Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
Posted:
Jan 19, 2013 - 12:12pm
Our (USA's) corruption is institutionalized and largely legal as a point of law. The most clever thieves of all pay their (minimal) taxes and operate out of any of their several homes with complete aplomb and the blessing of society. And we give Afghanistan a hard time. They are pikers.
In about an hour's time, Jamie Dimon will sit down before the Senate Banking Committee and prove, once again, not only who is smarter and calls the shots in the great Wall Street-D.C. soap opera, but that when it comes to purchasing a room full of senators (not to mention the script for today's "hearing"), JP Morgan is always at the top. Because as the following table compiled using OpenSecrets data, it cost JP Morgan just under $1 million, or $877,798.00 to be precise in lifetime campaign contributions, to buy itself precisely one Senate Banking Committee. And where it gets really fun is that between the Chairman, Tim Johnson (D - SD), and the ranking member Richard Shelby (R - AL), JP Morgan has been the top and second biggest campaign contributor, respectively. Also, 9 (at least) of the total 22 members of the committee have received some form of bribe from JPM over the years.
One wonders: will the shrillness and idiocy of the questions by the Senators be proportional to how much money JPM has given them over the years? If so, expect Schumer to have the most crony muppet line of questioning we have ever seen him take.
Now sit back, grab a popcorn, and watch as the bribees pretend to interrogate their paymaster.
We make laws to subvert it and it subverts our laws. It seems an eternal struggle in men, that Nature makes stealing a legitimate form of attaining stuff. Of course there may be consequences. I doubt that sending offenders to country clubs is a useful consequence. But, maybe, if we laid them on a guillotine.
This is now your THIRD angle of attack against the vid, after having your first two shown to be utterly without legs. You're hopeless! You just can't admit to the fact that it's a simple and straightforward message! Occam's razor - you should look into it dude!
Since you are obviously so much more intelligent than me, perhaps you can enlighten me as to which taxes they are alluding to in this beloved video of yours, since you seem to be saying that it's not income taxes, nor is it corporate taxes?
That's the cool thing about ambiguities, isn't it? Gives you some wiggle room when people try to pin you down!
"The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill that's projected to provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, according to Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber used the funds to "advance a market- based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs," it said in a statement."
Â
well, i'm confused then b/c all i've heard was that the healthcare law was basically written by the insurance carriers....it increases the pool of people buying insurance.
Was the lobbying to oppose the law, or rewrite the law?
It seems the answer is found in the article:
"The $86.2 million paid for advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill that's projected to provide coverage to 32 million previously uninsured Americans, according to Tom Collamore, a Chamber of Commerce spokesman. The Chamber used the funds to "advance a market- based health-care system and advocate for fundamental reform that would improve access to quality care while lowering costs," it said in a statement."
Well, I guess if you don't like disclosure/transparency laws, there probably aren't a whole lot of laws you do like.
And I suppose you wouldn't agree with Brandeis' sentiment that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". What, then, are we to root out corruption and financial malfeasance with, if not transparency? Will a monarchy do the trick? Or should we just pray to God?
You mean like Obama's sunlight promise? Or the promise that he would post the 'bill' online and give us 3 days to read it? Another one broken.
Lets see, how about the SEC? How did that work out? Pretty good for Madoff and company, for the longest time.
Transparency is great IF that's what we get. And it makes for nice rhetoric, what we get instead is a bait and switch Protection Panel, that, when the time comes, might sacrafice one of their own players, like a Madoff.
Errr, correct me if I am in error here, but it's my understanding that the "Bush tax cuts" are related to personal income taxes and not those of a corporation. Unless I'm in error, then your (now second) response to the message of this vid is a complete non-sequitur.
"Boss, profits are back, cashflow is good ... its time to expand, grow, to create jobs"
If that's the case, what uncertainty about taxes are they alluding to? I'm not aware of any current proposals to increase corporate tax rates. The only change in corporate tax I have seen Obama propose is a tax break:
Here we go again. The message in the vid was simple and straightforward: In spite of any pol's rhetoric, businesses remain nervous both about the economy and an ongoing concern about what the government might do next. As she states in the vid: "Confidence is low and uncertainty is high." The evidence of that is out there in abundance.
I thought businessmen weren't supposed to be such a bunch of Nervous Nellies. Brave Generals a lá George Patton in the Great Competition of Business and all. Was George ever nervous?? The man must be spinning in his grave because of all the wussies who can't fight and can't fuck in the corporate suites getting all afraid!!
Checking for a refutation of the fact that confidence is low and uncertainty is high ... checking, checking. Drat. None found.
I sincerely thank you again for your input.
You should look at the video carefully, Beak. No one is arguing that business confidence is low in the aftermath of the big economic downturn (see my previous response). What the video tries to do is suggest that small businesses are being cautious over uncertainty over the status of the Bush tax cuts (minutes 1:10-1:15 of the video). Which I don't buy, as explained below.
Always glad to give you the benefit of my humble opinion.
It's true, the vast majority of small businesses would be unaffected by a tax increase in the upper brackets...b/c the vast majority of small businesses dont pay taxes in the first place ...Ha!
How often do you pay your plumber or window installer in cash to shave off 10%? How come i never get a register receipt with my lunch at the local deli?
Here we go again. The message in the vid was simple and straightforward: In spite of any pol's rhetoric, businesses remain nervous both about the economy and an ongoing concern about what the government might do next. As she states in the vid: "Confidence is low and uncertainty is high." The evidence of that is out there in abundance.
That you choose to once again turn one of my posts into yet another questioning of motives of the source, really says a bunch about your interest in stuff, doesn't it?
Or perhaps your post was meant to refute the message that confidence is low and uncertainty is high ... in which case, you neglected to offer any evidence. Why is that?
And here's the link to the vid, seeing as you are unable to master quoting the vid or posting a link to it.
Sorry, there, buddy. Didn't realize I was supposed to refrain from repsonding to or commenting on your posts. I just wanted to thank you for bringing this issue to everyone's attention.
Businesses certainly do get nervous during, and in the aftermath of, a serious recession. However, I suspect that most small businesses could care less about whether the Bush tax cuts are extended only for middle class earners and below (as Obama is proposing) or for everyone, including top earners, i.e. the wealthiest of the wealthy. As William Gale pointed out back in August,
"If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. (emphasis mine) Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets — individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.
And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go — it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses."
It's typical of these kinds of videos to project the concerns of corporate big wigs onto actors playing middle class Americans. You see the same thing in videos purporting to portray the concerns of "regular" Americans over the costs of health care reform; "Harry and Louise", nominally portraying "regular folks", serve as mouthpieces for the Health Insurance lobby.
I welcome groups like the US Chamber of Commerce adding their voice to the debate. If the Republican party wants to promote their agenda, they're welcome to do so. I just want them to be candid about it and admit it when they are funding a message like that in the video. If their message has merit, why wouldn't they want to be honest about who is paying for it?
That's always the language... but never the true intention..... Laws are created and selectively enforced depending on which interest is in power and which one needs to be eliminated.
Well, I guess if you don't like disclosure/transparency laws, there probably aren't a whole lot of laws you do like.
And I suppose you wouldn't agree with Brandeis' sentiment that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". What, then, are we to root out corruption and financial malfeasance with, if not transparency? Will a monarchy do the trick? Or should we just pray to God?
We need to stop sheltering corporations (and other special interest groups) from disclosure laws meant to shine a light on the corrupting linkages between corporate and interest group giving and political candidates and parties.
That's always the language... but never the true intention..... Laws are created and selectively enforced depending on which interest is in power and which one needs to be eliminated.
Beaker (in Economix) wrote: (Video from Bankrupting America website)
————————————————————— Thanks, Beak, for pointing out yet another example of how the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision is already producing negative consequences in terms of making the political landscape even more skewed towards the powerful and against the powerless.
This vid is produced by a 501(c)(4) non profit group, Public Notice, helmed by Gretchen Hamel, a long-time Republican PR operative. The group is undoubtedly funded anonymously by various corporate lobbying outfits like USCOC. It is this sort of covert funding that is warping our political system and drowning out cogent discussion by actual voters. PUBLIC NOTICE (BANKRUPTING AMERICA)
We need to stop sheltering corporations (and other special interest groups) from disclosure laws meant to shine a light on the corrupting linkages between corporate and interest group giving and political candidates and parties.
