Intro: "Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., praises the President's agreement with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

The White House and Big Business

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

15 December 10

The New Era of Cooperation Between the White House and Big Business

amie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., praises the President's agreement with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts.

"If we're going to strengthen our economy and grow jobs, this type of outreach - and cooperation between the administration, Congress, and the private sector - are critical," says Dimon.

Dimon met last week with the President. Thirty other CEOs are meeting with him today.

Dimon's compensation over the last three years has averaged $21,991,394 a year. The tax deal agreed to between President Obama and the Republicans will give Dimon and extra $1,179,000 next year, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice.

The bank Dimon heads was also the beneficiary of the giant Wall-Street bailout of 2007 and 2008. JPMorgan Chase & Co, along with other Wall Street banks, also poured millions of dollars into a lobbying campaign to water down the financial reforms Congress considered earlier this year.

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+68 # B. 2010-12-15 20:22

Hey Dimon how's it feel to destroy a country ? With Faux News helping out, the scumbags don't even try to hide it anymore. I bet with an extra $1,179,000, he'll sleep like a baby. Outreach, cooperation, administration, congress, and private sector (excuse me while I throw-up).

+9 # Alice 2010-12-16 10:22

Not just Faux News helps him out -- try CNBC any day of the week -- they are Fox Lite, even though they are an NBC affiliate.

-66 # rock 2010-12-15 21:52

"The tax deal . . . will give Dimon and extra $1,179,000 next year, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice."

That's some kind of tricky analysis there! Like the money wasn't Dimon's to start with?

Maybe the "just" way would be for the government to plan on spending $1,179,000 less next year.

Now if the "Citizens for Tax Justice" and "B" feel like giving back a little more of THEIR money, they can probably make up for all the harm this is going to do.

+43 # B. 2010-12-16 06:25

Rock, if I made any thing close to almost $22,000,000 a year, with the state of the economy, I wouldn't be able to live with myself accepting the recent tax cuts...but thats the difference between me and you and the repug's, I feel theres a moral obligation to the greater good of my countrymen.....you and the repug's feel it's all you'res to keep and to hell with the rest of the country.

+3 # PaulV 2010-12-16 18:06

B, it is not "just" moral obligation. How does it help him that his chaufer spends an insane amount of time waiting in the line for the Hudson tunnel (see Krugman's blog today), that the schools and colleges training his future employees are getting severe budget cuts, that dollar has to be devalued because we need to avoid more underwater mortgages. No, seriously, the long term consequences of greed are not good even for the super rich. Even if they run away to their tax heavens on some remote islands, how does it help that Americans by the day are loosing respect of the foreigners?

+26 # jono 2010-12-16 09:16

Rock, I would be less annoyed with Dimon if he actually earn ed that money by going out and working for it. He made the money by screwing his depositors, setting up foreclosure mills to earn more fees, trading against customers for the bank's interest, cashing in on the spread between what JPMC pays the Fed in interest (0) and what they earn on the money in the market, screwing their investors to keep the stock price up in the short term, and collecting huge amounts of government subsidies. Basically he is robbing the public to pay himself millions.

This is while Citizens for Tax Justice and B and most of the rest of the country is having trouble paying for necessities like food, clothing, transportation, housing, health care, etc. Oh and don't forget the rapidly increasing bank fees on anyone who can't afford to keep thousands of dollars sitting idly in their JPMC accounts earning no interest. (yes, I just got my "new account changes to serve you better notice" with new high fees for less service. minimum balance to waive fees is $1,500 per account or $15,000 in combined balance. Local credit union here I come!)

-16 # rock 2010-12-16 11:23

You may be right - and maybe crimes were committed, and perhaps he is under investigation at this very moment. Nevertheless, the money IS his, and the claim that he is getting something back is very dishonest.

+7 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:26

Quoting

...the $ IS his, and the claim that he is getting something back is very dishonest.

I'm sure Dimon had the same attitude when he used OUR money to bailout his bank and fund his $23 million/year compensation.

Taxes are what individuals & corps pay for the infrastructure the govt provides...for maintaining a society in which people can have a decent quality of life & corps can do business. The taxes that he is not paying are no more HIS, than the money is mine when I go to a store and an unscrupulous clerk gives me a "special" deal because s/he is my friend. That Dimon, & other uber-rich, have been able to influence their friends in Congress to give them "special" deals is just as wrong...if we're going to talk about DISHONEST!

+5 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:31

Further, the uber-rich didn't get that way by themselves, the economic environment provided by the US govt (read: the 98% of us sharing the crumbs left as they finagle ways to further concentrate wealth) has contributed to their success...they act as if they have no responsibility to pay back into the system so that others might achieve some measure of success (& to ensure that the economy on which they depend stays healthy).

Funny how so many of those who got theirs are so fast to find ways to keep others from getting some, too. Almost as funny as those who aren't in the wealthiest 2% of the population facilitating the money grab in which the uber-rich are engaged. I have no idea why people (so many of whom are struggling) will work in their own disinterest so wealthy people can get wealthier. Madness...

+7 # Marjorie Bicknell 2010-12-16 10:54

[quote name="rock"]"The tax deal . . . will give Dimon and extra $1,179,000 next year, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice."

That's some kind of tricky analysis there! Like the money wasn't Dimon's to start with?

Maybe the "just" way would be for the government to plan on spending $1,179,000 less next year. "

Okay, Rock, where are those cuts going to come from - your future Social Security? "Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society," according to the great CONSERVATIVE Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. We can't balance the budget - much less pay down our country's debt without increasing taxes. And shouldn't those most able to pay be asked to pay their share?

-14 # rock 2010-12-16 11:18

You are right, Marjorie. I agree completely about paying taxes. And, obviously, those who benefit the most should pay their share. I just disagree with the mentality that whatever we make is the government's and they get to decide how much we can keep.

And yes, let's start talking about where to cut . . . a civilized dialog about this would really help a lot.

In the meantime, private charity is a much more efficient and humane approach in the long run.

+15 # Patricia Chang 2010-12-16 12:12

Private charities are overwhelmed now trying to help those who are suffering. I know, because I volunteer for them. I certainly hope you do, too. Giving is down, because of the economic situation in this country that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Mr. Dimon is consumed by greed. He needs to get off of his keester and work in a homeless shelter. Yours is the typical opinion of a Libertarian. Fine. I wont attempt to change it. But, from a moral standpoint, I can NEVER agree with it. We ARE our brother's keeper. We must work for the common good, because to do otherwise is to be selfish and self-centered. The rich have more than enough. Some share; but many do not. Like Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch, they use their money to do harm and tell lies. Yours is an ideological position. Again, that is your choice; but it is self-serving. I choose another belief system. Peace to you.

+10 # DaveW. 2010-12-16 15:37

Rock, "In the meantime private charity is a much more efficient and humane approach in the long run." Suggest you read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." Read specifically about the "Gilded Age" of the robber barons and their "efficient and humane" approach to poverty. That's where we are again today. We have the greatest income disparity since 1928. Guess what happened next. The richest 20% of country own 85% of the wealth. This is unsustainable and "private charity" will be akin to pissing on a forest fire. The only people with the money to make a difference in the private charity business are the the people who give little or nothing to private charities especially if they can't write it off their taxes. The rich stay rich for a reason Rock. They're not inherently generous. Philosophers have been writing about the pernicious effects of Greed for centuries. You don't see any greed out there? Progressive tax system put America on top of the f*****g world until 2nd rate actor declared war on it. The whole fabric of America is shredding before our eyes because a handful of people and corporations are hoarding wealth. What the hell is "humane" about that?

+4 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-16 23:55

Gee rock, I've already been censored by rsn on this topic so I will make sure to be calm. Private charity is NOT more efficient and humane in the long run. Private charity has to be investigated, monitored and audited regularly to have any credibility at all and I can assure you a huge amount of fraud and theft goes on undetected. I have been a fraud investigator in the past and promise you that charity, even at it's best, simply does not raise enough to meet the needs that government also serves.
As for tax cuts: There isn't that much to talk about. We could afford to withdraw from Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, close down 300 of the 700+ military bases we have over seas and trim the defense budget to a third of what it is presently and still have the most powerful military on earth. We'd also be a solvent nation and wouldn't even have to talk about tax cuts of any other kind. And rock, whether you like it or not, the government, ideally we the people which is not presently the case, does get to decide how much money we get to keep. And don't get confused into thinking that the rich are getting soaked. They just aren't. They don't pay more than a third of what they should.

-7 # rock 2010-12-17 07:04

Glad to see you so calm, Daniel. I guess it will be a long time before we agree about how to defend this nation, but perhaps you will agree that, constitutionall y, that is the number one priority of our government? I suppose you think that the US Military is an instrument of oppression which is keeping people in other lands in poverty and is subverting the constitution by its cruel and inhumane methods, but I think the majority of our fellow citizens agree with me that the US plays a positive role in keeping world peace and restraining the ambitions of aggressors everywhere. We might balance the budget by keeping social spending and cutting every aspect of defense spending to zero, but the long-term price would be horrendous. I loved John Lennon and dig his music, but yes, I would say that he was a dreamer - real peace takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice. Ask any WWII veteran.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:08

For one thing, if we were invested in "defense" instead of the lie of protecting American interests abroad (read "corporate" interests) we wouldn't need more than 25% of the military we have. At that, we'd probably still have the biggest military on earth. And I'm not so sure that most of our fellow citizens, and trust me, a majority CAN be wrong!, would agree that the US plays a positive role in keeping world peace. In fact, I strongly believe that most of the worlds population outside of our borders would say PRECISELY the opposite. I'd say as most world citizens would that we are a war mongering nation that threatens world security more than any other nation on earth. What the heck. We're willing to engage in criminally war like behavior...the kind we executed Japanese and German soldiers for committing, without remorse. Our social spending is absurdly low by world standards and frankly, I think most world citizens would agree that the world without the USA would be a better place. Just ask the millions that we've murdered through illegal military engagements. Oops. Their dead. We can't. Yes, real peace takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice. Don't bother looking to the US.

-5 # rock 2010-12-17 07:19

As for your parting shot - the rich "don't pay more than a third of what they should. . ." I don't know if you are referring to the marginal tax rates or the extensive loop-holes, but how about agreeing with me that the present tax code is way too complex and inefficient . . . too many incentives to get around it with the assistance of lawyers and accountants, too easy to cheat and too tempting to invest in other countries? Can you say "Charlie Wrangel?"

Not trying to pass myself off as a tax expert, but I think there is a lot of merit in say, a national sales tax, where we could help the poor and middle class by exempting essential items or a "flat" tax, which would remove all loop-holes and let everyone above a certain level pay his "fair" share.

Trouble is, too many lawyers and other vested interests would fight any overhaul of the tax system. But I think that is the kind of "change" we need to be talking about now.

There are so many numbers being bandied about that it's difficult to get a handle on the truth. For example, do you believe that the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes? How much more do you want?

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:18

Well rock, we have things in common here. I don't agree on all the particulars but certainly an overhaul of the tax code is a great idea. I'd agree with a national sales tax, but would not support a flat tax. I think that the tax rate on wealth in the time of Eisenhower, 91% on wealth above a certain level, was just fine. It built our highway system and didn't hurt the wealthy one bit. When Reagan started in office, the rate was 71%. Studies have been done that show that the economy has improved in the past when the tax on wealth went up and that trickle down has done absolutely nothing for job growth at all, like higher taxes on wealth has. If the top 10% pay 70% of all income taxes, they should be paying 90% of all income taxes. After all, they're paying themselves over half of ALL income, the remainder going to the bottom 89%. This leaves them with a net income that their contribution to society does not justify. And let's not just talk about income...let's talk about accumulated wealth. They have over 90% of it and don't even bother to tell me that this is a result of their hard work and value to society. That's a convenient myth that happens to be a lie.

+4 # Robert McGinty 2010-12-15 22:14

Mr. Dimon follows the economic axiom, "Seek pleasure and avoid pain."

+12 # Kh 2010-12-15 22:22

Two words: Green Party

+6 # DCP 2010-12-16 03:26

Very well put. That's what it has come down to.

