Dear Mr. A. Jatmiko

We are very sorry because we are late to posting our final assignment about analysis summary. It is because there is an conflict about the email and the notification that related to this blog e-mail.

Thank you for your consideration on the matter.


-Wall-Street Team-

The Summary of Final Assignment: Analysis of SMGR Tbk.

Based on its Efficiency analysis, PT Semen Gresik has good ability to use its assets effectively, because we can see from the term-over of its inventory, fixed assets, and total assets that on average each only experience turn over as many as 4, 2, 1 times in a year, and this company also can collect account receivable from its customers or clients, in relatively short period of time, that is about less than 2 months. But if we compare the efficiency ratios of 2006 with the previous year, that is 2005, it experience the increases, which means the ability of its company go use its assets decreased, although the increases is small, don’t reach 2 %.

Liquidity Ratios measure the ability of the company to pay its immediate payment obligations or current liabilities. From the calculation of its current ratio the amount in each year shows more than 1, which means the company will not have the problem to pay it short-term liabilities. And if we can see from its trend analysis the firm liquidity ratios increased from the previous year. That means that the flexibility of assets of its company to meet the payment obligation is also increased.

The leverage ratio is the combination of funds and capital used by company to finance the assets of the company also measure the degree of financial risk of the company.  If we compare the the debt equity with its previous year, it decreases, which mean that the risk of this company also has decreased. We assume, it is because the increasing of the assets that are financed by equity, that is from 61,49 % (2005) to 73,36 % (2006), while the company has dcreased the use of debt to finance the its assets.

Profitability ratio is used to measure the ability of the company to earn profit.  All the profitability ratios in 2006 increased from the previous year, except the net profit margin ratio. But the higher the net profit margin, the more profitable company is. So we can assume that the company has good ability to earn profit, which also reveal the effectiveness of its company in operating its business.

            There are so many advantages if we analyse the data and the graph. We can know generally the financial condition from one comany and compare the open and closing price to know that day the company gain profit or loss. We can know the enthusiastic buyer of an enterprise of the data volume. From all this data we can analyse the trend in market at one company. This will help us to get the profit from stock investing.

            We can look from the data above, it show us that this company has big change for the price or point on each day. Beside that, most of the price, will be closed lower in the end (has lower closing price) though the price is not going decrease far away compare with the opening price.

If we pay our attention, having stock by investing your money in this company often give us big risk (we can know it from the average and the standard deviation) because this company has big dispersion. May be it is caused by the fluctuations that related with the sales transactions of this company. In other hand, still many people want to buy this company’s stock because may be we can not forecast the price of it trully right, but it can so give them big profit because of one big deals in the company that makes the price of the stock increase farly. May be it wiser if we have this kind of stock, then we play it as a long-term investment than short-term investment.

PT. SEMEN GRESIK (PERSERO) Tbk. Company Profile

          PT. Semen Gresik (Persero) Tbk or known as SMGR(.jk). Is a big company that engage in cement industry. This company has a long history. It was established in August 7, 1957. Why it called Semen Gresik? Because it is inaugurated at Gresik by our first president. Finally on July 8, 1991, it was go public; which is mean Semen Gresik sell  its stocks. It was listed at the Jakarta Stock Exchange and Surabaya Stock Exchange and was the first State-owned Enterprise publicly listed by offering 40 million shares to the public. Its shareholding composition was Government 73% and the Public 27%. September 5, 1995 it made an consolidation with PT. Semen Padang and PT. Semen Tonasa that is why created name Semen Gresik Group (SGG).

This company is the first company that belongs to BUMN which is go public. This company firstly sold its share by offering on 40,000,000 common shares with nominal of IDR 1,000 per share with IDR 7,000 price offered each share.

About the product, this company sell:

1.      Portland Cement Type 1 or Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). This type of cement is used to common or general construction.

2.      Portland Cement Type 2 or cement that has defense to sulfate and middle hydras.

3.      Portland Cement Type 3

4.      Portland Cement Type 5

5.      Special Blended Cement (SBC)

6.       Portland Pozzolan Cement (PPC).

Now, this company become bigger and has many branches company. The locations are very strategic. There are located at Sumatera, Java, and Sulawesi.Semen Gresik Group (SGG) is capable supply the needs of cement in the whole place and region in our country that supported by thousands distributor, sub-distributor, and shops. Beside that, it also supply its product to foreign country such as: Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Hongkong, Camboja, Bangladesh, Yaman, Norfolk USA, Australia, Canary Island, Mauritius, Nigeria, Mozambik, Gambia, Benin and Madagaskar.

For further information about the specific locations of SGG; here is the list:

a.       Semen Padang

It has 4 cement factories. The capacity is reach out of 6 million ton of cements each year, located at Indrarung, West of Sumatera. Semen Padang has 5 places of resource; Teluk Bayur, Belawan, Batam, Tanjung Priok, and Ciwandan.

b.      Semen Gresik

It has 3 factories which has capacity 8,5 million ton of cements that located at; Tuban, East Java. It has 2 harbor those are: Specific harbor Semen Gresik at Tuban and Gresik.

c.       Semen Tonasa

It has 3 factories of cement. The capacity is reach out of 3.48 million ton of cements in each year. Located at Pangkep, South Sulawesi. It has 7 places of resource; those are: Biringkasi, Makassar, Samarinda, Banjarmasin, Bitung, Palu, Ambon, Celukan Bawang, and Bali.

Massive Insider Trading Investigation Could Nail Wall Street's Biggest Names

Nov 22, 2010 12:20pm EST by Henry Blodget in Investing, Banking

Related: C, GS, XLF, FAZ, JPM, BAC, MS

Play VideoNow Playing

The government is reportedly close to filing charges in the largest institutional insider-trading investigation in history.
According to initial reports, the investigation could ensnare Wall Street's biggest names: Goldman Sachs, SAC Capital, Wellington, Jennison, MFS Global, Maverick, Citadel, and others. (Here's a who's who of who might get nailed.)
The investigation reportedly focuses on "expert networks" -- consulting firms that pay industry participants to share insights and information with investors. Professional investors use these networks to gather information about real-time business conditions and trends in various industries (as well as, sometimes, information that could likely be characterized as "inside" information in any other context).
No matter where the investigation ends up, the government will likely present it as a huge step toward making the market "fair" for small investors.  And the same small investors will likely view it as confirmation that the "game is rigged."
Both of these conclusions will miss a far more important point.
The REAL lesson most investors should take away from the largest institutional insider-trading investigation in history is that competition in the global financial markets is so intense that it's basically idiotic to trade.
Trading is what is known as a "zero sum game." To win, you have to beat the competition. (And you have to beat the competition by more than the amount that it costs you to trade, which is extraordinarily hard to do, especially after tax).
In our experience, most investors have no appreciation for how intense their competition is. They think, "Wow--look at all this information I have.  Look at all my trading screens. Look at all my SEC filings. Look at my charts and graphs. Look at the smart fellow on TV telling me what to buy. Look at how many of my trades have made money!"
What they miss is that their competition has all this information, too -- so it doesn't give anyone an edge. They also don't understand that, in addition to all this information, the folks they are competing with have millions and millions of dollars to spend gathering information that will never be published anywhere or appear on an screen or chart or graph.
That's where the expert networks come in.  That's where contact networks in general come in.  That's where one-on-one meetings with managements and suppliers come in.
One glance from a CEO in response to a pointed question can contain more information than 500 pages of SEC filings. One nugget of scuttlebutt about the status of an important contract can make you more money than 500 hours of studying charts and graphs.  Most small investors don't understand that their competition gets this sort of information all day long.
In short, it doesn't matter whether the trading game is played on "a level playing field" (and of course it isn't.)  The New York Jets will still destroy any high-school football team, no matter what field the game is played on.
From the perspective of small investors, the game that is played every day in the global financial markets is equivalent to the New York Jets vs. a high-school football team.  And it should be no mystery which team the small investors are playing on.
So what's the smart answer for small investors in a world in which the competition is so unbelievably intense?
Don't play the trading game.
Instead, play a game you can win.
What's that game?
Long-term investing, preferably via low-cost, tax-efficient index funds.
Unlike professional investors, small investors don't have to worry about their performance in a given week or month or year.  They can avoid the second-to-second warfare that defines the professional investment business.  They can be patient and allow Ben Graham's long-term "weighing machine" to eventually do its work.
If they do that, and keep their costs low enough, they'll outperform 75% or more of the professionals.
Just as important, they won't be willingly playing a game they are almost sure to lose.

