PDA

View Full Version : GOP Gives Banks Free Ride to Bankrupt Country Again


Spiderman
12-14-2014, 04:07 PM
An earmarked amendment to spending bill gives banks taxpayer support to failing because of derivative losses - same type losses that exacerbated the crash of 2008. Gambling with other people's money does not lead to responsible action. GOP was simply paying back their donors for recent election results at taxpayer expense. The Great Depression and Great recession were both under the GOP leadership. Voters never learn.

In another earmarked amendment the amount that an individual can donate in an election cycle was raised tenfold from $32 to 324K. GOP was happy to win primaries with huge financial support. This amendment did not make Tea Party happy.

With an increase of 13 more in the majority, Boehner does not have to worry as much about consideration for Tea Party members. Will see how this plays out.

Saratoga_Mike
12-14-2014, 04:10 PM
An earmarked amendment to spending bill gives banks taxpayer support to failing because of derivative losses - same type losses that exacerbated the crash of 2008. Gambling with other people's money does not lead to responsible action. GOP was simply paying back their donors for recent election results at taxpayer expense. The Great Depression and Great recession were both under the GOP leadership. Voters never learn.

In another earmarked amendment the amount that an individual can donate in an election cycle was raised tenfold from $32 to 324K. GOP was happy to win primaries with huge financial support. This amendment did not make Tea Party happy.

With an increase of 13 more in the majority, Boehner does not have to worry as much about consideration for Tea Party members. Will see how this plays out.

I actually agree with you on this matter, but the Great Depression/Recession were both caused by monetary mistakes, not fiscal policies.

ArlJim78
12-14-2014, 04:10 PM
don't worry, the Dem senate will stop this, and if not president "hero of the working class" surely will veto it.
oh wait a minute...
:lol:

Spiderman
12-14-2014, 04:37 PM
don't worry, the Dem senate will stop this, and if not president "hero of the working class" surely will veto it.
oh wait a minute...
:lol:
Nope, The big O supported passage of the full spending bill with the amendments included. The amendments appear on page 1599 of the 1603 page bill. Only 57 Democrats voted for the bill. The fear for all will be what the GOP does next when they have full control of both houses.

Robert Goren
12-14-2014, 05:01 PM
Obama does not want a government shut so he won't veto the bill. He has voiced his opposition to the changes to Dodd-Frank included in this bill. It will be interesting to see how tea partiers Cruz and Paul vote on this bill.

Clocker
12-14-2014, 05:42 PM
An earmarked amendment to spending bill gives banks taxpayer support to failing because of derivative losses - same type losses that exacerbated the crash of 2008. Gambling with other people's money does not lead to responsible action. GOP was simply paying back their donors for recent election results at taxpayer expense. The Great Depression and Great recession were both under the GOP leadership. Voters never learn.

I don't pretend to understand Dodd-Frank or this change to it, but for those that claim to, the impact of this change appears to be very debatable. The change had genuine bipartisan support in Congress. Some on the left, including Ben Bernanke and the Chairman of the FDIC (a Democrat) favor the change, and say that it will decrease risk in the banking system. The White House apparently had no problems with it either.

The Obama administration hasn’t specifically commented on the inclusion of this language in the spending bill. The White House put out a “statement of administration policy” opposing the House bill last year, calling the move “premature” and potentially “disruptive and harmful” to regulators’ ongoing work putting in place the broader set of new derivatives rules. Bank lobbyists saw it more as a statement that the timing wasn’t right, not a flat-out rejection of the policy change.


You probably won’t find anyone to say it out loud, but the swaps push-out provision has always been on the short-list of Dodd-Frank modifications the Obama administration has been willing to eventually consider. While its passage would represent the biggest change to the law so far, it doesn’t chip away at any of what the White House considers the central planks of Dodd-Frank, such as the Volcker rule, which bans banks from making risky bets with the firm’s money.


For Democrats rallying to defend the provision, though, the swaps push out provision has taken on symbolic importance – an example of Wall Street wiggling its way out of hard-fought and much-deserved restrictions as the memory of the 2008 crisis fades.


WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/10/swap-talk-why-are-people-fighting-over-dodd-frank-and-derivatives/?mod=WSJ_Politics%20and%20Policy)

thaskalos
12-14-2014, 06:14 PM
This is simply a case of one hand washing the other...and the only ones with dirty hands are the working middle class. The essense of what politics is all about.

Tom
12-14-2014, 06:39 PM
Both sides saw this as an opportunity to fill their pockets with crap at our expenses.

Not one single SOB who voted for that bill had anyone in mind but themselves.
the lot to them them should be water boarded just for kicks and giggles.

Make a list of those who voted yes, and never, ever believe them or trust them again. The rats in DC do not live in the sewers.

lamboguy
12-14-2014, 06:59 PM
Both sides saw this as an opportunity to fill their pockets with crap at our expenses.

Not one single SOB who voted for that bill had anyone in mind but themselves.
the lot to them them should be water boarded just for kicks and giggles.

Make a list of those who voted yes, and never, ever believe them or trust them again. The rats in DC do not live in the sewers.i think they got us

Spiderman
12-14-2014, 07:13 PM
I don't pretend to understand Dodd-Frank or this change to it, but for those that claim to, the impact of this change appears to be very debatable. The change had genuine bipartisan support in Congress. Some on the left, including Ben Bernanke and the Chairman of the FDIC (a Democrat) favor the change, and say that it will decrease risk in the banking system. The White House apparently had no problems with it either.



WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/10/swap-talk-why-are-people-fighting-over-dodd-frank-and-derivatives/?mod=WSJ_Politics%20and%20Policy)

From the same WSJ article, the bankers are happy:

So this is a slam dunk for Wall Street?

It’s true that big banks will be thrilled if this language survives. Wall Street banks like J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. have been fighting to roll back or kill the swaps push-out provision for years. Regional banks have quietly joined the fight as well in the last year or so.

But the language in the spending bill wouldn’t completely let them off the hook. Specifically, banks would still have to spin off certain swaps operations in what are called “structured finance swaps” – a complex product designed to protect against losses on asset-backed securities. These were the kinds of swaps that helped bring American International Group Inc. to the brink of failure in the 2008 financial crisis

TJDave
12-14-2014, 07:21 PM
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The banking giant Citigroup announced on Friday that it would move its headquarters from New York to the U.S. Capitol Building, in Washington, D.C., in early 2015.

Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for Citi, said that the company had leased thirty thousand square feet of prime real estate on the floor of the House of Representatives and would be interviewing “world-class architects” to redesign the space to suit its needs.

According to sources, Citi successfully outbid other firms, including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, for the right to move its headquarters to the House floor.

The Citi spokesperson acknowledged that the extensive makeover of the House is expected to cost “in the millions,” but added, “It’s always expensive to open a new branch.”

Explaining the rationale behind the move, Klugian told reporters, “Instead of constantly flying out from New York to give members of Congress their marching orders, Citigroup executives can be right on the floor with them, handing them legislation and telling them how to vote. This is going to result in tremendous cost savings going forward.”

Klugian said that Citi’s chairman, Michael E. O’Neill, will not occupy a corner office on the House floor, preferring instead an “open plan” that will allow him to mingle freely with members of Congress.

“He doesn’t want to come off like he’s their boss,” the spokesperson said. “Basically, he wants to send the message, ‘We’re all on the same team. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get stuff done.’ ”

Spiderman
12-14-2014, 07:26 PM
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The banking giant Citigroup announced on Friday that it would move its headquarters from New York to the U.S. Capitol Building, in Washington, D.C., in early 2015.

Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for Citi, said that the company had leased thirty thousand square feet of prime real estate on the floor of the House of Representatives and would be interviewing “world-class architects” to redesign the space to suit its needs.

According to sources, Citi successfully outbid other firms, including JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, for the right to move its headquarters to the House floor.

The Citi spokesperson acknowledged that the extensive makeover of the House is expected to cost “in the millions,” but added, “It’s always expensive to open a new branch.”

Explaining the rationale behind the move, Klugian told reporters, “Instead of constantly flying out from New York to give members of Congress their marching orders, Citigroup executives can be right on the floor with them, handing them legislation and telling them how to vote. This is going to result in tremendous cost savings going forward.”

Klugian said that Citi’s chairman, Michael E. O’Neill, will not occupy a corner office on the House floor, preferring instead an “open plan” that will allow him to mingle freely with members of Congress.

“He doesn’t want to come off like he’s their boss,” the spokesperson said. “Basically, he wants to send the message, ‘We’re all on the same team. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get stuff done.’ ”

Good humor is always close to the truth.

Clocker
12-14-2014, 07:45 PM
From the same WSJ article, the bankers are happy:

So this is a slam dunk for Wall Street?

It’s true that big banks will be thrilled if this language survives. Wall Street banks like J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. have been fighting to roll back or kill the swaps push-out provision for years. Regional banks have quietly joined the fight as well in the last year or so.

The bankers are happy, including the smaller regional banks who say this will allow them to better compete with the big boys.

One point is that the impact of this change is not clear, and this thing had no business being stuck in a budget bill. It was a bipartisan issue, and both sides are to blame for putting pork in a spending bill. It should have been handled out in the open where law makers and the public could understand what was going on. Instead, it was put in a bill that had to be passed to see what was in it.

And it is not clear that Warren understood the impact, and that if she did, she didn't try to explain it. It appears that she demonized the issue for pure politics.

And it is not clear that the taxpayers will be on the hook for any "bailouts" here. Some financial writers seem to be saying that any relief would come in the form of purchase of troubled assets by the Fed, out of their funds and not out of taxpayer money. I don't know the answer.

