What If The Republicans Win?

[charliebrown]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

I sense a sea change - instead of microsoft and google getting special treatment, we will have goldman and bank of america. Whew freedom at last.

[DSpencer]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

No argument, but one seems a bit more "captured" than the other:

How much can really be gathered from these lists? These organizations are not directly donating to the campaigns. Is Cal or the US government really trying to "capture" Obama?

I'm not trying to downplay the overall effect of money in politics but these lists seem to say more about the employees of the companies.

[shiny!]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

No argument, but one seems a bit more "captured" than the other:

IMO which is worth exactly what you paid for it ;-) that "bit" is so minor as to be a distinction without a difference. The big bucks are in the PACs. Playing around in OpenSecrets.org I learned that they have that data also.

Our political system is basically beyond repair for the 99%.

[shiny!]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

The American Dream By Joe the Angry Hawaiian





This is from the Big Island. The natives seem restless.

"Democracy in a free market capitalistic society today only exists in the imaginations of sleep-walkers in the American Dream. The idea of honest, hard work being suitably rewarded has become a mind-numbing slogan that is now just beginning to wear off in the minds of some Americans.

While Americans were working and playing hard, our representational democracy has evolved into a political system that has been completely and utterly bought by the moneyed interests, and is now a protection racket for their accumulation of wealth and advantageous positions of power and influence. We live in a land where untaxed off-shored wealth is ignored, and the whole tax system has been customized to suit their personal needs.

We live in a fictitious land where multi-national corporations are legally given Frankenstein-like status as a red-blooded American, and their money has become their vocal chords. Politicians, while posturing that they are working for the people, are nothing but lobbyists for the rich, which most of them are, or assured to be upon leaving office to be rewarded with speaking fees, or think tank positions by their powerful benefactors.

This unreal, and unjust dream-land is kept alive by obscuring smoke and brightly lit mirrors of the mass media that is completely controlled by a relatively few corporate interests. Combined with idealized statistics provided by the government we have been lulled into an illusion that is both numbing and dumbing. To realize there is even a problem, attention spans must be able to last for longer than a 60 second advertisement.

The hard rock reality of the great American experiment is being felt by most everyone with a wallet or purse. The financial system is run by the un-Federal Reserve Banks. The privately owned US Central Bank gives money which they make out of thin air to the boys who run the biggest Banks for less than .25%. As the statistics reveal, this money rarely goes far from the hands of the rich. Their fingers grasp this money so tightly that the so called trickle is now a mere tiny dribble that seeps slowly to those below.

The US dollar is a fiat money con-game sustained by the illusion of American exceptionalism. This confidence in America as a moral force for good has been destroyed by its self-serving hypocrisy, its torture, the poor performance of its political drama queens, and endless wars without end. But things are changing. No longer can the US declare an economic embargo that brings countries to their knees, especially since the US itself is up to it's myopic third eye in debt.

I believe the problem that we will be facing soon enough is not the economic imbalance of the rich and poor in this country. This unequal lopsidedness can be maintained for many years, especially with a militarized police force.

The real problem is those beyond the reach of the system like Russia and China and the rest of the BRICS. When they decide that they have had enough of our self-serving antics, and renounce the US dollar as the world currency, then folks, that's when we have a problem.

Until then nothing changes, since most members of our society can't even remember there is problem or what caused it.

Expresses my sentiments exactly. Thanks, Don.

[Woodsman]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

IMO which is worth exactly what you paid for it ;-) that "bit" is so minor as to be a distinction without a difference...

In a related development:

Hong Kong Leader Reaffirms Unbending Stance on Elections
By KEITH BRADSHER and CHRIS BUCKLEYOCT. 20, 2014

HONG KONG — The Beijing-appointed leader of Hong Kong, Leung Chun-ying, said Monday evening that it was unacceptable to allow his successors to be chosen in open elections, in part because doing so would risk giving poorer residents a dominant voice in politics.

Mr. Leung made the statement during a broad-ranging defense of his administration’s handling of pro-democracy protests that have disrupted the city for more than three weeks.

In an interview with a small group of journalists from American and European news media organizations, his first with foreign media since the city erupted in demonstrations, he acknowledged that many of the protesters are angry over the lack of social mobility and affordable housing in the city. But he argued that containing populist pressures was an important reason for resisting the protesters’ demands for fully open elections.

One party rule is so 20th Century.

