Leopold: Billionaires Should Pay for Recovery

Monday, October 26, 2009

Les Leopold: We are entering the billionaire bailout society. For the past 30 years we have minted billionaires, and we have created the most unequal distribution of wealth since 1928-29. This didn't happen by accident. We deliberately deregulated the financial sector and we deliberately eliminated the steep progressive taxes on the super-rich that had kept in check our income distribution. By unleashing capital and finance we were supposed to get an enormous investment boom in real goods and services. Instead we got a fantasy finance boom as Wall Street marketed derivatives to those with excess capital.

Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 02:32 PM | 80 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

DARTHCHENEY

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2005/09/23
Visited 2009/11/14

Status: user

Thousands Protest Meeting of Banker's Association (4 comments) ...

Leopold: Billionaires Should Pay for Recovery (80 comments) ...

Nurse Accused of Urging Suicides Online (13 comments) ...

Soaring Bank Profits Trickle Down (5 comments) ...

Cesca: Punish Health Insurance Lobby Extortion (1 comments) ...

Stein: America Loses, Cons Cheer (241 comments) ...

Democrat Votes for Sale: $19 Mil to Defeat Public Option (9 comments) ...

Cesca: The Impeachment of President Obama (53 comments) ...

Max Baucus Crafts Insurance Company Wet Dream Bill (2 comments) ...

Israeli Jew Joins Fatah Council (10 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Perhaps the most damaging feature of our billionaire bailout society is the "jobless recovery." This oxymoron refers to an economy that is growing, but that can't produce nearly enough jobs to reach full employment (an unemployment rate below 5 percent). Our current jobless recovery will be the worst ever. Right now the BLS (U6) jobless rate stands at 17.0 percent -- and climbing. (This counts those without work plus those who have part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work.) If the billionaire bailout society becomes permanent, we may never see full employment again.

Why is that? Because you don't need a full employment society to mint billionaires. Reflect for a moment on Goldman Sachs. They do not have individual depositors. They are not public brokers. They do not make loans to small business. They are in the business of making money by playing the financial markets, from mergers and acquisitions, from trading, and from creating and selling fantasy finance instruments.

In our billionaire bailout society these are unquestioned positive activities. But what value do they produce in the real economy? What is their contribution to market efficiency? How do they lower the cost of capital? How do these activities create jobs in the real economy? Good luck answering those questions because they don't do any of that. They just make money for themselves while producing little or no value to our society.

#1 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2009-10-26 03:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Two years ago the richest 400 Americans had a combined wealth of $1.57 trillion. Last year during the crash their wealth dropped to "only" $1.27 trillion. Now they are set to rise again. We need to tie their wealth of our richest to putting our people back to work.

Here's the simplest and most controversial approach: a 10 percent wealth tax on all those with more than $500 million -- until unemployment drops below 5 percent. The money collected would come to about $150 billion a year. That money should be directly invested in public works programs to put our people to work -- a Green Corps to weatherize every home and office in the country -- a Youth Corps to provide work for unemployed high school and college graduates.

(I realize that many Americans detest the idea of taxing anyone's assets, even billionaires'. But let's be realistic: That's where our society's wealth has gone and we need that wealth to put people back to work. Some billionaires do create large numbers of jobs, but not enough. They can contribute more and not feel a bit of pain or suffering.)

#2 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2009-10-26 03:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Billionaires harvest wealth,let's not feel sorry for the poor bastards

#3 | Posted by bruceaz at 2009-10-26 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, there will be the folks who cry "socialism" and defend the system that created the imbalance but eventually their screams will be drowned out when things get bad enough for the majority. It's only a matter of time, better to fix it now than wait until more radical concepts take hold and they will when enough are desperate enough.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-26 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you think about it, it is just the modern manifestation of survival at all cost. Base evolutionary protocol. Once the bastion of warlords, monarchs' and sociopaths, now respected and revered.

Smartly dressed and sporty.

All while ruin visits upon your many houses.

#5 | Posted by gitmboy at 2009-10-26 08:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's right, DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOISIE. It's time for the people to take whats rightfully... um, hang on lets try that again, time for the people to take whats not rightfully ours but what we would like to have and don't.

Remember folks it's not stealing if you get someone else to do it for you. On top of that it is all the rich peoples fault for being so successful, i mean the audacity to make money, money that should have been GIVEN to me. Don't worry it's not rampant jealousy because... uh... oh yea, it's not rampant jealousy because money is a god given right and should be given equally to everybody.

