It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to make $85 million from BP disaster?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Obama to make $85 million from BP disaster?


www.twawki.com

For though little known by the American people, their President Obama holds all of his wealth in just two Vanguard funds, Vanguard 500 Index Fund where he has 3 accounts and the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund where he holds another 3 accounts, all six of which the FSB estimates will earn Obama nearly $8.5 million a year and which over 10 years will equal the staggering sum of $85 million.

The FSB further estimates in this report that through Obama’s 3 accounts in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund he stands to make another $100 million over the next 10 years as their largest stock holding is in
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
all i can say is wow!!!!!!!!!
if this is true we now know the truth.

www.twawki.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 24-6-2010 by TheAmused]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
i figured this was good info.
If obama is gonna make 8.5mill a year over the next 10 years off the oil disaster.
something needs to be done.
at least said.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
good for him

US will have to pay 85 trillion to North Korea

(See other thread)

lol



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Seems like a huge leap of logic and some pretty serious accusations to me without more facts and substantiated data. For example, how many other people hold all or the majority of their wealth in these funds? But what do I know.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
eek! double post!

[edit on 24-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
double eeek! triple post.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Seems like you're right on.

Many people hold stock in these same accounts, and similar accounts.

What every publication or person who holds out that these companies sold their stocks or some stocks in BP before the disaster omit, is the market conditions at the time of the sales.

They just want you to know that stock was sold, so that implies foreknowledge.

Using the same logic. I didn't buy stock in BP in the weeks leading up to the disaster, therefore I must have known that it was coming.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


As much as I'd like to criticize Obama for it, in fairness, I have to agree with you. Maybe he's been investing in those funds for a decade? Who knows.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Yet, people want to criticize the federal judge who overturned the moratorium on drilling, because he had less than $15K invested in oil related stocks (which were probably in a mutual fund in his retirement account)??



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
This needs some collaborating evidence.

If true it gives understanding to why the bailouts were all given to wall street instead of the cliche main street.

I have no problem with someone making money, but steering policy to make sure YOUR money makes money, and calling it for the good of the people, its criminal to say the least!

As for right now though I will reserve judgement, it could be another birther thing.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by ISHAMAGI]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


As much as I'd like to criticize Obama for it, in fairness, I have to agree with you. Maybe he's been investing in those funds for a decade? Who knows.




Yes, but that still doesn't belie the fact that near a trillion went into the pockets of his buddy's, while jobs were decimated. Had the people, small business, schools received these funds the recovery would have been instant and sustainable.

Instead it went to protect the riches assets.

If everyone is so called invested in these same accounts why did there 401ks loose like crazy?

Why was the crisis created, when undercapitalization is a forever looming issue?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Seems like you're right on.

Many people hold stock in these same accounts, and similar accounts.

What every publication or person who holds out that these companies sold their stocks or some stocks in BP before the disaster omit, is the market conditions at the time of the sales.

They just want you to know that stock was sold, so that implies foreknowledge.

Using the same logic. I didn't buy stock in BP in the weeks leading up to the disaster, therefore I must have known that it was coming.


Yes, but what about the ultimate question?

What would you do for 85 million dollars?

I know I would do an awful lot for that kind of cheese. I'm betting so would you.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISHAMAGI
Yes, but that still doesn't belie the fact that near a trillion went into the pockets of his buddy's, while jobs were decimated. Had the people, small business, schools received these funds the recovery would have been instant and sustainable.


The bailouts were as sleazy as it gets. I'm no fan of this administration. Its just that in this case, I don't see enough direct evidence to say there was wrongdoing.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Probably the same things I'd do for a Klondike Bar.

None of which include murder, much less mass murder.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


Ok, well then the 2nd ultimate question. What would someone else do for 85 million dollars. You can't honestly say that isn't a lot of money and you can't say that no one has ever killed for less.

Just saying..



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I think thats a whole lot of assuming and what ifs.

If my argument is largely backed up by what ifs then I couldn't support it.

