Purveyor of Truth
We'll start with the thing that will catch your attention, as is the way: Democrats who voted for the giant spending bill on Thursday night received, on average, twice the campaign contributions from the finance/insurance/real estate industry as their colleagues who voted against it.Yes folks, it's true. Money talks, regardless of party affiliation. And so we continue witnessing the purchase of influence by the wealthy and powerful.
Does this register? Does it tell us anything? Should it tell us anything? Or do we simply go along to get along and be thankful things are as they are? It seems worth questioning what we view as our biggest national domestic problems.
READ THE FULL WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE.
Via: Memeoandum
UPDATE:
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon made calls to lawmakers on Thursday urging them to support the “cromnibus” spending bill...
Dimon's involvement came amid progressive outrage that the House cromnibus included a provision that they said would weaken Wall Street regulations.
FULL STORY HERE.
And as if to confirm that money talks much louder than the ballot box, the bill includes a provision to make the limits on contributions much higher, thus insuring that our little contributions mean nothing at all. Even among corporate or special interest contributions, the biggest hog at the trough gets the most slop.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, why not be honest and call it the Koch Republic or JP Morgonia?
Kochistan....Kochlawanda....Kochlandia...... and we are the US of F, United States of Fucked.
ReplyDeletePartisans have a tendency to focus a spotlight on private bugbears, and retrospective discussions often present an incomplete picture. Let’s recall events:
ReplyDeleteThe speculative bubble may have started in the housing industry but engulfed the entire worldwide financial system. Cowboy operators wrote junk mortgages. All mortgages were bundled into investment portfolios called “derivatives,” and the bad apples within each portfolio made the entire barrel rotten. To make these derivatives attractive to investors, bundlers purchased “credit default swaps” (a form of investment insurance) to give these portfolios triple A ratings (issued by Moody’s and Standard & Poors). Thus, every link in the chain had defects – every derivative, every brokerage house and major bank that sold derivatives, every insurance company (such as AIG) that sold credit default swaps, and every credit rating agency. To point fingers of blame at Fannie and Freddie alone is to miss the entire picture.
Please recall: The first company to declare insolvency was Bear Stearns followed by Lehman. Soon Merrill Lynch, Countrywide, and every “too-big-to-fail” bank (such as Citi, BofA, Chase, MH, Wells Fargo, as examples) faced a liquidity crisis that dried up credit markets. No credit liquidity meant all commerce and all economic activity would come to a halt. Then Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson (panic-stricken), wrote a two-page memo requesting a “no-strings attached” bailout of the entire financial system, which later became known as TARP. Point of fact: Fannie and Freddie - although insolvent - represented merely a ”drop in the bucket.” The devastation was pervasive, systemic and worldwide – estimated to be excess of $50 trillion. Please note: Hank Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and a Bush appointee.
Now, before everyone goes into a partisan tizzy, consider: To borrow from this analogy, “violence begets violence,” it can also be said that chicanery and corruption begets more chicanery and corruption as competitive stakeholders, each jealous of the other, stakes a claim. Politics and cronyism go hand in hand. In the end, it doesn’t matter who started what first. Sooner or later, like the financial meltdown, the political corruption is pervasive and systemic and rotten to the core.
Third party, anyone?
In contemplating the benefit and neccessity of a third party lt ultimately took a turn and the question what would really change popped into mind.
ReplyDeleteMore ideas on the table for consideration is a desirable thing. And, people being people, hammering out solutions would continue to be problematic to be sure. In
theory the power sharing between three viable parties could serve to keep extreme
positions and or legislation in check. A
good thing.
However, the reality is coalitions, or
political alliances would be forged and this
would result in trading tit for tat as
legislation was cobbled together to keep
all sides marginally happy.
Of course people being people the desire
or lust for power would continue to exist
and so lnfluence peddling and cronyism
would still be a factor.
Finally, what's to guarantee that the
influence of a third party would reduce the corruption and chicanery we see now?
Cynicism has started to become the norm. Certainly for me.
Me too. Maybe it's only a matter of time before a party, like a fish, begins to stink. Government by coalition doesn't seem, at first glance, to have much in the way of stability or freedom from the same smell.
DeleteOf course I'm staunchly Bull Moose -- all the way.
I am staunchly anti day old fish. What's that old saying, a fish rots from the head?
Deletewell, Les....it all depends on if the fish was broiled or deep fried. The day old broiled isn't too bad.....with a lot of tartar. Forget the day old cole slaw, though....yuck.
Delete