• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

USA Downgraded.

What business is it of your or our that these people make and spend the money the way they do?

The problem is that they aren't spending THEIR money, they are spending the shareholders money.

Wall Street has not only enabled, but has encourage a culture of entitlement to CEOs and top executives to rape and plunder the coffers of public corporations.

My Boss for the weekend, spent his own money (inherited money). I have NO PROBLEM with that.

I have a friend that lives in a $4 million house, drives a Murcielago and brags about not only not paying any tax but actually receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit last year.
 
Last edited:

"This "wealth gap" you speak of is just a rhetorical tool to incite class warfare."


My point is that you are wrong!

Wall Street has not only enabled, but has encourage a culture of entitlement to CEOs and top executives to rape and plunder the coffers of public corporations.

Well, glad we got that straight. Next time provide some evidence instead of a useless chart listing incomes and citing a Berkeley study on ANYTHING economic. I'd actually be more specific and state that the crony capitalism that's been going on between D.C. and Wall Street is part of what's ailing this economy. The other part is terrible public policy in regards to lending standards that triggered the sub-prime mortgage mess, but that's a conversation for another day. :cool:
 
The problem is that they aren't spending THEIR money, they are spending the shareholders money.

Wall Street has not only enabled, but has encourage a culture of entitlement to CEOs and top executives to rape and plunder the coffers of public corporations.

My Boss for the weekend, spent his own money (inherited money). I have NO PROBLEM with that.

Bad as it may seem, that's between them and the shareholders.
 
CEOs and top executives to rape and plunder

Pirate.jpg


Yarrrrrrrrrr Mate-y!! Shiver me timbers, thy be talkin' like a pirate!
 
This so-called wealth gap is nonsense and class warfare. Pure envy.

All of these anecdotal points show is that there's more rich people out there. Let's assume that this so-called gap is true.

Who cares if there are many more millionaires and billionaires today than at any other time? That's excellent news! This doesn't mean that it's a zero-sum game and that the standard of living of everyone else is going down. Someone has to start, fund and grow all these businesses we have. Look at every store and industrial park in your locale. These are the hard working "rich" people that are taking the risks and making the investments. And if they get rich doing so, good for them. They deserve it.

People today have so much more stuff than their parents ever did. Just think what the typical middle class family had in 1965 versus today. I live in the same suburban town that I grew up in. There is so much more wealth today than ever before. 2 or 3 cars per family - often expensive cars too. $200 a month cable bills. etc. My parents never bought a new car until much later in their lives. They owned 1 car. Vacations? Yeah, the Jersey shore, 65 miles away for a few days - and not necessarily every year too. Eat out? Maybe once a month. I remember McDonalds being a big treat that we only did once in awhile. We had a local shopping center to buy stuff but today there must be at least 10X more stores and malls. There is no way that the middle class in this country is worse off than they were in the past. No way.

I am glad there are more rich people today. It means that there's more businesses open, more investment, more taxes paid. After all, remember, the rich are the ones who pay most of the taxes. The top 1% pay nearly 40%. The bottom 50% pay nothing. So, having more rich people is a great thing. It's the only thing that keeps us going.

PS: And when I'm talking rich people - I'm using the Obama/Democratic definition of "rich".... >$250K of income or more.
 
Last edited:
PS: And when I'm talking rich people - I'm using the Obama/Democratic definition of "rich".... >$250K of income or more.

Ohhh....that rich. I thought you were talking about the other kind of rich. You know, the actual REAL rich. As in extremely wealthy.
 
Ohhh....that rich. I thought you were talking about the other kind of rich. You know, the actual REAL rich. As in extremely wealthy.

Nah, there's just not enough of those super-rich people out there to make a difference. That's why even if you taxed those super-rich at a 100% rate - that would only cover us for less than a month of our massive spending.
 
Many people get much more out of the system than they pay in. This makes it a welfare system. According to Bankrate.com

Really? I have been putting money in a 401k myself, much less than they make me give them and somehow I have so much more in that account?
Isn't that what the money you put in supposed to do? Grow?

You know what I believe they, the government will eventually do?
They'll take any of that growth I have been able to create, take it away and fine me for having done so. Redistribute it.
 
And BTW at $850 a day I was the cheapest part of operating the plane. In case you were wondering - gas from TX to WY and back was $12,179.

Hey look....those rich fat cat CEO's gave you a job piloting their planes that you claim to hate so much.
Proof trickle down economics works, right? :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
Not wanting to get involved in any economic arguments. The only thing I'll add to the discussion is the amount of bailout money totals...wait for it...

16 TRILLION. Granted, it's not the most objective of the websites but the actual numbers speak for themselves. What really surprised/irked/pissed/wtf'd me was the unbelievable total and the amounts given to foreign banks.

http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts

Secret Bailouts said:
The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...3-62060dcbb3c3

What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious — the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is “only” $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is “only” $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

“This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.” – Bernie Sanders(I-VT)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

Ouch ouch ouch.
 
Not wanting to get involved in any economic arguments. The only thing I'll add to the discussion is the amount of bailout money totals...wait for it...

16 TRILLION.

Ouch ouch ouch.

Yeah but that was to avoid a total economic collapse. You know, like the one we are in now. :wink::biggrin:
 
Really? I have been putting money in a 401k myself, much less than they make me give them and somehow I have so much more in that account?
Isn't that what the money you put in supposed to do? Grow?

You know what I believe they, the government will eventually do?
They'll take any of that growth I have been able to create, take it away and fine me for having done so. Redistribute it.

My reference was to Social Security and Medicare.
 
Many people get much more out of the system than they pay in. This makes it a welfare system. According to Bankrate.com

"A male average earner who retired at age 65 in 2010 paid out $345,000 in total Social Security and Medicare taxes, but will receive $417,000 in total lifetime benefits ($464,000 for a woman).
A much bigger disparity in taxes versus benefits occurs for couples. In the case of a household with only one wage earner, the taxes paid out were $345,000, but the benefits received by both parties will be $778,000. For two-earner couples where one earned the average wage and the other earned a low wage ($19,400), tax payout was $500,000, but benefits will be $800,000."

This is clearly not sustainable and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Who here would run their private finances this way?

the 'disparity' mentioned does not take into an account the fact that the money an individual is paying over the years was supposed to be accruing interest on investment- in reality generating a great profit for the government- take the 300k investment over even 10 years in stable environment and you should end up with much bigger amount than the 400k payed out at the end. the problem is that instead of using that money to make money, the gov borrowed / stole it to fund other crap.
 
.......I voted for Ron Paul (when he was Libertarian/Independent) in the past and was frustrated in people who threw their vote away. How is a person who isn't a majority party candidate ever going to have a chance of credibility if people don't vote for them? You can't go from a nobody to legitimate candidate out of nowhere. The more people who vote for people like Ron Paul, the more people will take more seriously a third party candidate as I think is is pretty clear that the answer is not with the Republicans or Democrats. Both parties have deviated and corrupted too far from their origins to even be a shadow of what their original party platforms represented.......

I use to lean Republican, but I have a distaste for the bible thumping ones....
 
the 'disparity' mentioned does not take into an account the fact that the money an individual is paying over the years was supposed to be accruing interest on investment- in reality generating a great profit for the government- take the 300k investment over even 10 years in stable environment and you should end up with much bigger amount than the 400k payed out at the end. the problem is that instead of using that money to make money, the gov borrowed / stole it to fund other crap.

Swerve is right. You can't just do simple math and subtract the payout from the contributions. The money is supposed to grow. Now maybe they need to adjust how much the payout is depending on how much it grows, but saying the payout is more than contributions is not convincing. Hopefully we get more out of our 401K than we put in, no?
 
the 'disparity' mentioned does not take into an account the fact that the money an individual is paying over the years was supposed to be accruing interest on investment- in reality generating a great profit for the government- take the 300k investment over even 10 years in stable environment and you should end up with much bigger amount than the 400k payed out at the end. the problem is that instead of using that money to make money, the gov borrowed / stole it to fund other crap.

The operative term is supposed to be accruing interest. So, if this is not happening then the reality is that the disparity exists.
 
Swerve is right. You can't just do simple math and subtract the payout from the contributions. The money is supposed to grow. Now maybe they need to adjust how much the payout is depending on how much it grows, but saying the payout is more than contributions is not convincing. Hopefully we get more out of our 401K than we put in, no?

Again, I'm not referencing 401K, I'm referencing Social Security and Medicare.
 
The problem is that they aren't spending THEIR money, they are spending the shareholders money.

Wall Street has not only enabled, but has encourage a culture of entitlement to CEOs and top executives to rape and plunder the coffers of public corporations.

My Boss for the weekend, spent his own money (inherited money). I have NO PROBLEM with that.

I have a friend that lives in a $4 million house, drives a Murcielago and brags about not only not paying any tax but actually receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit last year.

So do you have problem with our president spending tax payer's money for his own birthday and White House parties, fundraisers, golf games, etc?
 
Back
Top