EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Biggest Criminal Enterprise in History
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
Popular content
Today's Top News
Roll Call of Shame on 'Too Big to Fail'
Last week, by an astonishingly wide margin, the Senate voted down a bill sponsored by Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman that would have limited the size of financial institutions.
No more too big to fail, they proposed. Let's chop them down to size before they bring the economy down with them once more. Their bill would have forced the six largest banks in the country to sell off part of their business, since it would have capped nondeposit liabilities of each bank at 2% of GDP.
Well, the vote on "The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010" was 61 against, 33 in favor. And get this: A whopping 27 Democratic Senators sided with the big banks on this crucial vote.
Here's the roll call of shame:
Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
Michael Bennet
Thomas Carper
Kent Conrad
Chris Dodd
Dianne Feinstein
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kay Hagan
Daniel Inouye
Tim Johnson
John Kerry
Amy Klobuchar
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Frank Lautenberg
Claire McCaskill
Robert Menendez
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Jack Reed
Chuck Schumer
Jeanne Shaheen
Jon Tester
Mark Udall
Mark Warner
Several of these Senators, like Conrad and Tester, pretend to be progressive populists.
Schumer and Dodd pretend to be leaders on financial reform.
And John Kerry?
"Wall Street won and the American people lost," said Mary Bottari, director of the Real Economy Project for the Center for Media and Democracy. The bill was "the single best way to prevent the growth of ‘too big to fail' firms that threaten to collapse the global economy," she said. And it was "the single best way to protect taxpayers from future bailouts."
As Dick Durbin, who voted in favor of this legislation, said of Congress a while back: The banks "frankly own the place."
They own it, and they subdivide it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show AllYou've said it all. It's all about brand loyalty. There was a story last week in the SF Chronicle about a homeless person with an I-Phone. Picture Henry Fonda as Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath driving west in his banged up clunker with a Harley-Davidson plate on the front and a cup from Starbucks in his hand.
Ridiculous comment, missing the point completely. Brand loyalty is when consumers stick to the same brand out of habit, or simple preference.
These politicians get huge amounts of $$$ from the big banks and individuals connected to them. They're loyal to the $$$, not the brand. They would all jump to another doner in a New York second if the money dried up for whatever reason.
Brand loyalty applies to people who have always bought Chevies and somehow don't feel like trying something else.
This is simply a case of being bought out, and therefore serving those that give the $$$ as opposed to their constituents.
Actually, I am not so sure there isn't a connection between the power of corporations and brand loyalty on the part of the populace. Advertising and promotion support the reputation, recognition, prestige, and sales of the brand. This ultimately leads to profits that can be used to persuade politicians to vote according to the corporation's interests and help the corporation achieve an advantage through legislation or rule making and thus more profits. Branding gurus talk about brand personality and carefully construct an image for the products and the company. Not only are both Republicans and Democrats funded, companies also buy up premium, formerly independent, and mass brands so they can show more than one face to the world and tap into different markets.
A lot of the money goes for advertising during campaigns that brands candidates (and goes into the pockets of the media). We would all do well to resist the power of branding over us and boycott the "bad" brands. Branding directs enormous time/effort as money into iphones and similar frou-frou at the expense basic shelter, food, and public space for real face to face meetings.
But the 'brand loyalty' is marketed to the consumer, or voter. Check out Naomi Klein's comments on 'brand Obama'
Nice summary. And when the political races fire up this fall again, the Democrats will be saying vote for us because we are better than the other side; while much of the public will fall for the charade once again; because M$M doesn't expose the parties for what they are (as you summarized).
Yes, and guys like Rothschild will be using their "progressive" publications to demean, diminish, and dismiss any Indy candidate who dares challenge the Dems claim to progressive votes - the reason I refuse to renew my subscription to his publication.
These are the same people who will be coming after your social security and Medicare/Medicaid very soon now. Just read Thomas Freidman (the corporate rat himself) in this weekends NYT,
Amazing how all the idiots that brought us to the brink, #1 still have their jobs and #2 are telling us what needs to be done to fix their clusterfuck. What is wrong with this here picture?
