Obama got 7x more from Goldman Sachs than Bush got from Enron

[1bad65]

"Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

President Bush's connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company's accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, "Bush's Enron Problem." The Associated Press ran with the headline, "Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis." David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton.

But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama's $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That's also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.

It would be fair to say that the total amount the Obama administration has received from those affiliated with Goldman Sachs is ten times that of what Bush received from Enron.

Goldman is being sued for civil fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission for deliberately putting unwitting clients on the wrong side of a mortgage security trade that had been designed to fail."

Source:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Is-Goldman-Obamas-Enron-No-its-worse-91613449.html

[Reality_Check]

Interesting. That article seems to downplay the actual amount donated to President Bush by Enron.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/21/us/enron-s-collapse-politicians-enron-spread-contributions-both-sides-aisle.html?pagewanted=1


Enron has given more than $700,000 to Mr. Bush since 1993; no company has given him more. In addition, Enron's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, was one of the ''pioneers,'' raising more than $100,000 for Mr. Bush's campaign, and he and his wife gave a total of $10,000 to Mr. Bush's Florida recount fund. Enron and Mr. Lay also contributed a total of $200,000 to Mr. Bush's inaugural festivities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/business/enron-s-collapse-overview-enron-sought-aid-treasury-dept-get-bank-loans.html?pagewanted=2


To the Bush-Cheney inaugural gala by Enron, Mr. Lay and his wife, and Mr. Skilling: $100,000 each, for a total of $300,000

That's $700,000 + $200,000 + $100,000 = $1,000,000, at least. Please note, these numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, so in 2010 dollars they'd be higher.

Hmm...Goldman Sachs contributions to George W. Bush:

2000 - $173,774.94 (inflation adjusted) - Source (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000085&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2000)
2004 - $452,313.03 (inflation adjusted) - Source (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000085&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2004)

Total: $626,087.97

[1bad65]

RC, most of your numbers are not campaign contributions. $500k of it was for "inaugural festivities". Now, considering Obama had the most expensive inauguration in our history, I'd bet Obama got alot of big money donors to help foot that bill (of course the taxpayers picked up a good part of it too).

[Reality_Check]

RC, most of your numbers are not campaign contributions. $500k of it was for "inaugural festivities". Now, considering Obama had the most expensive inauguration in our history, I'd bet Obama got alot of big money donors to help foot that bill (of course the taxpayers picked up a good part of it too).

Perhaps you could exclude the $300k for the inauguration. However, the $700k represents campaign contributions. So, most of my numbers are campaign contributions. Which would make that "7x" headline rather misleading, don't you think?

Regarding President Obama's inauguration, I'd be more than happy to include any Goldman Sachs' contributions in the tally. Please let me know how much they were.

As for taxpayers picking up a good part of the bill:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=906900&postcount=1287


Once again, you are missing my point. The $150 million quoted in the article to which you linked, includes security costs. Hence the $150 million for Barack Obama is direct comparable to the $157.8 million for George W. Bush in 2005. If you want to compare costs excluding security, then it is $45 million for Barack Obama versus $42.3 million for George W. Bush. And, as the article to which I linked indicated, the $45 million is coming from donations, just as the $42.3 million for George W. Bush in 2005 came from donations. So, we are paying for security for Barack Obama's inaguration, just as we did for George W. Bush's inaguration in 2005. So, just as in 2005, we are not paying for the party, we are paying for security.

Why you would bring that up is beyond me, as it has been discussed and shown to be a non-issue.

I'd also like your thoughts on the $626,087.97 contributed by Goldman Sachs to President Bush's campaigns vis a vis the economic meltdown that Goldman Sachs was party to and that happened on President Bush's watch.

[1bad65]

I'd also like your thoughts on the $626,087.97 contributed by Goldman Sachs to President Bush's campaigns vis a vis the economic meltdown that Goldman Sachs was party to and that happened on President Bush's watch.

No way. You are not gonna play the 'it happened on his watch, so its his fault' bs card. Because by that logic Richard Jewell is responsible for the Olympic Park bombing because it happened on his watch.

Economists like Alan Greenspan have admitted now that the subprime loans were the spark that set off the powder keg. And that is all Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's fault there. As a matter of fact, not only did Frank receive campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his lover at the time was a Fannie Mae executive.

[kfson]

Why would Goldman Sachs employees support a liberal presidential candidate? Does this make sense to anyone?

[solo1]

wall street now dominated by a younger generation seems to have based their contributions the same way they bought his lies and hype. The jug eared one made it clear early on he was going to make changes on the street of dreams they didn't think he meant them. Since Obama refused to understand that a democrat congress caused the housing failure and subsequent banking fall it became pretty obvious he was going to attack business. No my friends government is never the problem it must be the businesses that caused it. The bill forcing banks to write loans to every schmo who showed up caused the sub prime not the banks. Obama is a miserable failure and is the dumbest guy in the room and it doesn't matter what room that is.

[MasterKiller]

Since Obama refused to understand that a democrat congress caused the housing failure and subsequent banking fall it became pretty obvious he was going to attack business. No my friends government is never the problem it must be the businesses that caused it. The bill forcing banks to write loans to every schmo who showed up caused the sub prime not the banks. Obama is a miserable failure and is the dumbest guy in the room and it doesn't matter what room that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

[Reality_Check]

No way. You are not gonna play the 'it happened on his watch, so its his fault' bs card. Because by that logic Richard Jewell is responsible for the Olympic Park bombing because it happened on his watch.

Well, golly, why would you bring Goldman Sachs up? Unless you're trying for guilt by association. :confused:

[SanHeChuan]

"Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.


Are you implying that there is some favoritism towards Goldman Sachs on the part of the White house?

[uki]

now that is change we can really, really can believe in!!! :D

[1bad65]

Well, golly, why would you bring Goldman Sachs up? Unless you're trying for guilt by association. :confused:

WTF?? I brought them up because they gave a ton of cash to Obama, yet the press doesn't care much. But when Enron was in the news, they were linked to Bush at every opportunity.

[1bad65]

Are you implying that there is some favoritism towards Goldman Sachs on the part of the White house?

I'm just stating the facts. No need to imply anything.

[SanHeChuan]

WTF?? I brought them up because they gave a ton of cash to Obama, yet the press doesn't care much. But when Enron was in the news, they were linked to Bush at every opportunity.

Fair enough but the conection between washington and Enron was more than just campaign contrabutions. Enron got legislation in there favor, can goldman sachs say the same?

Enron Scandal Points to Bush (http://www.alternet.org/story/12216/)


In the case of Enron, Congress passed laws that deregulated the company's business activities, allowing the company to avoid government scrutiny of practices that profited insiders but led to its eventual downfall.

[1bad65]

In the case of Enron, Congress passed laws that deregulated the company's business activities, allowing the company to avoid government scrutiny of practices that profited insiders but led to its eventual downfall.

Bush was in Congress??? :confused:

[1bad65]

Fair enough but the conection between washington and Enron was more than just campaign contrabutions. Enron got legislation in there favor, can goldman sachs say the same?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can say the same. And who was sleeping with one of their executives and taking campaign money from them?

[Reality_Check]

WTF?? I brought them up because they gave a ton of cash to Obama, yet the press doesn't care much. But when Enron was in the news, they were linked to Bush at every opportunity.

Hmm...the press doesn't care much?

CNBC (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/)


President Barack Obama answered questions on this topic in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood on April 21, 2010.

"In the 2008 campaign, you got a lot of money, about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs," Harwood said. "Your former White House counsel Greg Craig is apparently going to represent Goldman Sachs. In light of this case, do either of those things embarrass you?"

Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-20/goldman-donations-to-obama-campaign-totaled-nearly-1-million.html)


Goldman Donations to Obama Campaign Totaled Nearly $1 Million

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/democrats.wall.street/)


According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703763904575196550713825286.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)


Republicans have noted that Goldman Sachs employees gave Mr. Obama nearly $1 million during the campaign, making the company his second-largest source of donations. Mr. Obama hasn't said if he would return the Goldman donations in the wake of recent allegations against the company.

Yep, it looks like it's being completely ignored. To your point, they don't mention the "7x what George W. Bush received from Enron" part. Probably because, as I've shown, it's not true.

[Reality_Check]

Fair enough but the conection between washington and Enron was more than just campaign contrabutions. Enron got legislation in there favor, can goldman sachs say the same?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can say the same. And who was sleeping with one of their executives and taking campaign money from them?

Ah...but he asked about Goldman Sachs.

[Reality_Check]

I'm just stating the facts. No need to imply anything.

So, was there favoritism shown by the White House due to the campaign contributions? Yes or no.

[1bad65]

So, was there favoritism shown by the White House due to the campaign contributions? Yes or no.

That is moot.

The point is that he took the $990k in campaign money, then accused them of wrongdoing, and now refuses to give back the money he himself is saying was made by breaking the law! Hypocracy at its finest.

[1bad65]

Yep, it looks like it's being completely ignored. To your point, they don't mention the "7x what George W. Bush received from Enron" part. Probably because, as I've shown, it's not true.

Even if we use your numbers, it's still like 3x-4x, correct?

[Reality_Check]

Even if we use your numbers, it's still like 3x-4x, correct?

No, more like slightly less that 1.5 times. Though it's actually less than that as I'm using unadjusted numbers for the contributions from Enron to George W. Bush.

Please note, President Obama received roughly 1.6x what President Bush received from Goldman Sachs.

[Reality_Check]

That is moot.

Well SanHeChuan did ask you a question (twice) about favoritism and Goldman Sachs. As you are pushing Pork Chop to answer one of your questions on the "Tea Party" thread, it only seems appropriate that you answer the direct question put to you by both SanHeChuan and me.

So, to quote a wise man:


You didn't answer the question.


And you can call me names, I don't care, but just answer the question :)


Not to be a jerk, but maybe The Duck should answer the question then.



So I asked you to answer this question:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=905439&postcount=1237


You didn't answer the question.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=882374&postcount=746


Try answering the question:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=882380&postcount=749


Answer the question, please

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=900447&postcount=382


I notice you did not answer the question about your hero's lying though....

[1bad65]

Well SanHeChuan did ask you a question (twice) about favoritism and Goldman Sachs.

It's a moot point.

Again, by Obama's own admission, he got over $900k of dirty money that he refuses to give back. If you or I took dirty money (drug money, stolen money, etc) it would be seized and we would be facing criminal charges. I thought we were all equal under the law?

[1bad65]

Fine, you win. I'll answer it. Remember, you asked for it. ;)

Yes, they received favoritism.

1) In March 2009, it was reported that, in 2008, Goldman Sachs, alongside other major US and international financial institutions, had received billions of dollars during the unwind of credit default swap (CDS) contracts purchased from AIG, including $12.9bn from funds provided by the US Federal Reserve to bail out AIG.

2) Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson was named as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, despite President Barack Obama's campaign promise that he would limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration.

And then we have this:

"While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal."

Sources:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16rescue.html?_r=1&ref=business

Now will you please address why Obama refuses to give back money he claims was made by breaking the law. ;)

[Reality_Check]

Fine, you win. I'll answer it. Remember, you asked for it. ;)

Yes, they received favoritism.

1) In March 2009, it was reported that, in 2008, Goldman Sachs, alongside other major US and international financial institutions, had received billions of dollars during the unwind of credit default swap (CDS) contracts purchased from AIG, including $12.9bn from funds provided by the US Federal Reserve to bail out AIG.

2) Former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson was named as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, despite President Barack Obama's campaign promise that he would limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration.

And then we have this:

"While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal."

Sources:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6735898
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/business/16rescue.html?_r=1&ref=business

Now will you please address why Obama refuses to give back money he claims was made by breaking the law. ;)

You do realize that #1 happened under the Bush Administration, right?

And as for President Obama not giving back the contributions, I don't know why. I can only go by what he says the reasons are (and, with him being a politician, they have to be taken with a large grain of salt). I guess the answer will depend on how many, if any, of the individual Goldman employees/executives who make up that $994k are found guilty of fraud. Please remember, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were convicted in Federal Court (though Ken Lay died before being sentenced and his conviction was thrown out as all of his appeals weren't exhausted prior to his death).

[1bad65]

You do realize that #1 happened under the Bush Administration, right?

Obama voted to give out that money as well.


And as for President Obama not giving back the contributions, I don't know why. I can only go by what he says the reasons are (and, with him being a politician, they have to be taken with a large grain of salt). I guess the answer will depend on how many, if any, of the individual Goldman employees/executives who make up that $994k are found guilty of fraud. Please remember, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were convicted in Federal Court (though Ken Lay died before being sentenced and his conviction was thrown out as all of his appeals weren't exhausted prior to his death).

Thank you for the honest answer. But you do admit it's hypocritical to say the money was made by breaking the law, but you are keeping your part of it, right? And then, after he keeps his part of the money, he wants to prosecute the guys who gave it to him! I just wish you guys could see that while Bush was not the greatest President (yes, I admit it), this lying buffoon is even worse.

[Reality_Check]

Obama voted to give out that money as well.

Are you sure about that? The Fed, under the Bush Administration, was responsible for the bailout of AIG, not Congress.


Thank you for the honest answer. But you do admit it's hypocritical to say the money was made by breaking the law, but you are keeping your part of it, right? And then, after he keeps his part of the money, he wants to prosecute the guys who gave it to him! I just wish you guys could see that while Bush was not the greatest President (yes, I admit it), this lying buffoon is even worse.

Did President Bush give back the money contributed to his campaigns by Enron? As for the hypocrisy charge, wouldn't it be hypocritical to insist others give back money while keeping it oneself? Has President Obama done that?

I think this would be an example of hypocrisy:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/04/boehner_ties_obama_to_goldman.html


Although Boehner's press release contains a link to data on the Center for Responsive Politics Web site that lists Goldman Sachs as Obama's No. 2 political contributor during the 2008 election cycle, it neglected to cite a link on the same Web site that reveals Goldman Sachs was the No. 2 contributor to Boehner's own Freedom Project political action committee during the 2004 election cycle.

The group's data shows Goldman Sachs gave more than $100,000 to Boehner and his political groups since 1998: $73,000 to the Freedom Project and $27,600 to Boehner's congressional re-election campaign.

Asked whether Boehner would refund the money he got from Goldman Sachs, spokesman Cory Fritz emailed this reply: " The president's pushing a bill supported by and benefiting a top contributor -- that's the issue."

Of course, it would appear that more Goldman Sachs money is going to Republicans these days instead of to Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36137.html


Goldman Sachs’ political action committee dished out nearly $300,000 to lawmakers’ campaigns and their PACs in March, with more going to Republicans than Democrats, federal campaign filings released Tuesday show.

[mawali]

Why would Goldman Sachs employees support a liberal presidential candidate? Does this make sense to anyone?

These companies give to anyone!
They may give 15% to x, 25% to y, 5% to z, etc as a way to hedge their bets so they do not give to one person. The bootom line is who they can buy with what amount.
The bottom line is that the excesses must be stopped. If one is dissatisfied with the status quo, then things must change.

[1bad65]

These companies give to anyone!
They may give 15% to x, 25% to y, 5% to z, etc as a way to hedge their bets so they do not give to one person. The bootom line is who they can buy with what amount.
The bottom line is that the excesses must be stopped. If one is dissatisfied with the status quo, then things must change.

They give to both sides not buy influence, but to try and keep lawmakers from targeting them. It's alot like old school Mafia 'protection'.

Look at Microsoft. Prior to the Clinton Administration going after them for being a monopoly, they gave very little to either Party. But once their business was targetted, they began giving alot more campaign contributions to politicians.

[1bad65]

Did President Bush give back the money contributed to his campaigns by Enron? As for the hypocrisy charge, wouldn't it be hypocritical to insist others give back money while keeping it oneself? Has President Obama done that?

Ah, but Obama ran on 'Change'! Remember? ;)

[Reality_Check]

Ah, but Obama ran on 'Change'! Remember? ;)

Ah, but you're ducking the question.

[1bad65]

Ah, but you're ducking the question.

Not at all. I'm just bringing up a valid point you don't want to discuss. ;)

But What question are you claiming I'm ducking?

[Reality_Check]

Not at all. I'm just bringing up a valid point you don't want to discuss. ;)

But What question are you claiming I'm ducking?

Did President Bush return the money contributed to his campaigns by Enron? Did President Obama demand other people return money contributed to their campaign(s), while keeping such money himself (a la John Boehner)?

