It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

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.

Point not really well-taken entirely. If you don't invest in stocks at all (ever) you don't bear any suspicion for not buying as well as buying. The point being made can't appeal to logic across the board anyway.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:45 PM
The people who wrote this article must have no clue about finance and investment

Both of those investment vehicles are FUNDS, they consist of a large variety of different investments. Funds buy and sell investments all the time, or change their exposure to them. Individual investors buying shares of a fund CANNOT influence how the fund is run, or which investments are made...not even if they're the president.

Also, the article is written in a way that makes it sound evil that Obama's making money through those funds. It's no more or less evil than other people making money on the investment market.

For the slow ones: Obama DIDN'T sell BP shares!!! The fund managers decided to sell for whatever reasons. Fyi, the BP stock was relatively stagnant in the weeks running up to the disaster...which might be a reason why the fund wanted to reallocate some of its investments.

If Obama knew about the disaster beforehand, I'm pretty sure he would have stopped it judging from how much it is hurting his image. And even if he wanted to take advantage of it financially, he'd have bought PUT OPTIONS instead of investing in a fund

[edit on 24-6-2010 by MrXYZ]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by ISHAMAGI

Investments are vetted before, during and after people run for office (and win, in the case of after). Someone in the White House and democratic party knew how this might look before Obama even stepped into the race, and they sure as hell knew after he won. It actually argues against any possible culpability in the oil spill, in a way, because they would have to have known it would look bad for the President. On the other hand, people who seek power and get power also are common victims of hubris at some point in the process. They grow to think they can't be touched. Why do we have so many officials involved in sexual scandals, often before the "stain on the blue dress" dries?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by MrXYZ

I think you're pretty clearly not from the "divest in South Africa" era where students across the country pressured their universities to - well - divest in any investments supporting the apartheid government. Making money is neither a "natural" or politically neutral activity. Particularly, how you make your money is a choice, and if you allow it to be made in a way that is freighted with moral or ethical conflict then, though you may not be achieving something we can call "evil", you are supporting something that helps support the general structure of evil in this world.

It's tough to audit your funds (retirement, investment or otherwise) and takes time and effort to know where your money is going. But, my god, don't you think that's at least part of why Presidents have staffs?

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by ghostpigeon

Yeah I know all too well. I'm of the opinion that Cheney still totally owns tons of Halliburton stock. Spent many a night chasing the facts on that one. All I was saying here was that I'd have to see a whole lot more hard evidence and facts and figures before I start name calling. I'm as big a conspiracy theorist as a lot here are and I'm glad people are digging, but I also think that's a pretty serious connection to the BP thing.

They're all in it for the money. Whether they start out that way or not, they. I'm almost convinced that everyone in Congress and the President and his cabinet are ALL either benefiting financially or if they resist are threatened with blackmail, real or fabricated. Not much else logical can explain some of the goings on there for the past three decades.

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

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by ghostpigeon

The fact remains that we don't know why the fund managers decided to deinvest in BP. In SA we knew why certain movements happened...that's a big difference.

BPs stocks also fell around 18% early this year, so it's not illogical that the fund managers decided to buy something more profitable if they found a good opportunity.

Hell, we don't even know what % that 1.5mil share sale represents. If they had 5mil shares in the first place for example, the picture looks even more different.

All I'm saying is that the article draws conclusions without having proper evidence of any misconduct. The author tries really hard to paint a picture as if it was Obama who told the fund to sell some BP shares...a statement for which he has ZERO least he presents none whatsoever.

FYI, I sold BP shares in December because I saw the movie Crude and couldn't in good conscience keep on supporting them. My prevented loss since then is HUGE, more than what that fund saved...are you saying I knew about the accident too before it happened?

[edit on 24-6-2010 by MrXYZ]

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

I agree all around. I actually don't think that this is big enough to pin anything on Obama as far as the BP thing goes, or I'd be digging deeper. May be "just another brick in the wall" but not the foundation stone. I think it's more important to look at what was said directly between the White House and BP before and during the spill and development of the response and that may be extremely hard to get at this point. This is where you hope it eventually rains whistleblowers as well as oil in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by DaMod
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..

Go you really think it is difficult for an Ex. President to generate 85 million bucks over a 10 year period these days?

When he's out of office he'll generate much more than that in personal wealth...look at Clinton, Gore and Bush Sr...none of them are doing to poorly.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by TheAmused

This is the stupidest post I have ever seen on ATS. Obama has the majority of his money in Treasuries and less than 1 million in each of these funds mentioned. BP is not in the S&P 500 index and if someone buys them eventually, it sure isn't going to make that less than a million turn magically into $85 million or $100 million. BP also makes up less than 1% of the Vanguard FTSE Social Index. Not sure where thes enumbers came from from they are not based on any kind of reality. If the funds do well they may double in 5 years, and in that case everyone who is invested in the markets will do well. Not 1000% well though.

It is this kind of ignorance that makes me wonder why I ever come to ATS.

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

Is there any hard proof of your numbers?

What your saving sounds quite a bit more likely.

We all hear these grandiose claims and it immediately puts us on edge, because as we all know the last three presidents (minimum) were all financial criminals.

Its not that were embracing ignorance, and I did say I would reserve judgement.
It just the track record of this administration so far, well lets just say I wouldn't put anything past them.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by ISHAMAGI]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in