Wall Street angry at tea party it has little influence over

[JCDenton0451]

I honestly feel conflicted about this. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-wall-street-tea-party-97734.html?ml=tb) On the one hand, I think, it's great that we have some 20-30 Republicans in the House, who don't depend on Wall Street campaign contributions. On the other hand, it seems these tea party Congressmen aren't using their freedom very well. Their actions are reckless, destructive and ultimately self-defeating. As one of the commenters put it: it's good that they divorced from Wall Street, but they cannot stay divorced from reality.


Wall Street is clear about who’s to blame for the government shutdown and a looming debt default: tea party Republicans.


What’s less clear is what Wall Street can do about it.

The reality is that deep-pocketed financial services executives and their lobbyists have little leverage against tea party lawmakers who don’t much care for financiers or big banks and don’t rely heavily on the industry for campaign cash.


“Those are the ones who are most problematic for Boehner,” one D.C.-based lobbyist who represents financial services clients said of tea party lawmakers. “I don’t think there’s any way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hard core House Republicans. It’s not like [Reps. Steve] Stockman and Tim Huelskamp are doing a lot of Goldman Sachs events. I don’t think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”


The rise of tea party lawmakers’ influence is shift from years past when the Republican party was more business friendly and could be counted on by Wall Street to give great weight to its concerns.


“The extreme radicals are going to get reelected because they come from districts where they don’t need to raise that much money,” said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist of the Potomac Research Group. “This new tea party movement is not particularly pro-business. They certainly are not pro-Wall Street and pro-big banks. That is a new strain in the Republican party that worries many on Wall Street.”
Recent fundraising numbers for tea party favorites in the House like Huelskamp and Amash show how little they count on Wall Street to fill their campaign coffers.


Huelskamp, a Kansas Republican first elected to Congress in 2010, received $8,000 from finance, securities and investment PACs in the 2012 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Amash of Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District — another member of the tea party elected as a part of the 2010 GOP wave who has openly criticized Republican leadership — collected just $3,000 last cycle from securities and investment PACs.


This is in stark contrast to someone like Peter King (R-N.Y.), who hails from a more moderate district with close proximity to Wall Street. The New York congressman received $45,500 from finance, securities and investment PACs during the 2012 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including $10,000 from the Goldman Sachs PAC.

[jkr]

LET
THEM
EAT
P00P

[kahless]

Good news for a change. What is there to feel conflicted about? Corporations not being able to destroy the free markets through Congress is a good thing.

[JCDenton0451]

Good news for a change. What is there to feel conflicted about? Corporations not being able to destroy the free markets through Congress is a good thing.

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

[Root]

"extreme radicals"

lol, fuck what wall street wants. they are part of the problem.

[angelatc]

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

The majority of the voters oppose Obamacare. They will not support candidates who vote to fund it.

[VBRonPaulFan]

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

Would Rand Paul even be worth voting for if Wall Street was funding his campaign? Part of the goddamn problem is that Wall Street and the MIC are funding all the candidates ever run. It'd be nice for a change to have a President not beholden to these interests.

Everyone complains about how Wall Street and big banks are in the pockets of all our politicians, but as soon as we start electing people who aren't in their pockets everyone starts freaking out. I don't get it.

[AuH20]

Wait a second here. Tea Party Republicans are actually pro-business, but they will not bend to the will of financial rent-seekers that define Wall Street.

[erowe1]

I honestly feel conflicted about this. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-wall-street-tea-party-97734.html?ml=tb) On the one hand, I think, it's great that we have some 20-30 Republicans in the House, who don't depend on Wall Street campaign contributions. On the other hand, it seems these tea party Congressmen aren't using their freedom very well. Their actions are reckless, destructive and ultimately self-defeating. As one of the commenters put it: it's good that they divorced from Wall Street, but they cannot stay divorced from reality.

So if these guys were reckless, destructive, self-defeating, and divorced from reality, then what was Ron Paul?

[JK/SEA]

wait...didn't Rick Santelli of Wall Street fame start the Tea Party?....:rolleyes:

[GregSarnowski]

The corporatist system we have now is much closer to socialism that anything resembling a "free market". It's the reason Ron Paul continually got a failing grade from the "Chamber of Commerce" despite being the most fiscally conservative House member.

[XNavyNuke]

Wait a second here. Tea Party Republicans are actually pro-business, but they will not bend to the will of financial rent-seekers that define Wall Street.

Free market, pro-business is significantly different from the regulated market, neo-merchantilist preferred by megacorporations.

XNN

[AuH20]

wait...didn't Rick Santelli of Wall Street fame start the Tea Party?....:rolleyes:

Santelli was never employed in the Wall Street financial industry. He worked as a commodity trader at the Chicago CME.

[JCDenton0451]

So if these guys were reckless, destructive, self-defeating, and divorced from reality, then what was Ron Paul?

I recall Ron Paul blackmailing his political opponents and taking hostages.

[Acala]

The government SHOULD default. That is the only honest course.

[erowe1]

I recall Ron Paul blackmailing his political opponents and taking hostages.

If these guys are bad, he was 100 times worse. He demanded a lot more than just not funding Obamacare before he would vote yes on a budget.

[AuH20]

The government SHOULD default. That is the only honest course.

There is so much graft and parasitic activity built into the model that they will never willfully default.

[Cleaner44]

Winning!

http://ronpaulrally.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ron-paul-revolution.jpg?w=380&h=173

I have no conflict. This is a great sign that we are moving power of our government from Wall St and back to the individuals. Full steam ahead!

[VoluntaryAmerican]

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

Antagonize away... it's better than being raped by the feds on a daily basis. It's not our fault most people are too stupid to know what's best for themselves politically.

[ObiRandKenobi]

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

rand should just endorse all of obama's policies that way he could have campaign contributors FTW

[VoluntaryAmerican]

rand should just endorse all of obama's policies that way he could have campaign contributors FTW

Matter of fact, I agree. I changed my mind.

We should all just endorse the corporatist-statist agenda so that we can fit in with our peers... I mean it's better than antagonizing them and hurting feelings.

[jllundqu]

Wall Street can lick my hairy [expletive deleted] while I [expletive deleted] on their face and shove [expletive deleted] in their [expletive deleted]!

I WANT the banks to fail!

[JCDenton0451]

Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs does not approve:


"You can re-litigate these policy issues in a political forum, but we shouldn't use threats of causing the U.S. to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel."

[Acala]

There is so much graft and parasitic activity built into the model that they will never willfully default.

I agrre. They will print money with nuclear-powered presses before they stop paying the cronies.

[jmdrake]

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

The same people who were going to fund Rand Paul 2016 anyway. Us and the teocons who hate Obamacare. Ron did decently fundraising wise without Wallstreet despite the fact that he was spitting into the wind of the GOP on foreign policy. Rand with his "It doesn't matter why they attacked us. Make sure they know we'll get them back" attitude should roughly double Ron Paul 2008/2012. And I say that as someone who has at times been critical of Rand.

[Peace&Freedom]

Boo hoo, Wall Street can't control, or get the major parties to control an independent movement like the Tea Party Republicans (as tattered as that faction may be). It shows the power of making sure the alternative factions stays independent of the big lobbies and from a major establishment party.

[DamianTV]

The government SHOULD default. That is the only honest course.

I think the Debt is invalid and should be treated as such. They wont do it because it gets rid of the Federal Reserve Bank, and they like having "Free Money" without having to raise taxes to get more money. Oops, that isnt money, its Fiat Currency, BIG difference.

[angelatc]

I recall Ron Paul blackmailing his political opponents and taking hostages.

Blackmail? Hostages? Terrorists?

I'm scared.



I think a better article would be "Democrat bullies upset that partisan law doesn't have bi-partisan support. "

[LibForestPaul]

They will antagonise a lot of people without making any real headway vs Obamacare. Now, who's going to fund Rand Paul's 2016 campaign?

2016 vote, lol

[erowe1]

Blackmail? Hostages? Terrorists?

I'm scared.



I think a better article would be "Democrat bullies upset that partisan law doesn't have bi-partisan support. "

It makes sense that they're mad. That's always the way it has worked by some apparent unwritten agreement. A government program gets created along partisan lines, and then after it does, the people who opposed it turn around and support it from then on.

[anaconda]

And we may have to face up to about half of Americans hating the other half for a while.

[GunnyFreedom]

"Try winning without our money dummies."

Oh, so you admit that American government is bought outright rather than representative of the people?

[Pericles]

"Try winning without our money dummies."

Oh, so you admit that American government is bought outright rather than representative of the people?

They think that the game can only be played with their rules.

[Icymudpuppy]

Share this story among Occupy Wallstreeters. See if they can finally see the common ground.

[J_White]

seems like good news, but lets see how hell rains down on these extremists, now that Wall street, the actual center of power, has realized what they can do !

[AuH20]

Share this story among Occupy Wallstreeters. See if they can finally see the common ground.

The Tea Party is an astroturf movement funded by the Kochs. Blah. Blah. Blah. Meanwhile on Planet Earth, the financial industry despises Tea Party politicians for not rolling over for them.

[GunnyFreedom]

The Tea Party is an astroturf movement funded by the Kochs. Blah. Blah. Blah. Meanwhile on Planet Earth, the financial industry despises Tea Party politicians for not rolling over for them.

To break any partisan out of their talking points you first have to smash the paradigm and then reframe the debate in a way they are not expecting.

[JCDenton0451]

The same people who were going to fund Rand Paul 2016 anyway. Us and the teocons who hate Obamacare. Ron did decently fundraising wise without Wallstreet despite the fact that he was spitting into the wind of the GOP on foreign policy. Rand with his "It doesn't matter why they attacked us. Make sure they know we'll get them back" attitude should roughly double Ron Paul 2008/2012. And I say that as someone who has at times been critical of Rand.
I was talking about the general election.;)

Many Americans aren't ideological. Many are apolitical, uninformed and simply dumb. These people are easily swayed by TV ads. Which is why Rand will need at least 500M to compete - no way he will get there with just small donors.

[nobody's_hero]

And we may have to face up to about half of Americans hating the other half for a while.

I thought we were already doing that. IMO, People should go straight for the jugular. Instead of fighting proxy battles through government, have the guts to face each other in the streets. The gene pool needs cleaning anyway.

(It's getting harder and harder to hide my cynical side, as you can tell.)