Sen. Durbin, Asst. Majority Leader: Banking indutry owns Congress

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well in case anyone cares anymore, they win, again:

Text

"Today, a proposal to change bankruptcy law and allow bankruptcy judges to cram-down mortgage payments for troubled homeowners failed in the Senate by a vote of 45-51. The provision, which was introduced as an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), required 60 votes to pass. In recent weeks, support for the measure evaporated in the face of furious lobbying by the banking and mortgage industries. Prior to the vote, Durbin -- who this week said that bankers "are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill" -- took to the floor to decry the banking industry's influence in the cram-down debate:

At some point the senators in this chamber will decide the bankers shouldn't write the agenda for the United States Senate. At some point the people in this chamber will decide the people we represent are not the folks working in the big banks, but the folks struggling to make a living and struggling to keep a decent home.

The American News Project noted that the Mortgage Bankers Association was "in a celebratory mood" at its annual meeting this week because "a massive lobbying campaign" against cram-down appeared to be working."

******************************************************

At least Durbin got his dig in, hooray for a moral victory.

As I refer to some leaders being corrupted by the industry compared to others, the list of votes on this issue is a reasonable guideline to separate the two groups.

Excuse me for not crying for the "troubled homeowners" who bought way more than they could afford. Sorry your teaser-rate ARM reset (just like the contract said it would), but life can be rough if you make dumb choices. Maybe if we punished stupidity harder, we'd get less of it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is an error of Libertarians, thinking that the power will just be distributed to people, not be concentrated in private hands.

For some reason, they exempt concentrated private power from the idea that 'power tends to corrupt'.

It's perverse to say the answer to government being influenced by the powerful is to weaken government and let the powerful get eveen more power.

Craig, you'd be less annoying if you didn't always cling to these silly strawmen.

You'd be less annoying if you weren't so blinded by ideology. The truth is laid out for you with a ribbon wrapped around it and you are unable to understand it.

That's because you are so locked into misguided interpretations that you twist the situation to fit them.

For a start, my comment was about Libertarians generally. Your response was only a slight variation on what I said, though, hardly a real contradiction.

I never said only gov't power corrupts - I fully realize 'private' power is as corrupting as 'public' power.[/quote]

Not *as* corrupting - IMO, on average, more corrupting. It's the exception in public office, but the tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington are all paid by such interests.

And they're not paying them to pass things good for the public that would pass without any lobying.

Take an organization like Medicare or Social Security - what corruption are you going to find? The corruption you find in Medicare isn't the Medicare organization - it's big pharma being the top donors to the Republicans who won in 2000, and in exchange the Republicans having as their top priority after 'tax cuts' the Medicare drug bill which not only spent hundreds of billions on drugs profiting them, but specifically had a clause prohibiting the government from negotiating the drug prices, adding $150 billion in *extra* profit for the drug companies - the bill pushed through by a Congressman who immediately after it passed resigned to take a waiting position in the big pharma industry.

That's not the government being corrupt to profit itself (except that Congressman), it's the private sector as the source of the corruption, using government. The sad thing is that crippling the government wouldn't be the solution, because the government - when the corruption is eliminated by electing better people who overcome the big pharma ad money - is the only protection for the public. Get rid of the government's powers and big pharms abuses would *increase*, not decrease.

But unlike you, I don't pretend that 'public' power is any better. Humanity is basically passive-dependent and, given power, will basically give it back for a few crumbs (or a promise thereof), and so it's usually going to be concentrated somewhere. Of course, it's usually only public powers which have armies. Corporations are usually only interested in screwing people over to make a buck. Gov'ts actually kill people.

And who does the government typically misuse the military on the behalf of to kill, when it's misused? Corporate interests who tell it what they want.

You should really read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and the two related books detailing the system of global economic exploitation, and the escalation from economic pressure to political pressure to limited violence including assassinations to full war to achieve the objectives.

Let's look again at the revealing quote from the then-highest decorated Marine in US history, General Smedley Butler after he looked back on decades of wars decades ago:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
- Gen. Smedley Butler

That's not even including the arms merchants who more directly profit from and influence war policies - such as with world leaders profiting from things such as the Carlyle Group, the largest private arms consortium in the world, with members including many senior government officials to the highest levels, President Bush 41, Tony Blair; why do you think people like Henrey Kissinger had to decline the presidential appointment to lead the 9/11 commission because he'd have to reveal his client list as he serves these interests?

