Bankers and Imbeciles

I am currently in a overwhelming rage.  I just read this Bloomberg article about bankers' and billionaires' opinions on their tax obligations.

These criminals use shady/borderline-illegal business practices to destroy the financial stability of this country yet it's the protester who is the "imbecile"?

One of the asshats, John A. Allison IV, says "Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let's call it an attack on the very productive."  I'm not sure of Mr. Allison's daily duties as former CEO of BB&T Corp. but I'm relatively certain it didn't produce anything other than the taste of vomit in the back of my throat.  Calling the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans "very productive" is like calling pimps "investment bankers".  It's nonsensical and masks the reality of the tactics involved in acquiring and maintaining those positions.

No one is upset that these criminals individuals have been successful.  We are upset because many of them destroyed millions of lives in the process and then are given absurd tax incentives and loopholes to ensure they stay wealthy.  In a very basic sense, an extra 2% tax on income over $1,000,000 would be an additional $20,000 and, depending on how this income was acquired, result in a tax rate of 37%.  This would still leave the individual with $630,000.  Meanwhile (again, in a very basic sense not including tax credits or deductions) the single mom paying 15% on her $30,000 salary is left with $25,500.  Tax credits and deductions aside, food, shelter, transportation, and general quality of life become much more uncertain for the individual bringing home $2000/month than the individual bringing home $30,000/month.

This whole scenario is assuming any of the wealthy individual's income was actually considered income.  Capital gains on long-term investments, and several other forms of income, aren't technically counted as income.  The Long-Term Capital Gains tax is currently set at 15% which coincidentally is also the same tax rate the single mom in the previous example, working and earning $8,500-$34,500, is responsible for.  Yeah, that makes sense.

So to insinuate that the lowly hourly workers are just jealous and looking for a handout is arrogant and offensive.

According to a report from the IRS, average household income increased 62% from 1979 through 2007.  I won't list every year's inflation rate but the inflation rates during 1979-1981 were 11.22%, 13.58%, and 10.35%. respectively.  And as anyone with a credit card can tell you, calculating percentages of percentages is messy business.  This is significantly skewed by the fact that income for the top 1% "more than tripled" during this time making the actual number for the remaining 99% a bit lower than the reported 62%.  Factor in inflation, and the old adage of "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" doesn't sound too far from the truth.

(Quick math timeout to illustrate the previous comment:

Lets say all of your monthly bills cost you $1000 (if only, right?).  A 10.35% annual inflation rate means that the next year those same bills will cost you $1103.50.  That hurts already.  Most people won't be getting a raise worth $100 extra every month to cover that increase in expenses.  However, if that 10.35% increase came after previous annual increases of 11.22% and 13.58% your bills would have increased from $1000 to $1393.98 in just three years.

Using $1000 in 1979 as a base, and calculating each year's inflation rate on top of the previous year's rate, we see that in 2007 the same bills would cost roughly $3181.84.  An increase of 318%.  And, as stated previously, average household income (even including the top 1%) increased just 62% over this same time period while income for the top 1% alone "more than tripled".  Regardless of the actual number, roughly tripling income would account for the roughly tripling expenses.)



I'll leave you with a few quotes from the unjustly vilified patriots interviewed for the Bloomberg piece.

-When asked about willingness to pay higher tax rates Blackstone Group LP CEO Stephen Schwarzman instead chose to complain about low-income families who pay no income tax saying "...we should all be part of the system".  Classy.

-Robert Rosenkranz, CEO of Delphi Financial Group Inc., claims the 1% should be getting thanks instead of persecution.  He says "It's simply a fact that pretty much all the private-sector jobs in America are created by the decisions of 'the 1 percent' to hire and invest".  So the next time you see a new small business open in your town make sure to thank Robert Rosenkranz.

(No word as of yet on how Mr. Guildenstern feels about the U.S. tax code.)

-CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Peter Schiff claims his taxes are "more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf".


Billionaire CEOs: modern-day serfs.

Occupy ALL the Things

I have been silent for quite a while on here.  I've been teaching myself web design (HTML, CSS, Javascript).  The first two went quite well.  The third is more complex and will take a bit more to fully grasp, and then eons more to master.

But I return to my ranting forum for one purpose: the Occupy movement. (I capitalize out of respect)

I have had many political, fiscal, and generational discussions in my life but I don't think I've ever come across a topic that is misunderstood in such a unique way.  The Occupy movement is an outcry from Americans disgusted with their ultra-partisan, auction-block of a government being allowed to bully their citizens (and citizens of other countries as well) and then expect thanks for it.

Many revelations have come to light in the 2+ months since Occupy began.  We see that Congress and the White House still don't seem to take it seriously.  Employees of the banks themselves have nothing but taunts.  ("Get a job." seems to be the most prevalent and misinformed comment.)  We see that police departments are allowed to use any force necessary to move people where they want them.  We have seen 25 year old punk cops use excessive force, and on many occasions pepper spray and tear gas, against war veterans.  Just yesterday I saw a photo of an 84 year old woman who was pepper sprayed in Seattle.  With all due respect, I can't imagine she was much of a physical threat.

But the most disturbing part is that many Americans can't be bothered enough to look past the flashy headlines and see what is actually happening.

If I got all of my information from official police department quotes and the evening news I would think that Occupy was made up entirely of unemployed, slacker college hippies smoking weed and looking for a handout.  This could not be further from the truth.  The Occupy movement is incredibly transparent in their makeup and motives.  People of all ages and backgrounds are part of Occupy.  Jesus, Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie showed up in support. (Combined age: 156. Or 2167 depending on how you read the previous sentence.)  Occupy Wall Street had organized a library of an estimated 4000 books.  These books were electronically logged and searchable.  I use the past tense because Billionaire Bloomberg had most of these books, along with any possessions left behind when fleeing officers in riot gear, destroyed while forcing people out of Zuccotti Park.

I find it difficult to focus my thoughts on writing coherent sentences on this subject.  I am so incredibly disgusted by the hypocrisy and uncaring nature of nearly anyone in power in my government.  President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had nothing but praise for protests in Egypt, as well as other countries involved in the so-called "Arab Spring".  But when our citizens attempt to use identical forms of protest (and much more peacefully might I add) that support is conspicuously absent.

I don't hate money or corporations.  In fact, I quite enjoy the former and have several corporations that I fully support.  But neither should be allowed to influence the votes of our lawmakers.  When debating tougher regulations on investments, environmental issues, even school lunches, the interests of the citizens of this country should ALWAYS come before the interests of the companies involved.

(Warning: From here on out is political and semi-obscenity-laced.)

Can we please stop verbally blowing Ronald Reagan?  His trickle-down plan was horseshit from the start.  If you want to help poor Americans you have two options: 1) Stop taking so much of their money. Or 2) Give them more money.  I'm not big on handing out money so I particularly like option 1.  Notice how neither of those approaches are "Give money to banks, corporations, and the wealthy and they will fix it for us by creating jobs and doing what's best for everyone" because that is ridiculous.  It didn't work then but apparently we are too fucking stupid to learn from the past. (re: two gulf wars)

Bailing out the banks was exactly the same approach as Reagan's trickle-down bullshit.  If you have banks failing and people losing their homes because they can't make their payments you, once again, have two approaches.  (I'm not mentioning that the banks created the problem on their own while government oversight was so feigned that the practices were almost endorsed.)  1) Give money to the banks to ensure they don't fail.  Hope they use this money to pay off some of their own domestic debts and then ease the crunch on their homeowners.  2) Give money to the homeowners themselves.  Have stipulations and restrictions that the money can only be used for mortgage payments.  Give them the option to use that money to make their normal monthly payments or use one lump sum to lower their overall mortgage amount.  People who wanted to keep their homes would probably choose the monthly payment route to ease their monthly financial burden.  People who wanted to sell their homes would probably use the lump sum amount so that the total amount of their mortgage would more closely resemble the actual value of the house, therefore dropping the asking price and making the home more attractive.

Both of the above options end with our government's money in the banking institution's pocket.  But the first way bypasses any regard for the homeowner.  It is completely reliant on the bank making the "right decision" and helping the homeowners they already showed they were willing to screw.  In fact, a good deal of this money went to pay for bonuses for executives and outstanding debts the bank had, many from over-seas lenders.  Meaning, the money that was meant to help homeowners actually went to executives and over-seas lenders.  Meanwhile, our government couldn't even be tasked with tracking where the money actually went.

You're telling me that no one in the entire fucking United States government thought that the banks would look out for themselves rather than the homeowners?  I don't know whether I hope Congress was so inept that they didn't see that possibility or that they allowed it because they were corrupt.  I honestly can't decide which is worse.

Option 2 in the above scenario allows homeowners to keep or sell their houses while easing their entire financial burden.  Having help paying your mortgage means you don't have to feed your kids $.89 hamburgers from McDonald's.  In one move you have helped the money crunch and potentially helped with peripheral issues such as childhood nutrition.  Freeing up money in the household is good for the homeowner and businesses alike.  If all your money is going to your mortgage then you don't have money to spend anywhere else.  And is this scenario the "bailout" money STILL makes its way to the banks for them to use on bonuses and their own debts.

Why was option 2 not an actual option?  Why have the banks not been held accountable for their illegal business practices that brought the entire country to the brink of financial ruin?  Why has Congress not been held accountable for their actions enabling the practices and then cleaning up the mess afterward?  Why are these banks and corporations allowed to manipulate the tax code to minimize, or even eliminate, the need to pay taxes while the average American has no such loopholes?

These questions along with many others including healthcare (How can a government force a citizen to buy a product? Why does Congress get better healthcare for free than their constituents can purchase?), foreign aid/wars (How can we shovel cash at dictators who openly commit acts of violence on their own citizens, and then turn on them and take them down when they show a weakness?), and corporate influence on Washington (see above) are what Occupy is all about.  You can't boil it down to one point that can be bastardized into a Red or Blue argument.  And that really pisses off the opponents of change and the defenders of the status quo.

I'm not talking about the individuals that make up Occupy.  If you go to each person and ask them to name their top three issues they want addressed you will get a myriad of answers spanning every conceivable topic.  Because Occupy is NOT about banding together to occupy Wall Street, or Boston, or any specific thing.  It's about pissed off Americans banding together and telling the U.S. government that the status quo is no longer acceptable.  Occupy doesn't expect Congressmen and businessmen to have epiphanies of the soul and suddenly find the goodness in their heart.  Occupy's success will not be anchored by how many politicians and celebrities join the movement.  Occupy is about having an informed public, conscious of its governments' actions, that is willing to hold elected officials and businesses accountable for their actions.

An ignorant public is an easily manipulated public.  Occupation does not destroy its target.  In its current incarnation, to Occupy something means to observe, illuminate, and become knowledgeable about it.  And knowledge is power.

So, regardless of your financial, political, sexual, generational, or any other affiliation, I say:  Don't Occupy one thing.  Occupy ALL the things.




(image source: http://nycfaultline.com/2011/10/08/occupy-all-the-things/)