Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Iowa Independent

Recs

9

January 29, 2010 – Comments (14)

I'm with these folks. They have figured it out.

According to CCi the sum total of the bonuses received by by executives and employees of the bailed out banks, exceeds the sum total of State budget shortfalls.

The story from The Iowa Independent:

Hundreds of sign-toting members of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) stormed the lobbies of two downtown Des Moines banks Tuesday afternoon, temporarily halting business activities to demand the banks give up their employee bonuses to help pare down Iowa’s projected $1 billion budget shortfall...

In Oregon they decide to pay the bills. From The Oregonian.

Oregon voters bucked decades of anti-tax and anti-Salem sentiment Tuesday, raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to prevent further erosion of public schools and other state services.

The tax measures passed easily, with late returns showing a 54 percent to 46 percent ratio. Measure 66 raises taxes on households with taxable income above $250,000, and Measure 67 sets higher minimum taxes on corporations and increases the tax rate on upper-level profits....

Having passed SB810 in California, they will make Governor Schwarzenegger veto a State run Single Payer healthplan. States managing their own healthcare is a much better solution than a the federal healthcare reform plan which includes forcing States to accept plans from other States that cannot pay out claims, or do not keep the promises they make to their customers (Its being sold as "allowing insurers to compete across State lines).

...SB 810, The California Universal Healthcare Act, authored by Sen. Mark Leno and sponsored by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU), with broad support among many healthcare, community, and labor groups, will now proceed to a vote by the Assembly, which has passed similar legislation in the past.  The bill would establish a single-payer system in California, modeled on the healthcare systems flourishing in virtually all other industrialized nations, where better patient outcomes are achieved at a fraction of the cost of the U.S. system...

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Option1307 (29.97) wrote:

Intereting story Devoish, I hadn't seen this one yet.

“Big banks, like Wells Fargo and Bank of America, and Wall Street crashed our national economy and our state budgets. They must do their part to fix it,” said Judy Lonning of Des Moines. “We want their bonuses.”

I sympathize with these people; however I don't agree with them. We don't have a right to WFC money/bonuses anymore than we have a right to any other business' income. This is the problem of bailouts, and why they never should have been given in the first place. Or at the very least, we should have said up front "here is a gazillion dollars, but now you'll do as I say".

We didn't place restrictions on the money before we gave them the bailout, it's too late to go back and change the rules now. Even if it is arguably the moral/just thing to do.

This is exactly why I was against the bailout/TARP from the beginning. We dug our own grave, now we have to live with it. And yes, we are idiots for not realizing this is exactly what the banks would do with the free money.

Report this comment
#2) On January 29, 2010 at 12:54 PM, rofgile (99.33) wrote:

I love the rise of populism.  It is well, well needed.

In 2008, the banks were holding the US people for ransom.

In 2010, the US people are going to eat the big banks alive.

 Hurrah!  But, it hasn't happened yet.  I think eventually some plan will be adopted that highly taxes based on size and leverage of the banks.

-----

 Obama also spoke of ending tax breaks for the oil companies in the SOTU speech.  I'm very excited about that.  Then all we need to do is end agricultural subsidies next.

 -Rof

Report this comment
#3) On January 29, 2010 at 2:30 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Option1307,

I agree with you on this one, except I do not agree with this: We dug our own grave, now we have to live with it. Now we have to climb out.

I don't want to back date a tax on their bonuses. I just want to restore the 70% top income tax bracket that was in place from 1935 until 1970.

 

Report this comment
#4) On January 29, 2010 at 2:49 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Actually I also want to let Bradly Birkenfeld out of jail.

Report this comment
#5) On January 29, 2010 at 7:21 PM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

California is in deep financial trouble. How can they afford a single payer system?

Report this comment
#6) On January 29, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Option1307 (29.97) wrote:

Now we have to climb out.

Fair enough, I like that phrasing better as well.

I just want to restore the 70% top income tax bracket that was in place from 1935 until 1970.

Perfect. I hate people with money too... (end sarcasm)

You know I'm not a fan of taxes, but I would be willing to raise them under two conditions simply b/c as you pointed out, we need to climb our way out of the hole. 1) Massive spending cuts by government, and 2) the taxes were raised across the board. Not just on the "rich". I'm tired of people promoting taxes on others, if we need to raise taxes to cut our deficit, fine. But we all need to feel the pain.

As you said, we got ourselves into this mess, we can get ourselves out.

Have a good weekend.

Report this comment
#7) On January 29, 2010 at 7:46 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Option1307,

we got ourselves into this mess by treating the rich as some special upper class.

How much money can you get from the impoverished? I absiolutely do not agree that the wealthiest should enjoy leading the way in tax cuts when they came and the poorest should lead when they increase.

I understand that you believe all poor people either overspent, under earned or are just so stupid they don't deserve a Doctor and a television and a home.

I disagree.

The people are feeling pain. I cannot imagine how you don't realize that.

And I have no compassion for those investment bank clients with more than a million hiding their money in Switzerland. They are the ones who are not feeling the pain, and Oregon says they should share some pain, and Oregon is right.

Report this comment
#8) On January 29, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Option1307 (29.97) wrote:

How much money can you get from the impoverished? I absiolutely do not agree that the wealthiest should enjoy leading the way in tax cuts when they came and the poorest should lead when they increase.

Yes, the wealthiest receieved the largest benefit from the tax cuts. However, to be fair, they still were paying significantly more in terms of percentage and absolute dollars than the poor. So they were still paying more than anybody else. Why is this fair?

I understand that you believe all poor people either overspent, under earned or are just so stupid they don't deserve a Doctor and a television and a home.

Some "poor" people yes certainly did all three things, but then there are a lot of people that didnt and legitimately need help. But I do agree, if you're too poor to pay your food bills/etc. you shouldn't have a television or cell phone or iPod or any of the crap I see welfare people with all the time. Again, I do understand/believe that there are legitimate people that need help.

And I have no compassion for those investment bank clients with more than a million hiding their money in Switzerland.

I think you and many others have some gross misunderstanding who the "rich" in this country are. There are a few top people with mega money, but many of the "rich" do not have swiss bank acocunts and private planes or whatever else it seems you think. What do you consider "rich"?

If you make >100K in the US you are in the top like 10% of income earners. Are they rich? Should they be taxed 70% as you suggest?

Making > 250K puts you in the top 1% of US income earners, is this rich? Do they deserve the 70% tax you propose?

(See Wiki for data)

You are correct, these "rich" people are not struggling for food, and are not living paycheck to paycheck. But do they deserve to pay70% taxes? Are they truely evil and screwing over the little guy as you seem to proclaim? I say no.

I'm probably biased b/c I come from an affluent family, I realize that. But I do not believe in punishing these "rich" people simply because they exceeded in life. My family are Mexican-Americans and all came from absolutely nothing. They sukced it up, worked hard, and studied in school. Now they are all successful. Do they deserve to be taxed 70%? Should they pay their "fair share" to subsidize others who decided to drop out of school, drugs, teen pregnency, gang bang, etc.? I think not.

Again, I agree with you that there are legitimate people who need help, and we should help them.

But instead of trying to bring the "rich" down, why don't we focus on bringing other people up?

Report this comment
#9) On January 30, 2010 at 10:12 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Fine. Let's bring the other people up by raising taxes on someone and providing education, police protection, and sex ed for the kids whose parents failed them or need help because they work long hours for no money.

You are correct about the top 1% though. When I was a young man the top 1% really was "rich". Now the top 1% is upper middle class and only the top 1/2% is "rich".

Gotta love trickle down economics.

The thing is, the "rich" are getting that way by not honoring sales promises and contracts. I'm talking about investment banks and health insurers. GS employees got rich, because they sold CMBS while advising their customers to buy them. Not so much by hard work and good products like the Google boys or Steve Jobs. And that makes a difference to me.

Report this comment
#10) On January 30, 2010 at 10:24 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

In the Bradley Birkenfeld, UBS tax evasion case the UBS investment clients guilty of tax evasion represented 90% of their clients. UBS bank is guilty of abbetting tax evasion for clients whose homes are protected by US fire departments, whose children are educated in US schools, whose property is protected by US police, who drive upon US roads, visit US parks, whose security overseas is protected by the US armed forces.

Deadbeat freeloaders, I say. 90% of them.

Report this comment
#11) On January 31, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Option1307 (29.97) wrote:

the kids whose parents failed them

I have no idea how we even begin to address this problem. IMO this is the biggest issue in the US currently, parents are failing their kids and failing our country. We are creating a generation/s of incapable and uneducated people. This is truly a sad and unfortunate occcurance that is becomig more and more common in today's society. I don't agree with most of what you propose, but the fact that you seem to care and try speaks a lot about your character and your desire to raise your son (I think you mentioned you have one). That's more than we can say about a lot of Americans these days. Truly a sad state of affairs.

I'm talking about investment banks and health insurers. GS employees got rich, because they sold CMBS while advising their customers to buy them. Not so much by hard work and good products like the Google boys or Steve Jobs. And that makes a difference to me.

Agree 100%. You should always phrase your arguments this way, instead of against "rich" people as if they are evil or something. I'm pissed at thes people too just as you are. Not b/c they are rich, but b/c they obtained their status and money through unethical and flat out manipulative ways. This is completely wrong. While technically it wasn't illegal, they knowingly screwed over the average joe to make a profit. That is not alright, they should be punished.

Deadbeat freeloaders

Again, I agree with you here. These people broke the law and should be punished and forced to payback taxes.

There is nothing wrong and unethical about succeeding in life and becoming becoming "rich" through hard work and dedication. We should be encouraging everyone to dream and strive for this. However, at the same time we should punish those who reach this level through unfair and illegal means.

Report this comment
#12) On January 31, 2010 at 10:10 PM, devoish (99.10) wrote:

Excepting post #7, in this thread I think you will find I do a pretty good job of not lumping the "rich" as all bad and pick my targets pretty specifically.

After I attack Mozillo for being a dirtbag I often hear "punish the rich" yelled back at me as though I did not name someone specific. I think most often defenders of Mozillo try to join him at the hip with Steve Jobs and defend them as though they are the same. Perhaps that is my misperception and only what I see more easily.

Perhaps we'll both look for it now.

This Country has run a massive debt giving huge tax advantages to the wealthiest Americans, good and bad.

We're not going to get that back by starving the poor.

Only the "rich" benefit from that.

Report this comment
#13) On February 02, 2010 at 9:15 AM, USNHR (65.93) wrote:

the kids whose parents failed them

I have no idea how we even begin to address this problem. IMO this is the biggest issue in the US currently, parents are failing their kids and failing our country. We are creating a generation/s of incapable and uneducated people. This is truly a sad and unfortunate occcurance that is becomig more and more common in today's society.

My thought is that by trying to "help" them through the government we end up failing them more. Unfortuneately the government only gives a man a fish and doesn't teach a man to fish. So the man keeps coming back for more fish, which creates massive entitlements that lead to deficits. Socialism is not the answer.

Report this comment
#14) On February 02, 2010 at 9:20 PM, fmahnke (95.41) wrote:

Devo,

Interesting stuff and justified anger.  I wonder how long it will be until the gov't offices are being "stormed" by the regular people,  They are equally culpable for watse fraud and abuse.  The growing awareness of the deficit issues faced by this country are a daunting challenge.

The problem is the globilization of the world ecomony,  I have no ethical or moral problem with taxing the banks or the rich. However, I don't think will get the money  Will corporations and the super rich not move more commerce offshore ?  Does our gov't really think they can outsmart them ?

The problem is that if the current administration goes down this road of tax and spend and once the people figure out that the tax revenue didn't materialize  and the debt is larger, and that their taxes (including health care and utilities cost) must go up even though more jobs followed the rich offshore, well there will only be one place left to to vent their ANGER.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement