• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Somebody Else

How Low Would You Sink in Order to Secure Your Financial Future?

Let's call it $40 million.   14 members have voted

  1. 1. What Moral or Legal or Ethical Compromises Would You Make to Become Wealthy?

    • I would be willing to drop the standard of living for the other 99 percent.
      6
    • If other people lost their retirement income or all their savings or their homes, well, too bad.
      5
    • If there were a 50% chance I'd do 10 years or more in prison I'd take the chance.
      2
    • If there were a 33% I'd die in the process I'd take the chance.
      4
    • If I might have to kill someone I'd still go ahead with it.
      2

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

51 posts in this topic

It's a private poll; no one can see how you vote. So feel free to examine the darkest corners of your heart and vote your findings.

 

This question is of sociological interest to me more than practical; I'm interested in the ratios of the replies.

 

I also had a few more options in mind but the poll only allows five, so if you want to add more conditions, please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You couldn't add a none of the above option? There are probably at least a billion almighty-fearing people in the world who wouldn't even torture their bookie for $40 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No vote, as I would not do any of the above.

 

I am happy with where I am right now. Don't need $40 million.

 

 

But if you're giving it away, no strings attached, put me on the short list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the answers are bad. The only one I'd consider is the 33% chance of dying one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Like I said, ran out of options. No vote is a vote for none of the above.

_________________

 

There are hundreds or thousands of CEOs out there that appear to be perfectly content with the first 3 options.

 

I would be interested to see if "the 1 percent" would be reflected in the poll, but I'll never get that large a sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are in the top 20% of household income stats if you make a bit over 90K per year.

100K per year is the mark for the top 15%

 

incomedistribution.png

 

Why must you be in the top 1%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't know."

 

 

"All I need are some tasty waves and a cool buzz and I'm fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinkin' DoRag and a few others would like to see an "All of the above" choice. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you gotta be a baddy to make money?

 

how did bill gates oppress the people?

 

cell phone industry?

 

entertainment? - TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Like I said, ran out of options. No vote is a vote for none of the above.

_________________

 

There are hundreds or thousands of CEOs out there that appear to be perfectly content with the first 3 options.

 

I would be interested to see if "the 1 percent" would be reflected in the polgotcha.l, but I'll never get that large a sample.

Gotcha. Well, I abstained so I guess none of the above. I may go back and select the 33% one though. I tend to be a risk taker. But I am ceratinly not down with holding down others to raise myself as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you gotta be a baddy to make money?

 

how did bill gates oppress the people?

 

cell phone industry?

 

entertainment? - TV?

Bill Gates is an awful, awful man. He was my public enemy number one for about 15 years till Jobs rescucitated Apple from the grave. Now that old Stevie has kicked 5he bucket, I may need to revist Gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm holding out for a "work your ass off and live beneath your means for 30 years" option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one needs $40 mil to be secure.

Its what you spend that makes the difference, not what you make.

Just spend less than you make and its all sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above, but the poll is specious. No matter how many gazillionaires are out there, it isn't a zero-sum gain. Have a good idea, work hard, and you too can be a gazillionaire *without* screwing anyone else out of their pension, etc.

 

That's [one of] the major flaws in the whole "Occupy <foo>" charade. Just because some guy on Wall Street (or even a firm on Wall Street) makes a gazillion bucks doesn't mean they got there by screwing someone else. Much of the money on Wall Street is "our" money - my 401k, your pension, her retirement, whatever. "Bringing down the fatcats" won't accomplish anything good. They're the wrong target.

 

JMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya messed up the design of your poll. Nobody with a healthy moral compass can actually participate. You have to check one of those boxes, all of which most normal people would consider to be reprehensible.

 

In any event, most people who lack moral compass - aka sociopaths - could not participate either. Their lack empathy for others would lead them to deny that any situation which might enrich them to the tune of $40M could harm others -- even if the likelihood of such harm were evident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm holding out for the really hot babe with about $75 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya messed up the design of your poll. Nobody with a healthy moral compass can actually participate. You have to check one of those boxes, all of which most normal people would consider to be reprehensible.

 

In any event, most people who lack moral compass - aka sociopaths - could not participate either. Their lack empathy for others would lead them to deny that any situation which might enrich them to the tune of $40M could harm others -- even if the likelihood of such harm were evident.

I like this answer!

 

Yeah, looking back at that poll I guess I'm just a cynical crank.

Bad mood today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contract was signed and on the table. Same deal Hugh Hefner got.

 

Satan backed out, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above, but the poll is specious. No matter how many gazillionaires are out there, it isn't a zero-sum gain. Have a good idea, work hard, and you too can be a gazillionaire *without* screwing anyone else out of their pension, etc.

 

That's [one of] the major flaws in the whole "Occupy <foo>" charade. Just because some guy on Wall Street (or even a firm on Wall Street) makes a gazillion bucks doesn't mean they got there by screwing someone else. Much of the money on Wall Street is "our" money - my 401k, your pension, her retirement, whatever. "Bringing down the fatcats" won't accomplish anything good. They're the wrong target.

 

JMHO.

 

 

+ a gazillion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steal my neighbors jewelry and sell it at the nearest "Gold Bug" buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Like I said, ran out of options. No vote is a vote for none of the above.

_________________

 

There are hundreds or thousands of CEOs out there that appear to be perfectly content with the first 3 options.

 

I would be interested to see if "the 1 percent" would be reflected in the poll, but I'll never get that large a sample.

 

 

You are a left wing pinko communist that thinks that anyone that makes money is bad. Take your socialist ass to some country that subjugates everyone that works by taking 75% of their income and distributes it to pukes like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Sols link in the Occupoccalypse thread...

 

"What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

 

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

 

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.

 

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth. "

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chickens come home to roost.

I dealt with these guy extensively. What they did was within the law.

 

I'm not badmouthing anyone. They did what they saw as being OK.

 

Please take 8 minutes and understand what happened.

http://www.pbs.org/w...editcards/view/

 

Unbanked open-to-buy LoCs was the writing on the wall...

 

 

8 Minutes? I found an hourlong Frontline episode??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the new 8 minutes. I'm reverse engineering time.

 

Just watch the first minutes with Shai to get the idea. Or watch the whole thing if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the new 8 minutes. I'm reverse engineering time.

 

Just watch the first minutes with Shai to get the idea. Or watch the whole thing if you like.

 

 

Maybe later; need to find a job first. Either that or go march in Hartford...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above, but the poll is specious. No matter how many gazillionaires are out there, it isn't a zero-sum gain. Have a good idea, work hard, and you too can be a gazillionaire *without* screwing anyone else out of their pension, etc.

 

That's [one of] the major flaws in the whole "Occupy <foo>" charade. Just because some guy on Wall Street (or even a firm on Wall Street) makes a gazillion bucks doesn't mean they got there by screwing someone else. Much of the money on Wall Street is "our" money - my 401k, your pension, her retirement, whatever. "Bringing down the fatcats" won't accomplish anything good. They're the wrong target.

 

JMHO.

Well said. Sums it up nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would gladly off the author of this silly poll to insure all our lives are better and this is not repeated in the future --as a public service --just sayin .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's [one of] the major flaws in the whole "Occupy <foo>" charade. Just because some guy on Wall Street (or even a firm on Wall Street) makes a gazillion bucks doesn't mean they got there by screwing someone else. Much of the money on Wall Street is "our" money - my 401k, your pension, her retirement, whatever. "Bringing down the fatcats" won't accomplish anything good. They're the wrong target.

 

JMHO.

Well said. Sums it up nicely.

 

Really?

 

How does a guy on Wall Street make a gazillion bucks without taking it out of someone else's pocket?* That is precisely the Wall Street business model.

 

I think it's interesting that the very same who bitch and moan about the taxes that they pay for public infrastructure and public services defend the taxes that they pay to Wall Street on virtually every single transaction they make.

 

Much of that money on Wall Street may be our money, but the Wall Street business model is to carve off as much of our money into their pockets as is possible. I don't think that we should begrudge anyone compensation for their services. However, one way they do this is by making the cost as opaque as possible so we blithely go about our lives without understanding how much money we are handing over to them. The less we understand about what we are paying, the more they can extract from us.

 

Whether it's the management fees on your 401(k), credit card fees, debit card transaction fees buried in the cost of every item you buy at the Safeway, bond underwriting fees on the school bonds issued by your town, points on mortgages, the financial sector is going to take a chunk out of every single transaction executed in this country. It adds up to billions of billions of dollars and all of that tithing has a negative effect on our economy. It's no mystery that our economy has become fundamentally weaker as the "tax" to the financial sector has grown bigger. If the credit card company is taking a $50 late fee from you, that is $50 that your not spending at some merchant. If the investment bank takes $20 million out of a school bond issue as its underwriting fee that is $20 million less that is going to be used on school construction and $20 million more that the town's residents are going to have to pay in taxes to repay the underwriting fee portion of the bond issue.

 

This is precisely why the financial sector is so vehemently opposed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is seeking to make the cost of these financial transactions transparent to consumers. They don't want us to know how much they are lifting from our pockets. We're supposed to be ignorant sheep, bleating our way through the fleecing pens.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2009/12/07_warren.huffingtonpost.html

 

 

*The exception being, perhaps, trading income, but they've done a great of job of getting us to cover their losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why they're doing their darndest to villify the crap out of Elizabeth Warren. She's got their game nailed and can articulate both their M.O. and how to counter it. She's very bad news for the money changers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's [one of] the major flaws in the whole "Occupy <foo>" charade. Just because some guy on Wall Street (or even a firm on Wall Street) makes a gazillion bucks doesn't mean they got there by screwing someone else. Much of the money on Wall Street is "our" money - my 401k, your pension, her retirement, whatever. "Bringing down the fatcats" won't accomplish anything good. They're the wrong target.

 

JMHO.

Well said. Sums it up nicely.

 

Really?

 

How does a guy on Wall Street make a gazillion bucks without taking it out of someone else's pocket?* That is precisely the Wall Street business model.

 

I think it's interesting that the very same who bitch and moan about the taxes that they pay for public infrastructure and public services defend the taxes that they pay to Wall Street on virtually every single transaction they make.

 

Much of that money on Wall Street may be our money, but the Wall Street business model is to carve off as much of our money into their pockets as is possible. I don't think that we should begrudge anyone compensation for their services. However, one way they do this is by making the cost as opaque as possible so we blithely go about our lives without understanding how much money we are handing over to them. The less we understand about what we are paying, the more they can extract from us.

 

Whether it's the management fees on your 401(k), credit card fees, debit card transaction fees buried in the cost of every item you buy at the Safeway, bond underwriting fees on the school bonds issued by your town, points on mortgages, the financial sector is going to take a chunk out of every single transaction executed in this country. It adds up to billions of billions of dollars and all of that tithing has a negative effect on our economy. It's no mystery that our economy has become fundamentally weaker as the "tax" to the financial sector has grown bigger. If the credit card company is taking a $50 late fee from you, that is $50 that your not spending at some merchant. If the investment bank takes $20 million out of a school bond issue as its underwriting fee that is $20 million less that is going to be used on school construction and $20 million more that the town's residents are going to have to pay in taxes to repay the underwriting fee portion of the bond issue.

 

This is precisely why the financial sector is so vehemently opposed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is seeking to make the cost of these financial transactions transparent to consumers. They don't want us to know how much they are lifting from our pockets. We're supposed to be ignorant sheep, bleating our way through the fleecing pens.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2009/12/07_warren.huffingtonpost.html

 

 

*The exception being, perhaps, trading income, but they've done a great of job of getting us to cover their losses.

If I pay a guy to do my dry cleaning, why shouldn't I pay one to make a trade for me?

 

I can get bank accounts that pay interest or take a loan and pay them interest. It's my choice and they have the spread as their money to issue me cards, track transactions and transfer funds as I write checks or use my debit card.

 

Don't you look at management fees when you make an investment? Or, do you see a higher average return and figure the more skilled managers should make more money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wall street one or two per-centers ruined the economy with their house of cards. We, the 99 percenters bailed them out. Then they posted highest ever profits and bonuses yet refuse to lend money. It is wrong on so many levels, but I don't expect the regressives to ever get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarosa hit on the free will issue -- all the things wabbi listed are optional purchases of your own free will and each has alternative options --

 

What that reveals is a very spoiled existance full of such excesses that are considered to be common necessity and righfully theirs ---with the false presumption government can provide all .

 

Wabbi Chuck Billy etc also have a zero sum mentality which is -

 

Zero-sum mentality is the term used in community psychology to describe a way of thinking that hinges on the notion that "there must be one winner and one loser, for every gain there is a loss."

 

They believe in a finite existance and falsely believe only government can redistribute limited finite resources --which include funds for all things listed and more .

 

What people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates demonstrate is that a zero sum mentality only leads to your own limited existance and that free will and free enterprise create wealth which increases the standard of living for all people .

 

Are there despicable people of low moral value in the top 1 percent --yes of course ,just as there is in any catagory one might conjure up or in any profession or occupation . Good or bad is not exclusive to income levels , any occupation , or political party . Some ideologies are self defeating however --such as those with zero sum mentalities and the false belief in collectivism as a be all end all solution .

 

We are a nation of just over 300 million people who are the dynamic economic engine of the world ,in a world of 6 billion people . How did we accomplish this ? By a system of free enterprise and wealth creation basically .

 

Way too many people fail to understand the existance of billions of other human beings or recognize what we have achieved thanks to former generations much less comprehend our history --they instead ,in spoiled fashion, take their standard of living for granted and falsely believe more authoritarian now bankrupt government will sustain and provide for them .;]

 

Economic freedom in America today

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4fWQnguR1E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2685177018_82bf33ff2d_o.jpg

In case you've forgotten who got us all into this mess: A Left Hand Economics Professors

from Texas A&M named "Phil" and his lovely PhD wife, Wendy--former Board of Enron

Member and lead cheerleaders for Big Gubiment Deregulation.

 

Be sure and drive by their gated community in Houston and honk if you love your 401k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's [one of] the major flaws in the whole "Occupy <foo>" charade. Just because some guy on Wall Street (or even a firm on Wall Street) makes a gazillion bucks doesn't mean they got there by screwing someone else. Much of the money on Wall Street is "our" money - my 401k, your pension, her retirement, whatever. "Bringing down the fatcats" won't accomplish anything good. They're the wrong target.

 

JMHO.

Well said. Sums it up nicely.

 

Really?

 

How does a guy on Wall Street make a gazillion bucks without taking it out of someone else's pocket?* That is precisely the Wall Street business model.

 

I think it's interesting that the very same who bitch and moan about the taxes that they pay for public infrastructure and public services defend the taxes that they pay to Wall Street on virtually every single transaction they make.

 

Much of that money on Wall Street may be our money, but the Wall Street business model is to carve off as much of our money into their pockets as is possible. I don't think that we should begrudge anyone compensation for their services. However, one way they do this is by making the cost as opaque as possible so we blithely go about our lives without understanding how much money we are handing over to them. The less we understand about what we are paying, the more they can extract from us.

 

Whether it's the management fees on your 401(k), credit card fees, debit card transaction fees buried in the cost of every item you buy at the Safeway, bond underwriting fees on the school bonds issued by your town, points on mortgages, the financial sector is going to take a chunk out of every single transaction executed in this country. It adds up to billions of billions of dollars and all of that tithing has a negative effect on our economy. It's no mystery that our economy has become fundamentally weaker as the "tax" to the financial sector has grown bigger. If the credit card company is taking a $50 late fee from you, that is $50 that your not spending at some merchant. If the investment bank takes $20 million out of a school bond issue as its underwriting fee that is $20 million less that is going to be used on school construction and $20 million more that the town's residents are going to have to pay in taxes to repay the underwriting fee portion of the bond issue.

 

This is precisely why the financial sector is so vehemently opposed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is seeking to make the cost of these financial transactions transparent to consumers. They don't want us to know how much they are lifting from our pockets. We're supposed to be ignorant sheep, bleating our way through the fleecing pens.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2009/12/07_warren.huffingtonpost.html

 

 

*The exception being, perhaps, trading income, but they've done a great of job of getting us to cover their losses.

 

Speaking of the above.

 

Harrisburg. Big stinking mess caused by underwriters fleecing a city government.

 

Many public officials and other powerful people take the position that “those city people voted for whom they voted, and they will have to live with the consequences.” But the truth is that the average citizens on the streets of Harrisburg did not know about the depth of harmful acts by those they had elected.

They could not have understood there was a highly sophisticated, multi-hundred million dollar debt scheme going on, as shown now in the forensic audit. They did not know about — much less could have understood — the inappropriateness of the interest rate swaps, as revealed now in the forensic audit.

They did not know (and the suburban residents did not know) that sewer customers were being overcharged and those monies were being diverted to other purposes. The people who did know what was going on were certainly not telling the people of Harrisburg about it.

And the citizens of Harrisburg were not the only ones in the dark. People in Jefferson County, Ala., in Wisconsin school districts and in hundreds of other communities nationwide are suffering the financial ravages caused by the unchecked greed of major financial institutions and their local enablers.

It is fundamentally unfair to inflict the nightmarish results of these decisions on the backs of the citizens of Harrisburg. The corruption that ended up financially strangling Harrisburg needs to be rooted out of our democracy. There must be a renewed respect for the law in Harrisburg and across Pennsylvania.

 

The author of this is David Unkovic, the former receiver.

 

"After my press conference of March 28, 2012, I was called into the governor's office of general counsel. Steve Aichele was adamant that I was no longer able to negotiate a settlement with the creditors given my criticism of them and my call for an investigation of possible criminal activity in connection with the incinerator financings.

I offered to resign and Mr. Aichele proposed that I might no longer be able to remain on as receiver, but might stay on at DCED and continue to work on Harrisburg matters behind the scenes.

I came away from that meeting believing I would be removed as receiver-and therefore decided to resign and leave state government at the same time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a private poll; no one can see how you vote. So feel free to examine the darkest corners of your heart and vote your findings.

 

This question is of sociological interest to me more than practical; I'm interested in the ratios of the replies.

 

I also had a few more options in mind but the poll only allows five, so if you want to add more conditions, please do.

 

It's a private poll; no one can see how you vote. So feel free to examine the darkest corners of your heart and vote your findings.

 

This question is of sociological interest to me more than practical; I'm interested in the ratios of the replies.

 

I also had a few more options in mind but the poll only allows five, so if you want to add more conditions, please do.

 

Flawed poll. Capitalism is not a Zero Sum Game. You can become wealthy, raise the standard of living for the 99%, improve the environment and strengthen your country all at the same time and most wealthy people do just that.

 

Where did medicine, technology, environmentalism, civil rights and other freedoms advance most; in the west, where enterprise and capitalism were least restricted or in the so called enlightened experiments with socialism, communism, egalitarianism etc?

 

To listen to the left the 1% in America is evil and exploits the work of the many with no regard for anyone but themselves. They argue that profits are always at the expense of another. It’s boring, boilerplate political class warfare BS.

 

The argument is BS. Your poll is BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a muddled attempt to define greed. Greed is a tricky concept. I view it as a symptom of something else.

 

Let's say we have two executives working for two different company's with very similar records, and one is making $200 million a year and the other is making $175 million a year. The one making the lesser amount immediately is offended and asks for a raise. From a perspective of fairness, he is entirely justified. However, where does that extra $25 million come from? It comes from the other people in the company. If it causes the company to close research, lay off employees, expand, or cut dividends, then it's greed, by Aristotle's definition of the concept, gain simply for the pleasure gain itself affords.

 

Greed is but a symptom of something deeper, the thinking of ourselves in isolation from others and fellow members of a tribe, who we depend on and depend on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wall street one or two per-centers ruined the economy with their house of cards. We, the 99 percenters bailed them out. Then they posted highest ever profits and bonuses yet refuse to lend money. It is wrong on so many levels, but I don't expect the regressives to ever get it...

 

 

 

ahhhh there it is. good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However are all the people who make money on Wall Street the people who got bailed out? I mean can you invest, do well and not be a part of that "evil" use of the 99%'s dollars? Or is everyone who owns some stock and works or invests in the markets part of that evil 1% who used the 99%'s money? What if your income falls within the 1% but you made your money by working hard and developing a product or service people want and you made a lot of money. Did you use the 99%'s dollars and should therefore be looked down upon. Or what if you simply worked hard all your life at an hourly rate, got promoted, lived below your income, saved, bought a series of houses moving up each time, contributed to your 401K and let dollar cost averaging work its magic for 30 or 40 years and now your net worth is in the 1%. Evil?

 

Seems an awful lot of the vitriol for the 1% ignores that perhaps many of them simply worked hard and saved/invested well. Now those that didn't have a rash about it and want the same situation as those who took a different path or want it all without the work and sacrifice.

 

I'm having an ant and grasshopper moment here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for a live beneath your means your entire life and leave most of what you have to your kids option!

wink.gif

 

My wife used to always laugh cause the employees I fired still loved me! Hey, I just presented it as a win-win.......when I let them go.

 

Easy-peasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Great Unsaid thing here is that, by definition, if only a small percentage of people (1 out of 100 or 1,000) ARE willing to do these things, there can be great repercussions. Also, the people employed by those people in the corporate ladder really don't have much input or choice, so they are pawns in the game.

 

Example: The Walton family is more than willing to ship jobs overseas, put endless pressure on wages and manufacturers, contribute hundreds of millions to right wing groups that press for lower taxes and elimination of taxes (they made up the whole "death tax" thing), etc. etc.....

 

So it only takes a very few to skew the society and the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Great Unsaid thing here is that, by definition, if only a small percentage of people (1 out of 100 or 1,000) ARE willing to do these things, there can be great repercussions. Also, the people employed by those people in the corporate ladder really don't have much input or choice, so they are pawns in the game.

 

Example: The Walton family is more than willing to ship jobs overseas, put endless pressure on wages and manufacturers, contribute hundreds of millions to right wing groups that press for lower taxes and elimination of taxes (they made up the whole "death tax" thing), etc. etc.....

 

So it only takes a very few to skew the society and the world.

How many people were screwed so that Bill Gates could be a billionaire?

How many people profited from Bill Gate’s success?

Would we be better or worse off if instead of one Bill Gates we had a thousand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. Sums it up nicely.

 

Really?

 

How does a guy on Wall Street make a gazillion bucks without taking it out of someone else's pocket?* That is precisely the Wall Street business model.

 

I think it's interesting that the very same who bitch and moan about the taxes that they pay for public infrastructure and public services defend the taxes that they pay to Wall Street on virtually every single transaction they make.

 

Much of that money on Wall Street may be our money, but the Wall Street business model is to carve off as much of our money into their pockets as is possible. I don't think that we should begrudge anyone compensation for their services. However, one way they do this is by making the cost as opaque as possible so we blithely go about our lives without understanding how much money we are handing over to them. The less we understand about what we are paying, the more they can extract from us.

 

Whether it's the management fees on your 401(k), credit card fees, debit card transaction fees buried in the cost of every item you buy at the Safeway, bond underwriting fees on the school bonds issued by your town, points on mortgages, the financial sector is going to take a chunk out of every single transaction executed in this country. It adds up to billions of billions of dollars and all of that tithing has a negative effect on our economy. It's no mystery that our economy has become fundamentally weaker as the "tax" to the financial sector has grown bigger. If the credit card company is taking a $50 late fee from you, that is $50 that your not spending at some merchant. If the investment bank takes $20 million out of a school bond issue as its underwriting fee that is $20 million less that is going to be used on school construction and $20 million more that the town's residents are going to have to pay in taxes to repay the underwriting fee portion of the bond issue.

 

This is precisely why the financial sector is so vehemently opposed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is seeking to make the cost of these financial transactions transparent to consumers. They don't want us to know how much they are lifting from our pockets. We're supposed to be ignorant sheep, bleating our way through the fleecing pens.

 

http://www.law.harva...ingtonpost.html

 

 

*The exception being, perhaps, trading income, but they've done a great of job of getting us to cover their losses.

 

Speaking of the above.

 

Harrisburg. Big stinking mess caused by underwriters fleecing a city government.

 

Many public officials and other powerful people take the position that "those city people voted for whom they voted, and they will have to live with the consequences." But the truth is that the average citizens on the streets of Harrisburg did not know about the depth of harmful acts by those they had elected.

They could not have understood there was a highly sophisticated, multi-hundred million dollar debt scheme going on, as shown now in the forensic audit. They did not know about — much less could have understood — the inappropriateness of the interest rate swaps, as revealed now in the forensic audit.

They did not know (and the suburban residents did not know) that sewer customers were being overcharged and those monies were being diverted to other purposes. The people who did know what was going on were certainly not telling the people of Harrisburg about it.

And the citizens of Harrisburg were not the only ones in the dark. People in Jefferson County, Ala., in Wisconsin school districts and in hundreds of other communities nationwide are suffering the financial ravages caused by the unchecked greed of major financial institutions and their local enablers.

It is fundamentally unfair to inflict the nightmarish results of these decisions on the backs of the citizens of Harrisburg. The corruption that ended up financially strangling Harrisburg needs to be rooted out of our democracy. There must be a renewed respect for the law in Harrisburg and across Pennsylvania.

 

The author of this is David Unkovic, the former receiver.

 

"After my press conference of March 28, 2012, I was called into the governor's office of general counsel. Steve Aichele was adamant that I was no longer able to negotiate a settlement with the creditors given my criticism of them and my call for an investigation of possible criminal activity in connection with the incinerator financings.

I offered to resign and Mr. Aichele proposed that I might no longer be able to remain on as receiver, but might stay on at DCED and continue to work on Harrisburg matters behind the scenes.

I came away from that meeting believing I would be removed as receiver-and therefore decided to resign and leave state government at the same time."

 

 

Unfortunately, what went on in Harrisburg is really just the tip of a very big iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: The Walton family is more than willing to ship jobs overseas, put endless pressure on wages and manufacturers, contribute hundreds of millions to right wing groups that press for lower taxes and elimination of taxes (they made up the whole "death tax" thing), etc. etc.....

 

That reminds me, I need to drop by MegaLoMart if I get out today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people were screwed so that Bill Gates could be a billionaire?

How many people profited from Bill Gate's success?

Would we be better or worse off if instead of one Bill Gates we had a thousand?

 

Bill paid high wages.

He gave folks things that achieved productivity.

Win-Win.

 

That differs from Win-lose-lose.

 

It's all a matter of that particular formula.

 

Boston, for instance, is not allowing any Wal-Marts. Same with some other places. The message is "if your pay is so low that people who work there cannot afford even the basics, you are a drain on our society". This happens to be true in most cases. It's one thing when a teen takes a first job to make some side money, quite another when thousands of all ages are working for next to nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you, it just pisses me off when people who are one percenters are pissing and moaning and moaning and groaning about the one percent of the one percent. Selfish, stupid bastards to never realize that, as poor as they are compared to the American one percent, they're sitting on top of the world. Just pisses me off and makes me wish that the 99% of the world would begin treating them like they would treat their own one percent. Shut the fuck up real quick like before this idea gains any traction from the real 99%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However are all the people who make money on Wall Street the people who got bailed out? I mean can you invest, do well and not be a part of that "evil" use of the 99%'s dollars? Or is everyone who owns some stock and works or invests in the markets part of that evil 1% who used the 99%'s money? What if your income falls within the 1% but you made your money by working hard and developing a product or service people want and you made a lot of money. Did you use the 99%'s dollars and should therefore be looked down upon. Or what if you simply worked hard all your life at an hourly rate, got promoted, lived below your income, saved, bought a series of houses moving up each time, contributed to your 401K and let dollar cost averaging work its magic for 30 or 40 years and now your net worth is in the 1%. Evil?

 

Seems an awful lot of the vitriol for the 1% ignores that perhaps many of them simply worked hard and saved/invested well. Now those that didn't have a rash about it and want the same situation as those who took a different path or want it all without the work and sacrifice.

 

I'm having an ant and grasshopper moment here.

 

You're asking a few different questions.

 

First, yes, we effectively bailed out every single person working on Wall Street. We were about to have a meltdown in which firm after firm would have failed, like dominoes. We didn't bail out AIG to save AIG as much as to save everyone else.

 

Second, investing is different from what a lot of what Wall Street and the banks do. That's my point. When you and I squirrel money away in our pensions and 401ks we are investing. That's certainly not "evil." Wall Street makes money by taxing our investments. Their aim is to take the biggest chunk out of our money that they can. Seriously. But them trying to do that is not inherently evil. Everyone tries to make as much money as they can. What pisses me off is how they try to hide what they are doing. That's my point. They object to the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau because the explicit goal of that body is to make this stuff transparent, so we all know exactly how much we are forking over to financial institutions. The bankers don't like that, because they don't want us know how much we are handing over to them. I do not believe, and will never believe, that some guy who sells bonds to pension funds is worth more than you. You save people's lives. The other guy is just a salesman. That's it. He only makes a lot of money because a lot of money passes over his desk, and he charges a toll on all of it.

 

You'll never, ever hear me begrudging people who have made a lot of money by working hard and investing well. I don't begrudge Bill Gates, Phillippe Kahn or even Larry Ellison their wealth. They took risks with their own money and built companies. But a huge portion of the 1% are in the financial services industry, and that means that they haven't made money by building things. They've made money by getting us all to tithe to them. And then we also have a huge crop of vastly overpaid executives who are not entrepreneurs. They're being paid millions as they drive companies into the ground. It's astounding. Those are the people I object to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However are all the people who make money on Wall Street the people who got bailed out? I mean can you invest, do well and not be a part of that "evil" use of the 99%'s dollars? Or is everyone who owns some stock and works or invests in the markets part of that evil 1% who used the 99%'s money? What if your income falls within the 1% but you made your money by working hard and developing a product or service people want and you made a lot of money. Did you use the 99%'s dollars and should therefore be looked down upon. Or what if you simply worked hard all your life at an hourly rate, got promoted, lived below your income, saved, bought a series of houses moving up each time, contributed to your 401K and let dollar cost averaging work its magic for 30 or 40 years and now your net worth is in the 1%. Evil?

 

Seems an awful lot of the vitriol for the 1% ignores that perhaps many of them simply worked hard and saved/invested well. Now those that didn't have a rash about it and want the same situation as those who took a different path or want it all without the work and sacrifice.

 

I'm having an ant and grasshopper moment here.

 

You're asking a few different questions.

 

First, yes, we effectively bailed out every single person working on Wall Street. We were about to have a meltdown in which firm after firm would have failed, like dominoes. We didn't bail out AIG to save AIG as much as to save everyone else.

 

Second, investing is different from what a lot of what Wall Street and the banks do. That's my point. When you and I squirrel money away in our pensions and 401ks we are investing. That's certainly not "evil." Wall Street makes money by taxing our investments. Their aim is to take the biggest chunk out of our money that they can. Seriously. But them trying to do that is not inherently evil. Everyone tries to make as much money as they can. What pisses me off is how they try to hide what they are doing. That's my point. They object to the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau because the explicit goal of that body is to make this stuff transparent, so we all know exactly how much we are forking over to financial institutions. The bankers don't like that, because they don't want us know how much we are handing over to them. I do not believe, and will never believe, that some guy who sells bonds to pension funds is worth more than you. You save people's lives. The other guy is just a salesman. That's it. He only makes a lot of money because a lot of money passes over his desk, and he charges a toll on all of it.

 

You'll never, ever hear me begrudging people who have made a lot of money by working hard and investing well. I don't begrudge Bill Gates, Phillippe Kahn or even Larry Ellison their wealth. They took risks with their own money and built companies. But a huge portion of the 1% are in the financial services industry, and that means that they haven't made money by building things. They've made money by getting us all to tithe to them. And then we also have a huge crop of vastly overpaid executives who are not entrepreneurs. They're being paid millions as they drive companies into the ground. It's astounding. Those are the people I object to.

 

As usual - you're out of your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However are all the people who make money on Wall Street the people who got bailed out? I mean can you invest, do well and not be a part of that "evil" use of the 99%'s dollars? Or is everyone who owns some stock and works or invests in the markets part of that evil 1% who used the 99%'s money? What if your income falls within the 1% but you made your money by working hard and developing a product or service people want and you made a lot of money. Did you use the 99%'s dollars and should therefore be looked down upon. Or what if you simply worked hard all your life at an hourly rate, got promoted, lived below your income, saved, bought a series of houses moving up each time, contributed to your 401K and let dollar cost averaging work its magic for 30 or 40 years and now your net worth is in the 1%. Evil?

 

Seems an awful lot of the vitriol for the 1% ignores that perhaps many of them simply worked hard and saved/invested well. Now those that didn't have a rash about it and want the same situation as those who took a different path or want it all without the work and sacrifice.

 

I'm having an ant and grasshopper moment here.

 

You're asking a few different questions.

 

First, yes, we effectively bailed out every single person working on Wall Street. We were about to have a meltdown in which firm after firm would have failed, like dominoes. We didn't bail out AIG to save AIG as much as to save everyone else.

 

Second, investing is different from what a lot of what Wall Street and the banks do. That's my point. When you and I squirrel money away in our pensions and 401ks we are investing. That's certainly not "evil." Wall Street makes money by taxing our investments. Their aim is to take the biggest chunk out of our money that they can. Seriously. But them trying to do that is not inherently evil. Everyone tries to make as much money as they can. What pisses me off is how they try to hide what they are doing. That's my point. They object to the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau because the explicit goal of that body is to make this stuff transparent, so we all know exactly how much we are forking over to financial institutions. The bankers don't like that, because they don't want us know how much we are handing over to them. I do not believe, and will never believe, that some guy who sells bonds to pension funds is worth more than you. You save people's lives. The other guy is just a salesman. That's it. He only makes a lot of money because a lot of money passes over his desk, and he charges a toll on all of it.

 

You'll never, ever hear me begrudging people who have made a lot of money by working hard and investing well. I don't begrudge Bill Gates, Phillippe Kahn or even Larry Ellison their wealth. They took risks with their own money and built companies. But a huge portion of the 1% are in the financial services industry, and that means that they haven't made money by building things. They've made money by getting us all to tithe to them. And then we also have a huge crop of vastly overpaid executives who are not entrepreneurs. They're being paid millions as they drive companies into the ground. It's astounding. Those are the people I object to.

 

As usual - you're out of your mind.

 

Touched a nerve, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However are all the people who make money on Wall Street the people who got bailed out? I mean can you invest, do well and not be a part of that "evil" use of the 99%'s dollars? Or is everyone who owns some stock and works or invests in the markets part of that evil 1% who used the 99%'s money? What if your income falls within the 1% but you made your money by working hard and developing a product or service people want and you made a lot of money. Did you use the 99%'s dollars and should therefore be looked down upon. Or what if you simply worked hard all your life at an hourly rate, got promoted, lived below your income, saved, bought a series of houses moving up each time, contributed to your 401K and let dollar cost averaging work its magic for 30 or 40 years and now your net worth is in the 1%. Evil?

 

Seems an awful lot of the vitriol for the 1% ignores that perhaps many of them simply worked hard and saved/invested well. Now those that didn't have a rash about it and want the same situation as those who took a different path or want it all without the work and sacrifice.

 

I'm having an ant and grasshopper moment here.

 

You're asking a few different questions.

 

First, yes, we effectively bailed out every single person working on Wall Street. We were about to have a meltdown in which firm after firm would have failed, like dominoes. We didn't bail out AIG to save AIG as much as to save everyone else.

 

Second, investing is different from what a lot of what Wall Street and the banks do. That's my point. When you and I squirrel money away in our pensions and 401ks we are investing. That's certainly not "evil." Wall Street makes money by taxing our investments. Their aim is to take the biggest chunk out of our money that they can. Seriously. But them trying to do that is not inherently evil. Everyone tries to make as much money as they can. What pisses me off is how they try to hide what they are doing. That's my point. They object to the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau because the explicit goal of that body is to make this stuff transparent, so we all know exactly how much we are forking over to financial institutions. The bankers don't like that, because they don't want us know how much we are handing over to them. I do not believe, and will never believe, that some guy who sells bonds to pension funds is worth more than you. You save people's lives. The other guy is just a salesman. That's it. He only makes a lot of money because a lot of money passes over his desk, and he charges a toll on all of it.

 

You'll never, ever hear me begrudging people who have made a lot of money by working hard and investing well. I don't begrudge Bill Gates, Phillippe Kahn or even Larry Ellison their wealth. They took risks with their own money and built companies. But a huge portion of the 1% are in the financial services industry, and that means that they haven't made money by building things. They've made money by getting us all to tithe to them. And then we also have a huge crop of vastly overpaid executives who are not entrepreneurs. They're being paid millions as they drive companies into the ground. It's astounding. Those are the people I object to.

 

As usual - you're out of your mind.

 

Touched a nerve, eh?

 

Yea, most broad brush generalizations about an industry and the people who work in it do. You, as usual, have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you can't add a row of numbers properly in Excel mean you're NOT in this business. The fact that you've never been on a trading floor (you'd no idea what two stations dominate the monitors) also confirms it. At best you're just another jaundiced outsider who thinks its a big black box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However are all the people who make money on Wall Street the people who got bailed out? I mean can you invest, do well and not be a part of that "evil" use of the 99%'s dollars? Or is everyone who owns some stock and works or invests in the markets part of that evil 1% who used the 99%'s money? What if your income falls within the 1% but you made your money by working hard and developing a product or service people want and you made a lot of money. Did you use the 99%'s dollars and should therefore be looked down upon. Or what if you simply worked hard all your life at an hourly rate, got promoted, lived below your income, saved, bought a series of houses moving up each time, contributed to your 401K and let dollar cost averaging work its magic for 30 or 40 years and now your net worth is in the 1%. Evil?

 

Seems an awful lot of the vitriol for the 1% ignores that perhaps many of them simply worked hard and saved/invested well. Now those that didn't have a rash about it and want the same situation as those who took a different path or want it all without the work and sacrifice.

 

I'm having an ant and grasshopper moment here.

 

You're asking a few different questions.

 

First, yes, we effectively bailed out every single person working on Wall Street. We were about to have a meltdown in which firm after firm would have failed, like dominoes. We didn't bail out AIG to save AIG as much as to save everyone! ond, investing is different from what a lot of what Wall Street and the banks do. That's my point. When you and I squirrel money away in our pensions and 401ks we are investing. That's certainly not "evil." Wall Street makes money by taxing our investments. Their aim is to take the biggest chunk out of our money that they can. Seriously. But them trying to do that is not inherently evil. Everyone tries to make as much money as they can. What pisses me off is how they try to hide what they are doing. That's my point. They object to the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau because the explicit goal of that body is to make this stuff transparent, so we all know exactly how much we are forking over to financial institutions. The bankers don't like that, because they don't want us know how much we are handing over to them. I do not believe, and will never believe, that some guy who sells bonds to pension funds is worth more than you. You save people's lives. The other guy is just a salesman. That's it. He only makes a lot of money because a lot of money passes over his desk, and he charges a toll on all of it.

 

You'll never, ever hear me begrudging people who have made a lot of money by working hard and investing well. I don't begrudge Bill Gates, Phillippe Kahn or even Larry Ellison their wealth. They took risks with their own money and built companies. But a huge portion of the 1% are in the financial services industry, and that means that they haven't made money by building things. They've made money by getting us all to tithe to them. And then we also have a huge crop of vastly overpaid executives who are not entrepreneurs. They're being paid millions as they drive companies into the ground. It's astounding. Those are the people I object to.

 

+100000000000

 

 

It's called the skim. People who defend them think Tony Soprano is an "entrepreneur ". Yeah. They "create value". This was all created by deregulating the financial services industry. A bipartisan project BTW.

 

Won't vote here. Didn't see "risk everything you and your family have like a drunken riverboat gambler on an idea".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites