View Full Version : Epochal redistribution of wealth: who will rein in Wall Street's welfare kings?
Winehole23
10-21-2009, 01:23 PM
The total Wall Street welfare bill according to Nomi Prins, the author and former Morgan Stanley managing director, comes to more than $13 trillion, (http://www.sitemason.com/files/llt49q/bailouttallysept2009.pdf). (That's about 37 years worth of total welfare transfers to low-income Americans.)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/welfare-reform-for-wall-s_b_325821.html
The only thing I don't get is the continuing reference to tea baggers from people like Leopold - like they DON'T care about the bailouts; THAT'S one of the things they are most pissed about - it was those types that were the only group opposed to TARP in the first place - hell TARP is why I didn't vote for McCain! (disclaimer: have NOT attended a tea-party, but I understand where "teabaggers" are coming from)
It was House Republicans that held up TARP - and were widely criticized in many areas for doing so - naive, wanting us to go into depression, etc.......no they were the only manisfestation of much of the public's anger about what was happening that actually held any power whatsoever.
Eventually, if we can quit bitching about minor stuff, those of us on the right and left have plenty to unite over - if that can manage to happen, REAL change can occur.
Winehole23
10-21-2009, 02:14 PM
The only thing I don't get is the continuing reference to tea baggers from people like Leopold - like they DON'T care about the bailoutsJuvenile and off-target. I agree.
1. The President Wage Cap: No one on welfare (in inner city Detroit or lower Manhattan alike) shall have an income more than the President of the United States ($400,000) until the unemployment rate drops below 5 percent. (Can't live on $400,000? Try $20,000 for a year and let us know how it compares.)
2. Windfall Profits Tax: A tax of 90 percent should be placed on all financial sector profits until the unemployment rate dips below 5 percent. This will help repatriate some of our Wall Street welfare payments.
3. Breakup the Big Banks: All financial institutions that are too big and too interconnected to fail should be immediately broken into smaller entities that are small enough to fail.
They should get that done yesterday, btw.
Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration will order seven companies that received the most government assistance to cut salaries of top executives by 90 percent on average, a person familiar with the situation said.
The Treasury Department’s announcement will come this week, the person said on condition of anonymity. Total compensation, including bonuses and other benefits, for the 25 highest-paid executives must be reduced by about 50 percent, the person said.
Of course it's all well and good to limit compensation this year; but if they don't tax it; the corp can simply defer it until those restrictions are removed. Again, a good, populist, headline, but not necessarily a real result.
Also, wondering if Goldman Sachs is one of those seven?
boutons_deux
10-21-2009, 03:51 PM
the banksters are too slippery to be caught by the Feds.
banksters think are they above the law, just like Christian supremacists who answer only to their peculiar idea of a God.
Winehole23
10-21-2009, 03:55 PM
Also, wondering if Goldman Sachs is one of those seven?
The businesses to be affected will include Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, and the financing arms of the two automakers.
The businesses to be affected will include Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, and the financing arms of the two automakers.
again:
:depressed
boutons_deux
10-21-2009, 04:15 PM
Goldman paid back its TARP, so it's out of the reach of the Feds.
boutons_deux
10-21-2009, 04:18 PM
I bet Goldman paid back its TARP with the $12B it got from AIG after AIG got bailed out.
iow, Goldman paid back its TARP with TARP funds. :lol
Unregulated capitalism is wonderful.
Winehole23
10-21-2009, 09:12 PM
(http://www.sitemason.com/files/llt49q/bailouttallysept2009.pdf)more than $13 trillion, (http://www.sitemason.com/files/llt49q/bailouttallysept2009.pdf). (That's about 37 years worth of total welfare transfers to low-income Americans.)This.
MannyIsGod
10-21-2009, 09:31 PM
It is this type of information that completely makes me fear a complete free market free of regulations. The ones who take advantage of such situations the best are those with the most money and power to begin with. For everyone else its an uphill climb.
Don't blame this on free markets; there is nothing remotely free about this market; WAY too much public money, and manipulation of the govt. for this to be "free" - hell the point of the article is that this is, after all, WELFARE!
coyotes_geek
10-21-2009, 10:01 PM
The only thing I don't get is the continuing reference to tea baggers from people like Leopold - like they DON'T care about the bailouts; THAT'S one of the things they are most pissed about - it was those types that were the only group opposed to TARP in the first place - hell TARP is why I didn't vote for McCain! (disclaimer: have NOT attended a tea-party, but I understand where "teabaggers" are coming from)
It was House Republicans that held up TARP - and were widely criticized in many areas for doing so - naive, wanting us to go into depression, etc.......no they were the only manisfestation of much of the public's anger about what was happening that actually held any power whatsoever.
Eventually, if we can quit bitching about minor stuff, those of us on the right and left have plenty to unite over - if that can manage to happen, REAL change can occur.
Yeah that whole tea party /teabagger deal pretty much tells us exactly where we are as a nation politically. Not that when it comes to hypocrisy in politics anything should surprise us, but I did have to take pause for a moment when democrats started attacking people who didn't think the government should be catering to big business.
Winehole23
10-22-2009, 12:01 AM
I did have to take pause for a moment when democrats started attacking people who didn't think the government should be catering to big business.Um, the tea-party tent covers a lot more than this.
You're right as far as that goes IMO, but the movement, so-called, is very heterogeneous. There's a lot of people I wouldn't be proud to stand next to there.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2009, 01:26 AM
Don't blame this on free markets; there is nothing remotely free about this market; WAY too much public money, and manipulation of the govt. for this to be "free" - hell the point of the article is that this is, after all, WELFARE!
Thats because a complete free market is an idealistic dream that will never happen. This article isn't about a recent problem, it goes back a long ass way including the glorified Reagan years.
And are you arguing that with less regulation that somehow these companies would be less capable of pulling this off? You seem to think somehow that big government is to blame but that is not the case.
An utter lack of public attention, education on the issue, or simple apathy coupled with the fact these corporations have the resources available to work the system far better than anyone else.
Nbadan
10-22-2009, 01:31 AM
Thats because a complete free market is an idealistic dream that will never happen. This article isn't about a recent problem, it goes back a long ass way including the glorified Reagan years
The swindling of America's manufacturing base goes back to Reagan's unregulated markets too....OH sure, we all benefited from cheap shit, and the only thing it's cost us is our country...
SpurNation
10-22-2009, 01:31 AM
Quite clearly we need a movement and bold political leadership with the guts to end this blatant hypocrisy. We need leadership that can tap into our egalitarian and communitarian traditions that place the common good before rapacious personal gain.
The walls of defense are apparently too thick to penetrate this Utopian suggestion. Though it may lead some to think there is hope in it ever happening by the mere suggestion. Eventually those that claim to have the ability to do something about it fall into it's abismal depth of corruption.
Nbadan
10-22-2009, 01:34 AM
That's bullcrap...in Europe politician fear their constituents because their constituents hold them politically accountable...in America we continue to vote for politicians that turn their backs on their constituents in favor of corporate lobbyist (money) everyday...
SpurNation
10-22-2009, 01:39 AM
in America we continue to vote for politicians that turn their backs on their constituents in favor of corporate lobbyist (money) everyday...
Bullcrap huh?
Nbadan
10-22-2009, 01:43 AM
No, the tea-bagger FAUX populism is bullcrap..because it completely removes the chance of any real tax-payer populist movement..
SpurNation
10-22-2009, 01:52 AM
Then what do you suggest? I'm not educated enough in European methods of corporate controll to offer suggestions.
Though I would speculate to be correct to think there isn't corruption in that arena as well that leads to the rich getting richer. Do people in Europe have less problems with poverty than we do in America?
Winehole23
10-22-2009, 01:52 AM
No, the tea-bagger FAUX populism is bullcrap..because it completely removes the chance of any real tax-payer populist movement..Disagree. The tea party thing is an equal opportunity anti-system incubator, for better and for worse.
Nbadan
10-22-2009, 01:55 AM
...not as long as it's sponsored by people the likes of Dick Armey it isn't...it's not anti-tax, it's pro-GOP..
Winehole23
10-22-2009, 02:01 AM
it's not anti-tax, it's pro-GOPIt's pretty clearly anti-tax. Take the wax out of your ears, Dan.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2009, 02:27 AM
It's pretty clearly anti-tax. Take the wax out of your ears, Dan.
No its not. Its anti-Obama under the guise of anti-tax small government reform. Color me cynical that after year after year of these policies they didn't have a problem to the point they do now. Why was Obama the tipping point WH?
What people say they stand for is one thing but what actually drives them to protest is another. It isn't as though the tea party movement has grown either.
Thats because a complete free market is an idealistic dream that will never happen. This article isn't about a recent problem, it goes back a long ass way including the glorified Reagan years.
And are you arguing that with less regulation that somehow these companies would be less capable of pulling this off? You seem to think somehow that big government is to blame but that is not the case.
An utter lack of public attention, education on the issue, or simple apathy coupled with the fact these corporations have the resources available to work the system far better than anyone else.
Where, exactly, did I call for less regulation.
I agree with the author of the article that the big corps ought to be broken up! You're trying to put me in a box I don't fit in, here.
I still believe, however, that govt. is MORE to blame than the corps. It's govt. after all, that is taking money from me by coercion to pay those corps. The businesses, left to their own devices to not possess that kind of power.
boutons_deux
10-22-2009, 08:53 AM
"The businesses, left to their own devices to not possess that kind of power."
Their power to suck dollars out of citizens' pockets for shitty products is much more sinister.
"The businesses, left to their own devices to not possess that kind of power."
Their power to suck dollars out of citizens' pockets for shitty products is much more sinister.
I dont' HAVE to buy the shitty products; also, the corps in question are not in retail.
Winehole23
10-22-2009, 09:10 AM
No its not. Its anti-Obama under the guise of anti-tax small government reform. Color me cynical that after year after year of these policies they didn't have a problem to the point they do now. Why was Obama the tipping point WH?There were rumblings beforehand. Ron Paul's strong netroots and the enthusistic public manifestations made on his behalf were a foreshadowing IMO.
What people say they stand for is one thing but what actually drives them to protest is another.I don't see the two as necessarily being mutually exclusive.
boutons_deux
10-22-2009, 09:10 AM
"I dont' HAVE to buy the shitty products"
you don't buy groceries?
you don't buy gasoline whose price has been inflated by Wall St speculators?
you don't buy prescription drugs made by BigPharma that don't do shit better than generics or don't do anything at all?
you don't have credit cards and bank accounts whose fees are jacked up for no increase in service?
etc, etc, etc.
"I dont' HAVE to buy the shitty products"
you don't buy groceries?
I'm very picky and selective; I don't shop at Wal Mart, and generally groceries are not produced in China.
you don't buy gasoline whose price has been inflated by Wall St speculators?
This has pissed me off forever, I am NOT opposed to govt. putting a stop to it - however, there is a thread on this, and WH has indicated how tricky regulating this stuff can be. Oh, and I live in a small town AND bought a scooter a couple of months ago; gets 85 mpg.
you don't buy prescription drugs made by BigPharma that don't do shit better than generics or don't do anything at all?
I am 41 years old. I have NEVER bought a non-generic drug for me or my family. Scout's honor.
you don't have credit cards and bank accounts whose fees are jacked up for no increase in service?
I, literally, have a no-fee, no minimum balance account as my primary checking at Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union - I never pay credit card fees or interest; in fact I take advantage of the generous rewards programs (went to Disney for free a couple of years ago w/the family).
etc, etc, etc.
No, really, I'm a discriminating, smart shopper - and manager of my money. It amazes me how many people are not, and are the "sheeple" you refer to in my sig. Protecting my rights to BE smart and wise with my $$$ should be as important as protecting their idiot selves from getting taken advantage of - if not more so.
admiralsnackbar
10-22-2009, 12:44 PM
I still believe, however, that govt. is MORE to blame than the corps. It's govt. after all, that is taking money from me by coercion to pay those corps. The businesses, left to their own devices to not possess that kind of power.
The government took your money and gave it to these mountebanks because our entire market system runs on credit -- if the lenders went under, most businesses would die, nobody could afford to buy a house, etc etc etc.
If legislators and administrators on both sides of the aisle hadn't incrementally whittled away at financial regulations to satisfy their corporate sugar daddies, if they'd enforced anti-trust laws or created new ones, if they'd kept the SEC from wilting into little more than a bullshit agency? I don't think we'd be in this position, and if some banks had made bad bets, they'd be rewarded with what they deserve: obsolescence.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Where, exactly, did I call for less regulation.
I agree with the author of the article that the big corps ought to be broken up! You're trying to put me in a box I don't fit in, here.
I still believe, however, that govt. is MORE to blame than the corps. It's govt. after all, that is taking money from me by coercion to pay those corps. The businesses, left to their own devices to not possess that kind of power.
You just defended the free market and the advocated the breaking up up large corporations which are not exactly statements which are inline with each other.
Why or how you are choosing to blame the government more than the corps is lost on me - especially when you just advocated breaking up the corporations which is not an anti government action.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm very picky and selective; I don't shop at Wal Mart, and generally groceries are not produced in China.
[quote]
You said shitty products not Chinese products.
[quote]
This has pissed me off forever, I am NOT opposed to govt. putting a stop to it - however, there is a thread on this, and WH has indicated how tricky regulating this stuff can be. Oh, and I live in a small town AND bought a scooter a couple of months ago; gets 85 mpg.
[quote]
I don't have too much of a problem with the gasoline manipulation tbh. I have more of a problem with our governments use of military force to protect it in the Persian gulf and the cost to our country in that manner. I have a problem with the lack of support to other technologies prior to the last decade or so (not that its even enough now).
[quote]
I am 41 years old. I have NEVER bought a non-generic drug for me or my family. Scout's honor.
Thats fine but drugs are not generic right off the bat so thats more of a statement of when you needed them. Also, certain drugs can be less effective when they are the generic version. They are not the same.
I, literally, have a no-fee, no minimum balance account as my primary checking at Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union - I never pay credit card fees or interest; in fact I take advantage of the generous rewards programs (went to Disney for free a couple of years ago w/the family).
Credit Union or small local bank FTW. Great choice. This is an area where people are just retarded for the most part. I banked with BoA for about 2 months before I went back to a local bank. Its fucking horrible.
No, really, I'm a discriminating, smart shopper - and manager of my money. It amazes me how many people are not, and are the "sheeple" you refer to in my sig. Protecting my rights to BE smart and wise with my $$$ should be as important as protecting their idiot selves from getting taken advantage of - if not more so.
People are not smart and rational. They are fairly retarded.
You said shitty products not Chinese products.
Somebody said groceries (you or Boutons; was directly responding to that.
I don't have too much of a problem with the gasoline manipulation tbh. I have more of a problem with our governments use of military force to protect it in the Persian gulf and the cost to our country in that manner. I have a problem with the lack of support to other technologies prior to the last decade or so (not that its even enough now).
Thats fine but drugs are not generic right off the bat so thats more of a statement of when you needed them. Also, certain drugs can be less effective when they are the generic version. They are not the same.
Eventually I may get something in which there is a newer drug which works better than one that existed 3 - 5 years earlier; however MOST diseases can be handled with the drug that is just a few years old, but just as effectively, despite what the drug company's ads tell you every night. Of course, every Rx we've gotten has either been and antibiotic (those are free in many stores now) or Oxcodone a couple of times 'cause I have a tendency to get crap that hurts a HELL of a lot (ulcer on my freaking cornea, kidney stone, etc...)
Credit Union or small local bank FTW. Great choice. This is an area where people are just retarded for the most part. I banked with BoA for about 2 months before I went back to a local bank. Its fucking horrible.
Yeah.
People are not smart and rational. They are fairly retarded.
Why democracy cannot work.
- Plato
You just defended the free market and the advocated the breaking up up large corporations which are not exactly statements which are inline with each other.
Why or how you are choosing to blame the government more than the corps is lost on me - especially when you just advocated breaking up the corporations which is not an anti government action.
If the businesses are "Too Big Too Fail" - that our government just can't help itself but bail these corps out; AND those corps then factor that in their business model???
They are too big to exist.
MannyIsGod
10-22-2009, 03:24 PM
If the businesses are "Too Big Too Fail" - that our government just can't help itself but bail these corps out; AND those corps then factor that in their business model???
They are too big to exist.
I don't dispute any of that. I just take issue with your embracing of that principle and the free market since both are at odds with each other. Someone supporting a free market system would say that the consumers would decide who was too big. I've started believe that notion is laughable.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.