*Occupy Wall Street*

[iheartscience]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

Right, and in the case of many on Wall St., they got rich by actively wrecking the economy. Anyone heard of Magnetar? It's a hedge fund that invented what's now known as the Magnetar trade. Essentially they bought high risk investments (CDOs) and bet against them at the same time. And they pushed the CDO managers to give them the highest risk investments possible. Here's a story on it: http://www.propublica.org/article/t...d-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going/single

 

[MissStepcut]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

Exactly. Wall Street, in its current iteration, is a huge brain drain from our nation's top schools, and sets them to the task of making money off of financial instruments instead of technological advances. I have a pretty big problem with that. I have no problem at all, however, with Bill Gates' wealth. I think it's reasonable, when you notice that someone is generating immense wealth but not providing a commensurate benefit to society in exchange, to wonder, "Does this make sense?"

 

[D&T]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

Exactly. Wall Street, in its current iteration, is a huge brain drain from our nation's top schools, and sets them to the task of making money off of financial instruments instead of technological advances. I have a pretty big problem with that. I have no problem at all, however, with Bill Gates' wealth. I think it's reasonable, when you notice that someone is generating immense wealth but not providing a commensurate benefit to society in exchange, to wonder, "Does this make sense?"

So are you saying that only those that can provide a "GOOD" should be deemed wealthy and who are you to say what is deemed beneficial to society?

People that provide a service connecting the right people with a transaction in exchange for a % profit shouldn't make money is that what I'm reading?

 

[MissStepcut]

So are you saying that only those that can provide a "GOOD" should be deemed wealthy and who are you to say what is deemed beneficial to society?

People that provide a service connecting the right people with a transaction in exchange for a % profit shouldn't make money is that what I'm reading?

No, certainly nothing so sweeping as that. I am just saying that Wall Street profits are SO disproportionate and SO unbeneficial that I do think we should question it, examine it, and carefully consider the regulations that create barriers to entry or otherwise directly or indirectly subsidize the financial industry. In fact, people (like Elizabeth Warren and to a lesser extent Michael Lewis) are doing that, and I think policy makers should look at what data they're pulling and what they're concluding, and use that to inform regulatory reform.

 

[Aoife]

I'm finding this thread increasingly bizarre.

Just so it's perfectly clear where I am coming from, I tend to be well to the left of the political spectrum, especially on social issues. But, when phrases like "redistribution of wealth," and "it matters how people got rich" start being used in the discussion, and then there is the apparently serious proposal that companies be legally prevented from hiring the nation's best and brightest because of the potential brain drain, my eyebrows are so far up my forehead that they're at the back of my head.

Really? You really feel comfortable legislating who is allowed to make money, and how much, and what businesses are morally acceptable? You know, that sounds remarkably like some countries with totalitarian governments that I lived in as a child and teenager. I fail to see the difference between legislating which currently legal businesses are sufficiently morally pure to be acceptable and those groups that are trying to ramrod their morality on social issues through. It's two sides of the same coin.

I think the intent of OWS is muddled but mostly admirable--and almost certainly a waste of energy that could be better spent getting active in politics on a local level--there is an election upcoming, does anyone remember that? So if we want to talk about brain drain, that's what OWS is to me. Energy wasted so some people can feel as though they are doing something, while the real ability to make comprehensive change is being negotiated and fought out via the new crop of candidates currently jockeying for position. And if that doesn't strike fear into the depths of your soul, you haven't been reading the newspaper.

 

[MissStepcut]

I don't think we should legislate anything out of existence, but I do believe that some ways Wall St make money only work because of what the government has done to allow it to be profitable. That's totally different than what you're suggesting, Aoife.

One example fairly simple, though not necessarily representative example: student loans being cleared through banks. Although the government has taken back loan processing of federally funded student loans, for a period of time, major banks would take on 0% of the risk, do a little bit of paperwork, and skim a bit of cash off the top of every federal student loan. It makes sense to me that the gov't took it back.

 

[ksinger]

I'm finding this thread increasingly bizarre.