+6 # Homer 2010-12-16 05:57

Two more words: Replace Obama!

+7 # Alice 2010-12-16 10:26

Yes, well give me a decent alternative, and that does not include Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John Thune or any of the other goons being offered currently.

+2 # FMS 2010-12-18 09:34

Quoting

Yes, well give me a decent alternative, and that does not include Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John Thune or any of the other goons being offered currently.

Howard Dean? Nancy Pelosi?

+3 # NorgoToad 2010-12-17 14:22

Value Added Recursion: Replace Obama with Green Party candidate. Ahhh there. Now it's complete.

+19 # Toughguy 2010-12-15 22:35

I keep hearing Reich and Krugman exposing unbelievable excess and greed by the upper class of society. The messages are all the same, but what can we do? Are we helpless to let this go on? Have the rich become too powerful? What is it going to take?

+7 # Nancy Bookidis 2010-12-16 05:31

I ask myself the same question. Surely, we cannot all sit back and just watch these people endlessly enrich themselves.

-19 # rock 2010-12-16 09:31

No! Don't just sit back! Go out and enrich yourself so you can do some philanthropy with it!

+2 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:33

Quoting

No! Don't just sit back! Go out and enrich yourself so you can do some philanthropy with it!

Enrich ourselves with what??? There's so little left not in the hands of the very, very wealthy...and they keep being allowed a "free lunch" at our expense.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:03

Quoting

No! Don't just sit back! Go out and enrich yourself so you can do some philanthropy with it!

Oh rock! I give long hours of volunteer time. I've donated considerable money. As DaveW says above, it's like pissing on a forest fire. And how do I enrich myself any further doing social work? The kind that doesn't pay much? I'm just dying of curiosity to know how you're going about enriching yourself and what philanthropy you're doing with it. I suspect zip, nada, zilch, nil...and so forth. But I could be wrong. What sacrifices are you making for the common good? (And yeah, this is none of my business but gee rock, you're a good guy at heart. I'd just like a sense that while you talk the talk, you actually walk the walk.)

-7 # rock 2010-12-17 07:26

It wouldn't do to boast, but I will match my philanthropy with anyone's of my income bracket [which is low enough that I don't even pay taxes any more] . . . and in a wider perspective, right wing individuals have consistently been shown to be more generous on a personal level than left wingers.

I'll bet if more people like DaveW spent more time urinating on fires, things would cool off a lot. But it's easier to whine about it than to do something, isn't it?

+1 # Betsy 2010-12-18 10:09

[quote name="rock"]and in a wider perspective, right wing individuals have consistently been shown to be more generous on a personal level than left wingers.

Says who? According to which study? Just 'cause you heard it on Faux Noise or from Limbaugh doesn't make it so.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:28

Yeah rock. I bet you tithe. Right wingers should be more generous...they have so much more than they're worth and heck, since they've rigged the system to reward them at the expense of others, they ought to give more. Right wingers give money but don't give anywhere near the time that left wingers do. I bet on my income level, that the value of my time, given for free to charities, exceeds your total annual income. (I'm worth a minimum of $40 an hour by the way.) Gee, I do pay taxes unlike you, but that's because most of the charities I give to and invest time with don't qualify for a tax write off. I mean, the bag ladies I've fed and given money to don't count because they aren't being cared for by a non-profit organization...or any other.

As for DaveW...you'll have to trust me on this one...you don't have a clue. You couldn't touch him in any contest. His street credentials alone put him in a higher plane than you occupy. No disrespect intended, but that's just the truth.

-4 # rock 2010-12-18 17:11

Thanks, Dan. "You couldn't touch him in any contest. His street credentials alone put him in a higher plane than you occupy."

It seems kind of wierd with you that it always gets around to some kind of "holier than thou" contest. Like some animals are more equal than others. What's wrong with "we're all doing what we can?"

+3 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-16 23:57

Quoting

I ask myself the same question. Surely, we cannot all sit back and just watch these people endlessly enrich themselves.

Revolution

-3 # rock 2010-12-17 07:27

"But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is 'brother, you'll have to wait . . .'"

-2 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:29

Quoting

"But if you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is 'brother, you'll have to wait . . .'"

Hey rock! Honestly friend...I don't know what you're talking about here! Honestly, I'd like to know!

0 # rock 2010-12-18 17:12

Not sure if you don't recognize the quote or you don't know how it fits this context.

0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 23:14

I know the lyrics. I don't know how it fits this context.

+8 # Victoria Wilson 2010-12-16 05:35

I'm with you on this. Have the rich won? What can be done about it? There must be something if so many are being misrepresented by government-both parties.

+5 # Homer 2010-12-16 05:57

What it will take will not be found here in words.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:04

Quoting

What it will take will not be found here in words.

Quoting

What it will take will not be found here in words.

Except one: revolution

+6 # SOF 2010-12-16 12:21

Well, toughguy, and others. When will you get it that this is not news.???? Even PBS has done multiple pieces over the last decades about the rising disparity of incomes -and the fact that in many European counteries -the law doesn't allow CEOs to make more than a certain amount over the average worker. The problem has been that the spinners have everyone convinced that this kind of journalism is "left" to "socialist" and -especially before internet -was difficult, if not impossible to find at your normal magazine outlets. Americans are incredibly naive and have been denied the output of investigative journalism and free speech perspective -like the climate change science -which was ridiculed or ignored for decades. Like blaming environmentalis ts for the big forest fires -when everyone who lives in logging country knows the logging companies trash acres and leave huge piles of discarded branches for fire fuel. Mostly Americans are lazy, now we can add uneducated, misinformed and stupid.

+2 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:16

Quoting

Mostly Americans are lazy, now we can add uneducated, misinformed and stupid.

I wince because I want to excuse the American people by citing the many ways they've been misled and misguided. But here's where you are tragically correct. No one has ever had a gun put to their head and been told not to go to the library. Most Americans are literate and can read but I've read somewhere that the average American reads 1.2 to 2 books per year AT MOST and that is disgustingly, willfully stupid. If adults have to be told that it's unwise to just take people's word for it...especially if it's a politician's word, then most adults are immature and with minds that would shame a high school freshman. I know critical thinking is taught in some schools and is universal at the college level, but this should be junior high instruction repeated every year from 7th grade on. Not to throw my ego out there but I threw out my TV two year ago and took up reading in its place. In two years I've read about 73,000 pages without having had to alter my usual schedule...and it is an extremely busy one. Our freedoms will not be taken from us. Unfortunately we will give them away.

