MovieChat Forums > Inside Job (2010) Discussion > Why do Conservatives feel the need to de...

Why do Conservatives feel the need to defend Wall Street?

posted 14 years ago by Bozohead
59 replies | jump to latest

Why does the average conservative out there feel the need to defend all of Wall Street's actions and exonerate the execs?

As a republican do you feel compelled to defend Wall Street and everything it does?

Do you feel that if you criticise the execs from Goldman Sachs etc that you're somehow siding with left wingers and its more important to disagree with left wingers on everything?

You know you can be a conservative, vote Republican and still attack the greed and corruption of Wall Street.

[–] splumer 14 years ago

Why does the average conservative out there feel the need to defend all of Wall Street's actions and exonerate the execs?

I can't speak for the average person, but conservatives in DC defend Wall St. because those are the coporations that support them and were part of their administrations. But here's the kicker: Democrats are the same! Wall St. and other mega-corporations support the Dems as much as the Republicans, but lefties (like me) don't like to admit that. We like the persist in the comfortable delusion that the Democrats support the average, working American and not the corporate interests. That simply isn't true.

But please, don't take my word for it. Google some of the supporters of any of your favorite politicians, and you'll see how often, the same coporation will contribute to the campaigns of two opponents running for the same office. Bush's cabinet and other appointees were drawn from Wall St. and other corps., as well as industry lobbyists. Obama's cabinet is better, but is mostly politicians, and you'd have to follow the money on their earlier careers.

Why do you think taxes on the ultra-wealthy have gone down so much over the decades? Wall St. keeps the polticians in power, and the politicians rig the system to favor Wall St. and their buddies in other industries. It's a coporate oligarchy. Google "citibank plutocracy memo."

[–] elimc184 14 years ago

I can't speak for the average person, but conservatives in DC defend Wall St. because those are the coporations that support them and were part of their administrations. But here's the kicker: Democrats are the same! Wall St. and other mega-corporations support the Dems as much as the Republicans, but lefties (like me) don't like to admit that. We like the persist in the comfortable delusion that the Democrats support the average, working American and not the corporate interests. That simply isn't true.

The irony is that it was the Dems who really helped to create the secondary market. Historically, Wall Street was a very small part of the economy and was mainly used for helping entrepreneurs get money so they could make their companies go global. This is a very necessary part of our economy and helps generate real goods and services.

It was Democratic leaders who made Wall Street explode in size with the creation of the secondary market in the late 60's and early 70's. I think conservatives were pretty complicit in the whole mess. They didn't want to vote against GSEs and other entitlement programs, probably because they didn't want it to look like they didn't care about the poor.

[–] timmy_501 14 years ago

Because Republicans don't believe in regulating the market and the main problem on Wall Street is a lack of regulation. Apparently admitting the market isn't infallible would amount to a complete rejection of their principles, at least in this case. So, I guess you might say certain Republicans have principles only at the worst possible times, when they have the most potential to harm others.

This is why Greenspan didn't take steps to fix the problem as well.

This post brought to you by The Yoyodyne Corporation

[–] dwendt_99 13 years ago

I don't defend Wall Street but the United States is not to blame for Europe's welfare system.

[–] mulhollandpsycho 13 years ago

The conservatives either put their money into Wall Street firms, or they hope to some day soon once Jesus gives them a winning lottery ticket.

[–] stanleygoodspeed99 13 years ago

Why does the average conservative out there feel the need to defend all of Wall Street's actions and exonerate the execs?

I'd probably qualify as the 'average conservative' but I don't try and defend all of Wall St's actions and certainly don't support exonerating the execs. I think the execs who were in charge of banks that got bailed out should have been immediately canned. In any other situation if you're the director of an insolvent company you come under much more scrutiny.

You know you can be a conservative, vote Republican and still attack the greed and corruption of Wall Street.

I find your generalisation a little insulting.

I am all for people making profit, even super profit if they deserve it, because profit is what breeds high standards of living and the convergence of the developing and developed nations in the last 10 years is certainly indisputable evidence of this. But being rewarded for moral hazard and being given complete protection by the government and not having the government take any ownership of the company or provide any disappline is just wrong.

"I am Jack's cold sweat."

[–] timd03051 13 years ago

I am a conservative. What being a conservative means to me, is that no person has a right to take what another person works to earn, unless that person gives it willingly.

For the most part, I hold the government more responsible for financial crisis' more that Wall Street bankers, Goldman-Sachs, the Federal Reserve, etc. and here's why.

The Government is who actually takes our money and gives it to them. The Government is the tool of Wall Street that steals from the working class, and hands out our money to people who already have thousands of times more money than we have.

It was the government that confiscated the gold of private citizens by force and replaced it with Fiat Currency which can be deemed worthless by inflation.

The natural instinct of people is to prosper, be well fed and comfortable. Yes greed can be excessive, but Wall Street does not have the power by itself to deduct money from our paychecks or tax the products we buy.

As a member of the middle class, I see about 1/4 of everything I earn go to the poor and the rich. It upsets me more seeing my earnings go to bailing out corporations, but I also see people collecting welfare and using it to buy drugs, cigarettes and booze and acting like they've earned the money.

[–] timd03051 13 years ago

The funny thing also is that Liberals think only Conservatives support wall street. Look at Obama's connections to wall street. Soros, Corzine, Geitner, etc. Wake up people, they're playing us against eachother while both parties pick our pockets! Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters created the housing bubble that collapsed the economy!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

The funny thing is that Liberals think only Conservatives support wall street.

It's just that Conservatives wear their support of Wall Street on their sleeve, while Liberals at least attempt to offer suggestions and support for financial reform. Case in point: President Obama named Richard Cordray as his nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and serve as chief watchdog for the agency. Keep in mind that the CFPB is an integral part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform package--and without a director--such an agency becomes toothless. And if a director isn't appointed soon--there will be no one at the helm of CFPB until November 2012.

Yet all the GOP seems to be doing in relation to the CFPB is to stop Obama from making any appointments which reveal their true colors in the form of supporting Wall Street greed. To be fair--some GOP supporters insist that a bipartisan oversight committee be created--which president Obama now opposes. Some even accuse Cordray of being an Obama crony. In response to this Senator Robert Menendez said, "Cordray and consumer protection are being blocked simply because Republicans want to protect Wall Street."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

They sort of attempt too, but in the end the just follow the herd.

I honestly believed that Democrats would hold a firm position as far as raising taxes on millionaires--yet just a few days ago they abandoned their proposed surtax on the wealthy. Their excuse for doing this is to extend unemployment benefits and Social Security tax cuts which form an integral part of Obama's jobs program--and in the grand scheme of things to balance the budget. Yet when Democrats compromise after one year of partisan bickering with their GOP counterparts--in my opinion they are bargaining from a position of weakness since they would then need to make additional cuts in the budget in the neighborhood of approximately $140 billion after realizing that the surtax on millionaires is all of a sudden not in their best interest.

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters created the housing bubble that collapsed the economy!

And don't forget to mention GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich's lobbying activities with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--LOL! Speaking of the presidential hopeful--two high profile Washington think tanks (i.e., Brookings Institute, Urban Institute) who comprise the Tax Policy Center are now saying that Gingrich's tax plan will provide even bigger tax breaks for the wealthy than Bush's tax cuts which will lead to a huge loss in revenue and the resultant massive increase of the federal budget deficit--a double whammy for middle-class Americans. In addition--his tax formula will also reduce the corporate income tax rate to 12.5% from the current 35%. If this isn't an example of a Wall Street sock-puppet--then call me an idiot.

And what about the other Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney? It sure looks as if he'll continue his ways of downsizing jobs and benefits like he did while he was a corporate strategist at Bain Capitol--but on a much grander scale. Case in point--slashing 10 percent of the federal workforce while making drastic cuts in entitlement programs namely the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So that begs the question--is Romney suggesting that the 46.5 million (e.g., 15 percent of the U.S. population according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture) Americans who are currently on food stamps starve? He speaks of how U.S. residents need to be more self-reliant--when in reality multinational corporations seem to be making it increasingly difficult for Americans--or residents in other countries for that matter--to be self-sufficient.