I don't know were this came from but a buddy of mine told me a great idea. When kids come to your door this Halloween, take all of the candy from their bags and tell them you are just redistributing it to those who did not put as much effort into it. See if the kids understand just how wrong it is.
I thought that was pretty funny.

#6 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-26 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

"but eventually their screams will be drowned out when things get bad enough for the majority."
Not everyone is willing to give up on their principles just because money gets a little tight. There are still some decent human beings out there who believe stealing is wrong.

#7 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-26 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Note enough rich, not enough money - the middle class will end up bearing the burden in the long run - you can bet on that.

#8 | Posted by MSgt at 2009-10-26 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Huh?
I thought the rich had plenty of money and just won't spend it because they were jerks. I thought we could just sneak into their houses at night, steal their money and all of our problems would be solved. Are you really telling me that even if the government became robin hood that all of the world problems would not go away? Oh well, hang the rich anyways it will make the rest of us feel less inadequate.

#9 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-26 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the simplest and most controversial approach: a 10 percent Congressional tax on all those with more than $5 million -- until unemployment drops below 5 percent.

Taxes only members of Congress.

#10 | Posted by Petrous at 2009-10-26 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Not everyone is willing to give up on their principles just because money gets a little tight."

But most will when it gets more than a little tight. Hunger has a way of causing people to forget things like capitalism/socialism etc. when it gets bad enough.
During WWII the wealthy paid high taxes and didn't whine because they shared a common enemy with the rest of us, some may not realize it but a collapsing economy is their enemy as much as it is ours and will be every bit as challenging as a world war.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-26 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've always thought that billionaires are today's monarchy, living with a different set of rules than the rest of us: different type of justice, different type of fiscal obligations, different type of opportunities within a political and social system that is under their control. As time passes, their fortunes grow while working, and consequently living conditions deteriorate for the rest of the population.

The stats prove it: fewer and fewer people are controlling more and more money, more often than not through dubious business practices.

Maybe there's one lesson Americans aren't too proud to learn from the French, circa 1788.

#12 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-10-26 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have a theory that I wish I had the time and money to prove. Take ten houses at random in the most wealthy neighborhoods in your city. Investigate the owners and I guarantee 7 you will discover 7 or 8 out of 10 got there unethically or didn't deserve it. In other words, they screwed someone else to get where they are.

As a side note, I worked at Microsoft back in 86-89 on the original Windows product. Long days and weekends - I was making 22k per year. Often sat in meetings with Gates & Ballmer. When the company went public - do you think the prick could have offered employees even $2K worth of stock? (There were about 1200 of us.) Back then I guess I didn't know any better or expect it. Years later I saw other more altruistic executives do that all the way down to the receptionist. (I had about $2K in the bank of my own but I laugh at calling "my broker" to get in on that IPO. Thanks Bill - I hope they tax the hell out you - you great philanthropist.)

#13 | Posted by RADICALRANDY at 2009-10-26 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just raise the top tax rate back to what it was under Ike, when the economy was booming and all was right with the world.

#14 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-10-26 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

When the company went public - do you think the prick could have offered employees even $2K worth of stock?

I thought I read sometime back about secretaries at Microsoft that were millionaires from their stock. You had that opportunity. quit bitching.

Thanks Bill - I hope they tax the hell out you - you great philanthropist.)

nope. he isn't going to get taxed much at all.

I have a theory that I wish I had the time and money to prove.

what is the point? you have apparently decided your theory to be true already. why would anybody accept your results when you admit you are 100% biased from the start?

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-26 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But most will when it gets more than a little tight. Hunger has a way of causing people to forget things like capitalism/socialism etc. when it gets bad enough."

Exactly, the immoral will triumph when the people are scared. It does not mean that socialism is the answer, it is the animalistic desire to take from others to better your situation. Historically it has always ended badly. It is time to learn from the mistakes of others and not give in to our childish desires.

#16 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-26 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

what do you say to the millions of people that think if your making 90,000 dollars a year your rich and the government should take %5 of your earnings.

#17 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-10-26 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly, the immoral will triumph when the people are scared.

see 9-12-01 as an example.

As for the onslaught of "socialism" that's got the righties hiding under the bed, that would be the same onslaught that worked so well in the New Deal, the same onslaught as Medicare and public roads and public schools and public libraries and public parks and all those terrible communistic things that righties never ever go near.

