Republicans Rally Around Bankers

[fotd]

Greed gives the GOP purpose. Hey SCROTUM,  how do you prosecute a Corporation?

" Obama criticized financial industry interests for opposing the proposed regulations and for waging a "relentless campaign to thwart even basic, commonsense rules." He repeated his call for Republicans and Democrats to work together to overhaul the system but made it clear that Democrats are prepared to go it alone. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10401353&om_rid=Dcz8r1&om_mid=_BLybWzB8HInId9&

Weekly Address: Holding Wall Street Accountable
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/17/weekly-address-holding-wall-street-accountable

This is the next big battle right up to November. Let's go you brave POTUS OBAMA bashers....show us your allegiances!

[Cats Cats Cats]

The republicans are complaining about the part that makes the fund (paid for by the banks) to be a bailout fund if they screw up.  Obama has asked them to remove it.  So we will see what happens.

[Red Arrow]

I believe I heard that the fund paid for by the banks may be insufficient but the government would still be on the hook for any balance.

[fotd]

Ha! Perfecto.....

[joiei]

With all due respect, we can only wish those Tea Party activists who gathered in Washington and other cities this week weren't so single-minded about just who's responsible for all their troubles, real and imagined.

They're up in arms, so to speak, against Big Government, especially the Obama administration.

If they thought this through, they'd be joining forces with other grassroots Americans who in the coming weeks will be demonstrating in Washington and other cities against High Finance, taking on Wall Street and the country's biggest banks.

The original Tea Party, remember, wasn't directed just against the British redcoats. Colonial patriots also took aim at the East India Company. That was the joint-stock enterprise originally chartered by the first Queen Elizabeth.

Over the years, the government granted the East India Company special rights and privileges, which the owners turned into a monopoly over trade, including tea.

It may seem a bit of a stretch from tea to credit default swaps, but the principle is the same: when enormous private wealth goes unchecked, regular folks get hurt - badly. That's what happened in 2008 when the monied interests led us up the garden path to the great collapse.

So the Tea Party crowd should be demanding accountability from Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and scores of hedge funds and private equity firms that constitute what we loosely call Wall Street.

Bottom line: "The Wall Street banks are the new American oligarchy - a group that gains political power because of its economic power, and then uses that political power for its own benefit."  So write Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; and James Kwak, former management consultant and software entrepreneur, in their important new book, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown.

Their words of warning and the past year and a half make you realize that as usual, Thomas Jefferson, whose birthday we celebrate this week, had it right. Back in 1816, he wrote, "I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

From http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/041710a.html

And Mr McConnell is the one sucking up to Big Money to support the Republic partys picks in the next round of elections. 

Look at Eric Lichtblau's report this week, also in The New York Times, under the headline: "Lawmakers Regulate Banks, Then Flock to Them." The financial services industry has hired more than 125 former members of Congress and congressional staffers from both parties to help them fight off accountability.

[Conan71]

Wealthy Wall St types donate heavily to Democrats. Follow the money...

Before you chastise me on this premise do a check on opensecrets.org

[fotd]

Wealthy Wall St types donate heavily to Democrats. Follow the money...

Before you chastise me on this premise do a check on opensecrets.org

Say what? Get your facts straight....look at the past 30 years....GOP=Grand Old Panderers

" The SEC's move "marks an escalation in the battle to expose conflicts of interest on Wall Street" and exposes a "cynical, savage culture" that allows dealers to deceive one customer to benefit another, said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics." http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15928346&source=features_box_main

You guys who represent the greedy thinking ways of the GOP refuse to acknowledge conflicts of interest and seem to be cynical and savage in your attitudes towards those that need a hand up rather than the hand outs that got us into this enormous deficit in the first place.

Repubs could have problems in November if they don't jump on the reform band wagon.

[Conan71]

Afraid of facts? Do your research.

[fotd]

Big disappointment Bill checks in on the banksters ....he should have paid closer attention....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/clinton-rubin-and-summers-gave-me-wrong-advice-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it.html


At least I can admit the failures of my party...you? Just simple retorts.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Afraid of facts? Do your research.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F03

Big banks, 1996 through 2006 Republicans got 64 % of the money.  2008 Democrats got 48% of the money.  1990 to now Republicans have received 59% of the money.

Finance and credit companies
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F06++&goButt2.x=10&goButt2.y=6&goButt2=Submit

Democrats finally got 55% in 2008.  Since 1990 the republicans have received 60% and the democrats 40%.

Securities and Investments
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F07++&goButt2.x=14&goButt2.y=2&goButt2=Submit

Democrats actually lead this one.  The received 57% in 2008 and since 1990 have received 51% of the money from securities and investment.



Sine obviously you don't know how political contributions work.  The party that is in power gets a little bump to the majority of the cash (for most business related issues).  They still don't want to piss the other side off so they still give them a little money.  Since you think that 51% of the political contributions since 1990 for the Securities and Investments is a sure sign that the Democrats are paid off more than the Republicans.  I guess you are using the same fuzzy math of the guy who tried to tell me that Reagan only increased Government spending by 2.6% per year.

[fotd]

Even Clinton can admit his mistakes....but Bush?

Clinton: I Was Wrong to Listen to Wrong Advice Against Regulating Derivatives*

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/04/clinton-rubin-and-summers-gave-me-wrong-advice-on-derivatives-and-i-was-wrong-to-take-it.html

[Conan71]

How many times are you going to post that? Great, Clinton throws two more of his cronies under the bus, denies personal culpability saying Republicans would have shut him down, and further blames Bush. You don't seem quite so contrite about Bush taking bad advice.

