silvershadow
silvershadow's JournalGoldman Sachs Shareholder Proposes Bank Run For Political Office; Bank Declines
I don't even know what to say.
Goldman Sachs Shareholder Proposes Bank Run For Political Office; Bank Declines
The movie could have been called "Mr. Squid Goes To Washington."
Unfortunately, Goldman Sachs has rejected a shareholder's proposal that it run for political office as the next logical step in the corporations-are-people paradigm. Goldman's declaration, first reported by Bloomberg, came in response to a request from shareholder John Harrington, citing the Supreme Court's decision, in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, that corporations are people that have a right to exercise free speech by spending unlimited money on politics.
Harrington says Goldman is already warping the political process by pumping cash into political action committees and filling the ranks of government with its alumni. Everybody would be better off if Goldman just went ahead and ran for office itself, Harrington says.
"The Proponent believes that such activity would do less to undermine the integrity of the national political process and the company's reputation than the manner in which the Company currently wields influence over the U.S. government," Harrington's proposal says.
more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/goldman-sachs-political-office_n_2955632.html
I don't know what is going on, but I do know this....
So help me God, if the Democrats give one more inch on *anything, it will be a bloodbath in 14. I have said it before here, and I will say it again. The mood of the country is exactly that, and if the powers that be can't figure that out, God help us. We have the power, right now, at this moment, to get our party back to it's roots and put a stake in the heart of the Republicans for a couple more presidential election cycles, as well as set this country back on it's proper and historic course. I don't know what kind of back-room deals are being played right now, but I, for one, am over it...and there are millions like me. Just look at Ed's polls, night after night. I guess we have to take a few more to the woodshed, it looks like, and 14 is the name of the game. If you feel like I do, you need to be burning up the phone lines to your delegations and the White House. If you are at all able, get active with your local party. If you are able, for God sake RUN FOR OFFICE. NOW. This is the time, and it appears they still don't get it. If you can't run, volunteer. Make calls. Stay engaged. Communicate with your neighbors. Continue voter outreach and registration unabated. If you think this last cycle was horrendous, next time will be harder, as it won't be a presidential election. We have to motivate everyone to get out again, just one more time, en masse. This is the world we live in now. It is our reality.
If I wasn't trying to fundraise right now for my charity, I would have
reposted this FB thing. Alas, I couldn't. But I did see another "Usually I don't post these" threads earlier, so I will take my turn- with the admonition that I refrain religiously, lest we turn DU into FB Lite. This, however, is so succinct and poignant, I just have to:
I have a proposal for Congressman Paul Ryan.
In light of his continued dogged quest to stick it to our seniors with cuts to Medicare (raising the age), I have finally seen the light. He might be right. In examining the budget issues, the so-called defect crisis, etc for lo these many months and years now, I have come to the conclusion that belt-tightening is, in fact, in order. First, there is absolutely no way that our elected representatives can be considered employees of the Federal government, because they are not. They are elected representatives. Since they are not employees, I suggest we strip them of any benefits they may be (in fact, most certainly are claiming). I suggest they plan for their retirement with the advisor of their choosing, who can steer them to available plans in the open market. At 175k per year, I'm sure Mr. Ryan will be able to do a better job at planning for his senior years than just about anyone. Which brings me to my next suggestion: $175,000 per year really seems salty, if you ask me. Being that Congress is generally in session only about 3 days a week when they are even in session, it really boggles the mind when you break it down per hour. (I will forego any mention of evaluating the quality of the "work" performed, and pretend it is of at least average quality, enough to avoid termination if he were an actual employee). I say we build on Sen. Claire McGaskill's lead with the sequester legislation she introduced on the pay cuts, and extend it to the general deficit discussion. There must be a million ways our congress-critters have built a cushy life out of the "job" in Washington. Not having been there myself, there are probably others here who could add ides to the discussion. What do you all think? Cut their pay, dismantle their benefits and turn them loose to the open market?
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHome country: USA
Member since: Thu Jul 8, 2004, 03:14 PM
Number of posts: 10,336