#18 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-10-26 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

Gotta luv how people forget that the top 5% of the earners in this country pay like 50% of the taxes. The rich already pay their fair share. It's time for the rest to stop whining because the rich have so much money, and quit thinking that taxing the rich is going to do anything other than drive all of that money offshore to some place that could care less about the FEDS coming in on them.

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#19 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-26 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

NG3

Couldn't you have named at least one that is close to being run well?

#20 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-26 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Post of the Month!!

"As for the onslaught of "socialism" that's got the righties hiding under the bed, that would be the same onslaught that worked so well in the New Deal, the same onslaught as Medicare and public roads and public schools and public libraries and public parks and all those terrible communistic things that righties never ever go near."

#18 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-10-26 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag: Newsworthy

I posted about RiR having to cross himself thrice after arriving at a public library via public transportation, using their public restroom (no toe tapping that I know of), when he noted that there was a public college, a Post Office, and a public park across the street.

He fainted a bit, but the public Police noticed and called the public medics, so he's OK now.

He's just going to try to stay out of public.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's because we have the best legislators billionares can buy.

We deliberately deregulated the financial sector and we deliberately eliminated the steep progressive taxes on the super-rich that had kept in check our income distribution.

Deregulation is a catch word for free market, which doesn't exist anywhere in the world. What deregulation is in practice, is regulators and the regulated teaming up to steal from the public. Then when someone like Madoff gets caught, they pretend they didn't see it.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-26 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

He fainted a bit, but the public Police noticed and called the public medics, so he's OK now.

He's just going to try to stay out of public.

#21 | Posted by Corky

Corky has a point. This country is getting more like the former Soviet Union.

#23 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-26 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky, are you telling me that any of the named programs are efficient or effective?

It's like puting wax fruit in front of a starving person and saying they may not feed you but they are at least there.

#24 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-26 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

your starting to scare the shit out of oprah and babs

#25 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-10-26 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe the best short article on the subject all year.

The ways to change this will include renewing the concept and enforcement of real bribery laws, and separate the money from the regulators.

A lot of team, most of the Dems, will go along with public financing of campaigns, which would not only end up saving us taxpayer dollars they spend for donations they receive, but would do what a 90 percent tax rate on upper income did early on, create a more level playing field.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Answer:

Source A Huffington...

Question:

What is a load of shit

Wanna see BS, look at C Romer statements today. The stimulus money is irrelevant because it's just a 'one time' item!!!

When they spend and spend...before they even figure out how to raise the tax money...we are ALL in deep shit

#27 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2009-10-26 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's make sure that George Soros is paying too....

#28 | Posted by daprof at 2009-10-26 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

Even given that some of those are required of and by government, and given that in cases like Social Security, Medicare, and the New Deal, the government had the good of the people in mind, the problem becomes that when you give something for free, you have an unlimited demand ... and all of these government programs aren't costing the end user at all for their use, and now people are complaining that the money is about to run out...

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#29 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-26 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bankrupting Billionaires is sure to uplift the rest of us.
I hope Obama takes everything the greedy wealthy have!

Be Well.

#30 | Posted by skip_wellington at 2009-10-26 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Corky, are you telling me that any of the named programs are efficient or effective?

No, I was pointing out the hyper-hypocracy of people who get Medicare while condemning a public plan as "socialism"..... but I will if you like. Look up how many parcels the USPS delivers in a day compared to Fedex and/or UPS in a year.

And yeah, those public libraries are SO bad!

And public colleges? How can private colleges compete? They've been put out of bidness, eh?

And you can condemn the EMS and the police if you like, but I won't.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They just make money for themselves while producing little or no value to our society."

Since when is it the job of all wealthy people to produce value for society? Since when is it a bad thing to make money for yourself? I don't think the majority of Americans would consider making money for yourself to be a bad thing.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-26 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#29 | Posted by lunahq7

Birchers? Really? Birchers?

I thought they all died out like the diseases they were after celebrating JFK. MLK, and Bobby's deaths.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Welcome to the USSA

#34 | Posted by ufoorig at 2009-10-26 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

-This country is getting more like the former Soviet Union.

Yeah, all those things are SO un-American!

I think if you could still hear yourself, you'd be ashamed.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Since when is it a bad thing to make money for yourself?

There are many "bad" ways to make money. When you are harming others in the process I think it is considered a bad way to make money...The Banks becoming Casinos and crashing the entire US economy was a bad thing was it not?

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-26 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

This Leopold character must be reading onlythesuperrich.org

#37 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-26 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

This Leopold character must be reading Ralph Nader.

#38 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-26 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ralph and Barney Frank are debating on TV right now.

Ralph is complaining about what has yet to be accomplished in derivative regulation, and Barney agrees with him, but throws in that Ralph, "given his current irrevelancy" lol! doesn't understand the political difficulties considering the irony that Rwingers have given gov a horrible reputation the last 8 years, but now benefit by It in negative public opinion when the Dems try to regulate the problems.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Socialism, cry Danni??? #4
You blame others for screaming against socialism
that steals from the decent working class and gives what they steal to the sorry ass that want work and thinks the world owes them???

Your blue gum elected mealy mouth president promised and promised to all the people of the U.S.A. if elected he would CHANGE the Bush economy and bashed Bush with every breath, and paid the news media to do so too. And you and other gullible people trusted such cunning and deceptive language.
Well he sure changed the economy alright, now stop blaming those who don't approve of his socialistic changes, and demand for him to stop his trillion dollar giveaways and fix it so the working class
will be able to work and bail his worthless ass
out.

#40 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood at 2009-10-26 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"given his current irrevelancy" ... doesn't understand the political difficulties considering the irony that Rwingers have given gov a horrible reputation the last 8 years, but now benefit by It in negative public opinion when the Dems try to regulate the problems.
#39 | Posted by Corky

Here's the thing, just because its hard to do, doesn't mean that people should just STFU and wait for the politicians to get around to it. They don't do anything unless someone keeps their feet to the fire.

Irrelevancy.... its never going to end, is it?

#41 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-26 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a matter of perception, I think.

I listened to both of them closely, and there was little difference in policy for these two of my favorite libs.

But I think Franks is working as hard to get these things accomplished as Ralph is to hold their feet to the fire, and I think they both know that.

Ship of state, dime.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

"Since when is it the job of all wealthy people to produce value for society? Since when is it a bad thing to make money for yourself? I don't think the majority of Americans would consider making money for yourself to be a bad thing."

What people don't understand is that it's not like the rich have money trees in their back yards. People get rich by producing something that others need or want. Then they produce a lot of those products and services, they sell them at a profit, and rake in the dough.

Bill Gates was mentioned earlier. Do you think he and Ballmer and the others at Microsoft developed Windows and such so that they could be taxed at 85% or more for their profimongering? Nope. They developed the product, the people bought LOTS of it, and now Gates donates a ton of money each year to the United Nations or AIDS in Africa research, or some such thing.

I'll just ask the following: show me the hospital built by the poor. Show me the college campus buildings funded by the poor. You think the rich don't do anything with their money, yet they fund the building of worthwhile projects, and then get taxed on top of that.

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#43 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-26 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But I think Franks is working as hard to get these things accomplished as Ralph is to hold their feet to the fire, and I think they both know that."

I hope so.

#44 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-26 05:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-26 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag: You could offer to pay Rogers if you want to advertise your site.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-26 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Since when it is the job of all wealthy people to produce value for society...?"

Ah, that strange concept CITIZENSHIP---I'd say it's their DUTY, as Americans receiving the many benefits and protections that helped them to become wealthy.

Or, if it's not a matter of duty, of love of country---If rich people cna be excused from producing value, then I guess the lower classes can opt out, too. I wonder where that would leave the rich?

You do believe in "lower classes" don't you? Of course you do.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-26 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

You could offer to pay Rogers if you want to advertise your site.
#45 | Posted by Corky

Now corky, you know that isn't how conservatives do it. They exploit loopholes in the system until the law forces them to do otherwise.

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-10-26 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now, now---LUNAHQ can't provide VALUE to Rogers---LUNAHQ is practicing to be rich.

#48 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-26 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do have a question for LUNAHQ, though---When is Rush Limbaugh going to build his first charity hospital?

#49 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-26 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now corky, you know that isn't how conservatives do it. They exploit loopholes in the system until the law forces them to do otherwise.

???

Doesn't everyone?

You shouldn't be so harsh on the democrats, HC. They may appear stupid, but I'm sure they exploit every tax advantage available to them, too. You don't give them enough credit. They are smarter than you think.

#50 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-26 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've lost track of everything this administration has proposed to pay for with taxes on the rich. I think we are going to need a lot more rich people so everyone buy your lottery tickets - lol

#51 | Posted by MSgt at 2009-10-26 06:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand the top ten could pay for the whole mess.

Except SCOTUS, has approved of the taking of middle class homes for private development, they won't fuck with billionaires, just ask EXXON.

In the bigger picture, the real targets should be the perpetrators of fraud, mostly bailed out investment which morphed into FDIC holding companies. These fraudsters belong in jail, including the SEC, Treasury and Federal Reserve officials that implemented this fucking bailout.

#52 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-10-26 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

When is Rush Limbaugh going to build his first charity hospital?

Call me crazy, zed, but why would Lunahq know this?

#53 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-26 06:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Call me crazy, zed, but why would Lunahq know this?

#53 | Posted by goatman

Just a wild guess but because it would be the latest and greatest Rethug talking point...possibly ever.

It would make Rush a DittoGod. And it would be shouted from the highest mountain tops and all over the interwebs.

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-10-26 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, GOATMAN. LUNAHQ advances the idea that without the rich there would be fewer charity hospitals. I'm just pointing out Limbaugh agrees with that by way of behavior to date, especially the "fewer" part.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-26 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just a wild guess but because it would be the latest and greatest Rethug talking point...possibly ever.

It would make Rush a DittoGod. And it would be shouted from the highest mountain tops and all over the interwebs.

???

Did you just answer my question, "Why would Lunahq know [when is Rush going to build his first charity hospital]?" but I missed it between the lines?

I can name hundreds of rich democrats who have never built a charity hospital. I wonder if zed is wonders when they will do it, too, or if it's just the usual leftie fascination with Rush that caused him to single him out as the target of his inquiry.

#56 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-26 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rush Limbaugh Hospital - 'Dedicated to the treatment of Pilonidal Cysts, Drug Abuse, Obesity, and Pomposity'

#57 | Posted by Timex at 2009-10-26 06:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tax the fat bastards.

#58 | Posted by Wise111 at 2009-10-26 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, GOATMAN. LUNAHQ was advancing this philosophical point, though I know he hasn't thought it through to know it: That the rich are better than I and Thou by virtue of having money.

Now understand LUNAHQ's full point---The rich never have to really do anything of value to be better. This provided the door to discuss Rush.

#59 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-26 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tax the fat bastards.

And the skinny ones of verified lineage, too!

#60 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-26 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny flag for Timex's #57.

#61 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-10-26 07:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

LUNAHq7 POSTS"

"People get rich by producing something that others need or want."

if that were true we would have no problems but most rich people do not get rich by producing anything. Most get rich by buying a company on credit secured by the company they are buying. Then they dismember the company, lay off as many employees as possible and sell as many parts of the company as possible. Most people who are rich get that way by figuring out ways to outsmart the financial system not by producing anything. Mitt Romney is the perfect example of the corporate raider who bought companies, sold off parts, laid off many workers and profited handsomely. Never invented anything, produced anything. Just profited by destroying companies that supported thousands of families.

#62 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-26 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

^.^

Rush annually raises money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. In 2009, he donated $300,000 to kick off his annual donation drive for this cause.

Rush also recently donated $500,000 to the House Ear Institute, and he raised $2.1 million for the letter signed by Senator Harry Reid, among others including Hillary Clinton, in which Reid condemned Rush's "phony soldiers" comments.

How much have YOU raised?

John B.
www.politicscity.com

#63 | Posted by lunahq7 at 2009-10-26 07:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How much have YOU raised?"

Better question, how much have you???
We don't have Rush's income or his platform, given either, I'm sure we'd both be as generous.

#64 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-26 08:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You think the rich don't do anything with their money, yet they fund the building of worthwhile projects, and then get taxed on top of that."

Well, not on the funds that they give to those worthwhile projects they don't. They get deductions for those things. It ends up costing them little or nothing but thanks for playing.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-26 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, you know shit about absolutely nothing

#66 | Posted by bph320 at 2009-10-27 12:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, the Chucky Schummers, Chris Dodds, Charlie Rangels of this world, and the leaders of ACORN who intimidated the Banks into lending to unworthy credit risks as well as the big shots at Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, who EVEN TODAY are taking $5 Million Dollar Bonuses who should be paying for this mess this economy is in.

Just keep punishing the rich, the entrepreneur, the small business owner, the guy trying to make a living and raise his family and soon this country will be third world because the parasites at the top and the bottom have taken it all away from the people who have made it all work for so very long, even as they were being vilified and ridiculed. Atlas is Shrugging and no one realizes it yet.

#67 | Posted by Kissntell at 2009-10-27 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

"the Chucky Schummers, Chris Dodds, Charlie Rangels of this world, and the leaders of ACORN who intimidated the Banks into lending to unworthy credit risks"

What a crock. Bankers have always been able to loan to people unable to pay back; until recently, they knew better. And the main problem wasn't the folks in the lowest-cost houses, it was the Lehmans of the world leveraging bad paper against bad paper at 100-1. If those people were so intimidating, why didn't ALL banks have the same exposure?

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-27 12:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

How do the politicians get elected? Money and votes. Where does the money come from? The Rich.

Canada tried going after the rich, the end result was they hurt thier national past time Hockey. Now all the Stanley Cups are won by American teams with Candian players.

Those who have the gold make the golden rule, that law has been true since the begining of mankind.

#69 | Posted by 90c2cab at 2009-10-27 07:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#64 Danni, dodging truth as usual, said> We don't have Rush's income or his platform, given either, I'm sure we'd both be as generous.

The question asked was, "How much have YOU raised?" You immediately deflected and attacked Rush (someone I am loath to defend). Do you have any idea who contributes more to charities in the U.S.? Is it the uber-rich? Is it people with strong religious convictions? Is it people at the bottom half of the income scale?

My religious beliefs teach me to give charitably of what I HAVE, not what I WISH I had, and certainly not to sit around bashing others who have legally made a fortune.

#70 | Posted by AKat at 2009-10-27 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

What does Loeb think about it?

#71 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-27 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

#65 Danni> They get deductions for those things. It ends up costing them little or nothing but thanks for playing.

They actually get 100% write off for charitable contributions? Is that what you are saying?

#72 | Posted by AKat at 2009-10-27 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

If those people were so intimidating, why didn't ALL banks have the same exposure?

Danforth is right. There wasn't this huge pressure to make shitty loans. Financial institutions everywhere were driven by greed....not pressure.

perhaps some bad loans were pressure driven but, by themselves, have little impact on this problem.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-27 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

DANNI said:

"but eventually their screams will be drowned out when things get bad enough for the majority."

I am currently employed and paying down debts. I expect to debt free by mid summer.

Last year about the only thing that kept me from suicide (no joke) was my contempt for abandoning unpaid debts, and the thought of my family having to attend my funeral. I was horrified that I was unemployed and having ask for help from family. I felt like a leech.

KEY POINT:
At no point in my hell did I EVER think the world owed me anything except what I earned/made with my own labor. Not even if it kills me.

I never applied for unemployment benefits. This is NOT because I believe there is no reason for unemployment benefits. It is because you should not take from public money unless you have NO other option. And NEVER assume the public money will be there, and NEVER assume you have a "right" to it.

#74 | Posted by USAF242 at 2009-10-27 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

what a fuckin joke this guy is.

class warfare doesnt work...well it did in the soviet union I GUESS and maybe CUBA...THAT IS ..if you are the proletariat(sp)

#75 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-27 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

AFK,
You mean the Bourgeoisie. The Proletariat was the working class.

#76 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-27 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

OOPS

sorry bout that...

I was just thinking where I was going to talk to danni about her CAMPAIGN to rid the world of
TUPPERWARE...

#77 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-27 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

and besides...bourgeoisie is harder to spell than proletariat.....

#78 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-27 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Bill Gates was mentioned earlier. Do you think he and Ballmer and the others at Microsoft developed Windows and such so that they could be taxed at 85% or more for their profimongering?"

when Bill was developing Windows, the top tax rate (70%)was much higher than it is now. Didn't seem to slow him down.

And if he was able to see the future and know the righties wouldn't want his money, why didn't he skip ME?

#79 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-10-27 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

The "USA to USSR" cliche needs to stop. A more accurate description would be "USA to USA circa 1980." Doesn't England tax earners above certain levels something ridiculous like 90% (I may be wrong there)? We wouldn't be going that nuts with the tax increases. It'd be catastrophic.

#80 | Posted by Scrumplet at 2009-10-28 07:53 AM | Reply | Flag: