Let's see if the Dems put a halt to swap derivatives.

Schumer and the dems has accepted thousands of dollars from Madoff over the last ten years. Now we know why the Senate allowed the bonuses and buy outs to execs. Not to mention Obama's reversal to lobbyist money.

Schumer gets 1.65 million in one pop?

There will be nothing to stop Wall Street from pulling the bullshit they pulled last September 2008.

The swaps will continue.

There are so many crooks and so little time.

Yet these same Senators want us to trust them with Healthcare Reform? Laughable.

They are the ones who screwed up the financial industry and health care and then have the nerve to tell us they are the only ones who can fix it!!

They're all on the take in the Senate. Doesn't matter which party. There are very few who could stand up and deny they haven't pushed legislation through to benefit their buddies on Wall Street which is then repaid via campaign donations. Republicans were some of the worst when it came to taking care of the financial thugs on Wall Street but the Democrat Senators like Schumar, Reid, and particularly Chris Dodd are right up there in the scoundral category.

Why do we keep electing these crooks into office? And doesn't the Senate believe in an Ethics Committee or is that just a joke?

Why do we keep electing these crooks into office? And doesn't the Senate believe in an Ethics Committee or is that just a joke?

#6 | Posted by CalifChris

Maybe "we" don't.
Maybe they have bought their elections with the money they've received?

I think you're right, Sluggo. They've been bought and paid for by those with a lot more influence than either of us will likely ever have.

"Why do we keep electing these crooks into office?"

Because our two party system has done a great job of making constituencies believe that the other party's candidate would be much worse.

Wall Street Money Rains On Schumer, Reid, Dodd And More!

Wall Street has showered nearly $11 million on the Senate since the beginning of the year, and more than 15 percent of it has gone to a single senator: Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer's $1.65 million take from the financial services industry is nearly twice that of any other senator's and more than five times what the industry gave to any single Republican senator.

Posted by MURPHY at 09:55 PM

MURPHY, do you have a problem when all politicians take money or only when it's democrats? Wouldn't that be admitting your acceptance that the GOP is more corrupt and thus expected to legislate according to the highest bidder? Do you think corporation's political investments (contributions) are protected by first amendment? I'm just trying to understand the extent of your hypocrisy.

Mmmmm....money.....

MURPHY, do you have a problem when all politicians take money or only when it's democrats? Wouldn't that be admitting your acceptance that the GOP is more corrupt and thus expected to legislate according to the highest bidder? Do you think corporation's political investments (contributions) are protected by first amendment? I'm just trying to understand the extent of your hypocrisy.

#10 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2009-09-29 03:16 AM | Flag: Deflecting; Only has a problem when it's repubs; Hypocritical

#10 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Darth--

No politician should be allowed to take any money from anyone personally.

Any contributions should be pooled together and divided equally between all politicians running in that cycle.

There should be term limits for all.

There are term limits for the POTUS--so to for the House and the Senate...

So how is your hypocrisy?

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
The other party's candidate is much worse. It is just true for both parties, and at the same time.

Three words: Campaign Finance Reform.

"Three words: Campaign Finance Reform."

Two words: Corporate personhood

When it comes to money everybody's politics is the the same.

Put 'em all in Nascar uniforms so we can see who their sponsors are!

And do you want to know something else? The Demorats are in the pockets of the ambulance chasers(trial lawyers association). It is genreally accepted by health care industry analysts that tort reform needs to be a part of health care reform. Why is it not going to happen on a large scale? Because the Demorats (slick Johnny Edwards ring a bell) would have a panty fit. The Demorats would not let tort reform see the light of day. Oh sure, they may roll out some bogus trial tort reform in idaho on a small scale-for the sole reason of declaring it a miserable failure. Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you, brabra boxer and teddy(deddy)k are there for the average joe sixpack. That is why Demorats suck up all that special interest money.

Now we know why the Senate allowed the bonuses and buy outs to execs.

I thought it was because all you righties were whining about any pay or bonus controls being commie-nazi interference with God's Plan for the economy.

Sucking and blowing-the Republican way

Three words: Campaign Finance Reform.

Three words: Communist socialist naziism.
If you can't afford to buy a politician, stay out of the game.

The Right

Can we just acknowledge that these "contributions" are "payola" just like the shopkeepers pay the mob not to break the store window in the night. These companies are scared to death of this government and want to be at the table, and not "on the plate" when all is said and done. Our government has such power and so much of our money to spread around that it has become a criminal enterprise. Add the fact that our so-called leaders never look to the Constitution for its limits or vision and this country is on a course for total implosion politically and economically.

red, blue, white, black, same shit, different color.

There are no real liberals in power nor media.

Not one.

Good. It's about time some of this money went full circle. At least liberals will give some back.

Not even a bad try at a deflection NG3. When you can't talk facts (most of the time in your case) you try to insult the other side.

What you mean most all those goldman sachs people were/are dems? Madoff was a dem? Barney Frank controlled fannie mae?

What's the matter dude, can't you tell us what you really think?

Good. It's about time some of this money went full circle. At least liberals will give some back.

#25 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-09-30 03:18 AM | Reply | Flag

Do the research on who gives more to charity, Sparky.

Why do we keep electing these crooks into office? And doesn't the Senate believe in an Ethics Committee or is that just a joke?

Don't think there's much "we" involved when half the country who could vote, didn't. Sad really, but when there's an expectation of getting assfucked either way you vote, there's not much incentive to bother.

Is this administration really any better than the last, not really, just different problems that affect things differently.

Personally I'm jaded, I have no confidence and trust in a Govt who's general purpose has changed from leaving us to pursue the american dream, to becoming Govt Mommy who does nothing but try to "protect us from ourselves" and using that to justify the expense.

Thats bullshit.

I was wondering why the fed was saying the recession was over, now I know....the wheels are being greased again.

Loh

"Three words: Campaign Finance Reform."

Obama will get around to suggesting that again... some time around 2014.

I'm reminded of an old adage: "reformers are the greatest scoundrels of them all" and so it is with any so-called reforms. The only meaningful reform is to stop spending the money we do not have and have a full transparency of their actions. No wonder the politicians want to keep doing reforms (any kind=$) and not to divulge too many details of their nebulous activities.

It is up to the voters to clean this mess-we deserve the government we get.

Instead of finance reform --and the fight with an "activist" SC over "money=speech")-- let's just tax the shit out of campaign donations.

Any political donation over $100 gets hit with a 90% rate right off the top. Rather than donations being deductable for the donor, let's double the tax liability on blood-money. If you wanna donate 1 million, then the IRS can claim 2 million in taxable earnings on your (or your companies) return. The politician pays a tax on the gift; the donor pays double the tax on his bribe in income taxes. You want to "support your country" by buying issue ads attacking the other party, fine, pay the tax.

Soft money would disappear overnight. Big companies, law firms, investment banks et.al. that give the limit for every employee on the books would soon find their secretaries and butlers less willing to let their boss strike a check in their name if they'll be on the hook for the tax come April.

IS THIS ALL

WHEW

arent we fortuanate that the twat pelosi has "Cleaned the swamp' that was the culture of corruption in congress..

just think what they would be getting if not for her.

AND PERFect place for tease

OBAMA AIDS SET TO MAKE MILLIONS OFF OLYMPICS!!!!!!!!!

story at 11

"Three words: Campaign Finance Reform."

Obama will get around to suggesting that again... some time around 2014.

#29 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-30 08:54 AM

That soon?
#34 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

LOL. I guess that's only if he's just thinking about himself and his chances for re-election.

Why do we keep electing these crooks into office? And doesn't the Senate believe in an Ethics Committee or is that just a joke?

A government that steals for voters, also steals from voters. Larcenious voters can't make the connection.

MURPHY, do you have a problem when all politicians take money or only when it's democrats?

#10 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

I thought it was the big, bad GOP that was bending to the big money on wall street.

When wall street is taking all our money along with the bail-out cash and we are having a great big recession someone needs to call BS. Do you have a problem with that?

Do the research on who gives more to charity, Sparky.

Do the research and see who gives more money to rich bankers, insurance companies and weapons manufactures. Now, compare that amount to how much they gave to charity, Mr. Fuzzymath.

OBAMA AIDS SET TO MAKE MILLIONS OFF OLYMPICS!!!!!!!!!

Gee, and who says bringing home the bacon doesn't buy elections. Funny though, I read today that half the city is opposed to the Olympics in the windy city. Guess which half.

The little o's handler is the one who has a lock on the land where it's going to be.

Let's see if the Dems put a halt to swap derivatives.

#1 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-09-28 10:00 PM

Doubfut.

They are as corrupt as the rtards.

Then sniper you haven't been listening. Most ALL the blueblood firms have been dem backers FOR YEARS.

dave, I know that but the libs always cry that the republicans are the big money party and the dems are for the working man. What a bunch of crap.

It was always a big load of manure from the Dems.

And don't get me started on the bailouts--that was a bunch of bs too.

Bush said he was a free market guy but had to set those principles aside to save the free market!

HA--BS!!!

And because of him and Paulsen and Thimmy they set all this in motion for what Obama is eclipsing.

And Ring--

Let us know when the Dems give back any of that contribution money--ok?

Let us know when the Dems give back any of that contribution money--ok?

Dems aren't that stupid. They just give back other people's money. Like yours.

Schumer and the dems has accepted thousands of dollars from Madoff over the last ten years. Now we know why the Senate allowed the bonuses and buy outs to execs. Not to mention Obama's reversal to lobbyist money.

#2 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-09-28 10:18 PM

Schumer represents a big part of the problem and is a shill for Wall Street shysters. The Dems talk a good game but compensation caps and regulation actions will never occur.

Ask yourself what US Senator was most likely to have intervened on Madoff's behalf with his Markopolus problem with the SEC? The SEC didn't shutdown this Madoff investigation on their own. Someone like Schumer and others had it shut down. It was covered up.

Do the research on who gives more to charity, Sparky.

Do the research and see who gives more money to rich bankers, insurance companies and weapons manufactures. Now, compare that amount to how much they gave to charity, Mr. Fuzzymath.

#38 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-09-30 01:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Fuzzymath?" Let's go back to your statement, then. Just exactly who are you expecting the liberals to "give some back" to? I wrongly assumed you meant charity, not business.

For that matter:
1) The current Administration is pretty big on giving away plenty of money to all sorts of rich corporate types
2) Rich corporate types (believe it or not!) can be Democrat or Liberal or Limousine Liberal if you like.
3) I don't see defense contractors going hungry in Iraq or Afghanistan, do you? Hey by the way, what ever happened to Halliburton, KBR and Blackstone?