[quote]Adam Bomb wrote:
Secondly some of you continually talk about “Corporations” as if there is a disconnect between a company and a owner, you are discounting that the majority of businesses in America are sole proprietor owners, there are no board of directors or share holders, they are all one person. Very few companies percentage wise are publicly traded entities with mass amounts of shareholders.[/quote]
Would you say perchance 1%?
[quote]Adam Bomb wrote:
Case study for taking from the producers and giving to the takers and why it doesn’t work:
All of my tenants are either on Section 8 (Gov Paid Housing) or receive SSI Disability for their children (The children are not really disabled just file the right forms and you are good to go) or receive BOTH. They never work to get off Section 8 and the ones that receive SSID when asked “do you work?” they proudly respond “No I get SSID for my kids”.
The demographic that my tenants consist of have more children to receive more benefits, the more kids you have while on Section 8 the more bedrooms and greater rental payment amount you have. The ones that receive SSID have more kids because they receive $674 a month per child and that does not include food stamps, cash assistance, or any other subsidy. These “Families” (One mother and 3-5 children) consistently have more and more children and they pass on this epidemic of a lifestyle to their children, we have tenants who have daughters who are now having children to get Section 8 housing and SSID payments, Work or Job is a dirty word to these people.
The point is to take from one to give to another does not make the ones who are receiving the distribution work to better themselves if anything they believe that they are entitled to continually receive the benefit or that the benefit should be greater.
The only reason I am neutral about the subsidies is because I have created a way to get my tax dollars back in my pocket as income and create wealth over time for my family and I.
Secondly some of you continually talk about “Corporations” as if there is a disconnect between a company and a owner, you are discounting that the majority of businesses in America are sole proprietor owners, there are no board of directors or share holders, they are all one person. Very few companies percentage wise are publicly traded entities with mass amounts of shareholders.[/quote]
Jesus that is fucking scary…multiple generations on the same tit at the same time.
What could go wrong?
Alleged rape in the Occupy Cleveland protest, sure nothing wrong with having a 19yr old share a tent with a stranger
I was asked to re-post the following in this thread. To summarize the point I was responding to, earlier in the thread, the claim was made that Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie had relaxed their guidelines which caused the lending crisis. My point was that banks had portfolio products OUTSIDE of products insured by the GSEs. The post also goes into how even after the bailouts, banks were still trying to game the system with bad loans. Here is the post I wrote last night:
"There was a nice thread about this last year, but I don’t feel like digging it up (I don’t remember the thread title). But basically back then there were Agency products (loans backed by Fannie and Freddie) and there were Portfolio loans. MOST of the “exotic” products (2/28 ARMs, SISA, SIVA, etc…) were Portfolio loans NOT insured by (and therefore not following the lending/underwriting guidelines of) any of the GSEs.
These portfolio products were then chopped up into derivatives (CDOs) mixed with tranches of Agency products, chopped up and divided AGAIN and sold as AAA investments all over the world.
In other words, to put it in layman’s terms, back then (2005) I could give someone with a 500 credit score a STATED income and asset loan with 100% financing. That loan was “bundled” with someone who had an 800 score and who had put 20% down. This “bundle” was sold as AAA.
This occurred THOUSANDS of times and was perpetuated by banks and hedge funds, most of which are out of business now. Even the big ones that are still around (Wells, BOA, Chase and Citi) are only here cuz of bailouts - they were hip deep into the shit as well.
Then when the industry began to “tighten up”, some of the last remaining lenders (in particular, a lender who had a warehouse line with Citi) analyzed the “loopholes” in the existing FHA/VA (Ginnie Mae) guidelines and actually came to our broker’s office and TAUGHT US HOW TO LIE on FHA loan application and VOE forms!
So we had BANKS sending their Account Executives to their Brokers and teaching their loan officers how to lie. It was business as usual. This was in 2009/ early 2010. Why would any bank in it’s right mind NOT recognize the RISK of lending to people who aren’t qualified??? I mean, didn’t they learn their lesson when the entire country’s economy went to SHIT??? Of COURSE they didn’t learn their lesson!
The lesson they learned was this: We’re too big to fail. If we fuck up, the Taxpayers will pay for our mistakes. Putting people in loans they can’t afford means we get to charge them HIGHER INTEREST RATES and they will gladly take them, so we will earn MORE money.
