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

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Sometimes you have to wonder, as politicians balance their desire to serve the public and other pressures, why you don't hear some uncomfortable truths more.

Well, Sen. Durbin did just that today, sayingabout Congress that the banking industry frankly (and a pun for Rep. Barny Frank is deserved) "owns the place".

Here is an exccellent article by Glenn Greenwald on the quote - and much more.

He even hit on one of my favorte observations, that our public far too often misdirects their 'rage', and protects the ultrat wealthy/corporate classes.

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".

The article has a lot of good info about the problem and effectively notes such recent history as a senior Barney Frank staffer leaving to become the top lobbyist for Goldman-Sachs (a company I've singled out for years for harmful business practices and one who has done very well with its political connections in the current crisis and especially before).

It also notes something else I've noted - the ineffective organization of the public to protest against these things.

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'.

Luckily, I think the Democrats are a lot closer to this in many cases - but as I've always said, they are largely compromised as well.

I think we need to get the public better informed on excatly these issues in the article - lest the outrage as it oes come, be aimed more at democracy itself, not the imperfections.

Just as 9/11 was used by those in power to get changes in place that they normally were unable to, public rage over these issues can be used to get harmful changes made, if the wrong people grab ahold of it and get people blaming the wrong things - not unlike the way Obama's stimulus bill is getting the blame more than the real problmes with many voters.

It's very refreshing for a Senator, much less one second in command, to say something like this, at perhaps some political cost and perhaps upsetting other Senators.

Though as Greenwald notes, will the medicover it as the important story it is, the way they cover unimportant 'gaffes' of politicians, or Air Force One buzzing New York? hardly.

I called Sen. Durbin's office and thanked him for his comments. You might too.

CHeck out the article. It's another reason why I say reenwald is the best blooger.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
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'.

Good luck with that.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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'.

Good luck with that.

Makes you wonder where these people are that give us "good govt". Obviously not in the Democrat nor Republican party.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BoberFett
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'.

Good luck with that.

Makes you wonder where these people are that give us "good govt". Obviously not in the Democrat nor Republican party.

I'd rather the comments to the thread be based on the article, not repetitive one-liners in general by people who ddn't read it.

IMO a lot of good government *can* come from the Democrats - from the part of the party that isn't so compromised. I've listed many who fit that decription - my own Representaitve Pete Stark, Rep. Henry Waxman the pit bull on oversight, Sen. Bernie Saunders, my impression is that the list probably includes Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Denis Kucinich, and many others.

But the issue isn't to point the fingers at the politicians as much as to fix the system which allows the corrupt interests to have too much say in who gets elected.

Just complaining about the politicians would be like allowing the policie to kill anyone they want, and to take bribes to affect their choices, and then making the issue who are the 'good cops' and the 'bad cops' in how they use that law,rather than changing the law. As long as the law allows the corruption of our elections, that's the poblem.

(For what it's worth, I think there are some Republicans who have resisted some corruption, too - Bush's Medicare drug bill had some Republicans strongly opposing it.)

Hopefull, now we'll get comments on the article..
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Craig, you're not interested in good government, you're interested in your government. My idea of good government and your idea of government are at odds. Absent nearly unanimous agreement on what constitutes good government, we have ended up with our current government which is the worst of both worlds. The only answer is less government, because more government will just be bigger bad government.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
So you are allowed to leave commentary about the article but nobody is supposed to comment on it? Part of the problem is being so blinded and a team player people dont want to admit their side is wrong. In your commentary you dismiss limited smaller govt in favor of "good" govt whatever the hell that means. These corruption issues stem from a stronger govt with more ties to business. So more of the same big govt will yield more of the same corruption. It doesnt matter how many so called "do gooders" you elect in congress. The power and money is there and rarely do they not succumb.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
So when congress = republicans it is owned by the religious right, oil companies, warmongers, pharmacuetical companies.

When congress = democrats it is owned by the looney left, banks, unions, hollywood, and minority interest groups.

We're so fucked.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I like Greenwald, but this is as "No Shit!" as it gets.

I actually enjoyed reading that Taibbi piece he linked, peasants indeed.

The only real solution I can think of is term limits for both Houses, a lot less energy would be spent on getting re-elected, and thus the influence of lobbyists, corporate or otherwise would be greatly diminished.

Most of us average Joe's don't have the capital to run for office, so unless you're independently wealthy you are beholden to those who financed your run.

So whether it's your party boss threatening to withhold support or some shady wall street douche, you'd better do what they say or else the tit runs dry. So while a congressman can afford to piss you off as a voter and maybe a bunch of your friends, they can't afford to alienate the lobbyists for an industry.

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,643
9,941
136
The revolution was against abuse of government, the constitution was defined to protect us from those abuses. So my idea of good government is one that abides by the limits set forth by its founding documents.

The only lesson you need to learn here is that power corrupts and you keep demanding more power. You want something to be appalled about? Look in a mirror.

If you want a solution that maintains a socialist size in government, then look towards absolving our two party incumbencies. Throw the Republicans and Democrats and all their senior members out on the street and take back Washington DC for the people. 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.
 

Darthvoy

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2004
1,825
1
0
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".

If you listen/read to what Noam Chomsky says about this, he mentions that the rich elite have succeeded in creating a perception of the government that is inefficient/useless so that when people do get angry, they do so at the government and not the man behind the curtain. I know this sounds a little tin-foilish, but it would be naive not to at least consider it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
I like Greenwald, but this is as "No Shit!" as it gets.

I actually enjoyed reading that Taibbi piece he linked, peasants indeed.

The only real solution I can think of is term limits for both Houses, a lot less energy would be spent on getting re-elected, and thus the influence of lobbyists, corporate or otherwise would be greatly diminished.

Most of us average Joe's don't have the capital to run for office, so unless you're independently wealthy you are beholden to those who financed your run.

So whether it's your party boss threatening to withhold support or some shady wall street douche, you'd better do what they say or else the tit runs dry. So while a congressman can afford to piss you off as a voter and maybe a bunch of your friends, they can't afford to alienate the lobbyists for an industry.

It seems we see the same problem, but I think term limits are a big step in the wrong direction.

What can make a politician less accountable to the public than not facing re-election? What can make it harder for the public to evaluate a candidate than their being a new face, where the only info to go by is the advertising, designed by professional marketers and using polls to tell th evoter what they want to hear? What could be more corrupting than to make the power-brokers who select who to give big backing to even more say in who the candidates are, over having incumbents with reputations who are not as easily defeated?

And then there's the simple skills learned by legislators over many years. That's nothing but a weakening of the institution and the elected leaders, in favor of the permanent staff.

I think our democracy would be greatly weakened by term limits - as well-intentioned but misguided as their supported are.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
As long as the law allows the corruption of our elections, that's the problem.

And how does that happen? Please elaborate.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: ayabe
I like Greenwald, but this is as "No Shit!" as it gets.

I actually enjoyed reading that Taibbi piece he linked, peasants indeed.

The only real solution I can think of is term limits for both Houses, a lot less energy would be spent on getting re-elected, and thus the influence of lobbyists, corporate or otherwise would be greatly diminished.

Most of us average Joe's don't have the capital to run for office, so unless you're independently wealthy you are beholden to those who financed your run.

So whether it's your party boss threatening to withhold support or some shady wall street douche, you'd better do what they say or else the tit runs dry. So while a congressman can afford to piss you off as a voter and maybe a bunch of your friends, they can't afford to alienate the lobbyists for an industry.

It seems we see the same problem, but I think term limits are a big step in the wrong direction.

What can make a politician less accountable to the public than not facing re-election? What can make it harder for the public to evaluate a candidate than their being a new face, where the only info to go by is the advertising, designed by professional marketers and using polls to tell th evoter what they want to hear? What could be more corrupting than to make the power-brokers who select who to give big backing to even more say in who the candidates are, over having incumbents with reputations who are not as easily defeated?

