Quote :

"The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million — potentially much more — to conservative groups ahead of Election Day, POLITICO has learned. That puts their libertarian-leaning network in the same league as the most active of the groups in the more establishment-oriented network conceived last year by veteran GOP operatives Rove and Ed Gillespie, which plans to raise $240 million. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65504.html#ixzz1aj9bsKC2"

almost half a billion dollars to be spent by just 2 groups of our society's elite to defeat the democrats in 2012. That's not including Dick Armey's Freedomworks, Heritage foundation, Fox News et. al.

Welcome to the the 21st century feudalism. Suck the aristocrats' dick, serfs!

10/14/2011 12:34:51 AM

Thank you Citizens United Enslaved!

But corporations are people too, right Willard?

10/14/2011 12:37:28 AM

ballers gonna ball

10/14/2011 12:50:50 AM

Campaign finance reform, term limits, public campaign financing options, sunshine and disclosure laws, there are any number of options that could be pursued to various degrees to help turn politicians focus from special interest fundraising to getting stuff done that could potentially get bipartisan support.

We're lucky there are even enough disclosure laws that we have some sense of what's going on behind the scenes with groups like the Koch brothers. And with groups like Obama's re-elect campaign, which I also heard on the radio today had raised quite a bit of money in this most recent disclosure period.

Lucky is probably the wrong word for it though, it's from the support from people fighting for it, and bipartisan support including historically from people like Senator John McCain.

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

10/14/2011 1:01:45 AM

IBTSoros

10/14/2011 1:27:35 AM

Hey...lets protest on the wolf web, that is sure to get the message out!

10/14/2011 7:03:47 AM

#occupysoapbox

10/14/2011 7:46:03 AM

Because Obama doesn't take corporate contributions!

10/14/2011 8:41:51 AM

Citizens United at work! Obama is bought also for sure.

10/14/2011 9:40:00 AM

Quote :

"#occupysoapbox"

10/14/2011 9:44:13 AM

it'd be nice if people and groups on both sides could spend their hundreds of millions of campaign contribution dollars for good things, like helping out poor people, rebuilding decaying infrastructure, etc...

but fuck that shit, right!?

10/14/2011 9:51:26 AM

wait.... do the Koch Brothers support Ron Paul?

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 9:56 AM. Reason : COCK BROTHERS COCK DROPS]

10/14/2011 9:54:50 AM

#occupysoapbox

10/14/2011 10:00:26 AM

The politicians were bought long before anyone began spending money. I'm stunned that a few TV commercials, in your opinion, makes this society an example of feudalism. I'd say it makes our society free, an example of the Koch's speaking their mind to the public in whatever forum they can manage with their own resources.

What I find hypocritical is that this spending was in no way impacted by Citizens United. Political Action Committees were legal. The government didn't ban spending, because the politicians love spending on their own campaigns. All it banned was spending by groups operating without the political clout to navigate the byzantine bureaucracy. As such, without Citizens United, Koch would be spending his half a billion dollars unopposed, just like Castro.

People that work at corporations too small to buy a newspaper or form a political action committee are people too.

10/14/2011 10:12:23 AM

10/14/2011 10:50:36 AM

^isn't it awesome that he's willing to bite the hand that feeds him?

10/14/2011 2:22:57 PM

He hasn't come close to doing such a thing.

10/14/2011 5:26:10 PM

Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/#ixzz1anIBbIsx

10/14/2011 5:30:02 PM

Quote :

"Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Stree"

Banks don't give one god damn fuck what some suit says on Wall Street until he literally actually appears like he is going to make good on his word. When that happens, the lobby machine goes in overdrive to neuter any legislation detrimental to their profits.

Sure, he can jawbone all day long and put on all the appearances of being for the little man but I haven't seen one legitimate perk walk yet. Not.a.fucking.one. No, he voted to intervene and continues to allow the intervention into the free market that would have rightly punished thus scumbags long ago and is putting you and I (yes, even you you little milquetoast bitch made liberal faggot) at risk as taxpayers because...durrr, because they pay for his campaigns.

Are you really this stupid to not see shit right before your eyes? They don't even try to hide it.

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2011 5:36:47 PM

Quote :

"Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Raj Rajaratnam, the Galleon Group LLC co-founder and hedge fund manager whom prosecutors called "the modern face of illegal insider trading," was sentenced to 11 years in prison and a $10 million fine for conspiracy and securities fraud. Rajaratnam, 54, is the central figure in what federal investigators called the largest hedge fund insider trader case in U.S. history. The Galleon probe, which leveraged the widespread use of FBI wiretaps for the first time in such an inquiry, led to convictions of more than two dozen people. Prosecutors said the fund manager made more than $72 million by using illegal tips to trade in stocks of companies including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Intel Corp., Google Inc., ATI Technologies Inc. and Clearwire Corp. U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell sentenced Rajaratnam today before a packed courtroom in lower Manhattan. "

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/14/bloomberg_articlesLT0FTL0YHQ0X.DTL#ixzz1anLljF3r

10/14/2011 5:44:22 PM

For fucks sake, I didn't think I'd actually have to point out that Rajaratnam is not a relevant example. Little did I know it take you less than 10 minutes to post it and then sit back and smile like you've done something here.

Quote :

"Prosecutors said the fund manager made more than $72 million by "

Well holy fuck. He skimmed $72 million on insider info (of which some folks in the econometric sphere think actually isn't illegal, believe it or not). That certainly stacks up well against trillions in capital the banks helped cause to vanish then got trillions more from taxpayers to plug that hole when the free market would have done otherwise.

Try again clown.

No, don't try. You can't make the point, there is literally no data, no story, no examples of Obama being tough on banks so don't waste your time.



[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2011 5:52:12 PM

^Obama can't write and pass legislation.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012100870.html

Quote :

"Obama proposes tough limits on largest banks Obama steps up campaign against Wall Street President Barack Obama is calling for tougher U.S. regulations on banks that would limit the size and complexity of large financial institutions. By Michael D. Shear and Binyamin Appelbaum Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 22, 2010 President Obama expanded his new offensive on Wall Street on Thursday, proposing rules that would impede the growth of the largest banks and bar them from making what he called "reckless" investments."

10/14/2011 8:26:32 PM

Quote :

"(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama vowed on Friday to veto any financial reform bill that is too soft on the derivatives market, while all 41 Republicans in the Senate lined up against a bill being pushed by Democrats. As the debate in Washington on tighter oversight of banks and capital markets intensified, regulators charged Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs with fraud linked to subprime mortgages, driving bank shares and the broader stock market lower. The Senate was expected to vote in coming weeks on a reform bill months in the making. Democrats moved on Friday to put in place one, last unfinished piece -- tough new rules for the unpoliced, $450-trillion over-the-counter derivatives market. "I will veto legislation that does not bring the derivatives market under control and some sort of regulatory framework that assures that we don't have the same kind of crisis that we've seen in the past," Obama said at a meeting with outside economic advisers. Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, who chairs the agriculture committee, unveiled an aggressive draft bill that she hopes will force banks to choose between serving depositors and speculating in risky derivatives. Lincoln's measure will be folded into a larger regulation overhaul package backed by Obama and the Democrats as they tackle what they see as industry excesses, a popular cause with voters ahead of congressional elections in November. Obama said passing the reforms would mean no more taxpayer bailouts like the ones the Bush administration extended in 2008 to AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman. "I expect that we are going to have a strong reform proposal that demands new accountability from Wall Street and provides new protections for consumers," Obama said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/16/us-financial-regulation-bill-idUSTRE63F4O320100416

10/14/2011 8:27:57 PM

Quote :

"^Obama can't write and pass legislation."

Dude...like, if there was only some way the President could like....strongly disagree with legislation that comes across his desk if it isn't as tough as he'd like. Dude, we need something like that in our constitution.

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 10:03 PM. Reason : ^ way to highlight jawboning without action]

fucking hilarious, you've found articles from almost 2 years ago now...and...and....and...not a fucking bit of action resulting in a perp walk from those evil evil bankers

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/14/2011 10:02:39 PM

Dude! It's not Obama's fault if the repugs are neutering enforcement agencies by cutting funding.

Quote :

"A few weeks ago, the Republican-controlled appropriations committee cut the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fiscal 2012 budget request by $222.5 million, to $1.19 billion (the same as this year’s), even though the S.E.C.’s responsibilities were vastly expanded under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Charged with protecting investors and policing markets, the S.E.C. is the nation’s front-line defense against financial fraud. The committee’s accompanying report referred to the agency’s “troubled past” and “lack of ability to manage funds,” and said the committee “remains concerned with the S.E.C.’s track record in dealing with Ponzi schemes.” The report stressed, “With the federal debt exceeding $14 trillion, the committee is committed to reducing the cost and size of government.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce-its-effectiveness.html?pagewanted=all

Also the GOP is dictating which US Attorneys he can nominate.

Quote :

"raditionally, presidents nominate U.S. attorneys recommended by senators from the president's party. For instance, Senator Chuck Grassley recommended George W. Bush's U.S. appointees for the northern and southern districts of Iowa. By the same token, Senator Tom Harkin recommended the two U.S. attorneys Obama nominated to serve Iowa in 2009. Sometimes neither senator from a state belongs to the president's party. In that event, "the administration usually looks to its party's House members for recommendations," Channing Turner wrote on the Main Justice blog in July. However, Obama took a different path. He nominated four U.S. attorneys for Texas in June, all people whom Republican Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn had suggested:"

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/5010/obama-picking-us-attorneys-recommended-by-republicans

10/15/2011 1:13:07 AM

How about this. When you go googling and find some half assed journalism to support your biased world view...before slinging the shit on the walls of this message board, spend just a little bit more time and look at some other sources and maybe you'll learn that...holy shit, the media outlets that you get your information from are in fact journalistically bankrupt and care nothing more than feeding you the spin they know you'll eat up.

There are plenty of people out there that actually take the time to do an assessment. Look at numbers. And - this is going to be a shocker to you - THINK about what it is they want to say. Start with this and you'll see just how much Republicans love neutering the SEC and why they've been the brick wall in having the SEC save us from these evil doer banks

http://mises.org/daily/3273

10/15/2011 10:29:32 AM

Same to you, as a quick look at that author's other writings reveals a staunch conservative. The site it's on is little more than a libertarian thinktank.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2011 10:36:15 AM

While the budget of the SEC has grown



The overall trading volume of the market has also grown


[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 10:55 AM. Reason : which makes sense IMO]

http://www.tradersnarrative.com/where-has-all-the-volume-gone-4286.html

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 11:04 AM. Reason : GD red X]

10/15/2011 10:51:45 AM

pryderi

Quote :

"Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough"

lol. president must be thinking... hey let's 'out speech' them while they are literally that very second making untold more amounts of cash because they are off their ass DO-ing something rather than TALK-ing about shit.


leech part of society feeling a little butthurt these days

10/15/2011 10:54:02 AM

Quote :

"Same to you, as a quick look at that author's other writings reveals a staunch conservative. The site it's on is little more than a libertarian thinktank."

I'm really getting sick of you people that have no capability to objectively think about..well, fucking anything.

Yes, I realize mises is about as libertarian as they get. Would it incline you to actually look at the numbers if I took the time myself to pull the SECs budgets directly from some .gov website and created the spreadsheet on my own? Are you saying that because the guy at my link is a libertarian the numbers he has cobbled together for you are lies or have some spin? Pryderi posted some brain dead link and made some brain dead assertion that rethuglicans slashed and burned SEC budgets and thats why the SEC is so ineffective at it's job. Some individual in the world has pulled together data on just what their budgets were, what percents they changed, and who happened to be president when those things happened. If you can't agree that this type of information is as non partisan as it gets, then there is simply no reason for you to bother attempting discussing ANY political topic because your mind is made up and you've resigned yourself to wallow in ignorance.

Quote :

"The overall trading volume of the market has also grown"

And? I'm open to any sort of connection you can make between trading volume and SEC budget but just stating the numbers isn't a connection.

10/15/2011 11:21:25 AM

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : Naw, not gonna go there. You're smart enough to spot it yourself.]

10/15/2011 11:24:53 AM

No, please timwar...more platitudes and no analysis of data as you make sweeping conclusions that are nothing more than bias confirmations. I want to know what it is like to just take whatever horseshit the media has fed me and not question it at all. What is that like?

10/15/2011 11:27:29 AM

Actually, I was just going to point out that your strict adherence to the numbers seems to be issue based. I took the reply out because it was too personally directed for my tastes.

Oddly enough, when it comes to the SEC itself I'd agree that it's a pretty lousy example of a government agency. It's not that I think they're over or under regulating the financial industry, I just think they do a bad job of managing that industry.

Better people with less industry ties and more ability to anticipate some of the sneaker abuses would make for a much better SEC and much more efficient regulation. Unfortunately hiring better people is next to impossible in today's government. Too many hoops to go through both for the appointed and non-appointed positions.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2011 11:36:25 AM

Quote :

"Better people with less industry ties and more ability to anticipate some of the sneaker abuses would make for a much better SEC and much more efficient regulation."

This is my problem with all casual liberals. Hell, in some respects this is something I likely said a couple years ago - WHEN I VOTED FOR OBAMA. It's often very easy to identify what could be fixed and theorize on what would make things better in general (while probably ignoring the unintended consequences). But we've got a long enough history to draw from to realize this is nothing more than wishful thinking. This is a classic Kris comment, that governments can get better despite all evidence that they don't. Over how long a time period and with how much evidence do you need to realize you have to abandon this fantasy that...if only we got the right people in the right place then everything would be fine?

10/15/2011 11:45:26 AM

Evidence that they don't. Ever? You're arguing that under no circumstances can a government improve its function?

I have to admit, that's a pretty impressively strict ideology. If you actually believe along those lines then I can see that trying to have any sort of conversation on the matter is impossible. I'm sorry if you were disillusioned by Obama not being the greatest president ever, but taking it to an extreme like that is kind of ridiculous.

10/15/2011 11:53:16 AM

I apologize. I didn't realize we we're being semantically and syntactically strict in this thread, I'll restate it for you:

For most aspects, government doesn't get better at what it is people would like them to get better at.

If you'd like, we can talk about the few things government has appeared to get better at and then talk about all the things it has gotten worse at.

10/15/2011 12:02:01 PM

This probably isn't the thread for that, since it seems to be about massive political contributions and who acutally benefits from them.

I wonder what happened to the campaign finance reformers in congress. Did they all get swept out with Feingold?

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 12:07 PM. Reason : Who actually = "whoa cut ally" according to my iPad ]

10/15/2011 12:07:07 PM

Quote :

"Better people with less industry ties and more ability to anticipate some of the sneaker abuses would make for a much better SEC and much more efficient regulation."

The problem with this is the problem with regulating any complex industry. You can't do it well without insiders. In order to regulate an industry, you have to understand an industry, and the only way to truly understand an industry is to be in that industry. You can read all the text books and trade journals you want, but do you think someone could do your job, or even understand the realities of your job without spending at least a little time doing it? It's the same with regulation. So the government (with the best of intentions) hires ex-industry experts to become regulators, on the reasonable assumption that they are well versed in the industry and could see the little tricks hints that others might miss. And they would, and they do. But the problem is, they have huge ties to that industry, and they're human. So when they think something might be up with something run by one of their former colleagues, they think "I know this person, they would never do something like that" and they allow themselves to be blind to the signs. Or worse, they confront the person in question and allow them to do their own regulating, rather than making a federal case about it, because they trust them. It's a tough problem to solve admittedly, but you can't have effective regulation without insider knowledge, and you can't have effective regulation performed by insiders.

10/15/2011 12:07:25 PM

Quote :

"And? I'm open to any sort of connection you can make between trading volume and SEC budget but just stating the numbers isn't a connection. "

Well the guy in the mises link showed that the budget of the SEC and the number of its staffers has grown over time but they haven't gotten any better at catching fraud, basically the OMG runaway government!!! argument. He leaves out that total number of trades has also rapidly grown. So at best I'd say that the SEC is trying to keep up, and the argument they are doing a worse job despite a bigger budget is disingenous.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 1:20 PM. Reason : It takes more officers to police a bigger precinct]

10/15/2011 1:11:38 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904070604576514840171054216.html

Quote :

" An employee at the Securities and Exchange Commission has accused the regulatory agency of destroying at least 9,000 documents relating to inquiries of Wall Street banks and hedge funds. Documents that were destroyed related to corporate giants including Goldman Sachs Group, Deutsche Bank, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, convicted fraud operator Bernard Madoff and hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors, according to a letter from the employee's attorney released Wednesday by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa). The whistleblower report highlights an issue for which the SEC repeatedly has been criticized: its revolving door of lawyers and senior executives, who leave the agency and often end up representing firms in regulatory matters in front of the SEC."

10/15/2011 2:24:47 PM

yeah, this is nothing new. It's the same thing as the treasury, the fed, etc. All of these financial regulators come from... the financial sector! Where do they go when their term is up, the next president comes in, or they don't want to do it anymore? The financial sector. Hardly surprising, and even less surprising is the ineffectiveness and unwillingness to do anything of substance.

10/15/2011 2:29:02 PM

i love how liberals bitch and moan about corporations spending money on elections. they had zero problems with unions all over spending shit tons of cash on elections. now that the shoe is on the other foot, though, oh damn, it aint right!

10/17/2011 10:39:13 PM

Unions - a collective of usually middle class workers attempting to get policies in favor of workers

Corporations - an entity whose sole purpose is increasing the value of it's own stock price and seeks policies which enable that

In order to be populist you've got to actually want to support people.

/ big wide generalizing brushstrokes, but that seems to be the gist of your confusion

10/17/2011 10:45:08 PM

so, why should unions be able to support political candidates while corporations can't? exactly

let me put it to you a different way:
unions negotiate with corporations for worker benefits and pay. that is their role. allowing unions to dick around in elections gives the unions an avenue to bypass the negotiations and get what they want without negotiating with the corporations. Why, then, should the unions only be allowed to do this, when both sides are actually negotiating? The answer, for you, is that unions support Democrats, so only Democrats should be able to donate to political campaigns

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/17/2011 11:03:55 PM

Unions - a collective of upper middle class workers whole sole purpose is increasing their own compensation at the expense of the larger society through the political process

Corporations - an entity owned by a collective of upper middle class workers whose sole purpose is increasing the value of it's own stock price at the expense of the larger society through the political process

they should both be thrown out of the political process. However, since we don't know how to do that directly, the only plausible solution is to crowd them out of the political process by allowing as many people to participate as possible, which means letting every dollar anyone feels like spending on the political process be spent.

10/17/2011 11:44:09 PM

Oh. Wow. You just implied that the people running corporations and the people running unions are in the same economic class.

Ok. I'm going to need a bit of time to stop chuckling.

Anyway. I can't give you a good reason why Unions shouldn't be taken out of the political process and personally I'd like to see all big money donors taken removed from politics, but that's not what you were saying. You complained that liberals are generally ok with one and not the other. The reason is that one serves the needs of working class people and one serves the needs of a stock price.

10/18/2011 8:01:56 AM

Read more carefully. I said nothing about the people that run corporations. As for the people that own corporations, I am included among their ranks, and as a graduate student I'm at best lower-middle class.

Unions do not represent the working class. Unionized workers earn far more than median wages. The working class has no unions.

10/18/2011 9:54:35 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DljjZVyjWL0&feature=player_embedded

Quote :

"CAIN: I know the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers helped to start to an organization called Americans for Prosperity. And I did some speaking when they were starting that organization, and I’m very proud of the relationship that I have with the Koch Brothers, as well as Americans for Prosperity. I have also attended some of their seminars and have found them very informative. So I don’t have a close relationship with the Koch Brothers, but I know them and I respect them, and they know me and respect me."

Herman Cain is awesome, he's managed to not only troll the entire GOP, he's doing a better job of it than Palin/The Tea Party ever could. The man obviously has no serious intention of winning the Presidency, he's going for the much more lucrative career path of traveling around the country getting paid to spew right wing non-sense. Here's even more proof,

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/herman-cain-spends-100k-in-campaign-cash-on-herman-cain-inc-1.php?ref=fpa

Quote :

"A review of Cain’s last two FEC reports shows the campaign transferring just over $100,000 in cash to Herman Cain T.H.E. New Voice, a company that promotes Cain’s books and political philosophy."

10/18/2011 1:06:32 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark All American 10991 Posts user info edit post Unions - a collective of upper middle class workers whole sole purpose is increasing their own compensation at the expense of the larger society through the political process Corporations - an entity owned by a collective of upper middle class workers whose sole purpose is increasing the value of it's own stock price at the expense of the larger society through the political process they should both be thrown out of the political process. However, since we don't know how to do that directly, the only plausible solution is to crowd them out of the political process by allowing as many people to participate as possible, which means letting every dollar anyone feels like spending on the political process be spent."

lol this right here is a pretty compelling argument to stop wasting time on this website

10/18/2011 1:31:04 PM

Quote :

"Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code. And his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans. The once little-known businessman's political activities are getting fresh scrutiny these days since he soared to the top of some national polls. His links to the Koch brothers could undercut his outsider, non-political image among people who detest politics as usual and candidates connected with the party machine. AFP tapped Cain as the public face of its "Prosperity Expansion Project," and he traveled the country in 2005 and 2006 speaking to activists who were starting state-based AFP chapters from Wisconsin to Virginia. Through his AFP work he met Mark Block, a longtime Wisconsin Republican operative hired to lead that state's AFP chapter in 2005 as he rebounded from an earlier campaign scandal that derailed his career. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/extensive-ties-powerful-koch-group-boost-cain-14746710

10/18/2011 6:41:52 PM