source: finance.yahoo.com

Revival of Volatility Signals Historic Era in U.S. PoliticsKOKOMO, Ind.—Voters this week look set to do something not seen since the early 1950s: Oust a substantial number of sitting House lawmakers for the third election in a row. The apparent Republican resurgence suggests the country is caught in a cycle of political volatility witnessed only four times in the past century, almost all during war or economic unease. View Full Image Associated Press In Connecticut, GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon rallied supporters. The see-saw nature of the nation's politics raises a question: How can the country solve its long-term problems—deficit spending, an underfunded Social Security system, spiraling health-care costs—when voters seem so uncertain which party should lead the charge? This fall's election has generated dozens of House races, from the suburbs of Denver and Chicago, across the South, and up the Ohio River Valley into New England, where voters who rejected Republicans in the past two elections are threatening to throw their support back to the GOP. In many cases, they're returning to the same candidates they rejected earlier. Boehner's Tea Party Problem 20:30 In an interview with WSJ's Jerry Seib, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and William Galston of the Brookings Institution discuss the political ramifications of a GOP-controlled House. The phenomenon is on full view in Indiana, where Democrats are fighting to keep three House seats they won in 2006. Voters in all three districts have a history, going back more than a century in some cases, of rejecting incumbents in moments of strain. "We know what we don't want better than we know what we want," said Steve Ellison, a commercial real-estate broker who hosted a campaign event in his Mishawaka home for Republican challenger Jackie Walorski, who is trying to unseat two-term Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state's Second District. "I suppose that helps explain the schizophrenia." View Full Image Getty Images In Cleveland, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) pumped up the crowd waiting to hear President Obama. If Republicans win big on Tuesday, as polls suggest, it is far from clear how firm a foothold they will have. Voters hold unfavorable views of both parties. Republican leaders acknowledge they could easily be tossed in 2012, just as they were in 2006. The country has seen similar gyrations before. Financial panic in 1893 set the stage for a series of sharp swings in the 1890s. Republicans won a landslide in 1894, picking up 135 seats, but then lost 48 seats two years later, despite Republican William McKinley's triumph in the presidential race. Then, in 1910, labor unrest and divisions within the GOP cost the party 57 House seats that year and 28 in 1912. World War I and its aftermath created a period of almost continual seesawing, with only one election (1916) seeing fewer than 20 House seats changing hands. Last Weekend on the Trail View Slideshow Attack Ads Get a look at some of the ads campaigns are running to embarrass their rivals -- and vote for the most effective. View Interactive Races in 2010 See which House, Senate and governors' races are considered closest. More interactive graphics and photos A realignment similar to 1894, but to the left, came in 1932 when voters wracked by the Great Depression elected Franklin D. Roosevelt as president and tossed out 101 Republicans from the House and nine from the Senate. That election, the third in a series of big swings in party support that began in 1928, marked the start of a Democratic dominance of Congress that lasted for decades with few interruptions. But until now there has been only one other prolonged stretch—from 1946 to 1952—in which either party lost more than 20 seats. A wave of post-war strikes and President Harry Truman's low approval ratings helped Republicans gain 55 seats in 1946, and their first House majority since 1928. Two years later, voters reacted to a "do-nothing Congress" by tossing out 75 Republicans. The GOP regained the House in 1952, but lost control in the next election. That drought would hold until Republicans roared back in 1994. Some involved in politics today wonder if the current volatility will become part of the country's political fabric. Changes in the U.S. electoral map, with Republicans increasingly controlling the South and the Democrats dominant on the coasts and the industrial Midwest, plus changes in the makeup of the two parties, have deepened the country's political divide over the past 40 years, they say. Live Updates on Election Night Get breaking email alerts Follow our Twitter account. Follow updates on Facebook Complete Coverage: Campaign 2010 "You used to have clear liberal and conservative wings within each party, but that is less and less the case," said Tom Davis, a former congressman from Virginia who ran the National Republican Campaign Committee from 1998 to 2002. "Now, the parties are sharply drawn along ideological lines." The result is a larger and more restive bloc of unattached voters, razor-thin margins in presidential votes, and frequent upheavals in control of Congress. View Full Image Associated Press Voters' sharp reversals this year are in full view in Indiana, where Democrats are fighting to keep three House seats they won in 2006. Amid all this, polls show voters themselves appear uncertain over what they want from elected officials. A Zogby International poll of more than 1,000 likely independent voters last month found that more than 70% wanted candidates who are "flexible" and "not afraid to be independent of their party." But another survey, by the Allegheny College Center for Political Participation, found more than half of all registered voters wanted elected officials to shun compromise and stand firm on principle. Among likely Republican voters, those favoring no concessions topped 70%. Analysts who dissect voting trends say the swings of partisan support being seen now, particularly among independent voters, is evidence more of serial disappointment than of chronic indecisiveness. View Full Image Associated Press In Indiana's Second District, Republican challenger Jackie Walorski is trying to unseat two-term Democrat Joe Donnelly. "You don't see voters changing their minds so much as independent and moderate voters looking for the same thing and never getting it," said William Galston, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who studies governance issues at the Brookings Institution. "So you have a series of negative elections and rejections of the status quo." The urge to reject those in power can be found this year in some unusual places. In Indiana's Second District, Mr. Donnelly, the two-term Democratic congressman, announced his re-election bid in the United Auto Workers union hall here in the car-factory town of Kokomo. And for good reason: Measures passed by President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress clearly saved Kokomo from bigger trouble last year. The auto bailout kept the local Chrysler, General Motors and Delphi car-parts factories afloat. The plants employ more than 6,000 people in a city of just 48,000 inhabitants. From his third-story office downtown, Mayor Greg Goodnight can point to some of the fruits of the more than $100 million in federal stimulus money the city and surrounding county have received over the past 18 months. Kokomo has newly reconfigured sidewalks, fresh rows of streetlights, repaved streets, a new bus system. "But does Obama get the credit?" asked Mr. Goodnight, a Democrat who previously served as the head of the local steel union. "No, he doesn't. People want to blame someone, and he's the president. We all want immediate results." Mr. Donnelly, in turn, is locked in a tight race against a challenger who says the auto bailout, the bank rescue and the Democrats' stimulus package were government boondoggles that have simply driven the country deeper into debt. At Jamie's Soda Fountain a few blocks from City Hall, eight of the city's leading figures come together over mugs of coffee to debate politics and the latest news. Mike Stegall, president of Community First Bank, gives Mr. Obama high marks for helping rescue the banks and the car companies last year. But he dings the president for the health-care overhaul and this summer's rewrite of the country's financial regulations. "He's selling an agenda no one really gets," Mr. Stegall said. Local UAW president Richie Boruff jumps in. "Without Obama, Kokomo would be dead, including your community bank," he said. Scott Pitcher, a local developer and the table's lone independent, says he voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 and for Mr. Obama four years later. But he isn't pleased by what has followed. "I am disappointed that there is so little confidence in the market, and I blame Obama for that," he said. The debate, like the country, gets more volatile. Voices are raised. Mr. Stegall talks of a spreading "paranoia and fear." County Attorney Lawrence Murrell, joining the group late, speaks of impending socialism and says, "We are in a fight for our nation's soul." The comment draws a protest from Mr. Boruff. Going around the table, in a town where the unemployment rate last year shot above 20% but has since dipped below 12%, four men in the group give the president a grade of D. Two give him an A. Mr. Obama comes out with an average grade of C-minus

