- ‹ previous
- 2343 of 8831
- next ›
The Money Behind the Bailout Vote
According to Maplight.org, House members who voted for the bailout received 54 percent more money from banks and securities firms than members who voted against it. The nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group has also broken down the average donation from those sectors, based on lawmakers' bailout stances and party affiliations:
All House Members//// Average Amount Received
Voting Yes................................$231,877
Voting No..................................$150,982
Democrats
Voting Yes................................$212,700
Voting No..................................$107,993
Republicans
Voting Yes................................$273,181
Voting No..................................$181,688
Republicans who opposed the bill are thought to have done so because they're rabid free market ideologues. So why hasn't the Street showered these guys with money in the past? Were they actually pro-regulation? (I doubt it). Are they simply marginal members of their party? Or is pure free market evangelism scary even to Wall Street? My bet's on the last one, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. (Also, money might not explain everything)
The other interesting detail in these numbers is the small difference in donations to anti-bailout Republicans compared to pro-bailout Democrats (only about $30,000). It's not that Wall Street doesn't like free marketers; it's just a bit wary of anything in the extreme. Or to put it another way, it practices risk aversion at the ballot box. Just not enough of it; obviously, that GOP stock ain't so hot now.
So why hasn't the Street showered these guys with money in the past? Were they actually pro-regulation? (I doubt it). Are they simply marginal members of their party? Or is pure free market evangelism scary even to Wall Street? My bet's on the last one...
Yeah. My bet would be on the latter too, given that big business interests have, for well over a century, lobbied FOR regulation of their industry, because they can craft legislation that hampers small, upstart competitors and secure their own positions of dominance.
All they have to do is get the people in Congress to sell the deal as regulation to protect the little guy and controls the business' activities, while it's true aim is nothing of the sort.
They have an easy time of it, selling the "we're protecting you" line of B.S.
We've got tons of laws and regulations that creat just exactly that sort of "preferred provider" business climate, and we've been led to believe they're on the books to protect US.
67% of Republicans voted NO. These people are the party, not the 33% that voted for fascism. Core Republican values are against fascism and big government and deficit spending. Bush is a big spending liberal Neocon. The Neocons are not the party. We are throwing them out with prejudice. The party will be rebuilt without the Troskyites(they can go to the Democratic party, where they came from).
This is one of the best little pieces of info I've seen on the vote. Explains a lot. It's embarrassing, actually. I think I'll send it with a note to my Congressmember, asking why he voted yes.
This is a problem. And the solution? TERM LIMITS!!!
Till congress is subject to term limits, our senators and reps just get deeper and deeper into the pickets of special interest.
Bush is a "Trotskyist"!!! As an admirer of Trotsky, I suspect you don't know politics from a hill of beans.
Although ideological confusion is a hallmark of right wing thinking. They cannot figure out 'what' people are, so they just throw names around - Communist, Fascist, Trotskyite (A Stalinist veriation), neo-con, liberal, like they are 'swear' words, and don't have precise, specific meanings.
Form of know-nothingism. Try again.