Much of this debate has arisen recently out of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests. http://endoftheamericandream.com has compiled a list of hypocrisies in this movement based on statements from the protests own organizing website http://nycga.cc/. I have pared out issues that don't fit into the economic argument like foreign policy, civil liberties, health insurance, etc. to try and shorten the post a bit. In addition to the points below are the fact that many of these protesters are self-proclaimed environmentalists and yet have left the environments in which they protest with literally tons of garbage and debris, there is the picture of the protester defecating on a police car, the outright encouragement to take over the bathrooms at the local restaurants flooding them by using them to bathe themselves but not patronizing them, and finally the collection of Socialist party, Communist party and 9/11 Truthers. The argument can be made that a few don't paint the picture of the whole, but when the Tea Party held there demonstrations they were ALL racist, birthers, Nazis, corporate hacks, etc.
Ultimately, greed is greed. Whether it is a CEO who feels he can justify a multi-million dollar salary, an employee who works enough overtime to sometimes double or even triple his salary, the person who cheats on his taxes by claiming deductions that don't exist or are overinflated, the person who despite the fact that they have additional expendable income that could be used to help those less fortunate through charities but instead opts for another wide screen TV, or the person on government assistance who can but CHOOSES to do nothing to change their situation. Greed is part of the human condition, some of it can be countered by fixing a broken system (the tax code, individual workplace policies, better enforcement of welfare fraud) but in the end you cannot legislate morality.
Here is part of the list:
#1 Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry that the big Wall Street banks "have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give executives exorbitant bonuses."
Well, if Barack Obama and John McCain (and President Bush, I added) had not aggressively pushed for the Wall Street bailouts back in 2008, they never would have happened. After Obama took office, he rammed through even more bailouts. The reality is that you could easily call Barack Obama "the king of the Wall Street bailouts".
#2 Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry that the big Wall Street banks "have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them."
Yet they ignore the fact that 3 of the top 7 donors to Obama's campaign in 2008 were the very Wall Street banks that the Occupy Wall Street movement is protesting.
Once again, Barack Obama will be taking in huge amounts of money from the wealthy and from big Wall Street banks for his run in 2012.
So why aren't they complaining about that?
#3 One of the big themes of the Occupy Wall Street protests is the fact that Wall Street has way too much influence and power over the federal government.
Well, the Obama administration is absolutely packed with ex-executives of giant corporations and big Wall Street banks. Earlier this year, Michael Brenner wrote the following about the current composition of the Obama administration....
Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
#5 Occupy Wall Street says that it is angry that big corporations "have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay."
This issue alone should be enough for Occupy Wall Street to call for Barack Obama to resign.
The Obama administration has pushed very hard for new "free trade" agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia and the Obama administration is currently making the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("the NAFTA of the Pacific") a very high priority.
The Obama administration has been very aggressively trying to expand the "free trade" policies that are costing us millions of jobs.
In fact, members of the Obama administration run around and openly talk about how there are things that "we don't want to make in America".
For example, the following is what U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk recently told Tim Robertson of the Huffington Post about the Obama administration's attitude toward keeping manufacturing jobs in America....
Let's increase our competitiveness... the reality is about half of our imports, our trade deficit is because of how much oil [we import], so you take that out of the equation, you look at what percentage of it are things that frankly, we don't want to make in America, you know, cheaper products, low-skill jobs that frankly college kids that are graduating from, you know, UC Cal and Hastings [don't want], but what we do want is to capture those next generation jobs and build on our investments in our young people, our education infrastructure.
Unions should be screaming bloody murder about this.
But instead they are going to line up behind Barack Obama once again in 2012 like good little sheeple.
#11 Occupy Wall Street is angry because the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" of taxes.
Well, it is undeniable that many big corporations (such as Obama's good friends over at GE) quite often get away with paying no taxes at all.
But Barack Obama and the Democrats controlled the White House and all of Congress for two whole years.
So why didn't they "fix" the tax code while they had the chance?
Could it be that they actually like the current system?
The truth is that our current tax system is so flawed, so complex and so full of holes that it needs to be thrown out entirely.
Many big corporations get away with bloody murder under the current tax system, yet nearly all establishment Democrats and nearly all establishment Republicans want to keep the current system of taxation.
In a previous article, I noted some of the big corporations that make a ton of money and yet have paid less than zero in taxes in recent years....
What U.S. corporations are able to get away with is absolutely amazing.
The following figures come directly out of a report by Citizens for Tax Justice. These are combined figures for the tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
During those three years, all of the corporations below made a lot of money. Yet all of them paid net taxes that were below zero for those three years combined.
How is that possible? Well, it turns out that instead of paying in taxes to the federal government, they were actually getting money back.
So for these corporations, their rate of taxation was actually below zero.
The amazing thing is that GE can get away with all this and still ship thousands upon thousands of good American jobs out of the country.
Not really, I dont think it's Wall Street at all.... Seems like whats really holding the country's economic growth back is corporate greed subsidised by our duly elected govt representatives. The system has been broken for a long time and public apathy and pessimism has lead to a situation where as much as we (the average joe suffering through)wake up and see the fact that the system is corrupt and broken. Theres little that we can do to fix it without alot of sacrifice and hard work, something that we wouldnt prefer to do. Taking the easier and passive route.
At its root purpose, the stock market (aka Wall Street) was a mode of investment in corporate enterprise- with the added benefit of payback to investors. HOWEVER... The quid pro quo that has evolved between corporate board rooms, investment houses and politicians, and corruption by cynical manipulation of the market; the root purpose has been propelled toward something more in common with a race track than an economic institution. ...And if this were not true, there would be no need for an SEC. Unfortunately (in terms of wealth building) Wall Street functions more for its own gains than as a vehicle of enterprise building vis-a-vis the industry it was intended to bolster. The activity of investment is more about stockholder profits (and even more about investment banking)- virtually independent of the business of industry. Industry has become the collateral excuse for investment- just as race horses exist to give gamblers something to bet on. Along with the subordination of industry comes the subordination of jobs and the livelihood of employees.
I pretty much stopped reading when I got to the point of "Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete."
Because I just got to say, you're setting up your anti-OWS argument as "they're hypocrites because they're protesting all this Obama stuff."
How is protesting what Obama -- all Democrats and all Republicans -- done being a hypocrite?
Now, OWS may get swallowed up by the Democrat machine, just as the Tea Party got hijacked by the GOP, but OWS at its start and base is not pro-Democrat or pro-Obama. In fact, the very basis of a lot of the frustration is that the average, ordinary American has no where to turn for relief from a corrupt system.
Your argument against OWS is fallacious -- and I'm not even saying an argument against OWS can't be made -- because it's based on a false premise in that it is not sufficiently anti-Obama, and that's simply not true, because it's against all of the corruption in our system. The NYT did a story early on about how most of the OWS participants don't even vote because they consider the system too corrupt to participate in through normal democratic channels.
Of course, now you've got the usual Demcoratic machine -- like the AFL-CIO -- moving in to try and jump the bandwagon, but like the original Tea Party, OWS is not about political party or political agenda. It was, at least, a "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore movement."
Also, be highly suspect of any written statements claiming to represent OWS, since OWS has no official spokesperson, etc.
If the economy got better, Wall Street would be making even more money. And without Wall Street as a funnel for money, what industry we still have would not have money to invest. Where would industry get money to keep going?
John, yes it would. Exactly like Batavia Downs would because they are the same thing right down to the blatantly "fixed" races (just some). Pump the market up, crash it, pump it up and crash it again. The richest increase their wealth on paper 70% in one decade while frugal working class dopes like myself get snookered twice in three years. The second time I said: "Shame on me", I knew better and I let myself get duped again anyway.
"Where would industry get money to keep going?"
Supply and demand. Follow Henry Ford's model for success, how soon we forget. How do non publically traded companies raise revenue? They sell a product that the public wants and is willing to pay for, that's how. I think America needed high end locally manufactured Vodka and Tito Beverage (best name ever for a distiller) of Dripping Springs, Texas proved me correct by getting very rich and hiring more people to expand his operation. That's how it is supposed to be done. Check out Paula's Texas Orange too, another adult beverage brewed, bottled and sold locally to critical acclaim. It costs even more and most of the additional amount is pure profit.
Or, they could smuggle cocaine on the side like DeLorean did for his car and nose.(snark)
Just in case anyone is too young to remember: The sting operation mounted by the FBI -- in conjunction with the DEA, Customs Service, and the police departments of Ventura and Los Angeles, California -- sounded like a plot straight out of Miami Vice. But this was the real deal, and it snared the legendary John Zachary DeLorean, a man People Weekly described as the Auto Prince, the "Detroit dream merchant." On October 26, 1982, DeLorean was arrested for putting up $1.8 million to bring 100 kilos of cocaine into the United States. DeLorean stood to make $24 million from the deal, and he told a confidential informant (CI) for the FBI that he intended using the proceeds to salvage his dream, the DeLorean Motor Company, which faced ruin.
There is Greed every where you look...Sports,Hollywood,Government ,Ceo's,Drug dealers and so on...its in every part of our society....Its the nature of the Beast..Wall Street feeds on greed,but thats not why there is no economic growth... Government rules and laws are what is slowing growth..Trade policy's would be a big one..They lower our standard of living ...We do not manufacturer hardly anything because we can't compete on a wage basis....We have no tax base.....
John, you indirectly make my point. Wall Street does not require industrial profitability to generate its own profits. In many cases it profits by way of business failure. The connection between Wall street and industry has become less symbiotic and more parasitic. The 1929 Wall Street Crash occurred when business was booming.
The majority of investors know little or nothing about the businesses they invest in; many couldn't even name the businesses in their portfolios. It is dubious whether investment firms understand/care an iota about the success of businesses they trade on. The 2001 crash started with an article in Barron's magazine that led to a panic, exacerbated by the market closing on 9/11 and finalized by the coincidental exhaustion of millions of dot-coms venture capital. WorldCom's illegal accounting practices were exposed, further fueling the downward spiral, exemplified by the bankruptcy of the telcom industry: NorthPoint Communications, Global Crossing, JDS Uniphase, XO Communications, and Covad Communications. $5 trillion dollars in market value squandered.
While millions saw their investment-dependent pensions and 401Ks shrivel, a few insiders made out like... well, bandits.
So, John, explain to me again how beneficial Wall Street is...
C.M. wrote, "It is dubious whether investment firms understand/care an iota about the success of businesses they trade on. "
Newspaper readership peaked in the late 1960s. At the time, the majority of newspapers in the country were family owned. Now, there were a confluence of factors that started the slide of newspapers, but chief among them has to be conglomerate ownership.
As conglomerates grew, they thought they could generate more cash for themselves by selling off shares on Wall Street.
But as publicly traded companies, the focus became the bottom line, not the product.
Newspapers stopped investing in journalism, even cutting it drastically, to meet the fiscal demands of Wall Street.
Wall Street is about short term gains, not long-term results, so the damage being done to newspapers by short-sighted strategies was masked for a couple of decades because investors were happy with the fat profits.
I mention newspapers just because that's the industry I know best.
Wall Street isn't oriented toward quality product or what is best for anybody involved in a company except for what it can generate in cash flow. Of course, you would think that in a free market, quality products and services would win out creating the sought for profits, but building a business based on quality takes time and investors won't invest in "tomorrow." They want results today. That's bad for the economy, has little relation to free market economics (it's simply gambling) and bad for democracy.
Kyle, sometimes I wonder whether the reason the big players donate to both Democrats AND Republicans is to ensure that the convenience of government as a scapegoat will be perpetuated. I used to think it was simply to maintain gridlock. ...Maybe it's both.
LOL CM and I think that makes my point. Until the public really demands from its Govt some real representation, not just token things to appease the masses and insists on responsibility for what laws do and dont get passed. Lets not forget the golden parachutes aka benefit pkgs they get for life (even if kicked out of office) But I dont see this happening without some kind of revolution or civil strife and alot of upheaval beforehand. America can be fat and lazy until you push it's people too far I believe we are still called a sleeping giant by some countries. But who knows if that may not be possible anymore.
Define Wall Street...I buy and trade stocks with my own capital....I take all the risk..Should i give up more to uncle Sam...Am i greedy..You buy a stock to own a piece of that company..With out stock issuance's a company would have a hard time growing there business...Its how they raise capital...Some offer dividend's of the profits they make...It gives the little guy like me a chance to turn my capital into more capital.. Wall Street creates wealth...Anyone can participate..Has nothing to do with race color or creed..If some one bought Wal Mart 2000 dollars worth its stock back in the 70's you could be a millionaire today..To me Wall Street is just part of the American Dream..
I understand completely Mark and your right. I think however that others are making allusions to the businesses and their manipulation of the market through speculation and deal making that makes them gobs of money while making our lives and ability to use the Market to realize any kind of financial gain very hard if not impossible. Lessons learned from the .com boom and bust.
My take on what they others are saying is when you have a major amount of money on paper like alot of big businesses do... and you know the in and outs and work with what influences the markets, you are able to do much more damage and while it wont hurt them, us little guys go boom and bust while they play the games. Them having some modicum of control with politician is just another way for them to nudge the market in the direction they want.
Local politicians dont get away with much cause its too close to us, while national and world venue has alot more grey area and layers to hide the games. The same is true (i believe anyway) with markets and business, small guys dont have as much wiggle room but the higher you go on the food chain the more influence and manipulation can be made at the cost to those lower on the chain.
I hope I am making my point somewhat Mark.....Home with flu so my fever is messin with my thinkin process (at least my ability to control my adhd mind lol)
Anyone attempting to debunk this movement using their 'support' of Obama policies hasn't done sufficient research. The Occupiers know full well who won the Wall Street Sweepstakes in 2008 and a large portion of GA attendees have called for Obama's resignation.
At the Occupy Buffalo kick-off on Saturday a union guy got up and called for every person in attendance to change their voter registration to 'anything but Democrat or Republican.' There was also discussion of union involvement and it was accepted that there should be a union liaison, but no leadership from any group would be acceptable.
Political parties will not be allowed to take this thing over, nor will any single special interest. As hard as people are trying to find the AstroTurf here, it just doesn't exist.
Point of fact Kyle...I am on salary and any hours over 40 per week are paid at time and a half. And just to get ahead of the next question, no I am not one of those who is doubling or tripling. I worked a total of one hour overtime in 2010 and currently have two hours for 2011 fiscal year.
Point of fact part 2.... Jeff then you arent paid a salary..... here is a couple of simple definitions:\
sal·a·ry (sl-r, slr)
n. pl. sal·a·ries
Fixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis.
Wage Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. Compare living wage, minimum wage.
and since you are fond of wordy and lengthy explanations here is this....
Salary Definition Regulation
Since the most frequently-requested overtime exemption regulation is the one defining what a true salary is, it is presented here in its entirety for the convenience of employers who need to see the full definition as adopted and enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. Following is the text of 29 C.F.R. 541.602:
Sec. 541.602 Salary basis.
General rule. An employee will be considered to be paid on a "salary basis" within the meaning of these regulations if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. Subject to the exceptions provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. Exempt employees need not be paid for any workweek in which they perform no work. An employee is not paid on a salary basis if deductions from the employee's predetermined compensation are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.
So salaried workers (at least those who TRULY earn a salary) can work all the overtime they want, it wont change the paycheck unless such overtime is outside of their normal job description. If a salaried worker wants to abuse the system then working less is what they would do to gain a financial advantage.
Kyle, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people whose contracts and pay stubs say "salary" on them yet receive overtime. Your relentless pursuit of one word in my post does nothing to discredit the content.
Chris says "As hard as people are trying to find the AstroTurf here, it just doesn't exist." There are numerous ads on Craigslist advertising for protestors paying between $350 - $650 per week and they've been there for almost a month.
The word salary seems to be used two ways. One is being used the same as "pay". Workers get paid a "salary". That's the same as saying they get paid a "wage". The vast majority of them are hourly workers. Then there are the ones who get a set "salary". It's a fixed amount and amount does not go up or down based on the number of hours worked. A very familiar example to many of us is the military. Work 30 hours (never happened) or 80 hours, you get the same amount in your check.
Guess it depends on how you want to spin the argument.
“Exempt” employees, as the name implies, are “exempt” from certain federal wage and hour laws that otherwise apply to most employees. If the employee is “non-exempt” all wage and hour laws apply to them. The most notable example is overtime. Non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime, exempt employees are not.
There are three types of employees that are exempt under federal law: executive, administrative and professional. A big misconception is that paying a "salary" alone makes an employee "exempt." Not true. In addition to payment on a salary basis, there is a “duties test.” For example, an “executive exempt” person’s “primary duties” must consist of the management of the enterprise (or a recognized department or subdivision) and also the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more employees, and the right to hire and fire. If those additional tests are not met, the employee is not “executive exempt.” Both the “administrative” and “professional” exemption each have their own additional “duties” tests.
Improper classification could have serious undesirable effects. These unwanted effects can be hugely magnified in a class action lawsuit.
Is there really such a thing as mandatory overtime?
Simply put, yes. Employers have the freedom to set the terms or conditions of employment, including duties and hours. Since employment is employment-at-will, if an employee does not work the hours the employer requires, he or she can be fired. In order to prevent abuse of employees, wage and hour laws were passed. The main one, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that nonexempt employees must be paid at a 50% higher rate—time-and-a-half, or overtime—for any hours worked in a work week over 40. The employer can require the workers to work overtime; but non-exempt employees have to be compensated at a higher level for the overtime, and this overtime pay helps limit mandatory overtime use. After all, most businesses would prefer to not pay their non-exempt employees more, so the notion is that they will only require overtime when it’s really worth the extra expense.
How can a non-exempt employee refuse mandatory overtime without being fired?
The best answer is with plenty of tact. Remember that employers appreciate the hard work of their non-exempt employees, but they also understand that there are times when circumstances dictate breach of protocol. Life events such as family emergencies are examples of reasons that are directly protected under the Family Medical Leave Act. For situations other than emergencies, ask your employer respectfully and if they refuse you will still be responsible for the overtime.
Wall Street is one of the few
Wall Street is one of the few places left in this Country where the average Joe can make money using nothing but his own resources and smarts.
Much of this debate has
Much of this debate has arisen recently out of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests. http://endoftheamericandream.com has compiled a list of hypocrisies in this movement based on statements from the protests own organizing website http://nycga.cc/. I have pared out issues that don't fit into the economic argument like foreign policy, civil liberties, health insurance, etc. to try and shorten the post a bit. In addition to the points below are the fact that many of these protesters are self-proclaimed environmentalists and yet have left the environments in which they protest with literally tons of garbage and debris, there is the picture of the protester defecating on a police car, the outright encouragement to take over the bathrooms at the local restaurants flooding them by using them to bathe themselves but not patronizing them, and finally the collection of Socialist party, Communist party and 9/11 Truthers. The argument can be made that a few don't paint the picture of the whole, but when the Tea Party held there demonstrations they were ALL racist, birthers, Nazis, corporate hacks, etc.
Ultimately, greed is greed. Whether it is a CEO who feels he can justify a multi-million dollar salary, an employee who works enough overtime to sometimes double or even triple his salary, the person who cheats on his taxes by claiming deductions that don't exist or are overinflated, the person who despite the fact that they have additional expendable income that could be used to help those less fortunate through charities but instead opts for another wide screen TV, or the person on government assistance who can but CHOOSES to do nothing to change their situation. Greed is part of the human condition, some of it can be countered by fixing a broken system (the tax code, individual workplace policies, better enforcement of welfare fraud) but in the end you cannot legislate morality.
Here is part of the list:
#1 Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry that the big Wall Street banks "have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give executives exorbitant bonuses."
Well, if Barack Obama and John McCain (and President Bush, I added) had not aggressively pushed for the Wall Street bailouts back in 2008, they never would have happened. After Obama took office, he rammed through even more bailouts. The reality is that you could easily call Barack Obama "the king of the Wall Street bailouts".
#2 Occupy Wall Street says that they are angry that the big Wall Street banks "have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them."
Yet they ignore the fact that 3 of the top 7 donors to Obama's campaign in 2008 were the very Wall Street banks that the Occupy Wall Street movement is protesting.
Once again, Barack Obama will be taking in huge amounts of money from the wealthy and from big Wall Street banks for his run in 2012.
So why aren't they complaining about that?
#3 One of the big themes of the Occupy Wall Street protests is the fact that Wall Street has way too much influence and power over the federal government.
Well, the Obama administration is absolutely packed with ex-executives of giant corporations and big Wall Street banks. Earlier this year, Michael Brenner wrote the following about the current composition of the Obama administration....
Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
#5 Occupy Wall Street says that it is angry that big corporations "have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay."
This issue alone should be enough for Occupy Wall Street to call for Barack Obama to resign.
The Obama administration has pushed very hard for new "free trade" agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia and the Obama administration is currently making the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("the NAFTA of the Pacific") a very high priority.
The Obama administration has been very aggressively trying to expand the "free trade" policies that are costing us millions of jobs.
In fact, members of the Obama administration run around and openly talk about how there are things that "we don't want to make in America".
For example, the following is what U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk recently told Tim Robertson of the Huffington Post about the Obama administration's attitude toward keeping manufacturing jobs in America....
Let's increase our competitiveness... the reality is about half of our imports, our trade deficit is because of how much oil [we import], so you take that out of the equation, you look at what percentage of it are things that frankly, we don't want to make in America, you know, cheaper products, low-skill jobs that frankly college kids that are graduating from, you know, UC Cal and Hastings [don't want], but what we do want is to capture those next generation jobs and build on our investments in our young people, our education infrastructure.
Unions should be screaming bloody murder about this.
But instead they are going to line up behind Barack Obama once again in 2012 like good little sheeple.
#11 Occupy Wall Street is angry because the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" of taxes.
Well, it is undeniable that many big corporations (such as Obama's good friends over at GE) quite often get away with paying no taxes at all.
But Barack Obama and the Democrats controlled the White House and all of Congress for two whole years.
So why didn't they "fix" the tax code while they had the chance?
Could it be that they actually like the current system?
The truth is that our current tax system is so flawed, so complex and so full of holes that it needs to be thrown out entirely.
Many big corporations get away with bloody murder under the current tax system, yet nearly all establishment Democrats and nearly all establishment Republicans want to keep the current system of taxation.
In a previous article, I noted some of the big corporations that make a ton of money and yet have paid less than zero in taxes in recent years....
What U.S. corporations are able to get away with is absolutely amazing.
The following figures come directly out of a report by Citizens for Tax Justice. These are combined figures for the tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010.
During those three years, all of the corporations below made a lot of money. Yet all of them paid net taxes that were below zero for those three years combined.
How is that possible? Well, it turns out that instead of paying in taxes to the federal government, they were actually getting money back.
So for these corporations, their rate of taxation was actually below zero.
The amazing thing is that GE can get away with all this and still ship thousands upon thousands of good American jobs out of the country.
Not really, I dont think it's
Not really, I dont think it's Wall Street at all.... Seems like whats really holding the country's economic growth back is corporate greed subsidised by our duly elected govt representatives. The system has been broken for a long time and public apathy and pessimism has lead to a situation where as much as we (the average joe suffering through)wake up and see the fact that the system is corrupt and broken. Theres little that we can do to fix it without alot of sacrifice and hard work, something that we wouldnt prefer to do. Taking the easier and passive route.
At its root purpose, the
At its root purpose, the stock market (aka Wall Street) was a mode of investment in corporate enterprise- with the added benefit of payback to investors. HOWEVER... The quid pro quo that has evolved between corporate board rooms, investment houses and politicians, and corruption by cynical manipulation of the market; the root purpose has been propelled toward something more in common with a race track than an economic institution. ...And if this were not true, there would be no need for an SEC. Unfortunately (in terms of wealth building) Wall Street functions more for its own gains than as a vehicle of enterprise building vis-a-vis the industry it was intended to bolster. The activity of investment is more about stockholder profits (and even more about investment banking)- virtually independent of the business of industry. Industry has become the collateral excuse for investment- just as race horses exist to give gamblers something to bet on. Along with the subordination of industry comes the subordination of jobs and the livelihood of employees.
Jeff, I pretty much stopped
Jeff,
I pretty much stopped reading when I got to the point of "Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete."
Because I just got to say, you're setting up your anti-OWS argument as "they're hypocrites because they're protesting all this Obama stuff."
How is protesting what Obama -- all Democrats and all Republicans -- done being a hypocrite?
Now, OWS may get swallowed up by the Democrat machine, just as the Tea Party got hijacked by the GOP, but OWS at its start and base is not pro-Democrat or pro-Obama. In fact, the very basis of a lot of the frustration is that the average, ordinary American has no where to turn for relief from a corrupt system.
Your argument against OWS is fallacious -- and I'm not even saying an argument against OWS can't be made -- because it's based on a false premise in that it is not sufficiently anti-Obama, and that's simply not true, because it's against all of the corruption in our system. The NYT did a story early on about how most of the OWS participants don't even vote because they consider the system too corrupt to participate in through normal democratic channels.
Of course, now you've got the usual Demcoratic machine -- like the AFL-CIO -- moving in to try and jump the bandwagon, but like the original Tea Party, OWS is not about political party or political agenda. It was, at least, a "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore movement."
Also, be highly suspect of any written statements claiming to represent OWS, since OWS has no official spokesperson, etc.
If the economy got better,
If the economy got better, Wall Street would be making even more money. And without Wall Street as a funnel for money, what industry we still have would not have money to invest. Where would industry get money to keep going?
John... Your parents never
John... Your parents never told you? There is no Santa Claus.
CM, Do you disagree that Wall
CM,
Do you disagree that Wall Street would be making more money if the economy was doing better?
John, yes it would. Exactly
John, yes it would. Exactly like Batavia Downs would because they are the same thing right down to the blatantly "fixed" races (just some). Pump the market up, crash it, pump it up and crash it again. The richest increase their wealth on paper 70% in one decade while frugal working class dopes like myself get snookered twice in three years. The second time I said: "Shame on me", I knew better and I let myself get duped again anyway.
"Where would industry get
"Where would industry get money to keep going?"
Supply and demand. Follow Henry Ford's model for success, how soon we forget. How do non publically traded companies raise revenue? They sell a product that the public wants and is willing to pay for, that's how. I think America needed high end locally manufactured Vodka and Tito Beverage (best name ever for a distiller) of Dripping Springs, Texas proved me correct by getting very rich and hiring more people to expand his operation. That's how it is supposed to be done. Check out Paula's Texas Orange too, another adult beverage brewed, bottled and sold locally to critical acclaim. It costs even more and most of the additional amount is pure profit.
Or, they could smuggle cocaine on the side like DeLorean did for his car and nose.(snark)
Just in case anyone is too young to remember: The sting operation mounted by the FBI -- in conjunction with the DEA, Customs Service, and the police departments of Ventura and Los Angeles, California -- sounded like a plot straight out of Miami Vice. But this was the real deal, and it snared the legendary John Zachary DeLorean, a man People Weekly described as the Auto Prince, the "Detroit dream merchant." On October 26, 1982, DeLorean was arrested for putting up $1.8 million to bring 100 kilos of cocaine into the United States. DeLorean stood to make $24 million from the deal, and he told a confidential informant (CI) for the FBI that he intended using the proceeds to salvage his dream, the DeLorean Motor Company, which faced ruin.
There is Greed every where
There is Greed every where you look...Sports,Hollywood,Government ,Ceo's,Drug dealers and so on...its in every part of our society....Its the nature of the Beast..Wall Street feeds on greed,but thats not why there is no economic growth... Government rules and laws are what is slowing growth..Trade policy's would be a big one..They lower our standard of living ...We do not manufacturer hardly anything because we can't compete on a wage basis....We have no tax base.....
John, you indirectly make my
John, you indirectly make my point. Wall Street does not require industrial profitability to generate its own profits. In many cases it profits by way of business failure. The connection between Wall street and industry has become less symbiotic and more parasitic. The 1929 Wall Street Crash occurred when business was booming.
The majority of investors know little or nothing about the businesses they invest in; many couldn't even name the businesses in their portfolios. It is dubious whether investment firms understand/care an iota about the success of businesses they trade on. The 2001 crash started with an article in Barron's magazine that led to a panic, exacerbated by the market closing on 9/11 and finalized by the coincidental exhaustion of millions of dot-coms venture capital. WorldCom's illegal accounting practices were exposed, further fueling the downward spiral, exemplified by the bankruptcy of the telcom industry: NorthPoint Communications, Global Crossing, JDS Uniphase, XO Communications, and Covad Communications. $5 trillion dollars in market value squandered.
While millions saw their investment-dependent pensions and 401Ks shrivel, a few insiders made out like... well, bandits.
So, John, explain to me again how beneficial Wall Street is...
C.M. wrote, "It is dubious
C.M. wrote, "It is dubious whether investment firms understand/care an iota about the success of businesses they trade on. "
Newspaper readership peaked in the late 1960s. At the time, the majority of newspapers in the country were family owned. Now, there were a confluence of factors that started the slide of newspapers, but chief among them has to be conglomerate ownership.
As conglomerates grew, they thought they could generate more cash for themselves by selling off shares on Wall Street.
But as publicly traded companies, the focus became the bottom line, not the product.
Newspapers stopped investing in journalism, even cutting it drastically, to meet the fiscal demands of Wall Street.
Wall Street is about short term gains, not long-term results, so the damage being done to newspapers by short-sighted strategies was masked for a couple of decades because investors were happy with the fat profits.
I mention newspapers just because that's the industry I know best.
Wall Street isn't oriented toward quality product or what is best for anybody involved in a company except for what it can generate in cash flow. Of course, you would think that in a free market, quality products and services would win out creating the sought for profits, but building a business based on quality takes time and investors won't invest in "tomorrow." They want results today. That's bad for the economy, has little relation to free market economics (it's simply gambling) and bad for democracy.
Kyle, sometimes I wonder
Kyle, sometimes I wonder whether the reason the big players donate to both Democrats AND Republicans is to ensure that the convenience of government as a scapegoat will be perpetuated. I used to think it was simply to maintain gridlock. ...Maybe it's both.
LOL CM and I think that makes
LOL CM and I think that makes my point. Until the public really demands from its Govt some real representation, not just token things to appease the masses and insists on responsibility for what laws do and dont get passed. Lets not forget the golden parachutes aka benefit pkgs they get for life (even if kicked out of office) But I dont see this happening without some kind of revolution or civil strife and alot of upheaval beforehand. America can be fat and lazy until you push it's people too far I believe we are still called a sleeping giant by some countries. But who knows if that may not be possible anymore.
Define Wall Street...I buy
Define Wall Street...I buy and trade stocks with my own capital....I take all the risk..Should i give up more to uncle Sam...Am i greedy..You buy a stock to own a piece of that company..With out stock issuance's a company would have a hard time growing there business...Its how they raise capital...Some offer dividend's of the profits they make...It gives the little guy like me a chance to turn my capital into more capital.. Wall Street creates wealth...Anyone can participate..Has nothing to do with race color or creed..If some one bought Wal Mart 2000 dollars worth its stock back in the 70's you could be a millionaire today..To me Wall Street is just part of the American Dream..
I understand completely Mark
I understand completely Mark and your right. I think however that others are making allusions to the businesses and their manipulation of the market through speculation and deal making that makes them gobs of money while making our lives and ability to use the Market to realize any kind of financial gain very hard if not impossible. Lessons learned from the .com boom and bust.
My take on what they others are saying is when you have a major amount of money on paper like alot of big businesses do... and you know the in and outs and work with what influences the markets, you are able to do much more damage and while it wont hurt them, us little guys go boom and bust while they play the games. Them having some modicum of control with politician is just another way for them to nudge the market in the direction they want.
Local politicians dont get away with much cause its too close to us, while national and world venue has alot more grey area and layers to hide the games. The same is true (i believe anyway) with markets and business, small guys dont have as much wiggle room but the higher you go on the food chain the more influence and manipulation can be made at the cost to those lower on the chain.
I hope I am making my point somewhat Mark.....Home with flu so my fever is messin with my thinkin process (at least my ability to control my adhd mind lol)
Anyone attempting to debunk
Anyone attempting to debunk this movement using their 'support' of Obama policies hasn't done sufficient research. The Occupiers know full well who won the Wall Street Sweepstakes in 2008 and a large portion of GA attendees have called for Obama's resignation.
At the Occupy Buffalo kick-off on Saturday a union guy got up and called for every person in attendance to change their voter registration to 'anything but Democrat or Republican.' There was also discussion of union involvement and it was accepted that there should be a union liaison, but no leadership from any group would be acceptable.
Political parties will not be allowed to take this thing over, nor will any single special interest. As hard as people are trying to find the AstroTurf here, it just doesn't exist.
Thats good to hear Chris
Thats good to hear Chris maybe this is the seeds of change we have been hoping for, probably not but it seems like a start.
Point of fact.....if a person
Point of fact.....if a person is collecting a salary. they dont have overtime Jeff. So nothing doubles or triples.
Point of fact Kyle...I am on
Point of fact Kyle...I am on salary and any hours over 40 per week are paid at time and a half. And just to get ahead of the next question, no I am not one of those who is doubling or tripling. I worked a total of one hour overtime in 2010 and currently have two hours for 2011 fiscal year.
It's not like Corporate greed
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVE72Ae82Tw&NR=1]
It's not like Corporate greed has ever reared its ugly head before, isn't that right Goober? What do you say Gomer?
The attitude of Wall Street
The attitude of Wall Street reminds me of Al Davis(RIP) Just Win, Baby.
I think this is what we all
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vo0wnWysXo&feature=channel_video_title]
I think this is what we all really want. It was very cool the first four years before I was born.
Point of fact part 2.... Jeff
Point of fact part 2.... Jeff then you arent paid a salary..... here is a couple of simple definitions:\
sal·a·ry (sl-r, slr)
n. pl. sal·a·ries
Fixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis.
Wage Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week. Compare living wage, minimum wage.
and since you are fond of wordy and lengthy explanations here is this....
Salary Definition Regulation
Since the most frequently-requested overtime exemption regulation is the one defining what a true salary is, it is presented here in its entirety for the convenience of employers who need to see the full definition as adopted and enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. Following is the text of 29 C.F.R. 541.602:
Sec. 541.602 Salary basis.
General rule. An employee will be considered to be paid on a "salary basis" within the meaning of these regulations if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. Subject to the exceptions provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. Exempt employees need not be paid for any workweek in which they perform no work. An employee is not paid on a salary basis if deductions from the employee's predetermined compensation are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.
So salaried workers (at least those who TRULY earn a salary) can work all the overtime they want, it wont change the paycheck unless such overtime is outside of their normal job description. If a salaried worker wants to abuse the system then working less is what they would do to gain a financial advantage.
Kyle, tell that to the
Kyle, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people whose contracts and pay stubs say "salary" on them yet receive overtime. Your relentless pursuit of one word in my post does nothing to discredit the content.
Chris says "As hard as people are trying to find the AstroTurf here, it just doesn't exist." There are numerous ads on Craigslist advertising for protestors paying between $350 - $650 per week and they've been there for almost a month.
Wow, salaried employees of
Wow, salaried employees of the state get paid overtime?
That never happens in the private sector.
One more way the government overspends.
The word salary seems to be
The word salary seems to be used two ways. One is being used the same as "pay". Workers get paid a "salary". That's the same as saying they get paid a "wage". The vast majority of them are hourly workers. Then there are the ones who get a set "salary". It's a fixed amount and amount does not go up or down based on the number of hours worked. A very familiar example to many of us is the military. Work 30 hours (never happened) or 80 hours, you get the same amount in your check.
Guess it depends on how you want to spin the argument.
“Exempt” employees, as the
“Exempt” employees, as the name implies, are “exempt” from certain federal wage and hour laws that otherwise apply to most employees. If the employee is “non-exempt” all wage and hour laws apply to them. The most notable example is overtime. Non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime, exempt employees are not.
There are three types of employees that are exempt under federal law: executive, administrative and professional. A big misconception is that paying a "salary" alone makes an employee "exempt." Not true. In addition to payment on a salary basis, there is a “duties test.” For example, an “executive exempt” person’s “primary duties” must consist of the management of the enterprise (or a recognized department or subdivision) and also the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more employees, and the right to hire and fire. If those additional tests are not met, the employee is not “executive exempt.” Both the “administrative” and “professional” exemption each have their own additional “duties” tests.
Improper classification could have serious undesirable effects. These unwanted effects can be hugely magnified in a class action lawsuit.
Is there really such a thing as mandatory overtime?
Simply put, yes. Employers have the freedom to set the terms or conditions of employment, including duties and hours. Since employment is employment-at-will, if an employee does not work the hours the employer requires, he or she can be fired. In order to prevent abuse of employees, wage and hour laws were passed. The main one, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that nonexempt employees must be paid at a 50% higher rate—time-and-a-half, or overtime—for any hours worked in a work week over 40. The employer can require the workers to work overtime; but non-exempt employees have to be compensated at a higher level for the overtime, and this overtime pay helps limit mandatory overtime use. After all, most businesses would prefer to not pay their non-exempt employees more, so the notion is that they will only require overtime when it’s really worth the extra expense.
How can a non-exempt employee refuse mandatory overtime without being fired?
The best answer is with plenty of tact. Remember that employers appreciate the hard work of their non-exempt employees, but they also understand that there are times when circumstances dictate breach of protocol. Life events such as family emergencies are examples of reasons that are directly protected under the Family Medical Leave Act. For situations other than emergencies, ask your employer respectfully and if they refuse you will still be responsible for the overtime.
http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/employment-law/wage_and_hour/refus…