Wall Street Fat Cats

Yes and no.

I don't believe there would have been any financial reform at all, ever, if the Rs had their way.

Unfortunately for those of us who voted for change, the Ds don't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to make sure all the money handed over to Wall Street was accounted for and paid back.

But then, Hank Paulson and the Rs made sure it was never intended to be paid back. You have to fill out more paperwork to get a loan on a used Dodge than the Wall Street bankers had to do to get their TARP money.

Yeah, I still lay this one on Bush and his cronies. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS.

And as you say, they're laughing all the way to their offshore banks.

You know Wall Street reforms were toothless by the minimal amount of fussing that came from the financiers. Politicians get to say they "reined in Wall Street" and business continues as usual.

Rent a copy of "Inside Job," and you'll see that D's, R's and a lot of other people fight for Wall Street's gain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101203723.html
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

The best action you can take to get Wall Street's attention is to pull your money out. I did. All of it, (such as it was). It's a sucker's game that's used individual 401K's and retirement investments as play money with no intention of letting the little guy get any actual, substantial return.

While it's nearly impossible to get any kind of decent return and preserve the principal in today's low interst rate environment, at least I know that tomorrow the balance won't be any less than it is today. I wont be subject to a "flash crash" or a free fall if there's a terrorist attack or if Iran nukes Isreal or whatever catastrophe sends the market into a tailspin. I'm out. I'm done. It was the best money management desicion I ever made.

Yeah, but if you're younger than 59 1/2, you're pretty much tied into the 401k these days. What else are you going to do? SUCKS.

Annie, don't you realize what a 401k really is? It's a bribe from corporate employers to get you to foolishly risk your money in the stock casino. That's how far Wall Street's influence runs.

Holland is right. Take your money out. You have significant investments that you should be making for yourself anyway, like obtaining greater efficiency in your transportation, heating, cooling, etc. Adding insulation to a house will ALWAYS pay off, unlike buying some wiggling electrons in a broker's computer system.

Wall Street has achieved its dream. It's managed to con most Americans into capitalizing its frauds. Holland is very much right. Stop empowering the fraudulent financiers. Take your money out.

Dirty rotten rich sob's... fat cat's.... Hmmm - That's as close to hate speech as we get these days.

Gosh, I worked many years, saved hard and I invest. I'm now semi retired and receive dividends from the investments that have grown all these years. I do not receive any pensions from the state as I was not a public employee. I believe in stock ownership, especially for innovative companies with solid ideas. There are very good men in the investment arena with good solid morals. John Bogle, founder of VanGuard comes to mind.

I've always lived below my means and hate borrowing. Is it better to act like the government and just keep spending and borrowing? Is that moral?

Am I a "dirty rich SOB?" Am I a Fat Cat?

My last sick day was in 1990. Even in semi retirement I never miss a shift and I always volunteer for extra work and do more then I am asked. I am reliable and am a hard worker. I'm sorry, is this wrong? I do work with people who call off constantly and are always complaining about being behind on their bills. - They are certainly not fat cats. Is it better to call off work frequently and have less? Or is it prudent to take opportunity when you can even if it means missing Monday Night Football or an episode of American Idol?

But you all keep railing against the rich. It is certainly you're right. For those who have grown a bit tired of people who blast success I suggest reading Atlas Shrugged if you have not. An excellent read.

Danneskjold: I used the words of those who seem to despise anyone who earns a nickel more than they do.

Personally, I believe you are worth what you can get. My point was: wasn't all of this supposed to be "fixed" by the President and his rubber stamp Congress? The left has demonized the "rich" for decades for their own political gain. Look at the posts here - it's worked. Those who've worked their tails off to produce wealth are all lumped into the same category and considered evil.

Are there some evil rich people? I'm sure there are. George Soros comes to mind.

As I've stated here before, no poor man has ever offered me employment.

If we ever succeed in taxing the rich out of existence, who's left to provide the jobs and taxes necessary?

Rest assured Danneskjold, I am a free market capitalist.

I see you're angle now Foodie and sorry for jumping the gun.

I see a similar approach with the anti war voices we heard during the election cycle a few years ago and now when a headline comes across about 17 more troops killed it barely registers a tick. Where are all those voices in Hollywood and where are the protesters chasing Obama's motorcade calling him a war monger like they did Bush? Where are all the protesters that were on Sylvania and Tallmadge? It was always about the votes and trying to put another party in power. I realize this game is played by both sides.

Sorry for the error on my part. Just seeing the term "Fat Cat" is starting to make me a bit edgy.

Federal taxes and union membership are both at 50 year low. Why is the economy at a 50 year low? The rich really have you fooled Foodie, if you think they need as much money as they can get so they can create jobs for you. People are rich because they hire people like you and I.

You really can't compare the protesters of someone who starts a senseless war with the protesters of someone who is trying to figure out a way to make it end.

The rich man/woman may very well hire you Foodie. Or he/she may also send your job to India or China so that they can get even richer. Companies don't create jobs today. They export them.

No apology necessary Danneskjold.

You are right on regarding the war death toll. When they were "Bush's wars" the media kept everyone whipped into a frenzy and they almost gleefully reported the daily death toll. Now you really have to dig to find the details. It's almost as though there are no wars going on.

Same for gas prices. Recently, they've approached $3.00/gallon. I haven't heard a peep from the media or the sheeple. Draw your own correlation between media hype and those who consume it.

SensorG said: "The rich really have you fooled Foodie, if you think they need as much money as they can get so they can create jobs for you. "

First off SensorG, NO ONE has me fooled - especially the current crop of assclowns in Washington. I don't fall for their slight of hand tricks - dazzling bright, shiny things in their right hand while picking my pocket with their left.

Next, I did not say that the rich need as much money as they can get to provide me with a job. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. You, me, everyone here is worth what they can get.

Isn't that what union leadership is expected to do for it's members? Get as much as they can get for them? If that is deemed "ok" then why should it not be good for the rest of us?

I just fail to understand why so many people suffer from severe cases of class envy - to the point that it makes their lives miserable. As long as anyone - rich or poor - has accumulated what they have by playing by the rules and didn't intentionally crush anyone along the way - I have no quarl with them.

The vast majority of the well to do have worked very hard, long hours to get where they are today. And, very likely, they've provided some good jobs for others in the process. Why should that be demonized? And why should they be penalized by a ridiculous tax code that pretends to "even the playing field." That concept has been tried many times in history and has ALWAYS failed.

I've been employed by small business people for the last 25 years - and have been treated very well by them. Are they rich? I guess that depends on your definition. They're certainly financially comfortable - as they deserve to be in exchange for the hard work they put into building their businesses. Why should I be envious of that and believe they should be penalized for their accomplishments? I truly do not understand that line of thinking.

You can pretend to believe that the great equalizer currently occupies the White House and somehow will make your life better by penalizing the well off. It simply isn't going to happen. The well to do will always figure out a way to keep as much of their $$ as possible. The "equalization", if successful, will be accomplished by reducing the standard of living for the middle class because the fact remains, that is where the greatest amount of money to tap lies. You could tax the rich at 100% (of course, you could only do it once) and it wouldn't come close to providing the dollars necessary to satisfy Washington's never ending appetite for more.

But, if it makes you "feel" good to hear how the rich are going to be soaked (won't happen) then who am I to wake you from that dream?

Soak the rich? Nope. Have them pay what they did during the booming 90's? Yep.

Why not truely level the playing field? My wife and I each get taxed around $20K per year all in. Why not have everyone regardless of what hey make pay $20K. Then everyone would be equal. It's that what you're striving for right?

Nope. Not at all - and I don't know how you could extract that from what I said.

I'll tell what I do believe in - a true flat tax - for EVERYONE. Why? Because I believe EVERYONE needs to have some skin in the game.

Get rid of the tax code and all deductions and tax everyone at the same percentage and then demand that our governments - federal, state and local live within the revenue they receive.

How long does anyone believe we can continue the path we're on - governments spending trillions more than they take in by borrowing it (especially from those who don't like us very much) or printing it?

The Fed Chief announced last week that serious consideration is being given to monetizing our debt - that should scare the living crap out of everyone.

"I'll tell what I do believe in - a true flat tax - for EVERYONE. Why? Because I believe EVERYONE needs to have some skin in the game."

So what you're really saying is that poor people don't pay enough taxes? Yet it's "class warefare" when we ask the rich to pay more.

I simply believe that the able bodied need to participate. To have some "ownership". I believe that keeping people constrained to lives of poverty is anything but humane.

I also believe in giving the lesser among us the tools to become productive citizens whether that be in the form of education or vocational training.

I do NOT believe in stacking the poor in high rise hell holes and simply writing them off.

None of this can occur overnight but we aren't even trying to make it happen. This country declared war on poverty nearly 50 years ago and has thrown trillions at the problem with few positive results. Meanwhile, politicians keep spewing their hot air and making empty promises to keep their rear ends firmly seated in power while enjoying untold perks and benefits at our expense. Does anyone think that is "just" or "moral"?

Of course, this would also require some desire and effort on the part of those trapped in poverty - those who've been used and lied to for decades.

Of course, this would also require some desire and effort on the part of those trapped in poverty - those who've been used and lied to for decades.

Why do you assume that all poor folks have been lied to and/or used?

More and more, we are realizing that poverty is truly generational. In other words, a child who grows up in poverty may never strive for an education or employment because he's never had an example at home of someone who has. Mom, Dad, grandparents -- they all get by, however worse for wear, without education and with very little, if any, employment.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not excusing this mindset by any means. I think it is just very convenient for those of us with a middle class mindset to simply say, "Why don't they just get a job? Any job?"

This country declared war on poverty nearly 50 years ago and has thrown trillions at the problem with few positive results. Meanwhile, politicians keep spewing their hot air and making empty promises to keep their rear ends firmly seated in power while enjoying untold perks and benefits at our expense. Does anyone think that is "just" or "moral"?

Does anyone think it is just or moral to let children go hungry, or without proper healthcare, due to their parents' failings?

I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. There has to be a way to change the mindset, to teach basic job skills like showing up on time and dressing properly, and to inspire the next generation to want to do and be more.

And as for those politicians throwing trillions at problems with few results, please do not forget that the budget for entitlements is very, very small compared to the military budget, which overwhelmingly goes to government contracts -- big business.

Why is this supremely redundant issue even being discussed? I believe J.C. Himself said "the poor will always be with us". They're part of the cost of doing business. A FIFTY year old war on poverty-gimme a break. 5k years is more like it, and of course, there's no end in sight. As far as I'm concerned, I should be allowed to claim the poor as dependents on my tax return, too.

As straining as the debate is I have to admit that despite some occasional angst on Toledo Talk I enjoy the discussion such as the posts above. It lets me know that I am not the only person that wrestles with this stuff and occasionally just need to express it. Let's face it. On here we can talk this stuff out. There's no sense even trying to talk politics or wealth redistribution, or opinions on the validity or non-validity of Unions to a Father in Law, friend or co-worker.

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Ben Franklin

Annie is right that a child should not go hungry and sick because their parents are waste of space. But making a lifestyle where you can live for free for generations. What we are doing now is not working, but the current admin want to beef up funding for failure by 30%!

Not all of us come from middle class, I stood in line for food as a child and for a short time live in my car. I never wanted to go back to that sort of situation so I kept working for a better life.

You can chain an elephant with a sting of twine because they where taught from an early age they can never be free. You can chain a welfare recipient with a block of govt. cheese.

"And as for those politicians throwing trillions at problems with few results, please do not forget that the budget for entitlements is very, very small compared to the military budget, which overwhelmingly goes to government contracts -- big business."

According to the New York Times, the 2011 Federal budget provides for:

$738 Billion in defense spending and
$2.3 Trillion in entitlement spending.

I was referring to welfare spending, not SSI, foodie.

"Why do you assume that all poor folks have been lied to and/or used?"

And I was referring to those trapped in poverty - by the very same politicians who continue to promise to pull them out of it. I did not claim "all poor folks have been lied to/used."

There's a difference between the poor and those in poverty. I spent a number of my early years being poor but I was not in poverty. Some "poor" people actually prefer to remain poor and be left alone.

"Does anyone think it is just or moral to let children go hungry, or without proper healthcare, due to their parents' failings?"

Absolutely not - nor did I say as much.

"More and more, we are realizing that poverty is truly generational"

It certainly is generational. And those trapped in poverty are kept there and used as political pawns by the jackasses on both sides of the aisle.

We need to demand better. Throwing more $$ at the problem in the form of increased welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc., etc. has proven it does nothing to solve the sorry state of affairs - other than make some "feel better" for having done so.

"There has to be a way to change the mindset, to teach basic job skills like showing up on time and dressing properly, and to inspire the next generation to want to do and be more."

Once again, we agree - scary isn't it?

But who are the first to scream bloody murder when we even talk about trying to bring about such change?

It certainly is generational. And those trapped in poverty are kept there and used as political pawns by the jackasses on both sides of the aisle.

Really? Do you think poor folks vote based on who is going to keep doling out welfare checks?

If that were so, no conservative would ever get elected. It's a sorry fact that the poor are less informed when it comes to voting than most.

And Foodie, while YOU may not have said it's ok to let poor children fall through the cracks, I've talked to conservatives -- especially the ones who identify themselves as the Religious Right -- who think it's perfectly fine to let the children suffer for the sins of the fathers.

Do I believe that the folks who are currently condemned to living in the projects down on Cherry St. (or insert the government provided rat hole of your choice) would vote for a politico who promises to maintain their status quo vs. a politico who tells them they are going to have to give up their status quo because we're going to give them marketable skills to find gainful employment and become contributing members of society?

You bet I do! And why wouldn't they? Most of them likely don't know any other way. Nor do they know anyone who knows a different way. They're products of their environment. As you and I acknowledge, poverty is generational. Would they choose to remain where they are - such as it is - vs. a complete lifestyle change for the unknown? Sure they would. And who could blame them?

As for those you've spoken with who identify themselves as the Religious Right who believe it's "ok" to let kids suffer - they don't speak for me. The children are the ones we need to try to reach - to let them know there's a better life to be had and try to show them the way out.

For the record, I'm sure there are many on the left who could care less about these kids too.

Lastly, I submit it isn't just the poor who are ill informed voters. There are millions on both sides who have no clue and simply vote party line or the way someone/some organization tells them to vote.

Re: The "soak the rich" debate.

The large, and presumably wealthy, businesses owners have a larger "economic footprint" in the use of taxpayer funded services and infrastructure.

They use employee labor educated in taxpayer funded public schools, colleges and intsitutions.

They use, or cause the necessity to be be built, greater amounts of infrastructure to conduct commercial activity, such as roads, sewers and rail utilities.

They need and use the taxpayer funded court system to enforce their contracts and litigate disputes.

They need police and fire protection in larger amounts than the average middle class wage earner.

Quite simply, they use a larger share of taxpayer funded services.

The above is true in good economic times and bad economic times. Factor in taxpayer funded bailouts ( banks and auto manufacturers) and you have wealthy business owners and corporations on what amounts to taxpayer funded welfare.

Holland,

Don't forget the crop subsidies that have been in effect for 60 years now.

Also, a very basic one has been left out. The rich can afford an accountant or a tax attorney to pour over each and every financial detail to minimize tax liability. They may start off owing more (% total of income), but once you take their deductions into account, many end up in what would have been a lot lower of a tax bracket.

I don't mind cutting the wealthy some slack when they are investing their money right back into our own economy, but if their assets are liquid, foreign based, or just hoarded, I say tax them to the point where using the money makes more sense.

Using THE money? You mean using THEIR money, don't you? "The money" implies others have some sort of right to access it. Why does your type think if someone walks down the street with two nickels in their pocket-that one of those nickles belongs to you?

Wulf - Isn't that "your type" of argument about a single Mom who works for wages so low she qualifies for and receives some welfare benefits?

"Your type" indeed.

"The above is true in good economic times and bad economic times. Factor in taxpayer funded bailouts ( banks and auto manufacturers) and you have wealthy business owners and corporations on what amounts to taxpayer funded welfare."

One little problem with this scenario. The bond holders of GM and Chrysler - who, by law and in every other bankruptcy case in this country, are first in line to receive whatever value can be salvaged from the bankrupt person/company, were cut out of the deal cobbled together by the administration. So, there were a lot of those dreaded, evil rich people who didn't get bailed out.

Let us not forget Goldman Sachs - one of the most corrupt brokers on Wall Street - and the current administration is loaded with former (wealthy) Goldman Sachs crooks.

For the record, I was for bailing out no one.

And, lest you really believe that the rich don't pay their "fair share", take a look at the IRS' own numbers regarding who pays what in taxes.

There are any number of sites to find the info. Here's one of them:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Consider the source of those numbers.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax_Foundation

http://www.medillnewsdc.com/power_trips/trips1206_taxfound.shtml

It does not represent a true or neutral picture of who pays what and in what proportion.

Factor in taxpayer funded bailouts ( banks and auto manufacturers) and you have wealthy business owners and corporations on what amounts to taxpayer funded welfare.

Except that the auto makers received loans, not a bailout, in order to keep auto workers on the job.

Who did the bankers keep on the job, again, when they received their no-strings-attached bailout money?

Nobody, except for their nannies, maids and gardeners.

Who did the bankers keep on the job?? Been to a branch office lately? Do you think those tellers and managers are volunteers?

Many banks have re-paid their TARP money - see list in this link: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/st_TARP_20100930.html and click on the hyplerlink titled (See Related Article)

I do find it interesting that three major banks in this area haven't re-paid any of their TARP $$.

Tellers and managers? That's the best you can do?

And were their jobs ever in danger?

Obama-Pelosi government and Marcy Kaptur who sits next to the gavel) allow Google to screw taxpayers as they continue to support Big Business and Wall Street Bankers.

I guess Marcy Kaptur thinks its ok for taxpayers to pick up the $60 billion in lost revenue that she and her fat cat cronies allowed Google to get out of.

Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

Ramblingman,

How is minimizing tax liability screwing the taxpayers? Their is a difference between minimizing tax liability and tax evasion.

The 60 billion is not lost revenue, its what Google has saved by changing their structure. How much would Google be "screwing" taxpayers if they shut down tomorrow and liquidated their assets?

All multinational companies do this, this is nothing new, and transcends both political parties.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/tax-haven-report/

If you want to be anti-Big Business and anti-Wall Street, you are advocating socialist policies, not Tea Party ones. Tea Partiers see Big Businesses as extensions of the individuals that own them, and treating them differently than you treat people is incongruous with their idea of liberty. The fact that their are Democrats in charge of Congress right now has nothing to do with it. I am so sure that the Republicans would have came down very hard on Google (sarcasm). If they would have, every lobbyist in the country would have been working overtime to make sure it didn't happen to their industry.

So Ramblingman, are you advocating socialist policies or are you a confused Tea Partier?

I don't belong to any party. Never been to a teaparty rally or voted for their candidates.

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals who always spout off about wall street fat cats, big business etc and how republicans are to blame.

Big business, increased executive compensation, corporations paying less in taxes have increased dramatically under Obama's watch. Democrats can no longer claim they are the party of the working class.

I have no problem with Google following whatever tax laws are on the books and saving 60 billion. I am sure Google can spend that 60 billion better than Pelosi or Marcy can.

Big business, increased executive compensation, corporations paying less in taxes have increased dramatically under Obama's watch.
-------------------------------------

WRONG!

Tellers, or CSR's as they call them today, are almost all part time positions. No benefits at all. Managers (usually given a VP monicker after 4-5 yrs) are overworked and underpaid. Their major perk is a ton of vacation time, a 401k and health care for which they contribute quite a bit out of their pocket. Certainly no glammer job.

Rambling ---

"I don't belong to any party. Never been to a teaparty rally or voted for their candidates."; "hypocrisy of liberals who always spout off"; "I am sure Google can spend that 60 billion better than Pelosi or Marcy can."

One of these sentences don't belong. Care to guess which one?