This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Reader Submission: Letter To Senator Schumer "A Vote For Ben B. Is A Vote Against You"

Tyler Durden's picture





 

A disgruntled reader shares his letter to his Senator, Chuck Schumer.


A vote for Ben B. is a vote against you

What could he have done to help out the hurting people of America ?

1. Put his foot down when they Jacked our Credit Cards rate to 30% (I have never missed a payment and I pay more then the minimum  payment.
2. Put his foot down on GS, MS, JPM buying tankers full of oil and parking them all over the world. There's enough oil tankers full of oil to block the English channel,thats 26 miles or tankers (Lets put more money in the hands of Terrorists)
3. Audit the Fed, what is he hiding? How many Detroit and Cleavland Crack Houses does he own(or should it be WE OWN). He bought these for what Wall Street said they were worth, you know we got screwed on that deal!

Its not getting any better here, Unemployment is not coming down, its going up. Look at the money the US. Government pays out every month for UI benefits it's going up at a rate 20%+ a month (That figure is an Understatement)

I have been working all my life, for the last 25 years as a Industrial Electrician making over $80,000 a year, now I can't find a job. All I have to look Forward to is to see if I Quality for the $3000 Welfare tax credit on my 2009 income taxes so I can pay my State and local property taxes.

The only thing he is doing is causing TRADER INFLATION, let see how far we can run the price up on food, gas and heat and if we blow ourselves up, it won't be the first time OH-WELL (if we don't we can keep the money.)

I have never voted Against the Democrats in my life, BUT I WILL THIS TIME just like the people of Mass. did last week.

Its your time to stick up for the people of New York State and this country we call home. I will be watching to see what you do for us.

The people of America are to the breaking point and if we snap how long do you think Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo will last if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards.

I don't know if you will see this letter, I hope you do.

Thank You

Angelo

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:03 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Angelo welcome.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:18 | Link to Comment QuantTrader
QuantTrader's picture

Right on Angelo.  

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:19 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:02 | Link to Comment simone
simone's picture

How true that we have another liberal moron here.  If only we had a Republican to sell weapons to Iran like Reagan or a petty, paranoid burglar like Nixon, or how about a war mongering criminal like Bush II.  At least Reagan got rid of Jimmy Carter's Fed Chairmen, Volcker, and we need to think Ford for not prosecuting Nixon. Yes thank goodness for republicrats.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:42 | Link to Comment Stevm30
Stevm30's picture

Agree.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:26 | Link to Comment andrew123
andrew123's picture

I think it is unfortunately over.  The republicans seem intent on making this a biparty disaster.  Thanks, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander and Orin Hatch.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:26 | Link to Comment mikla
mikla's picture

Interesting letter, as I'm getting the impression it is representative of public mood.

It's clear Angelo is relatively informed (e.g., knows who is Bernanke, understands "trader inflation", is aware of parts of the current political process).

However, something I've never really understood:  Despite being a relatively smart and successful guy (industrial electrician), Angelo "never voted against the Democrats in [his] life".

While I agree with most Americans in that I'm not happy with either party, the parties are not the same, and it doesn't make sense to me why even smart people have historically voted themselves into oblivion.  You've got to be crazy trying to start a business in Michigan or New York or California or New Jersey, specifically because of the hostile policies against you.  Yet, these states don't seem to understand that this is a mess they have themselves created.

Weird.  I understand populist "gimme" (when times are good) and populist "rage" (when times are bad), and we're clearly getting some of that.  However, I would have guessed Angelo better understood cause-and-effect to not vote the suffering onto himself for the past few decades.

Since this is apparently the first time he's voted against his party, then clearly my understanding is faulty.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:32 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:32 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

I think a huge number of people approach voting and politics the same way they approach religion.  It makes no sense to them, but their parents and a large part of their society growing up beat into their heads that one way was right and all other ways were wrong, so they continue doing what they were told to do.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:53 | Link to Comment jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

I sure hope you don't mean dem policies over the past few decades.  The reason our business's are failing isn't because of higher minimum wage, or ANY REGULATION ON THE BOOKS IN AMERICA. 

 

The reasons those states are doing bad is because they are manufacturing states.  You know the ones we all outsourced.  The ones we didn't are now competing against everyone making 1 dollar an hour.  That's why those businesses aren't doing well.  Free trade, low taxes and tarriffs. 

 

Mostly brought to you by the republican party.

 

I've voted 99 percent dem in my life, (unless there was no dem in which I generally would pick a libertarian)

 

I voted that way because simply put, I don't believe gay's will take over the world. I don't believe a minimum wage is bad, in fact having one HELPS ALL BUSINESSES because their workers can afford to buy and consume more, which is what businesses are there to provide, a serivce or product that is to be consumed.

 

Republicans have been for rigging the game against the little guy.  Republicans believe in trickle down economics, which is a scam. 

 

The list could literally go on and on, and on and on. 

 

It's just too bad we've had the right wing republicans and the center-right democrat party since, oh about my whole life, and well before my 18th birthday ('96).   Right now we have 2 republican parties, which would be the ONLY reason why I would vote against a dem now.  Like Repulican Obama.  If repubs don't like the way Obama is running things, it's funny, because he's basically a republican, just like Clinton. (oh there's social differences, but not when it comes to wall street. 

 

Again, no one wants republicans in office, they want change, which republicans cannot and will not ever give them.  They'll even put a republican in charge, just to prove that point.  Scott Brown is also unlike any other republican in office.  He's much more like the dems today.  See that he wants healthcare, and the issue about 'the gays' as well.

 

The michelle bachmans that make up the current republican party are history. Which means all of the republican party pretty much is history.  But they'll make a comeback, when the dems don't change, as they won't.

 

Then the people will they put even more clueless people in office, like many realized before hand, and if you think you've seen tea party activists now? Just wait when the tea party is in office, but the tea parties are still going on.  Stupid republicans are those that think the current upswell is about them and their conservative ideas...and monkees might fly out of my butt.

Then we'll be at 2012, obama hasn't changed, the congress is either republican controlled or close and 2012 will make 1968 look TAME. 

Whoever is in power, needs to change things.  The republican, by definition, CAN'T.  That's the truth.  Repulican's can't change.  Only Ron Paul can, and even then he's not the guy you want.  His viewpoint is too abstract, he thinks you can cut social safety nets 50+ years after they were started, almost a hundred years after the fed was created, and a whole generation or two of the Wall Street debacle we are currently in and think things will get back to normal if only you ended it all.  That's asinine, and why Ron Paul is the wrong guy.  Even if I can completely support him on many issues, it's the rest that come along for the ride that would destroy him and us. 

 

You have to take much of Ron Paul's approach and marry it with what say a Kucinich or LaRouche say to do.  They have the answers, and won't let people starve. That's the change people are waiting for.  Even if they don't realize it's right in front of them, and has been for each of the past two presidential elections.  It's there, and has been.  Obama can say no, Boener/McConnell/Bachmann can say no.  But the only ones that will say no will be those at the ballot box.  The only reason any of these candidates might be re-elected is that their consituency hasn't produced a competent alternative candidate.

 

Until we have quality candidates for both parties in the Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich traditions (or I should say Lincoln/FDR traditions) battling it out on which is the best way, no fed and safety nets, or no fed and no safety nets, then we won't be addressing much of the issues, and the people will get more pissed off.  Because this economy will never recover because the system is toast. Wish on a star all you want, but we're either headed toward where we need to go or destruction.  Right now we're solely headed for destruction because we won't change.  The people that run both parties are going to lose big to any stiff with a heartbeat that promises real change.  The dumb vote, generally considered republican, will think they are voting for change, and really be voting for pre 2008 policies of low taxes, cronyism, and everything against gays and immigrants.  At least us dems were hoodwinked by Obama, who was promising the change we wanted.  Or most of it.  He just completely lied to us and gave us nothing.  The republicans running on change, are idiots, who think cookie cutter changes equal real change.  I'm going to laugh (and maybe cry) at how bad the repubs are going to be in office once they get in charge again.  Because they'll make Obama look like Einstein, even if we think Obama is an idiot

 

Neither of the parties are ready for change.  So we won't have it.  It's going to take 50 million people marching in the streets, and events that lead that many to do so, for things to change.  It's going to be the intense pressure of almost every incumbent losing for either party dems probably 2010 and maybe 2012, republicans for sure in 2014, definintely 2012 if they retake the congress or 1 section of it in 2010.

 

It's very sijple, either we roll back the last 40 years of lasseiz faire, trickle down economics, globalization-free trade-imperialsim, or we self destruct ourselves.  I've seen this destructive policy my whole life, and that's why I've voted dem.  Clinton and Obama, these DINO's, have only continued pushing such a destructive policy started by Repubs, and one I've criticized both dems for.   Overall though, it isn't the dem movement about to break, it's the repubs.  Only because they're about to ride a wave of populism they have no idea, no policy, nor desire to fulfill, and that everybody, will piss them off 10x more than they currently are against the dems.

 

The dems are cracking too, but only the ones that are leaning 'right', or going with 'less change'.  The liberal ones, with liberal views, and desire to change, will be there after 2010, 2012, 2014, and so on, guaranteed.

 

And don't say something about 'stupid', we as a nation ARE stupid, otherwise this wouldn't of happened to us.  It only took 40-100 years for this to happen. It took all the greed is good, it's my money viewpoint, Gordon Gecko types to get us here.  It took all the focus on gay's, instead of 'should we be in Iraq'.  It was all the 'give takes breaks to the rich and they'll hire more...cough invest in more derivatives at a higher leverage * cough.  Again the stupidest way we are stupid, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich have been telling of the problems for a very long time, yet 80 percent of those that are pissed, either haven't heard of either, or are still in denial that we need it.  That's stupid. 

 

I'm drowning in the ocean, whoa is me, meanwhile there are 10 life preservers within arm's reach all around him.  All involving problems we clearly saw coming.  That's stupid, ad that's where we are.

 

So again, it's not the "I only vote dem" to be complaining about, in many ways it should be commended. Because if you've voted for dems your whole life, and have been voting since the 70's or later, you've been voting for change your whole life...and haven't gotten it.  As much of it wasn't dems fault, now with Obama, it is- that's the difference.

 

I can understand the switch, and it's perfectly reasonable.  The guy has been voting for change, and hasn't gotten it.  When has a republican voted for change? 1980? They got it.  Although the trend started almost a decade earlier and controls us like a iron fist today.  Unlike repubs, dems get pissed off easy when their party betrays them.  Republicans will look the other way, even when they are doing the exact opposite of their ideal -see entire term of George W. Bush.

 

Us dems? We want change so badly, we'll trash Obama within 1 year for not changing enough. 

 

If the repubs think they can survive that kind of scrutiny, they're crazier than Jack Nicholson in One who Flew over the Cuckoo's nest.  They've never, EVER had it.  They have no tools to deal with it, and god forbid they do anything that makes sense beyond greed or being scared of gays or immigrants.

 

You guys really want to congress and presidency back?  I'll laugh and cry at the feeble attempts to govern ANYTHING at this point.  You can't, never could, never did.  It was all market fantasy these past 40 years.  Without it, the realities of the scum repubs are pushing would have hit and been rejected in no time.  But with the fake markets of the past 40 years, the complacency of people, or a certain group of people, allowed it to be. 

 

That is not the world today, and will never be again.  Good luck running things when times are tough. A monkey could of governed when the repubs did and been fine.  As long as the winds of the 40 year market imbalance was at your back, you needn't do anything else put play to people's emotions.  That won't work any more.  Good luck.

 

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:31 | Link to Comment Bear_Cub
Bear_Cub's picture

Maybe we should have an essay submission portal on ZH to clear up space for COMMENTS.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:23 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:49 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 02:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 02:30 | Link to Comment faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Well your moronic namecalling almost convinced me, but no, you're still wrong.

The only people who need to work for free are the ones who don't do any work. If a person's work is needed, it will be paid for. Same as anything else in this world.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:03 | Link to Comment DonnieD
DonnieD's picture

It may be stupid but it's true in many instances.

The problem is a government mandated "blanket" minimum wage. Bureaucrats can't possible know what the minimum wage should be for every task performed.

Ask the workers in America Samoa:
http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=51180

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 03:19 | Link to Comment aus_punter
aus_punter's picture

<expecting a lot of harsh comments on this>

Angelo,

With no due respect, if you have blindly voted left all your life and you are now asking for the advice of an anonymous blogger you are clearly an idiot.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:43 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:22 | Link to Comment Rick64
Rick64's picture

Something like this is exactly what is needed, but before April 15th.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

It's the only way for the People to take back their country without resorting to violence. Total Non-Participation.

Everyone is starting to get a real taste of the direction we're going - nothing will wake people up until they feel what others have suffered for much longer. Bravo for finally joining the downtrodden, Angelo.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:47 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:34 | Link to Comment boiow
boiow's picture

then society will rearange itself to reflect our new found beliefs. i always remember learning at college that early caveman only needed to work about 15 hours a week to ensure all means of survival . after that they could do what they liked. i doubt if it was even as much as 15 hours.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:40 | Link to Comment milbank
milbank's picture

You first.  Let us know in about six months how it went for you.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:30 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Cindy_Dies_In_T...
Cindy_Dies_In_The_End's picture

This rationale makes no sense to me. Putting morality aside, if one truly believes in TEOTWAKI, then why on earth pay your bills off. I won't exhaust everyone with the arguments heard before. However I doubt there will be bill collectors and re-possesors running around during a financial apocolypse. They will be home defending their property or hoping the "community outreach anti-hoarding program" doesn't take their stuff.

 

Anyway, follow the logic a little.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Even if paid off monthly, the credit card is "free" only to the user and only in nominal terms.  The merchants are still taking about a 3% hit for your use of a credit card.  Unfortunately this represents a "tragedy of the commons" or coordinated action problem, so for any individual it's likely best to keep using the card and get the interest-free float, even though for society overall it would be best to get rid of them.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Bill - Yes That Bill
Bill - Yes That Bill's picture

Memo to all: Stop using credit cards or pay them off monthly and then they are free.

Thank God... someone else who read past the red meat attention getter about "never having voted for anyone besides a Democrat."

Yes... obviously Angelo is somewhat of a moron when it comes to his "politics," but the fact that he comes across as seeing nothing wrong with using revolving consumer credit as one would use a capital loan...

(*SIGH*)

God help this once great nation.

BILL

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:35 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:35 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:45 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:58 | Link to Comment dnarby
dnarby's picture

BB confirmation up to 91 (was 94 just an hour ago) on intrade http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=692750&z=...

Not sure how much to weight that, because the sample size is likely pretty small...  But either they're insane, or know something we don't.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:21 | Link to Comment andrew123
andrew123's picture

What they know is that Republicans like Hatch who told people he was critical of Bernanke are now caving.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Bill - Yes That Bill
Bill - Yes That Bill's picture

For Republicans there is NO up-side to voting FOR Bernanke.

A block vote AGAINST Bernanke would signal to the public not only that the GOP is willing to go to the mat opposing bad policy, but also, it would provide evidence of a clear break from the Bush Wing of the GOP economic legacy.

BILL

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:31 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

A block vote AGAINST Bernanke would signal to the public not only that the GOP is willing to go to the mat opposing bad policy, but also, it would provide evidence of a clear break from the Bush Wing of the GOP economic legacy.

Well said.  That would certainly send a signal and would be a defining moment for the Repubs. 

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:02 | Link to Comment Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

The country's political system is now analogous to a herd of sheep in a pen with two exits, both of which lead to the same slaughterhouse.  The sheep are routinely sheared naked and kept exhausted as they are run back and forth between the exits by the slaughterhouse owners and their running dogs. 

If running through an exit is "voting," then voting "against" something in this environment is about the same as voting "for" it. 

The only way the sheep can prevail in this setup is to stop doing what sheep do.  Stop running.  Stop buying.  Stop paying.  Ignore the dogs. Sit down. Don't move.   Just stop playing the game until the system, built entirely upon sheep doing what sheep do, collapses.

Can sheep stop being sheep?  Historically, not until things get a lot worse than they are...

 

 

 

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Great description.  You could also just give the sheep an axe and blueprints, however.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:10 | Link to Comment Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

While sheep might, as they grow more exhausted, become less fearful and sit down rather than run around in their pen, expecting them to understand a print and use an ax with their little cloven feet will have even more disappointing results.

Perhaps the reason Ghandi went for the "non-violent" approach...

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:07 | Link to Comment SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Schumer is a great politician.

Can't say much else about him though. There are young children in the room.

I live in NY.  He will NOT be getting my vote.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

NYer here, cannot vote for Schumer on this move.

Make no mistake about this, Chuck Schumer is a very bright and intelligent individual and he knows exactly what is going on with the Fed.  Chuck also knows that Bernanke's policies in the past and present are failures.  Yet, Chuck is voting for Bernanke.

History will not be kind.

I can see the day in the not too distant future when all the pundits get on TV and in the printed press and start asking "How could this have happened?"  "How come people didn't speak out?"  " Shouldn't we have seen this coming?"  "Where were our leaders?"

Guaranteed you will hear these conversations, just like has happened in past history, starting just one freakin' year ago!!  

Nothing in the financial system has been fixed, FASB 157 rules the day, regulators looking the other way, and bankers acting like pigs stuffing engineered profits into their pockets versus allocating capital to balance sheets.

 

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:40 | Link to Comment SteveNYC
SteveNYC's picture

Likewise, Schumer, you are done. I am by far the most financially sophisticated within my social network, and I will ensure EVERY SINGLE ONE of my network understands the implications of your vote.

Bye bye.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 09:05 | Link to Comment Sqworl
Sqworl's picture

+100, Bravo Steve..I started my dump Schumer campaing last year.  He embodies everything that is wrong with politics.  Watch Weiner get nuked too!

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment NRGTDR
NRGTDR's picture

Nothing changes except the names and faces. Both parties are owned and played like a cheap trick. Until a well supported and organized third party forms, rises up, and takes over....the end game accelerates to our detriment...and faith in the illusion that our votes matters....is another form of extend and pretend.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment Benthamite
Benthamite's picture

Sometimes I have trouble telling the two parties apart, that is, if there are in fact two parties with different agendas.   

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 08:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

The answer is:

"Until a well supported and organized third party forms, rises up..."

Correct answer!!!!

NRGTDR, you are todays grand prize winner on America's favorite game show, FUCK THE PUBLIC!!!!!

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:30 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Which all it needs to happen is for the existing empowered 2 party system which is really a 1 party system to leave it alone and allow it to form and come to power. Which is not going to happen. It will have every subversion, preversion and conversion technique applied to it till it's dead, dead dead.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment whoopsing
whoopsing's picture

Eh,Shumer was'nt getting my vote anyway,it's ABS for me..Anybody But Shumer

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

This is amusing, but my experience is that all federal politicians could not care less what voters think.  Replies from my senators are bluntly insulting, after sending them well written, well reasoned and tactful letters.

No, this isn't the start of much.  The start of things is when people willingly stop paying their bills and daring creditors to do something, when people withdraw all their money from the bank in cash (whether or not they convert it to PMs or other tangible assets), and when people start disregarding blantantly unfair laws that are clearly ignored by the ruling classes.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Balab
Balab's picture

"The people of America are at the breaking point and if we snap......"

 

I don't think this matters. Besides, what can we possibly do about it at this point?

We have no legislative body acting on our behalf.  The army is broken (and most likely the banks have

Blackwater on speed dail).  Law enforcement is crippled by budget cuts.  The voting boxes cannot be

audited.....etc. etc. etc.

 

With regard to voting either Dem or Repub - its all the same.....a waste of your time. 

 

 

 

 

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:26 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:31 | Link to Comment Engineer Guy
Engineer Guy's picture

I understand the frustration but "I have never voted Against the Democrats in my life" and the "if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards".   I thought this was a serious board with serious discussion.  Perhaps Tyler posted as an example of the frustration but as a contribution to the debate ..come on - don't waste our time.  

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

"I will be watching to see what you do for us."

Watch This My Friend

Shmucky Schumer will be giving a short speech at Bernard Madoff Investment and collecting $106k in campaign bribes from the Madoff clan and a staggering $5.7 million from Wall Street.

Whoops that was 2004-08.

Schmucky Schumer will be giving a short speech at GS and JPM and collecting his 2009 financial industry campaign bribes of ... drum roll please... $1.65 million.

Now that is some serious scratch Schmucky. I would be watching and counting the Senate votes of that numb nuts too.

Follow Schmucky's campaign bribe success here at SenatorForSale.Schmuck.org

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:16 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

You got to love OpenSecrets.org anony. You can run down who's a bitch in seconds...

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:07 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:44 | Link to Comment nazdagg
nazdagg's picture

" if everybody stops paying ther Morgages and Credit Cards."

hmmm, maybe take a few days off from work?  got the pissed off little guy flu?   this is actually the beginnings of a bloodless revolution to take the country back from  Wall St.    if the US is destined to become some sort of 3rd world thing, might as well do it on our own terms.  do we really need to follow the politicians?

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:36 | Link to Comment -273
-273's picture

Brilliant.

I think Epicurus (c. 341–c. 270 BC) understood that over 2000 years earlier too. Same sh1t, different day.

Ironically enough, the egalitarianism of Epicurus, was carried forward into the American freedom movement and Declaration of Independence, by the American founding father, Thomas Jefferson, as "all men are created equal" and endowed with certain "inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson considered himself an Epicurean.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:14 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Dirtt
Dirtt's picture

Schumer is perhaps the greatest POS.  It's a photo finish either way.

I'm for revolution.  It's like an earthquake in Los Angeles.  The only time you get a chance to meet the neighbors.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:28 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Eh, pesky math.

Seriously though, if someone is writing to Schumer they presumably live in New York state, maybe in the city and its burbs.  If you live in NYC metro, $80k a year isn't rich.  It's decent for a single person and not so decent for a family.  I don't think the income issue merits much attention here.

The revolving credit card issue, well yeah, that suggests typical american irresponsibility.  The kind encouraged by all parts of the financial and media industries.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:54 | Link to Comment milbank
milbank's picture

You must be from "Fly-Over Country" or the south if you think that's a lot of income, even after taxes, in the NYC area.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 11:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:34 | Link to Comment Zippyin Annapolis
Zippyin Annapolis's picture

This letter is the functional equivalent of pissing in the wind with the same result--wet pants.

Chuck Schumer will do whatever the NYSE, Nasdaq, GS, JPM and MS tell him to do--and what pray tell do you think they will tell him to do?

Chuckie could give a flying crap about what his constituents want. He is after all the world's smartest man, right up there with our fearless leader.

 

 

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:39 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

Agree, except that if you're smart enough to piss downwind, you don't get your pants wet.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:41 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:50 | Link to Comment SaulA
SaulA's picture

Go ahead people, stop paying your mortages and credit cards.  Most of these obligations are now owned by the people, just as we have intended.  You folks make me laugh, like you can do anything.  You are owned by us, face it, and those teensy weensy republicans are too marginalized to do anything about it too.  We own half of them and the other half are kooks.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:17 | Link to Comment loup garou
loup garou's picture

Dear Senitur Chuckie Shumer,

I’m an outta Work industrial electrician But I no I’ll find a $100,000 a year job Eventually becuz my blewprints are even better than MY WRITING!!!
Anyway I’m a yeller dog Dummycrat who always Votes the way my union tells me, and even though you and Barney Frank and Chris Dood are TWO of the poster boys for the financial Meltdown , I don’t Have any Problem with all the other fucked up shit you’ve always voted for in the past and Intend to vote four in the Future, , I’m only worried About this Berkanke guy buying Crack houses in Cleevland or Detroit instead of Buffalo! And THE fact that Bank of America  or IndyMac or somebody raised credit card Rates to pay for their oil tankers Sitting in the parking lot at Wal-Mart so Al Qaeda and Goldman Sacks can CONTANGO America’s ass into the terrorism Poorhouse!
So I just thought I better warn you that if you vote for this Bukakee guy, I’ll support whatever non-existant Democrat might run Against you in a Primary before I vote for you in the General Election.

Thanks in advance for Taking this letter SERIOUSLY.

Signed,
Old Yeller

P.S. Say hi to Freddy Mac for me!!


Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:24 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:13 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:44 | Link to Comment Rick64
Rick64's picture

 These problems are not republican or democrat problems they are integrity and honesty issues. This can only be overcome by a revolution violent or nonviolent. Violent results in chaos and setting up a new government where the cycle could start again.

 Non violent would be the common citizen rises up in protest in numbers never seen before 10-20 million. If you show them that we will not stand for this abuse then it will weed out the undesirables (most of our politicians).

 The supreme court just ruled in favor of lobbyists and corporations pertaining to campaign contributions, this is a step in the wrong direction. This is one of the root causes of corruption. There should be mass protests over this.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:11 | Link to Comment mikla
mikla's picture

The supreme court just ruled in favor of lobbyists and corporations pertaining to campaign contributions, this is a step in the wrong direction.

No, the supreme court just ruled that you and I can speak in association just as loudly as can media companies and unions.

Saying that, "everyone must shut up except for unions and media companies" was found to be inconsistent with constitutional rights.

I understand your concern that "too much freedom" is dangerous and scary, but the previous scenario was oppressive.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:05 | Link to Comment mikla
mikla's picture

The law that the Supreme Court overturned limited what unions could say. The restrictions on unions were the same as those on corporations. The Supreme Court decision threw out the restrictions on unions as well as on corporations.

Not really.  The law pushed all election money to political action committees (PACs), which the unions could contribute into, but corporations could not.  It was mere accounting.

Of course, media companies could always do whatever they wanted at any time, because contribution through their media outlets were not considered contribution through "profits".  Since unions never had profits, unions had tremendous discretion.

I'm guessing you've read neither the decision nor the McCain-Feingold law.

A reasonable guess, but incorrect.

But go ahead and repeat what you've heard on Faux News (or MSNBC) or some blog written by someone who knows next to nothing about campaign finance.

Your stronger rebuttal would be an assertion that, "Corporations are not individuals, and thus not deserving of protections."  That's a sticky point, that I concede has merit.

However, the motivation behind this decision was the fact that under the current system, we were dealing with the very real issue that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could (and did) arbitrarily ban individual books, movies, songs, skits, or any item that mentioned a candidate's name a single time (not even in reference to an issue).  That's amazing power to say "shut up" that society never granted government.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:32 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 22:45 | Link to Comment mikla
mikla's picture

You will notice on the wikipedia page you reference that the top PACs lean democrat (and specifically unions).  While political contributions "as a whole" are expected to "swing" in favor of the majority party somewhat (and democrats are currently the majority), reality shows that PACs are largely a tool of unions over corporations.

For some strange reason, I'm not hearing rejoicing by unions that are now able to say whatever they want.  The reason is simple, from your wikipedia link:

Corporate-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from executives, shareholders, and their families, while union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members.

Corporate PACs get voluntary contributions from executives, shareholders, and families, while union PACs get non-elective dues from union members.  It's the comparison between "voluntary" money and "coerced" money.  Unions previously had a relative money advantage.

It would have been easy to overturn the arbitrary bans you refer to above on more narrow grounds. (That's what many expected the SC to do.)

Agreed that your suggestion was more expected.  However, this is a "devil in the details" problem:  No, it's not easy.

Please define "pornography" and give me legislation to ban the "bad" stuff while still letting me see the works of the masters, including naked cherubs.  (That's hard to do.)  Similarly, it is very difficult to craft a system where the government can say "shut up" to its people, without that system becoming oppressive.

This was very-expansive judicial activism that ignored both Congress and stare decisis and created vast new corporate (and union) rights out of thin air.

You raise several issues.

Definition of terms:  Judicial activism creates laws and rights outside of Congress and the Constitution. It is not judicial activism merely because the court overturns itself.

In general, permitting people (and now institutions) to "speak" is not creation of new rights:  In the US, that right is established.  Rather, this discussion merely centers on reasonable restrictions on that right.  A more sober debate would be as to whether corporations are afforded constitutional rights (at present, that answer is "yes").

Yes, this ruling does overturn a previous supreme court ruling.  The net result is less government authority/intrusion.  There will be pros and cons to this decision.

We agree that these are big stakes.  We disagree that the regulatory structure is able to articulate and manage a fair landscape:  Any significant control by government regarding who may speak will merely favor one group over another.

With the pathetic job of enforcement of banking regulation, the idea of an "impartial philosopher-king" able to make "Thou shalt speak" decisions during elections seems unrealistic.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 01:38 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 10:19 | Link to Comment mikla
mikla's picture

The links refute your assertion that "The law pushed all election money to political action committees (PACs), which the unions could contribute into, but corporations could not." You now seem to agree that corporations can contribuite to PACs, which is contrary to what you originally said.

The law *did* push all money to PACs.  I do concede that corporations *can* contribute to PACs, but effectively that doesn't mean much because PACs are a tool for unions.

Shareholders don't contribute to PACs. That's stupid, and a waste of money (e.g., it's voluntary, so it doesn't happen).  In contrast, all union members contribute their union dues to PACs because they don't have a choice.

But yes, technically, I concede PACs can be used by both corporations and unions.  In practice, I don't believe that distinction is significant.

What does defining pornography have to do with overturning decisions that you say are clearly aribitrary and unfair?
Courts and agencies do that every day. It's their job.

Arbitrary and unfair is permitting some to speak, but not others.  That is a difficult problem that tends to merely favor one group over another.

Defining pornography is a similar problem:  It's hard to define, it's hard to codify into law, and it's hard to enforce a system that punishes those you want to punish, while permitting activity that should be permitted.

We disagree on the court's job.  Their job is to apply the law.  Since you keep mentioning stare decisis, then we should agree on the dangers of a capricious court that merely dispenses "justice" while ignoring the law, since "justice" is always an arbitrary term that favors one group over another.  In contrast, society has established laws that are imperfect, but which are supposed to represent acceptable behavior (the law) and punishement if that behavior is violated (penalties).

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.  ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

We disagree on the court's job.

The judicial activism is in creating new, expansive rights and legal status FOR CORPORATIONS (duh!).

This case did not rule that "corporations are persons".  That is left to other cases.  Rather, this case ruled that the FEC cannot restrict speech the way it had.

Your complaint is for another case that argues that "corporations are not individuals, and thus not protected."

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:09 | Link to Comment boiow
boiow's picture

legally speaking corporations are individuals. if you have a birth certificate you are also legally a corporation. (thinkfree.ca. also fmotl.com  also   tpuc.org).  interesting subject, might be one way of breaking the chains that bind.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:34 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 22:56 | Link to Comment mikla
mikla's picture

We agree that it's tyranny that the Fed can print whatever they want, and they use that power mostly for the benefit of the Fed.

However, I don't think the Fed will be as simplistic as to give money to campaigns.  The ROI isn't high enough.  Rather, it's better for them to merely print money and seize real assets like they do now.  And, it's more expedient to extort Congress to get whatever regulation the Fed wants (why bother getting an individual Congressman elected when it's easier to pound the table in front of a bunch of elected idiots that have no economic sense?)

The Fed violates its charter all the time, and is above all laws.  Congress is supposed to regulate them, but we can all see how that's going.

The Fed is very effective doing whatever the h*ll it wants without bothering with campaign contributions.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 18:57 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 12:54 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

It turns one’s stomach to watch libertarians and “free market economists” defend bureaucratized impersonal health care as “free market medicine.”

And also from the article:

Wall Street is romanticized by libertarians and “free market economists.” They believe, entirely on the basis of their ideology, that Wall Street finances venture capitalists who bring economic progress and higher living standards.

I like the author, usually, but this is awful. Does he even know what he is talking about? He makes a few good points but I don't know how he managed to insert Libertartians into the mess.

Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment 3ringmike
3ringmike's picture

i will be maxing out my credit cards this year to pay my taxes and then I will tell the banks to kiss my ass. I ain't paying.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 00:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 21:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 21:34 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 22:35 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 04:25 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!