Skip to main content

View Diary: A Pathological Moral Environment (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you're pulling your punches (30+ / 0-)

    Here's the reality:  in the last 50 years, the two Presidents who have been the best for Wall Street are Bill Clinton, who signed the Glass-Steagall repeal, and Barack Obama, who cannot and will not enforce the rule of law against the financial services industry.

    These entities have license for their behavior and a permanent get-out-of-jail free card, and the Democratic Party has played a large part in enabling them.  I do agree that the next crisis will be worse than 2008, and it won't only be financial--it will be political and social as well.

    I'm not opposed to anyone signing a petition, but my opinion is that withholding your vote and money means more than signing a petition, because signing a petition will be ignored.

    A terrible beauty is born. --W.B. Yeats

    by eightlivesleft on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:11:13 AM PDT

    •  Sure he can (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, figbash, mrkvica, chuckvw

      He just chooses not to, because it would be, like, HARD.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:20:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Jeffrey Sachs quote: (41+ / 0-)
      "The idea that the Republicans are for the billionaires and the Democrats are for the common man is quaint but outdated. It's more accurate to say that the Republicans are for Big Oil while the Democrats are for Big Banks. That has been the case since the modern Democratic Party was re-created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin."
      •  Does that mean, if we work to (4+ / 0-)

        elect more and better Democrats, we are working for more and better Big Banks?

      •  Longer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SixSixSix

        The split started around the middle of the 19th century, when the Banks were private empires run by a consortium of insiders with close personal ties often bound by intermarriage.  They were threatened politically by the rise of industrialists whose fortunes arose from manufacturing, most particularly steel and railways.  The bankers had long had a near-monopoly on the top positions of wealth and power due to their physical possession of large stocks of gold and the legal right to issue both loans and paper bills backed by fractional reserves.  In America the industrialists formed a new political party, allying themselves with the growing Abolitionist movement to provide them with a Cause that inspired votes from people who couldn't care less about a tug-of-war between two sets of rich bastards.  But from the beginning the Republican Party was owned by the industrial/military/mining interests, in opposition to the Old Money banking interests who continued to control the Democratic party in alliance with the southern planters.  

        The Civil War of course destroyed the southern plantation aristocracy and allowed the temporary ascendance of the industrialists, but the bankers fought back, bankrolling several large newspapers (the origins of the "liberal press" mythology; most newspapers in the 19th century were more propaganda organs than mercantile enterprises or unbiased sources of information).   The Republicans dominated American government from 1860-1913, but at last the Democrats (and thus the banks) managed to elect Woodrow Wilson.  Who immediately served the interests of the international trans-Atlantic bankers, by enacting the Federal Reserve Act which empowered an independent consortium of private bankers to control the US currency, and then embroiling the U.S. in WWI, most particularly by bankrolling both sides with the debt financing that would later cause both the Great Depression and WWII.

        So, yeah.  The Republicans originally represented the railroad magnates, the steel industry, the automobile manufacturers, and the mining companies while the Democrats represented the Banks and international merchants.  The Republicans were originally isolationist because their sources of wealth were entirely home-grown, until the gradual depletion of Texas oil forced them to look farther afield.  But they also liked military spending as heavy industry became increasingly necessary for modern weapons manufacture.  The Banks liked peace, but with lots of international trade that they could finance and collect interest on.  They also had deep historical connections and roots in Europe, as many of the banking families had originated there before the Colonies really took off.  Republican industrialists liked tariffs to protect their domestic markets; Democratic bankers liked "free trade" which gave them more financing opportunities without having to actually produce anything (bankers and merchant companies had started as pirates and commodity traders; they found the complexities of actually PRODUCING something far too risky).

        But just as the Republican Robber Barons found it useful to campaign on the side of the angels vis-a-vis slavery, the Democratic Banksters found it useful to support civil rights and environmental protection.  Their business doesn't directly depend on ripping holes in the Earth or spewing toxins into the air and water like the miners and drillers do.  And credit cards don't have skin color, just an interest rate, the higher the better.

        Sachs is right.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that either set of One Percenters is on your side, in the long run at least.

    •  Reagan should be on that list too (11+ / 0-)

      The move from pensions to 401k and 403b accounts in the market have both generated a ton of money for FS and moved the middle class substantially to the economic right by giving them a stronger shared interest in the system.

    •  because here's the key: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eightlivesleft, TracieLynn
      We have a corrupt politics to the core...and both parties are up to their necks in this. The corruption is as far as I can see everywhere. But what it's led to is this sense of impunity that is really stunning...and it very unhealthy. I have waited four, five years now to see one figure on Wall St. speak in a moral language and I've not seen it once.
      here's a link to a post I wrote in Feb 2012 called withholding my vote. 600 comments and most of them totally missed the point.

      the point is this: it's time to jettison brand politics and work the issues and help local and regional communities regain their footing with LEGAl ways to fight the corrupt system. Like states nullifying NDAA or finding ways to help foreclosed upon homeowners ... using grassroots to stop Nestle's taking over our water supplies.

      but we gotta stop wasting people's money, energy, and hope  in national professional politics, politicians, and Democrats.

      time to move the fuck on.

    •  DOJ refuses to prosecute sponsors of terrorism.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Praxical, eightlivesleft, TracieLynn

      The HSBC case involved that bank laundering money for all kinds of bad actors, including drug cartels whose body counts make Al Qaeda look like a schoolyard bully. And from what I understand they laundered money for people associated with AQ as well.

      If this administration can't even bring indictments in a case like that, there is no hope for them when it comes to justice for financial crimes. I'm not going to beg them to grow a conscience and do what is right. It's obvious they're a part of the corruption, and soon enough they'll all leave the public sector for their own slice of the action.

      I'm with you. Petitions and the like are not going to make a difference here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site