I can't put myself in anyones shoes and assume what they would or wouldn't do.

But in no way has Obama received 85 million dollars due to the Gulf crisis, and its speculation at best that he would over ten years get that.

If the disaster is suspect because of that fact, you'd have to look at the other people involved in those accounts, find out just who all stands to profit before throwing it all at Obama.

And I still say my logic holds true. I'm equally suspect because I didn't purchase any stock in BP in the weeks leading up to the disaster.

What I don't get is that these people are "smart" enough to pull things like this off. But then do the obvious rookie mistake of selling out at the last minute instead of taking steps to delete the paper trail that leads to them. It could be a case of just #ing you in your face and you don't even see it, or there could be logical explanations.

EDIT:

It seems like in many cases, people just latch on to anything because "it could be possible". Regardless of facts or evidence that dissuades that thought, if its even remotely possible (which just about anything is) then no amount of logical or rational thinking will dissuade the idea.

Much like...aliens using a special space laser caused the disaster, the same aliens through human emmissaries have purchased and sold stock and now stand to profit up to 2 billion dollars.

Pretty far fetched right, but in the end its possible. The possibility that aliens exist, possess space lasers, use human emmissaries are all unproven, but just as possible as Obama conspiring to blow up the oil rig, cause a disaster to make 85 million.

I think thats the theory I will support. Hostile, greedy aliens with space lasers.

[edit on 6/24/2010 by ThaLoccster]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


I'm going to stop you right there. I never said anything of the sort.

I was stating that this situation is suspect. I never said he was the only one involved, only that it is suspicious and 85 million dollars would be a good reason to do something that isn't on the up and up. Even if it's over 10 years, his yearly take would be multiples of his yearly presidential salary and would be quite the insurance policy on his children's future.

Again, I'm not saying this is fact, I'm just saying it's suspicious. Secondly I'm not throwing this just at Obama, if I wanted to count everyone that is possibly involved with some sort of BP scandal at this point I would probably need another set of fingers and toes.

Yes, selling out at the last minute is a "rookie mistake", but it could also be classified as a panic move.

Just remember, bad people do bad things to gain stuff. That applies to the general public. Why wouldn't it apply to the more powerful of our species? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

P.S. I almost never go into the Aliens and UFOs forum. I generally stick to this one, Fragile Earth, Science and Tech, Breaking News and the Political Forums.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by DaMod]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Elected or appointed officials of the Federal Government, Presidents, VPs (think Cheney), Senators, Congresspeople, Ambassadors, etc., commonly put their money in trusts of some sort while in office to avoid conflict of interest appearance. This is always kind of suspect, since we know they haven't really "frozen" their money for the duration of service. Hey, this is capitalism. Money isn't capital if it just sits their and these people (all of them?) are capitalists more than public servants.

This actually doesn't surprise me to hear this at all, although some careful follow-on research would need to be done pick up the specifics of this investment account and how "blind" Obama is to his "blind trust." One way or the other, it does establish a link, no doubt one among many that should be looked into, between the Obama Administration and BP.

Haven't confirmed the Rahm Emmanuel story about getting his Washington digs paid for BP, but it that is confirmed that's one big link. Steven Chu, Department of Energy, was a major proponent of UCB accepting a controversial half billion dollar grant from BP, though many faculty and students opposed it when the offer was made (and finally accepted) as something that would compromise energy related research. I'm sure the list could expand quite a bit with only the most superficial digging through the net for reliable sources.

This is another piece of evidence (though slight) that backs up Wayne Madsen's claim that the White House was pressuring BP to hurry up the Deep Horizon drilling. If either turn out to be true, it brings up the inevitable question: was this the change we voted for that we though we could believe in? One way or the other, it's a worthy thread to dig into these questions.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Nicely stated and I'd only add that "For good men to do evil, they must first believe they are doing good." - paraphrased from Alexander Solschenizyn. This is that way that politics and science both get frequently compromised.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join