Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Partisianism Aside... Why Aren't People Freaking Out over This?

mrplunkey

mrplunkey

New member
Here we are in a bailout that will probably cost $1T before everything is said and done. And look at all the money these fuckers rained on lawmakers. Why aren't people freaking out?

And yeah, Obama is #2 on the list at $126K. And no, McCain isn't scott-free either. He's #62 on the list at $21,550.

Seems like the top 100 or so should resign to me.

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers

All Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Name Office State Party Grand Total Total from
PACs Total from
Individuals
Dodd, Christopher J S CT D $165,400 $48,500 $116,900
Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349
Kerry, John S MA D $111,000 $2,000 $109,000
Bennett, Robert F S UT R $107,999 $71,499 $36,500
Bachus, Spencer H AL R $103,300 $70,500 $32,800
Blunt, Roy H MO R $96,950 $78,500 $18,450
Kanjorski, Paul E H PA D $96,000 $57,500 $38,500
Bond, Christopher S 'Kit' S MO R $95,400 $64,000 $31,400
Shelby, Richard C S AL R $80,000 $23,000 $57,000
Reed, Jack S RI D $78,250 $43,500 $34,750
Reid, Harry S NV D $77,000 $60,500 $16,500
Clinton, Hillary S NY D $76,050 $8,000 $68,050
Davis, Tom H VA R $75,499 $13,999 $61,500
Boehner, John H OH R $67,750 $60,500 $7,250
Conrad, Kent S ND D $64,491 $22,000 $42,491
Reynolds, Tom H NY R $62,200 $53,000 $9,200
Johnson, Tim S SD D $61,000 $20,000 $41,000
Pelosi, Nancy H CA D $56,250 $47,000 $9,250
Carper, Tom S DE D $55,889 $31,350 $24,539
Hoyer, Steny H H MD D $55,500 $51,500 $4,000
Pryce, Deborah H OH R $55,500 $45,000 $10,500
Emanuel, Rahm H IL D $51,750 $16,000 $35,750
Isakson, Johnny S GA R $49,200 $35,500 $13,700
Cantor, Eric H VA R $48,500 $46,500 $2,000
Crapo, Mike S ID R $47,250 $40,500 $6,750
Frank, Barney H MA D $42,350 $30,500 $11,850
Bean, Melissa H IL D $41,249 $34,999 $6,250
Bayh, Evan S IN D $41,100 $16,500 $24,600
McConnell, Mitch S KY R $41,000 $40,000 $1,000
Maloney, Carolyn B H NY D $39,750 $16,500 $23,250
Dorgan, Byron L S ND D $38,750 $30,500 $8,250
Miller, Gary H CA R $38,000 $31,500 $6,500
Rangel, Charles B H NY D $38,000 $14,750 $23,250
Tiberi, Patrick J H OH R $35,700 $32,600 $3,100
Bunning, Jim S KY R $33,802 $29,650 $4,152
Stabenow, Debbie S MI D $33,450 $32,000 $1,450
Chambliss, Saxby S GA R $33,250 $22,500 $10,750
Menendez, Robert S NJ D $31,250 $30,500 $750
Enzi, Mike S WY R $31,000 $27,500 $3,500
Van Hollen, Chris H MD D $30,700 $11,000 $19,700
Landrieu, Mary L S LA D $30,600 $20,000 $10,600
Murray, Patty S WA D $30,000 $23,000 $7,000
Clyburn, James E H SC D $29,750 $26,000 $3,750
Crowley, Joseph H NY D $29,700 $25,500 $4,200
Sessions, Pete H TX R $29,472 $24,000 $5,472
McCrery, Jim H LA R $29,000 $26,000 $3,000
Hooley, Darlene H OR D $28,750 $19,500 $9,250
Royce, Ed H CA R $28,600 $4,000 $24,600
Renzi, Rick H AZ R $28,250 $28,000 $250
Lieberman, Joe S CT I $28,250 $11,500 $16,750
Baucus, Max S MT D $27,500 $21,000 $6,500
Moore, Dennis H KS D $26,550 $25,500 $1,050
Coleman, Norm S MN R $24,690 $12,000 $12,690
Matheson, Jim H UT D $24,500 $24,000 $500
Schumer, Charles E S NY D $24,250 $1,500 $22,750
Durbin, Dick S IL D $23,750 $14,000 $9,750
Rogers, Mike H MI R $22,750 $21,000 $1,750
Lynch, Stephen F H MA D $22,500 $13,500 $9,000
Rockefeller, Jay S WV D $22,250 $5,000 $17,250
Smith, Gordon H S OR R $22,000 $20,000 $2,000
Mikulski, Barbara A S MD D $21,750 $16,500 $5,250
McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550
 
political donations..

difference is obama voted to support them..

McCain voted to place more restrictions on them.. 2 years ago..

Obama =

so you support abortion up until live birth even 9 months
and 50% inheritance tax
and redistribution of wealth dictated by the government
and increased taxation to pay for those unable and unwilling to get out of bed and go to a job everyday, after all why should they
and so you believe in M a r x i s m??
 
Well, Fannie and Freddie as we know them WERE Democrat creations.
 
Don't know why Kanjorski is so high on the list, but his district has always been known for graft. Google Dan Flood.
 
By the time this is over, I bet it costs us (directly and indirectly) at least $1T dollars.
 
I bet they wishing they had a refund on the Dodd donations now.
 
I thought that you, of all people, Plunkey would be against campaign finance reform. I mean, wouldn't it impinge on these companies right to free speech (and political speech, at that -- the most highly protected speech) if we did not allow them to financially contribute to the campaigns of their choosing?

You're just upset because normally the republicans get the lions share of the campaign contributions from the banking sector. Consumer Protection -- conshmummer proshmecshum.
 
heatherrae said:
I thought that you, of all people, Plunkey would be against campaign finance reform. I mean, wouldn't it impinge on these companies right to free speech (and political speech, at that -- the most highly protected speech) if we did not allow them to financially contribute to the campaigns of their choosing?

You're just upset because normally the republicans get the lions share of the campaign contributions from the banking sector. Consumer Protection -- conshmummer proshmecshum.
Click to expand...

Bribery isn't free speech though.
 
mrplunkey said:
Bribery isn't free speech though.
Click to expand...
It surprises me greatly that this is your position. It normally works in favor of your political agenda.

PS -- regarding the bailout, I don't think I'm in favor of it. I think we should just let the housing bubble correct itself. ??? However, I may just be ignorant. Would allowing the banks go under completely freeze lending, even between banks? I don't know.
 
heatherrae said:
It surprises me greatly that this is your position. It normally works in favor of your political agenda.

PS -- regarding the bailout, I don't think I'm in favor of it. I think we should just let the housing bubble correct itself. ??? However, I may just be ignorant. Would allowing the banks go under completely freeze lending, even between banks? I don't know.
Click to expand...



Yes it would. After Monday the overnight lending rate between banks more than doubled.
 
75th said:
Yes it would. After Monday the overnight lending rate between banks more than doubled.
Click to expand...
Well, I admitted ignorance with respect to the effect of these banks going under on the overall economy. I'm not sure which is better. I guess I just have to hope that whoever is making the decisions with regard to who gets bailed out and who doesn't knows what they are doing.
 
mrplunkey said:
Are you trying to imply Republicans collect more campaign contributions than Democrats?
Click to expand...
I think for most things that there are donations to be had on both sides of the issue -- i.e., corporations lobbying v. unions lobbying. However, with respect to the banking industry, the republicans usually get the lions share of the contributions because the consumer protection advocates don't have deep pockets.
 
heatherrae said:
I think for most things that there are donations to be had on both sides of the issue -- i.e., corporations lobbying v. unions lobbying. However, with respect to the banking industry, the republicans usually get the lions share of the contributions because the consumer protection advocates don't have deep pockets.
Click to expand...

Which side is raising more money in the current political campaign? Explain to me how you tell the difference between "corporate" money and money from any other source when individuals are the ones writing the checks.
 
mrplunkey said:
Which side is raising more money in the current political campaign? Explain to me how you tell the difference between "corporate" money and money from any other source when individuals are the ones writing the checks.
Click to expand...
Here is a good article. There are definitely ways to track who gives money earmarked for what purpose and how that correlates with voting. Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but it doesn't disprove it either.

Following the Money Trail Online - Pogue’s Posts - Technology - New York Times Blog

Maplight.org

I wrote a 75 page paper in law school legislation class, interestingly enough discussing campaign finance reform, the various suggestions of how it could be accomplished and whether each was effective, ethical, constitutional etc. I was surprised that when I had completed my paper I had decided that I opposed the reform as being a violation of freedom of speech. my professor was Congressman Ron Mazzoli and he asked my permission to circulate the paper around washington. I'm kind of flattered. Evidently, lots of people read it. I wish I still had it, but I don't.
 
heatherrae said:
I wrote a 75 page paper in law school legislation class,
Click to expand...

Holly crap who has time to write a 75 page paper?
Wow I am surprised you don't write longer posts with sources attached! JK
 
Because Plunk, people are stupid. That is the short and sweet answer. People go to the polls and vote in local, state, and congressional elections. Then they walk away from the polls patting themselves on the back feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, thinking that they are so patriotic. But then they never pay attention to what the people that they are voted for are doing or voting for themselves. Politicians are not held responsible for anything. And its the peoples fault.
 
heatherrae said:
Here is a good article. There are definitely ways to track who gives money earmarked for what purpose and how that correlates with voting. Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but it doesn't disprove it either.

Following the Money Trail Online - Pogue’s Posts - Technology - New York Times Blog

Maplight.org

I wrote a 75 page paper in law school legislation class, interestingly enough discussing campaign finance reform, the various suggestions of how it could be accomplished and whether each was effective, ethical, constitutional etc. I was surprised that when I had completed my paper I had decided that I opposed the reform as being a violation of freedom of speech. my professor was Congressman Ron Mazzoli and he asked my permission to circulate the paper around washington. I'm kind of flattered. Evidently, lots of people read it. I wish I still had it, but I don't.
Click to expand...

Its still virtually impossible to track fundraiser money in a causal way. I go to a few (i.e. 4-5) of these events a year and then do something stupid like host an event about once every 3-4 years. Its a simple procedure: There are a pool of people in each town who keep recycling each other for political events. The events all run $2,000/couple and the food really sucks. You show-up at the door, write a $2,000 personal check, get a really nice (usually) pre-printed name tag. Then shoot the shit for one hour. Then you listen to the guy (or girl) for 5-10 minutes and the event breaks-up. The candidate walks-out with a stack of 40-100 checks for $2,000 each. Now how exactly do you tie that back to corporations or the industries those people represent?
 
mrplunkey said:
Its still virtually impossible to track fundraiser money in a causal way. I go to a few (i.e. 4-5) of these events a year and then do something stupid like host an event about once every 3-4 years. Its a simple procedure: There are a pool of people in each town who keep recycling each other for political events. The events all run $2,000/couple and the food really sucks. You show-up at the door, write a $2,000 personal check, get a really nice (usually) pre-printed name tag. Then shoot the shit for one hour. Then you listen to the guy (or girl) for 5-10 minutes and the event breaks-up. The candidate walks-out with a stack of 40-100 checks for $2,000 each. Now how exactly do you tie that back to corporations or the industries those people represent?
Click to expand...
That is only a fraction money. You don't know about corporate PACs, soft money, and such???
 
mrplunkey said:
Its still virtually impossible to track fundraiser money in a causal way. I go to a few (i.e. 4-5) of these events a year and then do something stupid like host an event about once every 3-4 years. Its a simple procedure: There are a pool of people in each town who keep recycling each other for political events. The events all run $2,000/couple and the food really sucks. You show-up at the door, write a $2,000 personal check, get a really nice (usually) pre-printed name tag. Then shoot the shit for one hour. Then you listen to the guy (or girl) for 5-10 minutes and the event breaks-up. The candidate walks-out with a stack of 40-100 checks for $2,000 each. Now how exactly do you tie that back to corporations or the industries those people represent?
Click to expand...
You need to read up on these things. I said previously that it is difficult to say that there is any quid pro quo relationship between the contributions. However, the money most certainly can be and is tracked.
 
heatherrae said:
Look here:

Political Action Committees | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...

I looked myself up. It has me with 20 donations since 1995 -- that's not even close. I'll conservatively average 3.5 donations per year. So since 1995 I should be in there 45+ times. Also, it has me listed under 5 different companies (4 of which are divisions of our family's business) and has me in there a few times as "SELF EMPLOYED" other times as "SELF/BUSINESS EXECUTIVE". It has our family's main business listed there as: "XYZ", "XYZ INDUSTRIES", "XYZ INC" and "XYZ TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION". Even when I worked at GE, it had me as: "CLINICAL ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS GE ME" -- how would anyone know that's General Electric?

I guess its fun to play with, but the info itself is virtually useless.
 
mrplunkey said:
I looked myself up. It has me with 20 donations since 1995 -- that's not even close. I'll conservatively average 3.5 donations per year. So since 1995 I should be in there 45+ times. Also, it has me listed under 5 different companies (4 of which are divisions of our family's business) and has me in there a few times as "SELF EMPLOYED" other times as "SELF/BUSINESS EXECUTIVE". It has our family's main business listed there as: "XYZ", "XYZ INDUSTRIES", "XYZ INC" and "XYZ TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION". Even when I worked at GE, it had me as: "CLINICAL ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS GE ME" -- how would anyone know that's General Electric?

I guess its fun to play with, but the info itself is virtually useless.
Click to expand...
you are a very small time contributor of hard money. (no offense there. I just mean that you aren't putting in like the PACs.) YOu better believe the candidates know where their bread is being buttered and they may have a bit of vagueness over your $2000 contribution, but they dont lose sight of six-figure and beyond contributions.
 
anyway, the whole point is that contributions are REQUIRED to be tracked. You never concede a point even when shown proof of your error. lol.
 
heatherrae said:
Here is a more appropriate example, Exxon:

Exxon Mobil | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...

Ok, I went there and checked your specific example:

Exxon

$475,500 contributed to Federal candidates in 2008.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the total political monetary influence exerted by a company that did $404.5 Billion dollars in sales last year. I'm sure in a heavily regulated and politicized industry like oil that spending 0.000117% of revenue sounds right.

Looks like that site captured it all!
 
mrplunkey said:
Ok, I went there and checked your specific example:

Exxon

$475,500 contributed to Federal candidates in 2008.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the total political monetary influence exerted by a company that did $404.5 Billion dollars in sales last year. I'm sure in a heavily regulated and politicized industry like oil that spending 0.000117% of revenue sounds right.

Looks like that site captured it all!
Click to expand...
LOL...you just can't manage to ever concede when you are wrong. You obviously don't understand campaign finance issues but can't concede when someone shows you something new.
 
heatherrae said:
Here is a more appropriate example, Exxon:

Exxon Mobil | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...


Morning Bell: The Left’s Crony Capitalism Exposed » The Foundry


Morning Bell: The Left’s Crony Capitalism Exposed
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9.26am in Ongoing Priorities.
In 2004, after a tip from a whistle blower who was later fired, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (Ofheo) issued a report finding that the government-sponsored entity Fannie Mae had engaged in Enron-like accounting machinations that allowed Fannie to overstate its earnings and underestimate the risk the company faced. The accounting wizardry Fannie engaged in was designed so that Fannie could meet profit targets to maximize bonus payments to company executives like Clinton administration deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick and Carter administration assistant director for domestic policy Franklin Raines.

For years, conservatives have been critical of how Fannie, and Freddie Mac, have leveraged their government-sponsored advantages (including exemptions from state and federal taxes, lower capital requirements, and the ability to borrow at rates well below those paid by private companies), to create a co-monopoly in the housing finance sector. When Fannie’s accounting scandal came to light in 2004, conservatives pushed hard for reforms to phase out Fannie and Freddie. Led by former Walter Mondale and Barack Obama campaign adviser James Johnson, Fannie and Freddie pushed back hard, raising millions of dollars for members of the relevant oversight committees and opening up “Partnership Offices” that funneled money into various housing projects in districts of key members of Congress.

Fannie also bought off activist groups such as the corrupt Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been indicted, multiple times across the country, for vote fraud (Obama worked closely with ACORN as a street organizer in Chicago). Fannie’s lobbying efforts paid off as liberal politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.) worked to kill any real reform of Freddie and Fannie. The Washington Post reports: “In an internal memo in 2004, Fannie Mae executive Daniel H. Mudd affirmed what the company’s critics had long contended: In the political arena, ‘we always won’ and ‘we took no prisoners.’”

Fannie was created during the New Deal to make homes more affordable for lower- and middle-income Americans. Freddie was added years later for the same purpose. Fannie and Freddie have long outlived their purpose as the market for repackaging loans as securities is now well developed. When the housing market is booming, they are not needed, and they have both gone well beyond their original mission and are now backing loans for wealthy (witness Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s continued efforts to raise the cap on the size of the loans that Fannie and Freddie can buy).

Many parts of the bill the Senate passed last week only continue the worst aspects of the crony capitalism at the hard of Freddie’s success. This is especially true of the Community Development Block Grant funds that have long been a goal of partisan housing activist groups like ACORN. There is an opportunity here to use the recapitalization the White House is now proposing to re-organize housing finance by breaking up Fannie and Freddie and creating several smaller truly private entities that can compete.

Quick Hits:

Despite Barack Obama’s pledge not to accept money from lobbyists, Democrats are turning to an elite network of lobbyists to help raise more than $40 million for the convention that will nominate him for president.
The push for more domestic energy production is gaining traction in Congress, but big political hurdles remain.
Randi Weingarten, who is rising to become president of the American Federation of Teachers, wants public schools to become community centers that offer after-school and evening recreational activities, child care, dental, medical and counseling clinics.
The Green Party has nominated ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who once suggested that members of the Bush administration stood to profit from 9/11 and later fought with a U.S. Capitol Police officer at a security checkpoint, as its presidential candidate.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in an interview aired Sunday that he would be open to the idea of serving as energy czar in an Obama administration.
 
bw1 said:
Morning Bell: The Left’s Crony Capitalism Exposed » The Foundry


Morning Bell: The Left’s Crony Capitalism Exposed
Posted July 14th, 2008 at 9.26am in Ongoing Priorities.
In 2004, after a tip from a whistle blower who was later fired, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (Ofheo) issued a report finding that the government-sponsored entity Fannie Mae had engaged in Enron-like accounting machinations that allowed Fannie to overstate its earnings and underestimate the risk the company faced. The accounting wizardry Fannie engaged in was designed so that Fannie could meet profit targets to maximize bonus payments to company executives like Clinton administration deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick and Carter administration assistant director for domestic policy Franklin Raines.

