Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's Third Party or Die

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's Third Party or Die

    This is truly disgusting.



    Tea Party Congressmen Accept Cash From Bailed-Out Bankers




    Tea Party Congressmen Accepting Money From Disdained Wall Street




    Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

    Stephen Fincher speaks during a news conference at the Republican National Committee following the House Republican Conference meeting, in Washington, on March 6, 2012.



    Tea Party Congressmen Accepting Money From Disdained Wall Street

    Jonathan Gibby/Getty Images

    Tea Party member Mike Keating displays the pins that decorate his hat, while waiting for the start of a rally supporting Arizona's Immigration Law SB 1070 at the Arizona state Capitol in Phoenix, on April 25, 2012.





    Republican freshmen have made clear their disdain for expanding government, and openly opposed a financial regulatory overhaul enacted by Democrats in 2010 before the newcomers arrived in Washington. Their ranks include ten Tea Party-backed freshmen on the House Financial Services Committee, part of a force that won election in a populist backlash to government spending that included emergency lending to major banks and bailout of firms including U.S. automakers.




    Still, the lawmakers haven’t passed, considered or even introduced legislation to address concerns about “too-big-to- fail” banks voiced by members of both parties and such Federal Reserve bank presidents as Richard Fisher of Dallas and Jeffrey Lacker of Richmond, Virginia.
    “I haven’t seen any of them putting forth legislation on breaking up the big banks or on other things that would genuinely prevent a bailout next time,” said Marcus Stanley, policy director of Americans for Financial Reform, a Washington- based umbrella group of organizations that supported the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and other financial regulations.
    Freshman Power

    Since arriving in Congress in January of 2011, Tea Party- backed lawmakers have demonstrated their determination and muscle by forcing several rounds of government spending cuts through standoffs over raising the national debt ceiling with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders, putting the government on the brink of a shutdown.

    Yet the anti-bailout fervor that drove the messaging of Republican candidates during the campaign cycle of 2009 and 2010 has dissipated, and those same lawmakers are now collecting money from the firms bailed out by President George W. Bush’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout program.
    Five banks -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) -- held $8.5 trillion in assets at the end of 2011, equal to 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to central bankers at the Federal Reserve. Combined those institutions took $150 billion in bailout money in 2008 and repaid it by the end of the next year.
    PAC Donations

    The political action committees of those institutions have distributed $169,499 through March 31 to the campaign coffers of the ten freshman Tea Party-backed lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure records.
    Fincher, who is among them, promised as a candidate to “Help Main Street” and ensure there would be “no more Wall Street bailouts” in an advertisement that ran 98 times in the Nashville market in the run-up to his victory in a district previously held by a Democrat since 1988, according to New York- based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising.

    “There was a lot of visceral reaction” to federal intervention to save Wall Street, said Mark Skoda, founder of the Memphis Tea Party and a Fincher constituent and supporter. “Stephen was very much using the language that Wall Street was problematic here and we were not going to do anymore bailouts.”
    Fincher, through his spokeswoman Jennifer Cook, declined an interview request. Several others receiving donations from the banking firms also have declined to comment. ...


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...t-bankers.html


  • #2
    Re: It's Third Party or Die

    The Tea Party being an Astroturf is a pretty well documented phenomena, though to be fair $169.5K distributed to 10 members of the House of Representatives seems quite low.

    It would not surprise me if in fact the other members of the burgeoning House Financial Services Committee received far, far more:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofi...%20&congno=111

    Finance/Insur/RealEst $16,482,953 $12,030,314
    So to recap: 10 Tea Party members of the House Financial Services Committee have received $169.5K in campaign contributions from banksters. The 10 members represent 16.4% of the Committee. Said Committee received over $28 million in 2010 from FIRE. These members have another $4.4 million to receive before they even get their 'fair' share. /sarc

    Obviously the platform contrast looks bad, but then again the article does seem like a hit piece...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: It's Third Party or Die

      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
      The Tea Party being an Astroturf is a pretty well documented phenomena, though to be fair $169.5K distributed to 10 members of the House of Representatives seems quite low.

      It would not surprise me if in fact the other members of the burgeoning House Financial Services Committee received far, far more:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofi...%20&congno=111



      So to recap: 10 Tea Party members of the House Financial Services Committee have received $169.5K in campaign contributions from banksters. The 10 members represent 16.4% of the Committee. Said Committee received over $28 million in 2010 from FIRE. These members have another $4.4 million to receive before they even get their 'fair' share. /sarc

      Obviously the platform contrast looks bad, but then again the article does seem like a hit piece...
      True, $170k is cheap hooker cheap. But it's the hypocrisy. Surely this is the first instance of a politician being a hypocrite!

      Its the new America. Anyone and everyone will sell out for money. I see no reason to expect Tea Party types won't be the same. I don't see how there is any political solution in a culture that puts material wealth above all. Banks have more money than "reformers" have integrity. They will always be able to buy any potential threat off.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: It's Third Party or Die

        Originally posted by flintlock View Post
        Its the new America. Anyone and everyone will sell out for money.
        I don't know if it's new or not. It does feel true though. There has to be another way to look at money. How can money occupy a place not as important in my life? Maybe my health and sickness is my only clue.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: It's Third Party or Die

          Well money has always been a powerful influence, for sure, but long respected people and organizations are now willing to sell out their values much more readily than in the past. And even to overlook crimes if there is money to be made. These types have always existed, I just think their thinking has become more mainstream. It shows in the type of politicians we elect and the celebrities we worship. "A Football player beats his wife? So what, just look at his cars!" It mirrors our society. We at least used to pretend we cared about things like character and integrity. There was at least that facade.

          I used to lament the lack of any real "culture" in America. Now I see that the culture is to some degree, materialism itself.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: It's Third Party or Die

            Originally posted by flintlock View Post
            Well money has always been a powerful influence, for sure, but long respected people and organizations are now willing to sell out their values much more readily than in the past. And even to overlook crimes if there is money to be made. These types have always existed, I just think their thinking has become more mainstream. It shows in the type of politicians we elect and the celebrities we worship. "A Football player beats his wife? So what, just look at his cars!" It mirrors our society. We at least used to pretend we cared about things like character and integrity. There was at least that facade.

            I used to lament the lack of any real "culture" in America. Now I see that the culture is to some degree, materialism itself.


            I don't know how things were. I suspect you are right, because I feel exactly as you do. To me the unanswerable questions are the best.

            All real change begins in the individual. What will make people want to change their relationship to money?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: It's Third Party or Die

              Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
              I don't know how things were. I suspect you are right, because I feel exactly as you do. To me the unanswerable questions are the best.

              All real change begins in the individual. What will make people want to change their relationship to money?
              I was part of the FIRE economy until I was 54 when I retired (quit). One of the main reasons was the greed all around me. I was spending all my time selling the company I was working for or buying another company for my company. Then merging it in to our operation (eliminating almost all of the employees) and then turning around in a couple years and selling off the block of business for a nice gain. The board of directors, especially the CEO, only cared about what they could get out of the business. I was doing very well. I certainly was part of the 1%. I had become a Christian 16 years earlier and I guess what was going on just finally got to me. Quite frankly my wife thought I was nuts. But it has worked out well. I would not change the last 14 years for anything.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: It's Third Party or Die

                Originally posted by jiimbergin View Post
                I was part of the FIRE economy until I was 54 when I retired (quit). One of the main reasons was the greed all around me. I was spending all my time selling the company I was working for or buying another company for my company. Then merging it in to our operation (eliminating almost all of the employees) and then turning around in a couple years and selling off the block of business for a nice gain. The board of directors, especially the CEO, only cared about what they could get out of the business. I was doing very well. I certainly was part of the 1%. I had become a Christian 16 years earlier and I guess what was going on just finally got to me. Quite frankly my wife thought I was nuts. But it has worked out well. I would not change the last 14 years for anything.
                This really shows how my relationship to money is not as important as my relationship to my life. I applaud you. but would point out (not in any way to be mean.) you probably had the necessary funds to cushion the fall of the drop out, as it were. Money is such a huge factor. The morality of money is not discussed enough. How am I used by it?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: It's Third Party or Die

                  Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
                  This really shows how my relationship to money is not as important as my relationship to my life. I applaud you. but would point out (not in any way to be mean.) you probably had the necessary funds to cushion the fall of the drop out, as it were. Money is such a huge factor. The morality of money is not discussed enough. How am I used by it?
                  You are right. I had no debt and a little less than a million dollars. So I could drop out. Of course I went from an income of a couple hundred thousand down to what I could earn from my investments. I actually cut back to living on roughly 4% of my investable assets.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: It's Third Party or Die

                    Originally posted by jiimbergin View Post
                    You are right. I had no debt and a little less than a million dollars. So I could drop out. Of course I went from an income of a couple hundred thousand down to what I could earn from my investments. I actually cut back to living on roughly 4% of my investable assets.
                    well, my assets are more, but my expenses never really seem to drop. one kid heading to college in a year, and another few years behind means things don;t change for some time to come. But I get the whole Galt thing, as I did it myself. It is really quite refreshing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: It's Third Party or Die

                      Originally posted by jiimbergin View Post
                      I was part of the FIRE economy until I was 54 when I retired (quit). One of the main reasons was the greed all around me. I was spending all my time selling the company I was working for or buying another company for my company. Then merging it in to our operation (eliminating almost all of the employees) and then turning around in a couple years and selling off the block of business for a nice gain. The board of directors, especially the CEO, only cared about what they could get out of the business. I was doing very well. I certainly was part of the 1%. I had become a Christian 16 years earlier and I guess what was going on just finally got to me. Quite frankly my wife thought I was nuts. But it has worked out well. I would not change the last 14 years for anything.
                      So good to hear people like you still exist. Even if you are a dying breed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: It's Third Party or Die

                        Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
                        well, my assets are more, but my expenses never really seem to drop. one kid heading to college in a year, and another few years behind means things don;t change for some time to come. But I get the whole Galt thing, as I did it myself. It is really quite refreshing.
                        Of course, our youngest child is 40 which makes a big difference. Also after my first wife died of lung cancer after we had been together since we were 14 and 15, I remarried. My new wife does have some income and I started getting SS. However, we donate my entire SS and we use her income for traveling. We both could stop traveling if required and be fine. So basically we are still living on about 4%.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How to fix it!

                          Originally posted by Raz View Post
                          This is truly disgusting.
                          I have two ideas to fix the federal election system.

                          1) Make the senate elected nation wide on a proportional basis. Any party that gets above 1% in the election would get the corresponding number of seats. This would bring much greater choice to the polls and gradually bleed away the power of the repocrats. It would also mean we had more of the government representing national, as opposed to regional, interests.

                          2) Public financing of campaigns. Since not only the election, but also the campaign is part of the process of selecting office holders, it is legitimate to use tax money to finance campaigns. Any party that polled above 1% in the polls would get a share of the public money, and a some free radio and TV time.
                          I am not sure if the resources should be alloted on a proportional basis or what. But with a 1% threshold, we could not get more than 100 parties. Germany has a system like this.

                          I strongly dispute the idea that a multiparty government is ineffectual. Right now, we have a two party government that is ineffectual. Israel has had multiple parties for years. I don't think Israel's government is "ineffectual." I think the ineffectual traits of Italy's government, are more due to the national culture than the electoral system.
                          Every law requires some majority of votes to pass. It doesn't matter if the votes come from one party or five.

                          A big problem is that many voters still think the current system is a good one. I don't see how they can think that, but they do.

                          Other ideas that might help:

                          1) Term limits--under the current system, the pols spend most of thier time either fund raising or running for the next election. Term limits would reduce that problem.

                          2) Revolving door penalty: Right now, pols can serve a term, then work for Military or FIRE interests that they have earned favors from. Perhaps the pols future employment could be restricted. I don't know how this would work legally. Their finances would have to be publicly transparent from the moment they take office.

                          3) Disclosure in Advertising/news. Perhaps any article or ad that mentions a politician by name should have it's funding disclosed. Media outlets would also have to disclose all ownership and sponsorship.

                          One reason for the court decision is that there is no way to legally distinguish a campaign ad from "news". And no way to distinguish a media corporation from any other corporation, such as GE owning NBC, for example.

                          People who want restrictions on campaign finance have to explain how it will work in the context of these grey areas. You say it's an AD, I say it's news. Who decides?

                          References:

                          K-street: the best Government Money can buy
                          Last edited by Polish_Silver; May 03, 2012, 07:05 AM. Reason: add comment

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: How to fix it!

                            Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
                            I have two ideas to fix the federal election system.

                            1) Make the senate elected nation wide on a proportional basis. Any party that gets above 1% in the election would get the corresponding number of seats. This would bring much greater choice to the polls and gradually bleed away the power of the repocrats. It would also mean we had more of the government representing national, as opposed to regional, interests.

                            2) Public financing of campaigns. Since not only the election, but also the campaign is part of the process of selecting office holders, it is legitimate to use tax money to finance campaigns. Any party that polled above 1% in the polls would get a share of the public money, and a some free radio and TV time.
                            I am not sure if the resources should be alloted on a proportional basis or what. But with a 1% threshold, we could not get more than 100 parties. Germany has a system like this.

                            I strongly dispute the idea that a multiparty government is ineffectual. Right now, we have a two party government that is ineffectual. Israel has had multiple parties for years. I don't think Israel's government is "ineffectual." I think the ineffectual traits of Italy's government, are more due to the national culture than the electoral system.
                            Every law requires some majority of votes to pass. It doesn't matter if the votes come from one party or five.

                            A big problem is that many voters still think the current system is a good one. I don't see how they can think that, but they do.

                            Other ideas that might help:

                            1) Term limits--under the current system, the pols spend most of thier time either fund raising or running for the next election. Term limits would reduce that problem.

                            2) Revolving door penalty: Right now, pols can serve a term, then work for Military or FIRE interests that they have earned favors from. Perhaps the pols future employment could be restricted. I don't know how this would work legally. Their finances would have to be publicly transparent from the moment they take office.

                            3) Disclosure in Advertising/news. Perhaps any article or ad that mentions a politician by name should have it's funding disclosed. Media outlets would also have to disclose all ownership and sponsorship.

                            One reason for the court decision is that there is no way to legally distinguish a campaign ad from "news". And no way to distinguish a media corporation from any other corporation, such as GE owning NBC, for example.

                            People who want restrictions on campaign finance have to explain how it will work in the context of these grey areas. You say it's an AD, I say it's news. Who decides?

                            References:

                            K-street: the best Government Money can buy

                            Electing the Senate nationwide would effectively end our Federal system and change it to a Unitary system (as in the UK). Bad idea, in my opinion.

                            Otherwise you've hit some very good points. As Flintlock said about certain "conservatives" who don't want REAL campaign finance reform/public financing of elections:
                            you'll never change a system that's rigged for incumbents without it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: How to fix it!

                              Originally posted by Raz View Post
                              Electing the Senate nationwide would effectively end our Federal system and change it to a Unitary system (as in the UK). Bad idea, in my opinion.

                              Otherwise you've hit some very good points. As Flintlock said about certain "conservatives" who don't want REAL campaign finance reform/public financing of elections:
                              you'll never change a system that's rigged for incumbents without it.

                              +1

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X