FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Democrats’ Crony Capitalism





jmi256
To most people paying attention, the fact that Obama and the Democrats have been using the “Stimulus” to fund their pet projects and funnel money to donors comes as no surprise, just as we saw the same happen with Obamacare and other Obama initiatives. Obama and the Democrats don’t really care if their reckless spending of money we don’t have results in record unemployment, the S&P downgrade of the nation’s credit rating, or a worsening economy, just as long as they and their friends get their “fair share” of US taxpayers’ earnings. But the fact that they would so blatantly continue in their cronyism and swindle, even when they have recently been caught red-handed in the Solynda scandal where Obama forced through loans to shady companies to pay off his donors, is simply disgusting.

Quote:
Crony Capitalism: $737 Million Green Jobs Loan Given to Nancy Pelosi's Brother-In-Law

Despite the growing Solyndra scandal, yesterday the Department of Energy approved $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies -- including a $737 million loan guarantee to a company known as SolarReserve:
Quote:
SolarReserve LLC, a closely held renewable energy developer, received a $737 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee to build a solar-thermal project in Nevada.

The 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes project, near Tonopah, Nevada, will use the sun’s heat to create steam that drives a turbine, the agency said today in a e-mailed statement. SolarReserve is based in Santa Monica, California.


On SolarReserve's website is a list of "investment partners," including the "PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC." As blogger American Glob quickly discovered, PCG's number two is none other than "Ronald Pelosi, a San Francisco political insider and financial industry polymath who happens to be the brother-in-law of Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives."

But wait... there's more! One of SolarReserve's other investment partners is Argonaut Private Equity:
Quote:
Steve Mitchell and Argonaut Private Equity might have a chance to recoup some of their losses in the Solyndra debacle now that the Department of Energy has given a $737 million dollar loan guarantee to a company backed by Argonaut that also lists Mitchell among its board of directors.

Mitchell served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors. He also serves as Managing Director for Argonaut Private Equity, a company that invested in Solyndra through the LLCs parent company. After Solyndra declared bankruptcy, two Democratic members of the U.S. House asked that Mitchell testify about Solyndra. Though he has not appeared before Congress, he has "been asked to provide documents to Congress" pertaining to Solyndra.



And for good measure, it's also noteworthy that Obama is about to hold a big money fundraiser at the home of Tom Carnahan in St. Louis:
Quote:
Carnahan, a member of the prominent Missouri Democratic family, has been tapped by the Obama campaign as its chief Missouri fundraiser. He is chairman of the board of Wind Capital Group, a wind energy company that makes it corporate headquarters in St. Louis. He formerly was president and CEO of the company.

Last year, Wind Capital's Lost Creek Farm facility in northwest Missouri received a $107 million tax credit from the Treasury Department, among many such wind operations receiving support from from stimulus funds.


Tom Carnahan is the son of former Missouri governor Mel Carnahan and former U.S. senator Jean Carnahan. He's also the brother of current Missouri secretary of state, Robin Carnahan.

It's increasingly hard to tell the government's green jobs subsidies apart from the Democrats' friends and family rewards program.

Source = http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/crony-capitalism-737-million-green-jobs-loan-given-nancy-pelosis-brother-law_594593.html
Ankhanu
This is how the system works, it's corrupt.0, and the corrupt will not allow it to change.

Don't delude yourself into believing it's a Democrat situation, it's systemic and your party of choice is just as involved when the opportunities arise.
ocalhoun
Yeah... that should really be retitled as "US Politicians' Crony Capitalism".

It isn't going to stop without some truly fundamental reforms...
I would say that articles like this at least help some by putting it out in the open, but voters these days simply don't care -- and the politicians know it.
They know that since all politicians in their parties do such things, and since they control who is nominated in those parties, they can make sure that there is no possible way to vote against it.


--If there are only two electable candidates, and both agree on an issue, how do you vote against their stance on that issue? You can't; not effectively anyway.
(They would do well to take heed that 'taxation without representation' has caused revolutions here before... It may do so again someday.)
deanhills
Not to forget that the Stimulus Package was approved by the people of the United States. I still can't understand how they allowed that to happen - nor how they allowed the Big Banks, who had robbed them of their savings, be bailed out to the extent that they had been bailed out.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I still can't understand how they allowed that to happen - nor how they allowed the Big Banks, who had robbed them of their savings, be bailed out to the extent that they had been bailed out.

Quite simple, really.
The key is that the banks, the media companies, and the politicians are all owned by the same group of people.

Add to that, enough people get their opinions on the matter entirely from the evening news and/or their favorite politician... and that explains how their opinions could so easily be swayed in favor of it.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I still can't understand how they allowed that to happen - nor how they allowed the Big Banks, who had robbed them of their savings, be bailed out to the extent that they had been bailed out.

Quite simple, really.
The key is that the banks, the media companies, and the politicians are all owned by the same group of people.
But aren't the politicians elected by the people, and don't the people have a choice to react when something like the above has happened? So in the end the people are really guilty of giving their power away without checking that it has been properly applied? The political system in fact has the appearance of free elections, however it seems to only enforce entrenched power by a few?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I still can't understand how they allowed that to happen - nor how they allowed the Big Banks, who had robbed them of their savings, be bailed out to the extent that they had been bailed out.

Quite simple, really.
The key is that the banks, the media companies, and the politicians are all owned by the same group of people.
But aren't the politicians elected by the people, and don't the people have a choice to react when something like the above has happened? So in the end the people are really guilty of giving their power away without checking that it has been properly applied?

Don't blame the voters; they don't really have a choice. (Well, they do have a choice*... they get to choose between conservative corruption or liberal corruption.)
To be elected, a politician (almost always) must be nominated by one of the two major parties.
The two major parties won't nominate a reformer who refuses to buy into the corruption.
This way, all non-corrupt candidates can be effectively excluded from the election.

In addition, the US election system is well tailored to prevent the emergence of new parties. This helps keep the system permanent.


*This choice is another facet of the corruption-friendly system. The illusion of choice keeps the people pacified... More insidiously, it gives politicians the opportunity to blame all the corruption on the other choice, which helps prevent people from realizing that both are bad, and therefore helps prevent them from looking outside the system for a solution.
coolclay
Quote:
Don't blame the voters; they don't really have a choice. (Well, they do have a choice*... they get to choose between conservative corruption or liberal corruption.)
To be elected, a politician (almost always) must be nominated by one of the two major parties.
The two major parties won't nominate a reformer who refuses to buy into the corruption.
This way, all non-corrupt candidates can be effectively excluded from the election.

In addition, the US election system is well tailored to prevent the emergence of new parties. This helps keep the system permanent.


*This choice is another facet of the corruption-friendly system. The illusion of choice keeps the people pacified... More insidiously, it gives politicians the opportunity to blame all the corruption on the other choice, which helps prevent people from realizing that both are bad, and therefore helps prevent them from looking outside the system for a solution.


Amen! If I could clap over the computer I would! That's got to be one of the best descriptions of American modern day politics as I've ever read. And when the rare reformer candidate does enter the arena, they get shunned by the majority of the media (Ron Paul).
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Don't blame the voters; they don't really have a choice. (Well, they do have a choice*... they get to choose between conservative corruption or liberal corruption.)
To be elected, a politician (almost always) must be nominated by one of the two major parties.
The two major parties won't nominate a reformer who refuses to buy into the corruption.
This way, all non-corrupt candidates can be effectively excluded from the election.

In addition, the US election system is well tailored to prevent the emergence of new parties. This helps keep the system permanent.


*This choice is another facet of the corruption-friendly system. The illusion of choice keeps the people pacified... More insidiously, it gives politicians the opportunity to blame all the corruption on the other choice, which helps prevent people from realizing that both are bad, and therefore helps prevent them from looking outside the system for a solution.


Amen! If I could clap over the computer I would! That's got to be one of the best descriptions of American modern day politics as I've ever read. And when the rare reformer candidate does enter the arena, they get shunned by the majority of the media (Ron Paul).
Agreed Coolclay - awesome post by Ocalhoun.

So what do we blame it on? On the political system? And who are the political system? What can one do to get rid of the system?
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
So what do we blame it on? On the political system? And who are the political system? What can one do to get rid of the system?


Where blame should fall is a pretty tough topic, and would require, I would think, some pretty hefty research, and many factors.
As for how to get rid of the system? Revolution? I really don't think there'll be an effective in system initiative, it requires a complete overhaul of the system, which is simply something most people involved are not willing to consider.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

So what do we blame it on? On the political system?

As good a target as any, I suppose.
The capitalist republic system has always had a weak point for collusion -- it depends on separation of powers, which can be eroded if those powers conspire for the same ends.
It is further weakened by the unforeseeable lapse into willful ignorance by much of the populace*, combined with psychological manipulation becoming a finely tuned science and given near-constant access to that populace through advances in media distribution.


An in-system solution is possible IF:
-The populace becomes fully aware of the problem, and
-The populace will actually care about it.

That's a big if though...
There is still a scenario where it could happen... If the abuses continue to get worse, people will care, and if the internet remains mostly uncontrolled by big business, the word can still be spread. If people know and care about the problem, the voting system can still be used to elect third-party reformers... But thanks to the skewed election system, that would require more than a majority of voters to agree about it.

If that fails, though, non-violent** revolution or relocation are the next best choices.
(Violent revolution is only justifiable as a form of collective self-defense -- and the situation has not degraded to the point where it can be justified yet.)


*Much of this lapse may be attributable to advances in technology. A culture of instant gratification and shortened attention spans doesn't lend itself well to intelligent political thought.
**As far as I'm concerned, property damage or crimes against the state can usually be called non-violent. Only crimes against individuals could be called violent. (To include individuals employed by the state.)
furtasacra
coolclay wrote:
And when the rare reformer candidate does enter the arena, they get shunned by the majority of the media (Ron Paul).


Ron Paul deserves to be shunned by the media. He used to send out racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic newsletters. He claims he didn't write them, but he allowed them to be published in his name, which makes him either a bigot or a careless idiot. That makes him unfit to be president, even if he does have a few good ideas.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man
handfleisch
furtasacra wrote:
coolclay wrote:
And when the rare reformer candidate does enter the arena, they get shunned by the majority of the media (Ron Paul).


Ron Paul deserves to be shunned by the media. He used to send out racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic newsletters. He claims he didn't write them, but he allowed them to be published in his name, which makes him either a bigot or a careless idiot. That makes him unfit to be president, even if he does have a few good ideas.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

thanks for reminding us about this, I totally agree
Related topics
Favourite game? (OFFICIAL THREAD)
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
The Democrats...
Democrats defend racist actions by democrats
Democrats: the party of "free speech"
Dems not only losing almost all gov't control...
Democrats edit Wikipedia
Republican, Democrats, or other, who is right?
Free trade versus protectionism
Power Hungry
Democrats vow not to give up hopelessness
Atlas Shrugged Movie
98 advertisers pull ads off Limbaugh + Hannity-Levin-Beck!
Why do people feel it's right to choose for others?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.