When we earn more money, our share holders will be happy and give us multimillion dollar bonuses. If the loans don’t perform, we can just blame the bad economy.
It’s STILL business as fucking usual. The SAME people who fucked our economy before are STILL in charge of the SAME banks. And when they fail their stress tests AGAIN, guess who will be left holding the bag AGAIN?
WE will."
I believe there is a reason for people to be angry. Most of you know that when I broke the law I went to prison a paid for it. The agents and Account Executives teaching people how to twist loan applications (Basically DEFRAUDING the FHA) have not been held accountable. Not even a little bit.
But that’s an issue that should have been protested against years ago. It has nothing to do with how some hippie with a nose piercing and a liberal arts degree can’t find a job that he’s not even qualified for in the first place.
As I said earlier, I’m a FELON without a HS diploma and I have a job. I found it within a WEEK of being regulated out of my former career. I am currently taking a class (that I PAID FOR) so that I can sit for my electrical license test (I let all my electrical licenses expire years ago when I got out of that industry and a continuing education class within two years is requirement to sit for the test).
But I left that industry at the top of my field. I have NO doubt that within six months or a year I will be well on my way to being at the top again. So my job right now (Bartending) is a temporary measure until I can do electrical work again. Bartending, by the way, pays VERY well - It’s fun, not that hard, I get to listen to live Jazz four times a week and get laid like a rock star. I’m NOT complaining!
One more point: when I got out of prison, I could have easily taken on a bunch of student loans and gone to college. I didn’t because I recognized that a DEGREE doesn’t mean shit. As a felon, I KNEW I would have a hard time finding a job, so I went through a five year electrical apprenticeship instead. Got certified in a bunch of cool shit and made a lot more money than MOST of my friends with college degrees.
When I got out and went into business for myself, I did so CONFIDENTLY, knowing that I ALWAYS had my trade fall back on. Now that GOVERNMENT REGULATION HAS ROBBED ME OF MY CAREER, I am glad I made the choices I did. Once I knock the rust off of my tools, I’ll probably buy out a small electrical contractor and build that business up and within five years or so be better off that I ever was in the mortgage industry.
Now I’m a felon who didn’t graduate HS and I can figure that out. WTF is wrong with “the 99%”?
I won’t be able to reply until late tonight because I have to go to WORK.
We should be seeing constant headlines questioning the socialist/communist nature/fliratation of this movement daily, going by the same standards that were afforded a far less disruptive Tea Party. This is probably the greatest example of media bias yet.
According to the SBA in 2008 there were 29.6 million Privately Held Corps in the United States (Obviously lower now), at the end of February 2011, there were 5,091 companies listed on major U.S. exchanges, a 2% drop from 5,179 companies at the end of 2009 and a 42% decline from the peak of 8,823 in 1997.
Public companies only comprise roughly .02% of all companies in the US.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. I posted a link some pages ago (and I think you commented on it) that specifically argued for an 8-hour work-day and a 40hour work-week allowing one to support their family. I think he labeled this as the “American Dream.” [/quote]
I recall the link, I don’t recall the author’s desire for that. I’m happy to look at it again, but was he a part of the OWS movement?
More importantly, how exactly is Wall Street - the intended recipient of the message of the protests - going to provide for this “American Dream” to become reality?
I’m all ears.[/quote]
Why not re-read the link then?
“It finds that about a third of Americans in that top percentile were executives, managers and supervisors who work outside of finance. The next biggest share, at 15.7 percent, went to medical professionals, followed by those in financial services with 13.9 percent.”
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/the-top-1-executives-doctors-and-bankers/
[quote]Adam Bomb wrote:
According to the SBA in 2008 there were 29.6 million Privately Held Corps in the United States (Obviously lower now), at the end of February 2011, there were 5,091 companies listed on major U.S. exchanges, a 2% drop from 5,179 companies at the end of 2009 and a 42% decline from the peak of 8,823 in 1997.
Public companies only comprise roughly .02% of all companies in the US.[/quote]
They are the 99.98%?
In other news, the federal Government spent 32% more this year than it did in 2007.
But the issue is not us versus Publicly Held Companies.
[quote]Adam Bomb wrote:
But the issue is not us versus Publicly Held Companies. [/quote]
The disappearing middle class?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In other news, the federal Government spent 32% more this year than it did in 2007.[/quote]
Fucking BINGO.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In other news, the federal Government spent 32% more this year than it did in 2007.[/quote]
Fucking BINGO.[/quote]
Not sure the farmer would approve…
Gambit I’m confused as to what your point is. Privately held companies employ more people than public companies.
They 1% they are talking about is income level, and that top 1% starts at making $340k a year which in reality is not that much money.
The American poor lives better that 70% of the rest of the world, our poor have camera phones and digital cable.
Anybody figure out what they are bitching about yet? I support their right to protest, but I think knowing what they are protesting about would help me decide if I support the cause.
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody figure out what they are bitching about yet? I support their right to protest, but I think knowing what they are protesting about would help me decide if I support the cause. [/quote]
They want you to stop asking
Also anyone see the videos where the “leader” will speak and the rest repeat it? Very cult like sort of scary
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody figure out what they are bitching about yet? I support their right to protest, but I think knowing what they are protesting about would help me decide if I support the cause. [/quote]
Wall Street, but they protested at Rupert Murdoch’s house (I guess because he produces a product they don’t like) and missed George Soros’s house.
To paraphrase Ann Coulter, that’s like protesting WWII and marching past Adolph Hitler’s house.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Of course the corporation isn’t directly representative of the shareholders - neither is your government directly representative of the voters, and that isn’t an accident.
[/quote]
I don’t think it is a good idea for a corporation which doesn’t directly represent its owners to be able to influence a government which also doesn’t directly represent its voters.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And you said it yourself - unless there is a major issue, they aren’t going to fire the board. Well, if that’s true, then that definitionally means that the shareholders are fine with the decisions of the board…if they weren’t, that’d be a major issue and the shareholders would fire the board.
[/quote]
Not at all. Causing a major stock and company upset because you don’t agree with some of the decisions of the company is crazy. And then you have to look at the alternative board you would put in and just hope that they would be better. And they might be more representative on that single issue…but then you can have the same problem in 3 months time. And changing the board so frequently would do serious damage to the company and thus to the owners assets. It is much more a grin and bear it situation than being fine with it.
I would prefer it if a corporation has no political voice of its own. It has no need for it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You’re all balled up - you’ve conceded that shareholders and do express their voice. SO the lack of a shareholder voice isn’t a problem.
[/quote]
Yeah in the same way that subjects in a strict monarchy can always express their voice by revolting.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Skip the “ideally” part - what do you want? Should unions and environmental advocacy groups have their collective voice silenced the same as for-profit coroprations? Yes or no?
You’re not making sense, because you can’t draw where the line is supposed to be. Corporations try to influence the people on specific issues all the time )think taxes). Is this not ok?
[/quote]
I am not trying to silence a corporations collective voice. I am trying to silence their ability to lobby the government directly. They can try and convince the public so long as they are being clearly factual. Just like unions and environmental advocacy groups should. Just like not-for-profits should.
It is ok for a corporation to say that regulations are forcing them to move operations offshore (if they are). Provided they don’t use misleading or false advertising; that they be specific and stick to the facts. And it is made perfectly clear which corporation/group is doing the advertising. It is not ok for a corporation to wine and dine politicians. Nor is it ok for them to directly support a politician in either funds or advertising.
So putting out an advertisment saying “Higher taxes will force us to relocate more operations overseas. Please vote against higher taxes. Spoken on behalf of company X” is ok. Putting one out saying “Vote for Obama because he is the only candidate who believes in personal freedom!” is not ok.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If they decide to assemble a collective voice on an issue that affects them (same as an environmental group or a union), why should that collective voice be silenced as to the laws that affect that legal entity?
[/quote]
Because that legal entity can have undue influence over politicians. To the point where politicians ignore constituents and just listen to their big corporate backers. Money talks…and it isn’t right.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s just plain creepy. What you are proposing is government power that is largely unaccountable to the subject of its regulation.
[/quote]
I am proposing that the government is accountable to the people. Not to corporations. Why do you find that creepy?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sure, shrink government. Trim regulations. Ban earmarks. Get some sunshine in the process and make it simpler.
[/quote]
I have been voting for people who say they will shrink government for the past 30 years. Yet throughout this time the government has continued to grow; even when my candidates get in. And this is because the politicians listen to interest groups like rich corporations rather than listen to the people.
In a first past the post system my vote is really just a token vote.
Revealed - the capitalist network that runs the world
The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the “real” economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.