[1bad65]

Did President Bush return the money contributed to his campaigns by Enron? Did President Obama demand other people return money contributed to their campaign(s), while keeping such money himself (a la John Boehner)?

I have no idea. If you want to know, you do the research and source it. I can't argue with facts. But of course I'm not going to produce your arguments for you. ;)

[Reality_Check]

I have no idea. If you want to know, you do the research and source it. I can't argue with facts. But of course I'm not going to produce your arguments for you. ;)

Meaning you can't find any evidence that President George W. Bush returned any of the campaign contributions.

Oh, and did you call on former President Bush to return the money he received from Enron? If not, then you would be the one guilty of hypocrisy.

[Hardwork108]

What I conclude here is that both President Obama and Ex-President Bush are immoral crooks. What else did you expect?

After all it is the same people who pull both their strings from above!

I really believe that recent events are wake up call for those who cannot see beyond the smoke of inter-party rambling.

The fact is that presidents are selected and not elected, and this selection is not based on their honesty or morality, in fact it is quite the opposite, as proven in the past few decades.

Do please wake up......

[1bad65]

Meaning you can't find any evidence that President George W. Bush returned any of the campaign contributions.

Oh, and did you call on former President Bush to return the money he received from Enron? If not, then you would be the one guilty of hypocrisy.

You said he didn't return the money, thus it's your job to prove it. ;)

Again, Bush didn't run on 'change', your guy did. So Obama is the hypocrite, and a liar to boot.

[Reality_Check]

You said he didn't return the money, thus it's your job to prove it. ;)

Again, Bush didn't run on 'change', your guy did. So Obama is the hypocrite, and a liar to boot.

No, I (repeatedly) asked if he returned the campaign contributions. At no time did I make an assertion to that effect. Reading is fundamental.

Oh, and President Bush did run on change. He said that he wanted to "change the tone" in Washington. He failed miserably.

[1bad65]

No, I (repeatedly) asked if he returned the campaign contributions. At no time did I make an assertion to that effect. Reading is fundamental.

And I repeatedly said it was moot and that I didn't care. If you care so much, do the **** research yourself.


Oh, and President Bush did run on change. He said that he wanted to "change the tone" in Washington. He failed miserably.

Nice try. Bad cop-out.

[Reality_Check]

And I repeatedly said it was moot and that I didn't care. If you care so much, do the **** research yourself.

But if it was so bad for President Obama to accept, and not return, money from Goldman Sachs, why was it not bad for President Bush to accept, and not return, money from Enron? The comparison to President Bush was inevitable due to your very first post in this thread, which is the place where George W. Bush and Enron were first mentioned. I did not bring it up. You did. As such you should be prepared to answer questions about it. Just because the overt hypocrisy you are evidencing (and my pointing it out) is making you uncomfortable, does not make it a moot point. Since you keep claiming that it is moot, this only leads me to believe that you hold Democrats to a different standard than Republicans. Hence: hypocricy.

So, did President George W. Bush return the money contributed to his campaigns by Enron?

[1bad65]

But if it was so bad for President Obama to accept, and not return, money from Goldman Sachs, why was it not bad for President Bush to accept, and not return, money from Enron?

Because Bush didn't run on demonizing Wall Street while taking Wall Street's money.

[Reality_Check]

Because Bush didn't run on demonizing Wall Street while taking Wall Street's money.

So as long as President Obama didn't criticize them during his Presidential campaign, you'd be fine with him keeping the money?

Of course the titans of Wall Street did almost bring the world economy down. They did cause a terrible recession. Perhaps they were deserving of some criticism, don't you think?

[1bad65]

So as long as President Obama didn't criticize them during his Presidential campaign, you'd be fine with him keeping the money?

Well he did, so that question is moot.


Of course Chris Dodd and Barney Frank did almost bring the world economy down. They did cause a terrible recession.

Fixed that for ya. ;)

[1bad65]

Perhaps they were deserving of some criticism, don't you think?

Obviously Obama felt he was deserving of their money.

[Drake]

This thread makes republicans and democrats look equally shady and awful...

[1bad65]

This thread makes republicans and democrats look equally shady and awful...

Neither have clean hands, I agree there. But the GOP didn't run on 'Change'. Thus they are not the hypocrites.