rich banker fat cats," and Romney's highly charged rhetoric about a war with Iran I think scares some of the wealthy (obviously excluding the hawkish pro-Israel crowd).

    I think things may be changing however. Recent months have seen Wall Street donate more to Romney than Obama. We will see how it plays out.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JayEmmel wrote...
    Fat Cats not insulted - they benefit from such 'abuse'
    July 13, 2012 9:42 pm
    'Fat Cats' actually do better under Democratic rule since the regulations Democrats put in place work primarily to benefit 'Fat Cats'. The laws and regulations are written by big corporate lobbyists and submitted/sponsered by Democrat 'Reformers'. Even if the regulations seem to be harsh (Dodd-Frank), the big corporate Fat Cats are better able to absorb the high costs of regulation while their smaller competitors are hamstrung by them. The 'reforms' are really a way for 1). big corporations to solidify and expand market-share and increase profits, and 2). Democrats to appear to be crusaders for 'the little guy' while actually helping their Fat Cat donor friends. The 'little guy' is fooled into voting for gallant reformer Democrats, the Fat Cats & big corporations get protection and support from the Government, and the Democrat gets $$$$! donations from Fat Cats and get re-elected. The big stick Obama & the Democrats whack the big bad corporations with is really an inflatable bat, and the Fat Cats do everything they can to keep from giggling.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JayEmmel wrote...
    The Myth of the Republican lapdog for Big Business...
    July 13, 2012 10:12 pm
    It is a myth that Republicans fight to help 'their' big corparation, Fat Cat friends. Republicans, or at least Conservative ones, are for CAPITALISM and less Government interference and regulation (aka. LIBERTY). Republican policies are really aimed more to the benefit of small businesses and small corporations, who incidentally employ far more people (the 'little guys') than big corporations and Government do - combined! Sure Fat Cats and big business do well under these policies, but so does everybody when the economy is chugging along. Businesses, big and small, are designed to benefit from capitalistism and capitalist policies, but only BIG corporations (aka. Fat Cats) benefit from the perversion of capitalism caused by Democrats and their escalating regulation (see my previous post). Thus, small Government, less regulation, less constrained capitalist policies espoused by the Republicans really best benefit small businesses, entreprenuers, and the other 'little guys' they employ (and are relatively benign to the big corporations). Too bad the mainstream media, Hollywood, public educators/indoctrinators, and the so-called 'intelligencia' don't get it that their Left-wing policies benefit most the big corporations they love-to-hate best. Or maybe they (some of them anyway) do. It's their snow-job that perpetuates the Myth, demonizes the Republicans, and misleads 'the little guy' to continue to vote Democrat to their own ultimate demise.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }