No Pity for the Rich
When considering the alleged plight of the very rich groaning under the socialist yoke of Charlie Rangel’s tax proposals, it’s worth keeping in mind that the super-rich’s share of the overall income pie is been skyrocketing:
The reasons behind this trend are complicated. But one natural response to it would be to raise taxes on the very rich and use the tax revenue to finance public services. Under that scenario, everyone winds up better off than they were 25 years ago. Absent stepped-up taxation on the rich, changes in the structure of pre-tax income in the United States ensure that many—if not most—Americans see little actual gain from economic growth.
This is worth noting because outside the health care context, many morally admirable policies such as liberal immigration laws and openness to trade have the impact of both boosting overall economic growth and also exacerbating domestic income inequality. They’re also very good for poor people in the third world who want to have jobs in which they do stuff in exchange for money. Responding to growing inequality with ramped-up taxation and ramped-up social services makes these kind of policies more sustainable and serves the general interests of mankind.
57 Responses to “No Pity for the Rich”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am
The fucking DEMOCRAT-Controlled Congresses of 2008 and 2009 have put $9.7 TRILLION of OUR money at risk in the financial bailout. We read that Goldman Sachs et al are now earning BILLIONS in profits. In contrast, How much fucking profit has the Democratic Congresses earned on our money?
From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok&refer=home
” Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) — The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.
Only the stimulus bill to be approved this week, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates enacted in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion is in lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the Fed and FDIC. Recipients’ names have not been disclosed.
“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?” “
July 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am
But those same cock-sucking Democrats are dragging their feet over providing even minimal healthcare to the American people because of the cost. Because, after all, it would be unfair to tax the rich. To “punish success”.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
While enduring 8 years of unauthorized and unconstitutional war we have seen the richest 2 percent get huge tax breaks while people like me have to struggle with day to day living and paying my mortgage and paying $10000 a year for health insurance on two plans with a total of $7000 for deductibles that I can`t afford to go the Drs unless I get hospitalized for a serious malady.I have no pity for the rich who snub their noses at the blue collar working middle class who have done their bidding for years as employees of the corporations and company`s, they look upon us as slaves,chattel and serfs who do menial tasks such as build cars,roads, bridges and go to war for their gains.We need to roll back the Ray Gun Ronnie tax cuts and all of his deregulation and every presidents deregulation since and trade agreements to, it is time the rich and powerful were put down just like Teddy Roosevelt did so us at the bottom can have a decent life and not an extravagant life at the cost of others.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
The wealthy were taking in a high proportion of income in the 1920s, too. They lent a large part of it out to finance a consumer boom and ended up with a depression. Now here we are with the same problem. The problem with the wealthy having all the money is that you can’t trust them to manage it properly. They risk it like drunken sailors in a casino.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:14 am
The natural response would be to raise the price of government for the rich and they will buy less if it. Supply and demand is the natural response. In other words, making the rich pay their fair share rationalizes government.
This, by the way, always occurs, supply and demand are properly sloped in State and Federal government, remember Clinton? The Clinton administration raised taxes on the rich and government went from a 23% share of GDP to 18% at the end of Clinton’s term.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:15 am
But I thought Michelle Bachmann informed us recently that we are literally running out of millionaires. Isn’t that the real problem?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
At least the crisis of 1929 gutted the robber barons of Wall Street and brought the New Deal and FDR, enemy of his class. By contrast, the crisis of 2008 is making Goldman Sachs crooks richer and brought the TARP and Obama, friend of the bankers.
How high will the “Top 1%” go before an angry mob descends on Manhattan or the White House?
July 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I would think that moral hazard applies to increased income as well. Supply-side/anti-progressive taxation rests heavily on the notion that individuals will spend/invest their income wiser than the government. (We’ll leave aside all the other moral arguments for progressive taxation & government spending for now).
But if money becomes less of a necessity, and more of a luxury, wouldn’t the rationality of its expenditure decrease? That is, if you’re already blowing thousands on fancy restaurants, etc., wouldn’t you be more inclined to play fast and loose with your investments?
Of course, you still have a strong interest in seeing long-term income stability, so you wouldn’t be gambling completely. But moral hazard would still seem to be a considerable factor.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Bill Clinton, advocate for the rich! Fantastic new tagline MY.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I wonder how much the Republican electoral troubles stem from their transition from the party of the wealthiest 10% to the party of the wealthiest 1%.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am
No they aren’t.
God’s mercy is just more abundant than it used to be. For those He has chosen from before the beginning of all time, their election is being made ever more manifest, by an increase in the outward signs of their election, and their dread at the prospect of their preterite damnation is being made ever less.
Right now we’re working hard on determining why God’s mercy seems to have a cyclical component.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
And this is why the phrase “marginal propensity to consume” should be tattooed onto the foreheads of every financial analyst and policymaker in America.
Sort of like branding cattle. Or hazing. But with social justice!
July 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Those are investment returns on wealth. Why is a dramatic increase in taxes on wages and salaries — at a level that would enable a Middle Class person to raise himself and his family to Upper Middle Class — supposed to be helpful? It will further stratify our society between haves and have nots.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
One man’s bug is another man’s feature.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
It’s nice to see Yglesias drop his ‘Immigration never hurt the poor!’ BS that so many fake-liberals like to spout.
Amazing, though, that he only wants to give other people’s jobs to those poor, downtrodden third worlders. I never see him advocating that we drop our rampant protectionism when it comes to elite jobs.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
From the website of sociologist of power G. William Domhoff’s “Who Rules America”, on Power & Wealth in America:
Domhoff’s 6th edition of Who Rules America (now subtitled Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance) will soon be coming out.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
It’s not the “plight of the rich”; there are two issues:
– the money you think you’ll get from the rich isn’t enough to fund your plans; there simply aren’t enough rich people
– people can (and do) leave high tax jurisdictions. Note how many wealthy artists have left the UK, for instance
It’s more a cost/benefits question that anything else. You can yell about “fairness” all you want, but beyond a certain point, you can’t get more from that well. Then you’re left with the high costs, and either unsustainable deficit spending, or unsustainable tax levels on more moderate income levels.
At present, it looks like we’re going to get both.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
^Immigration may increase income inequality by depressing unskilled wages, or it may increase income inequality by increasing the number of low-income people in the United States.
I suspect Yglesias meant the latter, not the former, because the strength of the latter effect on the overall income distribution picture isn’t likely that great.
I also suspect that Yglesias, like most advocates of more liberal immigration policies, doesn’t have a problem with an increase in the number of skilled and highly-skilled immigrants.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
[...] while the top one percent’s overall share of income has been skyrocketing, its effective tax burden has been falling. Consider this chart, from Conor [...]
July 17th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
– the money you think you’ll get from the rich isn’t enough to fund your plans; there simply aren’t enough rich people
I call total and complete bullshit on this canard.
Almost every analysis of making the estate tax cuts permanent after 2010 suggest that the cost of the cuts in revenue denied to the US government would be about $1 trillion over 10 years.
So if there just aren’t “enough rich people” out there, how is a projected 10 year revenue stream on only one tax that is solely paid by the ultra-rich comes out to a number in the neighborhood of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS?
July 17th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Re: many morally admirable policies such as liberal immigration laws
Liberal immigration policies are about as morally admirable as teen sex orgies, another cultural trend popular among the chattering classes of Georgetown and the Upper West Side.
As usual, Mr. Soullite is right on the money on this one. Mass immigration undermines communities in the developing world and helps create the illusion that we are autonomous individuals each out for himself, instead of integral parts of a collective with duties of solidarity. It is of a pice, in other words, with the basically cosmopolitan and antihuman ideology of the Georgetown cocktail-party crowd.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Paul Krugman’s book “Conscience of a Liberal” covers this topic in detail. The economic golden age of the the US took place in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. Why? It’s simple. It’s called the New Deal. Taxes on the wealthy, social programs that favored the majority, strong labor and a social safety net. You can throw in Medicare in the 60s. The middle class was as strong as it’s ever been and the US was considered highly prosperous. The conservatives have been chipping away at the New Deal ever since the mid 70s and have now returned us to 1928. We had 2 decades of sustained economic prosperity. Now what we have is one bubble after another with the the bottom 95% continually getting the short end of the stick.
-Extreme levels of financial inequality between the rich and the middle class.
-Weakened labor and blatant siding with big business.
-Tax cuts benefiting the top 1% and corporations.
-Cutting programs for the poor.
Middle income and poor whites elect conversavities based on hot button fear issues of abortion, guns, RACE, and big government, only to have the politicians cut the programs that benefit them and rule in favor of the top 1%. How does that make any sense? I still have hope that the most recent elections signal a change. I really hope I am right.
Pete
July 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The gains of the upper hundredth are so large by now that it doesn’t much weaken Yglesias’ case to observe that their share fell in the previous recession and will presumably fall more sharply yet in the current Great Recession. The market has fallen something like 30% since September–and that’s where much of the top hundredth’s wealth is found.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
On the estate tax: the wealthy always have ways around these kinds of tax grabs; ask yourself why there are so many loopholes in the existing code. Simple answer: Congress wants them there.
Which means that effectively, there’s not enough money there. But heck, if you overcame that, you still have the “leave the tax jurisdiction” problem. The very wealthy can relocate much more easily than you or I can.
And as to #22: The golden age had very little to do with policy of any kind. The US was going to do well in the 50’s and 60’s pretty much w/o regard to what we did. Why?
– Europe was rebuilding
– Japan was rebuilding
– China was not in the world system
– India was not in the world system
– Russia was not in the world system
It’s easy to win when you’re the only one playing. By the 70’s, we weren’t the only ones playing anymore. We aren’t likely to be in that position ever again, either.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
it’s a sad, sad, thing to see so many here display such raw envy at other people’s success. It used to be that people encouraged the effort to be successful, took pride in their accomplishments and strived to reach greater heights. But all I see here is the outraged cries of shriveled souls who think the world owes them a free ride.
I have to ask, what in the world makes you folks so special that you can demand someone else pay your way? Certainly nothing I’ve seen here supports that.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
On the estate tax: the wealthy always have ways around these kinds of tax grabs; ask yourself why there are so many loopholes in the existing code. Simple answer: Congress wants them there.
Straw man, James. The issue is the bald assertion that “there just aren’t enough rich people”. The fact that foregone revenues from one tax that focusses solely on the rich is of such a magnitude very quickly belies the assertion. You can gunk it up with unnecessary blather all you want – doesn’t change the point.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
#26 – no, not a strawman – if you can’t get the money, it really doesn’t much matter why. Either:
– Congress will leave escape hatches for the tax attorneys to locate
– The truly wealthy will leave for cheaper tax jurisdictions
Either way, you don’t get the tax revenue. You can look at the way tax incentives have driven the wealthy (and even large parts of the middle class) out of US cities to see how this has worked.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Only Hector could describe humanism as antihuman.
I suggest restoring the top tax rate to the level it was under Eisenhower. Eisenhower fought the Nazis, so by well-established Republican standards of discourse, anyone who criticizes Eisenhower’s policies *for any reason* is objectively pro-Nazi. Eisenhower also presided over great economic growth, so clearly his policies didn’t hurt the economy.
(It also puts our recent politics in perspective to realize that returning to one of the last century’s greatest *Republican’s* tax policies would be a large step to the *left*.)
July 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
This is such an inordinately stupid point that I’m completely unsurprised at its commonness.
The New Deal programs were largely designed by and supported by and planned by and implemented by people and groups representing the corporate upper classes and the super-rich.
This is a policy question over how best to develop and maintain developed the nation, and there is severe disagreement among the upper classes themselves as to how to do it.
For the idiots, siding with the most venal and short-sighted of the super-wealthy is the equivalent of fairness and maturity, while listening to the more long-sighted and ration of the super-rich is “envy”.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@24, 27: If their wealth consists of American real estate or shares in American corporations, they can leave, but they can’t take it with them (except by selling it to someone else who would then have to pay taxes on it).
@25: Complete strawman. I pay taxes every day, and so do most people on this thread, I’m sure. Changes in the distribution of taxes everyone pays are not “asking for a free ride” unless someone’s TOTAL tax burden is reduced to 0, which it won’t be.
Also, the rentier class is not “successful” in the admirable sense of the word. Managers derive their own income from the efforts of the people they manage (how many cars does the chairman of Ford design or build?), and owners even more so.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
How do other developed countries get the tax revenue, then? Part of it’s a VAT, sure, but many still have higher top marginal tax rates than the U.S. does.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
#26 – no, not a strawman – if you can’t get the money, it really doesn’t much matter why.
the assertion was not – gee, the rich have all of the money, how can we get it? That is what you are addressing. The estate tax may or may not be the best or most efficient way of getting this – but that’s not what the discussion was
the assertion was – there aren’t enough rich people. The point of bringing in the estate tax estimates is merely to illustrate that magnitude of what is out there, even considering the tax system that you are pointing out is flawed.
I’ve seen the assertion about there “not being enough rich people” made twice on this blog comments in the past 3 days.
Pointing out the flaws of the estate tax as it is set up does absolutely nothing to address the point one way or the other – its just an attempt to change the subject as any good wingnut tries to do whenever a wingnut assertion is challenged. And you are being called out on it.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Humanism bears the same relationship to the real needs of the human person as National Socialism bears to real Socialism, or as Christian Science bears to real Christianity (or for that matter real science).
July 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
James,
I agree with you and I don’t feel the need to reproduce the New Deal. I think Krugman’s point, and I agree with it, is that a strong middle class is not the by-product of impartial market forces or part of an inevitable cycle of wealth redistribution. It also didn’t happen over time. A strong middle class is a key component of a healthy US economy yet almost every conservative policy looks to remove the safety nets and programs that help create a vibrant middle class.
I know it’s a very complex issue but the conservative viewpoint is simplistic. Produce legislation that benefits corporations and the super wealthy and block everything else using big government fear tactics.
Pete
July 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Right. Let’s see, 91% income tax, 7.65 payroll tax, 10% state tax, and 3% surtax comes to a marginal rate of 112%. Oh sure that’ll work.
OTOH I like the Eisenhower brackets for everybody. 20% tax on the first dollar earned. Everybody contributed back then, unlike freeloaders today.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Re shooter242 at 25: “I have to ask, what in the world makes you folks so special that you can demand someone else pay your way?”
—————–
An AK-47 and 1000 rounds of ammunition.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
pete,
It’s not that conservatives are looking to screw people. I don’t assume that you, or Matt, have evil motivations; I assume that you have a different worldview (and I also think you’re just wrong about many things). I don’t assume that you’re evil. What makes this kind of conversation difficult is how so many liberals just assume that they are on the side of truth and light, and – by definition – anyone who disagrees must have bad intentions.
It’s possible to dissent from the progressive worldview and simultaneously not be in favor of having people die of starvation under bridges.
The problem we face right now is the dilemma of a highly connected world. It’s very hard to sustain, say, highly paid union labor when the goods said labor would make can come in from China (or India, or Mexico, etc) at a much lower cost. We know how tariff walls work out; not well. Other than doctrinaire libertarians, few want to live in a “race to the bottom” world; if Chinese (indians, et. al.) can build cars, they can also design them (and run the businesses, etc). There’s no end to the number of jobs that can be offshored to lower cost jurisdictions.
What I think is demonstrably dumb is asking for policies (like the climate change bill) that will raise our costs relative to other countries, not achieve the ends that the activists in favor of it desire, and generally reduce our wealth. The current health care proposals suffer from the same flaws. Income taxes surcharges on the wealthy simply aren’t how other countries finance their health systems; it’s too variable a revenue source. It reduces our competiveness and doesn’t solve the problem; it’s a twofer of badness.
Which again doesn’t mean that I think the people backing such policies are out to screw us over; I just think they haven’t thought all of the implications through.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Blame Ford, Reagan and the Republicans, then, for the Earned Income Tax Credit, dumbass.
Such a moron. Why do such nitwits have to haunt liberal blogs?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Re James Robertson at 37: “Income taxes surcharges on the wealthy simply aren’t how other countries finance their health systems; it’s too variable a revenue source. It reduces our competiveness and doesn’t solve the problem; it’s a twofer of badness. ”
—————
James assumes patriotism on the part of our plutocrats that doesn’t exist.
The “competitiveness” of US industry hasn’t been undermined by living wages — it’s been undermined by plutocrats having their whores in Congress and the punditocracy bleat about how the superrich need a $2 Trillion tax cut. They then take the resulting capital and invest it in CHINA –not in the USA –because they don’t give a shit about the USA , only their self-interest.
The workers of Austin Texas made Michael Dell a BILLIONAIRE at a young age. Michael repaid them by dumping thousands of them out on the street while going on a hiring spree abroad and outsourcing to China.
It is our plutocrats who commit the bulk of economic espionage — by selling technology developed with taxpayer dollars to foreign nations. All they have to do is bribe some Members of Congresses into protecting them from the Export Control regime of the COmmerce Department.
Was the recent economic collapse caused by people acting in the national interest — or by selfish greed run amok?
The plutocracy has been going out of its way to DESTROY USA competiveness since Reagan entered office. I remember Reagan blandly letting 100,000 US auto workers be tossed out on the street because he did nothing to address the competitive threat from Japan. Instead, Reagan went to Japan and picked up $2 Million for two speechs which ran to a grand total of 40 minutes.
The only reason the plutocracy can get away with the functional equivalent of Treason is that they hire a mob of ass-kissing sycophants like you to argue deceitfully on their behalf.
Meanwhile , the people who fight this Country’s wars –and whose hard work has created this country’s wealth — grow poorer year by year.
One of these days the people of this country are going to wake up –and exterminate people like you.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
James,
I’m with you.
We’re defending positions here. The topics are polarizing. I don’t in the least view people from a simplistic, good and evil perspective. My good friend here in the office couldn’t disagree with me more and I welcome that. There are layers of complexity here. It’s just easier to build straw men and burn them down.
My point is that we are not strongest when the rule is extreme inequality in income distribution. I wish natural market forces would help correct for this, but history doesn’t bare that out.
Pete
July 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
PS Michael Porter at Harvard told our fucking leaders decades ago how to win at international competition. You win by investing in R&D to develop technology that foreigners can’t match — NOT by racing for the cheapest wages.
But the Republican economic strategy is the same as the ante-bellum Southern slaveholders: use the power of the state to enslave the populace, give them barely enough to survive, and cover the slave system with a veil of bland deceit re your benign, paternalistic nature. Gain wealth not by productive innovation –but by cutting deals in the statehouse with adept bribery.
That is why Republicans bleat about the “free market” –while Big Oil draws in huge profits based on a $38 /gallon subsidy from the taxpayers. Not counting the subsidy in blood of 4500+ dead Americans.
Meanwhile, Bush/Cheney invest practically nothing in development of new energy sources. Because their patrons didn’t want competition. They want a monopoly –not a free market.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
The rich are getting richer and everybody else is getting poorer .. shoot .. we might as well have a Republican as President than that little turd, Obama, at least then we can blame somebody other than ourselves.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
This is insanity.
Since when is it wrong to make money in the USA? Class warfare and envy should not be part of the social fabric of our society, but unfortunately, the left-wing of the political spectrum demands this agitation.
The bankers at Goldman Sachs, the small-business owners, the entrepeneurs, executives in this country, provided that they have not done anything criminal. Short of that, there is nothing wrong with obtaining wealth.
It’s Goldman Sachs duty as a corporation to maximize shareholder’s wealth. If I was a shareholder, I would applaud and encourage that.
It’s the duty of corporate America to earn a profit. As CITIZENS, its our duty to be socially responsible.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Do you know how much money the Fortune 500 pays in taxes? They keep this country running. Not to mention the amount of money they put into R&D.
It’s easy to sit behind your computer screen to bitch and moan from the wheelhouse of the ship. Meanwhile, the capitalists keep the enginges humming.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Re: Also, the rentier class is not “successful” in the admirable sense of the word. Managers derive their own income from the efforts of the people they manage (how many cars does the chairman of Ford design or build?), and owners even more so.
Precisely, Chris. You have hit the nail on the head, and the fatal flaw of all the conservative f*cktards is revealed right here.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
The libertarian, witnessing compassion for the first time, often becomes confused. Searching his own experience for an explanation, he comes away frustrated. Unable to find an exact analogue, he falls back on the two emotions in his own past that come the closest: envy and guilt.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
The ability to make money is not a virtue unto itself and lawful doesn’t always equal ethical. The teacher or the broker? Who provides the greater service to society? Who produces the larger income? It’s neither virtuous nor evil to have the ability to make money.
Has Goldman’s produced a consumable product and reaped a respectable profit or just gamed a flawed system built for that purpose?
“Meanwhile, the capitalists keep the enginges humming.”
The engines don’t hum when there are no consumers. Goods producers require goods consumers. If wealth is heavily skewed towards the top 1%, the economy is in trouble.
Pete
July 17th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
#39 – it’s not about the “patriotism” of the plutocrats; it’s about what actually works as a funding source.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I agree. But the liberal ideology considers it as such, as is anyone associated with making that money. Unless of course, they are left-leaning in their political contributions.
Keeping the engines humming in terms of government revenue. They keep the bureaucracies afloat.
As for the consumers, the US government might be sapping the ability of the US consumer to purchase goods with confiscatory taxation and nickel and diming them with cap and trade and the like, but the US producer will be more than happy to sell abroad.
Surely, there is nothing unethical about that.
And it’s not up to the government to determine who is an “ethical earner”. That’s a road we shouldn’t go down.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Re John G at 43: “Since when is it wrong to make money in the USA? Class warfare and envy should not be part of the social fabric of our society, but unfortunately, the left-wing of the political spectrum demands this agitation.”
———-
1) That is utter bullshit — class warfare is HOW our plutocrats gain great wealth. By electing a two-faced, lying puppet –an alcoholic , bankrupt, spoiled rich kid who they rescued so he could lie through his teeth while advancing their agenda. A puppet who stole $3 TRILLION out of the Social Security accounts of the common workers , gave $2 Trillion to the richest 2 percent of the population, and spent another $Trillion — and 4500+ lives –grabbling the oil deposits of Iraq for his Big Oil patrons.
Re John G’s comment : “The bankers at Goldman Sachs, the small-business owners, the entrepeneurs, executives in this country, provided that they have not done anything criminal. ”
——-
A disingenous argument given how our plutocrats spend $HUndreds of Millions to bribe Members of Congress into defining “criminal” in ways which don’t affect them — and $hundred of Millions more to ensure no federal prosecutors are allowed to investigated their actions.
As I noted , the Government has had to spend almost $10 Trillion of our money to keep our sabotaged economy from collapsing. Anyone been indicted for that? Anyone even under investigation?
The way John G averts his eyes from these facts — the way he talks past them — shows what a two-faced hypocrite he is.
We were far more prosperous in the 1960s because our government enforced a far stricter code of behavior on our corporate executives, our bankers, and our plutocrats.
Now, people like John G openly advocate a malign, disfunctional political bribery on a massive scale disguised as “freedom of speech”.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Again, what crime did Goldman Sachs commit? They accepted TARP money which was forced upon them by our government and paid it back.
GS had a great quarter no doubt, and its employees and shareholders should be rewarded accordingly. If you’re envious of this, buy some stock or get a job there. Most of their profits were made with their bread and butter business: underwriting and trading. And quite frankly, most of the quarter in question included one of the best market moves since the 1930s. That is what Goldman does. Make money. Yes, that’s still legal in this country. And they’ll pay their share of taxes.
And last I checked, the majority of “plutocrats” being greased by Goldman Sachs money are Democrats. Look into how much money Obama received from Wall Street. Or Chuck Schumer. Or Chuck Dodd. Or Kerry. On and on and on. Speaking of disingenuous.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:27 am
What I really love about the outrage expressed about Goldman Sachs is this: the same people who are angry back the faux “climate change” bill. That bill doesn’t institute any limits to speak of, but it does do two things:
– raise the prices we’ll pay for energy (and everything else)
– create a completely artificial market for – wait for it – traders to play in
Want to guess which company will end up raking the majority of the profits from that? It’s enough to make you wonder whether these policies are being specifically tailored to enrich a small handful of wall street trading firms.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I make no distinction between slime ball politicians of either side and their special interest ties. The need for reform in that area is a whole other topic.
James,
Would conservatives allow for true climate change reform under any circumstances, regardless of special interest? Let’s not even talk about the anti-science deniers. We have to start somewhere on this issue, right. We’ll pay a little more today or a lot more later.
On the trader issue. I don’t care what they trade, artificially created or otherwise. As long as it’s a level playing field and those who speculate(not manipulate) are responsible for the risks they take. Go ahead and make all the the money you can under those circumstances but what we need to reevaluate is who we use as the standard for “successful Americans” and successful American companies for that matter. Can we cut the Gordon Gecko bullshit, finally.
Pete
July 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am
What purpose does that serve? “Successful” is in the eyes of the beholder, to coin a phrase. A GS trader making $1 million+ a year is considered successful in some circles, not successful by others.
Successful companies are those that turn profits, within the boundaries of the law. That is their only goal, and it’s their fiduciary duty to maximize profits for shareholders. It’s a simple concept really.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:23 am
Yeah, and let’s also consider that Charlie Mangle Rangle is a tax cheatin’ bum, a stinking, not very bright, tax thief protected by the state controled media.
And he’s a poster child for the left’s inate corruption and socialist thievery.
So please do, consider THAT.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Hey Pete — the warm-monger. You’re the anti-science zealot in the grip of a millenia old delusion that “man” can affect the weather.
Don’t you have a few witches to burn? How about a some human sacrfices, that’s always helped with the crops.
The arrogance and mendacity of the warm-mongers knows no bounds. The crazies walk the earth — and they think they can stop the climate changing.
Like the witch-burners of old, anything and everything “proves” their warm-mongering cause. The antithesis of science.
It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. But they’d have fitted in nicely in the 12th Century…
Co-incidentally the very century the warm-mongers and their Green Shirts want to jackboot us all back into. No thanks, warm-mongerer Pete.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
@Don Williams : In response to post 1. Goldman Sachs has actually made the government 23% more money than they put in. You also have to remember that some of these banks were FORCED to take the cash, so that it would not hurt the reputations of the weaker banks. Obviously, GS is not one of those weaker banks.
Speak the truth from now on!