For years, conservatives have been critical of how Fannie, and Freddie Mac, have leveraged their government-sponsored advantages (including exemptions from state and federal taxes, lower capital requirements, and the ability to borrow at rates well below those paid by private companies), to create a co-monopoly in the housing finance sector. When Fannie’s accounting scandal came to light in 2004, conservatives pushed hard for reforms to phase out Fannie and Freddie. Led by former Walter Mondale and Barack Obama campaign adviser James Johnson, Fannie and Freddie pushed back hard, raising millions of dollars for members of the relevant oversight committees and opening up “Partnership Offices” that funneled money into various housing projects in districts of key members of Congress.

Fannie also bought off activist groups such as the corrupt Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been indicted, multiple times across the country, for vote fraud (Obama worked closely with ACORN as a street organizer in Chicago). Fannie’s lobbying efforts paid off as liberal politicians such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.) worked to kill any real reform of Freddie and Fannie. The Washington Post reports: “In an internal memo in 2004, Fannie Mae executive Daniel H. Mudd affirmed what the company’s critics had long contended: In the political arena, ‘we always won’ and ‘we took no prisoners.’”

Fannie was created during the New Deal to make homes more affordable for lower- and middle-income Americans. Freddie was added years later for the same purpose. Fannie and Freddie have long outlived their purpose as the market for repackaging loans as securities is now well developed. When the housing market is booming, they are not needed, and they have both gone well beyond their original mission and are now backing loans for wealthy (witness Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s continued efforts to raise the cap on the size of the loans that Fannie and Freddie can buy).

Many parts of the bill the Senate passed last week only continue the worst aspects of the crony capitalism at the hard of Freddie’s success. This is especially true of the Community Development Block Grant funds that have long been a goal of partisan housing activist groups like ACORN. There is an opportunity here to use the recapitalization the White House is now proposing to re-organize housing finance by breaking up Fannie and Freddie and creating several smaller truly private entities that can compete.

Quick Hits:

Despite Barack Obama’s pledge not to accept money from lobbyists, Democrats are turning to an elite network of lobbyists to help raise more than $40 million for the convention that will nominate him for president.
The push for more domestic energy production is gaining traction in Congress, but big political hurdles remain.
Randi Weingarten, who is rising to become president of the American Federation of Teachers, wants public schools to become community centers that offer after-school and evening recreational activities, child care, dental, medical and counseling clinics.
The Green Party has nominated ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.), who once suggested that members of the Bush administration stood to profit from 9/11 and later fought with a U.S. Capitol Police officer at a security checkpoint, as its presidential candidate.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in an interview aired Sunday that he would be open to the idea of serving as energy czar in an Obama administration.
Click to expand...
?????????

This discussion was not an indictment of either side. They both accept contributions. It was just a discussion of campaign finance and capaign finance reform.

My example of Exxon was in no way a statement against Republicans. It was merely an example of how contributions are tracked.
 
heatherrae said:
?????????

This discussion was not an indictment of either side. They both accept contributions. It was just a discussion of campaign finance and capaign finance reform.

My example of Exxon was in no way a statement against Republicans. It was merely an example of how contributions are tracked.
Click to expand...


I know, I didn't mean to say you were attacking repub's, really I just clicked on your quote because I was staring at your tits:whatever::rose:
 
bw1 said:
I know, I didn't mean to say you were attacking repub's, really I just clicked on your quote because I was staring at your tits:whatever::rose:
Click to expand...
:lmao:

I should use these things for good instead of evil.

Super hero with tits.
 
heatherrae said:
LOL...you just can't manage to ever concede when you are wrong. You obviously don't understand campaign finance issues but can't concede when someone shows you something new.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with being right or wrong on a point. Political contributions by law have to be tracked, but the way they are tracked is archaic, inaccurate and quite trivially bypassed.

So you do believe Exxon spent 0.000117% of their last-year revenues lobbying? That's your story and you are sticking to it, eh?

And speaking of admitting you were wrong, hows that little math problem where you described 20.4% as "less than 3%"? I've never heard back from you on that one...
 
mrplunkey said:
This has nothing to do with being right or wrong on a point. Political contributions by law have to be tracked, but the way they are tracked is archaic, inaccurate and quite trivially bypassed.

So you do believe Exxon spent 0.000117% of their last-year revenues lobbying? That's your story and you are sticking to it, eh?

And speaking of admitting you were wrong, hows that little math problem where you described 20.4% as "less than 3%"? I've never heard back from you on that one...
Click to expand...
hahahahahahaha...this is comical. A few posts back you said that there was no way to track contributions and that they were not tracked. Now you are saying that the tracking just isn't good enough. You obviously didn't understand the difference in hard and soft money or PAC contributions. Now, you just won't concede that there might have been something you didn't know on a topic.

LOL.
 
heatherrae said:
It surprises me greatly that this is your position. It normally works in favor of your political agenda.

PS -- regarding the bailout, I don't think I'm in favor of it. I think we should just let the housing bubble correct itself. ??? However, I may just be ignorant. Would allowing the banks go under completely freeze lending, even between banks? I don't know.
Click to expand...

I so totally agree with this, its a dag band aid and it will not last... we will see this problem again. But who am I, just someone who is misinformed like the rest of us, joking joking LOL.
 
mrplunkey said:
Bribery isn't free speech though.
Click to expand...
Bribery assumes they got something specific in exchange for their vote. Is everyone who contributes to a campaign attempting to bribe?
 
Dial_tone said:
Bribery assumes they got something specific in exchange for their vote. Is everyone who contributes to a campaign attempting to bribe?
Click to expand...
In Plunkey's opinion, only if the recipient is a Democrat...lol.
 
Dial_tone said:
Bribery assumes they got something specific in exchange for their vote. Is everyone who contributes to a campaign attempting to bribe?
Click to expand...

There are groups who try to link voting records with campaign money but again, the system is so full of holes it seems worthless to me.

Maybe we just need hard-and-fast rules about taking money and voting. Perhaps making it an ethics violation to vote on bills when you've received more than some amount (i.e. $10,000) from a specific contributor? Force them to vote "present" if they have a conflict of interest?

I don't have the answer to this one and no, this wasn't meant to be a partisan thread. People just don't understand the scale of this -- what was Enron's failure's cost? 100B? (I really don't know). At that number, these housing failures could cascade and easily cost investors or taxpayers 10x that. So think about how much fall-out Enron generated and multiply by what? 10x? 20x?
 
mrplunkey said:
There are groups who try to link voting records with campaign money but again, the system is so full of holes it seems worthless to me.

Maybe we just need hard-and-fast rules about taking money and voting. Perhaps making it an ethics violation to vote on bills when you've received more than some amount (i.e. $10,000) from a specific contributor? Force them to vote "present" if they have a conflict of interest?

I don't have the answer to this one and no, this wasn't meant to be a partisan thread. People just don't understand the scale of this -- what was Enron's failure's cost? 100B? (I really don't know). At that number, these housing failures could cascade and easily cost investors or taxpayers 10x that. So think about how much fall-out Enron generated and multiply by what? 10x? 20x?
Click to expand...

I think the bottom line is most companies play both sides of the fence when it comes to contributions. Somebody has to pay for it all.
 
Dial_tone said:
I think the bottom line is most companies play both sides of the fence when it comes to contributions. Somebody has to pay for it all.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this will get the same degree of scrutiny and criminal investigation as Enron. Again, I'm guessing it's 10x larger (or more) and somehow I don't think the criminal prosecutions and congressional inquiries will happen.
 
mrplunkey said:
I wonder if this will get the same degree of scrutiny and criminal investigation as Enron. Again, I'm guessing it's 10x larger (or more) and somehow I don't think the criminal prosecutions and congressional inquiries will happen.
Click to expand...


You think a democrat congress would look into something like this knowing how many democrats it would lead back to?
 
75th said:
You think a democrat congress would look into something like this knowing how many democrats it would lead back to?
Click to expand...

No, actually, I don't.

I'd just like to know how much money they really received.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom