General Discussion

jsmirman

(4,507 posts)

35. It is too long a topic to get into in depth

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 04:11 PM

Jan 2012

suffice to say that I find it infuriating, and Obama's interaction with Wall Street represents one of my deepest disappointments with the administration.

The guards are *sort of* watching a little more closely now, but the rules still don't work, the accountability and consequences still aren't there, and the game is still rigged. If this were the game of monopoly many of these folks would be playing endless "get out of jail free" cards that would entitle them to skip jail and instead spend the night at Park Place. How can people not be infuriated?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

With all the corporate political contributions, why aren't stockholders hitting the ceiling? [View all] Frustratedlady Jan 2012 OP

They are expecting these "investments" to yield significant returns. SharonAnn Jan 2012 #1

+1 The Traveler Jan 2012 #3

Pretty much the best investments that exist Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #25

Probably because the perception is The Traveler Jan 2012 #2

That's interesting laundry_queen Jan 2012 #4

I don't know if contributions would fall under the "business judgment rule" jsmirman Jan 2012 #7

I wouldn't complain about charitable contributions to the communities... Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #16

Those can be serious end-arounds, though jsmirman Jan 2012 #17

I agree on WS. I am particularly concerned about the mega computer banks trading 24/7. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #21

It is too long a topic to get into in depth jsmirman Jan 2012 #35

Because stockholder lawsuits are so hard to bring? Sanity Claws Jan 2012 #5

Yes, I've wondered about executive pay, as well. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #9

For one, stockholders are generally ignorant jsmirman Jan 2012 #6

Folks, some pretty essential information is right here ^^^^^ jsmirman Jan 2012 #18

I have read and stored the information you presented. I appreciate your thoughtful input. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #31

Good to hear jsmirman Jan 2012 #34

What corporate contributions? Link please. Obama took no corporate money in 2008. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #8

I was referring to the new corporate contributions to political campaigns without limits. I didn't Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #10

Well, there is no evidence of that either - from what I can tell. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #13

Each time I contribute to a candidate Yupster Jan 2012 #37

Really? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #12

The $35,000 a plate donations go to the DNC, don't they? banned from Kos Jan 2012 #14

"Wall St got screwed by Obama" JackRiddler Jan 2012 #15

You spend too much time at ZeroHead. Mark-to-market has been legit since 1993. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #19

Huh? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #33

Because political influence is effectively the corporations' best profit center? JackRiddler Jan 2012 #11

Did they release a listing? joeglow3 Jan 2012 #20

I often wonder about the stockholders. Not only about these contributions but don't they give a jwirr Jan 2012 #22

I agree. Must be that the yearly reports are in such small print and so complicated to read... Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #23

This is one of those differences between corporations and unions gratuitous Jan 2012 #24

Also, the power of shareholders vs the Exec boards is shrinking librechik Jan 2012 #26

We ape each other in many ways. Frustratedlady Jan 2012 #36

It has been illegal for corporations to contribute to federal candidates since 1910. former9thward Jan 2012 #27

And here is the list of recipients from the PAC organized by Goldman Sachs for 2008. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #28

No I don't notice. former9thward Jan 2012 #29

I agree with you. Unfortunately I replied to your post. banned from Kos Jan 2012 #30

If you had a bunch of money in these corporations, you'd be one of the 1% hobbit709 Jan 2012 #32