GOP: Looking Out for Main Street While In Bed with Wall Street?

[bernynhel]

Sure they are!! LOL! If Republicans cut the time in half that they must spend practicing keeping straight faces in the mirror, they actually may gain the skill to govern something, one day.

Despite their claims, incliuding the one about how they are, somehow, actually looking out for "the American Taxpayer" they're having some difficulty maintaining unity on their opposition to the White House's financial regulatory revamp bill. Of course it's no help that perhaps the only people their constituents are more pissed off at than Obama are the Wall Street firms whose irresponsible practices many blame for the recession.

 

[gloria460]

Seems like people think that this is ok. Hmmm, what's his name...top republican caught red handed having a pow wow with 6 of the biggest firms on wall street and then gets on the senate floor for 35 minutes and waters down yet another bill and then urges everyone to vote no on financial reform. He was running trying to get past those cameras...lol

Bern you should have brought back an article or at the very least said someone else said it.

 

[littlebit]

In all fairness to the equally crooked politicians in both parties, Obama wasn't too pissed off at Goldman Sachs when he was campaigning for the presidency and accepted $994,795 .00 in donations. Four of Obama’s top six contributors include Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup, the monster of all monsters.

Also, if you do research, you'll discover it was under Bill Clinton the Glass-Steagall was repealed--setting the stage for all types of wheeling and dealing on Wall Street behind closed doors. Had Glass-Steagall been in place Citigroup could not have formed CitiFinancial and Bear Stearns would not have needed a bailout. Many in the financial community believe the repeal of Glass-Steagall did contribute to the financial mess we are in.

And before you bash me as some crazy rightwinger, I'm ashamed to say that I was a lifelong Democrat until Pelosi was named Speaker of the House. I felt the Democratic party was no longer reflecting the will of Americans and manipulating this country into a direction we would all regret. Those fears have been sound so far.

Americans need to stop trusting "the party" and start exercising their right as a citizen first--not just a vote for a politician .

 

[gloria460]

Why would I bash you and pray tell me what's wrong with accepting contributions from the employees of Goldman Sachs? It wasn't as if Goldman wrote a check for 964K, Is it illegal and what does that have to do with this? I don't care if you're a democrat, liberal or right winger you have a right to your opinion as I have to mine.

McConnell was caught with his pants down and here you go taking up for him. I'm used to it by now. The SEC brought charges against Goldman Sachs so I'm confused as to what your point is. I guess you're going to say Obama knew that 1 year and 4 months after becoming the president GS was going to be investigated for fraud...jeez Louise

 

[slotplayer]

Also, if you do research, you'll discover it was under Bill Clinton the Glass-Steagall was repealed--setting the stage for all types of wheeling and dealing on Wall Street behind closed doors. Had Glass-Steagall been in place Citigroup could not have formed CitiFinancial and Bear Stearns would not have needed a bailout. Many in the financial community believe the repeal of Glass-Steagall did contribute to the financial mess we are in.

It was Phil Gramm that pushed to get Glass-Steagall repealed.

"As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee from 1995 through 2000, Gramm was Washington's most prominent and outspoken champion of financial deregulation. He played the leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that separated commercial banks from Wall Street, and he inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives such as credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)."

xhttp://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1873833,00.html

xhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

xhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html

xhttp://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/g/phil_gramm/index.html

 

[bernynhel]

In all fairness to the equally crooked politicians in both parties, Obama wasn't too pissed off at Goldman Sachs when he was campaigning for the presidency and accepted $994,795 .00 in donations. Four of Obama’s top six contributors include Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup, the monster of all monsters.

A candidate's responsibility to the office for which he is campaigning vs the twice-elected office holder of over six years: slightly different.

Also, if you do research, you'll discover it was under Bill Clinton the Glass-Steagall was repealed--setting the stage for all types of wheeling and dealing on Wall Street behind closed doors. Had Glass-Steagall been in place Citigroup could not have formed CitiFinancial and Bear Stearns would not have needed a bailout. Many in the financial community believe the repeal of Glass-Steagall did contribute to the financial mess we are in.

Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall after relentless lobbying from Wall Street and pressure from GOP. In no way could anyone - not even you or a Rhodes Scholar, unschooled in the nuances of complex financial shenanigans as were being dreamed up by the tip-top 1% of the best diabolical Harvard Business minds, have had any inkling of the far flung ramifications of the across-the-isle-gesture Clinton thought he was making as evidenced by your post, along with all of this research which I gladly waive to the benefit of the doubt as per your post, coming substantially after the fact and fueled by 100% pure hind-sight. So, among other things, threatened with impeachment over a bj, Clinton trusted his researchers that this bone he was throwing was the lessor of many other evils, evils far better understood, at that time.

And before you bash me as some crazy rightwinger, I'm ashamed to say that I was a lifelong Democrat until Pelosi was named Speaker of the House. I felt the Democratic party was no longer reflecting the will of Americans and manipulating this country into a direction we would all regret. Those fears have been sound so far...

And there are plenty of "crazy rightwinger..lifelong Democrat" converts for me to bash - get in line!

Americans need to stop trusting "the party" and start exercising their right as a citizen first--not just a vote for a politician.

And I would be the last one you could accuse of trusting the GOP to be anything other than the party behind the principles and issues spelled out in the
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) but you can trust me to cancel out at least one Republican vote in every election as I have, religiously, for the last 35 years and, going forward, as long as there is the RNC and as I draw breath.

Look on the bright side, if your shame shares any of the same roots as the mis-infomation in your post, perhaps you may, now, bear less of it.

 

[bernynhel]

...I guess you're going to say Obama knew that 1 year and 4 months after becoming the president GS was going to be investigated for fraud...jeez Louise

Should that read "before"?

 

[bernynhel]

There is a trend, repeating itself in America today. This trend flows right or left, depending upon who is in power in Washington and right now it's flowing for the Republicans. This trend is the current flow of independents, or swing voters, if you will, who, typically, flow in the opposite direction of the power base in congress, the senate and the White House and in the direction of the "out" party, and, in this case, the "out" party happens to be the Republican Party.

As many independents are, understandably, unhappy with the current state of the economy, unemployment, the boogie man in the health care reforms, the looming, uncertain horrors of immigration reform and (egad what next?) financial institution reforms and, as the trend historically has gone before, either blame the current administration for or do not believe this administration has the answers to turn the country around. The Republicans have the distinct advantage of momentum going for them and are not slow to recognize this fact or to capitalize on it. Hard core Conservatives and noob Teabaggers alike can routinely be seen, rallying to urge these independents into their fold, frothing at the mouth as they try to name all of the reasons why Americans are going to demand retribution for the current state of affairs at the cost of many a Congressional and Senate seat, come election time, this November, before their prized, new, reinforcements can turn a dial or a page and possibly miss the deciding straw that could break the backs of the Democrats at the polls.

The dread, the Republican's gnawing sense of loss and swell of deepening depression they were feeling, beginning around the fall of 2008 should be lifting. Many feel there should be more parties and cause for real celebration. And they are right! For none felt that they might ever feel this way again less than a year and a half ago as they watched George W's exit and the arrival of the Kenyan, Obama, and his family at the White House.

Enter to the podium at the Teabagger Rally: William Gheen of Alipac! This (starts with a "c" and rhymes "tracker") stated in his speech that the only reason that Representative Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, could possibly have for "selling out" his own country by reaching across the aisle to help work out such anti-American plots as climate change, immigration reform and financial reform, is because he is a closeted homosexual and so, therefore, the Democrats must be blackmailing Graham into cooperating or else they will out him.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

It seems as though there are quite a few folks, besides Mr Gheen, who are still uncomfortable with the outcome of the American Civil War. They call themselves Teabaggers or Patriots and hold rallys and scream, "We want our country back!" Many of them, like the old Southern Democrats, were so uncomfortable with it that they became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was signed by Lyndon Johnson. They would be much more comfortable if they could limit the right to vote to rich, straight, white, Christian men but I guess they just refuse to look around, today, and see that the reality is that many of the independent, swing voters they so badly hope to sway in November aren't necessarily rich, straight, white, Christian or men. What they might see is the death rattle of racism in America.

Don't order those party hats and balloons and helium tanks and confetti, just yet, Republicans because the current trend in America may just make a U-turn before it reaches you.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[LaurieJim]

Im off to get my fix of Faux News after reading that post


You know, there are good Democrats as well as Republicans and we have for the first time in our history an African American President, we should be proud of that whether we agree with his politics or not. He is not a Kenyan, he is an American.

I just give up Bern, i wont comment on any more of your political threads, you win, ok? Its not worth my time nor the headaches to try to debate you and others fairly and its ashame as i have so much passion for politics and OUR country as a whole.


Laurie

 

[gloria460]

Im off to get my fix of Faux News after reading that post


You know, there are good Democrats as well as Republicans and we have for the first time in our history an African American President, we should be proud of that whether we agree with his politics or not. He is not a Kenyan, he is an American.

I just give up Bern, i wont comment on any more of your political threads, you win, ok? Its not worth my time nor the headaches to try to debate you and others fairly and its ashame as i have so much passion for politics and OUR country as a whole.


Laurie

You know that made me laugh bc for the longest I was trying to figure out why they called it Faux News as I watched Fox News occasionally as I did with the other channels.

I realized in late 2008 that it was the show Hannity, O'Reilly and I don't know the rest of them that they were referring to.

Politics is one of the things that should be debated but never truly is bc of our stubborn belief that our party is right in their thinking. If we were to lay the issues out, the concerns, the perceived wrong doings and discuss it as adults then we might be able to get somewhere but as long as people think the other party is guilty before the debate begans then it doesn't stand a chance.

 

[kauphy]

the goverment could not even run a whore house how do we expect them to run the county all of them not just some of them both partys and obama

 

[footdr]

Democrats are the party of "backroom deals"

Regarding Mcconnell and Corryn meeting with group of executives:

If Harry Reid believes there’s something wrong with meeting with business executives in New York City, then he should immediately explain to his Nevada constituents why he was scooping up campaign cash from Goldman Sachs just a few days ago at a backroom Manhattan fundraiser. One can only presume that Senator Reid will be returning these donations immediately along with the more than $1.1 million he’s taken from Wall Street over the years. And if not, he should explain why not,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the NRSC.

Read more:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[bernynhel]

I've heard of the pot calling the kettle black but never, ever on something as absurd as a Republican making this kind of association between Wall Street and the other side of the aisle! While reading everything into it which mirrors, exactly, what everyone knows to be the characteristics of the GOP's relationship with the financial sector! When, even in this recession, the GOP would stall efforts at getting regulations in place to curb irresponsible risk taking by financial institutions when the risk is all on the American taxpayer with none of the benefits. A new height for "despicable" even for a Republican!

And that title: Democrats are the party of "backroom deals"?? You are absolutely hilarious!!!!! And he's not going to explain anything to anybody!

Any more than anybody in either party would need to explain any NYC fundraiser attended by top level execs in almost every industry. They're not clandestine, after all, the notices for them are published in the Times!

Scooping up campaign cash from Goldman Sachs! HAHAHAHA! It's a $1000/plate fundraiser. Goldman Sachs may be purchasing plates, too. I smell Teabagger!

From GreenwichTime.com:

"An Internet post by Bob MacGuffie, co-founder of the Fairfield-based political action committee Right Principles, urged fellow tea party members to target the 5 p.m. event.

"Reid is as bad as it gets," MacGuffie said in an interview Thursday. "We will not let the opportunity go by."

Lieberman won't be spared either, said MacGuffie, who is hoping to enlist "dozens" of tea partyers to join in the protest.
"

And sure they're pissed at that rat-bastard turncoat/Judas, Lieberman, because he's throwing the party for Reed and he can be seen as less of an exclusively Democrat backstabber and more of an equal opportunity two-faced son of a bitch!

 

[footdr]

Another Pathetic Post

I've heard of the pot calling the kettle black but never, ever on something as absurd as a Republican making this kind of association between Wall Street and the other side of the aisle! While reading everything into it which mirrors, exactly, what everyone knows to be the characteristics of the GOP's relationship with the financial sector! When, even in this recession, the GOP would stall efforts at getting regulations in place to curb irresponsible risk taking by financial institutions when the risk is all on the American taxpayer with none of the benefits. A new height for "despicable" even for a Republican!

And that title: Democrats are the party of "backroom deals"?? You are absolutely hilarious!!!!! And he's not going to explain anything to anybody!

Any more than anybody in either party would need to explain any NYC fundraiser attended by top level execs in almost every industry. They're not clandestine, after all, the notices for them are published in the Times!

Scooping up campaign cash from Goldman Sachs! HAHAHAHA! It's a $1000/plate fundraiser. Goldman Sachs may be purchasing plates, too. I smell Teabagger!

From GreenwichTime.com:

"An Internet post by Bob MacGuffie, co-founder of the Fairfield-based political action committee Right Principles, urged fellow tea party members to target the 5 p.m. event.

"Reid is as bad as it gets," MacGuffie said in an interview Thursday. "We will not let the opportunity go by."

Lieberman won't be spared either, said MacGuffie, who is hoping to enlist "dozens" of tea partyers to join in the protest.
"

And sure they're pissed at that rat-bastard turncoat/Judas, Lieberman, because he's throwing the party for Reed and he can be seen as less of an exclusively Democrat backstabber and more of an equal opportunity two-faced son of a bitch!

Wow you are one hateful person:


Top Donors 1989 to 2010

Goldman Sachs $31,684,525 64% To Democrats 35% to Republicans
AIG $9,768,362 71% To Democrats 27% to Republicans

Seems for 10 years dems have been in bed with two of the biggest bailouts.. Plus, a good number of Obama advisors and staff worked for Goldman. I don't they should be advising anyone on economic/financial matters.

Service Employees International Union $28,145,982 100% Democrats -1% Rep

Gee, didn't Obama just appoint SEI' Attorney Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board? I it was a recess appointment. Republicans felt his appointment would be a conflict of interest and that his position on issues would be biased. Squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Since the largest percent of donations from Labor Unions also went to Democrats for the past ten years I say Democrats are in bed with the Unions
and Wallstreet.

 

[gloria460]

The most that any individual can give to a candidate per candidate is 5,000. The only other way that you can give more is if you are an authorized campaign committee.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Federal Election Committee.

The employees choose who they want to donate to...65% went to democrats and 35% to republicans. It has nothing to do with Goldman who can only give 5,000 just like Oprah and a host of other celebrities did.

They can organize fundraisers but are hardly backroom deals...as Bern said they are published in the paper and anywhere else for anyone that wants to know.

Recess Appointments:

By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month. And cloture has been filed 16 times on Obama nominees, nine of whom were subsequently confirmed with 60 or more votes or by voice vote. Cloture was not filed on a single Bush nominee in his first year. And despite facing significantly less opposition, President Bush had already made 10 recess appointments by this point in his presidency and he made another five over the spring recess

 

[footdr]

Post had nothing to recess appointments being bad....

I think you mis-interpreted the intent of my statement which I believe is self-explantory and has nothing to with blaming Presidents for using recess appointments. Once again, I simply stated the absolute facts.

Regarding the donations and contributions. Companies donate through PAC's. their executives, Political Party, Individual Legislators. You can't possibly believe corporations are only donating $500.00.

I guess you do not believe the FEC, Campaign Finance Committee and Organizations that keep tract of this information.

And the $500.00 applies to a single contribution. You can give $500.00 as an individual to each and every candidate, PAC, Political Party.

The lawyer was Goldmans top attorney, his views are biased and someone who may have reasons to side with Unions, especially SEIU, is probably not the best choice.

Who cares what Bush did anyway, didn't you Vote for Obama because he promised "change in Government". I don't see any change in the way Politics is done in Washington. He is extending bush tax cuts for middle class, hasn't closed Gitmo, unemployment not improved as promised........

I don't vote straight ticket, I vote based on each candidates position. Whether city, county, state or federal election. I am a moderate, however, Republicans represent my views on Finance, Economy and less entitlement programs that are better left to the States as the Constitution provides for.I certainly don't agree with all of their agenda or past performance. Same goes for Democrats. I don't agree with income redistribution and prefer a flat tax, but that will never happen due to Attorney and Accountant lobbyists and PACS.

my donation and contribution figures include the information on record that is used by every news source and published by the Government and Private Research Organizations.

 

[bernynhel]

Wow you are one hateful person:...

Well I can hardly be two hatefull people, now, can I? I don't hate anyone, really, I just say it. Often. I just strongly dislike Lieberman, that rat-bastard turncoat/Judas.

And I'm done correcting your statistics and/or your mis-interpretation of them, for now.

The GOP hate-Obama-mob cranks out way too much baloney for me to get personally involved in exposing it all. I prefer to just wait til you guys elect Parlin/Limbaugh or whatever unthnkable ticket combination you have in mind to ruin the world with in 2016, if you're able, and I'll jump into that fray, well rested.

 

[bernynhel]

Wow you are one hateful person:


Top Donors 1989 to 2010

Goldman Sachs $31,684,525 64% To Democrats....QUOTE]

Blah Blah Blah - buncha baloney! But why not use all of the relevant figures? Here, now get your slide rule out!

The charts below summarize Goldman Sachs’ political contributions to federal candidates over the last several campaign cycles. Federal law prohibits a company from directly contributing money to a campaign; the totals below include contributions from the Goldman Sachs PAC and individual contributors who listed Goldman Sachs as their employer, and their family members. All of this information and more can be found at the Center for Responsive Politics.

Barack Obama’s top contributors from company PACs and employees (2007-2008 cycle)

Grouped together, Goldman Sachs’ PAC and employees were among the top contributors to the Obama presidential campaign.

University of California $1,591,395

Goldman Sachs $994,795

Harvard University $854,747

Microsoft Corp $833,617

Google Inc $803,436

Citigroup Inc $701,290

JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132

Time Warner $590,084

Sidley Austin LLP $588,598

Stanford University $586,557

National Amusements Inc $551,683

UBS AG $543,219

Wilmerhale Llp $542,618

Skadden, Arps et al $530,839

IBM Corp $528,822

Columbia University $528,302

Morgan Stanley $514,881

General Electric $499,130

US Government $494,820

Latham & Watkins $493,835

John McCain’s top contributors from company PACs and employees (2007-2008 cycle)

Merrill Lynch $373,595

Citigroup Inc $322,051

Morgan Stanley $273,452

Goldman Sachs $230,095

JPMorgan Chase & Co $228,107

US Government $208,379

AT&T Inc $201,438

Wachovia Corp $195,063

UBS AG $192,493

Credit Suisse Group $183,353

PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900

US Army $167,820

Bank of America $166,026

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $159,596

Blank Rome LLP $154,226

Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437

US Dept of Defense $144,105

FedEx Corp $131,974

Bear Stearns $117,498

Lehman Brothers $114,357

Click here to see a summary of Goldman Sachs PAC and employee contributions over the years. Goldman Sachs PAC and employees have given more to Democrats than Republicans across the past several campaign cycles.

Breakdown of Goldman Sachs PAC and employee contributions to members of Congress

Money to Congress: 2010 Cycle

Dems:

$332,375

Repubs:

$190,200

Others:

$0

Incumbents:

$398,900

Non-Incumbents:

$123,675

House
# of Members
Average Contribution
Total Contributions

Democrats
33
$5,101
$168,350

Republicans
28
$2,782
$77,900

Independents
0
$0
$0

TOTAL
61
$4,036
$246,250

Senate
# of Members
Average Contribution
Total Contributions

Democrats
19
$4,878
$92,700

Republicans
10
$5,995
$59,950

Independents
0
$0
$0

TOTAL
29
$5,263
$152,650

Goldman Sachs PAC and employee contributions to Senate Banking Committee members (2009-2010)

Bayh, Evan (D-IN) $5,400

Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) $4,800

Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) $8,800

Bunning, Jim (R-KY) $2,000

Crapo, Mike (R-ID) $3,000

DeMint, James W (R-SC) $1,000

Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $4,250

Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $22,600

Shelby, Richard C (R-AL) $34,600

Goldman Sachs PAC and employee contributions to House Financial Services Committee members (2009-2010)

Adler, John H (D-NJ) $5,750

Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) $2,500

Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $9,400

Capuano, Michael E (D-MA) $1,500

Castle, Michael N (R-DE) $2,400

Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $1,000

Ellison, Keith (D-MN) $500

Foster, Bill (D-IL) $4,500

Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) $2,000

Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) $1,000

Himes, Jim (D-CT) $15,150

Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $13,100

Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) $2,000

Lance, Leonard (R-NJ) $3,000

Lee, Christopher J (R-NY) $2,000

Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $4,400

McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $4,500

McCotter, Thad (R-MI) $2,000

Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) $2,500

Minnick, Walter Clifford (D-ID) $5,000

Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) $2,000

Posey, Bill (R-FL) $2,000

Royce, Ed (R-CA) $2,400

Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $3,500

Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $2,400

Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $2,500

Top Recipients, all federal candidates (2009-2010 cycle only)

McMahon, Michael E (D-NY) House $50,550

Shelby, Richard C (R-AL) Senate $34,600

Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $23,800

Murphy, Scott (D-NY) House $23,450

Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) Senate $22,600

Kirk, Mark (R-IL) House $21,600

Pleitez, Emanuel (D-CA) House $20,175

Wyden, Ron (D-OR) Senate $15,900

Himes, Jim (D-CT) House $15,150

Khazei, Alan (D-MA) Senate $14,600

Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) House $13,100

Crist, Charles J Jr (R-FL) Senate $10,100

Dold, Robert (R-IL) House $9,850

Bean, Melissa (D-IL) House $9,400

Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) Senate $8,800

Roskam, Peter (R-IL) House $7,400

Saujani, Reshma M (D-NY) House $7,200

Coakley, Martha (D-MA) Senate $7,050

Blunt, Roy (R-MO) House $6,200

Adler, John H (D-NJ) House $5,750

Brown, Scott P (R-MA) Senate $5,550

Bayh, Evan (D-IN) Senate $5,400

Chachas, John Gregory (R-NV) Senate $5,100

Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL) House $5,050

Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House $5,000

Minnick, Walter Clifford (D-ID) House $5,000

Reid, Harry (D-NV) Senate $4,900

Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) Senate $4,800

Fiorina, Carly (R-CA) Senate $4,800

Conway, Jack (D-KY) Senate $4,650

Foster, Bill (D-IL) House $4,500

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) Senate $4,500

McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $4,500

Ayotte, Kelly A (R-NH) Senate $4,400

Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) House $4,400

Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $4,250

Foley, Thomas C (R-CT) Senate $4,150

Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI) Senate $4,000

Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) House $3,500

Specter, Arlen (D-PA) Senate $3,350

Hoffman, David (D-IL) Senate $3,150

Crapo, Mike (R-ID) Senate $3,000

Lance, Leonard (R-NJ) House $3,000

Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) House $2,900

Tedisco, Jim (R-NY) House $2,900

Jackson, Cheryle (D-IL) Senate $2,800

Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) Senate $2,650

Portman, Rob (R-OH) Senate $2,650

Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) House $2,500

Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) House $2,500

Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) House $2,500

Bera, Ami (D-CA) House $2,400

Castle, Michael N (R-DE) House $2,400

Fisher, Lee Irwin (D-OH) Senate $2,400

Flake, Jeff (R-AZ) House $2,400

Royce, Ed (R-CA) House $2,400

Sowers, Tommy (D-MO) House $2,400

Waters, Maxine (D-CA) House $2,400

Williams, Roger (R-TX) Senate $2,400

Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) House $2,200

Bono Mack, Mary (R-CA) House $2,000

Bunning, Jim (R-KY) Senate $2,000

Camp, Dave (R-MI) House $2,000

Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) House $2,000

Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) Senate $2,000

Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) House $2,000

Lee, Christopher J (R-NY) House $2,000

McCotter, Thad (R-MI) House $2,000

Melancon, Charles (D-LA) House $2,000

Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $2,000

Posey, Bill (R-FL) House $2,000

Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) House $2,000

Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) House $2,000

Capuano, Michael E (D-MA) House $1,500

White, Bill (D-TX) Senate $1,500

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) Senate $1,250

Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) House $1,000

Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $1,000

Burton, Dan (R-IN) House $1,000

Cantor, Eric (R-VA) House $1,000

Coburn, Tom (R-OK) Senate $1,000

DeMint, James W (R-SC) Senate $1,000

Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL) House $1,000

Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) House $1,000

Etheridge, Bob (D-NC) House $1,000

Grayson, Trey (R-KY) Senate $1,000

Gutierrez, Armando Jr (R-FL) House $1,000

Hamos, Julie (D-IL) House $1,000

Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) House $1,000

Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) Senate $1,000

Kind, Ron (D-WI) House $1,000

Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) Senate $1,000

Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) Senate $1,000

McDonald, Jack (D-TX) House $1,000

Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) Senate $1,000

Murphy, Chris (D-CT) House $1,000

Murphy, Tim (R-PA) House $1,000

Norton, Jane (R-CO) Senate $1,000

Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) House $1,000

Rooney, Brian John (R-MI) House $1,000

Top Recipients, all federal candidates (1990-2010)

Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $1,053,795

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $682,690

Corzine, Jon S (D-NJ) $585,870

Bush, George W (R-Texas) $528,124

Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $481,040

Kerry, John (D-Mass) $351,750

McCain, John (R-Ariz) $337,065

Bradley, Bill (D-NJ) $323,550

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $273,466

Romney, Mitt (R-Mass) $254,025

Ryan, Jack (R-Ill) $218,161

Edwards, John (D-NC) $213,750

Lazio, Rick A (R-NY) $194,300

D'Amato, Alfonse M (R-NY) $189,150

Himes, Jim (D-Conn) $170,248

Bayh, Evan (D-Ind) $164,950

Specter, Arlen (R-Pa) $164,700

Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $158,500

Giuliani, Rudolph W (R-NY) $150,750

Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $149,950

Clinton, Bill (D-Ark) $140,659

Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $132,290

Lieberman, Joe (I-Conn) $123,700

Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $115,100

Ford, Harold E Jr (D-Tenn) $111,997

Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-Texas) $111,300

 

[footdr]

and your point is.........

I stand by my original post and the figures I quoted are from a reputable source.

 

[bernynhel]

I stand by my original post and the figures I quoted are from a reputable source.

So would I! I just posted that list thinking you may want to make a point with it - OK, so you didn't bite and haul out the printing calculator. lol I never really looked at it! Don't know what it proves, if anything.