+3 # forparity 2010-12-18 09:51

It's indeed interesting to note just when this great disparity of wealth actually took off - thru the roof.

CEO pay compared to average worker pay?

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/images/2010_trend_chart_2.gif

As well (as would be expected)the income of the top 1% of income earners made their huge leap forward (as a% of total income earned) during the Clinton era of irrational greed, corruption, fraud, and genocide - the Enron era (1993-2000)

+3 # forparity 2010-12-18 12:14

SOF -"Like blaming environmentalis for.."

For whatever..

Unfortunately, they didn't catch enough blame for what happened to New Orleans during Katrina. They had successfully blocked, in Federal Court, the wants of the Corps of Engineers to construct massive "Holland-like" dams to prevent the storm surge from entering the low lying areas of the lower 9th Ward and Lake Borgne.

Quite a bit of major protection is being built these past many years since, however.

Here's one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37671998@N05/3834989106/in/photostream/

and another:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8QA9QLGkXKY/TA-rgTg4l4I/AAAAAAAABH4/7Wb93eIJF8c/s1600/Lake+Borgne+Barrier+1.jpg

Funny, I've never heard anything about these massive structures in the national news - they don't want folks to know any good news?

+23 # propsguy 2010-12-15 22:43

take your money out of those big banks. if obama won't make them pay, you can at least get back at them by moving your money. see if they are too big too fail and too big to pay taxes once they've lost their depositors

+10 # Annette Smith 2010-12-16 05:54

Why I keep my money in member-owned credit unions.

+7 # Oakjoan 2010-12-15 23:02

The comment above mine says that Dimon will sleep like a baby with that extra couple of million he'll be getting.

I say that his sleep might not be so sound if he hears the people banging on the gate of his mansion in the middle of the night! Maybe we could rig a siren to blare all night near his house.

+4 # Homer 2010-12-16 05:59

His kind of $$ buys all the "police protection" he needs and the siren or any other "disturbance" would be quickly silenced.

+3 # Alice 2010-12-16 10:28

He does not even have to buy it -- the government is more than happy to protect him at the cost of the citizens' freedom of speech.

+2 # Ilse Hadda 2010-12-16 08:37

I totally agree with Oakjoan! Let's organize and scare the s..t out of them!

-6 # rock 2010-12-16 11:19

This sounds like a great idea until you start thinking about how it would feel if everyone who disagreed with you had your address and phone number and subjected you to that kind of treatment.

+3 # Aliazer 2010-12-16 13:16

Rock,

These folks you are defending are thieves and BS artists who have been subverting the commonweal and common interests of the American people to benefit only themselves through co-opting and bribing the political establishment

-8 # rock 2010-12-16 18:45

The problem here is Who gets to decide who are thieves and BS artists . . . sounds like mob rule/fascism for folks to rant about punishing them for being rich.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:30

Quoting

The problem here is Who gets to decide who are thieves and BS artists . . . sounds like mob rule/fascism for folks to rant about punishing them for being rich.

Oh rock....please. Getting income that you didn't really earn, that's thievery and who gets to say so doesn't mean squat. Think for yourself for a change. As for BS artists? Give us a break. If it smells like a BS artist, produces BS, deals in BS, plays with BS and fashons it into, say, a so called "job", that's a BS artist and even you should feel perfectly qualified to call them as you see them.
As for your mention of mob rule and fascism...yeah Hitler did that alot. Fascists tend to.
And finally rock, who said anything about punishing them for being rich? That's interesting and maybe true! A little any way. But I think the more important question is: why do they get to punish us for not being rich, and when they make us poor, punishing us even worse? You don't think so? Come on rock. What do you call it when they ship our jobs overseas, pay slave wages there, but continue to increase the price of things on we consumers who they impoverish? Why are they punishing us?

-6 # rock 2010-12-17 07:42

I find it hilarious that an intelligent, humane person like yourself feels "punished" by the "rich," whoever they are. Sure, some people get rich by crime, but let's treat that as a separate issue. If we are compensated by the degree to which we have good ideas and work hard, which is by and large the case in America, then it only makes sense that some people are going to do better than others."The Rich" create jobs, finance the government, and many of them are generous with their wealth. I get the sense that you are offended by the fact that we are not all the same. Dan, they've tried that in other places, and by now most of us agree that it doesn't work.

0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:41

Rock, I wasn't necessarily speaking for myself. The wealthy punish the less wealthy and that is simply a fact. Worker productivity in America is still nearly the highest on earth but it is brutally punishing that they are not paid what they are worth, that wages have been stagnant in terms of buying power for nearly 30 years and manufacturing jobs have been sent to third world countries where virtual slave labor is used (Chinese prisoners for example) and the resulting products are then sold back to us at even higher prices over time. Any savings on production goes into the pockets of the corporations, not the consumers. This IS punishing. Workers are consistently under paid, over worked, mistreated and the rich financing the government, does so at the very expense of denying representation to those who can't afford to buy governmental influence. Because the rich DON'T pay their fair share, others have to sacrifice working to clean up the subsequent social damage done and that is a brutal occupation that itself pays miserably. I can assure you that I am not even remotely paid what I am worth and the real stinginess of the rich is a pox on the unfortunate children I take care of.

+2 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:21

Quoting

This sounds like a great idea until you start thinking about how it would feel if everyone who disagreed with you had your address and phone number and subjected you to that kind of treatment.

Well rock, since I'm not damaging the nations economy and hoarding money that I didn't really earn...but what I paid myself out of other peoples hard labor and sacrifice, I wouldn't worry too much. If rsn would let me for that matter, I'd post my address and phone number, and it will be a public record when I achieve my licensing next year anyway. Unlike the guy you're defending, I'm not a thief. You read that correctly: a thief.