KOKOMO, Ind.—Voters this week look set to do something not seen since the early 1950s: Oust a substantial number of sitting House lawmakers for the third election in a row.

The apparent Republican resurgence suggests the country is caught in a cycle of political volatility witnessed only four times in the past century, almost all during war or economic unease.

View Full Image

Associated Press

In Connecticut, GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon rallied supporters.

The see-saw nature of the nation's politics raises a question: How can the country solve its long-term problems—deficit spending, an underfunded Social Security system, spiraling health-care costs—when voters seem so uncertain which party should lead the charge?

This fall's election has generated dozens of House races, from the suburbs of Denver and Chicago, across the South, and up the Ohio River Valley into New England, where voters who rejected Republicans in the past two elections are threatening to throw their support back to the GOP. In many cases, they're returning to the same candidates they rejected earlier.

 

Boehner's Tea Party Problem

20:30

In an interview with WSJ's Jerry Seib, Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and William Galston of the Brookings Institution discuss the political ramifications of a GOP-controlled House.

The phenomenon is on full view in Indiana, where Democrats are fighting to keep three House seats they won in 2006. Voters in all three districts have a history, going back more than a century in some cases, of rejecting incumbents in moments of strain.

"We know what we don't want better than we know what we want," said Steve Ellison, a commercial real-estate broker who hosted a campaign event in his Mishawaka home for Republican challenger Jackie Walorski, who is trying to unseat two-term Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state's Second District. "I suppose that helps explain the schizophrenia."

View Full Image

Getty Images

In Cleveland, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) pumped up the crowd waiting to hear President Obama.

If Republicans win big on Tuesday, as polls suggest, it is far from clear how firm a foothold they will have. Voters hold unfavorable views of both parties. Republican leaders acknowledge they could easily be tossed in 2012, just as they were in 2006.

The country has seen similar gyrations before. Financial panic in 1893 set the stage for a series of sharp swings in the 1890s. Republicans won a landslide in 1894, picking up 135 seats, but then lost 48 seats two years later, despite Republican William McKinley's triumph in the presidential race.

Then, in 1910, labor unrest and divisions within the GOP cost the party 57 House seats that year and 28 in 1912. World War I and its aftermath created a period of almost continual seesawing, with only one election (1916) seeing fewer than 20 House seats changing hands.

Last Weekend on the Trail

View Slideshow

Attack Ads

Get a look at some of the ads campaigns are running to embarrass their rivals -- and vote for the most effective.

View Interactive

Races in 2010

See which House, Senate and governors' races are considered closest.

• More interactive graphics and photos

A realignment similar to 1894, but to the left, came in 1932 when voters wracked by the Great Depression elected Franklin D. Roosevelt as president and tossed out 101 Republicans from the House and nine from the Senate. That election, the third in a series of big swings in party support that began in 1928, marked the start of a Democratic dominance of Congress that lasted for decades with few interruptions.

But until now there has been only one other prolonged stretch—from 1946 to 1952—in which either party lost more than 20 seats. A wave of post-war strikes and President Harry Truman's low approval ratings helped Republicans gain 55 seats in 1946, and their first House majority since 1928.

Two years later, voters reacted to a "do-nothing Congress" by tossing out 75 Republicans. The GOP regained the House in 1952, but lost control in the next election. That drought would hold until Republicans roared back in 1994.

Some involved in politics today wonder if the current volatility will become part of the country's political fabric. Changes in the U.S. electoral map, with Republicans increasingly controlling the South and the Democrats dominant on the coasts and the industrial Midwest, plus changes in the makeup of the two parties, have deepened the country's political divide over the past 40 years, they say.

Live Updates on Election Night

• Get breaking email alerts
• Follow our Twitter account.
• Follow updates on Facebook
• Complete Coverage: Campaign 2010

"You used to have clear liberal and conservative wings within each party, but that is less and less the case," said Tom Davis, a former congressman from Virginia who ran the National Republican Campaign Committee from 1998 to 2002. "Now, the parties are sharply drawn along ideological lines."

The result is a larger and more restive bloc of unattached voters, razor-thin margins in presidential votes, and frequent upheavals in control of Congress.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Voters' sharp reversals this year are in full view in Indiana, where Democrats are fighting to keep three House seats they won in 2006.

Amid all this, polls show voters themselves appear uncertain over what they want from elected officials. A Zogby International poll of more than 1,000 likely independent voters last month found that more than 70% wanted candidates who are "flexible" and "not afraid to be independent of their party."

But another survey, by the Allegheny College Center for Political Participation, found more than half of all registered voters wanted elected officials to shun compromise and stand firm on principle. Among likely Republican voters, those favoring no concessions topped 70%.

Analysts who dissect voting trends say the swings of partisan support being seen now, particularly among independent voters, is evidence more of serial disappointment than of chronic indecisiveness.

View Full Image

Associated Press

In Indiana's Second District, Republican challenger Jackie Walorski is trying to unseat two-term Democrat Joe Donnelly.

"You don't see voters changing their minds so much as independent and moderate voters looking for the same thing and never getting it," said William Galston, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who studies governance issues at the Brookings Institution. "So you have a series of negative elections and rejections of the status quo."

The urge to reject those in power can be found this year in some unusual places. In Indiana's Second District, Mr. Donnelly, the two-term Democratic congressman, announced his re-election bid in the United Auto Workers union hall here in the car-factory town of Kokomo.