Butler again:

"War is a racket. It has always been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives...At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other millionaires falisifed their income tax returns no one knows... The average earnings of the du Ponts [chemical/gun powder producers at the time] for the period 1910 to 1914 was six million dollars a year...[from]1914 to 1918...fifty-eight million dollars of profit we find...an increase of 950 percent..."
- General Smedley Butler

Of course, 25 years later, the same issues led to Eisenhower's famous farewell speech coining the phrase to warn about the "Military-Industrial[-Congressional] Complex".

A useful quote:

No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic.

~A. J. P. Taylor

That's not the government serving itself, except for a small sliver, it's serving the powerful.

The fact that we have a democracy is a *limiting* factor on those abuses; they happen mostly to the extent democracy has failed. We need a fixed, not a weakened, democracy.

An excellent example of many is Chile. While out of office, Nixon worked for Pepsi. In Chile, a US corporation had arranged a sweetheart deal where it spent a realatively small sum building the infrastructure to extract Chile's top resource, copper, and then made billions in profit - effectively stealing from Chile by paying off a corrupt to regime to sell out the Chilean people.

There was enough democracy in Chile that this became an issue, and it was so clear that the three top presidentical candidates from left to right all pledged to do something about it.

The socialist candidate, Allende, ended up winning despite the US"s efforts - and he planned to make changes to end the exploitave deals. US corporations didn't like this; one affected was Pepsi, and they selected Pepsi to represent them to the new US President Nixon and ask him to do something. Nixon ordered that he did not want Allende taking office - so much for democracy. The first efforts failed, but later efforts succeeded in a coupe in which Allende was killed and an era of tyranny under inochet began.

Was the source of that corrupt use of US resources - the CIA in this case, but in others it's the military - the government? No, it was private power using the government.

Again, democracy is a *limiting* factor on such activities and needs to be improved so that such operations are less possible - and indeed the process has partially worked, such as with the Church committee hearings that exposed much of the CIA's wrongs and led to some reforms. That didn't stop Reagan's death squads and Iran-Contra, but the scandal there has made it still more difficult, to where the coup against Chavez failed. That's a good thing in terms of US corruption whatever you think of Chavez.

US Corporations, however, regularly pay mercenary armies in the southern Americas to kill people who resist the exploitation there. How would libertarians stop that?

The bottom line is that private power is today mostly benevolent, *because* of our democratic system. Lessen the power of the elected government, and the tyranny of the private sector will increase, the people's power to resist it destroyed, whatever the fantasies of libertarians. The government is *largely* benevolent as well, and personal corruption (taking personal bribes) is pretty rare. It's more an issue of *systemic* corruption, the fact that the guy who sides with the corporate interests tends to win.

That's not the guy pocketing money for himself illegally, it's the guy who simply chooses to serve those interests and have a position of power. He's limited by the need for election.

When Blagojavich(sp?) was found doing wrong, his career in politics was over. I can point to a lot of CEO's who did a lot worse who stayed in power - and were even rewarded for it.

The bottom line is that we need to champion democracy and fix it to reduce the corruption from narrow and corrupt interests - not weaken or destroy democracy because the rage over corruption is miguidedly placed on the government rather on the system's imperfections that allow the powerful to get too much say in the government.

It's sad that I'm wasting the time to write this in terms of your inability to hear it, but hopefully it's of use for others who are pondering the issues of government.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
IMO, we need not the Libertarians, who are the beneficiaries of the vacuum who pick up all the outrage, but better organization for 'good government'.

Poor Craig cannot see that when you let the government into the market, you let the market into the government. And eventually, the market owns the government. Your OP isn't a bashing of free market ideas, it's a selling point. Not just for freer markets, but for honest money, 100% reserve banking, and NO central bank.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
IMO, we need not the Libertarians, who are the beneficiaries of the vacuum who pick up all the outrage, but better organization for 'good government'.

