|
CruelNUnsual -> RE: Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal (5/13/2009 10:22:00 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lorr47
CBS asked a talking head after Obama was regaled by a critic whether Obama should worry about such shots. He said that a solid 30% of this nation would never back Obama; hated him; wished an Obama failure and that Obama should simply ignore them. The other 70% appeared to the talking head as still backing Obama in varying degrees; would give Obama the benefit ot the doubt; felt Obama was trying which republicans were not doing; and were basically saying that it was too early to tell; four months in office is too early to leap to an conclusion. This is a conservative area and the worst I have illicited is "it is too early to tell" and "Ok, I guess."
Dick Durbin while criticizing both democrats and republicans noted that all republicans in the senate voted against an amendment and that it was impossible to tell why? However, Durbin did comment that the banking industry is by far still the most powerful lobby on the hill. Durbin felt that republicans may have an agenda, but darned if he knew what it was and had some questions whether republicans themselves knew what their agenda was. Charlie Munger the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet) called banks who lobbied against the amendment everything from venile (sic) to loathsome. The amendment would have allowed bankruptcy judges, in certain circumstances, to cram down home mortgages to the house's present fair market value. At the present time the banks after bankruptcy sell the property for its fair market value anyway. What irked most is that there already is the same cram down feature for ranches and cottages. Thus, the cram down feature already exists for the rich but not the John Doe home owner.
Of course, the whole new bankruptcy code came under scruntiny again. MBNA credit card company had donated $41 million to Bush's campaign about four years ago (how I do not know) and demanded a new bankruptcy code as repayment; favoring credit card indebtedness of course. Now, when orders for repayment come out of court it is not a unique event to see the first item that must be repaid are credit cards followed by child support and alimony. Many see that as ass backwards as to prioities.
Finally I saw a discussion of where Obama was heading in regard to health care. Obama's goal is a government plan in competition with private insurers. Since polling shows 130 million citizens would sign up, the present insurance cartel is fighting it tooth and nail. When asked what the republicans were doing in this regard, the uniform answer was that the republicans were not offering a single alternative plan; not one; not even a partial plan. However, republicans are vociferous in their opposition to Obama's plan.
It is difficult to criticize Obama when there is no alternative; or the so called alternative is in the lobbyists' hip pocket. Obama thus far has little to worry about.
Youve got the MBNA story fubar. Bush received $600k LIFETIME from MBNA. Meanwhile, Biden was co-sponsor of the MBNA bill and he received massive donations from them.
"
But as much as he bungled the issue, it turns out Clatworthy was on to something: Biden and MBNA have indeed developed a pretty cozy relationship. John Cochran, the company's vice-chairman and chief marketing officer, did pay top dollar for Biden's house, and MBNA gave Cochran a lot of money—$330,000—to help with "expenses" related to the move. A few months after the sale, as Biden's re-election effort got under way, MBNA's top executives contributed generously to his campaign in a series of coordinated donations that sidestepped the limits on contributions by the company's political action committee. And then, a short time after the election, MBNA hired Biden's son for a lucrative job in which, according to bank officials, he is being groomed for a senior management position.
Of course, lots of members of Congress have intimate ties to corporations in their states or districts. And lots of companies encourage their employees to make big campaign contributions (MBNA has given more to some Republicans than it gave to Biden). And certainly lots of children of influential parents end up in very good jobs. But the Biden case is troubling because all those ingredients come together in one man—along with a touch of hypocrisy. After all, this is a senator who for years has sermonized against what he says is the corrupting influence of money in politics. "
|
|
|
|