-6 # rock 2010-12-17 07:45

We don't really have any way of knowing if he really "earned" that money or not. If you want to call him a thief without a trial, go ahead, but "expect what justice others may find."

0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:46

Quoting

We don't really have any way of knowing if he really "earned" that money or not. If you want to call him a thief without a trial, go ahead, but "expect what justice others may find."

Oh? You require a trial? That sounds intuitively reasonable but I've done a ton of jury duty in both criminal and civil courts and I can assure you that I am not terribly impressed with our courts. I've seen plenty of guilty walk free in civil courts where corporate malfeasance was on trial.
I stand by my assertion that Dimon is a thief. He did not "earn" even close to what he was paid. No human being is worth that much in the first place.

+10 # giraffe 2010-12-15 23:07

The United States Supreme Court should decide if these moneys to Dimon are constitutional. That court decided it was constitutional that corporations could give untold amounts of money toward our campaigns even if the corporation is foreign. Thus, a foreign company or 2 can elect all of our Congressional people. I think my liberty was not protected by the corporation decision -- and neither at money from my small salary to give to Dimon - constitutional. Those old elites who wrote the constitution deemed slaves/women had no rights - and now the current old elites have ... history repeats

+10 # Homer 2010-12-16 06:02

If our duly/dearly elected president had any stones or sincerity there would have been some progress in the last two years but as it stands now I don't see much of that. Bush was frequently referred to as "all hat and no cattle" but I see little difference in the two. Who will challenge him for the 2012 nomination?

+2 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:38

Any chance we can lay some of what has transpired the past two years at the feet of the Party of NO???

+2 # forparity 2010-12-18 14:08

Oh, absolutely Betsy.. However, first it is important to understand a little bit of background history.

All from the left:

Dean Baker, CEPR - March, 2000: "The main feature of the 'new economy' is a stock market bubble of unprecedented magnitude. When the bubble bursts, the new economy will just be a bad memory. The inflated stock market has created enormous distortions in the economy, the ramifications of which will only be apparent when stock prices return to more normal levels.

March, 2001: Baker said: "The decline in the stock market was an entirely predictable event for anyone familiar with basic arithmetic, even if the exact timing could not be known in advance... The nation's political leaders {in the late 90's] chose to ignore the stock market bubble.. As a result, millions of families have seen their dreams of a secure retirement or their children's college education vanish with the stock market bubble. The level of negligence of the nation's political leaders in ignoring the stock bubble exceeds anything since the days of Herbert Hoover."

+2 # forparity 2010-12-18 14:15

..and these:

Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-05/news/how-andrew-cuomo-gave-birth-to-the-crisis-at-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/

The Legacy of the Clinton Bubble:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/4283-the-white-house-and-big-business

The High Priests of the Bubble Economy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/nov/10/obama-white-house-useconomy

You could also watch this PBS Frontline presentaion, "The Warning."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

+1 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:37

Thanks to all those who elected W to a second terms.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:31

Quoting

Thanks to all those who elected W to a second terms.

You mean third term I suspect.

+3 # forparity 2010-12-18 10:05

Curious. Being that one had to be completely unaware, looking at what was unfolding in late 1999- early 2000, as the Enron era dot.com bubble of greed and fraud was collapsing, the historic housing bubble had been ordered up and funded by HUD, and certain financial deregulations were being pushed thru by Clinton's admin., was it only Dean Baker and myself who saw only an economic crisis during the next administration.

Did it matter whether or not we got to blame Bush or Gore - when it was already written on the books?

As Baker said in early 2001 - 'the financial leadership during the late 90's was the worst since Herbert Hoover.'

As Baker wronte in Nov, 2008, in "The high priests of the bubble economy," and I parphrase, 'Bush inherited a disaster from Clinton...'

Would Gore ended the HUD houseing bubble - reverse all that Clinton had set in motion?

+7 # Reid Fisher 2010-12-15 23:13

Can it be that the reticence of small(er) businesses to invest, and of consumers to spend, is due not so much to skepticism that an honest market system will recover, as to dismay that it's all rigged in favor of the "haves?" The ballsy tax grabs by the rich, the bank bailouts followed by record profits and bonuses, and the lack of a single prosecution sure begins to make stuffing the mattress and buying peanut butter look prudent.

+5 # Johnny Elton 2010-12-16 00:25

Thank President Obama. I'm really liking this change I can believe in.

0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:33

Quoting

Thank President Obama. I'm really liking this change I can believe in.

Me too. I'm drowning in it myself. It's darn near more change than I can cope with. Wow! Did he throw a lot of change at us! I believe it!

+10 # H.M. SUTTON 2010-12-16 01:17

I have long wondered what these guys do with all that loot! How could anyone hope to spend it all unless they are just burning it or flushing it down the toilet! They most certainly are not giving it away to needy causes (not counting Billy Gates, etc.). But how do you spend that much--and if you invest it, then what do you do with the earnings from that? Please tell me!

+23 # al lankes 2010-12-16 03:09

As a immigrant self made millionaire who's income is now totally dependent on the stock market and social security I find these salaries appalling. Who would ever have thought that making that first million would be harder than holding on to it in retirement.

This country needs a labor party as a third party to break up this monopoly!

+15 # Mike at Charlotte 2010-12-16 04:01

Aren't there some parallels that could be drawn between these bankers and the WorldCom and Enron's CEOs Bernie Ebbers and Key Lay? Seems like these guys deserve some prison time more than they deserve this kind of largesse.

+18 # idiotproof 2010-12-16 04:35

Hey Rock- he earned it? Really? What could this man have possibly done that makes him worthy of earning over 21 million dollars a year? He didn't cure cancer. He didn't invent a way to get around without foreign oil. He runs a bank that made a good deal of its money betting on the failure of people to pay their mortgages. Yeah. He deserves that extra million or so. Here is one of the biggest problems. The people in our nation have been sold a bill of goods that makes them think that just because its paid to you, you earned it and its yours. In no other place in the universe could this man assure the disparity of wealth more completely and walk away with the cookie jar. I work 60 hours a week, have three degrees and a business that employs 5 people that I built myself. I made less than 10% of what he made. What does he do that entitles him to that level of wealth? Bill Gates, maybe. Jamie Dimon, give me a break. (And Gates agrees that the tax cuts for the rich are ludicrous. So go figure.)

+6 # rf 2010-12-16 05:14

I don't blame Dimon for getting what he can...I blame the Democrats for being completely whored out to these guys. Obama needs to get an economic team that didn't quit reading in the Raygun administration.

+10 # DaveW. 2010-12-16 09:54

rf, "I don't blame Dimon for getting what he can." Not often you can see so much of what is wrong with America so neatly encapsulated into one short sentence. Why blame anyone then? Why blame politicians for lining their pockets with taxpayer perks and campaign donations? Their just "getting what they can." Why blame rapacious CEO's, Athletes, Entertainers, Hedge Fund Managers, Anybody. Their just "getting what they can." What "incentive" do politicians have to change that mentality given your analysis? This is precisely why we're going down the shithole. How many people on these posts condemn the avariciousness of the wealthy but would forget all about that should they hit the goddamn lottery or something. Vast riches are a DISEASE. And practically everyone wants to "catch it." To hell with society at large. This is America, they got the same chance I do and I'm going to get mine "while I can." I DO BLAME DIMON! And every other piece of crap plutocrat/elitist whose sense of patriotism and humanity rests on the mantra "I'm going to get mine while I can." Like starving dogs with bared teeth and protruding ribs the human race is DOOMED pursuing this warped mentality.

-3 # Thomas Sawyer 2010-12-16 06:03

The bankers own almost all Washington politicians with the possible exception of Ron Paul. I am wondering if some of the Tea Party people will stick to their beliefs? By themselves they probably can't even change the Republican Party, let alone the Democrats, but if they stay focused, we will probably get a chance to add to their numbers in 2012. I truly believe they are the only hope, sort of a revolution.

+3 # Hooligan 2010-12-18 01:09

The bankers own the politicians.However, the Tea Party is owned & operated by the Koch brothers, David & Charles. They also own Koch Industries, est. annual revenues: 100 Billion dollars,from things like coal mines, oil refineries and MANY other things. Can you say"smaller goverment" or maybe de-regulation. Jane Mayer has written an excellent article on this called, "Covert Operations"in the Aug.30,2010 issue of the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010...

+7 # Texas Patriot 2010-12-16 06:08

Barack Obama's campaign message was an outright fraud. He is simply George W. Bush continued. He's a banker-cozy Republican through and through.

+5 # fredboy 2010-12-16 06:17

The Republicans' only disappointment in all of this is that Obama is physically incapable of simultaneously kissing both cheeks of their asses.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:37

Quoting

The Republicans' only disappointment in all of this is that Obama is physically incapable of simultaneously kissing both cheeks of their asses.

He probably kisses right between them...right?

+13 # Duffy 2010-12-16 06:52

Pay me now or pay me later. If the problem isn't addressed, it eventually will be when the people have had enough. The French and Russian revolutions were terrible and destructive when they finally engulfed the ruling class (the rich).

This is not a static situation. It will get better or worse. Greed devours like a ravenous beast. It won't stop until the people stop it.

+12 # The_Baron 2010-12-16 07:13

The "Citizens United" decision set in stone what has been going on for the last 30+ years. It is now "We the Corporation". Over the last 30+ years, the U.S. has had a group of snakes on BOTH sides of the aisle that slither back and forth from the public to the private sector, and then back again. Every time this happens, they rig the game a little more, and then go back to the private sector to get their pay-offs. Instead of taking to the streets by the millions with civil protest, the average U.S. citizen is to stressed, fat and stupid to do anything about this. All thats left is to move to Canada or Western Europe where an actual social saftey net gives it's citizens a chance to succeed!

+2 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:41

Hear! Hear!

+12 # Brian 2010-12-16 07:20

Where are the real patriots in USA ?? J. Dimon is a financial anti-American oligarch who along with his Wall St banksters have their focus on foreclosing Congress and government enough to set up their USA gulag. Get off your television asses and do something patriotic by pulling your deposits.

+10 # bob s 2010-12-16 07:22

Four words to combata the egregious abuses of the big banks - JOIN A CREDIT UNION.

+8 # Jane Gilgun 2010-12-16 07:51

Cooperation between the legislature, the presidency, and the courts are essential. Journalism is the fourth estate. These four should be regulating big business. Big business is regulating the legislature whom they bought. Big business has co-opted President Obama, the man who was supposed to be for democracy and against oligarchy. Big business has co-opted the Supreme Court. This is a shameful state of affairs.

+7 # Jane Gilgun 2010-12-16 07:55

Cooperation IS essential. Dimon got that right, but he does not have the right to stand on the shoulders of the poor and middle class and push us underwater.

Those in positions to stand up to big business instead enjoy being in bed with them. The hell with the rest of us.

+5 # jagan 2010-12-16 09:01

green Party is not the answer. Is there you can publish the addresses where they reside? we need some one to put fear in their heart, nothing silly or drastic. remember Dr. Reich how he supported This Democrat in name only Obama. He fooled all of you including NOBEL PRIZE people

+3 # Malthus2 2010-12-16 09:24

If these tax breaks for the rich work so well as trickle-down to us peons, why hasn't it worked for the last 8 years or so? I like trickle-up economics better, but with the rich elites controlling things, don't expect this soon though the breaks for the Middle Class will perhaps help some. Meanwhile the Repugs will continue their hypocratic screams about the debits and debt.
Obama had little choice in this situation as he was held hostage by the GOP and he is not a Harry Truman or FDR kinda guy who can duke it out with these regressive politicians.

+5 # Kate 2010-12-16 09:26

When less than 70% of the eligible population is registered, and less than 50% of them bother to vote, then elected officials will be making bad deals for the entire population. People seem to be so ignorant as to believe the republican chant that "the people don't want this" when the people elected the 2008 congress and president so that they would deliver even more than they did. People, you have to participate as well as educate yourself and listening to partisan talking heads can be fun IT IS NOT THE NEWS, and some channels (fox)makes up unbelievable stuff that people believe. Finally, until we have publicly funded elections - with limits - outlaw outright lies - and demand real debates we will continue to have the corporations directing our destiny. Our destiny is now to be low wage country, running behind China. Participate and vote or shut-up.

+4 # Pauline Warren 2010-12-16 09:33

How about a lovely web site with complete with geneologies, pictures of wife and kiddies, lovely shots of the primary residence and all vacation homes and all of the locations, shots of the yacht(s), prep schools- colleges attended, and club memberships, all done in living color and ohhhh so flatering, for all of we plebs and dolts to admire. You know.....like a "celebrity" fest? Thats not illegal is it? More transperancy - right?
Anybody know how to pull that off. Maybe Larry Flint et al?
Its at least an idea and we could "see" them.

-5 # rock 2010-12-16 12:22

You could try Julian Assange.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:43

Quoting

You could try Julian Assange.

rock, seriously dude, no disrespect intended, but geez, thats a cheap shot. It's not even fair. Your comment is a slander on Julian Assange in a way. Oh well.

-3 # rock 2010-12-17 07:47

Not a cheap shot at all. It's exactly like the kind of things JA has been doing. In fact, what Pauline is suggesting is a logical extension of the Assange mindset. Think about it.

0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:48

Alright rock. I did. You're wrong. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

+4 # DaveW. 2010-12-16 15:50

Pauline, I REALLY like your idea. We all see the poor woman, in rags, pushing the shopping cart she calls her "mobile home." Or the guy leaning alongside the 7/11 swilling a forty ouncer. People in general, being what they are, like to look down their noses at somebody...anybody in order to feel superior. This is how the elites look at ALL the rest of us. America has been coerced into focusing on the wrong target. The REAL scum of the earth isn't beneath your feet. It's luxuriating somewhere, living, laughing and loving the lifestyle someone else's labor or misfortune made possible. And that's not accounting for the outright corporate thief. First rate idea!

-2 # rock 2010-12-17 07:51

"People in general, being what they are, like to look down their noses at somebody...anybody in order to feel superior. This is how the elites look at ALL the rest of us."

Do you actually know people like this? I suppose there might be some of this going on in Hollywood, but where else do you see this? Oh, yeah, I forgot about John Edwards. Sorry.

0 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:53

Quoting

"People in general, being what they are, like to look down their noses at somebody...anybody in order to feel superior. This is how the elites look at ALL the rest of us."

Do you actually know people like this? I suppose there might be some of this going on in Hollywood, but where else do you see this? Oh, yeah, I forgot about John Edwards. Sorry.

Gee rock, I know plenty of people like that. I even think you might be one of them! After all, you look down on DaveW. I think DavW's observation of human nature is generally accurate and represents most of us, at least in our inclinations, and yes, in all fairness, we should be looking upward at the scum floating on the top of the pool of humanity.
By the way, I do know some good people who are wealthy but I don't think it's a coincidence that none of them are corporate creatures.

-2 # rock 2010-12-18 21:44

Huh?

+2 # gerard 2010-12-16 09:45

With leaders like this catering to the rich folks, it is high time to leave the Democratic party. We screw them before, let's do it again!

+6 # sewsjill 2010-12-16 10:03

"No! Don't just sit back! Go out and enrich yourself so you can do some philanthropy with it"

When was the last time philanthropy built a public road or bridge, improved an airport, paid the police or fire departments or US military?
it may be "His" (on this account I would argue, there is simply no way anyone earns that much money) but I am sure that he drives on public roads, used public airports, is protected my public levees and Police and fire departments, not to mention the US Military.

+3 # Betsy 2010-12-16 16:47

Quoting

"No! Don't just sit back! Go out and enrich yourself so you can do some philanthropy with it"

When was the last time philanthropy built a public road or bridge, improved an airport, paid the police or fire departments or US military?
it may be "His" (on this account I would argue, there is simply no way anyone earns that much money) but I am sure that he drives on public roads, used public airports, is protected my public levees and Police and fire departments, not to mention the US Military.

...and if I hear one more politician talk use the terms "tax relief" or "tax burden" I think I'll scream (twice as loud if s/he's a Democrat. Paying taxes is patriotic. Those who are concerned about "fiscal responsibility" should become politically active and watch for waste rather than becoming non-tax-paying, un-American traitors.

+6 # Raymond 2010-12-16 10:09

"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
C.K. Chesterson

+4 # don singleton 2010-12-16 12:01

The wall Streeters don't "make" they sint in cubicles and cook up schemes to rob the rest of us. Making Money implies adding value of some sort. The French got it just right. When we America learn.

+7 # Patricia Chang 2010-12-16 12:26

Mr. Dimon is a whore to his own greed and excess. He helped create the unstable economic situation we are now seeing. It has caused suffering to millions. He deserves nothing but derision, not more millions. He is a poster boy for corruption and greed. These attitudes and behaviors are destroying this country. They are reflected in the right-wing hate rhetoric; bullying, and increase in hate crimes. The example that President Obama has set is reprehensible. He has caved in to blackmailers. These Wall Street goons are nothing more than crooks in custom-made suits. They are enabled by the Supreme Court to buy elections. They are enabled by Congress and Obama to buy the country. It is a house of cards; and it WILL fall. You cannot sustain an economy, if you give the lion's share of the money to only a few. The average citizen is left without buying power. Government so-called fixes are only bandaids on a supporating wound. Whether you agree with taxing the wealthy or not, or with the War in Afghanistan, YOU will suffer the consequences of these terrible decisions.

+4 # DaveW. 2010-12-16 15:57

Patricia, Very well spoken! The whole system is, as you implied, unsustainable. When the house of cards falls those at the top will have the farthest flight to the bottom. Assuming, of course, they wait around. This is why the wealthiest keep so much money in foreign banks. It's not solely to escape taxes. It's the retreat option. What happens to the rest of us won't be for the squeamish.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:46

Yes Patricia, we will suffer the consequences...but not the one's who made those horrid, stupid decisions, and we will pay for them at great cost.

+4 # Sallyport 2010-12-16 13:35

This society has become so seriously unbalanced that its resemblance to conditions in late eighteenth century France ought to give the plutocrat class pause. Banana republics are sometimes cited as similes, but our society differs in that the distressed class here is one that well remembers its own relative prosperity & is getting madder about it every day.

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-17 00:48

Yes Sallyport, the scent of revolution is getting stronger by the day.

-3 # rock 2010-12-17 07:53

"You tell me it's the institution, but you'd better free your mind instead!"

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:55

Quoting

"You tell me it's the institution, but you'd better free your mind instead!"

Once again rock, I don't have a clue what you're referring to. Care to elaborate?
Or maybe you enjoy being cryptic.

-2 # rock 2010-12-18 21:46

Sorry, Dan! I did not think I was being cryptic at all. I though you were old enough to have been around when "Revolution" was a big Beatles hit. I recommend listening to it when you get the chance.

+5 # Brenda 2010-12-16 17:30

All I have to say is the rich have some nerve to want a tax cut, when it was their philosophy of doing business that screwed this country's work force in the first place. They're lucky that people don't show up on their property with pitch forks and scythes. The last time I made this comment, it didn't get published. LOL

+4 # Doug600 2010-12-16 20:26

The idea that the money saved is "his money" and not "ours" is idiotic. Everyone else pays taxes that pay for highways, airports, armed forces, Congressional salaries, National Parks, dams, bridges, police, fire fighters, and a million other things that we all use, without thinking about where the money comes from.
Are you saying this $22M/year guy doesn't use any of these services?
And how much of that $22M came from the "bankers bailout" paid for by taxpayers?

+2 # lisa d. 2010-12-17 00:21

let's break it down to a number even the numbskulls can relate to ... 60 hours working per week, 52 weeks per year (vacation time is paid, of course), $22,000,000=more than $7,000 per hour ... will one of you "defenders" PLEASE tell us what anyone on this planet does that is worth $7,000+ PER HOUR????!!!!

-3 # rock 2010-12-17 07:54

Why don't you try to find out what the people who paid him that money were thinking?

-1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 13:59

Quoting

Why don't you try to find out what the people who paid him that money were thinking?

Oh come on rock! You're not making sense. Since he's in his particular occupation the people paying him are all competing to be the same greed head that he is! And are the people who paid him worth anything close to what they were making? Come on rock! Probably not. NOBODY IS WORTH $7,000 AN HOUR!

+1 # Jane Gilgun 2010-12-17 23:52

Rock, why not spend some time volunteering at a food kitchen or with children at shelters? You spend a lot of time trying to get people angry. Maybe you could do some research before you express your opinions.

Just be nice to the children and the hungry. Don't get them angry.

-3 # rock 2010-12-18 10:13

Good ideas Jane! But why are the children and the hungry wasting their time on this site? And why do they get so angry at anyone who doesn't see things exactly the way they do?

BTW, welcome to my food kitchen any time!

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-18 14:08

Okay my friend, I think you're crossing a line here for sure. The children and the hungry don't have the means to be on this site to begin with and if they were, would it really be a waste of time? Maybe. Your being on it seems to be a waste of your time as I follow your posts. And haven't we been over this before? We, you and me and others, aren't obliged to see things exactly the way you do. Your choice of words sometimes is offensive and people get angry. What the heck Rock, you can dish it but are you confessing you can't take it?
Your last line was completely uncalled for. Jane Gilgun was making an excellent proposal and her final comment is dead on. I can tell you from working with the poor and the hungry that if you give them an attitude like you display here, you're likely to be fed back a knuckle sandwich if not worse. I'm talking to you in a friendly way here rock. You seem oppositionally defiant at times in ways that suggest some serious immaturity. I've agreed with you sometimes and disagreed most of the time. So what? Your response to Jane Gilgun proves her point. Try to take good advice when it comes your way. You might actually learn something.

-3 # rock 2010-12-18 21:56

Well, I'm not going to let you make me mad, Dan, and none of my posts has ever been made out of anger or the desire to make anyone angry.

I initially thought Jane, who is obviously a nice person, was trying to say that I was being mean to the children and the hungry with my posts . . . to get them angry. Maybe that was not what she meant. I can assure you that I am nice to children and hungry people.

You keep talking up your own charitable activities and your work with the poor and the hungry, and I respect you for that [the work], but to imply that someone else with a different political perspective is any less compassionate or helpful is a . . . let me be gentle here . . . real stretch.

BTW, my posts are not meant to get people angry, they are meant to present a different point of view from what is usually expressed here. Funny thing is, you and many of your fellow posters just seem to lose it when you encounter a different point of view. Where's the diversity and tolerance in that?

+1 # Daniel Fletcher 2010-12-19 19:57

rock, you are a curious lad. I think I owe you an apology some how. You may not mean to get people angry but I swear that your choice of wording at times is quite provokative. On the other hand, that's certainly your right. Actually, there is a lot of preaching to the choir here and you do present an alternate view that is So-o-o-o-o alternative that I wonder why you come, but on the other hand, you may as well. You're right I and others should be a little more tolerant.
I apologize because I keep trying to correct you and that is certainly rude and inappropriate on my part. And I can be such a condescending bore at times!
Okay rock. I'll lighten up. I have to tell you that this venue is going to give you a lot of thumbs down so if you don't have a thick skin you are at risk. Me? I'm going to try to lay off a spell.
Happy Holidays to you and family.

+3 # Victoria 2010-12-19 15:54

Hey Rock-- I'm an ICU RN. I save lives often. When you have your coronary-related event, who do you want assisting you, Mr. Dimon or me? What are my skills worth? I'm certainly not wealthy, but I work hard and conscientiously ; I save lives for a living, but what's that worth compared to the work of a hedge fund manager?

-2 # rock 2010-12-19 20:35

I absolutely salute you for your skills and your work. It would be worth every penny of what I have if you saved my life . . . I never said that Hedge Fund managers were worth any part of a rat's anatomy, but, for heaven's sake, let's make it a crime if we feel that way . . . and concentrate on fixing the tax system instead of obsessing about the activities of one person.

+3 # Vicki 2010-12-19 16:00

The guy making $22 million/year in the US relies on its infrastructure, from highways to Congress, to make that kind of money. He owes us.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.