[lektrode]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

No argument, but one seems a bit more "captured" than the other:

yeah, ok - but on the prev go round it was just the opposite (and i still think (uh oh.. not again..) that having someone at the top who HAS EXPERIENCE AT THE TOP and knows HOW their game is played and made ALL of his money BEFORE going into politix? - is a heluva lot better for The Rest of US - or at least US.gov ops - vs the 'affirmative action hire' who never even held a real job, had all the experience of 143days in 1 term as a senate backbencher, made ALL of his money since landing in politix and writing a book that likely would've been in the discount bin were in not for his VERY favorable treatment in the lamerstream media ?

but this is instructive/illuminating:

.

...and if you're an "anti-Big Bank USA" Obama supporter, you sure as heck won't like his numbers. Below, you will see a comparison between Obama and McCain's top twenty campaign contributors:
Some highlights:

• In blue, at the top, you see Obama's top contribution, $1,648,685 from the University of California. McCain's top contribution, in red, was $375,895 from Merrill Lynch. The sum of McCain's top five donations ($1,569,799) does not even add up to Obama's single highest contribution.
• McCain's top donation was $375,895. Of Obama's entire top twenty contributions, not a single one is under half a million dollars.
• Lehman Brothers and Bank of America, in green, are on McCain's top twenty list. They did not make Obama's. However, Obama received more money from both banks. Neither of those contributions were used in the total sum at the bottom.
• The contributions in orange, green, and red are all from Wall Street. Five of Obama's top twenty contributors were from Wall Street, while McCain had eleven. However, those five banks alone contributed $3,603,495, while McCain's eleven banks contributed $2,604,890. And keep in mind that more than just those five banks donated to Obama; they were just the only ones who donated over half a million dollars to him.
• In total, Obama's top twenty contributors gave him $13,382,825, while McCain's gave him $4,034,622--meaning Obama had a $9,348,203 advantage.

[lektrode]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

The American Dream By Joe the Angry Hawaiian

ok, ok, OK!
chrikie mate - if y'all was just missin me and my 'colorful' commentary - WHY DIDNT YA JUST SAY SO ?
;)

but this one sounds mo like maybe its from chuck ?- altho you (might) be surprised at whats really - been going on - and still the biggest issue (and who keeps it that way)

They break their promises (to us) as soon as they get to Washington. Why? Because they get richer by breaking their promises to us than by keeping their promises to us. ....
...
The problem at that point is that lying, venal thieves have once again been dutifully put into office where they are free to whore themselves out to those who would ravage our country for another term. ...

+1
(and just glad it wasnt ME who used that term, with apologies to the 'other oldest profession' ;)
but THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM - why i still say that the only way to fix it is with TERM LIMITS to eliminate the only thing that DOES 'keeps them up at night' = their own RE-ELECTION, since thats the ONLY TIME they have any 'real skin in the game' - the rest of the time its wallowin in the beltway hogtrough: 'you scratch my back' - read: 'vote for my states boondoggle and i'll cover you on/scratch yours'

Jeb Hensarling, House Finance Chair, Goes On Ski Vacation With Wall Street
by Justin Elliott ProPublica, April 30, 2013, 9:55 a.m.
....
The Texan congressman has long had a taste for mixing skiing and politics.

well... its not like he's 'the first' to do that, dont ya know - since one particular spot in the east was quite famously popular - at least back in the '60s-70's for a certain patron and his family - and you might, (but probably wont) be surprised who else does it, even tho they really dont know how, still give it a go - even if its only for the photo ops... (kinda like in the 60's all over again, eh?) - or when its the oddest sort of 'retirement activity' ?

IMO which is worth exactly what you paid for it ;-) that "bit" is so minor as to be a distinction without a difference. The big bucks are in the PACs. Playing around in OpenSecrets.org I learned that they have that data also.
.

but not all the pacs are 'big bux' - and you might be surprised again at who donates to some of em ?

and/or tho it likely isnt any 'surprise' where they go and WHY ?

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

yeah, ok - but on the prev go round it was just the opposite (and i still think (uh oh.. not again..) that having someone at the top who HAS EXPERIENCE AT THE TOP and knows HOW their game is played and made ALL of his money BEFORE going into politix? - is a heluva lot better for The Rest of US - or at least US.gov ops - vs the 'affirmative action hire' who never even held a real job, had all the experience of 143days in 1 term as a senate backbencher, made ALL of his money since landing in politix and writing a book that likely would've been in the discount bin were in not for his VERY favorable treatment in the lamerstream media ?

but this is instructive/illuminating:

.

