Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditHenry Kravis, founding partner in the private equity company KKR, made $450 million last year--that's $1.3 million per day, or $51,369 per hour. He did it largely by borrowing money to take over public companies, then selling off the company's assets to pay the debt, laying off thousands of workers, and slashing benefits for those who remained. (If you've seen Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, you know the drill.)
And for his efforts to move us closer to Gilded Age-like inequality, the government rewards Kravis by taxing most of his income at the 15 percent capital gains rate--one-half the rate paid by secretaries, teachers, firemen, and cops among others--instead of a 35 percent ordinary income rate. A gift from Congress to the private equity and hedge-funders who line their campaign coffers and pay lobbyists millions to maintain an unjust status quo.
I've written previously about this tax loophole travesty, and the fact that Democrats have taken a pass on rectifying it. Today, Robert Greenwald premiers the first in his War on Greed series of short films that will take on this outrage. He hopes to build momentum and pressure for change and, with that in mind, he's holding the film premiere outside of Kravis' 29-room penthouse on Park Avenue. (One of Kravis' five homes, this one features a wood-burning fireplace in every room but the kitchen.)
Take a look:
Greenwald does a terrific and spirited job shining a light on this issue. As Andrew Ross Sorkin reports in the New York Times today, "The War on Greed, Starring the Homes of Henry Kravis, is a tongue-in-cheek story--think "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" meets "Roger & Me"--detailing Mr. Kravis's homes and lifestyle, juxtaposed against the homes and incomes of working families." An engineer interviewed in the film cuts to the heart of the fairness issue: "When I borrow money on a credit card, I'm rewarded with high interest payments, hidden fees, annual charges that could put me over the limit. It affects my credit negatively. When Henry Kravis borrows money, he gets rewarded with millions of dollars in tax breaks. And he ends up paying less in taxes percentage-wise than his maid. That's just not fair."
Greenwald is aiming to create an environment which mobilizes outrage in populist and intelligent ways, and makes these titans of greed and their money toxic. Look for the next three in this series of short films to feature interviews with workers around Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday; workers screwed by Kravis on Valentine's Day; and promoting actions to take around legislation to close the loophole, culminating with an April 15 demand to make the richest among us pay their fair share.
Complete Convention Coverage »
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
Keep up the good fight on this one, Katrina! One of the rare subjects, perhaps the only one so far, that I am mostly on board with you on. Corporate raiders do this in the ordinary course of their business and ought to pay ordinary income tax rates....or alternatively, even better IMHO, is to eliminate any kind of gains-related taxes (which isn't too likely)!!!
Posted by Happy at 12/06/2007 @ 12:38pm
I wish Greenwald the best and look forward to his films. I think that no matter your view (good or bad) on "greed" you can agree it is important for the broad public to have a chance to understand how the very richest live and some of the ways that they get so very rich. In a time of exploding wealth inequality it is appropriate for the very richest to be put under a microscope publicly.
I only wish that Greenwald would show the public how titans like Bill Gates or Paul Allen really live. A 26-room penthouse on Park Avenue is certainly no small potatoes, but, in comparison to REAL money, like that of Paul Allen - who has funds to expend on the development and construction of multi-hundred foot yachts with dual helipads, an onboard recording studio, glass bottom'd hulls in plush entertainment rooms, as well as his own personal deep water submarine, his own personal experimental low-orbital "space ship", and large estates worldwide - Greenwald is missing the true picture of the super-rich.
Posted by Zero at 12/06/2007 @ 12:53pm
Likewise, someone needs to give us a tour of Bono's house, and show us how much money he has made trotting around the globe proclaiming what a voice for the world's poor and downtrodden he's become.
Posted by Zero at 12/06/2007 @ 12:56pm
Posted by ZERO 12/06/2007 @ 12:53pm
You forgot Warren Buffett.
Posted by ACook at 12/06/2007 @ 1:04pm
Well, first...
seems the Editor of "The Nation" would have figured out how to make a link...
"Take a look:
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N8RsFwsODzE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">"?!?!?!!??
Second, always fun to IMAGINE the future targetting of the "super-rich" for a tax hike, because as everybody knows they ARE in fact enormously stupid and incapable of hiding the wealth when those tax hikes come.
Posted by Mask at 12/06/2007 @ 1:22pm
Likewise, someone needs to give us a tour of Bono's house, and show us how much money he has made trotting around the globe proclaiming what a voice for the world's poor and downtrodden he's become.
Posted by ZERO 12/06/2007 @ 12:56pm
err...but does he pay tax at a lower rate than the ordinary US citizen? That's the point here, isn't it?
Posted by oneworld at 12/06/2007 @ 1:39pm
The Economist 7 July 2007
'...The argument centres on one long-established discrepancy--the gentler tax treatment of capital gains than annual income. In America this dates back to the 1920s, and was originally intended to reward small-business owners and entrepreneurs for "sweat equity"--the hard work they put in to building a business from scratch. Now it is benefiting people in private-equity firms (and to a lesser extent hedge funds), who receive a large part of their pay in the form of "carried interest"--usually 20% of investment gains. In America these are taxed at the 15% capital-gains rate, rather than 35% income tax. In Britain the benefits are even more generous. Those who hold an investment for two years can pay 10% on the gains, compared with a 40% rate of income tax.
In theory, an efficient tax system would tax both income and capital gains at the same rate--and allow people to make their decisions on merit alone. But even if you think capital gains and income should be taxed differently, carried interest looks like income, not equity, and should be treated as such....
The private-equity industry would do well to heed this populism. It has, on the whole, a good story to tell. As a force for efficiency, the industry is more often a source of investment and new jobs than a rapacious asset stripper. To work its magic, private equity does not need an unfair tax break, designed for another age and another set of entrepreneurs.
There are lessons too for politicians. When authorities tinker with the tax system to favour some forms of capital over another, the distortions they create usually come at a cost. If you think the tax system is unfair, blame the people who created it, not the financiers who took advantage of it.'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/06/2007 @ 1:52pm
ZERO,
You know that HAPPY is going to be saying that you are just jealous. You know the routine right, the wealthy worked "hard" or "smart" to deserve the buttloads of money they have. If you just worked hard, you too could own your own submarine and helicopter. Those things are there for the taking if you just want them enough. lol
No one points out that these buttplugs stack the deck through their purchased senators and representatives so that they continue to keep rolling in the dough while slowing others from even approaching a small fraction of their worth in cash.
How does the saying go, "it takes money to make money". If you don't have money, you don't make any money. Most Americans are just breaking even or worse and here we have our idiot in chief telling us that our economy is strong and things are just fine and dandy.
Whatever the American Dream was, it is slowly turning into the American Nightmare.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/06/2007 @ 1:56pm
Bono, Preacher on Poverty, Tarnishes Halo With Irish Tax Move -- By Fergal O'Brien
'Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid.
After Ireland said it would scrap a break that lets musicians and artists avoid paying taxes on royalties, Bono and his U2 bandmates earlier this year moved their music publishing company to the Netherlands. The Dublin group, which Forbes estimates earned $110 million in 2005, will pay about 5 percent tax on their royalties, less than half the Irish rate.
``Among the wealthiest people I suppose it's the norm,'' Jill Cassidy, 23, said on South King Street near a plaque marking the site of Dublin's Dandelion market, where U2 played some of its earliest concerts. ``In U2's position, it does come across as quite hypocritical.''
The tax move has tainted the image of Bono, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and U2 at home. Now promoting a new DVD, book and album, the band is fighting back. Lead guitarist David Evans, known as The Edge, earlier this month defended the publishing company's move as a sensible decision for a group that makes 90 percent of its money outside Ireland....'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/06/2007 @ 2:02pm
If you think the tax system is unfair, blame the people who created it, not the financiers who took advantage of it.'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 12/06/2007 @ 1:52pm
Spoken like a true conservative. I would agree that the selective tax breaks opened the door to this. But, you must concede that these "financiers" you just defended are the ones paying the idiots in D.C. to put the loopholes in the system for them to take advantage of in the first place.
Most of our representatives in Washington couldn't tie their shoelaces without help let alone write tax laws and know what they were writing about. Most of them don't even read the bills and legislation that they vote on.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/06/2007 @ 2:06pm
The Economist 7 July 2007
'...The argument centres on one long-established discrepancy--the gentler tax treatment of capital gains than annual income. In America this dates back to the 1920s, and was originally intended to reward small-business owners and entrepreneurs for "sweat equity"--the hard work they put in to building a business from scratch. Now it is benefiting people in private-equity firms (and to a lesser extent hedge funds), who receive a large part of their pay in the form of "carried interest"--usually 20% of investment gains. In America these are taxed at the 15% capital-gains rate, rather than 35% income tax. In Britain the benefits are even more generous. Those who hold an investment for two years can pay 10% on the gains, compared with a 40% rate of income tax. ...
The private-equity industry would do well to heed this populism. ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/06/2007 @ 2:34pm
He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
Follow the $$$ from HRC to its sources. Elect this GOPer in DEM sheepskin & there will be no leadership for change. She knows who her real friends are ... just ask Marc Rich.
Posted by sloper at 12/06/2007 @ 3:22pm
PS the intrepid hillary and barack both (along with the intrepid christopher) managed to forget to vote to undo the imminent AMT hit on the middle class, incidentally replacing lost tax revenue with enhanced taxation on the hyperrich.
so much for economic populists in the Democratic POTUS lineup.
Maybe Greenwald can pencil in a few scenes for these three morally bankrupt hypocrites in his new films?
Posted by Zero at 12/06/2007 @ 3:32pm
Well, it is time for the Fair Tax. If we switch to that, then Henry Kravis will pay tax on every dollar he spends, and he won't get a tax rate reduction based on how he earned the money. He will pay tax on every single fireplace he buys....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/06/2007 @ 3:36pm
Well, it is time for the Fair Tax. If we switch to that, then Henry Kravis will pay tax on every dollar he spends, and he won't get a tax rate reduction based on how he earned the money. He will pay tax on every single fireplace he buys....
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/06/2007 @ 3:36pm
I love it when ILP and I agree!
Get rid of the income tax. It is has been a tool of incremental socialism and for Congressional corruption since it's inception.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/06/2007 @ 3:52pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/06/2007 @ 3:36pm
As noted by LVLIBERTY's agreement...a push for a national sales tax (or flat tax) will not find you many enemies on the RIGHT, ILP....
but on the Left.
Posted by Mask at 12/06/2007 @ 4:21pm
As noted by LVLIBERTY's agreement...a push for a national sales tax (or flat tax) will not find you many enemies on the RIGHT, ILP....
but on the Left.
Posted by MASK 12/06/2007 @ 4:21pm
Yeah it is rare to find someone on the left who doesn't embrace every new tax increase proposal that comes along. Though ILP and I disagree on so many things, I respect his openness to something so basically fair.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/06/2007 @ 4:31pm
Accountants and tax lawyers can find only so many loopholes. If capital gains were taxed at a higher rate, either (a) more taxes would be raised or (b) less financial speculation and churning - not only useless but often objectively harmful to the real world - will take place. Both would be positive results in my book.
Replacing the income tax with a national sales tax would simply be regressive and a further boon to the wealthy. And, believe me, corruption flourished in Washington long before the income tax was implemented (see President U.S. Grant, the railroads and the various trusts, among others).
Posted by cka2nd at 12/06/2007 @ 4:37pm
KVH provides a very good example how the systemic aspects work in this new era of unbridled laissez faire with structures in place that more than make a "robber barron" possible; they encourage it. The dems knew of this tax code glitch, and as you can see, have rushed after 11/2006 to correct the tax laws to repair the hole for the sake of fairness and other noble thoughts. They know how dead in the water their election prospects would be without the wonderful campaign contributions provided by gang rapists working the economy everyway they can that includes our public coffers and institutions.
All this economic rape is so opaque to the public and by design. What watch-dogs who are in place do not consider public transparency; they consider their own constituents - congress. With rare exceptions, corporate media will always take care of their own first. So, if transparency does not come from congress, and the if media is not in the tradition of Thomas Paine, but of Thomas Payne-the investment firm, how does the public know? We can't be outraged by something we don't know (just powerlessly suspect). There's free speech and link tv, democracy now, the INN and ashland reports, the nation, and other media outlets that help those that seek. What about the overwhelming bulk of citizenry?
We can just go with it as matter of fact, or we can demand transparency and accountability through independent bodies whose constituents are not business or congress (we can't divide the two). Am I talking about regulatory bodies? You betchya. I don't' mean by the current governmental agencies in place, what few they may be. That's like asking the watch dog to bark and snarl and expect the dog to keep the master of the house out of his own home.
The more people know you would think and hope the more they will be disgusted. If the shimmering and glorious adjectives and adverbs like 'free' market, freedom and democratic economy, gov't (read public) activity bad - private activity good, and soforth are stripped away, people would see that the cake (ie the ideology of the free market) is rotten flesh of real people made to look like a celebration and then coated with frosting.
The real facts and figures are out now after 30 years of propaganda to soften the bed for neoliberalism (free-market policies). In performance, the gains of producing new capital under this model are dismal over the last 25 years compared to the unfettered ability of the policies to redistribute the existing wealth that is evident wherever freemarket policies have take foothold. The rich are getting richer not by clever innovation, but by stealing from the rest of us.
Posted by steve foster at 12/06/2007 @ 4:44pm
Where I can find some agreement with some on the right on taxes is government fees and such. We see this especially at the state level, where governors will back away from a fight over taxes but still raise money by nickel and diming people to death by increasing lisence fees and penalties and such. I don't even have to deal with this stuff, but it is the kind of thing that really burns people up after a while, and with good reason. A reasonable fee, clearly earmarked for a specific purpose, is one thing, but hosing people because you have to drive on the expressway, or because hunters are unpopular, or because parking tickets eventually catch up with you, or because your son in prison would like to call you up on the phone (and all the experts say this is a good thing), or you are that most evil of beings, a smoker, really smacks of petty tyranny.
OK, I'll go back to being Mr. Commie now. Expropriate the Rich!
Posted by cka2nd at 12/06/2007 @ 4:47pm
Posted by CKA2ND 12/06/2007 @ 4:37pm
CKA, what would happen to people who sold their HOME...a capital asset...under your plan for higher cap gains taxes?
Posted by Mask at 12/06/2007 @ 4:48pm
"but hosing people because you..... or you are that most evil of beings, a smoker, really smacks of petty tyranny. ----Posted by CKA2ND 12/06/2007 @ 4:47pm
Oooh, we might turn you into a libertarian, yet, CKA!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 12/06/2007 @ 4:50pm
Thomas Jefferson, once said "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
a picture says a thousand words. [tinyurl.com]
what a monopolist deserves [tinyurl.com]
blast from the past. [thetalentshow.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/06/2007 @ 10:21pm
I liked the article Ms. Vanden Heuvel. I would try to generalize this particular case, into the general case. We live in a society that worships money and adores 'people that make money' even when they operate in the verge of legality like for example the "sub prime lenders".
Why don't we worship bank robbers, we should. The answer is they rob the rich, not the poor. Where is our morality? Are we going to be measured by the money we have all the time?
My second generalization is towards companies' 'easy solutions' and the 'value of doing without thinking'. These are also 'two other gods' in this society. When this guy touches an indebted company, he 'restructures' it by diminishing
Posted by Frank42 at 12/07/2007 @ 01:23am
(I am continuing...) ...by diminishing its assets and workers and gets cash out of it. Cash that does not represent 30% of the real value of the company. What is the merit? What an astounding manager! Almost anybody can do that. The third solution (the hard one) is to redesign, reengineer the company; that is what thinkers not only 'doers' would opt to. Why are we so prone of "taking action" without looking at the consequences? Irak, hopefully not Iran, are examples of these great executives.
Finally, I would like to say that as a society we are wasteful. We have this culture of tear down, build new, be radical. A company, be it public or private, is an accumulation of hard work of individuals, human beings that put all their talents and hard work onto it. These, the people, have much more value than any asset. We destroy what they built and some stupid manager wasted with -most of the time- hurried decisions. But the people, the greatest asset, is still there. There is always possibilities when we have great people, we deceive them and their work when we close a company because of the cash problems. DON'T WASTE, RECYCLE!!! HAVE IMAGINATION AND PATIENCE BECAUSE GOOD THINGS ALWAYS TAKE TIME... BAD THINGS ARE THE FASTEST OPTION WE ARE TEMPTED INTO.
Respect the richness of the people! And this goes specially for the "outsourceing companies". They do not respect the work and creativity of the American people...so they don't respect our very essence. We should not buy from them!!
Posted by Frank42 at 12/07/2007 @ 01:43am
My Gosh...and I though Empty SPENCE showed the height of stupidity discussing HIS former life as a bank robber....but...
"Why don't we worship bank robbers, we should. The answer is they rob the rich, not the poor."----Posted by FRANK42 12/07/2007 @ 01:23am
Bank robbers rob from EVERYBODY, FRANK. The money taken is RE-paid to the bank from the Insurance Companies...who then raise the premiums the banks pay...who then pass along the premiums to their customers in higher service fees. Rob a bank and "the poor" (or atleast bank account owners) get screwed, not "the rich".
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2007 @ 10:10am
Thomas Jefferson, once said "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Good post Frosty. Evidently Jefferson had a crystal ball into the future.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/07/2007 @ 12:26pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/07/2007 @ 12:26pm
Maybe I missed it, WOLF. When did Bank of America or Citigroup start issuing money?
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2007 @ 1:00pm
Maybe I missed it, WOLF. When did Bank of America or Citigroup start issuing money?
Posted by MASK 12/07/2007 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person
The Federal Reserve is a private bank. And beyond that fact, the Fed responds primarily to the interests of the banking institutions while making policy decsions.
Posted by Oustbush at 12/07/2007 @ 1:32pm
The Federal Reserve is a private bank.----Posted by OUSTBUSH 12/07/2007 @ 1:32pm
So there is no Governmental input into the selection of...or confirmation of...the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve? It's a private enterprise?
Posted by Mask at 12/07/2007 @ 4:00pm
So there is no Governmental input into the selection of...or confirmation of...the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve? It's a private enterprise?
Posted by MASK 12/07/2007 @ 4:00pm
Perhaps you should read up on the privatization of the federal reserve MASK. There was quite an ordeal over the issue.
Citibank and Bank of America don't have to issue money, the federal reserve issues them money at lower interests to cover the asses when they lose their shirts like in this subprime lending fiasco.
If a private citizen screws up you don't see the fed doling them out of a jam.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/07/2007 @ 5:09pm
The religion of "me" or greed is a result of the domination mode of social interaction that is the result of the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism). Prior to these we had the Romans and Greeks pantheistic religions more in tune with nature and allowing all citizens to have the boundry-breaking, spiritual experience of entheogens (Soma, which was probably magic mushrooms), during which they were most likely to experience the all-is-one epiphany that prevents any concept of me, or greed or ego to prevail over the long run. Going back even further historically, the entheogens were eaten by the hunter-gathering societies and at low levels these mushrooms gave them better visual acquity and at higher doses it stimulated their erotic arousal, both of which evolution would "select" them for. The earliest cave paintings shows men holding mushrooms and with mushrooms coming out of their body. The "Iceman" found frozen in the Alps was carrying a pouch with mushrooms in it. We as a species need to at least have cultural "shamans" who connect us with these spiritual answers or at best a fieldtrip at age 18 to the local nature spot with experienced spiritual guides taking us thru our "coming of age/intoduction to our place in natures unfolding" entheogenic ceremony. We need to have what the late Terence McKenna called an "Archaic Revival". This might be the spiritual nudge that will get our species back off the brink. Of course, these entheogens have been made illegal because they "pose the greatest threat to our very civilization". Yea, that's the point. This civilization just isn't civil.
Posted by Larry Thoma at 12/07/2007 @ 6:30pm
Posted by LARRY THOMA 12/07/2007 @ 6:30pm
you seem like a fun guy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/07/2007 @ 6:34pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/07/2007 @ 6:34pm
more so than even a barrel of monkeys, Frosty
Posted by Larry Thoma at 12/07/2007 @ 8:06pm
You forgot Warren Buffett.
Posted by ACOOK 12/06/2007 @ 1:04pm
You mean Warren "If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent." Buffet, who said, "If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."?
Or do you mean, the Warren "[The perfect amount of money to leave children is] enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing." Buffet, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, and said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”?
Maybe you mean another Warren Buffet?
Posted by Eric65 at 12/07/2007 @ 8:08pm
Posted by LARRY THOMA 12/07/2007 @ 6:30pm
Good post. Mycology is a very interesting topic. There is much to be learned from the study of the intersection of "religion" and fungus. That'd be waaaay of topic...so I'll not digress, but some simple research on the topic might fascinate any non-brainwashed curious people.
Posted by Eric65 at 12/07/2007 @ 8:15pm
"...might fascinate any non-brainwashed curious people."
Posted by ERIC65 12/07/2007 @ 8:15pm
Oh, and you too, liberty.
Posted by Eric65 at 12/07/2007 @ 8:16pm
opps...pasted the same quote twice, in my above post...
Meant to paste, “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”
So I did.
Posted by Eric65 at 12/07/2007 @ 8:43pm
Oh, and you too, liberty.
Posted by ERIC65 12/07/2007 @ 8:16pm
ya know,
LIBS has posted here many times on the benefit of "herbal" living.
i wouldn't be surprised..........................
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/08/2007 @ 12:49am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 12/07/2007 @ 5:09pm
WOLF, who appoints the Chairman of the Fed? Is he/she an elected official?
Who CONFIRMS the appointment? Are they elected officials?
Okay...then how is it "private"?
Posted by Mask at 12/08/2007 @ 08:35am
Posted by MASK 12/08/2007 @ 08:35am
Who creates the short list of candidates, that the admin. gets to choose from?
Posted by Eric65 at 12/08/2007 @ 09:34am
"Prior to these we had the Romans ..."
Posted by LARRY THOMA 12/07/2007 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person
The Rome was the archetypal Fascist state. Every fascist from Napoleon through Hitler has tried to implement their model. I know some lions with full stomachs, who would doubtless disagree on some of the finer points you've attempted making.
Posted by MASK 12/08/2007 @ 08:35am | ignore this person
Typical, non-point ...
Posted by V at 12/08/2007 @ 8:24pm
"That's like asking the watch dog to bark and snarl and expect the dog to keep the master of the house out of his own home."
Posted by STEVE FOSTER 12/06/2007 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person
Great analogy, metaphor. There is also something, more than a "mere" seed. Of doing more than (whining not withstanding), submitting, and bemoaning ones fate on the sidelines. Of not, having abstracted oneself from the outcomes of the times one lives in.
As an aside (not as far afield as the relative merits of shrooms). The myriad examples of self negation, intermixed with a strange (because of what the constitution enables, therefore, conditioned ) sense of powerlessness, revealed in and on these blogs. Is why I consider the "man on the street," usually found inhabiting sitcoms, (though not quite as evil, as Fred Flintstone) the greatest creation of the M.S.M. (as I consider television fare more social engineering, than entertainment, I include, I take, see, the "news," and "entertainment"as a unity) extant.
"They" can only take what's given to them. And that, only if the people allow it. Again, in my humble opinion, it's participation, it's activism, or it's (a continuing) hell.
Posted by V at 12/08/2007 @ 8:54pm
Maybe you mean another Warren Buffet?
Posted by ERIC65 12/07/2007 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person
Yep...last time I heard Buffet would more than welcome higher taxes for the rich, and is appalled at the Bush administration's tax breaks to rich which do nothing to spur investment and productivity. Buffet lives pretty modestly.
Now lets consider what the average net worth of our Congressfolks is. Aren't they right up there with CEO's as far as net worth? You want change, you need to reform Congress by voting all these turkeys out of office so they stop feeding at the public trough. Don't hold your breadth for any meaningful tax reform till you do. Average middle class taxpayer on a salary employed by someone else who is taking withholding and paying FICA is getting screwed big time. They pay higher taxes proportionately than anybody.
Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2007 @ 9:18pm
Meanwhile the rich are getting much richer and luxuriating in the most fantastic conspicuous consumption since the Gilded Age. Robert Frank has dubbed the new American world of the super-rich "Richistan."
In Richistan there is a two-year waiting list for $50 million 200-foot yachts. In Richistan Rolex watches are considered Wal-Mart junk. Richistanians sport $736,000 Franck Muller timepieces, sign their names with $700,000 Mont Blanc jewel-encrusted pens. Their valets, butlers (with $100,000 salaries), and bodyguards carry the $42,000 Louis Vuitton handbags of wives and mistresses.
Richistanians join clubs open only to those with $100 million, pay $650,000 for golf club memberships, eat $50 hamburgers and $1,000 omelettes, drink $90 a bottle Bling mineral water and down $10,000 "martinis on a rock" (gin or vodka poured over a diamond) at New York's Algonquin Hotel.
Who are the Richistanians? They are CEOs who have moved their companies abroad and converted the wages they formerly paid Americans into $100 million compensation packages for themselves. They are investment bankers and hedge fund managers, who created the subprime mortgage derivatives that currently threaten to collapse the economy. One of them was paid $1.7 billion last year. The $575 million that each of 25 other top earners were paid is paltry by comparison, but unimaginable wealth to everyone else.
Linked text [counterpunch.org]
Posted by Greg Bacon at 12/09/2007 @ 4:35pm
I agree and am glad to see someone addressing the root of our problems. I add the following to the discussion.
At the heart of our global problems are the sins of greed and gluttony that our global economic system supports and encourages. No religious doctrine supports the greed and gluttony that our business and political leaders practice. Our current economic system has destroyed, or is destroying our basic necessities, our equality, our democracy and our local sovereignty. If there is any hope of us existing in harmony with each other, we are going to have to change our economic system. It is time to bring the economic discussion front and center and have a real debate about why a few people feel it is justified to make several hundred thousands, millions, or billions of dollars a year in order to live comfortably. This money is being made at the expense of other people and places. And, to add insult to injury, those few who make such riches are totally dependent on these people and places to keep them alive. The contention that needs immediate debate is that some people think that obtaining extreme wealth using the world's resources is their right and that they deserve the wealth that the free market produces for their efforts. They argue that everyone is free to make such wealth. Yet we know everyone is not free to make this extreme wealth, regardless of their intelligence and work effort. In order for society to exist, large fractions of the population are needed to bring food to market, and we know these people can't charge prices that would provide them yearly incomes of millions or billions of dollars. These people work just as hard, if not harder, and are just as intelligent, if not more intelligent, as our rich business and political leaders who claim it is there right to make millions or billions of dollars a year. We are all dependent on the people who bring food to market, including the extremely wealthy. It is not possible for all people to make such riches, so why do we allow a select few? I have worked in the environmental sciences for the past 25 years collecting data on our water quality and quantity, air quality, soil quality, and flora and fauna populations. In this time, I made one vitally important observation: that most people have lost touch of what is actually a basic necessity, regardless of religion or political party. We think that maintaining the current economic structure takes precedent and is a justification to destroy our lands, seas, lakes and rivers, or chronically pollute the air, water and soil. An example is the Pebble Mine in Southwest Alaska. Let's face it, it is not in the best interest of the state of Alaska, the United States or the world to put the world's largest gold and copper mine in the heart of the world's richest salmon habitat. The reason this proposal is before us is because wealthy people are seeking to maintain their immoral riches through the economic structure of stocks and corporations. Providing gold and copper to society and jobs to the local communities is just a byproduct. Our collective intelligence knows we should be working to completely recycle these metals and mining our landfills before starting new mines. If a new mine is started, it can't be scaled to maintain excessive incomes. And if we want to solve the problem of unemployment, we need to address the component in the economic system that creates it. This false notion that economic competition is necessary and good for the economy is absurd. Economic competition creates unemployment and forces society to demand cheap goods and services which results in people being paid unlivable wages and our basic necessities polluted and destroyed. We need to change our economy to have a full employment ideal that pays livable wages, is not dependent on unemployment, and extracts and uses resources without causing harm to people, land, flora, fauna, air and water. So many of today's problems can be solved if we chose to cooperate economically rather than compete. Consider Alaska's Railbelt, where even Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin writes that cooperation is key to its power's future. If Alaskans chose to cooperate we could have electricity that pays good livable wages to the people who maintain the system and use best available technologies instead of mining and burning coal, practices we know the air cannot handle. As users of this power, we will all have to cooperate by paying the true cost of power production. Our reward, a reliable power source that is not responsible for pumping mercury and coal dust into the atmosphere. Society needs to shift the topic of discussion to changing our economic system. We have an engaged citizenry. All we have to do is cooperate, and the first place to start is to come to consensus that greed is immoral and needs to be eliminated from our economy and our democracy. It is possible. The United States can lead the world in this change.
Posted by Joel Cooper at 12/09/2007 @ 6:26pm
It's a shame KVH sounds like such a hypocrite railing against the rich. She, herself, has never held down a job and pays little or no taxes, primarily because she doesn't make any money, so what the hell does SHE care about tax rates? She inherited gazillions from her father, who is no doubt turning over in his grave.
Posted by pontificus at 12/09/2007 @ 11:44pm
Just thought I'd let you folks know that the State of Maryland this week approved widespread use of SLOT MACHINES in Maryland, because the ever-hungry-for-tax-money State of Maryland is looking for new and bigger revenue sources to help 'the poor'. Of course, we all know, the biggest contributor to slot machines is, well, THE POOR, just as they are the biggest contributor of gas taxes, tobacco taxes, etc. Next we're going to get another lecture from you idiot liberals about how lending money at cut-rate prices to the poor so they can have a chance to own their own homes is 'predatory', while you folks sell them lottery tickets and slot machines. The biggest suckers in the US are the people who believe that you liberals have any answers for this country.
Posted by pontificus at 12/09/2007 @ 11:49pm
Posted by GREG BACON 12/09/2007 @ 4:35pm
Hey Greg, does KVH live in Richistan? John Kerry? Teddy Kennedy? How much do you think THOSE folks pay in taxes?
Posted by pontificus at 12/09/2007 @ 11:55pm
Posted by MASK 12/06/2007 @ 1:22pm
Second, always fun to IMAGINE the future targetting of the "super-rich" for a tax hike, because as everybody knows they ARE in fact enormously stupid and incapable of hiding the wealth when those tax hikes come.
Heh heh. Very good, MASK. Very good. You're catching on.
Posted by pontificus at 12/09/2007 @ 11:57pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/09/2007 @ 11:57pm
Anybody care to comment on the per-capita distribution of lottery terminals in poor neighborhoods vs. those in wealth neighborhoods? No? How about we comment on the amount of additional taxes that KVH, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry stand to spend if and when a 'soak-the-rich' tax hike comes down the pike, the groundwork of which is hoped to be laid here by this article here at the Nation? If you guessed zero, you're a winner!
Posted by pontificus at 12/10/2007 @ 12:02am
"No question, now, what has happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, man to pig, and pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
George Orwell, Animal Farm
Posted by pontificus at 12/10/2007 @ 12:03am
An example is the Pebble Mine in Southwest Alaska. Let's face it, it is not in the best interest of the state of Alaska, the United States or the world to put the world's largest gold and copper mine in the heart of the world's richest salmon habitat. The reason this proposal is before us is because wealthy people are seeking to maintain their immoral riches through the economic structure of stocks and corporations. Providing gold and copper to society and jobs to the local communities is just a byproduct. Our collective intelligence knows we should be working to completely recycle these metals and mining our landfills before starting new mines. If a new mine is started, it can't be scaled to maintain excessive incomes. And if we want to solve the problem of unemployment, we need to address the component in the economic system that creates it.
Posted by JOEL COOPER 12/09/2007 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person
Anybody that has been following Alaskan politics lately has been getting a good civics lesson on how our politicians are handmaidens of the established resource robber barons. Kudos to Sarah Palin and the Alaskan judiciary for escorting some of the worst offenders off to jail - and as the Anchorage Daily News has pointed out, the web of corruption is far more widespread and entrenched.
The politicians consider State and Federal lands and resources as their own private piggy banks that they can barter away to the resource robber barons for far less than they worth, in exchange for political contributions and other outright bribes. These are our lands....not our politicians. You are right that jobs are just a byproduct of resource extraction, and jobs are often used as the justification for our pols to peddle away our resources.
Take Conoco Philips for instance. The new oil tax doesn't sit well with COP, and so they have threatened to abandon plans for upgrades to refining capacity. Now COP has been enjoying record profits, and theoretically, some of those record profits should be invested in increased reserves and productive capacity. Instead, COP, who has been enjoying Alaskan resource largesse for years, would rather expend more on transport inefficiency just to teach Alaskans a lesson.
The damage to the environment from resource extraction is treated as just an externality for which future generations will pay and/or suffer. Our State and Federal lands and their resources should be priced in such a manner that accounts for cleanup and restoration. Looking at government agencies such as FS and BLM gives new meaning to the word "stewardship."
Resource based jobs are short lived by their vey nature. Once the resources are gone, so are the jobs, and what is left is the pollution and damage to our environment. It will be very interesting to see how productively new oil tax revenues will be used by Alaskans. It is my hope that they will be used to cure some of the ills which you address.
Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 08:07am
Raymond J. Learsy -- Huffington Post -- May 11, 2006 Drilling for Oil: Cuba Si! Our Continental Shelf No!
'When news broke the other day that Cuba is making deals with China and India to drill for offshore oil on its side of the line dividing Cuban waters from U.S. territory, oilmen set up a clamor to drill on our side, too. Largely for environmental reasons, drilling near our coasts has been banned for several decades. "This is the irony of ironies," complained Charles T. Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. "We have chosen to lock up our resources and stand by to be spectators while [China and India] come in and benefit from things right in our own backyard."...'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/10/2007 @ 10:02am
ONEVOTE:
You hit upon precisely the reason I believe industries such as energy should be non-profit or outright government run. When the government does something, there are always assessments of how the activity will affect the surrounding population, ecology, etc. When a corporation does it, their only assessment is profitability. If the government doesn't enforce some sort of regulations protecting those upon whom the negative externalities would have an effect, the company simply doesn't bother considering it.
The whole concept of profit over public health is just... well, criminal, in my eyes.
Posted by jorcheim at 12/10/2007 @ 1:32pm
The whole concept of profit over public health is just... well, criminal, in my eyes.
Posted by JORCHEIM 12/10/2007 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person
I absolutely agree. Looking at countries such as Venezuela and Russia for instance, the free market was returning nothing to the people and everything to energy and resource mafias. Nationalized resource money going into government coffers is far preferable. For instance, Putin has been able to increase pension payouts for pensioners under the old Soviet system, and has been able to build infrastructure and his military without excessive taxation. What do we get from leasing extraction rights to our resources? Fricking nothing but a government give away to the resource oligopolies. Like our national forests being replanted with monoculture species that sucks for wildlife but is great for timber companies who will use our land to profit, and sell the timber overseas. Such a deal. Time to manage our resources for our benefit.
Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 2:24pm
Time to manage our resources for our benefit.
Posted by ONEVOTE 12/10/2007 @ 2:24pm
for the benefit of all living creatures.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/10/2007 @ 5:54pm
oh, silly pontificus. are you Mr. Karvis' butler? is there anything salient you can offer to this discussion or do you just enjoy bashing liberals for the sake of bashing liberals? the right wing clearly has the answers for all the woes this country faces. they care so much for the poor. just look at the way they handled hurricane katrina. bang up job. and i am sure not one maryland republican would ever approve the widespread use of slot machines to generate revenue because they are out there working for the poor. so it's you that has all the answers. all hail pontificus the wise. we liberals are so stupid and must learn from learned conservative shamans like yourself. teach us more.
Posted by sirhcus at 12/10/2007 @ 7:07pm
Palin proposes budget increase of 4 percent
By STEVE QUINN The Associated Press
Published: December 10, 2007 Last Modified: December 10, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Gov. Sarah Palin says she wants to increase education funding and continue municipal assistance, all while still putting some money in the bank next year.
Palin released a fiscal year 2009 budget proposal that calls for a 4 percent spending increase. The budget year begins July 1.
She unveiled the proposal today, five days before the constitutionally mandated deadline to present her proposed budget. Moving at a faster pace will be a priority. Next year, lawmakers will have an accelerated schedule to pass a budget. That's because the Legislature's regular session is to be a voter-mandated 90 days rather than 121 days.
My goodness....the Governor is getting right to work using projected oil tax revenues for some social good. Right on Sarah!
Posted by OneVote at 12/10/2007 @ 8:22pm
first of all, the video script "embed" tag ended to soon
>>>
embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N8RsFwsODzE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">
here is a link 4 all you innocent non-web design ppl:
the link to the vid on youtube [youtube.com]
Posted by gmccalli at 12/11/2007 @ 02:41am
Okay...then how is it "private"?
Posted by MASK 12/08/2007 @ 08:35am
Mask,
Maybe you can explain exactly how the fed works with interest rates. They have this system where the fed winks as he's giving his report on how the economy is going to hint to the damn banks whether or not he's going to throw cash their way or not.
I don't give a rip if he's appointed by the president and rubber stamped by congress or not. The damn fed protects the effing private banking industry. See if you can prove to me that is otherwise.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/11/2007 @ 07:33am
The Federal Reserve system is semi-private, not private. The Board of Governors is essentially public, and serves an oversight and regulatory role that is clearly governmental. The seven reserve banks are semi-private. They are owned by other fully private banks, but there are severe restrictions placed on what the owners of stock in the bank can do with the stock and to the reserve bank. The Federal Open Market Committee is somewhere in between, since the governors sit on it, as do the heads of the reserve banks. Arguing over which name to give it is pointless. It is essentially a partnership between the government and the banks, neither has complete control over it, but each side could destroy the institution by withdrawing from it.
Of course the original objection to the endorsement of the Jefferson quote was silly. The private banks create money the same way the Fed does, by issuing loans and collecting interest. Only the Treasury actually prints cash money, but the overall amount of cash money does not correspond to the overall amount of money value in the economy. I am sad to say that I can't blame Mask because I have him on ignore, (because 90% of the time he is just playing gotcha and won't engage in a debate when evidence that goes against what he says is presented - like about the Sudan thing he never responded to, when I was nice enough to give him several articles that gave evidence that he was wrong. Sadly I can't see his responses anymore, so even if he reforms and does his best to respectfully engage in debate, I won't know it and won't be able to give him a virtual pat on the head) so I don't know the full content of what he said and so don't actually know that he made the elementary mistake of confusing money with cash. In case anyone else was tempted to do so, it is an elementary mistake. Citigroup creates money all the time.
There is a problem with the Jefferson quote though, because it is a good things that banks create money. The only way to strip banks of the power to create money is to prevent them from either making loans, or from making money on loans. An economy without debt does not function. The only alternative is extreme central planning, which is unworkable for any but very small communities. It might be that you could force all banks to be non-profits, to essentially be Credit Unions, and that would remove the pressures on them to make bad loans. But this would not solve the problems with private equity pirates, since those loans are secure loans.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 7:33pm
The only solution I have seen to the behavior of people like Kravis (and removing the carried interest loophole won't help the people who lose jobs when these parasites swoop in and break up businesses. it will produce more revenue for the government and hurt KKR's bottom line though, both of which are good) is something that Robert Pollin at UMASS Amherst has suggested, a tax on stock trades, in addition to a tax on the profits made by the trade. You could probably scale a stock trade tax so that the longer you hold a stock the lower the tax when you eventually trade it. The idea is to have less trading, and less money change hands in trading. It leads to a more stable economy, because stability generally goes down as percentage of economy involved in finance industries goes up. (very loose correlation, no end of counter-examples to it if you take it to be a strict law). It also removes some of the pressure on CEOs and CFOs to produce short term profits, because there is a higher cost to abandoning the corporation after a single dissapointing quarterly earnings report. A tax on trades provides a discentive at both ends of the kinds of deals Kravis makes.
One thing I have never seen suggested is to simply make capital gains taxes progressive. If you make less than $200,000 annually keep it at 15% or even lower it, since most of these people are making the money from building a business or selling a home. If you make money like Kravis does, make capital gains 50% or something (I am not committed to 50%, it depends on how prohibitive the tax is. You don't want to get rid of all trading of stocks). I realize this would cause a major disruption if done all at once, since it might drive every bank and trading house out of business, but I see no reason we couldn't ease into such a system. Now smart people who know tons more about economics than me haven't suggested this (as far as I am aware), but I don't know the reason why. If someone has ever run across a reason this wouldn't work let me know, because I am puzzled.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 7:36pm
Now smart people who know tons more about economics than me haven't suggested this (as far as I am aware), but I don't know the reason why. If someone has ever run across a reason this wouldn't work let me know, because I am puzzled.
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/12/2007 @ 7:36pm
Having a little knowledge, lots of time, a willingness to mix that "little knowledge" with gibberish, anonymously of course, leads to posting such as yours....a long one at 7:33 pm and the next, also long-winded at 7:36 pm!
I know "the reason why"........like so many things in life: "the Answer lies within oneself"!
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 8:10pm
Happy,
You are a tool. If you think anything I wrote is gibberish, then buy a dictionary. As for the trite platitude, well its a trite platitude. I split one long post up, because half of it was germane to an existing discussion and half wasn't. As for long posts, I am not under the misconception that you and Mask seem to be under, that meaningful intelligent political discussion can consist of two sentences of talking points you read somewhere else and are regurgitating.
I will take your empty response to mean that you don't know the answer. I didn't really think you would be the source of any enlightenment anyway, so don't worry about any dissapointment on my part. But some people who post comments here have shown they know things I don't, and I was hoping (in the second comment) for a little help.
To sum up, you are a tool. Have fun being worthless.
And if you don't like anonymity, then look up Cornell philosophy grad students and ask a friend with some powers of reasoning to help you figure out which I am. Also don't be a hypocrite.
Have a good day, you worthless tool.
Posted by dentedpat at 12/12/2007 @ 9:41pm
...Cornell philosophy grad students....
Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/12/2007 @ 9:41pm
I couldn't come up with a better DENTEDPAT than a "Cornell philosophy grad students", thanks!!
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 10:18pm
It's scary how worthless our Ivy-League Humanity depts. are churning out.....
Posted by Happy at 12/12/2007 @ 10:20pm