Just in Case you Forgot about the Arrogance of the Wealthy

[Lanval]

Here's a link to an article from 5 years ago in the NY Times. The thesis? Bankers can't afford to live on the proposed 500K p/year income Obama wanted to cap them at. Prepare your vomit bag first, then get your torches and pitchforks ready.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashi ... .html?_r=0

[JLT]

Here's a link to an article from 5 years ago in the NY Times. The thesis? Bankers can't afford to live on the proposed 500K p/year income Obama wanted to cap them at. Prepare your vomit bag first, then get your torches and pitchforks ready.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashi ... .html?_r=0

So sad. And it didn't even include the upkeep and parking for the Rolls, the dock fees for the yacht, and the jewelry for the mistress. Or the tinting on the windows of the limousine to prevent them from seeing what the world really looks like outside their bubble.

I knew I had that air-sick bag around here somewhere...

[Amskeptic]

Here's a link to an article from 5 years ago in the NY Times. The thesis? Bankers can't afford to live on the proposed 500K p/year income Obama wanted to cap them at. Prepare your vomit bag first, then get your torches and pitchforks ready.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashi ... .html?_r=0

So sad. And it didn't even include the upkeep and parking for the Rolls, the dock fees for the yacht, and the jewelry for the mistress. Or the tinting on the windows of the limousine to prevent them from seeing what the world really looks like outside their bubble.

I knew I had that air-sick bag around here somewhere...

The rationalizations flow effortlessly, the comprehension of what life is really like for most Americans is almost entirely absent. There is no substitution for massive financial failure to open their eyes and hearts.
Colin

[TrollFromDownBelow]

At least they ran it in the life style section .... I read it as a bit tongue in cheek. I hope they meant it as tongue in cheek. Squeakin' by on $1.7M?

[Amskeptic]

At least they ran it in the life style section .... I read it as a bit tongue in cheek. I hope they meant it as tongue in cheek. Squeakin' by on $1.7M?

Considered that . . . tongue in cheek, but the Life Style section has always been about bragging up the 1%, I think it really was for "sympathy".
Colin

[Spezialist]

Did you ever hear the one about how the plumber that lost his entire life savings because the banker couldn't afford an armed driver?
Yeah, it's a sad story. Seems Joe banker who hung out with all the regular other joes at the local burger joint.
Well one day he was kidnapped and tortured, his wife was raped and killed, his son was tortured and killed, his daughter was only raped.
Finally joe banker agreed to the wire transfer to another offshore account from his managed bank from some anonymous accounts.
They still ended up killing him and his daughter, couldn't afford witness.
Such an arogant bastard.

[Amskeptic]

Did you ever hear the one about how the plumber that lost his entire life savings because the banker couldn't afford an armed driver?
Yeah, it's a sad story. Seems Joe banker who hung out with all the regular other joes at the local burger joint.
Well one day he was kidnapped and tortured, his wife was raped and killed, his son was tortured and killed, his daughter was only raped.
Finally joe banker agreed to the wire transfer to another offshore account from his managed bank from some anonymous accounts.
They still ended up killing him and his daughter, couldn't afford witness.
Such an arogant bastard.

What is this?

[Jivermo]

Good question. I read it three times, and then threw in the towel...

[Amskeptic]

Good question. I read it three times, and then threw in the towel...

I am going to guess that the banker helped to "support" the plumber, and when the banker died, the plumber went broke, so hug your banker today??????

I mean, the banker went broke trying to pay the plumber, so he let go the armed driver?

Specious and flawed logic.
Colin

[hippiewannabe]

I read it.......

That's where you went wrong.

[Spezialist]

Yep, the Internet is populated with flatlanders.

[hippiewannabe]

Yep, the Internet is populated with flatlanders.

Yeah, yeah, the banker took the plumber's money to pay off the kidnappers. Very ironic.

Just because you obscure your point behind layers of bullshit doesn't make it any more valid or entertaining.

[JLT]

Did you ever hear the one about how the plumber that lost his entire life savings because the banker couldn't afford an armed driver?.

No, but I heard about the capitalist, the Tea Party guy, and the union guy who sat down at a table where there was a box of a dozen donuts.

The capitalist takes eleven of the donuts and then whispers to the Tea Party guy "I think that union guy is gonna take your donut."

[Amskeptic]

Did you ever hear the one about how the plumber that lost his entire life savings because the banker couldn't afford an armed driver?.

No, but I heard about the capitalist, the Tea Party guy, and the union guy who sat down at a table where there was a box of a dozen donuts.

The capitalist takes eleven of the donuts and then whispers to the Tea Party guy "I think that union guy is gonna take your donut."

Right on.

Take the Krispy Koch Brothers, for example, please:

Koch Brothers Takes $88 Million in Corporate Welfare

Entitled “Subsidizing the Corporate One Percent,” a report from the taxpayer watchdog group Good Jobs First shows that the world’s largest companies aren’t models of self-sufficiency and unbridled capitalism. To the contrary, they’re propped up by billions of dollars in welfare payments from state and local governments.

Such subsidies might be a bit more defensible if they were being doled out in a way that promoted upstart entrepreneurialism. But as the study also shows, a full “three-quarters of all the economic development dollars awarded and disclosed by state and local governments have gone to just 965 large corporations”—not to the small businesses and startups that politicians so often pretend to care about.

In dollar figures, that’s a whopping $110 billion going to big companies. Fortune 500 firms alone receive more than 16,000 subsidies at a total cost of $63 billion.

We can also for the first time identify which companies have received the most cumulative awards, both in dollar terms and number of awards. In dollar terms, the biggest recipient by far is Boeing, with a total of more than $13 billion, reflecting the giant deals it has gotten in Washington and South Carolina as well as more than 130 smaller deals around the country. The others at the top of the cumulative subsidy dollar list are: Alcoa ($5.6 billion), Intel ($3.9 billion), General Motors ($3.5 billion) and Ford Motor ($2.5 billion).

The company with the largest number of awards is Dow Chemical, with 416. Following it are Berkshire Hathaway (310), General Motors (307), Wal-Mart Stores (261), General Electric (255), Walgreen (225) and FedEx (222). Forty eight companies have received more than 100 individual awards.

[Amskeptic]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

Bankers on Wall Street are bringing home their biggest bonuses since before the 2008 financial crisis.
The average bonus per employee in New York City's financial services industry grew by 15% to over $164,000 last year, according to a report from New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli released Wednesday.

Of course, many rainmakers in the business do bring home millions of dollars a year, the bonus pool also includes employees such as secretaries and back office staff that make far less in annual salaries.
But the total bonus pool, which came to $26.7 billion, is the largest since 2007, DiNapoli said. It includes 2013 cash bonuses as well as deferred compensation from prior years.

Wall Street has roared back since the depths of the financial crisis. Shares of Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Morgan Stanley (MS, Fortune 500), Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) are well above the lows they hit in March 2009.
But the business has changed. Regulatory reforms since then have led to the shuttering of many once-lucrative trading desks at the big firms.

And banks are still cutting back on the number of workers on their payrolls. DiNapoli said there were 165,000 employees on Wall Street as of December 2013, nearly 13% less than before the market's meltdown, "but before you take out your pitchforks to go occupy Wall Street, it's important to note the tax revenue the sector generates for the city and state of New York."

DiNapoli estimated that New York City collected $3.8 billion in taxes last year from activities directly related to the industry, a 27% bump from the previous year. That was 8.5% of the city's total tax collection.

At the state level, the windfall is even greater: New York took in $10.3 billion from the financial industry last year, or 16% of all state tax revenue. However, that figure is still down from before the recession, when New York relied on Wall Street for 20% of its tax revenue.

Folks, look at us. We are stunned. We are dumbfounded. We are passive in the face of the very thing that is destroying our futures right out from under us. We, you, I, all of us, know that the money game has infected the very people (our representatives) who presumably serve our national interests. We, you, I, know that they cannot extricate themselves from this cocaine party of cash. We have to do it. Read your history books. You find that in our history, people have *had* to take to the streets over and over again to rouse our representatives and the captains of industry from the stupor of greed, they will not willingly do it themselves.
Colin