Poor Craig cannot see that when you let the government into the market, you let the market into the government. And eventually, the market owns the government. Your OP isn't a bashing of free market ideas, it's a selling point. Not just for freer markets, but for honest money, 100% reserve banking, and NO central bank.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The government being a strong regulator and the government being dominated and controlled by private interests are opposites.

We don't need 'freer markets' when 'freer' means the government regulates less and the markets get away with more harmful but profitable activities.

And you don't get more 'honest money' when the powerful special interests are allowed to become so powerful that they can defeat the public interest.

*If* you are right about your pet banking issues, then you should support what I'm saying to help the public have more power - that's how you would get the changes you want.

However, the changes you want are debatable as to whether they are really in the public interest. You and other proponents think they are. That's a policy debate.

We should agree however that that debate should not be corrupted by the banking industry having too much influence in government.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I've long referred to it as a sort of 'poorer person's mentality', meaning not 'poor' people, but meaning that many poor and middle class people tend to seem to almost have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome in the way they *hate* the government they elect while almost worshipping the other 'ruling class', the ultra wealthy, making endless excuses for them. But this article mentions a label has been created for that - "peasant mentality".

IMO, we need not the Libertarians, who are the beneficiaries of the vacuum who pick up all the outrage, but better organization for 'good government'.

Hey, I oppose your views on almost everything regarding government...

I do agree with you here 100% on the problem. But here's where our difference is - how do you fix the problem? As long as government is in control of handing out trillions of dollars, you will always have lobbyists you will always have corruption. I believe the only way to eliminate this level of corruption is to stop giving government more money. I.E. conservatism & healthy competitive capitalism.

I suppose some alternative options are term limits and runoff elections. It would help. But I mean, these changes can only be made by government. I believe the biggest problem we have in this country is a lack of competition in elections.


Really, though, all Durbin said is what educated people already know.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The bottom line is that allowing money to play an excessiv role in our elections dooms them no less than allowing parties at trial to bribe the judge.

It's a mistake to pretend that the voter's free choice nullifies the effect of the advertising. While the dollars don't guarantee who wins, they hugely predict it.

I would be curious to know what your thoughts were of McCain's points against Obama on campaign financing. I mean, you want a candidate who stood up against outside influences, it was McCain. And the media, and probably you too, rejected him.

 

[cubby1223]

This is Crag's failing, he believes "the right" are in the tank for the interests of corporate greed.

The other day on Chicago's conservative talk radio station, they were highlighting the problems in Illinois judicial elections, where lawyers finance the campaign funds of judges to the tune of millions of dollars every election cycle. And I mean, this is Chicago where the Democrats are the huge pile of corruption.

Heck it was "the evil right" who wanted the corrupt failures to fail. Republicans voted against the bailouts.

Keep an eye on General Electric moving forward. No doubt they are in bed with Democrats, look at MSNBC. Watch just how many billions of dollars they will be receiving from the government through the stimulus bill's "green energy" allocations, and the upcoming cap & trade taxes. General Electric may make Halliburton look like child's play.

 

[Mani]

Really wish the Republicans would go on the attack for the banking ties among prominent dems - an actual legit attack for once. Problem is, they know they are just as bad if not worse in most cases so they'll probably just stick to calling them marxists.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Not *as* corrupting - IMO, on average, more corrupting. It's the exception in public office, but the tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington are all paid by such interests.

You seriously believe that?!?!

Take an organization like Medicare or Social Security - what corruption are you going to find? The corruption you find in Medicare isn't the Medicare organization - it's big pharma being the top donors to the Republicans who won in 2000, and in exchange the Republicans having as their top priority after 'tax cuts' the Medicare drug bill which not only spent hundreds of billions on drugs profiting them, but specifically had a clause prohibiting the government from negotiating the drug prices, adding $150 billion in *extra* profit for the drug companies - the bill pushed through by a Congressman who immediately after it passed resigned to take a waiting position in the big pharma industry.

That's not the government being corrupt to profit itself (except that Congressman), it's the private sector as the source of the corruption, using government. The sad thing is that crippling the government wouldn't be the solution, because the government - when the corruption is eliminated by electing better people who overcome the big pharma ad money - is the only protection for the public. Get rid of the government's powers and big pharms abuses would *increase*, not decrease.

Such "better people" are like the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny - they don't exist. What would've done a better job of stopping the drug bill isn't mythical "better people", but a structural provision requiring immediate funding of the bill, instead of adding the cost to the tab being left for future generations. People wouldv'e been far less thrilled with another gov't 'freebie' if they were actually faced with the fact it wasn't free. The only natural check to the expansion of gov't is the populace having to bear the cost of it; with both the left and the right agreeing not to tax at any level even remotely close to the actual cost of gov't, our gov't has not natural check. Like most modern democracies, ours is fueled on borrowed funds. Therein lies the corruption of SS and Medicare - they fuel the notion of gov't services and benefits at little to no cost to most recipients.

The bottom line is that we need to champion democracy and fix it to reduce the corruption from narrow and corrupt interests - not weaken or destroy democracy because the rage over corruption is miguidedly placed on the government rather on the system's imperfections that allow the powerful to get too much say in the government.

I never said democracy ought to be destroyed. More strawmen.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
This is Crag's failing, he believes "the right" are in the tank for the interests of corporate greed.

The other day on Chicago's conservative talk radio station, they were highlighting the problems in Illinois judicial elections, where lawyers finance the campaign funds of judges to the tune of millions of dollars every election cycle. And I mean, this is Chicago where the Democrats are the huge pile of corruption.

Heck it was "the evil right" who wanted the corrupt failures to fail. Republicans voted against the bailouts.

Keep an eye on General Electric moving forward. No doubt they are in bed with Democrats, look at MSNBC. Watch just how many billions of dollars they will be receiving from the government through the stimulus bill's "green energy" allocations, and the upcoming cap & trade taxes. General Electric may make Halliburton look like child's play.

That is the funny thing about ideolouges like Craig. They are so blinded they only see the faults in the enemy. He complains about the evil right winged facists when his party and ideology is pumping trillions into private industry and awarding bonus's to executives with tax payer money. Yeah yeah it is only Republicans who do that. Nevermind only 3 Republicans voted for the latest bailout. Cap and Trade will be a boon to big industry who can afford to buy credits when their smaller competition cant. Or maybe the smaller companies move to Mexico, an even better solution.

But it is those evil small govt tea baggers and republicans who are 100% at fault!

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cubby1223
This is Crag's failing, he believes "the right" are in the tank for the interests of corporate greed.

The other day on Chicago's conservative talk radio station, they were highlighting the problems in Illinois judicial elections, where lawyers finance the campaign funds of judges to the tune of millions of dollars every election cycle. And I mean, this is Chicago where the Democrats are the huge pile of corruption.

Heck it was "the evil right" who wanted the corrupt failures to fail. Republicans voted against the bailouts.

Keep an eye on General Electric moving forward. No doubt they are in bed with Democrats, look at MSNBC. Watch just how many billions of dollars they will be receiving from the government through the stimulus bill's "green energy" allocations, and the upcoming cap & trade taxes. General Electric may make Halliburton look like child's play.

That is the funny thing about ideolouges like Craig. They are so blinded they only see the faults in the enemy. He complains about the evil right winged facists when his party and ideology is pumping trillions into private industry and awarding bonus's to executives with tax payer money. Yeah yeah it is only Republicans who do that. Nevermind only 3 Republicans voted for the latest bailout. Cap and Trade will be a boon to big industry who can afford to buy credits when their smaller competition cant. Or maybe the smaller companies move to Mexico, an even better solution.

But it is those evil small govt tea baggers and republicans who are 100% at fault!

He truly is blinded - see the argument above about how there's nothing wrong with gov't, it just needs better people! And why can't you say the same about private CEOs? There's nothing wrong with huge corporations - we just need better 'enlightened' CEOs!

Craig's basically right regarding the corruption of private power, and the potential for abuse, but I see two flaws with his arguments. First, gov't power isn't any better, despite his baseless claims that it's more 'benevolent' (to who? the corporate interests he admits control it now?). Second, he doesn't acknowledge that people (in the form of the market) have power over corporate interests outside of gov't power. Just look at GM and Chrysler, two HUGE corporations brought to their knees by the market! Corporations face 'elections' every day, people vote with dollars, and everyone gets a voice. Fail to respond to the needs of the market, and out of power you go! Of course, I'll admit that's a bit of a simplification, but it's also very real.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cubby1223
This is Crag's failing, he believes "the right" are in the tank for the interests of corporate greed.

The other day on Chicago's conservative talk radio station, they were highlighting the problems in Illinois judicial elections, where lawyers finance the campaign funds of judges to the tune of millions of dollars every election cycle. And I mean, this is Chicago where the Democrats are the huge pile of corruption.

Heck it was "the evil right" who wanted the corrupt failures to fail. Republicans voted against the bailouts.

Keep an eye on General Electric moving forward. No doubt they are in bed with Democrats, look at MSNBC. Watch just how many billions of dollars they will be receiving from the government through the stimulus bill's "green energy" allocations, and the upcoming cap & trade taxes. General Electric may make Halliburton look like child's play.

That is the funny thing about ideolouges like Craig. They are so blinded they only see the faults in the enemy. He complains about the evil right winged facists when his party and ideology is pumping trillions into private industry and awarding bonus's to executives with tax payer money. Yeah yeah it is only Republicans who do that. Nevermind only 3 Republicans voted for the latest bailout. Cap and Trade will be a boon to big industry who can afford to buy credits when their smaller competition cant. Or maybe the smaller companies move to Mexico, an even better solution.

But it is those evil small govt tea baggers and republicans who are 100% at fault!

He truly is blinded - see the argument above about how there's nothing wrong with gov't, it just needs better people! And why can't you say the same about private CEOs? There's nothing wrong with huge corporations - we just need better 'enlightened' CEOs!

Craig's basically right regarding the corruption of private power, and the potential for abuse, but I see two flaws with his arguments. First, gov't power isn't any better, despite his baseless claims that it's more 'benevolent' (to who? the corporate interests he admits control it now?). Second, he doesn't acknowledge that people (in the form of the market) have power over corporate interests outside of gov't power. Just look at GM and Chrysler, two HUGE corporations brought to their knees by the market! Corporations face 'elections' every day, people vote with dollars, and everyone gets a voice. Fail to respond to the needs of the market, and out of power you go! Of course, I'll admit that's a bit of a simplification, but it's also very real.

And when the power of the market is lost due to monopoly, the monopoly can usually be traced back to the government either through direct laws giving a particular company monopoly or through regulation which shuts down competitors.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
IMO, we need not the Libertarians, who are the beneficiaries of the vacuum who pick up all the outrage, but better organization for 'good government'.

Poor Craig cannot see that when you let the government into the market, you let the market into the government. And eventually, the market owns the government. Your OP isn't a bashing of free market ideas, it's a selling point. Not just for freer markets, but for honest money, 100% reserve banking, and NO central bank.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The government being a strong regulator and the government being dominated and controlled by private interests are opposites.

LOL, no. Look at what you said, Craig. How can a government effectively regulate businesses who are in bed with the government? I mean, that's part of the reason why we have an economic crisis right now. Your idea of getting "better government" will simply fail, or rather has already failed. Because our government is being decided upon by the businesses. You can't keep that incentive there and expect it not to be a problem. The businesses see it as profitable to petition and shape government to their advantage, so they'll do it. You must remove the incentive, you gotta get government out of the market to keep the market out of government. You empower the people instead of the corruptible government.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You're mixing apples and oranges. The government being a strong regulator and the government being dominated and controlled by private interests are opposites.

Create and support a third party with entirely fresh faces behind it, only when it sweeps into majority power will you impact the corruption of our two incumbent parties. You can't claim good government with the same two corrupt players holding 99% of the power year after year.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
You're mixing apples and oranges. The government being a strong regulator and the government being dominated and controlled by private interests are opposites.

Create and support a third party with entirely fresh faces behind it, only when it sweeps into majority power will you impact the corruption of our two incumbent parties. You can't claim good government with the same two corrupt players holding 99% of the power year after year.

Our winner takes all system simply can't support third parties. Nothings going to change on that issue without totally overhauling our electoral system.