Democrats own Wall Street.

[Frosty1]

Help me out here DUers I have to come back with an answer to this guy.

" Democrats own Wall Street. The nation`s largest and richest corportaions shovel big bucks into the Democrats money bin. Sixty-three per cent of the money contributed from
Wall Street flows into the Democratic Party. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated heavily to leading Democrats like Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank who in turn stonewalled investigations into these two quasi government junkyards. Fannie and Freddie bought and paid for Barrack Obama - its a matter of record. "

This is what I said that set him off:It's not just the fear of terrorism that the right uses... its the other ism...

SOCIALISM. Thats even scarier to them.
Because socialism.....
and this is a simplified definition, is in part "share and share alike." RWers see health care as part of that definition. Most Republicans do not want to pay taxes for people to have health care or have their taxes raised. Their philosophy..."I got mine the hard way or I worked for mine, everyone else should too." They aren't really scared of "socialism" they just don't want to let go of their money. Socialism is the excuse.
To be honest, they use the word "Socialism" because it has a negative connotation in this country, where we had "red scares" and are inundated with propaganda about the "evils" of Socialism. They are hoping it works again this time just as it has worked in the past.
They quickly jump in to give socialism a try when the finance corporations, like Bear Stearns, are in trouble. The republican government didn't hesitate to bailout their Wall Street buddies when their gambles on sub-prime securities went sour. Socialism is an easy scare for republicans. It's code for living off the government but they don't mind socializing Wall Street and corporations.

It's just the little guy they want to stand on their own two feet. Corporations, Wall Street, bankers are all supported with your and my tax dollars.

Why they find it so offensive to help the poor and suffering individual, yet pour billions into helping the rich and powerful is beyond me. Can republicans be so stupid that they don't realize that bailouts for bankers is socialism? "

[Trajan]

1. Is it really worth your while ?

Why lose the hair follicles ?

I refuse to go round and round with idiots ..... The ONLY reason to argue is to convert undecided GOP moderates and independents ....

Why bother wasting time with the extremists ?

[Frosty1]

9. I think it is worth my time

for the very reason I will share in a minute.
Obama is teaching me something by the example he is setting. We need to come together as people to create the future we want. That means we have to find common ground and work from there.
Here is my answer to this guy:

I think your statistics may be a bit misleading trapperdog but since I don't know where you got them or exactly which ones you are quoting it's very hard to respond to.
If you are quoting campaign donations here is what I was able to find.
Democrats outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers for the first time since 1994, helped by support from hedge funds and companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co.

Democrats got $13.6 million, or 52 percent of the financial industry's $26.3 million in political donations in 2005, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group that researches the influence of money on elections and public policy. In the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Republicans received 52 percent of the $91.6 million given by the industry.

``Wall Street wants change'' on issues such as the Iraq war and the budget deficit, said James Torrey, chairman of the Torrey Funds, which manages about $1 billion. ``I'm finding people who are registered Republicans who are saying to me, `what can I do to help?'''
The Iraq war and ethics problems among congressional and executive-branch Republicans have helped drive President George W. Bush's public approval ratings to the lowest point of his presidency. That has spurred donations to Democrats, said Orin Kramer, general partner of Boston Provident Partners LP in New York and a longtime Democratic fund-raiser.

`Party With No Power'

``When the party with no power can raise more money than the party with all the power, it means people are pretty disturbed about the country's condition,'' Kramer said. The Democrats got 51 percent of the industry's funds in 1994, the year they lost control of both houses of Congress. Republicans' share rose from then, peaking at 58 percent in 1996.



It kind of sounds to me like Wall street goes back and forth with donations between the parties depending on what Wallstreet wants.
Personally I think this should be illegal. Campaign finance reform is long overdue all the way around. The powers that be seem to manage to keep the people fighting back and forth over who gets more while they all make out like bandits plus it opens the door to corruption on both sides.

I'm trying to look into the Fannie mae freddie mac but there is more than one issue of contention and I don't know which one you are referring to. Is it campaign contributions or Lobby money you are referring to?
It would help if you could be more specific where this information comes from. Again like the Wallstreet money It appears that Fan And Fred are split between the parties. If they (the powers that be) can keep us (we the people) fighting over our slices of the pie we will not notice that they are taking most of the pie.
I think before we the people can make this a better world we the people are going to have to put our collective foot down and do something about the corruption in all political parties. "

[EV_Ares]

2. Here is the Bloomberg article showing the contributions to both parties:

Democrats Top Republican Fund-Raising on Wall Street (Update1)

By Michael Forsythe and Christine Harper

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers for the first time since 1994, helped by support from hedge funds and companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co.

Democrats got $13.6 million, or 52 percent of the financial industry's $26.3 million in political donations in 2005, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group that researches the influence of money on elections and public policy. In the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Republicans received 52 percent of the $91.6 million given by the industry.

``Wall Street wants change'' on issues such as the Iraq war and the budget deficit, said James Torrey, chairman of the Torrey Funds, which manages about $1 billion. ``I'm finding people who are registered Republicans who are saying to me, `what can I do to help?'''

The securities and investment industry is among the biggest sources of campaign cash in U.S. politics. The industry's 2004 contribution total to candidates and parties was higher than any group except lawyers, health professionals and the real estate industry, according to the center, which studied FEC records.

The Iraq war and ethics problems among congressional and executive-branch Republicans have helped drive President George W. Bush's public approval ratings to the lowest point of his presidency. That has spurred donations to Democrats, said Orin Kramer, general partner of Boston Provident Partners LP in New York and a longtime Democratic fund-raiser.

`Party With No Power'

``When the party with no power can raise more money than the party with all the power, it means people are pretty disturbed about the country's condition,'' Kramer said.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ann7KHncBOdc&refer=us

[Frosty1]

10. Thank you

That was a big help.:yourock:

[EV_Ares]

12. No problem, it was a fair question and all one has to do is look at the state

of our government, the approval rating of this President and the overall situation of this country right now including the Iraq war and its human toll and monetary costs. Change is needed and also Wall Street probably wants to be with a winner and it looks like the possibilities are more probable for the dems this time around than ever before.

One thing also, I think Goldman Sachs employees have always gave to the democrats mostly. I am not sure why that has been but it usually is the case. They are just a more liberal group than the others. We also have two democratic senators from New York who are very well acquainted with Wall Street which is going to garner us some contributions.

Actually this also shows where Dennis Kucinich who is probably about the most honest voice in congress and one who really works hard for the people is correct about campaign financing, the right of third party candidates to be heard and the fact that both of the major parties are guilty of taking money from organizations like this. I don't think one party can lay much blame on the other any more.

Now the rant is over.

[Frosty1]

14. I think you are absolutely right

If we don't learn to start talking to each other about this it can never change.

[Eric J in MN]

3. Regarding his statistic that

"Sixty-three per cent of the money contributed from
Wall Street flows into the Democratic Party."

Is he concerned that the 37% donated to the Republican Party has a corrupting influence, too?

[Motown_Johnny]

4. Democratic administrations are better for the economy. Wall street supports democrats because they

do a better job than the incompetent Republicans


end of story

[liberalmuse]

5. Alan Greenspan and Phil Gramm are the main ones to blame for this.

This is just my layman's view, but it is what I saw happening and tried to warn people (my friends and co-workers who were purchasing mortgages at adjustable rates) about because I read a lot of Krugman. Krugman warned about the housing bubble bursting repeatedly starting in late 2003/2004:

Alan Greenspan repeatedly lowered interest rates early on in the Bush administration, and mortgage companies lowered their standards on who qualified for mortgages. As a result, people began to get adjustable rate subprime mortgages that they could barely afford. The fixed rate mortgages were out of their price range, and that is very telling. So many people were buying houses that it caused a bubble, which burst when Greenspan inevitably raised the interest rates, because people were no longer able to afford their mortgage payments and began to default in large numbers.

On the other hand, Phil Gramm was responsible for pushing de-regulation through Congress. Without the proper regulation, banks then tried to profit from the high amount of mortgages by selling these subprime loans to financial institutions in order to make a profit. There's also something about CDS certificates (?) that I do not really understand. All in all, it was lack of regulation, or poor regulation that allowed our banks and financial institutions to run amok purchasing the tons of mortgage loans.

People say it was Clinton's fault, because the subprime mortgage was created under his watch, however, these were okay when properly regulated. Then Gramm came in and demolished some bill (I can't think of the name right now) in 1999 which started the slippery slope of deregulation and lack of oversight, which, when mixed with excessive greed, eventually culminated into the disaster we are faced with right now.

Bush's economy looked like crap, so he pushed Americans to purchase homes, and Greenspan to lower interest rates so that his economic numbers would be high (artificially) due to the huge growth in the housing market. Even an idiot like myself saw this coming.

[Frosty1]

11. No doubt they played a huge role in this.

:hi:

[gravity]

6. Maybe they are concerned about the economy

these are individual donations, not lobbyists

[Frosty1]

7. Do you mean campaign donations

from employees at these firms vs money paid by lobbyists in return for something? please explain.

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. Two things: 1) Wall Street likes to give money to likely winners, and 2) They aren't dumb

they know that democrats have generally been better for the economy than republicans.

[bridgit]

13. They're called Citibank, or ENRON Democrats i.e. W. Buffet if roughly so...

Lady DiFi, Pelosi, women with investment banker husbands. 'Socialism' is the RW's excuse for not having to admit how distasteful they find it to sit beside some 'common person' in an ER with a untreatable goiter. In America money = monarchy. And that's the way money-people want to keep it.

Apostasy is a safe vote for Democrats, at least on financial issues that are obscure and complicated. Rank-and-file voters cannot connect the dots in order to recognize the betrayal; Republicans cannot attack them for their pro-banker votes. And labor-liberal groups--the valiant people who actively oppose these business-banking "reforms" in the legislative arena--will not attack either. This is because the Democrats always offer a billboard agenda at election time--a few important "people issues" like healthcare, Social Security, the environment--to draw a sharp contrast with the wicked Republicans. Other complaints are silenced, especially less familiar ones. Disappointed activists, from organized labor to consumer, civil rights and women's groups, swallow their anger and fall into line. Unlike the right, progressives feel too weak or scattered to propose their own litmus test, much less enforce it.

Enron Democrats understand this. They are masters at stroking their discontented constituencies while voting against them on bedrock economic issues. The Enron storm, among other revelations, illustrates the inconstancy of the Democratic Party or, as some say more simply, its loss of soul.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm