(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/428961_351736074837377_114517875225866_1359740_1190609108_n.jpg)
I do love me some Elizabeth Warren.
I do too. It's a shame about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dealio:
http://regansravings.blogspot.com/2010/03/federal-reserve-elizabeth-warren-and.html
QuoteThe Consumer Financial Protection Agency was originally proposed as an agency to promote consumer protection in contracts with banks. In a coup of financial proportions, the banks and Federal Reserve have turned this idea into one to maintain their power. Elizabeth Warren's proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency has just been placed under the authority of the Federal Reserve rather than stand as its own independent authority. The status quo will remain while we get to finance a new bureaucracy.
The misleading language used by the banks was one of the key elements that Elizabeth Warren wanted the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate. She wanted contracts between banks and consumers to be written in clear, understandable language. In an article that Warren wrote in the summer of 2007 entitled "Unsafe at Any Rate," Warren described the misleading language used by banks.
How did financial products get so dangerous? Part of the problem is that disclosure has become a way to obfuscate rather than to inform. According to the Wall Street Journal, in the early 1980s, the typical credit card contract was a page long; by the early 2000s, that contract had grown to more than 30 pages of incomprehensible text. The additional terms were not designed to make life easier for the customer. Rather, they were designed in large part to add unexpectedâ€"and unreadableâ€"terms that favor the card companies. Mortgage-loan documents, payday-loan papers, car-loan terms, and other lending products are often equally incomprehensible. And this is not the subjective claim of the consumer advocacy movement. In a recent memo aimed at bank executives, the vice president of the business consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton observed that most bank products are "too complex for the average consumer to understand."
She began her article by saying:
It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the streetâ€"and the mortgage won’t even carry a disclosure of that fact to the homeowner. Similarly, it’s impossible to change the price on a toaster once it has been purchased. But long after the papers have been signed, it is possible to triple the price of the credit used to finance the purchase of that appliance, even if the customer meets all the credit terms, in full and on time. Why are consumers safe when they purchase tangible consumer products with cash, but when they sign up for routine financial products like mortgages and credit cards they are left at the mercy of their creditors?
The Wall Street Journal quoted Warren in regards to the confusion of the legal terms in contracts with banks:
"In some ways reform is less complicated than it's portrayed," Ms. Warren said adding that Congressional leaders will use a Byzantine reform structure as cover. "If it's really complex then 'I get to be the expert.' If it's really complex 'we'll decided this behind closed doors.' If it's really complex 'yes, it appeared that everyone in power walked away with the money but that's not what happened.' And so, complexity is a way to give political cover for voting with banks instead of with families"...."We haven't really rehabilitated our banks."
The decision to place the Consumer Financial Protection Agency within the Federal Reserve is a great victory for the status quo. Hopefully, the House of Representatives can do something to stop this. Barney Frank, on the left, and Ron Paul, on the right, are both leery of the Federal Reserve. It's that happy, bought off middle that is all for policies like this.
Ron Paul has been trying to audit the Federal Reserve for years. It seems that the House of Representatives is the only branch of government that listens to the American people at the moment.
One last quote from Ron Paul.
Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed’s susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.
As for the term "progressive", wasn't Hitler a progressive?
Too soon?
If the progressives are going to take away the power from the government that people are hiring lobbyists to have influenced in their favor then I'll be happy to vote progressive.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 30, 2012, 10:23:10 AM
If the progressives are going to take away the power from the government that people are hiring lobbyists to have influenced in their favor then I'll be happy to vote progressive.
That's exactly what Alan Grayson is about.
He went after the war profiteers in 2008............combatting the fraud that takes place in corporate welfare.
http://www.youtube.com/v/izT-kQYkWzw?
and the Stolen Money:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6W3L--s9wGo?
He was sooooo right:
After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the George W. Bush administration flooded the conquered country with so much cash to pay for reconstruction and other projects in the first year that a new unit of measurement was born.
Pentagon officials determined that
one giant C-130 Hercules cargo plane could carry $2.4 billion in shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills. They sent an initial full planeload of cash, followed by
20 other flights to Iraq by May 2004 in a $12-billion haul that U.S. officials believe to be the biggest international cash airlift of all time.
This month, the Pentagon and the Iraqi government are finally closing the books on the program that handled all those Benjamins. But despite years of audits and investigations, U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash â€" enough to run the Los Angeles Unified School District or the Chicago Public Schools for a year, among many other things.
For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said
the missing $6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history."Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-missing-billions-20110613,0,4414060.story
From buzzfeed.com:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1)
QuotePosted Jan 27, 2012 3:45pm EST
l
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals â€" I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
Well if the law passes and she is elected that "combative" little lady will need to divest.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 30, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
From buzzfeed.com:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1)
QuotePosted Jan 27, 2012 3:45pm EST
l
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals â€" I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
How refreshing to see some members of the 1%, including Alan Grayson, speak up for the 99%!!
These are the smart people that understand that robbing the middle class from their spending power is going to be the undoing of the America that we know.
You do not have to be part of the middle class to understand it...........although having been in the middle class before becoming part of the 1% CAN give you a better appreciation!
Fun Site That Lets You Know What Governor Romney Would Have to Pay for Items in Order for Him to Understand Your Income:
http://mittbucks.com/
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 30, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 30, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
From buzzfeed.com:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1)
QuotePosted Jan 27, 2012 3:45pm EST
l
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals â€" I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
How refreshing to see some members of the 1%, including Alan Grayson, speak up for the 99%!!
These are the smart people that understand that robbing the middle class from their spending power is going to be the undoing of the America that we know.
You do not have to be part of the middle class to understand it...........although having been in the middle class before becoming part of the 1% CAN give you a better appreciation!
Fun Site That Lets You Know What Governor Romney Would Have to Pay for Items in Order for Him to Understand Your Income:
http://mittbucks.com/
The Dems have been "looking" out for black people since the 1960's. Thats turned out pretty well.
Quote from: bill on January 30, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 30, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 30, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
From buzzfeed.com:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1)
QuotePosted Jan 27, 2012 3:45pm EST
l
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals â€" I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
How refreshing to see some members of the 1%, including Alan Grayson, speak up for the 99%!!
These are the smart people that understand that robbing the middle class from their spending power is going to be the undoing of the America that we know.
You do not have to be part of the middle class to understand it...........although having been in the middle class before becoming part of the 1% CAN give you a better appreciation!
Fun Site That Lets You Know What Governor Romney Would Have to Pay for Items in Order for Him to Understand Your Income:
http://mittbucks.com/
The Dems have been "looking" out for black people since the 1960's. Thats turned out pretty well.
Ah, the race card.
Hopefully Dems have looked out for ALL the people including women, children, and different races and ethnicities, rather than alienating all but the middle-aged white men.
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 30, 2012, 02:25:46 PM
Quote from: bill on January 30, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 30, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 30, 2012, 01:44:38 PM
From buzzfeed.com:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/elizabeth-warren-says-shes-not-in-the-1)
QuotePosted Jan 27, 2012 3:45pm EST
l
The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.
“I realize there are some wealthy individuals â€" I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.
Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
How refreshing to see some members of the 1%, including Alan Grayson, speak up for the 99%!!
These are the smart people that understand that robbing the middle class from their spending power is going to be the undoing of the America that we know.
You do not have to be part of the middle class to understand it...........although having been in the middle class before becoming part of the 1% CAN give you a better appreciation!
Fun Site That Lets You Know What Governor Romney Would Have to Pay for Items in Order for Him to Understand Your Income:
http://mittbucks.com/
The Dems have been "looking" out for black people since the 1960's. Thats turned out pretty well.
Ah, the race card.
Hopefully Dems have looked out for ALL the people including women, children, and different races and ethnicities, rather than alienating all but the middle-aged white men.
The point is they have been "looking" out for those groups for the last 40 years. Government and Dems cannot fix what they broke.
I also noticed there was no mention of Union lobbyists? Convenient omission.
I think we all know there are lobbyists of many types but no type even "Union" have the type of money to skew the system like those with corporate money I know it and you know it Bill.
^Union lobbyists make up a good chunk of all political donations, including 5 of the top 10 biggest donors. They are a huge interest.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
^ Very interesting and eye opening.
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 30, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
^ Very interesting and eye opening.
It certainly is! Kind of blows up all the stereotypes and generalities usually used around here. The top twenty donors are OVERWHELMINGLY democrat. The biggest republican boogieman... Koch industries... comes in at a paltry 77 ranking. Pitiful. Even Goldman Sachs gave more to dems than repubs. JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley each split their money nearly 50/50.
ORG TOTAL DEM REP1 ActBlue $57,470,970 99% 0%
2 AT&T Inc $48,025,567 44% 55%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $46,382,548 94% 1%
4 National Assn of Realtors $41,403,426 47% 49%
5 Service Employees International Union $37,829,428 76% 2%
6 National Education Assn $37,197,739 82% 5%
7 Goldman Sachs $36,344,887 60% 39%
8 American Assn for Justice $35,200,054 88% 8%
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $34,637,147 97% 2%
10 Laborers Union $32,213,700 88% 7%
11 American Federation of Teachers $31,883,616 90% 0%
12 Teamsters Union $31,507,378 89% 6%
13 Carpenters & Joiners Union $31,309,258 85% 10%
14 Communications Workers of America $30,422,596 94% 0%
15 Citigroup Inc $28,932,667 50% 49%
16 American Medical Assn $27,977,161 40% 59%
17 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $27,632,675 93% 0%
18 United Auto Workers $27,540,152 98% 0%
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $27,330,958 32% 67%
20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $27,082,727 98% 1%
AFSCME at number three. There is a mouthful.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Democrats are channeling a lot of the smaller and individual contributions, which make up a bulk of all donations, through ActBlue. If the Republicans could ever get a system like that off the ground, it would probably be comparable to ActBlue, if not bigger. Currently they're still handling small contributions on a smaller level, but the bucks are still there.
But yeah, the idea that unions are not a major political lobbying force on par with big corporations, or that corporations are all pro-Republican, is false.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 31, 2012, 07:19:55 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 30, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
^ Very interesting and eye opening.
It certainly is! Kind of blows up all the stereotypes and generalities usually used around here. The top twenty donors are OVERWHELMINGLY democrat. The biggest republican boogieman... Koch industries... comes in at a paltry 77 ranking. Pitiful. Even Goldman Sachs gave more to dems than repubs. JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley each split their money nearly 50/50.
ORG TOTAL DEM REP
1 ActBlue $57,470,970 99% 0%
2 AT&T Inc $48,025,567 44% 55%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $46,382,548 94% 1%
4 National Assn of Realtors $41,403,426 47% 49%
5 Service Employees International Union $37,829,428 76% 2%
6 National Education Assn $37,197,739 82% 5%
7 Goldman Sachs $36,344,887 60% 39%
8 American Assn for Justice $35,200,054 88% 8%
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $34,637,147 97% 2%
10 Laborers Union $32,213,700 88% 7%
11 American Federation of Teachers $31,883,616 90% 0%
12 Teamsters Union $31,507,378 89% 6%
13 Carpenters & Joiners Union $31,309,258 85% 10%
14 Communications Workers of America $30,422,596 94% 0%
15 Citigroup Inc $28,932,667 50% 49%
16 American Medical Assn $27,977,161 40% 59%
17 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $27,632,675 93% 0%
18 United Auto Workers $27,540,152 98% 0%
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $27,330,958 32% 67%
20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $27,082,727 98% 1%
\
Yes it is amazing what you find when you look for the facts.
For the record, Jeffery is in no way averse to facts. He's one of the most thoughtful, open minded, and fair posters on the entire interwebs.
We all carry some level of bias. Few among us try to see through them in ourselves, but most of us relish the opportunity to expose them in others.
Jeffery = the Few
QuoteFaced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
~John Kenneth Galbraith
^ Thanks BH. I was definitely Out in "left field" on that one. Pun intended.
Quote from: Tacachale on January 31, 2012, 11:27:29 AM
But yeah, the idea that unions are not a major political lobbying force on par with big corporations, or that corporations are all pro-Republican, is false.
Corporations are going to be practical and hedge their bets. That's why I've been saying that if we get a Romney vs. Obama general election, then Wall Street will be happy. The only candidate that threatens the status quo is Ron Paul, so maybe Wall Street has already won.
Of course most of this list is unions of one type or another. These are the groups that the Republicans are chomping at the bit to eliminate. And they are very large groups made up of many many members. So your argument is still kinda meaningless for me. And as for the others, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them so they play both sides.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 31, 2012, 07:19:55 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 30, 2012, 07:46:07 PM
^ Very interesting and eye opening.
It certainly is! Kind of blows up all the stereotypes and generalities usually used around here. The top twenty donors are OVERWHELMINGLY democrat. The biggest republican boogieman... Koch industries... comes in at a paltry 77 ranking. Pitiful. Even Goldman Sachs gave more to dems than repubs. JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley each split their money nearly 50/50.
ORG TOTAL DEM REP
1 ActBlue $57,470,970 99% 0%
2 AT&T Inc $48,025,567 44% 55%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $46,382,548 94% 1%
4 National Assn of Realtors $41,403,426 47% 49%
5 Service Employees International Union $37,829,428 76% 2%
6 National Education Assn $37,197,739 82% 5%
7 Goldman Sachs $36,344,887 60% 39%
8 American Assn for Justice $35,200,054 88% 8%
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $34,637,147 97% 2%
10 Laborers Union $32,213,700 88% 7%
11 American Federation of Teachers $31,883,616 90% 0%
12 Teamsters Union $31,507,378 89% 6%
13 Carpenters & Joiners Union $31,309,258 85% 10%
14 Communications Workers of America $30,422,596 94% 0%
15 Citigroup Inc $28,932,667 50% 49%
16 American Medical Assn $27,977,161 40% 59%
17 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $27,632,675 93% 0%
18 United Auto Workers $27,540,152 98% 0%
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $27,330,958 32% 67%
20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $27,082,727 98% 1%
The irony is the arch-conservative are normally shitty businessmen. That's par for the course.
But that doesn't stop the damage to the rest of us.
The huge amounts of systemic risk these views create is borne by all of us.
I wonder what university conducted the famous "arch conservative is shitty businessman" study? :o
Personal observation.
How's your buddy Riverside Gator holding up these days?
Ah... so another stereotype and generalization. To quote a well known local lawyer...
QuoteThat's par for the course.
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 31, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
^ Thanks BH. I was definitely Out in "left field" on that one. Pun intended.
JeffreyS, admittedly it was a bit of a surprise to me too, especially knowing that union membership today is only 30% of what it was in its heyday.
So I decided to do some digging. Here is what I found...........the Big corps keep others out:
QuoteCorporate lobbying is a very exclusive club
Posted by Brad Plumerat 10:06 AM ET, 11/08/2011
Washington is teeming with lobbyists. In 2009, there were 13,700 of them. So you’d think it would be easy for any company to stride into town and start pressing its issues on members of Congress. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Only a relatively small number of firms lobby each year. What’s more, the turnover is quite low. Lobbying, it seems, is not a game that just anyone can play.
That’s according to a new working paper from William R. Kerr, William F. Lincoln and Prachi Mishra of the National Bureau of Economic Research, who scoured the lobbying records of publicly traded companies from 1998 to 2006. They found that fewer than 300 firms in the sample actively lobbied Congress in any given year, and it was mainly large, rich firms getting in on the fun. Lobbying status is also persistent over time: “The probability that a firm lobbies in the current year given that it lobbied in the previous year is 92%,†the report said. Influence-peddling tends to be dominated by the same tiny handful of companies year after year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/lobbying%20--%20firms%20entering%20exiting.JPG?uuid=wf30FgoWEeGQ4P3JZQNLyQ
The authors found real barriers to entry for firms and groups who want to lobby. It takes time and effort to learn the relevant laws, to hire lobbyists (whether in-house or outside), develop an agenda, figure out who your allies and opponents in Washington are and establish relationships. “To the extent that lobbying represents a legislative subsidy to sympathetic policy makers,†the economists wrote, “politicians may also require such an initial investment of resources to signal a firm’s willingness to support them over time.â€
That also means that the companies most affected by a given legislative issue won’t necessarily be the ones talking directly to Congress about it. For example, the authors looked at what happened when the law governing H-1B visas for high-skilled immigrants was set to expire in 2004. Capitol Hill didn’t see an influx of new companies dependent on high-skilled foreign labor arrive and start complaining. What mostly happened was that a few of the existing firms already lobbying on other issues (say, Microsoft and General Electric) shifted their focus and resources toward immigration.
Now, obviously there are still trade associations and nonprofits and other advocacy groups who push their issues on Capitol Hill as well. But it’s fairly difficult for an individual company to start lobbying directly unless it’s been roaming the halls of Congress for years and years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/corporate-lobbying-is-a-very-exclusive-club/2011/11/08/gIQAPLln0M_blog.html
And besides.........influence peddling is done in a variety of ways.......not just lobbying:
Citigroup replaces JP Morgan as Chief of Staff:
http://www.youtube.com/v/6_rNsMy5sk0?
WOW, I just knew it.........I just knew it.
JeffreyS, our info is more accurate rather than the misleading GOP info. From Open Secrets:
Quote2012 Overview
Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties
Corporate influence over government (as in who is funding our government the most) is FAR larger than Labor influence over government. Open Secrets states this in their 2012 overview of Political Donors to Candidates and Parties:
Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.Obviously this business money only goes to new Democratic candidates if they happen to be Republican lite, or Democratic incumbents (in Democratic districts) to create some goodwill...........as 95% of incumbents get re-elected anyway.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
^You missed the next line:
Quote
An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor's occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
In other words, the bulk of all donations are individual contributions ($530 million out of $715 million), and by their metric they're counting a bulk of individual contributions as "business" contributions, while few of them are counted as "labor".
In addition the Dems do much better than the Republicans with "ideological" individual donations, presumably due to their vastly superior way of organizing small contributions as well as support from well organized lobbying groups like EMILY's List, the American Association for "Justice", and the Human Rights Campaign.
I can't find any numbers to back it up, but presumably the influence of labor unions has decreased significantly since 1989 (and before), though they are still a major interest (ie, larger than any others besides the largest companies).
Quote from: FayeforCure on February 01, 2012, 01:32:01 PM
WOW, I just knew it.........I just knew it.
JeffreyS, our info is more accurate rather than the misleading GOP info. From Open Secrets:
Quote2012 Overview
Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties
Corporate influence over government (as in who is funding our government the most) is FAR larger than Labor influence over government. Open Secrets states this in their 2012 overview of Political Donors to Candidates and Parties:
Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Obviously this business money only goes to new Democratic candidates if they happen to be Republican lite, or Democratic incumbents (in Democratic districts) to create some goodwill...........as 95% of incumbents get re-elected anyway.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
As usual, only part of the story. 98% to Dems from unions!
Nothing to see here....not a big deal like those nasty corporations.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php
Democracy for America has named its top 10 progressive candidates in this year's House races.
The group said Thursday the top candidates are
1. Alan Grayson in Florida
2. Lois Frankel in Florida
3. Norman Solomon in California
4. Jose Hernandez in California
5. Mark Pocan in Wisconsin
6. Kelda Roys in Wisconsin
7. Ilya Sheyman in Illinois
8. Angela Zimmann in Ohio
9. Eric Griego in New Mexico
10. Annie Kuster in New Hampshire.
All are running for seats in the House of Representatives.
Democracy for America's list is a barometer of sorts for progressive enthusiasm, indicating which candidates will generate the most excitement in this year's election. With the Republican-led House receiving dismal approval ratings, hopes are high among progressives for Democrats to retake the south wing of Capitol Hill.
Among the list's high-profile candidates is Alan Grayson, the former congressman who represented Florida's 8th District until he was defeated by Republican Daniel Webster in 2010. Due to Florida's redistricting, Grayson will be running for Florida's new 27th District.
Ann Kuster, who lost a close race in 2010, has bounced back to run for New Hampshire's 2nd District. A Democratic favorite who lost by just 4,000 votes, Kuster made an impression on progressives when she beat the former presidential campaign co-chair for Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) in her 2010 primary.
Democrats also have their eyes on Ilya Sheyman, in Illinois' 10th District. Sheyman may benefit from recent redistricting, which has made the previously purple district lean toward blue.
As progressive favorite Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) pursues a Senate run, another openly gay politician, Mark Pocan, is running for her seat in Wisconsin's 2nd District. Pocan currently serves in the state assembly, and is a longtime friend and colleague of Baldwin.
A number of the "All-Stars" are up-and-comers poised to make a splash with Democrats as campaigns heat up.
Jose Hernandez, who is running for California's newly-drawn 10th District, is a former astronaut who decided to run after meeting President Barack Obama at a congressional Hispanic Caucus gala last fall. Hernandez, a California native whose parents immigrated from Mexico, is an ardent supporter of the Dream Act.
Another relatively unknown "All-Star," Angela Zimmann, has grabbed attention with her homemade campaign videos. Zimmann, running in Ohio's 5th District against incumbent Bob Latta, submitted a video starring her young daughter as part of her push to win Democracy for America's approval.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/howard-dean-democracy-for-america-_n_1283117.html