Please help me understand this Moore comment

[KayLaw]

He's talking about the economy and job losses, etc. in this article:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-08-29

He makes the point that 12 of Bush's top 20 donors are finance companies and that Merrill Lynch alone has donated $282,250 to reelect Bush. He then asks doesn't it seem strange that companies that should be suffering greatly from the destroyed economy are in fact donating the most to keep Bush in office and reelect him?

Yes, it sure seems strange to me, but Moore doesn't say in that article why they are doing this and I just don't get it. Can any of you help me out here?

[Iverson]

1. It's quite logical.

These companies are acting to aggregate more power to themselves. Supporting ruthless idiots in the political arena is just one element of that impulse.

What, you think they care about real people?

[southern democrat]

3. I don't think these fat cats

are suffering too much.Most of the money that was in stock market is still there.It is just in different peoples hand.It went out of individuals 401k's to Wall street sharks who could afford to wait and pick up those deflated markets.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. IMHO, the key word is SHOULD in ...

"...companies that SHOULD be suffering greatly from the destroyed economy..."

They aren't suffering and have plenty of cash on hand. Seized properties and creative accounting with little to no real regulation makes for a profitable scenario for these loan sharks.

[Don_G]

4. Preemptive Consideration

When it's discovered what they've been doing to their average investor and ultimately this country. A few hundred thousand now beats a multi-million dollar fine and jail time.

[AP]

5. In Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips has a lot of scorn

for insurance companies and for finance in general, which he think contribute little to the economy and, in fact, result in a less competitive economy because they profit off of finance tricks and legislated markets, rather than by producing something valuable to society.

One example of how this works (but which is just a small part of this thing) is that, when the US goes into debt, the US has to issue bonds, which creates a lot of profit for the bond markets. So, debt is bad for most of America, but it's really good and really profitable for a small sector of wealthy and powerful people on Wall St.

[pansypoo53219]

6. and boy oh boy

do they have debt to finance.

[Solomon]

7. Insurance Companies

I call it legalized extortion.

[KG]

8. it's protection money

to sheild them from prosecution when they get caught ripping off their cutomers.

[KayLaw]

9. Thanks

That's pretty depressing but thanks.

[LoneStarLiberal]

10. Remember the Depth of Finance

The economic ruin we see around us is mostly economic ruin for the lower and middle classes who work salary or hourly for their livings.

Just because things are bad for us doesn't mean they are bad for the people setting the terms of the economy. I'd safely include investment banks in that group.

Besides, bad times are possibly the best possible times for them: Poor economic performance means lots of cheap assets for them to purchase.

Basically there is no truly bad time for the big investment banks...unless we see a really big pop of our current credit market bubble. Not likely.