When mainstream economists like MIT's Simon Johnson think these banks need to be broken up, its not a lefty fring idea:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/760
Johnson, here and in his book, 13 bankers, is basically saying that, left at their current size, the banks WILL take the US economy down AGAIN. You can bet on it (the banks are).
ubrew12: I am currently reading Simon Johnson's book, 13 Bankers. I agree -- he believes that there will be another crash, and probably sooner, rather than later. With each interview I watch, he seems more intense and worried. And, still, no financial reform from our misrepresentatives. Last weekend, I watched Simon Johnson on BookTV on C-SPAN. More than likely, anyone who wants to, can go to BookTV and search for the lecture. He also answers quite a few questions from the audience.
If anyone wants an inside view into the men who brought down Wall Street, our economy and the world economy, I recommend Scott Patterson's book, The Quants. These men are sociopaths on the move -- always needing more. The author takes one high-roller at a time, revealing their background and their influences. Most Quants had one influence in common -- Ed Thorp's book, Beat the Dealer. At the conclusion of the book, I arrived at a distinct feeling that Scott Patterson, too, thinks there will be another crash. The Quants are back at work, creating new "exotic products" to sell to the public as I am writing this post.
ubrew; Thanks for the link to the MIT video link!
Thanks. I've definitely heard of The Quants. I'll check it out.
Writing as long suffering constituent of Senator Diane Feinstein (who is the acme of a corporate Democrat), I am sad to opine that this is not surprising at all from her.
Her post-1978 political career is one of the truly tragic and long-lasting unintended side effects of Dan White's assassination of Harvey Milk and George Moscone; either one of whom would have more than likely been a much better senator than Feinstein.
Corporate and Congressional EGOs may be 'Too Big to Fail' but this Nation is NOT!
This is TREASON up with which we must not put!
"too big to fail" = socialism for the rich
That is, a corporation will not fail, i.e. lose money, and if it does then the American tax payer will reimburse the investors.
This is gross, anti-democratic, anti-capitalists and the weapon of mass destruction in the class war.
There is a class war, it started in the 1980s. The rich have been winning every battle. It's time to change this lopsided country that attacks the middle class and nonchalantly takes away their economic viability. This can not endure.
The Senate, no term limits, two per state and 100 total.
70 percent of the country's population is in 18 states,
goggle it.
So 70 percents of the country's money and power only has 36 votes out of 100 in the Senate.
Nothing wrong with that system.
The Senate, no term limits, two per state and 100 total.
70 percent of the country's population is in 18 states,
goggle it.
So 70 percents of the country's money and power only has 36 votes out of 100 in the Senate.
Nothing wrong with that system.
Yeah, I'm 60-years-old and I remember when most the so-called pubic, er, I mean public servants, in the senate had dark hair. Now these same sellouts have white hair. They're like herpes. Once you get it, you can't get rid of it.
The Democrats on this list must also believe their "doing God's work. Getting compensated with lots of $$$ to betray the people they're supposed to be working for and not getting fired on the spot must make them feel like God.
Can you imagine going to work and telling your boss that he/she needs to borrow and hand over $2 TRILLION to the President of Money Operations so that he/she can hand-it-over to a secretive group of people/businesses in order to save the company?
I dont' know about you, but I'm feeling betrayed by my government servants(serpents)who think they're doing God's work.
This is a good and helpful article, one that reveals the corporate Democrats in the world's most corrupt legislature among established "democracies."
Solutions?
We need a another constitutional convention, and this time make the system democratic instead of being an 18th century four-headed monster with a vastly disproportionate Senate, corrupted by money.
There's more than one Smith and more than one Rothschild. In addition, some people turn away from the family money and support economic equality. kassandrasduplex, please, think before you write!
Here's is my problem with this article: There is no link to the votes! I want to go and see:
1. What dems voted in favor?
2. How did the Repiglican vote breakdown?
I don't have time to track this down, if someone does, please post. It's irresponsible journalism to not link to sources, but that's what we get today...