You know what would be cool to see? How these contributions came in over time in the 2012 and 2008 elections. To what extent are bankers simply throwing cash at a winning horse, and to what extent to they pay off who they believe in? That'd be cool to find out.

Although it would also be a pretty big stretch for me to believe that McCain would be quite as finance-friendly as Romney. So maybe that plays into it too.

One can be sure that Obama, like most new Democrats, was finance friendly. He may have signed Dodd-Frank, but his administration has done a terrible job executing it.

I know Dodd-Frank's not popular around here, but I'm convinced it's much better than the legal-financial situation before Dodd-Frank. After all, the horrible scorn on this earth that was the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act also exempted OTC derivatives from regulation, and we saw just how well that went these last few years. Thankfully Dodd-Frank undoes that part of the nightmare finance thrust upon us in 1999.

Anyways, like I said, I think we're much better off with Dodd-Frank in place than we would be if we repealed it. But half of it hasn't been implemented yet because this administration is dragging its heels, and banks are pulling out the full court legal press to slow it down wherever possible. Any time FIRE gets kicking and screaming, I figure odds are you're doing something right. That said, the Administration has just utterly sucked at executing the law - which is what Presidents are supposed to be doing, after all!

As of October 1, 2014, a total of 280 Dodd-Frank rulemaking requirement deadlines have passed. Of these 280 passed deadlines, 115 (41.1%) have been missed and 165 (58.9%) have been met with finalized rules.

We're now 4 years and 100 days after the passage of this bill, and almost half of it hasn't even been implemented yet!

You can blame it on complexity, but I think it's not that. They provisions are easily trackable, at least by the lawyers and bureaucrats that do this kind of work. I blame it on the administration. Either it's poor execution, poor appointments, or lack of strong motivation. I'm not sure. And to be fair to the Obama administration, Republicans have gone above and beyond when it comes to blocking appointments - see Ms. Warren, etc.

But that still doesn't excuse the lack of results here. Congress handed this to the administration in 2010. I don't care if you have to use executive orders to light a fire under people's asses. This work should have been done by now.



Postscript: Where are they now? What have they been up to

Phil Gramm lobbies for UBS among others and now runs the lobbying firm Gramm & Associates.

Jim Leach is teaching at Harvard and/or U Iowa depending on the year.

Tom Bliley is a lobbyist for the corporate, trade, and finance law firm Steptoe and Johnson

Who's shocked?

[vt]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

The only way out is to get rid of both parties, totally reform the Fed, and create free, fair markets that are not corruptible.

Elect men and women that are not politicians by taking all political contributions out. No special interests.

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Serious question:

Is it possible for markets to be both "free" and "fair" simultaneously?

After all, in a purely free market society, people themselves may be bought and sold without restriction, just like anything else...what are restrictions on slavery except a way to regulate markets - namely regulating slave markets out of existence.

I'm not convinced that "free markets" with no rules or regulations are a good thing at all. From potato famine deaths to millennia of slavery and indentured servitude, to credit default swaps and payday loans, to poisoned baby formula and toxic waste dumped behind schools to child labor and miners with 10 year life expectancy - there's a whole lot about "free markets" that scares the living hell out of me.

I'll readily admit that regulations aren't always good, and they need to be watched and tuned and brought to heel by the people.

But free markets aren't always good either, and they need to be watched and tuned and brought to heel by the people too.

[DSpencer]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

The only way out is to get rid of both parties, totally reform the Fed, and create free, fair markets that are not corruptible.

Elect men and women that are not politicians by taking all political contributions out. No special interests.

While reading the angry Hawaiian article, I couldn't help but wonder if being aware of the problem even helps. Lots of people are unhappy about our current situation for a variety of reasons. That doesn't seem to have any real effect.

Even among the self selected group that populates itulip, I have the suspicion that when it comes down to it, most of the members pull the D or R lever for "their side" because they are so afraid of letting "the other side" win.

[LorenS]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Donors working in various financial industries are Hensarling's biggest supporters, giving him over $1 million dollars in the last election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The congressman's office did not respond to requests for comment.

But this is not the money that counts, all of this money gets spent on TV ads, pamphlets, yard signs and radio spots (MSM eh?).

The real corruption is the speaker's fees, business contacts, board level appointments and insider trading information, the stuff that lasts far beyond the actual office.

[lektrode]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

You know what would be cool to see? How these contributions came in over time in the 2012 and 2008 elections. To what extent are bankers simply throwing cash at a winning horse, and to what extent to they pay off who they believe in? That'd be cool to find out.

yes it would indeed.
esp since it was a such an out of the money longshot who won in the '08th' ?
after the... uhhhhh... 'program printers made a mistake' which had the effect of 'throwing out the morning line'
but was such an obvious favorite in the '12th'...??

then maybe it wasnt the bookies who rigged it that time ?
but the 'program printers'....

;)

Although it would also be a pretty big stretch for me to believe that McCain would be quite as finance-friendly as Romney. So maybe that plays into it too.

even tho he was pretty paly-waly with the AZ/keating bunch, but... (at least most of them paid the price)
my point being that the also-ran in the '08th' wouldve known better HOW TO STAND UP TO 'the bookies'
but by then the 'program printers' had no problemo convincing the touts to jump on/pump the favorite in the '12th'

One can be sure that Obama, like most new Democrats, was finance friendly.

well... the bookies mustve (correctly) figured (triangulated) that all they really needed was for the touts to flog stuff like gender 'identity' issues, 'free' birth control, gun 'control' and 'anti-war' ? - and the fans in the stands would head for the windows and bet on the longshot who ended up the favorite? (thanks to the touts and the program printers)

We're now 4 years and 100 days after the passage of this bill, and almost half of it hasn't even been implemented yet!

You can blame it on complexity

, but I think it's not that. They provisions are easily trackable, at least by the lawyers and bureaucrats that do this kind of work. I blame it on the administration. Either it's poor execution, poor appointments, or lack of strong motivation. I'm not sure. And to be fair to the Obama administration, Republicans have gone above and beyond when it comes to blocking appointments - see Ms. Warren, etc.

or maybe ALL THE ABOVE?
altho methinks that its 'complexity' was by design - considering that the prev/repealed legislation was what - "30 pages" as eye've seen it put - which likely was drawn up in the days when congressional types wernt quite as likely to be lawyers or political 'scientists' as they are now?

and the Repubs are simply following the 'time honored tradition' of beltway gridlock (as the founders apparently intended) - or to put it another way, its the primary function of the 'profession' = delay, deny, obfuscate - isnt it?

kinda the same 'consequences' the bookies have been... ummmmm... 'treated to' - and LOOK:
its almost 'trick or treat time' again!
almost/sorta like back during them 'heady daze' of their last trick called the 'affordable' care act - when it was SO COMPLEX that 'they had to pass it so they could read it' ?

one example of when the GRIDLOCK TACTIC failed, since there was 'veto proof majorities' and 'elections have consequences' and while they could've DONE ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO?

and did....
'consequently' we ended up with what - exactly - that benefits The Rest of US (not in the FIreM game)
oh... yeah... i keep forgetting - the only thing that matters is looking out for 'minority rights'
esp now that its kinda hard to find a true minority anymore (esp since the dawn of 'identity' politix has made us ALL minorities, and just never mind theres an african-american in the whitehouse) ?

But that still doesn't excuse the lack of results here. Congress handed this to the administration in 2010. I don't care if you have to use executive orders to light a fire under people's asses. This work should have been done by now.

but hey! - when it was 'end justifies the means' time and all the REALLY IMPORTANT stuff on 'the agenda' has been accomplished - i mean just because ONE part of it hasnt quite landed yet - floating down from '40000 feet an all' - why quible with minutiae ?

better to just run down the clock and start looking for an opening in the revolving door - altho apparently book publishing isnt quite the deal it used to be?

Postscript: Where are they now? What have they been up to

Phil Gramm lobbies for UBS among others and now runs the lobbying firm Gramm & Associates.

Jim Leach is teaching at Harvard and/or U Iowa depending on the year.

Tom Bliley is a lobbyist for the corporate, trade, and finance law firm Steptoe and Johnson

or after that one, or rather 'THE Deal of The Century' got done, with a handsome reward (which rhymes with ransom, just incidently) where'd the 'master of ceremonies' end up?

of ALL places?
the bookies HQ/ground zero, no less - with a '2nd helping' of all of it, comin right up!

Who's shocked?

indeed....
altho its perty easy to get 'over-amped' when ya start connecting all the wires (and dots...)
(and didnt mean to 'pick on' you with all this, dc - since you tend to be balanced in your POV on this kind of stuff)

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

(and didnt mean to 'pick on' you with all this, dc - since you tend to be balanced in your POV on this kind of stuff)

I don't think you picked on me at all. Seems about right to me.

[vt]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

You are entirely correct we need regulations to protect people. But we need reasonable regulation that does not needlessly overwhelm with red tape and delay of normal commerce. Unfortunately the pendulum swings too far both ways.