Re: GOP Stands With The Big Banks

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,991
Likes
55
Points
48
GOP Stands With The Big Banks

This will be their downfall in the 2010 elections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/26/gop-ben-nelson-block-deba_n_552667.html

WASHINGTON — Undaunted by a Senate setback, Democrats appeared increasingly confident Monday they will be able to take advantage of Americans' anger at Wall Street and push through the most sweeping new controls on financial institutions since the Great Depression.

The Senate, in a 57-41 vote, failed to get the 60 supporters needed to proceed on the regulatory overhaul. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, joined with the Republicans.

But the evening vote was just part of a legislative ballet keeping bipartisan talks alive. At the end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to "no," too, but that was just a maneuver that will enable him to call for a new tally as early as Tuesday.

Democrats believe that public pressure and the scent of a Wall Street scandal have given them the upper hand. Republicans themselves have taken up the Democrats' Wall Street-bashing rhetoric and have voiced hope that a bill will ultimately pass. In that light, the path to final approval seems clearer than it ever did during the contentious debate over health care.

The financial overhaul bill is a priority of President Barack Obama and, after health care, its passage would build on his legislative successes – an important political consideration in an election year. The House has already passed its version of new bank regulations.

Less than an hour before the scheduled vote, the White House issued its official endorsement of the bill, saying Obama would oppose adding any loopholes.

Following the vote, the president said he was "deeply disappointed" and urged Senators to put the interests of the country ahead of party.

"Some of these senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether," Obama said in a statement. "But the American people can't afford that."

Both the House and Senate bills, aimed at heading off any recurrence of the near collapse of the financial system in 2008, would create a mechanism for liquidating large firms that get into trouble, set up a council to detect systemwide financial threats and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending. The legislation also would require investment derivatives, blamed for helping precipitate the near-meltdown, to be traded in open exchanges.

Story continues below
Senate Republicans have been solidly opposed to the legislation so far, but Democrats are determined to force them to block the bill time and again until their unity cracks.

"I don't think it's a tenable political position for the Republicans to be in," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

And Reid mocked the Republicans' cohesion.

"As far as I can tell, the only thing Republicans stand for is standing together," he said.

Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, said Monday before the vote, "Most Republicans want a bill, but they want a substantive bill."

The Alabama senator has been negotiating with committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Shelby aides said he wants to tighten language that he believes would give the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. too much flexibility to assist large banks and their creditors. Shelby also wants to restrict the rule-writing powers that Dodd would give a consumer financial protection bureau within the Federal Reserve.

Shelby aides have been writing an alternative to Dodd's legislation in the event negotiations fail.

Shelby, emerging from a meeting with Dodd, said they planned to meet again, with their respective aides, to hammer out some areas of agreement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been leading a lobbying effort against the legislation, sent senators a letter Monday urging them to vote against Democratic efforts to move on the bill.

Polls show the public increasingly eager to slap restrictions on financial institutions. Moreover, a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission accusing Goldman Sachs of fraud has gotten attention at this critical time.

To drive that point home, a Senate investigative subcommittee plans a hearing Tuesday on the role of investment banks in the financial crisis. Scheduled witnesses include Goldman chairman and chief executive Lloyd Blankfein and Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman Sachs trader at the center of the SEC charges.

In that climate, Democrats are prepared to cast Republicans as industry allies eager to weaken the legislation. At the same time, Democrats are trying to win over individual Republicans with some adjustments.

For example, Senate Democrats on Monday were putting the finishing touches on their version of derivatives regulations that already have the support of at least two Republicans, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Derivatives are complex securities blamed for helping precipitate the 2008 Wall Street crisis.

The derivatives restrictions, in some cases tougher than Dodd had initially proposed, would incorporate provisions approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee. Among them is a limitation strongly opposed by the largest banks that would force them to spin off their derivatives operations into separate subsidiaries, potentially costing them billions of dollars in business.

Administration officials have expressed qualms in the past about the sweep of that provision. But the White House statement Monday commended the Agriculture Committee for its work. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who had worked on derivatives provisions, called the spinoff idea unnecessarily punitive and disruptive to the banking system.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell sought to rally his senators, arguing that a vote to delay debate was not a vote against regulation but for a bipartisan bill.

"All of us want to deliver a reform that will tighten the screws on Wall Street," McConnell said. "But we're not going to be rushed on another massive bill based on the assurances of our friends on the other side."

___

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
 
Its more anti-big government versus pro-big banks.
 
Clearly the banking industry needs some regulation. What Goldmans did to investors was, literally, criminal. I'll stand with the dems on this one.
 
Clearly the banking industry needs some regulation. What Goldmans did to investors was, literally, criminal. I'll stand with the dems on this one.


good to hear :cheers: what should worry you is why the republicans refuse to discuss the current reform bill in the senate. they only want to talk about it behind closes doors where c-span cameras can't come.
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36389.html

Would-be replacements raise for Harry Reid

Sen. Chuck Schumer invited Harry Reid to spend Monday morning with him in Brooklyn, where some of Schumer’s well-heeled friends opened their checkbooks to help the Senate majority leader’s struggling reelection bid.

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin has invited Reid to join him next week in Chicago, where he’ll connect the Nevada Democrat with Windy City business leaders who’ll pour even more money into Reid’s campaign.

For Schumer and Durbin, it’s all part of a delicate dance. While Capitol Hill insiders say the two men appear to be jockeying to show their fellow Democrats that they’d be the logical successors to Reid, they’re also showing Reid unyielding loyalty where it counts: campaign cash.

So, there Schumer was Monday morning, introducing Reid to the big-money developers of the New Jersey Nets’ new $4.9 billion facility in Brooklyn. Schumer told the developers that he and Reid had been “through war together,” and he called the Nevadan his “foxhole buddy,” according to someone who was there.

“He is beloved by our caucus, from the most conservative to the most liberal,” Schumer told the fundraisers on Monday, the source said. “He does a great job of bringing together 59 Democrats of such broad philosophical and geographic diversity. And the egos are not small. What Harry does is amazing.”

Monday’s fundraiser was headlined by Bruce Ratner, the real estate mogul who owns the Nets — and who has donated more than $127,000 to Democrats in recent years.

While Schumer’s office won’t say how much money the event raised for Reid, cash poured in from a number of developers and real estate types. The event came just hours before a procedural vote on a plan to rewrite the rules for Wall Street, but Reid’s office stressed that the donors who turned out Monday weren’t bankers or Wall Street officials — and that, in fact, many work for Ratner’s company as well as for electrical and construction companies.

But Sunday night, Reid also cashed in at an intimate dinner in New York organized by his campaign finance team and sponsored by Roger Altman, a former deputy Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, who is now chairman of Evercore Partners, which claims that it’s the “most active investment banking boutique in the world.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36389.html#ixzz0mIo0Zymv
 
^^^ First of all, why should a candidate from Nevada be raising money for his campaign in places like New York and Chicago?

Second, oops, fund raising from investment bankers at a time the senate is taking up legislation that regulates that industry.

Third, so much for the premise that the GOP stands with big banks.
 
Clearly the banking industry needs some regulation. What Goldmans did to investors was, literally, criminal. I'll stand with the dems on this one.

specifically what did they do to investors that was criminal?
 
specifically what did they do to investors that was criminal?

I believe, if I am thinking of the right investment bank, they made a portfolio that another investor picked each item in the portfolio. this other investor then bet on this portfolio to lose. It was just in the news about being questioned by the SEC.
 
I believe, if I am thinking of the right investment bank, they made a portfolio that another investor picked each item in the portfolio. this other investor then bet on this portfolio to lose. It was just in the news about being questioned by the SEC.

I really don't see what's so wrong about that. I may be immoral, but certainly not illegal. If you or I made that bet, it would have been a good call, they just did it on a much larger scale.

That is, if I correctly understand what they did.
 
I believe Goldman Sachs was marketing the portfolio as a profitable investment when they knew that the items in the portfolio were expected to fail. It was basically straight up fraud.
 
I thought you can't guarantee a portfolio's performance?
 
Third, so much for the premise that the GOP stands with big banks.

Not clear to me how you go from Harry Reid collecting campaign donations to your statement quoted above.
 
I thought you can't guarantee a portfolio's performance?

Can't guarantee it, but if you're promoting it as a winner and have essentially set it up as a loser, then it's a problem. That's kind of the jist of what I heard happened.
 
Goldman was pitching it to it's clients as a good investment when the company was quietly betting big bucks on it to fail. Their knowledge was that it was a loser which was revealed today in internal emails where their insiders laughed at the investors they were bilking out of their life savings.

STOMP
 
Last edited:
Not clear to me how you go from Harry Reid collecting campaign donations to your statement quoted above.

Harry Reid isn't the GOP and he's standing with big banks and taking campaign donations from them.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922&cycle=2010

Code:
Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte
Industry		Total		Indivs		PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms	$2,201,132	$1,963,033	$238,099
[B]Securities & Investment	$772,585	$632,285	$140,300  <---- 
[/B] Casinos/Gambling	$607,900	$545,900	$62,000
Health Professionals	$530,625	$299,125	$231,500
Real Estate		$528,787	$453,711	$75,076
 
Last edited:
http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/...10677907462955562473:nlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID:11

Goldman Sachs

Top Contributor to Member(286 results)
Goldman Sachs to Arlen Specter (R) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Ben Cardin (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Ben Nelson (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Bill Foster (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Bill Nelson (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Bill Posey (R) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Bob Casey (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Charles E Schumer (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Chris Dodd (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Christopher J Lee (R) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Claire McCaskill (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Deborah Ann Stabenow (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Dick Durbin (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Ed Royce (R) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Evan Bayh (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Frank R Lautenberg (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Gregory W Meeks (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Jack Reed (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to James Webb (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Jay Rockefeller (D) in 2010
Goldman Sachs to Jeff Bingaman (D) in 2010
 
^^^ First of all, why should a candidate from Nevada be raising money for his campaign in places like New York and Chicago?

Second, oops, fund raising from investment bankers at a time the senate is taking up legislation that regulates that industry.

Third, so much for the premise that the GOP stands with big banks.

Fail x 3.
 
I really don't see what's so wrong about that. I may be immoral, but certainly not illegal. If you or I made that bet, it would have been a good call, they just did it on a much larger scale.

I'm sure you ARE immoral, but we're talking about investment fraud by big banks here, not your personal lack of integrity.
 
^^^ First of all, why should a candidate from Nevada be raising money for his campaign in places like New York and Chicago?

Not defending Reid, whom I blame for watering down Obama's healthcare reform to the point of impotence, but you'd rather he stay in Nevada and take donations from the mob?
 
Not defending Reid, whom I blame for watering down Obama's healthcare reform to the point of impotence, but you'd rather he stay in Nevada and take donations from the mob?

The mob's not in Vegas anymore. The casinos are owned and run by corporations. And yes, I do think he should raise 100% of his campaign money in Nevada.
 
Harry Reid isn't the GOP and he's standing with big banks and taking campaign donations from them.

And how is that evidence that the GOP isn't standing with big banks?

barfo
 
And how is that evidence that the GOP isn't standing with big banks?

barfo

The blowhard article from huffpost sure seems to imply that it's ONLY the GOP standing with big banks. Yet when you follow the money, the money from the big banks goes to Democrats 20-4 (roughly). And one of those 4 switch parties and became a "democrat."
 
The blowhard article from huffpost sure seems to imply that it's ONLY the GOP standing with big banks. Yet when you follow the money, the money from the big banks goes to Democrats 20-4 (roughly). And one of those 4 switch parties and became a "democrat."

Except, of course, that you only presented results from Goldman Sachs, not "the big banks".

barfo
 
Except, of course, that you only presented results from Goldman Sachs, not "the big banks".

barfo

Bank of America

Bank of America to Aaron Schock (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Adam Schiff (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Al Green (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Arlen Specter (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Bill Foster (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Bill Pascrell Jr (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Bill Posey (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Bob Etheridge (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Charles W Boustany Jr (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Charlie Wilson (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Chris Dodd (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Christopher J Lee (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Dan Boren (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Dan Lungren (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Dan Maffei (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Danny K Davis (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Darrell Issa (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Dave Camp (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Deborah Ann Stabenow (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Devin Nunes (R) in 2010
Bank of America to Dick Durbin (D) in 2010
Bank of America to Ed Pastor (D) in 2010

14-8 democrats

BofA a big bank?
 
Wells Fargo to Amy Klobuchar (D) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Bart Stupak (D) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Ben Nelson (D) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Betty McCollum (D) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Blaine Luetkemeyer (R) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Carolyn B Maloney (D) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Dave Reichert (R) in 2010
Wells Fargo to Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) in 2010

Wells Fargo a big bank?
7-3 democrats
 
No thanks, I've proven what needs to be proven.

The Democrats stand by big banks and take money from them quid pro quo.

In case you don't get it, I don't trust ANY of our representatives. They're all bought and paid for.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top