Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[TheMercenary]

Great post classic! Quite telling. So much for the Demoncrats being the party of change. Well done.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great post classic! Quite telling. So much for the Demoncrats being the party of change. Well done.

I think you will find that campaign contributions follow power. That should come as no surprise.

Lets see if it leads to as many Democrats being investigated for corruption as the Republicans when they last controlled Congress:

Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.

http://www.propublica.org/article/po...gation-wrap-up

In fact, the one change that did occur was the Ethics/Lobbying Reform that the Democrats adopted as soon as they assumed control of Congress. The first such reform in more than 20 years.

It doesnt go nearly far enough, but it does bring more transparency so that it should be easier for you to nab those naughty Demoncrats!

One immediate result.....you're not likely to see another K. Street Project ...the Republican blatant influence peddling scheme that was in place for 10+ years wont fly under the new regulations to prevent the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

One immediate result.....you're not likely to see another K. Street Project ...the Republican blatant influence peddling scheme that was in place for 10+ years wont fly under the new regulations to prevent the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.

That was another good thing Obama did. But that was hardly a problem isolated to Republickins.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That was another good thing Obama did. But that was hardly a problem isolated to Republickins.

Both the Democrats in '07 when they assumed control of Congress and Obama in '09 when he assumed control of the Executive Branch adopted tougher and more transparent lobbying standards and standards to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists.

Isn't that change?

So why do you keep insisting that there has been no change?

[TheMercenary]

I never stated there was no change. I only point out that since the Dems took over more than 2 years ago they did not change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I never stated there was no change. I only point out that since the Dems took over more than 2 years ago they did not change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left.

And contrary to your opinion, I pointed out the fact that they did change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left...with the passage of more comprehensive and transparent ethics and lobbying reform.

It may be incremental change, but better than no change at all.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Again you got it backwards to promote wacko extremism. Convenient when a staunch Republican takes every opportunity to take cheap shots at Democrats and Obama. classicman lied again.

Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
Follow the thread there big boy. BTW, You crossed the line again tommy boy.
#1 - I never lied.
#2 - The only wacko in this thread is you.
#3 - I'm not a republican.
#4 - The D's got twice as much money as the R's.

As usual, the facts that don't conveniently fit into your preconceived notions get overlooked or ignored.

Originally Posted by tw

Republicans were in power then. Republicans got most of the money.

False - Read the link. This is 2007 & 2008 that WE are all discussing, not 2002. C'mon along with the rest of us.

Originally Posted by tw

Why purchase the party that had no power?

Because it was obvious to everyone who would be in power. They were simply planning ahead. If you notice they still threw a few bones to the R's to cover their ass, look bipartisan, and gave it to the key R's...... just in case.

Originally Posted by tw

Those USB contributions are for 2007 and 2008.

Thats the timeframe we are all talking about. Wanna join us? Great - wanna talk about something else? Start another thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
False - Read the link. This is 2007 & 2008 that WE are all discussing, not 2002. C'mon along with the rest of us.

And again you have it all backwards. USB was doing this asset hiding in the early 2000s. You are discussing 2007/2008 Congressional contributions. USB was moving assets even back in 2003 when it was advertised and all but permitted due to near zero enforcement.

When it comes to corruption, the wacko Republicans (not to be confuse with moderate and therefore partiotic Republicans) set new standards for corrupution. Let's not forget that USB, at the same time, was offering programs to move (hide) assets overseas. classicman is lying again to blame Democrats.

Originally Posted by classicman

Nice attempt at another diversion from the truth you don't like to see.
Follow the thread there big boy. BTW, You crossed the line again tommy boy.

#4 - The D's got twice as much money as the R's.

In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.

Senate contributions: nearly twice as much to Republicans ($110K - R, $61K - D)
PAC to PAC contributions: more to Republicans.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.

FALSE
Based upon the numbers from the link within the article
the totals for each party were:
D - $1,710,767.00
R - $1,400,533.00
O - $26,975.00
Somehow one D got -$20 not sure about that one.

Based upon the attachment from the link within the article we were both wrong. As far as twice as much, I was incorrect. As far as the R's getting more than the D's you were incorrect.

The D's still got more although I think the amount more is rather insignificant. Perhaps to someone who knows who the specific recipients are, the info would mean more. I even broke it down by amounts and did donations >$500 and >$10,000 The percentages seemed to be about the same as the overall totals.

My conclusion - they were bribing everyone.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

In fact, UBSs contributions in the 08 election cycle were 54% - D and 46% - R.

Senate contributions: nearly twice as much to Republicans ($110K - R, $61K - D)
PAC to PAC contributions: more to Republicans.

From your link the totals are:
Direct:
Total D - $426,500
Total R - $408,500

PAC:
Total D - $150,000
Total R - $206,500

Gross:
R - $615,000
D - $576,500

The R's got more in the Senate, but the D's got more in the House. With PAC's the R's got more.
51% to 49% - a statistical tie.
However, the totals from your link aren't even close to the total contribution from the original link in the article I posted which was well over $3,100,000. Where did the other $2,000,000 go?

[Happy Monkey]

One thing that I'm always curious about is the connection between political contributions by employees and lobbying-style efforts. I've made political contributions, and had to put my employer on the form, but my employer had nothing to do with it (other than paying my salary, of course). I wouldn't think that my contributions reflect the aims of my upper management, though I could be pleasantly surprised.

[TheMercenary]

HM, isn't that what Unions do?

[Happy Monkey]

I don't know. There's no software engineers' union.

But if they do, then those employees' contributions would show up as coming from the employer in this type of analysis, making it seem like the views of the union were the views of the company.

Originally Posted by classicman

However, the totals from your link aren't even close to the total contribution from the original link in the article I posted which was well over $3,100,000. Where did the other $2,000,000 go?

Classic...my link was contributions by the UBS PAC

The other $2 million, I assume are contributions by individual employees of UBS AND bundled contributions by those employees (generally, the top guys do the bundling).

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

One thing that I'm always curious about is the connection between political contributions by employees and lobbying-style efforts. I've made political contributions, and had to put my employer on the form, but my employer had nothing to do with it (other than paying my salary, of course). I wouldn't think that my contributions reflect the aims of my upper management, though I could be pleasantly surprised.

Its how the contribution data is manipulated...for better or worse

If you were an employee of UBS (in the above example), your contribution would be included in that $2+ million total...whether or not your decision to contribute was impacted or influenced by employment.

At least, that is my understanding of campaign finance reporting data.