I have seen no evidence that this was the end of the world that Warren and others claim. Warren, Pelosi, and some others are having fits about it. If Obama isn't ranting about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share, it looks like small potatoes to me. Just another bipartisan nail in the coffin of transparency.

lamboguy
12-14-2014, 07:51 PM
i don't understand what is so unclear. anytime banks and insurance company's make moves, its never any good for you. never, never, never.

davew
12-14-2014, 07:57 PM
Just another example of campaign donations turning into favorable legislation, contracts, or guarantees.

It happens on both sides and is getting worse (or more apparent :( )

Clocker
12-14-2014, 08:01 PM
i don't understand what is so unclear. anytime banks and insurance company's make moves, its never any good for you. never, never, never.

I only know what I read in the media. Regional banks say that this will allow them to compete with the big boys. Left wing financial gurus like Ben Bernanke and the head of the FDIC say that this will make the banking system more stable.

The only negatives I have seen are rants by people like Warren and Pelosi, without evidence. I am not saying that this is good or bad, I am saying that no one has showed me that this is the end of the world that Warren claims. When Pelosi tells me something, I back up against a wall to protect my rear and my wallet. Warren is shaping up as a similar threat.

Clocker
12-14-2014, 08:23 PM
Here is a much more detailed analysis of the banking change, showing there is a lot more political noise than substance.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/the-wall-street-rider-whats-it-all-about.php

AndyC
12-14-2014, 08:43 PM
Just another example of campaign donations turning into favorable legislation, contracts, or guarantees.

It happens on both sides and is getting worse (or more apparent :( )


It could be that the original legislation was too burdensome and that it needed amending. Most legislation passed as a knee-jerk reaction to an event usually goes way overboard.

Clocker
12-14-2014, 09:05 PM
It could be that the original legislation was too burdensome and that it needed amending. Most legislation passed as a knee-jerk reaction to an event usually goes way overboard.

Dodd-Frank is another one of those 1000 page "comprehensive" bills that had to be passed to see what was in it. It has generated thousands of pages of regulations, with many more to come.

The bill was passed in 2010. The section being amended in the spending bill was supposed to have been implemented in 2013, but the regulations for it have not been written yet.

Tom
12-14-2014, 10:19 PM
Banks need to be severely regulated and examined every time they breath.
the character of banking executives needs to regulated to the degree that the POPE would need 5 character witnesses to get a license. No human with access to large amounts of money should ever be trusted to act responsibly. Their personal finances should be open books as well.

horses4courses
12-14-2014, 10:26 PM
We don't agree very often, Tom, but you're right.

Here's another concern out of this spending bill - and it's non-partisan.
It may have been put in by the GOP, but it helps both parties and
not the US people:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B42OnWvCMAAl07Y.jpg

Clocker
12-14-2014, 10:45 PM
Banks need to be severely regulated and examined every time they breath.
the character of banking executives needs to regulated to the degree that the POPE would need 5 character witnesses to get a license. No human with access to large amounts of money should ever be trusted to act responsibly. Their personal finances should be open books as well.

Commercial banks (those that take deposits from customers) should be required to insure those deposits and to comply with some minimal legal requirements of fiscal responsibility. Any banker violating those requirements should face mandatory jail time.

Investment banks (those that invest their clients' money in speculative ventures) should state their investment policies, and customers should sign on to them. If the bank loses money, the customers have to absorb the losses without government protection. If the bank violates its published policies and standards, the officers should face mandatory jail time.

Clocker
12-14-2014, 10:59 PM
We don't agree very often, Tom, but you're right.

Here's another concern out of this spending bill - and it's non-partisan.
It may have been put in by the GOP, but it helps both parties and
not the US people:


Bernie Sanders is a communist and an idiot. Why is it his business, or the business of the government, what I do with my money? Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has any authority to regulate campaign contributions or politically related spending? Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has any authority to say how I spend my money?

horses4courses
12-14-2014, 11:18 PM
Bernie Sanders is a communist and an idiot. Why is it his business, or the business of the government, what I do with my money? Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has any authority to regulate campaign contributions or politically related spending? Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has any authority to say how I spend my money?

Sure.
We definitely need the ceiling raised for political contributors.
Like a hole in the fricking head. :rolleyes:

I hate to point it out to you, but government has a huge influence
on how we can, and cannot, spend our money.

You really believe that the Constitution has
all the angles covered, don't you?

horses4courses
12-14-2014, 11:24 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B43nJWOCQAAGRfQ.jpg

Clocker
12-14-2014, 11:37 PM
I hate to point it out to you, but government has a huge influence
on how we can, and cannot, spend our money.



And you are okay with that? :eek:


You really believe that the Constitution has
all the angles covered, don't you?

And you believe that the Constitution is an antiquated inconvenience that should be ignored whenever it conflicts with your views, don't you? You keep talking about "who we are". We are a nation of laws, and the supreme law is the Constitution. Follow it or change it. Don't dismiss it as irrelevant when you don't like the outcome.

Back to the issue at hand. Where is there anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate spending on expressing one's opinions on politics or any other matter?

