Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Gouda » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:36 am

[Obama's Banker, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan, and] Wall Street shifting political contributions to Republicans - but Our Misleading Reporting Entirely Avoids the True Dynamic at Work Here

By Dan Eggen and Tomoeh Murakami Tse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Commercial banks and high-flying investment firms have shifted their political contributions toward Republicans in recent months amid harsh rhetoric from Democrats about fat bank profits, generous bonuses and stingy lending policies on Wall Street.

The wealthy securities and investment industry, for example, went from giving 2 to 1 to Democrats at the start of 2009 to providing almost half of its donations to Republicans by the end of the year, according to new data compiled for The Washington Post by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Commercial banks and their employees also returned to their traditional tilt in favor of the GOP after a brief dalliance with Democrats, giving nearly twice as much to Republicans during the last three months of 2009, the data show. At the same time, total political donations by the major banks and investment houses alike dropped in the waning months of that year.

The nascent shift came even before the White House announced proposals for a new tax on banks and a curb on some of their riskiest trading activities.

The proposals, offered last month, particularly alarmed Wall Street and have triggered renewed industry efforts to work with Democrats as well as Republicans on regulatory reform legislation that the bankers can live with, according to industry and government officials. Wall Street executives would prefer to engage with Democratic leaders now rather than face prolonged uncertainty about the rules to govern the industry, the sources said.

The new campaign contributions data underscore the political quandary facing Democrats, who want Wall Street donations to help fend off a GOP resurgence in congressional elections this fall but hope to distance themselves from an industry vilified by the public as greedy and ungrateful. President Obama has sought to strike a balance, calling outsize Wall Street bonuses "shameful" and "obscene" while also assuring business executives that he does not "begrudge people success or wealth."

Republicans, meanwhile, are soliciting Wall Street for donations with the argument that Democratic proposals would hurt the bottom lines of major financial institutions. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters this month that he was urging Wall Street executives to "help our team" oppose the "bizarre policies" coming out of the Obama administration.

One senior Republican staff member on Capitol Hill, who discussed contributions on the condition of anonymity, said: "Democrats in Washington are clearly trying to move legislation that would be very damaging to that industry. It was almost like there was a free ride time. But now they're starting to see the real negative impact of Democratic proposals."

Obama had unusually strong backing from Wall Street for a Democratic presidential candidate. He raised more than $18 million from bank and brokerage employees, for example, compared with rival John McCain's $10 million. (Obama did not accept money from PACs.) Prominent among Obama's bundlers -- individuals who raised at least $50,000 -- were private equity executives and hedge fund titans, including billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel Investment Group, who had previously backed Republicans.

(...)

One Democratic-leaning firm that has signaled particular displeasure with the administration's direction is J.P. Morgan Chase, which is headed by Obama supporter James Dimon and features several other prominent Democrats in its upper ranks. The bank and its employees, who doled out nearly $500,000 in federal contributions last year, went from giving 76 percent of the money to Democrats in the first quarter to giving 73 percent to Republicans in the fourth.

In a pointed break with recent practice, the company's political action committee also contributed $30,000 to GOP congressional campaign committees in 2009 while giving nothing to their Democratic equivalents. According to one source familiar with its donation strategy, the bank did not want to offer blanket support for the Democratic committees, which could then use the money to support anti-Wall Street hopefuls.

Yet the bank and its executives are still ready to support specific Democratic candidates considered friendly to the financial sector. Last Wednesday, Jes Staley, the head of J.P. Morgan's investment bank, held a 50-person fundraiser at his home for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), who is trying to fend off a primary challenge by Harold E. Ford Jr., a former congressman who holds a senior position at Bank of America's investment bank. Ford has his own support in the financial sector.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby lupercal » Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:22 am

From the last paragraph, above:

Last Wednesday, Jes Staley, the head of J.P. Morgan's investment bank, held a 50-person fundraiser at his home for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), who is trying to fend off a primary challenge by Harold E. Ford Jr., a former congressman who holds a senior position at Bank of America's investment bank. Ford has his own support in the financial sector.


Wow. Battle of the banks, fought by politician proxies. That's comical.
User avatar
lupercal
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Simulist » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:40 pm

Sepka wrote:Well, duh. The Democrats get a lot of votes out of 'fighting for the poor'. The Republicans get a lot of votes out of 'fighting against abortion'. The political value lies in the 'fight' - victory would be self-defeating. I really hope this isn't a surprise to anyone.


That isn't what comes as a surprise. What come as a bit of a surprise is how eagerly the deception is still embraced.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby AlicetheKurious » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:46 pm

Simulist wrote:That isn't what comes as a surprise. What come as a bit of a surprise is how eagerly the deception is still embraced.


That's where the controlled media comes in: their job is 'perception management', and they use experts for just that purpose.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Simulist » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:36 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:
Simulist wrote:That isn't what comes as a surprise. What come as a bit of a surprise is how eagerly the deception is still embraced.


That's where the controlled media comes in: their job is 'perception management', and they use experts for just that purpose.


I agree. It would be interesting to do a scientific study and from that to know if there is a quantifiable correlation between (A) the amount of major media consumed by an individual and (B) the degree to which s/he believes all of this political pageantry to be real.

Not only do I expect that there is such a correlation but I also suspect that the kinds of major media consumed that enable changes to individual perception in this way go well beyond merely "major 'news' media" and extend into virtually every facet of pop media culture, including entertainment television, popular music, and most of the most popular sites on the internet.

Most people consider these kinds of media consumption to be fairly benign, but I don't think they are — at all. And, since most of the management of perception happens "under the radar," so to speak, I think it's very difficult to guard against consciously, while it's happening. (Except to turn most or all of it off, most or all of the time.)

Perception management by "osmosis," as it were. What we're living in isn't called a "culture" for nothin'.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby 23 » Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:58 pm

I have a problem with the term controlled media.

It implies that the media is the victim of someone's manipulation.

And minimizes the culpability for their machinations.

Controlling, versus controlled, media is a lot more accurate, IMO.

But my own preferred term is propagandists anyway.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby thatsmystory » Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:53 pm

Defining deviancy down. Usually associated with public acceptance of crime (in the law and order sense) but can be applied to society wide tolerance of government corruption.

1.Two party dominance means that critique from outside this establishment is not considered. For example when the Democratic party fails to conduct proper investigations into torture then the issue is considered settled.

2.Media working hand in hand with the two party political establishment to sell the slide into deviance as acceptable. Any deviation from establishment consensus is marginalized.

The tolerance of corruption is one short step from the tolerance of right wing policies like HCR. It works the same way. Third party/aka public friendly policies are not up for debate. Advocates of singer payer are labeled fringe socialists/communists. The media makes sure that people like Michael Moore (Sicko) are labeled fringe America haters.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Simulist » Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:22 pm

Very true, thatsmystory.

The Democratic and Republican parties are indentured servants to the system. The system is not reformable by either party, ultimately — and cannot be — because both parties are slaves to it.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Sepka » Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:19 pm

Simulist wrote:That isn't what comes as a surprise. What come as a bit of a surprise is how eagerly the deception is still embraced.



The problem lies in the nature of mass democracy. The vast majority of citizens simply aren't fit, by nature or by education, to make reasonable decisions regarding the economy, foreign policy, etc. These people have to be kept engaged in the system to enable the western lifestyle to continue, and believing that they're helping to make the decisions keeps them engaged. The eagerness with which they embrace the deception demonstrates the necessity of it.
- Sepka the Space Weasel

One Furry Mofo!
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby 17breezes » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:09 pm

Sepka wrote:
Simulist wrote:That isn't what comes as a surprise. What come as a bit of a surprise is how eagerly the deception is still embraced.



The problem lies in the nature of mass democracy. The vast majority of citizens simply aren't fit, by nature or by education, to make reasonable decisions regarding the economy, foreign policy, etc. These people have to be kept engaged in the system to enable the western lifestyle to continue, and believing that they're helping to make the decisions keeps them engaged. The eagerness with which they embrace the deception demonstrates the necessity of it.


JUST the western lifestyle Sepka? I think not. I would argue it is an inevitable truism in all political systems and all that could ever be envisioned.
"Go back to Auschwitz" Humanitarian peace activists, 2010.
User avatar
17breezes
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Sepka » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:30 pm

17breezes wrote:JUST the western lifestyle Sepka? I think not. I would argue it is an inevitable truism in all political systems and all that could ever be envisioned.


I wouldn't disagree with that. I was speaking of the American system in particular, though, as that's what was under discussion.
- Sepka the Space Weasel

One Furry Mofo!
User avatar
Sepka
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby 17breezes » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:43 pm

Sepka wrote:
17breezes wrote:JUST the western lifestyle Sepka? I think not. I would argue it is an inevitable truism in all political systems and all that could ever be envisioned.


I wouldn't disagree with that. I was speaking of the American system in particular, though, as that's what was under discussion.



Ok thanks for the clarification.
"Go back to Auschwitz" Humanitarian peace activists, 2010.
User avatar
17breezes
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby Simulist » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:35 pm

Sepka wrote:The problem lies in the nature of mass democracy. The vast majority of citizens simply aren't fit, by nature or by education, to make reasonable decisions regarding the economy, foreign policy, etc. These people have to be kept engaged in the system to enable the western lifestyle to continue, and believing that they're helping to make the decisions keeps them engaged. The eagerness with which they embrace the deception demonstrates the necessity of it.


Horseshit.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby AlicetheKurious » Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:58 am

Sepka wrote:The problem lies in the nature of mass democracy. The vast majority of citizens simply aren't fit, by nature or by education, to make reasonable decisions regarding the economy, foreign policy, etc. These people have to be kept engaged in the system to enable the western lifestyle to continue, and believing that they're helping to make the decisions keeps them engaged. The eagerness with which they embrace the deception demonstrates the necessity of it.


Spoken like a true imbecile, exulting at the reckless gutting of the wealth of the United States and the world by a tiny minority of thugs to feed their insatiable greed, permanently destroying much of the planet in the process. I say "imbecile" because even the gluttonous and unsustainable "western lifestyle" which in your psycho mind makes it all "worth it" is a bubble ready to burst at any moment, sticking everyone else with the tab. How grotesque of you to describe as "reasonable" economic policies designed to reward parasitism, and a foreign policy based on bloody armed robbery and terrorism.

For some reason that sane people can't hope to fathom, you've chosen to identify in your squirmy little brain with the race of predatory sociopaths who gorge themselves at the expense of the vulgar rabble (i.e. humanity), as though that somehow elevates you to the ranks of the "fit", when on the contrary, it shows how utterly pathetic and useless you are, how 'unfit' to even participate in civilized discourse with human beings who are not spiritually and intellectually perverted as you have repeatedly shown yourself to be.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game

Postby justdrew » Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:20 pm

I don't buy this "they're both the same/parts of the same game" stuff. The democratic part is in effect the only major party in the US, the repugs are just a mafia/fascist org, not a political party. The problem with being the only major 'democratic' party is that the ranks get infiltrated and suckers keep electing "blue dog" DINOs to the extent that the party is effectively neutralized.

Obama has maybe four or five months to turn this shit around, is that likely? Just maybe, we'll see. I don't feel like his heart's in it, but perhaps, perhaps a master stroke is yet in preparation... it better be.... because if "we the people" loose this time there will be no more second chances, no plan b.

The Enthusiasm Gap
By Robert Reich - March 1, 2010, 1:51PM

I had dinner the other night with a Democratic pollster who told me Dems are heading toward next fall's mid-term elections with a serious enthusiasm gap: The Republican base is fired up. The Dem base is packing up.

The Dem base is lethargic because congressional Democrats continue to compromise on everything the Dem base cares about. For a year now it's been nothing but compromises, watered-down ideas, weakened provisions, wider loopholes, softened regulations. Health care went from what the Dem base wanted -- single payer -- to a public option, to no public option, to a bunch of ideas that the President tried to explain last week, and it now hangs by a string as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try to round up conservative Dems and a 51-vote reconciliation package in the Senate. The jobs bill went from what the base wanted -- a second stimulus -- to $165 billion of extended unemployment benefits and aid to states and locales, then to $15 billion of tax breaks for businesses that make new hires. Financial regulation went from tough new capital requirements, sharp constraints on derivate trading, a consumer protection agency, and a resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act - all popular with the Dem base -- to some limits on derivatives and a consumer-protection agency inside the Treasury Department and a rearrangement of oversight boxes, and it's now looking like even less. The environment went from the base's desire for a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade carbon auction then to a cap-and-trade with all sorts of exemptions and offsets for the biggest polluters, and now Senate Dems are talking about trying to do it industry-by-industry.

These waffles and wiggle rooms have drained the Democratic base of all passion. "Why should I care?" are words I hear over and over again from stalwart Democrats who worked their hearts out in the last election.

The Republican base, meanwhile, is on a rampage. It's more and more energized by its mad-as-hell populists. Tea partiers, libertarians, Birchers, birthers, and Dick Armey astro-turfers are channeling the economic anxieties of millions of Americans against "big government."

Technically, the Dems have the majority in Congress and could still make major reforms. But conservative, "blue-dog" Dems won't go along. They say the public has grown wary of government. But they must know the public hasn't grown even more wary of big business and Wall Street, on which effective government is the only constraint.

Anyone with an ounce of sanity understands government is the only effective countervailing force against the forces that got us into this mess: Against Goldman Sachs and the rest of the big banks that plunged the economy into crisis, got our bailout money, and are now back at their old games, dispensing huge bonuses to themselves. Against WellPoint and the rest of the giant health insurers who are at this moment robbing us of the care we need by raising their rates by double digits. Against giant corporations that are showing big profits by continuing to lay off millions of Americans and cutting the wages of millions of more, by shifting jobs abroad and substituting software. Against big oil and big utilities that are raising prices and rates, and continue to ravage the atmosphere.

If there was ever a time to connect the dots and make the case for government as the singular means of protecting the public from these forces it is now. Yet the White House and the congressional Dem's ongoing refusal to blame big business and Wall Street has created the biggest irony in modern political history. A growing portion of the public, fed by the right, blames our problems on "big government."

Much of the reason for the Democrats' astonishing reluctance to place blame where it belongs rests with big business's and Wall Street's generous flows of campaign donations to Dems, coupled with their implicit promise of high-paying jobs once Democratic officials retire from government. This is the rot at the center of the system. And unless or until it's remedied, it will be difficult for the President to achieve any "change you can believe in."

To his credit, Obama himself has not scaled back his health-care ambitions all that much, and he appears, intermittently, to want to push conservative blue-dog Dems to join him on a bigger jobs bill, tougher financial reform, and a more effective approach to global warming. (His overtures to Republicans seem ever more transparently designed to give blue-dog Dems cover to vote with him.)

But our President is not comfortable wielding blame. He will not give the public the larger narrative of private-sector greed, its nefarious effect on the American public at this dangerous juncture, and the private sector's corruption of the democratic process. He has so far eschewed any major plan to get corporate and Wall Street money out of politics. He can be indignant- as when he lashed out at the "fat cats" on Wall Street - but his indignance is fleeting, and it is no match for the faux indignance of the right that blames government for all that ails us.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests