Reply #17: Interesting - that is a much closer link between stocks held by Brown

[karynnj]

that benefited by the actions of Brown alone. (In Kerry's case, there is not a real example of an action that benefited a stock that even the Heinz trust held. It is asinine to count all healthcare buys in 2003 and 2007 - as ANY large portofolio likely had some. )

BUT, even here, it also shows how unfair the methodology is. You could make the case that he did it to get WS support and money for his campaign (a common accusation) or I think the real truth is that his action fit his simplistic ideology - that any taxes are bad - even if the tax was to set up a $19 billion fund to deal with any future to big to fail financial institution. It apparently escapes him that his action means that he set things up so that the US taxpayer again will pay for the failure - through some or all of the $19 billion recovered TARP money.

So, Brown either legislated:
- for personal gain
- for campaign contributions
OR
- because he things the taxpayer should pay if banks make bad decisions.

How much do you want to bet that THIS story stays out of the Boston papers?