TJDave
12-15-2014, 12:14 AM
I'm curious as to why there should be any funding restrictions at all. If I want to mortgage my home and give all the money to a political candidate why couldn't I do that?

Clocker
12-15-2014, 01:35 AM
I'm curious as to why there should be any funding restrictions at all. If I want to mortgage my home and give all the money to a political candidate why couldn't I do that?

Because there are people who know, better than you, what is fair. And it is not fair that you do this. Therefore, you can't.

P.S. Don't bother looking for a definition of "fair" in the Constitution. It isn't in there. Some just know what it should be.

Robert Goren
12-15-2014, 06:05 AM
Because there are people who know, better than you, what is fair. And it is not fair that you do this. Therefore, you can't.

P.S. Don't bother looking for a definition of "fair" in the Constitution. It isn't in there. Some just know what it should be.Both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence exist because some people thought they were not being treated fairly.

Robert Goren
12-15-2014, 06:23 AM
Commercial banks (those that take deposits from customers) should be required to insure those deposits and to comply with some minimal legal requirements of fiscal responsibility. Any banker violating those requirements should face mandatory jail time.

Investment banks (those that invest their clients' money in speculative ventures) should state their investment policies, and customers should sign on to them. If the bank loses money, the customers have to absorb the losses without government protection. If the bank violates its published policies and standards, the officers should face mandatory jail time. Welcome to the democratic party!

sammy the sage
12-15-2014, 07:36 AM
Because there are people who know, better than you, what is fair. And it is not fair that you do this. Therefore, you can't.

P.S. Don't bother looking for a definition of "fair" in the Constitution. It isn't in there. Some just know what it should be.

when did you turn cRAT or should I write flaming liberal...cause what you wrote is THEIR mantra.... :D :lol: :faint:

Tom
12-15-2014, 07:52 AM
I think political contributions need to be severely limited. There is a difference in expressing yourself and buying an election.

lamboguy
12-15-2014, 09:17 AM
the federal government has become to confusing throughout the years. they have taken away many of the things that individual states should be responsible for. this way people could pick and chose where they want to live.

originally the Federal governments responsibilities were only to protect the border's and the roads here. lately they have done terrible on both counts.

Saratoga_Mike
12-15-2014, 10:03 AM
We don't agree very often, Tom, but you're right.

Here's another concern out of this spending bill - and it's non-partisan.
It may have been put in by the GOP, but it helps both parties and
not the US people:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B42OnWvCMAAl07Y.jpg

That's called free speech.

Tom
12-15-2014, 10:08 AM
We place limits on free speech in special circumstances, like slander, falsely yelling fire!, so why not where the very essence of our freedoms- the right to vote - is jeopardized?

One rich man, or corporation, can out-speak millions of citizens.

classhandicapper
12-15-2014, 10:20 AM
I don't know all the details, but I know enough to know I'm not in favor of taxpayers bailing out the losses of private institutions, especially when the management of those institutions are red, have horns, and a bifurcated tail.

AndyC
12-15-2014, 10:33 AM
We place limits on free speech in special circumstances, like slander, falsely yelling fire!, so why not where the very essence of our freedoms- the right to vote - is jeopardized?

One rich man, or corporation, can out-speak millions of citizens.

Have rich people ever influenced your vote through spending their money on free speech?

Clocker
12-15-2014, 10:37 AM
We place limits on free speech in special circumstances, like slander, falsely yelling fire!, so why not where the very essence of our freedoms- the right to vote - is jeopardized?

The limits are when you infringe on the rights of others. Swaying the opinions of low information voters does not infringe on their rights.

thaskalos
12-15-2014, 10:40 AM
Are we pretending not to know the evils associated with unrestricted campaign contributions?

Clocker
12-15-2014, 10:41 AM
Welcome to the democratic party!

Right. I was really impressed with all those bankers that Eric Holder prosecuted for fraud. :rolleyes:

Saratoga_Mike
12-15-2014, 10:44 AM
We place limits on free speech in special circumstances, like slander, falsely yelling fire!, so why not where the very essence of our freedoms- the right to vote - is jeopardized?

One rich man, or corporation, can out-speak millions of citizens.

Up until a few years ago, I agreed with your position...but I changed my mind.

As we've seen from the Koch Brothers on the right and Tom Steyer on the left, money doesn't always win. In fact, it very often loses. The American people just aren't that stupid (you'll slam me on that one, I'm sure!). If you support Ted Cruz for prez, I believe you should be able to express that support with your every last cent. By doing so, you aren't endangering anyone (crowded theater) or harming anyone (slander/libel). You're simply expressing yourself...nothing more American than that, imo.

Term limits are probably a more effective way of cleaning up the political system than curbing my right to support a candidate. Of course I oppose term limits, too.

Saratoga_Mike
12-15-2014, 10:48 AM
Are we pretending not to know the evils associated with unrestricted campaign contributions?

What's so evil about the Koch Brothers running endless commercials supporting Mitt Romney for prez or Planned Parenthood running endless commercials supporting Wendy Davis for Gov?

thaskalos
12-15-2014, 10:49 AM
Up until a few years ago, I agreed with your position...but I changed my mind.

As we've seen from the Koch Brothers on the right and Tom Steyer on the left, money doesn't always win. In fact, it very often loses. The American people just aren't that stupid (you'll slam me on that one, I'm sure!). If you support Ted Cruz for prez, I believe you should be able to express that support with your every last cent. By doing so, you aren't endangering anyone (crowded theater) or harming anyone (slander/libel). You're simply expressing yourself...nothing more American than that, imo.

Term limits are probably a more effective way of cleaning up the political system than curbing my right to support a candidate. Of course I oppose term limits, too.

Now, hold on a second here. We know that the system is corrupt...and yet we oppose "effective ways" of cleaning it up? What's the answer then?

thaskalos
12-15-2014, 10:51 AM
What's so evil about the Koch Brothers running endless commercials supporting Mitt Romney for prez or Planned Parenthood running endless commercials supporting Wendy Davis for Gov?

When we say that our politicians are "bought and payed for"...what exactly do we mean?

johnhannibalsmith
12-15-2014, 10:52 AM
If people really gave one shit about money being used to buy opinion they could stop it tomorrow without any new laws or supreme court about faces and just vote against those campaigns. But we don't do that. We generally support these people the most, with money and with votes, making it always curious to me that this topic gets bandied about as often as it does. Lip service at its best.

Tom
12-15-2014, 10:55 AM
When we say that our politicians are "bought and payed for"...what exactly do we mean?

It means what we call bribes, they call lobbies.

Saratoga_Mike
12-15-2014, 11:00 AM
Now, hold on a second here. We know that the system is corrupt...and yet we oppose "effective ways" of cleaning it up? What's the answer then?

I don't have the answer, but I think term limits are borderline un-American.

Saratoga_Mike
12-15-2014, 11:01 AM
When we say that our politicians are "bought and payed for"...what exactly do we mean?

You answered my two questions with a new and tangentially related question.

horses4courses
12-15-2014, 11:16 AM
And you are okay with that? :eek:



And you believe that the Constitution is an antiquated inconvenience that should be ignored whenever it conflicts with your views, don't you? You keep talking about "who we are". We are a nation of laws, and the supreme law is the Constitution. Follow it or change it. Don't dismiss it as irrelevant when you don't like the outcome.

Back to the issue at hand. Where is there anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to regulate spending on expressing one's opinions on politics or any other matter?

To my knowledge, there has not been an amendment to the US
Constitution in over 40 years. Has the world stood still since then?
Or, is it all we will ever need?

Robert Goren
12-15-2014, 11:22 AM
What's so evil about the Koch Brothers running endless commercials supporting Mitt Romney for prez or Planned Parenthood running endless commercials supporting Wendy Davis for Gov?Because not everybody can afford to do it. A few rich people get their message heard and the rest of us do not.

Clocker
12-15-2014, 11:25 AM
To my knowledge, there has not been an amendment to the US
Constitution in over 40 years. Has the world stood still since then?
Or, is it all we will ever need?

Why do we need to amend it when it is a lot easier for unprincipled politicians to ignore it?

What do you see as needing to be addressed by amendment?

Clocker
12-15-2014, 11:27 AM
Because not everybody can afford to do it. A few rich people get their message heard and the rest of us do not.

People acting together can be heard. The Tea Party revolt of 2010 was a relatively low maintenance operation.

TJDave
12-15-2014, 11:28 AM
Have rich people ever influenced your vote through spending their money on free speech?

Never.

It's you and everyone else that concerns me. ;)

classhandicapper
12-15-2014, 11:45 AM
I have mixed feelings on the campaign contribution issue. It feels like banning cigarettes in private bars to me.

We all know that cigarette smoking is a health hazard that we'd be better off without. But my libertarian streak tells me that if we start with cigarette bans on private property, sooner or later there will be guys like Bloomberg banning everything "he" deems bad for society.

IMO, these huge contributions are bad for democracy, but I'm not so sure I want to ban them. They are part of free speech and free markets.

horses4courses
12-15-2014, 05:44 PM
What do you see as needing to be addressed by amendment?

I'll plead the 5th on that one....... ;)

Tom
12-15-2014, 10:34 PM
Because not everybody can afford to do it. A few rich people get their message heard and the rest of us do not.

So you agree George Soros must be stopped?

Tom
12-15-2014, 10:35 PM
I'll plead the 5th on that one....... ;)

Oh, pick and choose your amendments, huh?

Robert Goren
12-16-2014, 06:13 AM
People acting together can be heard. The Tea Party revolt of 2010 was a relatively low maintenance operation.They were not heard long. It was quickly taken over by career politicians and unemployed political operatives. The only it does now is hold conventions where conservative celebrities get high speaking to preach to the choir.

Robert Goren
12-16-2014, 06:16 AM
So you agree George Soros must be stopped?As long as the Koch brothers, the Ricketts and the rest of the moneyed right wingers are stopped too.
Of course it works. They are not spending the money because they think they have too much money and they need to get rid of some of it.

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 08:35 AM
The middle class loses. Banks and billionaires win.

Political contributions can be divvied into two essential directives: to fund media campaigns and pay for favored legislation. The Supreme Court in the “Citizens United” decision opened the door for the flood of money going into the recent national election cycle by declaring, “Corporations are people.” The middle class loses. Corporations win.

Tax Reform becomes a misnomer. The banks and corporations will continue to ride the gravy train while everyday people will receive only token relief, if any.

America is the greatest country in history. The freedoms established in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have maintained a flourishing society. We defend our rights against foreign intrusion and from within our shores. The stampede to power by the few – billionaires, bankers and corporations – runs against the grain of America’s established creed of “By the people, for the people.”

The earmarks attached to the spending bill, as stand-alone decrees, are not catastrophic. The amendments are a ‘red-flag’ signal that there will be outcomes favorable only to an oligarchy.

AndyC
12-16-2014, 11:07 AM
Never.

It's you and everyone else that concerns me. ;)

Exactly. That seems to be the mindset of every person seeking a stricter limit on campaign contributions.

Clocker
12-16-2014, 11:23 AM
Political contributions can be divvied into two essential directives: to fund media campaigns and pay for favored legislation. The Supreme Court in the “Citizens United” decision opened the door for the flood of money going into the recent national election cycle by declaring, “Corporations are people.” The middle class loses. Corporations win.

Corporations cannot make campaign contributions. Only individuals can, and they are limited to $2600 per election per candidate.

The Court did not rule that corporations are people. In the 1800s, the Court ruled that corporations are associations of people, and that by virtue of that association, people do not give up certain rights, including the right of free speech.

Much as we may not like the outcome, there is no way to draw the line between associations like labor unions and the NRA and AARP and churches on one side and for-profit corporations on the other. I prefer to err on the side of more freedom rather than less.

Hank
12-16-2014, 12:30 PM
The middle class loses. Banks and billionaires win.

Political contributions can be divvied into two essential directives: to fund media campaigns and pay for favored legislation. The Supreme Court in the “Citizens United” decision opened the door for the flood of money going into the recent national election cycle by declaring, “Corporations are people.” The middle class loses. Corporations win.

Tax Reform becomes a misnomer. The banks and corporations will continue to ride the gravy train while everyday people will receive only token relief, if any.

America is the greatest country in history. The freedoms established in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have maintained a flourishing society. We defend our rights against foreign intrusion and from within our shores. The stampede to power by the few – billionaires, bankers and corporations – runs against the grain of America’s established creed of “By the people, for the people.”

The earmarks attached to the spending bill, as stand-alone decrees, are not catastrophic. The amendments are a ‘red-flag’ signal that there will be outcomes favorable only to an oligarchy.


On the contrary,the Plutocracy we have now is a natural outgrowth of the system of governance that the founders desired. "THE PEOPLE" they had in mind were "WEALTHY PEOPLE" .Adam smith summed it up nicely

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE= The Court did not rule that corporations are people. In the 1800s, the Court ruled that corporations are associations of people, and that by virtue of that association, people do not give up certain rights, including the right of free speech.

Free speech of individuals can be exercised by the individual, freely to extend any legal means of support to campaigns.

Much as we may not like the outcome, there is no way to draw the line between associations like labor unions and the NRA and AARP and churches on one side and for-profit corporations on the other. I prefer to err on the side of more freedom rather than less.[/QUOTE]

That is a matter of your perception of "more freedom" = all for the common good or for the few.

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 01:00 PM
On the contrary,the Plutocracy we have now is a natural outgrowth of the system of governance that the founders desired. "THE PEOPLE" they had in mind were "WEALTHY PEOPLE" .Adam smith summed it up nicely

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith would recant his statement if he were alive today.

Robert Goren
12-16-2014, 01:02 PM
Adam Smith would recant his statement if he were alive today.It is highly doubtful that he would since his statement is still true.

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 01:06 PM
It is highly doubtful that he would since his statement is still true.

The comparison is like Romney's 47% iteration.

Clocker
12-16-2014, 01:15 PM
That is a matter of your perception of "more freedom" = all for the common good or for the few.

You would prefer to limit freedom of speech for all in order to deny it to the few?

TJDave
12-16-2014, 01:22 PM
Exactly. That seems to be the mindset of every person seeking a stricter limit on campaign contributions.

And not far from the truth. Someone's buying...excepting you and me. ;)

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 01:28 PM
You would prefer to limit freedom of speech for all in order to deny it to the few?

I believe that was covered in the part that you freely omitted:

[QUOTE= The Court did not rule that corporations are people. In the 1800s, the Court ruled that corporations are associations of people, and that by virtue of that association, people do not give up certain rights, including the right of free speech.

Free speech of individuals can be exercised by the individual, freely to extend any legal means of support to campaigns.

Clocker
12-16-2014, 01:46 PM
I believe that was covered in the part that you freely omitted:

[QUOTE= The Court did not rule that corporations are people. In the 1800s, the Court ruled that corporations are associations of people, and that by virtue of that association, people do not give up certain rights, including the right of free speech.

Free speech of individuals can be exercised by the individual, freely to extend any legal means of support to campaigns.

I freely omitted something that I freely wrote in the first place? :D

Consider it as me freely exercising free speech. And in case you haven't noticed, acting in association with others is a "legal means of support to campaigns".

And you are freely ignoring the issue. Are you advocating restriction of the freedom of all in order to restrict the freedom of the few? In order to silence a large corporation, you would deny me the right to contribute to a PAC?

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 01:50 PM
[QUOTE=Clocker][QUOTE=Spiderman]I believe that was covered in the part that you freely omitted:



I freely omitted something that I freely wrote in the first place? :D

You omitted the following:

Free speech of individuals can be exercised by the individual, freely to extend any legal means of support to campaigns.

I wrote the above sentence.

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 01:57 PM
[QUOTE=Clocker]Corporations cannot make campaign contributions. Only individuals can, and they are limited to $2600 per election per candidate.

How many ways from Sunday and twice on every day of the week do you think the $2,600 can be multiplied? There are how many election districts in the US? Hear about Koch Brother contributions going through four or more shell PACs and righteous named organizations?

Spiderman
12-16-2014, 02:06 PM
Warren’s Display of Backbone Threatens Career as Democrat

(The Borowitz Report)—What some insiders are calling a “rash display of backbone” last week could endanger Senator Elizabeth Warren’s career as a Democrat, leading party operatives say.

Harland Dorrinson, a strategist who has guided the campaigns of dozens of Democratic candidates, said that the Massachusetts legislator’s “recklessly truthful” tirade about banks left him “smacking my head.”

“She stood up for what she believed in and didn’t try to water it down,” he said. “That is a serious violation of the Democratic playbook.”

“Whenever you’re talking about banks or Wall Street, it’s crucial that a Democrat sound as indistinguishable from a Republican as possible,” he said. “Apparently, Elizabeth Warren didn’t get the memo.”

The strategist said that Warren could possibly salvage her career as a Democrat if her advisers dissuade her from further outbursts of integrity in the future.

“There’s still hope for her,” he said. “But someone needs to sit her down and say, ‘We are the party of Dukakis, the party of Mondale. This is not how we roll.

Hank
12-16-2014, 06:12 PM
Adam Smith would recant his statement if he were alive today.

Doubtful.But here speaks James Madison.

" The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

And Alexander Hamilton

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Tom
12-16-2014, 11:37 PM
Which is why we have a Senate.
Should we get rid of it?

Spiderman
12-17-2014, 07:27 AM
Doubtful.But here speaks James Madison.

" The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

And Alexander Hamilton

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Madison or Hamilton also wrote:
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. –
para 8 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Thomas Jefferson – Words of Wisdom
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1816
“The end of our democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when the government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed corporations.”

President Andrew Jackson, 1834, on closing the Second Bank of the United States
“I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the banks to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

Andrew Jackson:
“I weep for the liberty of our country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for the promises of office.”

Hank
12-18-2014, 12:05 AM
Madison or Hamilton also wrote:
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. –
para 8 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Thomas Jefferson – Words of Wisdom
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1816
“The end of our democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when the government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed corporations.”

President Andrew Jackson, 1834, on closing the Second Bank of the United States
“I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the banks to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. You are a den of vipers and thieves.”

Andrew Jackson:
“I weep for the liberty of our country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for the promises of office.”

Not sure what you think these statement mean in relation to the others I posted,but they in NO way refute the former.

Spiderman
12-18-2014, 07:50 AM
Not sure what you think these statement mean in relation to the others I posted,but they in NO way refute the former.


Not all founders agreed with Madison and Hamilton. Two of your posts, first:

Madison's statement, ". . .[I]if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure.[/I And,[I] " . . . our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.[/I

Benjamin Franklin had experience with innovation. I could start quoting BF, too.

I am NOT disagreeing with Madison's right to protection of his property. But, to the extent of denying freedom to the rest of the population.

It is not a stretch, by any means, to recognize that the landed gentry and banks were in bed together and sought to retain control of the nation's purse strings. The dangers of control of wealth and the abuse of reckless bank behavior were recognized by many, including Presidents Jefferson and Jackson.

Not all "founders" agreed with Madison, Smith and Hamilton. Founders, Presidents Jefferson, author of, "For the people, by the people" and Jackson who, as a teenager, fought in the American Revolution and, when becoming President, closed the banks.

__________________________________________________ _________
Second:

Originally Posted by HANK

On the contrary,the Plutocracy we have now is a natural outgrowth of the system of governance that the founders desired. "THE PEOPLE" they had in mind were "WEALTHY PEOPLE" .Adam smith summed it up nicely
__________________________________________________ ___________
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and many others would disagree with that statement. Flooding the post with quotes and documentation from founders and noted patriots would not settle disagreement on issues relevant to 2014 and the future.

Robert Goren
12-18-2014, 11:10 AM
Warren’s Display of Backbone Threatens Career as Democrat

(The Borowitz Report)—What some insiders are calling a “rash display of backbone” last week could endanger Senator Elizabeth Warren’s career as a Democrat, leading party operatives say.

Harland Dorrinson, a strategist who has guided the campaigns of dozens of Democratic candidates, said that the Massachusetts legislator’s “recklessly truthful” tirade about banks left him “smacking my head.”

“She stood up for what she believed in and didn’t try to water it down,” he said. “That is a serious violation of the Democratic playbook.”

“Whenever you’re talking about banks or Wall Street, it’s crucial that a Democrat sound as indistinguishable from a Republican as possible,” he said. “Apparently, Elizabeth Warren didn’t get the memo.”

The strategist said that Warren could possibly salvage her career as a Democrat if her advisers dissuade her from further outbursts of integrity in the future.

“There’s still hope for her,” he said. “But someone needs to sit her down and say, ‘We are the party of Dukakis, the party of Mondale. This is not how we roll.While this used to be true, 2008 changed everything. It is now ok for a democrat to run against the banks and Wall Street again. Goldman Sachs really is the portal through which all evil enters the world.

Clocker
12-18-2014, 11:31 AM
While this used to be true, 2008 changed everything. It is now ok for a democrat to run against the banks and Wall Street again. Goldman Sachs really is the portal through which all evil enters the world.

That article is a spoof. It is what passes for satire in a humor column in the New Yorker, their high class version of the Onion. The people quoted there do not exist.

Hank
12-18-2014, 03:48 PM
Not all founders agreed with Madison and Hamilton. Two of your posts, first:

Madison's statement, ". . .[I]if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure.[/I And,[I] " . . . our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.[/I

Benjamin Franklin had experience with innovation. I could start quoting BF, too.

I am NOT disagreeing with Madison's right to protection of his property. But, to the extent of denying freedom to the rest of the population.

It is not a stretch, by any means, to recognize that the landed gentry and banks were in bed together and sought to retain control of the nation's purse strings. The dangers of control of wealth and the abuse of reckless bank behavior were recognized by many, including Presidents Jefferson and Jackson.

Not all "founders" agreed with Madison, Smith and Hamilton. Founders, Presidents Jefferson, author of, "For the people, by the people" and Jackson who, as a teenager, fought in the American Revolution and, when becoming President, closed the banks.

__________________________________________________ _________
Second:

Originally Posted by HANK

On the contrary,the Plutocracy we have now is a natural outgrowth of the system of governance that the founders desired. "THE PEOPLE" they had in mind were "WEALTHY PEOPLE" .Adam smith summed it up nicely
__________________________________________________ ___________
George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and many others would disagree with that statement. Flooding the post with quotes and documentation from founders and noted patriots would not settle disagreement on issues relevant to 2014 and the future.

I never said they did.So please no strawmen.I provided evidence that directly supported my contention that the founders sought a system of governance which would ensure that the wealthy retained real control of the government while presenting the appearance of democracy.They were men of similar "class" and generally shared like concerns though obviously they did not agree on everything.Thus far you have presented conjecture that "Smith would recant" or "Washington would disagree" and populous rhetoric from other founders without context, and A.Jackson forty years after the structure was government was completed.Your contention that Adam smith would recant his statement is especially doubtful given the fact that Smith though famed as an economist was also Philosopher of the first rank, known for thinking ideas out very carefully and precisely before committing anything to print.

Spiderman
12-18-2014, 05:57 PM
I never said they did.So please no strawmen.I provided evidence that directly supported my contention that the founders sought a system of governance which would ensure that the wealthy retained real control of the government while presenting the appearance of democracy.They were men of similar "class" and generally shared like concerns though obviously they did not agree on everything.Thus far you have presented conjecture that "Smith would recant" or "Washington would disagree" and populous rhetoric from other founders without context, and A.Jackson forty years after the structure was government was completed.Your contention that Adam smith would recant his statement is especially doubtful given the fact that Smith though famed as an economist was also Philosopher of the first rank, known for thinking ideas out very carefully and precisely before committing anything to print.

Thanks for the history lesson. You can start your thread about the founders you choose.

Robert Goren
12-18-2014, 10:30 PM
While this used to be true, 2008 changed everything. It is now ok for a democrat to run against the banks and Wall Street again. Goldman Sachs really is the portal through which all evil enters the world.Not much of spoof. Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all ran as friends to Wall Street.

Clocker
12-18-2014, 10:39 PM
Not much of spoof. Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all ran as friends to Wall Street.

The author is a liberal. Not much of a sense of humor.