And for good reason: Measures passed by President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress clearly saved Kokomo from bigger trouble last year. The auto bailout kept the local Chrysler, General Motors and Delphi car-parts factories afloat. The plants employ more than 6,000 people in a city of just 48,000 inhabitants.

From his third-story office downtown, Mayor Greg Goodnight can point to some of the fruits of the more than $100 million in federal stimulus money the city and surrounding county have received over the past 18 months. Kokomo has newly reconfigured sidewalks, fresh rows of streetlights, repaved streets, a new bus system.

"But does Obama get the credit?" asked Mr. Goodnight, a Democrat who previously served as the head of the local steel union. "No, he doesn't. People want to blame someone, and he's the president. We all want immediate results."

Mr. Donnelly, in turn, is locked in a tight race against a challenger who says the auto bailout, the bank rescue and the Democrats' stimulus package were government boondoggles that have simply driven the country deeper into debt.

At Jamie's Soda Fountain a few blocks from City Hall, eight of the city's leading figures come together over mugs of coffee to debate politics and the latest news.

Mike Stegall, president of Community First Bank, gives Mr. Obama high marks for helping rescue the banks and the car companies last year. But he dings the president for the health-care overhaul and this summer's rewrite of the country's financial regulations. "He's selling an agenda no one really gets," Mr. Stegall said.

Local UAW president Richie Boruff jumps in. "Without Obama, Kokomo would be dead, including your community bank," he said.

Scott Pitcher, a local developer and the table's lone independent, says he voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 and for Mr. Obama four years later. But he isn't pleased by what has followed. "I am disappointed that there is so little confidence in the market, and I blame Obama for that," he said.

The debate, like the country, gets more volatile. Voices are raised. Mr. Stegall talks of a spreading "paranoia and fear." County Attorney Lawrence Murrell, joining the group late, speaks of impending socialism and says, "We are in a fight for our nation's soul." The comment draws a protest from Mr. Boruff.

Going around the table, in a town where the unemployment rate last year shot above 20% but has since dipped below 12%, four men in the group give the president a grade of D. Two give him an A. Mr. Obama comes out with an average grade of C-minus.

Revival of Volatility Signals Historic Era in U.S. Politics

Read More: Campaign Contributions , Chamber Of Commerce , Credit Cards , Financial Meltdown , Income Inequality , Mid Term Elections. Republicans , Outsourcing , Wall Street , Wall Street Banks , Wall Street Reform ,Wealth Inequality , Politics News

For many years the "titans" of Wall Street could pretty much have their way with Congress. They -- and their huge campaign contributions -- had convinced the Republicans, and many of the Democrats -- that what was good for Wall Street, was good for the country.

Then came the financial collapse in September, 2008, and the sudden realization that the emperor of Wall Street didn't have any clothes. Turned out that the policies that allowed reckless Wall Street traders to run wild -- and gave a tiny number of Wall Streeters the ability to claim a bigger and bigger share of our national income -- weren't actually so smart for the rest of us.

Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration turned on Wall Street and -- from Wall Street's point of view -- had the "audacity" to pass legislation that reined in the recklessness that had cost eight million Americans their jobs.

Many among the Wall Street types -- who actually think of themselves as the "masters of the universe" -- were shocked. They -- and much of the conventional wisdom in Washington -- assumed that the Wall Street reform bill would be watered down into thin gruel by the massive army of lobbyists they sent to do battle on the Hill. Wall Street spent almost a half-billion dollars lobbying to stop Wall Street reform. But the bill actually got tougher and tougher as the battle went on.

That was because Progressives held political ground so high on the issue that even the most "moderate" members of Congress were terrified to stand up for the Wall Street elite.

But this November, the Wall Street Empire plans to strike back. According to Politico:

The vilification of bankers, what one bank lobbyist called the 'show trials' of congressional hearings and especially the outcome of financial regulatory reform has prompted an all-out effort to wrest Congress from Democratic control, several financial industry insiders told Politico."

Karen Klugh, spokeswoman for the American Financial Services Association, told Politico: "Our target ratio for the 2010 cycle is 80-20 Republicans..." She said this ratio, "reflects our deep concerns with the work of the 111th Congress." You betcha.

And the amount Wall Street is directly investing in campaigns is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. It is likely dwarfed by the massive secret contributions they have made to the various Republican attack groups. And you can bet they are encouraging their partners in the huge outsourcing deals -- on which they make billions -- to pony up as well through secret contributions to the Chamber of Commerce that can spend unlimited amounts to distort the records of their Democratic targets.

Many of those contributions, as ThinkProgress has documented, come from foreign corporations that profit from outsourcing of American jobs.

The thing that is especially galling about Wall Street's approach to politics is that it so brazenly plays upon the fears of the very people who are often the biggest victims of their greed.

It is no small irony that the very people whose recklessness caused so many everyday working class families to lose their jobs - who have systematically skimmed off a larger and larger portion of our national product and left smaller and smaller pieces of the pie for everyday Americans - are now stoking the anger caused by their own actions and directing it toward Democrats who have brought them to account.

In the Tea Party fantasy world everyday Americans are oppressed by bureaucrats with eyeshades who go to work on the Washington Metro. They are abetted by crunchy academics who spend their days dreaming up "social engineering" schemes in their offices at Yale or Harvard. And their oppressive regime is supported by liberal news anchors and the nihilistic denizens of Hollywood who spend their nights in hot tubs surrounded by Playboy Bunnies. That is the Tea Party version of class warfare; everyday Americans versus these "elites."

This is a very convenient mythology for Wall Street. It ignores the existence of the real "elites" in America. They aren't the bureaucrats who go to work on the Metro but rather the men and women who go to work in chauffeur-driven limousines, jet around the country in Gulfstream G-Vs, and make more on the first day of the year, before lunch, than a minimum wage worker makes all year long.

The gang on Wall Street wants normal Americans to forget that they -- and the top one percent of the population -- control 34.6% of net assets, compared to only 15% for the bottom 80%.

They want you to ignore that 42% of the financial wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population, compared to only 7% controlled by the bottom 80% -- or that 62% of the business equity that controls corporations is in the hands of the top 1% compared to only 7% for the bottom 80%.

Remember all of the reckless speculation in financial securities that sunk the economy? Well 61% of financial securities are owned by the top 1% -- and just 2% by the bottom 80%.

And when it comes to income, the share going to the top 1% had grown from 12.8% in 1982 to 21.3% in 2006 while the percent going to the bottom 80% shrunk from 48.1% to 38.6%.

When you look at numbers like that, in broad strokes it's pretty obvious why the economy sunk into recession. The greed of the top 1% sucked the buying power out of the rest of the population who were needed as customers to keep levels of demand high enough so that investors found it profitable to expand employment, create jobs and generate more consumers to demand more goods and services. Their greed killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

Of course the latest example of the consequences of Wall Street's reckless greed is the mortgage foreclosure documentation disaster. Seems that they were in such a hurry to make more and more on their exotic mortgage-backed securities that they simply neglected to properly document the changes in ownership for the mortgages they packaged up and sold on financial markets.

Why would the brilliant graduates of some to the finest universities in America make such an obvious mistake? You have to assume it's because they figured that they would make their millions and pass the risk of their actions on the "the market" at large rather than take the time and expense to do it right.

Now that their actions have come to light they may once again threaten the stability of the financial system.

And let's remember that when you fall behind in your credit card payments, these same guys are the first to invoke every provision in the fine print of your credit card agreement so they can charge you a fortune in fees. But when it comes to transferring titles of mortgages correctly, turns out they couldn't be bothered. One more example of how Wall Street thinks it's exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.

Now, Wall Street is trying to harness the anger of ordinary people -- who are furious because of the economic disaster that Wall Street itself created -- to allow them to use the Republicans as a vessel to take back the control of Congress.

It's up to us to stop them. The plain fact is that there are more of us than there are of them. But if we don't vote, we don't count. Time for Progressives to get out of a defensive crouch and march -- along with everyone we know -- to the polls. As the MTV s slogan says: Vote again in 2010.

In most jurisdictions early voting has already begun. The time to vote is now.

I know a guy who trades on Wall Street, call him George, who is absolutely disdainful of ordinary Americans. He thinks that anyone who can't get rich, like he is, must be a chump. He's happy to exploit anyone and anything to make money for himself.

Don't let George make us all into chumps. Don't let Wall Street use the anger caused by the economic disaster that they themselves caused, to elect Republicans and take back control of Congress. (by: Robert Creamer-www.huffingtonpost.com)

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com.