[Conan71]

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F03

Big banks, 1996 through 2006 Republicans got 64 % of the money.  2008 Democrats got 48% of the money.  1990 to now Republicans have received 59% of the money.

Finance and credit companies
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F06++&goButt2.x=10&goButt2.y=6&goButt2=Submit

Democrats finally got 55% in 2008.  Since 1990 the republicans have received 60% and the democrats 40%.

Securities and Investments
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F07++&goButt2.x=14&goButt2.y=2&goButt2=Submit

Democrats actually lead this one.  The received 57% in 2008 and since 1990 have received 51% of the money from securities and investment.

Sine obviously you don't know how political contributions work.  The party that is in power gets a little bump to the majority of the cash (for most business related issues).  They still don't want to piss the other side off so they still give them a little money.  Since you think that 51% of the political contributions since 1990 for the Securities and Investments is a sure sign that the Democrats are paid off more than the Republicans.  I guess you are using the same fuzzy math of the guy who tried to tell me that Reagan only increased Government spending by 2.6% per year.

What made you draw that conclusion, Trolldoll? 

While I do applaud you for taking the time to do the research, your critical reading skills impress me as much as fotd's.  I said: "Wealthy Wall St types donate heavily to Democrats. Follow the money..." Was there anything incorrect about that statement?

I'm simply dispelling the notion that Wall Street is the exclusive playground of greedy Republicans.  I did notice that you conveniently left out the fact that Securities and Investments has gone 62% Dem/37% GOP for the 2010 cycle.  That's an historic split for that donor category over the last 20 years.  I assume they are greasing the Congressional and Senate majorities so they can have tighter regs placed on them.  I sure feel better knowing this money will help the Democrat majority do the work of the people and protect the little guy.  Is that a safe assumption?

If Republicans were doing the bidding for the S & I industries and they were truly afraid of Democrats going after them, you'd see more money from the banksters going to GOP candidates.

Just a few others this cycle:

                                 D             R

Venture Capital:           72%         28% (52/47 over 20 years)
Hedge Funds:               61%        39% (65/34 over 20 years)
Private Equity & Invest:  69%        31% (53/47 over 20 years)

Goldman Sachs?  Anyone wanna guess which party more GS money has flowed into?  64% Dem/ 35% Rep over the last 20 years.  There was never a cycle where GS contributions to Democrats dipped below 55% of the total donations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?cycle=A&type=P&id=D000000085

Follow the corrupt money trail.  Take a look at legislators with key regulatory posts and see where money goes.  It's not going these places to have tighter regs place on them.  That's true with D and R candidates, but conisider that securities & investment and commercial banks are in the top five contributor categories to Barney Frank.

Bear Stearns, Citigroup, and AIG are three of the top five contributors to Chris Dodd since 1989.  By industry, Commercial Banks & the S&I (over $6.2 mil) industries are two of the top five industries.

I bring these two up (Frank & Dodd) to make the following point:  Republicans were handed 100% of the blame by Democrats for the banking, insurance, and investment debacle.  These two are an excellent example of either being incredibly corrupt or incredibly inept in matters of banking and commerce which is a shame considering they both have (and had) positions to direct and regulate the industries.  Either one of these two were capable of sounding an alarm at any time.  It's well documented that Barney Frank was claiming all was well with the mortgage industry as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crumbling.

This corruption has polluted candidates of both parties.  Let's quit arguing about who is accepting more graft than the other.  Unite as voters and citizens to bring an end to all graft influencing Congress which is ripping us off as individuals instead of buying into the party line as to whom is to blame.

[nathanm]

Wealthy Wall St types donate heavily to Democrats. Follow the money...

Before you chastise me on this premise do a check on opensecrets.org

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. The Democrats are pushing reasonably tough regulation. Lincoln's derivatives legislation would seriously cramp Goldman's style. The Republicans have decided they are going to filibuster.

How is this anything but the Republicans being electoral morons?

They had a pretty good narrative going with the lie about it being a "bailout bill," even though the banks were to put up the funds to ensure an orderly resolution of large failing banks. Obama telling Congress to drop the prefunded resolution fund and instead working for a post-funded resolution fund is making him come out smelling like roses, even though it's not really a change at all. The banks will still be paying, just after the fact instead of beforehand.

When their lie was defused, they just turned the crazy up to 11 and came out against regulation at all. And this is supposed to endear them to the public how, exactly?

[Conan71]

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. The Democrats are pushing reasonably tough regulation. Lincoln's derivatives legislation would seriously cramp Goldman's style. The Republicans have decided they are going to filibuster.

How is this anything but the Republicans being electoral morons?

They had a pretty good narrative going with the lie about it being a "bailout bill," even though the banks were to put up the funds to ensure an orderly resolution of large failing banks. Obama telling Congress to drop the prefunded resolution fund and instead working for a post-funded resolution fund is making him come out smelling like roses, even though it's not really a change at all. The banks will still be paying, just after the fact instead of beforehand.

When their lie was defused, they just turned the crazy up to 11 and came out against regulation at all. And this is supposed to endear them to the public how, exactly?

WTH?  Hit the bottle a little early yesterday, Nate?

With the S & I industry being Sen. Lincoln's third largest contributing industry, how much influence do you think that has bought?