what does it take?
last year, richard fuld, head of lehman brothers took home 45 MILLION DOLLARS.
MR. FULD IS A BIG SUPPORTER OF REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS.
in the 1970's ceo's of companies made 30-40 times what their workers were paid. today, ceo's make, are you ready?, 344 times the pay of the workers.
REMEMBER, DON'T FORGET, DON'T OVERLOOK, DON'T IGNORE THIS FACT:
JOHN MC CAIN WANTS TO PUT SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS IN THE STOCK MARKET! GEORGE W. BUSH WANTS TO PUT SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS IN THE STOCK MARKET!
just imagine what would have happened if the democrats had not stopped this effort at transferring wealth from the many to the few.
on the simplest level i can put it: a stock broker takes risks with other people's money and if he wins he takes 20% of the profit but if he loses, he risks nothing.
since the republicans deregulated the banks and the stock market look what they done. we are in the WORST financial crisis in decades.
we now have socialism for corporations under republican rule.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GET MAD? HOW MUCH OF OUR WEALTH DO THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO STEAL IN ORDER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO STAND UP AND SAY "ENOUGH!"?
if we vote mc cain/palin in this fall we deserve the disaster that awaits.
MR. FULD IS A BIG SUPPORTER OF REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS.
in the 1970's ceo's of companies made 30-40 times what their workers were paid. today, ceo's make, are you ready?, 344 times the pay of the workers.
REMEMBER, DON'T FORGET, DON'T OVERLOOK, DON'T IGNORE THIS FACT:
JOHN MC CAIN WANTS TO PUT SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS IN THE STOCK MARKET! GEORGE W. BUSH WANTS TO PUT SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS IN THE STOCK MARKET!
just imagine what would have happened if the democrats had not stopped this effort at transferring wealth from the many to the few.
on the simplest level i can put it: a stock broker takes risks with other people's money and if he wins he takes 20% of the profit but if he loses, he risks nothing.
since the republicans deregulated the banks and the stock market look what they done. we are in the WORST financial crisis in decades.
we now have socialism for corporations under republican rule.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GET MAD? HOW MUCH OF OUR WEALTH DO THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO STEAL IN ORDER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO STAND UP AND SAY "ENOUGH!"?
if we vote mc cain/palin in this fall we deserve the disaster that awaits.
posted by Ron Shock | 9:47 AM
10 Comments:
The government shouldn't be in the retirement business in the first place. (Or the mortgage business, or the insurance business...) Consider--They are taking our money at gunpoint, but if we behave, they will give some of it back. Being in control of that much money gives too much power, regardless of who is in office.
there is validity, of course, to your point; however this administration has had the largest transfer of wealth ever. from the war being financed "off the books" allowing corporations to bill us for "work" done in iraq and get two birds for that stone; a. they don't pay taxes on the money and b. with hardly any oversight bill basically whatever they want. now we are bailing out people who make millions. come on now, you have to call the card for what it is. this particular band of neo cons have been and continue to be a disaster for america.
I'm as pissed as you about the bailing out. Poorly run (or even just unlucky) companies should fail. If there's any good parts, someone will buy those parts
I honestly don't know what to do about wartime spending (other than avoid the war in the first place) because there are situations where you need something right now regardless of cost, or our soldiers will die. It costs real money to get things done in a war zone, and we need a way to handle emergencies without everything falling under emergency rules.
I watch a lot of CNBC. In the current environment it's kind of like watching the Weather Channel during a hurricane. There's a guy on there, a devout republican, a former Goldman Sachs executive, a former cokehead (those two are very possibly redundant)who likes to say, "We believe free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity!" and "The less government the better!"
And he keeps saying it.
And then he says "the Fed needs to cut rates!"
And, "The government had no choice but to bail out Freddie and Fannie."
And, "When is the federal government going to step in and backstop the housing market?"
Ron, you are exactly right. We have socialism for corporations provided by people who not only don't support, but belittle and ridicule those who support socialism for medicine.
I'm no communist, but if anything is clear now its that the people who run corporations aren't really even concerned about the ultimate survival of the corporation they're running. They're concerned about what they can cash out with while they are there. And if one day they're not there, they want to be sure they can parachute out with a dumpster filled with 100's.
Here's something that's funny. If you're 26 years old today, the first president of which you were probably consciously aware was Bill Clinton (you'd have been 10 when he was elected). You would have seen Clinton take deficits and turn them to surpluses for the first time in recent memory, and you would have seen a period (largely driven by the internet and tech boom) of unprecedented economic expansion. You would then have seen George Bush II in frighteningly swift fashion take surpluses and turn them into staggeringly large deficits, and preside over two economic crises (the first one wasn't really his fault, but the second one, the one we're in now, is a true tour de force). If this doesn't loosen the grip (to the point where the bat flies out of their hands and into the stands) the republicans have had on being the party of "fiscal responsibility," especially with younger people to whom this is their entire frame of reference, then I'm going to start drinking beer and watching American Gladiators.
I really don't have much to worry about. AS I understand it I have recently purchased two significant mortgage concerns and a rather large insurance company.
"You would have seen Clinton take deficits and turn them to surpluses for the first time in recent memory"
I am tired of Clinton getting all of the credit for the econonmic growth of the 90's. He did not make it happen. No president has that power. Didn't the Republicans have control of the House and Senate for the Majority of Clinton's two terms? Shouldn't they be given credit if any is due?
The internet boom would have happened under anyone's watch. Unfortunately, when an internet company that is nothing more than 50 employees with a dozen servers and a website offers an IPO, and reaches a market capitalization greater than GM or ATT, that bubble's gotta bust sometime. But while all those captial gains were flying during the boom, and getting taxed, the federal coffers were filling, removing the deficit and creating a surplus. Then everyone realizes that almost none of these internet companies could make a profit, and everybody starts dumping internet stocks, and the bottom falls out. Of course this happens right as Clinton leaves office, and Eight years later, he's a freakin' financial genius. If my assessment isn't correct, you tell me... what did Bill Clinton do SPECIFICALLY that caused the 90's boom? And how good was it if it was destined to crash?
Amrican Gladiators is cool
Oh, Ron, on another note, but still speaking of commerce, I finally got around to watching "Totally Baked".
The 2 minutes you are onscreen looked great.
The "movie" was just awful.
Unwatchable, actually.
But I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
And social security has been such a great investment, hasn't it Ron.
I love how you CONSTANTLY cherry pick your facts. You take the worst two weeks of stock market history and extrapolate that into some meaning regarding social security.
The facts are that social security has been a horrific investment. The real rate of return is in the low single digits. Averaging a couple of percent at best, while the average diversified stock market portfolio averages over 10% over the long term. And NO ONE has recommended investing all of social in the stock market. They have proposed a small percentage be available for private investment voluntarily. It is our money, right?
I know you liberals despise facts but the more adventurous among you can check out the follow web site. It's a bit complicated reading but if you want to actually learn something, check it out.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA98-01.cfm
if i want to "check out facts" the heritage foundation is not the place to do it.
social security has been raided by both parties for years but it is still the backbone of older americans. i would not want it in any shape, form or fashion to be in the hands of "wall street" because their interest is not our interest. wall street would be dead broke right now if bush and gang don't bail them out. incidently, i am against this bailout because it does nothing for the "people".
Let AIG fail and see 'how the people' suffer.
Post a Comment
<< Home