Mitt Romney is a Creature of Wall Street - Mike Swanson (12/13/11)

Mitt Romney is a creature Wall Street who will only bring the country to further ruin if he is elected President. In my honest opinion we would be better off if anyone else besides him gets the Republican nomination and if he gets the nomination it would be even be better if Obama simply remains President.

And I am someone who did not vote for Obama in the last election and do not like the job he has done at all.

When you support or oppose a politician it is important to go beyond their rhetoric and look at the people who are actually behind him or her to get an idea of what they are really about.
Politicians can say anything, but all politicians are very keen on helping out those that get them where they are.

Thanks to the website you can easily find out who the biggest campaign donors for any national politician are and if you look at all of the people running for the Republican nomination it is clear that almost all of the Wall Street money is flowing directly to Mitt Romney.

The top ten campaign contributors for Mitt Romney are:

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $194,300
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $125,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250

Every single one of his top ten contributors are Wall Street banks except for one - EMC Corporation. And the New York Post reports that today he is raising millions of dollars at three Wall Street fundraisers.

It is the banks that have brought the United States to its current state of malaise. It is the banks that garnered over a trillion dollars of bailout money at the end of the Bush administration and are now crying out for more bailouts in order to save themselves from the European debt crisis.

It is the banks that needed the Federal Reserve to lower interest to near zero so that they can get money for nothing from the Federal Reserve member banks while regular depositors like you get nothing for your CD's and bonds.

Such money printing has helped the stock market go up, but it has helped lower the standard of every American through inflation and higher prices at the gas pump.

It didn't have to be this way. President Obama could have taken the country in a different direction when he became President. He had a mandate by the American to bring real change to the country in a time of dire need just like Franklin Roosevelt did when he got in office.
But Obama did nothing to stir up the behind the scenes status quo and did absolutely nothing that the banks did not approve of. His so called opposition against banks which lasted for a few weeks was pr lip service.

It’s not a coincidence that in the last Presidential election banks such as Goldman Sachs were among President Obama's top campaign contributors. Obama's last chief of staff served as an executive for JP Morgan.

Money counts in elections.

And in this election it is clear that Wall Street's creature in the race for the Republican nomination is Mitt Romney.

If you like bank bailouts and want to see more of them than be my guest and vote for Romney.
But if you want to see this country go on a different path than your only choice is to support one of the other Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination.

Right now Newt Gingrich is in the best position to beat Romney. Here are Newt's top ten campaign donors:

Rock-Tenn Co $27,500
Poet LLC $20,000
First Fiscal Fund $15,000
Pull-A-Part Inc $15,000
Amway/Alticor Inc $10,000
State Mutual Insurance $10,000
American Fruits & Flavors $10,000
Streck Inc $10,000
Windway Capital $9,600
Wirco Inc $8,500

There is only one Wall Street financial company on Newt's list - Windway Capital. Now you might think Amway is a sleazy pyramid scheme company, but Amway hasn't wrecked the country.
The same is pretty much true of the other candidates vying for the Republican nomination - none of their campaign contributors consist of a list dominated by Wall Street. None of them, but Romney.

So if you want another four more years of Wall Street domination of the Presidency vote for Mitt. And if you agree that he is bad for the country don't just sit there and do nothing about it. Tell people the truth about the powers that be that are behind him and go out and vote for an alternative. Mitt Romney would be a total disaster for our country.

If you liked this post vote below:


Mike, thank you for your candid opinion.

I agree with you that the banks bear a portion of the blame for what happened in 2008. I also agree that Mitt Romney is a wall street guy, who will do whatever is in the best interests of the big financial institutions. I would encourage people to vote for anyone on Republican side other, than Mitt Romney.

However, there is one important element missing in your analysis. Here it is: the banks are not the primary culprits in the financial mess of 2008! It is obvious, that the banks' primary objective is to make money for themselves. But that is no different that you and me and every person wanting to make money for themselves.

The criminal element resides in the United States Congress! Christopher Dod and Barney Frank passed a bill, which required the banks to lend money to people, who did not have the means to repay them. If the banks were not going to comply with that regulation, then the aforementioned congressmen threatened to hold hearings against those financial institutions.

The congressmen would insinuate that the banks will have been discriminating against minorities, since most people, who can not afford homes are minorities. One can only imagine all the sob stories, which would have been played on the evening news, as the "unfortunate" people, who can not afford homes would be paraded across our TV screens. And all of that would be the fault of the big banks.

Is it any wonder that Chris Dod and Barney Frank are not running for re-election?

Another horrible thing is that congressmen/women can engage in insider trading with no repercussions. Recently Nancy Peloci received an IPO of some company, based on her knowledge, which was not available to the public. So while the rest of us would go to jail (yes, this includes even the wall street CEO's!) for such actions, the congress enjoys immunity from any such law.

As far as who would be better Romney or Obama?... I say get rid of Obama. He is turning our country United States of America into a United Socilist America.

Regardless of which candidate is your favorite or least favorite, you should acurately portray facts as they are provided, not as it sounds good in an article. You do realize that the source you referenced,, specifically states, "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." What this says is that these are contributors who also happen to work for the stated employers.

It is no surprise that individuals in the financial industry would learn towards a more conservative political party (Republicans), especially with respect to tax legislation, or that many would be supportive of an individual who was so succesful in the financial industry (Bain Capital). But by pointing out just one statistic and comparing against two candidates, you are not providing a very strong argument. If you dislike policies or a variety of criteria relating to a candidate, you are free to share it, but don't try and make an argument out of one set of numbers positioned in the direction you prefer.

A couple of other items you didn't note, that can be deducted from the information on

-Goldman Sachs, as well as other financial industry employees, are some of the top income grossing individuals in the nation, therefore it's not surprising that their contributions would be a significantly large amount.

-Individuals make up 99% of the "Source of Funds" ( to Romney, and about every other candidate.

-The combination of the individuals in these top 10 businesses that you mentioned make up less than 5% of his total contributions.

-In Gingrich's top 20 there were several other financial institutions that didn't make the top 10 list by less than $4,000 in donations. Not to mention that First Fiscal Fund and State Mutual Insurance are also in the Financial & Real Estate Industry that was responsible for our economy's decline.

-You stated that Obama had received donations from similar sources and during this presidency with all of the bank bailouts and federal reserve moves, it would seem like the donors were getting their way under Obama. Then why wouldn't they contribute more to him now? Faulty logic.

-Additionally you stated that Obama didn't make any beneficial changes in the economy and through the actions and policies established during his presidency "helped lower the standard of every American," but yet you would still rather have him as president again. Baffling.

It sounds like you have more of an issue with Romney and are grabbing for straws to try and make a point. I'm not even a Romney supporter, but don't enjoy when people manipulate #s and information to try and convince people to agree with them--especially in a negative light, rather than pointing out the positives of a candidate and the benefits to that individual.

"-You stated that Obama had received donations from similar sources and during this presidency with all of the bank bailouts and federal reserve moves, it would seem like the donors were getting their way under Obama. Then why wouldn't they contribute more to him now? Faulty logic."

This isn't faulty logic at all. In the last election the big banks backed both McCain and Obama. This way their interests are covered regardless of who wins.

"-Additionally you stated that Obama didn't make any beneficial changes in the economy and through the actions and policies established during his presidency "helped lower the standard of every American," but yet you would still rather have him as president again. Baffling."

Your taking this out of context. He doesn't want Obama as president, but thinks he would be the lesser of two evils.


I liked your feedback, however I may have not been clear in my 1st reply.

I realised that they both backed McCain & Obama, but what I'm saying is that if their (and remember their refers to individuals who backed the candidate, not the company itself) donations to Obama were so substatial and that they truly impacted Obama's policy, and he complied, as mentioned in the explanation of how things turned out, then why would they stop contributing that large quantity to Obama? If they know they can pay off Obama and get what they want (this is what I referred to as "faulty logic", then why wouldn't they just stick with the same guy for re-election and know that he'll again do what they want? Why redirect their contributions to a new potential person, when you're already getting what you want?

I realise he wasn't saying that he wants Obama as president again, but questioning why he still thinks he's better than Romney? All Mike S mentioned was that Romeny's bad because of Wall Street backing. He then said that Obama was backed by Wall Street in addition to the other let downs mentioned in the post. My question then is, why still Obama over Romney?

My dislike is with individuals pointing out 1 statistic (i.e. Romney receiving contributions from individuals on Wall Street) as if that's the only factor. Not to mention using that statistic, while ignoring the other information provided by the same source (some of which I included in my original comments). Then he pointed out preferring Obama over Romney, while admitting that Obama too had the same Wall Street backing that was enough reason to prefer anyone over Romney. Additionally Obama failed in other ways and yet is still preferred? That is baffling to me.

Newt is just another Progressive, like FDR and now Obama. You want government to run your life, then Newt will be no different than Obama. And Mitt Romney is a flip flopper, an opportunist. Kick them both off the pedestal! Obama can be defeated on his record, and most importantly, on his principals.

I hear this catchy bumper sticker phrase over and over, but no one ever defines what it means. Does it mean get rid of the EPA and go back to the air quality of the 1960's when schools closed several days a year because of brown contaminate air called smog, and outdoor recess was periodically canceled because it was so unhealthy for kids to breath? Does anybody remember smog alerts? I guess I just don't see any government on my back as I breathe clean air, drink clean water, and (mostly) eat food monitored by an understaffed FDA, drive on safe interstates that take me from California to Vermont, read, watch, listen and express my opinions without fear of arrest, fine or jail. I go where I want, when I want, and I don't need permission or have to carry government approved ID. Yeah it's a pain to have to wear a helmet when I ride, and put on seat belts when I drive, but looking back on some "incidents" I know I would not be here to write this if I had not worn a "brain bucket". Sooo whats the big gripe? How is your life worse for having to live under "Big Government? I agree Obama is not the leader this country needs, but to defeat him we need something better than the group of millionaire clowns running around the country putting on fake debates with predictable questions, canned answers and shamelessly pimping their latest book.


>>I hear this catchy bumper sticker phrase over and over

That's how it's done: Repeat a lie enough times and pretty soon people will consider it the truth. More Big Gov to rid ourselves of: Coast Guard, Armed Forces, NASA, USDA, FDA, Postal Service, the Federal funding agencies for scientific research that have made possible most of the scientific advances in the last 100 years, and of course Social Security. Let's knock America back to early 1800s ASAP.


When is the last time those running weren't millionaire's in debates with predictable questions, and canned answers? including Obama? There's obviously no clear option of certain improvement, but when something is broke I usually recommend fixing it.
They all have faults, but I think there are options better than Obama & Big Government. Not suggesting no government, because there are some good benefits you mentioned above, but "big government" has not proven to be effecient in running things for us. Regulation and rules are mandatory, but not in many situations where we can visual see how private markets work more efficiently.

Its surprising that companies in the US are allowed to show political support towards candidates. Especially when said companies often discipline and fire people for voicing their political opinion while in the workplace.

But all said in done. The US government is corrupt and always will be. It might aswell assign a CEO and have them listed on the stock exchange. I suppose that could help them pay off all the debt.

Obama did not create the debt, Bush junior did. And its a run away train.

Obama is the best president the US has had in years. Its just it seems all your people are short-sighted and craving instant gratification.

In how many years? and based on what criteria/accomplishments?

By the way, if the train is running away, the engineer (Obama) should stop it, not increase the speed and continue to blame the guy who started it.

The news I keep hearing is that Wall Street money is now going to Romney, whereas Obama got it last time.

Let's face it, it's all about the continuum of big money influence.

I didn't vote for Obama, but this time I will do so...watching the Congressional Republicans in action, all I can say is that
if all branches were controlled by the GOP, the average guy/gal would get punished and terribly so.

The other thing that bothers me is this religious zealotry combined with this extreme pro-business stance to the point of
jeopardizing everything else...water, air, you name it. They go backwards, not forward, that's for sure!

I think they have jumped the shark. Romney looks "presidential" but he's no better choice than any of the rest of that awful field.

I'm absolutely petrified to see what would happen if the GOP got a free hand. It's like people are willing to vote against their own interests based
on the ranting of talk radio hosts and the same rhetoric over and over again. They don't remember how we got stuck with a lot of this mess because
of Bush's spending and those "off the balance sheet" wars. Even now, the GOP proposes things that are NOT paid for!


He's the only honest man in Washington.

Republican hopeful Mitt Romney met some opposition on the campaign trail Monday. The difficulties came from a homosexual Vietnam vet. The former Massachusetts governor was questioned about his position on same-sex marriage in a Manchester, New Hampshire restaurant. It will be interesting to see how this affects Romney’s campaign.

from the last campaign:

Not a Romney fan. But aren't you basically just buying into Obama's spinning that all the recent problems are all the banks fault? Isn't it federal reserve, money printing, stimulus, all this stuff that caused the problems? With the banks in the middle?

Why waste the time picking any politician at this point....there is no answer to the problem. Game over.

I do not normally vote, because the lesser of two evils is still evil. However, I'll make an exception if Paul is in the race.

But, as you say, there is no answer to the problem. I'm sad to say this, but Paul simply CANNOT be allowed to take office as president, or if he does, he CANNOT be allowed to stay. Read what you will into that, but I think he is a bigger threat to the elite than the Occupy movement. Paul is not a "made" man and has no skeletons in his closet that can be used to force him to do their bidding.


Paul has admitted it is too late....but he is willing to give an opposing view to the prevailing beliefs FWIW

Maybe the whole system needs to collapse for real change to take place.

Mary, perhaps that could very well happen.

Me? Heck, Romney is a moral guy with principles and smarts (finally, somebody willing to go against the 'politically correct'). Clinton had smarts but no moral compass. Bush Jr put us into a war to redeem his father. Obama is completely misguided as to the Republic. Newt is bright with experience and can think on his feet. Paul is pure and emphatic as to his principles but the media completely disounts him in this TV/internet age. Herman bombed out sadly since his moral compass was destroyed by a camp not yet proven but in this circus impossible to overcome...again the circus that we call the press that seems to endorse all that is inferior and immoral.

We have a situation in our country that I continue to press since nobody else seems to want to face it and that is housing. Cure housing and the depression will go away. You all must think I'm nuts by now. Housing is our problem now. Plain and simple.

Also, it is indeed time for a moral man like Romney to take the helm. We live in a country where our moral compass has strayed. In all of recorded history nations who lose such a compass eventually fail.

Mike, dont mean to dispute your take on Romney and the banks but his moral compass overcomes that aspect as far as I am concerned...and I dont expect him to be bought like Paulson, Guenther and their ilk and a Romney administration would disband all the Czars and eliminate Obamacare. A blessing on us! Get rid of big govt!!! Newt would do the same. Toss a coin. I'd vote for either of those guys. As for Obama, get him and his liberal adminstration out of Washington! And no I am not a bigot but I do respect the history of morality under God's law.

And here I said I wouldn't go into politics...I have a call out to Dr. Paul. "Dr. Paul help me, I have a headache."

Merry Christmas to all of you. Wishing you the Best in 2012.


The fastest way to destroy a stock message board is to inject politics into the mix. We should be here to help one another make money and not to discourse on our various political views, informed or ill-informed (mostly grossly ill-informed, in my opinion). if anyone is interested in understanding what is going on a good place to start is Michael Hudson' blog; While I don't agreed with everything he says he does provide a great deal of 'food for thought'. Another place is Zerohedge with the same caveat. The poor, the middle-class, Obama, Bush and Barney Frank are just chimeras setup to distract you while the real dirty work goes on behind the scenes. Look at the MF Global blowup under Corzine and his 'I don't know nothing about birthing babies' defense, 1.2 billion gone and guess what he will most likely get away with it. Learn how hypoctheation and re-hypothecation work and how banks are using it to move money, yours, off of their books and offshore and then using that money to speculate, all legally.

Nat Singleton


* Join and receive the Two Fold Formula guide to picking stocks and combine tested fundamental valuation metrics with technical analysis.

*Align yourself with the big trends of the stock market and be alerted when these trends change.

*Receive free updates when we see an investment opportunity in an emerging sector before the crowd gets in.