Yet another "Best Congress that $$ can buy"

#1
WillisWG

WillisWG

I don't like radicals left or right!
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
14,848
Likes
30,145
#1
A small network of hedge fund executives pumped at least $10 million into Republican campaign committees and allied groups before November’s elections.


Rep. Scott Garrett New Jersey who is slated to become Chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on capital markets, a key panel that has direct oversight of the SEC received $195,800 from the partners of the Elliott Management Corp., a $17 billion Wall Street hedge fund.

How Wall St. execs bankrolled GOP victory - Politics - msnbc.com
 
#2
#2
is there something unusual about this?

prior to the 2006 elections, when the writing was on the wall that the GOP was going to lose big, lobbyists began focusing hard on the democrats. Business will always go with the winner.

btw, 10 million is chump change
 
#3
#3
if the government stayed out making regulations and allow the free markets to be free. these lobbyist would have no reason to ask to be exempt from laws and regulations.
 
#5
#5
joevol320 said:
if the government stayed out making regulations and allow the free markets to be free. these lobbyist would have no reason to ask to be exempt from laws and regulations.
Click to expand...

Sure it would......Greenspan/Rubin/Paulson efforts to prevent any sort of regulations on the derivatives was a HUGE factor that lead to this recession.

FRONTLINE: the warning | PBS
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
Solution: increase the number of House members so that they each represent roughly 90K to 150K voters. The population has increased significantly since 1910... the number of Congressmen haven't. The net effect is that we are no longer represented... those with the money to buy access are.

A person should be able to win a House seat with shoe leather and 50 devoted friends.
 
#8
#8
MG1968 said:
is there something unusual about this?

prior to the 2006 elections, when the writing was on the wall that the GOP was going to lose big, lobbyists began focusing hard on the democrats. Business will always go with the winner.

btw, 10 million is chump change
Click to expand...


Yes, Siree. There were 749,174 contributions totaling $735,068,872 during 2010 election cycle.

Find Contributions | MAPLight.org - Money and Politics
 
#10
#10
droski said:
do you plan on outlawing campaign contributions?
Click to expand...

He doesn't worry about things like that unless it concerns republicans. Funny how the left supporters are eerily silent until republicans are back in power.
 
#11
#11
the unions buying the dems isn't a problem i guess. the funny part about this hedge fund crap is that obama did nothing to close the cap and carry loophole. which is of course a ridiculous loophole.
 
#12
#12
droski said:
the unions buying the dems isn't a problem i guess. the funny part about this hedge fund crap is that obama did nothing to close the cap and carry loophole. which is of course a ridiculous loophole.
Click to expand...

Guess you boys missed the point "the Best Congress $$ can Buy" if you thought I was singling out the GOP then you would be wrong. If it were up to me NO corporation or union would be able to contribute and individual contribution to one candidate would be capped to $1000.

Whether money really buys a vote or not it is the perception that it does.
 
#13
#13
WillisWG said:
Guess you boys missed the point "the Best Congress $$ can Buy" if you thought I was singling out the GOP then you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

kinda hard to tell when the only group you mentioned in the OP were the Repubs and article you linked pretty much does the same
 
#16
#16
Not only that, but did you hear about the two Republican House freshman who left the swearing in ceremony to attend FUND RAISERS? When they were told later that they had to be sworn in, their defense was that they WATCHED IT ON TV and stood there and took the oath that way ?????

I mean, not even sworn in and they are already collecting checks !!!
 
#17
#17
joevol320 said:
if the government did not back loans to people who couldn't afford them, we would not have had this crisis.
Click to expand...

No doubts that sub-prime was a catalyst to the meltdown. Lenders, borrowers, backers and investors all should have known that high-interest loans to people with poor credit were risky. Predatory lending practices, ARMS, unsustainable home values and a lax regulatory climate created a super-heated housing market with sub-prime loans soaring from $150 billion in 2000 to $650 billion in 2005. And when ARMS rates increased so did the delinquency rate as did default rates. But it was the bundling of prime and sub-prime mortgages and the unregulated marketing of these highly leveraged securities that "spoiled the well".

Could Tremors in the Subprime Mortgage Market Be the First Signs of an Earthquake? - Knowledge@Wharton

How We Got into the Subprime Lending Mess - Knowledge@Wharton

Subprime Meltdown: Who's to Blame and How Should We Fix It? - Knowledge@Wharton
 
#18
#18
predatory lending is possibly the stupidest thing ever invented by the liberal media. since when is giving people as much money as they want predatory?
 
#19
#19
droski said:
predatory lending is possibly the stupidest thing ever invented by the liberal media. since when is giving people as much money as they want predatory?
Click to expand...

When it is unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent. The number of people who do not abide by "Buyer Beware" rule amazes me.

Even after telling my young Sailors don't go here or there to buy a car or bring the paperwork to me first before signing there were always one or two who didn't. Car loans for over priced cars with loan rates as high as 25%. Check Cashing $100 gets you $80...for 4-5 days.

I doubt most of the sub-prime folks were savvy home buyers and knew little on how much the monthly cost could increase if ARM rates increased. But they trusted the loan company or their bank, their Realtor and even the home appraiser.
 
#20
#20
every loan document by law tells you exactly what the rate can go to in the worst case. similar to you i don't feel sorry for people who don't read what they sign.
 
#21
#21
WillisWG said:
I doubt most of the sub-prime folks were savvy home buyers and knew little on how much the monthly cost could increase if ARM rates increased. But they trusted the loan company or their bank, their Realtor and even the home appraiser.
Click to expand...

I was given a paper that showed what my payments would be. I thought that was required?

and if someone can't do the math then I'm sorry but that's not my issue.

Net pay - max loan payment amt - monthly bills = <negative> It means you don't sign your name
 
#22
#22
utvolpj said:
I was given a paper that showed what my payments would be. I thought that was required?

and if someone can't do the math then I'm sorry but that's not my issue.

Net pay - max loan payment amt - monthly bills = <negative> It means you don't sign your name
Click to expand...

Disclosure is required but reading something and understanding it is not the same and most of us probably wouldn't enter into a deal if we thought the worst case scenario was possible. But everyday I see people who ignore the worst case by smoking when the cancer risks are well know or by have one beer to many then drive because "it isn't that far"....what can I say we are a bunch of risk takers.
 
#23
#23
WillisWG said:
Disclosure is required but reading something and understanding it is not the same and most of us probably wouldn't enter into a deal if we thought the worst case scenario was possible. But everyday I see people who ignore the worst case by smoking when the cancer risks are well know or by have one beer to many then drive because "it isn't that far"....what can I say we are a bunch of risk takers.
Click to expand...

they likely would have borrowed at any rate. it was greed. no one thought the real estate market would ever drop. i had friends who actually argued this with me "real estate never drops in california." unbelievable.
 
#24
#24
droski said:
they likely would have borrowed at any rate. it was greed. no one thought the real estate market would ever drop. i had friends who actually argued this with me "real estate never drops in california." unbelievable.
Click to expand...


You're probably right....I don't fault anyone from wanting to own their your own home but there nothing wrong with renting either. On real estate not dropping I would refer them to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity.
 
#25
#25
droski said:
they likely would have borrowed at any rate. it was greed. no one thought the real estate market would ever drop. i had friends who actually argued this with me "real estate never drops in california." unbelievable.
Click to expand...

folks should have realized there was a problem when a doublewide trailer was listed for over 1 million in California
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top