And then there's the simple skills learned by legislators over many years. That's nothing but a weakening of the institution and the elected leaders, in favor of the permanent staff.

I think our democracy would be greatly weakened by term limits - as well-intentioned but misguided as their supported are.

Well I agree with some of what you're saying, but I think you are making the mistake of projecting your own thought processes onto the average voter.

Most voters vote for the incumbent regardless unless something particularly egregious has occurred, they don't know the issues, they vote for a name that sounds familiar.

It's this toxic brew of ignorance and status quo power brokering that keeps wholly inept and embarrassing people in Congress.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
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'.

To me, expecting to find (and keep in place) "good government" is like trying to find a "good" fox to guard the hen house. Corruption follows acquisition of power like night follows day - it's just human nature that we're inherently self-interested, and politicians are no exception. Hasn't history made that obvious?
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Craig234
As long as the law allows the corruption of our elections, that's the problem.

And how does that happen? Please elaborate.

For the most part elections are 'legally' financed by 'contributions' from lobbyists, special interests and self-serving PACs.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Craig234
As long as the law allows the corruption of our elections, that's the problem.

And how does that happen? Please elaborate.

For the most part elections are 'legally' financed by 'contributions' from lobbyists, special interests and self-serving PACs.

So? That's just an exercise of free speech. Voters still choose the winner.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Craig234
As long as the law allows the corruption of our elections, that's the problem.

And how does that happen? Please elaborate.

For the most part elections are 'legally' financed by 'contributions' from lobbyists, special interests and self-serving PACs.

So? That's just an exercise of free speech. Voters still choose the winner.

:D

Money equals free speech - - - - the SCOTUS said so.

That 'free speech' funds push-polling, attack ads and outright propaganda & lies from time to time ...
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Mursilis
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'.

To me, expecting to find (and keep in place) "good government" is like trying to find a "good" fox to guard the hen house. Corruption follows acquisition of power like night follows day - it's just human nature that we're inherently self-interested, and politicians are no exception. Hasn't history made that obvious?

Well put. :thumbsup:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
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".

If you listen/read to what Noam Chomsky says about this, he mentions that the rich elite have succeeded in creating a perception of the government that is inefficient/useless so that when people do get angry, they do so at the government and not the man behind the curtain. I know this sounds a little tin-foilish, but it would be naive not to at least consider it.

Chomsky is a loony tune. Anybody who has dealt with the govt from getting your license renewed to having background checks or even working in govt knows it is no illusion.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Mursilis
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'.

To me, expecting to find (and keep in place) "good government" is like trying to find a "good" fox to guard the hen house. Corruption follows acquisition of power like night follows day - it's just human nature that we're inherently self-interested, and politicians are no exception. Hasn't history made that obvious?

Trying to find good government is like trying to find good hens, who won't be bribed by the foxes to be spared in exchange for letting the foxes in to eat other chickens.

Libertarianism is the misguided view that says that the hens organizing to protect themselves from the foxes should be prohibited because it limits hens' freedom.

Your statement neglects the whole idea of 'enlightened self interest', and of society setting up the system to allow and incent behavior 'good' for society.

When an investory finds an inventor and invests in him to bring his product to the marketplace, he's acting in self-interest. When an investor finds a way to spread false rumors about a stock and to profit from doing so, he's acting in self-interest. But one of those is good for society, the other is not.

When a drug company develops, tests and sells a drug that cures a disease, they're acting in their self-interest. When they scheme to fraudently test a drug and pay off politicians to pass laws allowing them to sell it with lax oversight and for the government to buy massive quantitites of it at high prices, they are acting in their self-interest; but one of those is good for society, the other is not.

You don't seem to recall the basic theory of democracy - that power instead of being in the hands of a few, should be distributed to the public, for important policy issues, so the people can protect themselves from the powerful. While the government itself can run the risk of being tyrannical - typicaly when it becomes the servant of the powerful - you want to gut the protections of the people, as if the government was the only threat, and was not instead set up to give power to the people against the powerful.

The founding of our nation was based on when the powerful and the government were largely the same - the rulers of England were also the benefeciaries of the profits of the first and largest corporation, the East India Tea (or was it Trading) Company, and as such they abused their taxation power to enact taxes on the Colonies' small businesses that the East Inida Tea Company was exempted from, giving it competitive advantage.

While you are calling to restrict the abuse of government in that fashion, you are doing it not by attacking the corrupt government, but by attacking the very government the founding fathers created to protect from the East India Tea Company - you essentially are gutting the ability of the people to protect themselves from it and giving it the power to do what it wants, in reaction to it getting too much influene in the government. Think "robber barons", when people were viewed like farm animals, commodities to provide labor and to be compensated with just enough to eat and a shanty for housing, where labor organizing is illegal and those who attempt it are murdered by the corporations - that's the paradigm of the 'weak demcoratic government' where power is concentrated, not in the hands of the people.

If you get some corrupt police, you fix the corruption, you dont' disband the police and let the people who were briging them get REALLY powerful without a strong police force.

If you get some corrupt government, you fix the corruption, the broken system that allows it, you don't destroy the democracy that gives some power to the people.

This is why the powerful groups love to encourage the people to have rage against the government - they know where the power will go when it's taken from the government.

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.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
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.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Craig234
As long as the law allows the corruption of our elections, that's the problem.

And how does that happen? Please elaborate.

For the most part elections are 'legally' financed by 'contributions' from lobbyists, special interests and self-serving PACs.

So? That's just an exercise of free speech. Voters still choose the winner.

Mursilis, I was going to write a more detailed response that mentioned a book, but for now I'll just mention the book, I think you would reallly benefit from it:

Link

Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights

Was the Boston Tea Party the first WTO-style protest against transnational corporations? Did Supreme Court sell out America's citizens in the nineteenth century, with consequences lasting to this day? Is there a way for American citizens to recover democracy of, by, and for the people?

Thom Hartmann takes on these most difficult questions and tells a startling story that will forever change your understanding of American history. He begins by uncovering an original eyewitness account of the Boston Tea Party and demonstrates that it was provoked not by "taxation without representation" as is commonly suggested but by the specific actions of the East India Company, which represented the commericial interests of the British elite.

Hartmann then describes the history of the Fourteenth Amendment--created at the end of the Civil War to grant basic rights to freed slaves--and how it has been used by lawyers representing corporate interests to extend additional rights to businesses far more frequently than to freed slaves. Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in U.S. law as "artificial persons." but in 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were "persons" and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights. Since this ruling, America has lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control corporate behavior.

As a result, the largest transnational corporations fill a role today that has historically been filled by kings. They control most of the world's wealth and exert power over the lives of most of the world's citizens. Their CEOs are unapproachable and live lives of nearly unimaginable wealth and luxury. They've become the rudder that steers the ship of much human experience, and they're steering it by their prime value--growth and profit and any expense--a value that has become destructive for life on Earth. This new feudalism was not what our Founders--Federalists and Democratic Republicans alike--envisioned for America.

It's time for "we, the people" to take back our lives. Hartmann proposes specific legal remedies that could truly save the world from political, economic, and ecological disaster.

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.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Mursilis
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'.

To me, expecting to find (and keep in place) "good government" is like trying to find a "good" fox to guard the hen house. Corruption follows acquisition of power like night follows day - it's just human nature that we're inherently self-interested, and politicians are no exception. Hasn't history made that obvious?

Trying to find good government is like trying to find good hens, who won't be bribed by the foxes to be spared in exchange for letting the foxes in to eat other chickens.

Libertarianism is the misguided view that says that the hens organizing to protect themselves from the foxes should be prohibited because it limits hens' freedom.

Big government, Craig style, is about two foxes who take turns eating hens and each of them telling the remaining hens that it's OK because the other fox would have eaten two hens.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
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. I never said only gov't power corrupts - I fully realize 'private' power is as corrupting as 'public' power. 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.