Obama must be thrilled – abandoning the public finance system so that he could load up on corporate cash is now he got into office.

It seems pretty logical to me. Free speech isn’t and hasn’t been limited to just verbal communication and suggesting the way one chooses to spend his or her money is not a demonstration of speech is pretty weak.

Besides, the 50% of American citizens who aren’t paying federal income taxes shouldn’t have a vote at all in government anyway. This country needs to move back to a system where citizens actually have some skin in the game.

I guess now we can say, to paraphrase the old veterans’ expression, “freedom of speech is not free”.

More money = More rights

same old stuff

Where’s the “flag it” when we need it?

Like I say! Protect the slave owners Justice Taney Roberts!

So as we Americans struggle to provide for our families, this Court protects the interest of corporations, to use the money extracted from “We the People,” to lie cheat and steal and further eviscerate America? What a Jackass! Deja Vu!

Matching speech funds would definitely get more people involved in government.

If all a person had to do was sign up to run for office and he’d be handed campaign financing equal to the highest fundraiser, why wouldn’t everyone run?

It’s probably time to consider not bowing to SC decisions. I’d bet there are governors and state legislators and attorneys general giving non compliance some thought. A public discussion around the various issues in play would be bracing.

Brilliant comment.

On the Merits? Versus BULLSHIT!

It is a sad day and to me anyway it shows that we can never elect a republican to the presidency. Look at what they have done.

Be careful what you wish for:

Obama took in about $200 million more dollars than McCain.

What is most striking to us is how much more of Obama’s donations come from the $1 to $100 bracket. We found a high number of students, artists, unemployed and self-employed people who fell in this bracket. One can speculate that these are the younger-generation individuals who will be voting for the first time or they are a struggling class of lower income workers.

This data also shows that a majority of McCain’s donations come from the $500 to $1000 bracket of donors. The amount is still smaller than Obama’s, but this makes up almost two-thirds of his donations.

Under the proposed system, the government would have been required to give McCain $200,000,000 to off-set all the dollars of those students, artists, unemployed and self-employed people.

That spiel gets funnier every time I read it.

The depth of Conservative idiocy is amazing.

Please find another term to describe the Supremes hijacking our form of Gov’t. There is NOTHING “conservative” about what they’re doing!

It’s 47% and that percentage is from 2009 and the majority of the percentage is from people who did not make enough money to have to pay taxes. So you want basically only the rich to be able to vote.
Keep flinging, something is bound to stick to the wall eventually.

ummmmmmm … which Dim-0-Fucks stood up and fillibustered this asshole’s nomination? hell, which ones voted for him?

HOPE-fully biden will get a deal to stop funding social security and medicare, AND to outsource each to Goldman & AHIP

and then MAYBE people will be sick of the shitbags running this country?

rmm.

Although Jon did call them “the five conservative justices,” he quite accurately called what they just did “a radical interruption of the First Amendment that effectively created a new right for the rich…” I think he meant “interpretation,” but “interruption” works too.

At what point does our entire government become irrelevant? It would seem that the next move as the War on Drugs winds down the War on People begins and people start being put in jail for standing up to Corporations.

I’ve been to some dog & pony shows about this legislation in Seattle -

part of qualifying for funding is getting … for example – 500 signatures AND 500 $5 donations – you gotta get off your ass and go out and meet people and get them to support you.

you just don’t fill out some internet form and money starts appearing in your bank account.

one of the many cool things is that with the $5 donation requirement, only the poorest of the poor can’t contribute. you can knock on doors where working people live – IF you can find them home among their 3 part time junk mart jobs – instead of having to kiss ass in the affluent neighborhoods to raise money to hire the affluent neighborhood CON$ultant$ who’ve proven themselves adept at staying employed, keeping fat paychecks, and getting their asses handed to them by the ailes, atewaters and roves.

rmm.

rmm.

Oily poo never sticks to the wall.

Why doesn’t the top 1%ers pay 42 % of the income tax alone since they grab 42% of the financial wealth in the country ?

I don’t want voting to be limited to the rich. I want voting limited to taxpayers and with the top 5% of earners in this country shouldering ~60% of the tax burden the number of people paying federal income tax is getting lower and lower. You have to have some skin in the game if you are going to take part in the decision making process or you end up with an unsustainable burden on a smaller and smaller minority.

They pay ~38% so they aren’t far off…..

But more importantly why are you trying to penalize monetary success? Why are you taking away the incentive to work, to grow a business, to create jobs?

“The movements of the Roberts Court on campaign financing reform are beyond troubling. The rich no longer just have a right to free speech, their money now apparently gives them the inherent right to speak louder and longer than anyone else.”

During the pre-Civil War’s Antebellum Senate and House Divided, the slave owners used all their clout to protect slavery. This is repeat in history.

The Robert’s Court is protecting the use of money to manipulate elections and give an upper hand to the “monied interests,” as Jefferson warned. This is exactly what Taney did in Dred Scott as he sealed America’s fate, into Civil War, by protecting the slave-owners’s interests by saying Scott was not entitled to protection of law, was inferior therefore property!

Let’s call this “abortion” of a decision, progress? For those dissenting Justices, thank you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

They are thieves then ?

They are fucking thieves fucking the country that made their thievery possible.

Stealing from the poor when they are so blessed, give them the French haircut.

Where are the FUCKING jobs then ?

There are no jobs, did you notice over 400,000 lost their jobs sucking the riches asses last week?

Income tax is based on “income”, not wealth.

Big business wants to lower wages and keep people poor. According to your theory, more and more people won’t be able to vote. And a disproportionate number of women and minorities are poor. So, it will be the rich white dudes who will continue to run the world. Not only is this immoral but it is down right boring.

thieves? how so? Starting businesses? pouring sweat into your work? making smart financial decisions makes you a thief?

The people demanding money out of the pockets of these folks are the thieves.

And untaxed income is wealth accumulation or what do you call it ?

Why will more and more people not be able to vote? Why not extend federal income tax rates across the spectrum? paying 10% or even 5% is a contribution.

what untaxed income?

You are wrong. They are thieves, whether you call them a rose or not.

I said fucking thieves not just stealing to stay alive.

Atomic energy for example at the end there is no profit when costs to contain are included and as Fukushima shows the big boys can’t and won’t cover the costs when the game goes belly up.

Profit is shifted hidden costs.

I want voting limited to taxpayers and with the top 5% of earners in this country shouldering ~60% of the tax burden the number of people paying federal income tax is getting lower and lower.

Boy you would have fit right in back around the 12th Century. Although in those days, it was the Lords of the Manor and nobility rather than the “taxpayer.”

“But more importantly why are you trying to penalize monetary success? Why are you taking away the incentive to work, to grow a business, to create jobs?”

Why not ask the fucking oil whores: “Did oil at 147.50 gut America, resulting in the loss of jobs and economic productivity?” Or ask a business owners: How fuel charges helped them to grow businesses and create jobs? Better yet ask Goldman Sachs why the incentive to work, grow a business and create jobs, has been devastated in America? On what fucking planet and or in what fucking bubble do you reside?

To what extent is the wealth inequality trend simply reflective of the rising level of income inequality?

Part of it reflects underlying increases in income inequality, but the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we’ve had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices.

It is easy to vote for more and more handouts more and more spending when you know not a dime of it is coming from your pockets. I’m not suggesting we shrink the voter base, I’m suggesting we expand the taxpayer base.

Which class controls the price of housing, the bottom 10% ?

They are not hand outs they are give backs . Big Difference.

Payback for the roads , the schools , the legal system the police protection in short what America is.

They love stealing from the commons for themselves.

The media US income is $46,000. The top 1% makes $1.5 million or more, the top .01% makes $5.5 million or more. So OF COURSE they pay a higher percentage of the total US Federal taxes paid – they make hundreds of times the median. Sheesh.
No one is penalizing the wealthy – they live here, they made their money here, they should pay for the opportunity.

give backs? for what, there wasn’t a contribution to begin with? Its a hand out plain and simple. A larger and larger group is demanding services and product without paying for it. Not any different then walking into your neighbors house and stealing his tv. Its theft plain and simple.

The top 1% makes $380k pre-tax, not $1.5 million.

and that is the top 1% Why are these people being punished for making money? Why should they be forced to pay a greater percentage of their income than the rest of the country?

Why will more and more people not be able to vote? Why not extend federal income tax rates across the spectrum? paying 10% or even 5% is a contribution.

I would agree to that if the income was distributed more fairly. People who hold your kind of philosophy don’t acknowledge two things. One is that employees create the wealth for the employer. Two is that there have never been enough jobs for everyone. Ever.

The income tax is progressive. Most other taxes including the payroll tax, sales tax, tobacco tax, gasoline tax, etc. are regressive. The people not paying progressive taxes are paying the lions share of the regressive taxes. What you are saying is bull shit. Find a new way to feel superior.

Thank you.

“It is easy to vote for more and more handouts more and more spending when you know not a dime of it is coming from your pockets.”

I think I heard the CEO of BP saying these exact words the other day. Or was it the CEO of GE? Or . . . ?

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “ I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me –

“It’s probably time to consider not bowing to SC decisions.”

All of the states, singly or in groups, should secede from the union. The Roberts Court would be the Supreme Court of The District Of Columbia.

http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-breaking-down-the-us-household-income-numbers/

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/how-much-do-wealthiest-americans-make.html

http://fedupusa.org/2010/12/11/how-much-does-the-average-american-make-in-2010-examining-new-data-on-u-s-household-income-numbers-and-high-income-earners-100-million-americans-make-less-than-39999-per-year/

Exqueeze me?

You’re really starting to reach. Who is paying more in sales tax? someone in the top 1% or someone inn the bottom 50%? Is the person in the top 1% getting more benefit from public schools? state roads etc etc than the person in the bottom 50%? no of course not. That person is likely sending a child to private school while still paying the property taxes, sales tax etc. If you want to be specific about the payroll taxes the caps for SS are because benefits are also capped. Besides that isn’t really a tax its a government sponsored savings plan…atleast that is what I read here all the time

They do not pay a larger percentage of their income than most of the country. Good grief, where did you get that BS from? The top 1% has far more deductions and credits and ability to hide wealth than the rest of us.

Read it again. Your chart shows the top 0.1% not the top 1% as you stated in post 41. If you assume that there are 115 million households in the U.S. then the top 0.1% making$ $1.6 million amounts to 115k or just under 2,300 per state.

You’re right – I forgot the decimal point – I also forgot the “n” in “median”. There are 146,000 households at last count in the top .1%

You wouldn’t find this so great is some candidate was able to raise large amounts through effective social media work, from the grass roots, and then the government gave equal funds to the other candidate who was not so popular among the public.

People who have positions widely liked by the public have not really had much trouble raising money. On both sides of issues.

Remember, the biggest single contributors to campaigns are generally unions, so both sides have some very deep pocketed supporters.

Only fringe people like Ron Paul find it hard to raise money.

The law would only reward incompetent candidates of any sort of view.

Look at a couple making 400k in CA (with two of the most expensive real estate markets in the country). With state income tax of 11% on top of federal rates your at almost 50% of income. That is somehow fair? giving the government one dollar for each dollar you make? Which person making 50k a year pays anywhere near 50% of income towards taxes?

so you want to get upset because one tenth of one percent makes a million and a half or more a year? Give me a break. That is nothing more than envy.

Who sucked up the welfare TARP money, the bottom or top ten percent.

Link for the union assertion please .

What is the proper percentage to get upset at then , you must know ?

The question is why do you hate the Eisenhower years, a.k.a. the good old days, with the 90% tax rate and the 31+% union membership ?

The Roberts Court continues its work turning America into corporatocracy with a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

“Turning America into.”

This is mind numbingly silly and the major reason why even well meaning “activists” in the “liberal netroots” have accomplished nothing and probably never will. America isn’t being turned into a government of, by and for the rich. It’s already there and has been for a good while. This idea that it is still “turning into” keeps being repeated because either the people repeating it are clueless or they just don’t want to deal with what it will take to change things. So, this fantasy keeps being repeated.

The fact that the major “liberal” independent info-gatekeeper netroots sites have not devoted a permanent, top-front page expose on Sheldon Wolin’s insights into Inverted Totalitarianism and Managed Democracy so as to explain to their readers that the United States is NOT a functioning democracy is an absolute travesty. And very telling too as far as I am concerned. I believe sites like FDL have failed miserably and I think they don’t care much. It’s article after article of “what THEY are doing lately” just to keep the outrage up. Just to keep readers on the hook. And now we see FDL with a “membership drive” so they can continue this utter failure? No thanks.

If you want a plutocracy move to another country. A good portion of those non-taxpaying folks of which you speak are soldiers who’ve done more for this country then the 50% who do everything they can to dodge paying a dime to the country that allowed the to acquire 99.8% of its wealth(the bottom 40% pay nothing because they own nothing.)

Besides the fact that TARP has been 70% paid back to date and kept all those fat cat bank tellers making $10 an hour employed……

The fat cats, you know the John, Mack, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfien, Vikram Pandits of the world made how much in 2008? in 2009? Pretty sure most of them were working for $1. Are you willing to do that? Nobody was getting fat because of TARP, except maybe the auto unions.

Who said it was the good old days?

A fascinating and relevant read from headier times: Mortimer Zuckerman’s “A Second American Century” from Foreign Affairs May-June 1998

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/54013/mortimer-b-zuckerman/debate-a-second-american-century

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20048873

I guess that 50% trying to dodge taxes should just quit working or work less. quit innovating, quit manufacturing, quit creating jobs then they could be like the current 50% who don’t pay anything.

I don’t think I ever questions the patriotism of the military, or suggested that they shouldn’t be able to vote. There are ~$3 million active and reserve servicemen and women, if you assume that each belongs to an independent household (of which there are 115 million) then the military households make up about 2.6%. 2.6% is not a significant portion of 50%.

Its pretty east spending other peoples money, using their sweat and hard work isn’t it.

You ought to be more careful when you pull crap out of your backside.

Jamie Dimon’s compensation for 2008 totaled 19.7 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/18/us-jpmorgan-proxy-idUSTRE52H7ZL20090318

I’m pretty sure anyone here would be quite happy with that type of payday and we wouldn’t be whining about having to pay taxes on it.

It is their choice to live in CA, with the high state taxes…we are talking Federal taxes here, not state.

In what post did I say I am not one of the .1%? Envy, indeed. You have no idea who I am.

An e6 with 8 years and dependants qualifies for an earned income tax credit you dolt. They make less than $38,000 a year. In your words they’re a bunch of freeloaders because they “don’t pay taxes.” Duh.

The economy said it was the good old days.

ohh good, 1 in every 3 dollars then. That is much more reasonable….So reasonable that a flat tax at 35% would right the ship pretty quickly. Lets see how many of the helpless people in the bottom 50% are willing to jump on board so we all pay our fair share.

He was surely writing snark. Or else he doesn’t know that poor people pay federal payroll taxes, excise taxes and import duties. I guess those don’t count. But if they don’t count than nobody should have been able to vote before the amendment permitting federal income taxation was passed in 1913.

Amen brother!

The top who resent paying can feel free to move to another country if they don’t like paying taxes. Frankly, I doubt they’d be missed much. Many of us that pay are okay with it so don’t pretend to speak for every taxpayer.

I’m talking broadly about people pissing and moaning about 150k households out of 115 million, since you suggested they were the problem and under taxed. But since you want to make it about you I’m sure your in the top .01% and voluntarily pay that 90% rate because your just so damn generous.

This court would have been right at home in the Soviet Union in the 30′s.

“Sweat and hard work”

Heh yeah let’s pretend that people earning millions are just like migrant workers working in the field rather than a bunch of folk profitting off the actual labor of those you wish to disenfranchise(store clerks, gas station attendants, janitors, waitresses, etc, etc.)

You’re a hoot. I don’t know who you think your fooling though.

ha they are.

Where do you think all those lost jobs went overseas.

Heck, look at the corporations leaving high tax states like IL and CA in favor of more business friendly states like CO and TX. Its only a matter of time before they are off to Singapore or wherever else.

Still falling into that failed assumption that all wealth has been inherited? Keep up the class warfare rhetoric and see where it gets you when there isn’t anyone left to tax.

What part of “they don’t make enough money to pay taxes” don’t you understand? You are impossible to discuss this with – thick as a brick, stuck in your ways, tunnel-visioned…

Right about that.

They went overseas because they figured they could exploit the chinese and indians.

I hear it isn’t working out so well though. They’re coming back.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/business/article_0b56a6ce-de69-11df-b125-001cc4c002e0.html

Guess along with your fuedal mentality, you don’t keep up with business news either.

The War on People is well along.

If they are unwilling to contribute anything through payment of federal then they shouldn’t be able to vote. Why allow some freeloader to vote on how someone else’s money is spent. I don;t care if you make the rate 1% on anything up to 50k but you need to make it something.

Since when does earning money from investment and a stock portfolio mean your income is “inherited?”

Dude you really need to get your arguments down.

One more time- you’ve just called a bunch of enlisted folks serving overseas-freeloaders. You have to make above a certain income to actually pay income taxes and many of them don’t.

You think the majority of people in the top 5% of earners make their family income from dividends and interest? Like I said, 115K households out of 115 million earn 1.5 million a year. Maybe that 0.1% can do that but the rest of the “rich” can not.

you are trying way too hard. Would it make you feel better if I said that 2.6% of households who members serving in the military didn’t have to pay anything? That only leaves 47.4% of u.s. households that aren’t paying their not even fair share but any share, whether it be through federal income tax or military service.

“When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account,the bottom fifth of households paid 16.3 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, in 2010. The second-poorest fifth paid 20.7 percent.”

“The fact that most people who do not pay federal income tax in a given year do pay substantial amounts of other taxes, and also are net federal income taxpayers over time, belies the claim that households that don’t owe income tax will form bad policy judgments because they ostensibly “don’t have any skin in the game.””

The full text is here:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Since you insist on hijacking this thread I went and got you a link. It was easy as hell. You could have done it for yourself. The meme that half of Americans pay no taxes is a huge fucking LIE. Please stop repeating it.

I am reminded of an issue before the Marshal Court where he demanded that Indian lands be returned to the Indians and they be given payment for their suffering. President Jackson said to the court that they could enforce the decision with their own army. Having none, the court was irrelevant. (Worcester v Georgia)

Again with this. we are talking about federal income tax, which your article seems to highlight in the first bullet point.

Payroll taxes like SS are a government sponsored savings program right? (That is what I read here “its our money so cutting benefits is amount to stealing”) If that is the case that isn’t a tax is it. Same goes for medicare. Which tax is going into the general coffers for defense, interest on U.S. debt, department of education, homeland security etc etc etc. You can spin it however you want but with more and more citizens riding the bus for free eventually you run out of pays to pay for gas.

That’s mighty swell of you to give an exemption to people being shot at. Maybe you might want to actually rethink the whole entire “freeloader” thing since many people who are working are actually contributing to this country in ways that aren’t monetary.

Or are you suggesting an elementary school teacher who educates but qualifies for all of her money back is a freeloader as well and not nearly as industrious as the veneable Jamie Dimon(who pays taxes through his “sweat and hard work?”BAHAHAHAHA)

Dude, I ain’t even had to try in this conversation. It’s been like shooting fish in a barrel.

I can’t wait for you to inform half the country that they ain’t working hard enough.

Tell that to the buttwipes who took 1.5 trillion of it and now want to cut benefits since they spent it on a bright shiny new war. It isn’t a tax my backside.

Even at a 90% tax rate, no less, works out to $ 1.97 million.

Could squeeze by, I guess.

I think if you can afford to park your money in the bank long enough because you earn millions that you can earn interest. I think you can earn off investment. I think you can inherit. None of those things has anything to do with the “sweat and hard work” you insist is how wealth is amassed.

I also know that a guy with a family can work 2 jobs and still not make enough to actually have to pay taxes since the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour and working 80 hour weekly would net that guy a little over $30,000(and qualify him for a credit if he has children.)

This is one of those decidedly be-careful-what-you-wish-for moments. Defying any court in a rule of law society is extremely dangerous. However, the courts have become, by design, corrupt so that forthright and substantial corrective measures are needed. No pussy footing around, no mincing hat in hand to committees. The courts in this country have become Augean stables and timid half measures won’t make the point that court integrity matters.

HeadedWest are you only giving those “exemptions” while they actively serve?

Or are you gonna tell a bunch of older veterans that they’re freeloaders because their liability is zilch?

My household has both of us as veterans and we didn’t have to pay up until last year. We didn’t earn enough.

I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul and Jeffersonian Libertarians. I guess I’m even a tenth’er although I would rather argue about what the constitution should say than what it does say.

But Randroids make me puke. Workers take what the good earth provides and by their labor create wealth. The rest of you should kiss our ass. We don’t mind sharing it with the parasites you admire but the bastards want it all. Stay stupid if that is your choice.

“I don’t want voting to be limited to the rich. I want voting limited to taxpayers…..”

I have generously shown you that even the bottom 5th are taxpayers.

“It is easy to vote for more and more handouts more and more spending when you know not a dime of it is coming from your pockets. I’m not suggesting we shrink the voter base, I’m suggesting we expand the taxpayer base.”

Your straw-man pays “not a dime” but Americans, even the bottom 5th do pay taxes.

“A larger and larger group is demanding services and product without paying for it.”

They are paying for it as I have demonstrated.

“If they are unwilling to contribute anything through payment of federal then they shouldn’t be able to vote. Why allow some freeloader to vote on how someone else’s money is spent.”`

First, it’s not someone else’s money. We all pay taxes. Second, you just called everyone who is excused from the progressive tax a freeloader. Your contempt for the working poor makes you as unattractive as you are ignorant.

Once you’ve equated money with speech, that is what must be done, unless you intend to turn a democracy into an oligarchy. That’s what make the Citizen’s United decision such an egregious miscarriage of the Constitution. Don’t beat your wife, then complain that she’s ugly.

That’s just 1 year worth of income too. A minimum wage earner could work 30 years and not make 1.97 million. The guy holding down the theoretical median wage job with a $755 a week income could work 30 years and not make 1.9 million income. I guess it must because Jamie works soooooo much harder then all these folk. It’s all the “sweat and hard work” dontcha know? Hard work my backside.

You really think comparing the responsibilities and stresses of a starbucks barista vs a man running a $150 billion bank with more than 240,000 employees makes sense? More than a bit disingenuous don’t you think or maybe you’re just completely naive.

You mean the 150 billion dollar bank that he ran so poorly that I needed to require a bailout to it?

The starbucks barista at least operates with competence and more than earned their paycheck.

You’re right his gross incompetence should net him a 7 figure income.

Oh and Blankenfein’s compensation in 2008 makes poor Jamie’s compensation look puny.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_Lloyd-C-Blankfein_SQNA.html

He got over 20 million in “bonuses” for helping tank the economy. Weeeeeeeeeee

rewriting history? Neither JPM nor GS asked for bailout funds. They were asked to take money in order not to create the appearance of good banks vs bad banks and drive further panic.

But must feel good to scapegoat the banks. while forgiving those that bought more house than they could afford and stopped paying their obligations after 6 months.

Really don;t understand your issue with someone elses finances. Seems like nothing more than jealousy. His income doesn’t have any impact on you. Hell the taxes on his bonus may have helped pay for the services your using.

Poor Vikram Pandit, he only got paid $250,000 in 2008(not quite that $1 you suggest Headed West). Still not bad for 6 months worth of CEOing particularly since median income guy could work 10 years and not see that amount of income.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead_bestbosses08_Vikram-S-Pandit_EXKC.html

Are you paying any attention to what these folks own in stock options Headed West? Makes your insinuation that the bulk of wealth is accumulated because of “hard work” look rather ridiculous(unless you mean hard work that everyone in the company contributed to in order to create the value of the actual company.)

what was Pandit’s salary in 2009?

AIG CEO?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_ILRt7fNsF8vcw6T9SElI6O

So because executives get paid with options that means they haven’t worked hard for them? Years of school, 20+ years in the industry. Yea you’re right they didn’t do a thing to earn a paycheck. At the end of the day you aren’t paying a thing for their salaries and bonuses, you’re only benefiting from the tax revenue they generate. If the firm’s shareholders didn’t think these guys were worth their compensation they wouldn’t be there.

Time to face it some people have more challenging jobs than others and are generally paid accordingly.

Whether they asked for it or not, they got it. People lost jobs because these yahoos didn’t bother to evaluate the creditworthiness of people before loaning money.

The banks weren’t required to give people making $40,000 a year multiple loans to pay for million dollar homes. They got greedy and did that all on their own. Even worse places like Goldman Sachs placed bets on the whole thing crumbling so they can’t even argue that they couldn’t forsee problems. They just didn’t care. the fact that millions would lose when everything crumbled meant NOTHING to Blankenfein.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/macro/did-goldman-screw-its-clients

I not only wouldn’t have compensated that fool. If I were AG I’d be prosecuting him.

Placing bets on the other side?

That is their job as a market maker. When your a client of GS and you sell stock who do you think is buying it? They are, that is taking the other side. That is what their job is. Providing liquidity to the markets.

If Blankfein had done anything illegal I’m sure he would have

It was 2.94 million.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/12/best-boss-09_Vikram-S-Pandit_EXKC.html

The median wage is $46,000. Twenty years of wages at that rate is less than a million. Are you suggesting that people like Blankenfein worked harder in a single year than most do after 20 years of labor?

Heh, they paid 153.6 million to the SEC over it. So yes there was wrongdoing. Nice try though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-21/jpmorgan-to-pay-153-6-million-to-settle-sec-allegations-over-housing-cdos.html

I beg your pardon JPMORGAN had the 153 million dollar fine. Goldman’s was 550 million or over half a billion.

I’m pretty sure they don’t fine you that much for “routine trading.”

They are in a confidence business and paying a fine like that to get your name out of the paper or avoiding a trial is common place. I think the fact that clients are still more than willing to do business with both firms is more indicative to whether they did anything wrong or even outside the interest of their clients. If there was no confidence among clients then the firm would have disappeared. But nice try.

If there was an actual crime committed then charges would have ben brought against the executives like enron. Not this b.s.

You know what I wouldn’t even resent the million or so odd dollars in compensation if some of these people were remotely competent and actually added to the country and it’s economy. But these people tanked the economy and millions of people you term as “freeloaders” are hurting as a result of their behavior. Meanwhile you have the balls to insist that somehow because they made 7 figures for their incompetence that they “work harder” than the 50% who make a modest income. They don’t. I’d welcome their exit from our country. And I’d take the value added of a Starbucks barista to a crook who got a half a billion(because that was Goldman’s settlement with the SEC)slap on the wrist for their awareness that the economy was gonna tank due to the behavior of their own banking system.

Whether or not people are willing to do business with a crook has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are crooked.

The company didn’t “just settle.” They had to admit to wrongdoing…..and they did.

You can apologize for them until the cows come home. It won’t change the facts though.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/13/82270/goldman-admits-improper-actions.html

My favorite part of THIS particular article is where Jamie Dimon( of the 19 million dollar compensation package) states in retrospect that it was a “bad idea” to loan people money with little or no proof of income. You think Dimon?

Seriously HeadedWest, are you going to continue and sit there and tell me that a banking expert making millions for his expertise has less culpability than the guy who comes in and gets the loan for the state of banking and it’s cause of the mortgage crisis? Because it appears that even the bad actors have admitted they were just that(and then collected a big fat paycheck for being one.)

Even you can’t be that much of an apologist.

You have no right to call anyone else naive. At least the barista makes a cup of coffee. The CEOs just delegate others to do all the work. There are executive vice-presidents, CFOs, COOs, legal departments, accountants, Personnel departments, designers, marketers, not to mention the workers actually making product. A good CEO would check up on things to see if things are running smoothly, modern CEOs don’t even do that-they just cook up a line of blather like Six Sigma-pure hype. Of course you would equate work with movement of jowls, that is obvious. But even Bob Lutz said “There is no value except when somebody digs it up, grows it, or builds it.” At least he produced a good synopsis of Marx’s Value Theory of Labor. Only in your fevered imagination are the CEOs out there in their superman suits excavating, cultivating, or building anything-in the REAL WORLD all these are done by THE WORKERS. The CEOs know they produce no value-they sometimes admit it in a rare display of candor. Stop parroting lies and mythologies, get up, get out, and open your eyes to the real world. And thank that barista for actually making a cup of coffee for you instead pocketing your money for a lot of hot air.