Just so it's perfectly clear where I am coming from, I tend to be well to the left of the political spectrum, especially on social issues. But, when phrases like "redistribution of wealth," and "it matters how people got rich" start being used in the discussion, and then there is the apparently serious proposal that companies be legally prevented from hiring the nation's best and brightest because of the potential brain drain, my eyebrows are so far up my forehead that they're at the back of my head.

Really? You really feel comfortable legislating who is allowed to make money, and how much, and what businesses are morally acceptable? You know, that sounds remarkably like some countries with totalitarian governments that I lived in as a child and teenager. I fail to see the difference between legislating which currently legal businesses are sufficiently morally pure to be acceptable and those groups that are trying to ramrod their morality on social issues through. It's two sides of the same coin.

I think the intent of OWS is muddled but mostly admirable--and almost certainly a waste of energy that could be better spent getting active in politics on a local level--there is an election upcoming, does anyone remember that? So if we want to talk about brain drain, that's what OWS is to me. Energy wasted so some people can feel as though they are doing something, while the real ability to make comprehensive change is being negotiated and fought out via the new crop of candidates currently jockeying for position. And if that doesn't strike fear into the depths of your soul, you haven't been reading the newspaper.

Aoife, we do it all the time....

See my next post....

 

[ksinger]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

CherryBlossom - My husband calls it "cocaine and hookers". Freemarketfreemarketfreemarket as the highest good, get regulation off the back of business, anything that CAN make money SHOULD make money, and lots of it......UNTIL.....we decide to not let certain activities - cocaine and hookers for instance - make much or any for that matter. Seems unfair to pollute the purity of free market ideology for something as unimportant as the overall good of society, but it seems we do pick and choose who is worthy to benefit from The Great Benevolent Hand. Every now and then at least....

Government policies and the environment they created, enabled the very rich to amass the wealth they have. Conditions were set up to favor the concentration of wealth - a redistribution of money upward, if you will. Policies can be put in place that will no longer favor that, and will redistribute money OUT more. According to our semi-resident economist, (the prodigal son we never had come home), who virtually NEVER entertains such mundane and squishy things as who DESERVES money or how they got it, from a purely economic standpoint, passing large wads of cash between generations is perhaps good for the individuals involved, but is detrimental in the long-term for the overall economy, because it generally doesn't DO anything. Not a good strategy.

ETA - Or how about the once morally acceptable "business" of slavery?

 

[Aoife]

I don't think we should legislate anything out of existence, but I do believe that some ways Wall St make money only work because of what the government has done to allow it to be profitable. That's totally different than what you're suggesting, Aoife.

One example fairly simple, though not necessarily representative example: student loans being cleared through banks. Although the government has taken back loan processing of federally funded student loans, for a period of time, major banks would take on 0% of the risk, do a little bit of paperwork, and skim a bit of cash off the top of every federal student loan. It makes sense to me that the gov't took it back.

I don't disagree, and do think it is past time for the laws and regulations that pertain to what we are lumping under the phrase "Wall Street" to be tightened up. But that's not what I was referencing. I was referencing the comments that imply that there is something morally objectionable to people being rich (and who get's to define that, I wonder?), and the implication that those people or companies who made their money in a way that a) doesn't meet some kind of moral litmus test, or b) or who don't in some way contribute to the greater good of society aren't as Very, Very Special as those of us who have to scrape a bit to make ends meet.

I'm sure Bill Gates is relieved that he's going to get to keep his money. It costs a lot to run that compound he lives in.

 

[MissStepcut]

@ ksinger. Too true. The current regulatory scheme isn't anyone's god-given right. Inheritance is an interesting, but fairly controversial issue, of course. Nevertheless, I think people underestimate how much money Wall Street makes solely because some law or another favors the major banks. Here's another example: laws and contractual provisions surrounding public and private pensions. These limit the potential entities that can receive all that highly profitable business to an oligopoly of major players. Like I said above, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and maybe those laws & provisions are in the best interest of the investors who are limited by them. But some people are questioning that, and I think they're right to do so.

