“Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”
Corporate donors tend to skew towards the side that is most likely to win. See the top Obama and McCain 2008 corporate donor list. Next, look up “crony capitalism” for a better explanation.
No cite handy, but I’ve read that sometimes they give to both sides, so the winner will owe them no matter who it is.
I’ve seen that too. Here are two links that are informative:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/democrats-and-republicans-sharing-b.html
Wait … you mean large corporations are amoral, convictionless entities looking to co-opt whomever is power regardless of political platform, in order use regulation as a means to squash competition? I am shocked and saddened.
I see it another way. I think a lot of those “pissed off” people are fairly pissed that Obama didn’t show up to support the recall…offering only a tweet in support. Those folks may not be so motivated to pull the lever for a President that is more concerned with saving face than looking out for his base.
I see this another way also. I think it could embolden Republican AND Democratic governors, mayors, etc. to play hardball with public unions and drag them back to the bargaining table with a little less fear.
They aren’t looking to “drag them back to the bargaining table”. They are looking to eliminate them from the bargaining table. Then, they can negotiate with themselves, struggle mightily, and reach an amicable agreement with themselves.
Really? Far more conservative billionaires than liberal millionaires? I’d like a cite for that assertion, please.
There are far more conservative billionaires than liberal billionaires.
I understand the tendency to try to grasp at trivialities when failing utterly at your arguments. But, c’mon. Let’s try and keep this at varsity level.
You’re missing the obvious. This is post Citizens United.
All powerful corporations make less money than they would because of regulations. I think that’s a fair statement. Now they are able to pour as much money as they want into a Super-PAC and try to manipulate elections.
One reason before CU they bet on both, is the bets were by necessity, small. Now, they can literally try to overwhelm the other-guy’s message with dollars.
And as to why they’d skew Republican? Because the side that wants to slash taxes and cut regulations is the side that will make them the most profitable.
It happens. Sometimes a man achieves his life’s goal of amassing wealth and then wonders why he spent the best years of his life doing it. Sometimes he resolves to do good in the world. Bill Gates, for instance, and his campaign to help eradicate malaria. I’ve taken back almost all the things I said about him, over the years. Except for Microsoft Bob.
As a general rule, though, only rats win rat races.
JPMorgan Chase head honcho Jamie Dimon, who just oversaw his company’s recent $2B derivative trading loss, was an Obama campaign contributor. Larry Summers, an Obama advisor, was influential in blocking regulation concerning derivatives trading.
I’m not Saying Romney wouldn’t cast an even blinder eye towards the problem, but Obama’s not exactly playing hardball with some guys who are “too big to fail”.
I think the result is bad for public-sector unions and good for the Democratic Party. As the size and power of these unions declines, they’ll no longer be able rule the Democratic Party with a rod of iron, and thus the Democratic Party will no longer have to forks over ever larger chunks of taxpayer money to the unions. The Democratic Party will then be able to take a sensible approach to government finances at the state and local level. They’ll be able to pay for things that ordinary people want and perhaps even cut taxes. This will make the Democratic Party more popular and successful.
Obama’s training is in law, not finance. If my president doesn’t know the ins and outs of quantum mechanics, I expect him to consult experts, not wing it and improvise. And part of the trouble is that the only experts in the field are beholden to it. And another part is that if something is too big to fail, its too big. But that doesn’t mean you can take drastic action.
And, of course, Obama is largely a Clintonista centrist. Radical thought, radical action give him the willies.
You act like one must choose between doing good and making money. In reality, someone who has amassed a fortune has done good, as evidenced by the fortune (with exceptions for Madoff, lottery winners, heirs, and other such folks who make up only a tiny minority of wealthy people) .
Like I said in an earlier thread, this is a blip and its effects will quickly deteriorate. Political pundits are paid to over-analyze this stuff. Wisconsin is its own state, I live in California, the Wisconsin election will have zero impact here.
There are legal ways to make money which do not “do good,” which is not a concept defined by meeting market demand. Some companies make money by selling cigarettes. Some people make money just by acquiring real estate and sitting on it until it appreciates in value or somebody wants to build on it. Speculation of any kind does little good.
Nope. Making money is de factor evidence that value was provided to someone. Providing value to people qualifies as doing good IMHO.
Well, that’s true, but then you are ignoring the fact that a third party may be affected and those costs may not be fully incorporated. For example, you could give me $10,000 to kill your arch-enemy, Liberal Tree-hugger Bizarro Rand Rover. Value may be provided to you, but not so much to your arch-enemy. Value =/= good.