 

[MissStepcut]

I don't think we should legislate anything out of existence, but I do believe that some ways Wall St make money only work because of what the government has done to allow it to be profitable. That's totally different than what you're suggesting, Aoife.

One example fairly simple, though not necessarily representative example: student loans being cleared through banks. Although the government has taken back loan processing of federally funded student loans, for a period of time, major banks would take on 0% of the risk, do a little bit of paperwork, and skim a bit of cash off the top of every federal student loan. It makes sense to me that the gov't took it back.

I don't disagree, and do think it is past time for the laws and regulations that pertain to what we are lumping under the phrase "Wall Street" to be tightened up. But that's not what I was referencing. I was referencing the comments that imply that there is something morally objectionable to people being rich (and who get's to define that, I wonder?), and the implication that those people or companies who made their money in a way that a) doesn't meet some kind of moral litmus test, or b) or who don't in some way contribute to the greater good of society aren't as Very, Very Special as those of us who have to scrape a bit to make ends meet.

I'm sure Bill Gates is relieved that he's going to get to keep his money. It costs a lot to run that compound he lives in.

I would like to go on record saying I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with being rich. Certainly not. I didn't go to law school and then interview exclusively with corporate law firms because I intend to be poor. I just think the huge profits and disproportionality of those profits with what those entities do for society is a red flag and indicates that we should take a look at what's happening in that sector.

Sort of like if the IRS notices someone who pays taxes on $10k annual salary just bought a $2 million house in cash... it's something to make you say, "Hmm..." And the stuff I've read that takes a closer look at how we came to this point leads me to believe that there's quite a bit of reform in order.

 

[Aoife]

I would like to go on record saying I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with being rich. Certainly not. I didn't go to law school and then interview exclusively with corporate law firms because I intend to be poor. I just think the huge profits and disproportionality of those profits with what those entities do for society is a red flag and indicates that we should take a look at what's happening in that sector.

Sort of like if the IRS notices someone who pays taxes on $10k annual salary just bought a $2 million house in cash... it's something to make you say, "Hmm..." And the stuff I've read that takes a closer look at how we came to this point leads me to believe that there's quite a bit of reform in order.

And on that, we are in perfect agreement.

 

[CherryBlossom]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

Right, and in the case of many on Wall St., they got rich by actively wrecking the economy. Anyone heard of Magnetar? It's a hedge fund that invented what's now known as the Magnetar trade. Essentially they bought high risk investments (CDOs) and bet against them at the same time. And they pushed the CDO managers to give them the highest risk investments possible. Here's a story on it: http://www.propublica.org/article/t...d-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going/single

I had no idea about this, thanks for the link

 

[ksinger]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

Right, and in the case of many on Wall St., they got rich by actively wrecking the economy. Anyone heard of Magnetar? It's a hedge fund that invented what's now known as the Magnetar trade. Essentially they bought high risk investments (CDOs) and bet against them at the same time. And they pushed the CDO managers to give them the highest risk investments possible. Here's a story on it: http://www.propublica.org/article/t...d-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going/single

I had no idea about this, thanks for the link

You probably DO know about this, I just discovered it fairly recently, but in case you didn't.... link with excerpt, and link to the bill referenced,

http://www.thesunshinereport.net/marksunshine/?p=600

excerpt:

About 10 years ago the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000

( http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrrulesandstatutoryauthority/documents/file/ogchr5660.pdf ) (page 3 and 4 are highly entertaining reading, in hindsight)

was signed into law by President Clinton and specifically exempted states from enforcing their gambling and bucket shop laws in connection with commodities contracts and dealers. In the legislation the definition of a commodities contract was expanded to include all sorts of financial contracts that have little to do with actual commodities as most people understand the term. As a result, the scope and reach of the gaming and bucket shop exemption grew to unbelievable proportions. Some experts estimate that the credit default swap and derivatives market is as large as $600 trillion. Since the law was changed the U.S. economy has been held hostage by Wall Street casinos where large institutions make book for gamers that belly up to the bar with trillions of other people’s money.

Of course, Wall Street market makers and participants swear that what they are doing isn’t gaming at all but a socially useful activity that promotes open markets, competition and price discovery. But then again, have you ever heard a bookie or a gambler claim that what they were doing “is bad” or “harms anyone” other than themselves? By some estimates this “victimless activity” dwarfs the resources of almost all national governments, has already destroyed several banking and insurance icons and required hundreds of billions of Federal money to pay for bets gone bad. It’s tough to lose at a casino and the biggest loser is the American public.

The existence of the credit default swap market can’t continue to be based upon an explicit exemption from criminal law. If Wall Street needs and exemption from vice, gambling and bucket shop laws then Wall Street as we know it shouldn’t continue to exist.

For those readers who don’t know what a bucket shop is, the term bucket shop generally is associated with illegal activities of unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of unsuspecting victims by pushing phony investments and trades that aren’t meant to be honored. Traditionally, bucket shops take orders for the purchase and sale of securities from customers and then never execute the orders. Instead of executing orders for the purchase or sale of a stock, bond or other contract, the operators of bucket shops metaphorically throw orders into a “bucket” and then lie to their customers about what they have done. Bucket shops customers become unsecured creditors of the bucket shop and hope that the bucket shop has the financial resources to honor their trades. Bucket shop owners keep whatever money they can skim off the top until too many customers demand to be paid and the scheme crashes. Bucket shops are explicitly protected by the commodities laws so long as the scam involves financial derivatives.

By the way, in case the bucket shop description reminds you of something but you can’t quit put your finger on what it reminds you of, I can help. Three of the biggest failures of the last 18 months were bucket shops, i.e., Madoff, Lehman and AIG. Each one of these fine citizens of financial society sold one sided and unhedged contracts that they couldn’t honor and conveniently forgot to tell mention that they were insolvent. Just the fallout from these scams should motivate Congress and the Obama Administration to immediately repeal the exemption from bucket shop laws contained in the current commodities legislation. Of course, each of the big three failures had other big things wrong with them but each also had the common theme of being a bucket shop. Who knows if all three failures would have taken place, or at their size and scope, without the exemption from criminal bucket shop laws?

 

[ksinger]

I don't see how it matters how the top 1% became the top 1%--whether they worked to get there or inherited it. If a person inherets wealth and then squanders it (or inherits a company and cannot run it), then they won't be in the top 1% for long. To inherit something successful is obvioulsy a blessing, but you still have to work to keep it a success.

i agree w/ what you're saying, but how someone becomes rich matters because it factors in to how they made their money. Some people in the 30s and 40s became rich by helping the Nazi's. Others have become rich by betting on shady investments. Others go the way of Enron, etc.

It matters because the notion of one individual just "working hard" and becoming rich all on their own is non-existent. It's not possible. One becomes wealthy for a variety of reasons, and how someone acquires wealth does matter into the discussion/equation.

Right, and in the case of many on Wall St., they got rich by actively wrecking the economy. Anyone heard of Magnetar? It's a hedge fund that invented what's now known as the Magnetar trade. Essentially they bought high risk investments (CDOs) and bet against them at the same time. And they pushed the CDO managers to give them the highest risk investments possible. Here's a story on it: http://www.propublica.org/article/t...d-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going/single

Wow. Just.wow.

ETA - don't know if you had heard of this either, but in case, here is a 60 Minutes piece that would go with this. It's interesting for several reasons, not the least of which is this guy's assessment of the SEC....

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5088137n

 

[beebrisk]

I'm finding this thread increasingly bizarre.

Just so it's perfectly clear where I am coming from, I tend to be well to the left of the political spectrum, especially on social issues. But, when phrases like "redistribution of wealth," and "it matters how people got rich" start being used in the discussion, and then there is the apparently serious proposal that companies be legally prevented from hiring the nation's best and brightest because of the potential brain drain, my eyebrows are so far up my forehead that they're at the back of my head.

Really? You really feel comfortable legislating who is allowed to make money, and how much, and what businesses are morally acceptable? You know, that sounds remarkably like some countries with totalitarian governments that I lived in as a child and teenager. I fail to see the difference between legislating which currently legal businesses are sufficiently morally pure to be acceptable and those groups that are trying to ramrod their morality on social issues through. It's two sides of the same coin.

I don't know you Aoife, but I could kiss you!

 

[movie zombie]

listening to catherine austin fitts today was very depressing: two tier credit system in the US, two tier regulation system in the US, etc. overwhelming.

 

[MissStepcut]

Here is an example of a lawsuit that I think really highlights some of the weaknesses in the regulations, as they are now:

http://www.ssblawyers.com/uncategorized/delaware-chancery-dismisses-shareholder-suit-against-goldman-sachs-over-risky-practices

Essentially, some shareholders felt that Goldman Sachs was irresponsible with their money. The court concluded that there wasn't any real legal basis for the shareholders to criticize the choices Goldman Sachs made, including handing out bonuses that ultimately turned a profit into a loss. So, basically, the courts said, there aren't any laws for us to apply against this corporation.

It's within the control of the government to create laws and causes of action for courts to apply, and this sort of situation seems like an appropriate one to me... or, at the very least, it's something policymakers should consider.

I am not saying banks shouldn't be allowed to pay out massive bonuses. Or that traders shouldn't be allowed to get disgustingly rich off of bonuses. I am just saying, maybe, when the managers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to pay out bonuses that completely strip the corporation of profitability for shareholders. Or maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that under certain circumstances. And maybe we need new rules about what it means to be a "fiduciary."

At the root of me wondering those things is indeed my skepticism that Wall Street's profits are reasonable relative to the benefit they provide. If that makes me a socialist, I guess I'm a socialist.

I think Americans have a sense that children are at the wheel of the financial industry, and their operations go pretty much unchecked. Add the fact that many people have no choice but to hand over their pensions and investments to these people (as I mentioned above) and you have a pretty valid criticism of how some members of the top 1% came into their wealth.

 

[beebrisk]

And that right there is how I can tell that some who are anti-OWS don't know SQUAT about it! We at OWS are pointing to more than just the banks--the government's willingness to accept money, bail out the banks, etc., makes them a target of OWS, too! We are angry at them! We are not all Democrats, we don't all love Obama, etc.

Exactly...So exactly where IS the outrage against Obama, Barney Frank? I certainly don't see it the way I saw it 3 years ago with the former president. Why not sleep in front of the WH? Where are the "Facist Obama!" "Nazi War Criminal Obama" signs???

Personally, I "credit" Barney and his Dem Congressman cronies for the collapse. It's what happens when you encourage your banker friends to hand out mortgages to the undeserving and pronounce that "Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound". The housing market tanks, the rest follows.

Because these people don't FEEL like sleeping in front of the WH, they feel a bit more anger towards Wall Street. Maybe it's because of the fact that they know Wall Street brokers actually think like this guy who got on the BBC News and said this: "For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it," he said. "Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession...Governments Don't Rule The World, Goldman Sachs Rules The World" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA&feature=player_embedded

Just like many members of the Tea party did NOTHING and said NOTHING about George W. Bush or his bailouts and government waste. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

OR I can turn around and ask why folks on the Right glorify Ronald Regan, yet seem to forget (and didn't protest) that he did the following

" 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

4. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives."

See, you keep walking into these logical fallacies. Stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.

Cherry, I must commend you on your excellent "cut and paste" skills, culling from random blogs and bloggers found in an elementary search of Google. In your words: "Stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously."

 

[ksinger]

Here is an example of a lawsuit that I think really highlights some of the weaknesses in the regulations, as they are now:

http://www.ssblawyers.com/uncategorized/delaware-chancery-dismisses-shareholder-suit-against-goldman-sachs-over-risky-practices

Essentially, some shareholders felt that Goldman Sachs was irresponsible with their money. The court concluded that there wasn't any real legal basis for the shareholders to criticize the choices Goldman Sachs made, including handing out bonuses that ultimately turned a profit into a loss. So, basically, the courts said, there aren't any laws for us to apply against this corporation.

It's within the control of the government to create laws and causes of action for courts to apply, and this sort of situation seems like an appropriate one to me... or, at the very least, it's something policymakers should consider.

I am not saying banks shouldn't be allowed to pay out massive bonuses. Or that traders shouldn't be allowed to get disgustingly rich off of bonuses. I am just saying, maybe, when the managers have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to pay out bonuses that completely strip the corporation of profitability for shareholders. Or maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that under certain circumstances. And maybe we need new rules about what it means to be a "fiduciary."

At the root of me wondering those things is indeed my skepticism that Wall Street's profits are reasonable relative to the benefit they provide. If that makes me a socialist, I guess I'm a socialist.

I think Americans have a sense that children are at the wheel of the financial industry, and their operations go pretty much unchecked. Add the fact that many people have no choice but to hand over their pensions and investments to these people (as I mentioned above) and you have a pretty valid criticism of how some members of the top 1% came into their wealth.

We don't subscribe to, but do occasionally purchase, Foreign Policy Journal. Here is an article I found interesting - a review of a book entitled "Winner-Take-All Politics - How Washington Made The Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on The Middle Class". Link and excerpt below...

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer


"Hacker and Pierson's second important point is that major policy shifts do not always happen in such obvious ways. Many of the policies that have facilitated the winner-take-all economy have just as often come about as a result of what Hacker and Pierson call "drift," which occurs when an enacted policy fails to keep up with changing circumstances and then falls short of, or even subverts, its intended goal. The American system of separated powers -- with its convoluted procedures and bizarre rules, such as vetoes and the filibuster -- is especially conducive to drift, particularly compared to more streamlined parliamentary systems in other countries that afford majorities relatively unimpeded dominance over the policymaking process. Policies in the United States, once made, tend to be hard to overturn or even to modify.

Sometimes drift occurs through simple neglect or inertia. An example is the phenomenon known as "bracket creep," the process by which prior to the indexing introduced in 1981, inflation pushed incomes into higher tax brackets. But Hacker and Pierson particularly zero in on instances of intentional policy drift, when policymakers deliberately sidestepped or resisted available policy alternatives that might have reduced inequality. Allowing corporate executives to be compensated with stock options is one such case; stock-option compensation tends to bend incentives toward the short-term maximization of share prices rather than planning for long-term growth. Consequently, such compensation has allowed top managers to capture jaw-dropping gains despite their companies' often dismal performances. The long-term cost of corporate failure is borne not by CEOs and their executive minions, of course, but by rank-and-file employees, who get laid off when companies need to cut costs and whose pension investments are wiped out when companies' stocks sink.

In the 1990s, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which regulates accounting practices, noticed this practice, correctly predicted the damage it would do to the economy, and then sought to curtail it. But Congress, spurred on by the lobbying efforts of major corporations, stopped the FASB in its tracks. As a result, Americans spent the 1990s and the first decade of this century living under 1970s accounting rules, which allowed top executives to more or less help themselves and, through the mutual back-scratching habits of corporate boards, help one another.

Similarly, labor law has failed to keep up with the times. Policymakers have repeatedly failed to enact reforms that would have accommodated new union-organizing techniques and empowered unions to counter the growing power of business to resist labor's demands. In this realm, the United States is running a twenty-first-century economy under 1940s rules. A clearheaded understanding of the power of drift in policymaking puts the Republican congressional minority during President Barack Obama's first two years in a fresh light. Obsessive obstructionism is not just a symptom of general crabbiness; it is a shrewd and sensible part of a larger strategy to enrich corporations while gutting long-standing protections for the middle class.

The dramatic growth of inequality, then, is the result not of the "natural" workings of the market but of four decades' worth of deliberate political choices. Hacker and Pierson amass a great deal of evidence for this proposition, which leads them to the crux of their argument: that not just the U.S. economy but also the entire U.S. political system has devolved into a winner-take-all sport. They portray American politics not as a democratic game of majority rule but rather as a field of "organized combat" -- a struggle to the death among competing organized groups seeking to influence the policymaking process. Moreover, they suggest, business and the wealthy have all but vanquished the middle class and have thus been able to dominate policymaking for the better part of 40 years with little opposition."

 

[HollyS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941/ns/us_news-life/


And here is what can go wrong with this type of protest. But, hey, it's just a little civil disobedience. Notice, please, that the news source is MSNBC. No FOX spin on it.

I believe, as I said before, that the protesters themselves have strongly made my original points. Now let's have ten more pages arguing about their right to such behavior. After all, they're just so darn frustrated. They wouldn't intentionally imitate the more violent episodes of civil unrest from other countries . . . or U.S. history. No, of course not. Lets take a closer look at some of that historic U.S. 'civil' unrest, shall we??

March 1, 1970: Weatherman plants a bomb in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing $ 300,000 in damage, but no casualties
.
August 24, 1970 - University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sterling Hall bombing: a Ford van packed with explosives hit the physics laboratory on the first floor and killed young researcher Robert Fassnacht and seriously injured another person.

March 6, 1970: Weatherman bombmaking attempt ends in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, New York City.

Or perhaps most ridiculous (but nevertheless often nostalgically touted), the 1965 Watts Riots: while arresting a young man for drunk driving, police officers argued with the suspect's mother before onlookers. The conflict triggered a massive destruction of property through six days of rioting. Thirty-four people were killed and property valued at about $30 million was destroyed, making the Watts Riots among the worst in American history. (Whether he was drunk or not, harassed or not, is not the point, and it doesn't excuse the escalation of violence like that. But, still, one of you will serve it up as perfectly justified, won't you? )

I said before, there is an element in these protests that yearn for the 'civil' unrest of yesterday. And I was right.

Now, talk endlessly amongst yourselves about how I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, and I'm woefully misinformed, as well as being hopelessly cynical, and miserably right-wing.

G'head. Parrot back what you've learned to say in response to evidence to the contrary. Personally, I'm going to go do something more productive now.

 

[MissStepcut]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

 

[beebrisk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941/ns/us_news-life/


And here is what can go wrong with this type of protest. But, hey, it's just a little civil disobedience. Notice, please, that the news source is MSNBC. No FOX spin on it.

I believe, as I said before, that the protesters themselves have strongly made my original points. Now let's have ten more pages arguing about their right to such behavior. After all, they're just so darn frustrated. They wouldn't intentionally imitate the more violent episodes of civil unrest from other countries . . . or U.S. history. No, of course not. Lets take a closer look at some of that historic U.S. 'civil' unrest, shall we??

March 1, 1970: Weatherman plants a bomb in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing $ 300,000 in damage, but no casualties
.
August 24, 1970 - University of Wisconsin-Madison, Sterling Hall bombing: a Ford van packed with explosives hit the physics laboratory on the first floor and killed young researcher Robert Fassnacht and seriously injured another person.

March 6, 1970: Weatherman bombmaking attempt ends in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, New York City.

Or perhaps most ridiculous (but nevertheless often nostalgically touted), the 1965 Watts Riots: while arresting a young man for drunk driving, police officers argued with the suspect's mother before onlookers. The conflict triggered a massive destruction of property through six days of rioting. Thirty-four people were killed and property valued at about $30 million was destroyed, making the Watts Riots among the worst in American history. (Whether he was drunk or not, harassed or not, is not the point, and it doesn't excuse the escalation of violence like that. But, still, one of you will serve it up as perfectly justified, won't you? )

I said before, there is an element in these protests that yearn for the 'civil' unrest of yesterday. And I was right.

Now, talk endlessly amongst yourselves about how I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about, and I'm woefully misinformed, as well as being hopelessly cynical, and miserably right-wing.

G'head. Parrot back what you've learned to say in response to evidence to the contrary. Personally, I'm going to go do something more productive now.

I have to wonder how many are going sleepless in those tents waiting anxiously for the proper martyr to be produced. THEN they'll show us all!

 

[beebrisk]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

 

[CherryBlossom]

*TIME OUT!*

I just need to say something. I know that some men have commented on this thread, but I think that most of the people who have posted are women, soooo I just want to let you ALL know that I think you're incredible for being so smart and articulate on this issue. I am honestly impressed, especially since it's occurring on a site like this one... I only know of a few women in real life who could keep up with the conversation. I am basically gushing and trying to say that you all rock. keep it up

 

[beebrisk]

Awww...what the heck?
"She's not even a blip on the radar".
These thoughtful, involved citizens are simply exercising their "rights" by expressing displeasure with "the system".

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/id.8789/blog_detail.asp

 

[Lula]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

Yes, it's become violent. This is what happens when a culture loses its core values. It's now an "us against them" situation that's been fueled by the lack of compromise and tolerance that's pervasive across our culture.

Many years ago in the 1980s, when I was more conservative politically, I was complaining to a lawyer friend of mine about how I resented the amount of my tax money going to fund social programs to help poor people, who were just leeching off the rest of us. He wisely said, well, those same programs keep the poor from breaking into your house and rioting in the street. Hopelessness and desperation, and, yes, anger and resentment, fuel violence. You may be morally against social safety nets, and that's your right, but then don't be surprised if people get to the point where they just. don't. care. anymore.

 

[partgypsy]

AGBF - Deb, thank you for starting this thread. It has been very informative to me.

 

[iheartscience]

Speaking of taxes, you may want to wait until after work to read this article so you can have a strong drink in hand: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/03/the_great_corporate_tax_scam/ The first few paragraphs:

"In 2010, Verizon reported an annual profit of nearly $12 billion. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate is 35 percent, so theoretically, Verizon should have owed the IRS around $4.2 billlion. Instead, according to figures compiled by the Center for Tax Justice, the company actually boasted a negative tax liability of $703 million. Verizon ended up making even more money after it calculated its taxes.

Verizon is hardly alone, and isn’t even close to being the worst offender. Perhaps most famously, General Electric raked in $10.5 billion in profit in 2010, yet ended up reporting $4.7 billion worth of negative taxes. The worst offender in 2010, as measured by its overall negative tax rate, was Pepco, the electricity utility that serves Washington, D.C. Pepco reported profits of $882 million in 2010, and negative taxes of $508 million — a negative tax rate of 57.6 percent.

Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.

As the authors acidly note, “Most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’ That’s an unacceptable situation.”

 

[beebrisk]

Holly, I am not going to parrot back anything. Our founding fathers said everything about protest that needs to be said. And there wasn't any bad consequence of allowing protest that's come out from the OWS movement that they didn't foresee and contemplate before taking a position on protests.

I would agree if this was an actual "protest". But it's not that. Not any longer, anyway. It's now grown into a cadre of low-lives, thieves, miscreants and instigators who have no actual gripe and are out to create a little havoc (or worse) because they have no value system and nothing better to do.

Yes, it's become violent. This is what happens when a culture loses its core values. It's now an "us against them" situation that's been fueled by the lack of compromise and tolerance that's pervasive across our culture.

Many years ago in the 1980s, when I was more conservative politically, I was complaining to a lawyer friend of mine about how I resented the amount of my tax money going to fund social programs to help poor people, who were just leeching off the rest of us. He wisely said, well, those same programs keep the poor from breaking into your house and rioting in the street. Hopelessness and desperation, and, yes, anger and resentment, fuel violence. You may be morally against social safety nets, and that's your right, but then don't be surprised if people get to the point where they just. don't. care. anymore.

Really? You admit it's violent and then justify it because, well, they're "angry"?

Personally, I don't think your friends comment was anywhere near "wise". I think it's foolhardy and naive. 50-something years of "programs" to help those in need and this is the direct result. A generation of entitled losers who have a gripe against something they have absolutely no experience with and can't even comprehend.

If anger and "desperation" (who knows how desperate these people really are. Most look able bodied and young and ripe for work) is a justification for violence, then all you have left is anarchy, which is now on display at a local park near you.