Sanders: 'We have got to apologize for slavery

[MisterChester]

Disparity? So should there be a maximum ratio of income between the rich and the poor? What will that be? Who will set the ratio?

If by golden parachute you mean severance package, then that is a negotiated term between an employee and employer. Lots of salaried employees get them, not just executives, and it is in the interest of the company to give them, because they include a number of binding agreements such as non-compete clauses. Are you saying that an employee or group thereof should not have the right to negotiate the terms of compensation with employers?

On bailouts we agree. Your failure is not my fault, nor should it be my financial burden. But gubmint loves them. Why? It gives us all justification to point out the income disparity and golden parachutes. That divides us along lines of class, which is one of .gov's main tools for wielding control over the masses.

If they received a slap on the wrist, then you must have a crime they committed in mind. Losing millions is not a crime, it's failure. That failure is between the executives and the shareholder appointed board of directors.

Theft is a crime. Securities fraud is a crime. To think there are no consequences for the decision makers who lose all this money and destroyed the lives that depended on them for a paycheck is insane. That was a major failure in responsibility and they should be punished. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

[jamil]

Theft is a crime. Securities fraud is a crime. To think there are no consequences for the decision makers who lose all this money and destroyed the lives that depended on them for a paycheck is insane. That was a major failure in responsibility and they should be punished. Ignorance is no excuse.

When crimes are committed they should be punished. Contracting for exorbitant compensation and inane severance packages is just a contract and not illegal. And that's what you were lamenting. If a candidate CEO is savvy enough to negotiate a deal that makes her not accountable to the company and its shareholders for her actions as CEO that's one thing. A CEO who breaks the law, that's another.

I'd rather just ban bailouts altogether. But that's just not going to happen. Too many people are afraid of the sky falling to do that.

So how about this. Since we have ****ed up finance laws anyway, let's add another that makes CEOs and boards of directors of all companies "too big to fail" financially responsible for all bailouts, up to the value of their assets or the amount of the bailout, whichever is least. In other words, if they run a company too big to fail into the ground, that company gets not one dime of public money until they've exhausted their personal assets to bail out the business themselves. After they're poor, then the the company gets the rest bailed out by the public. Oh, and we can add sterilization/killing of first born if that's not hateful enough.

 

[Woobie]

Theft is a crime. Securities fraud is a crime. To think there are no consequences for the decision makers who lose all this money and destroyed the lives that depended on them for a paycheck is insane. That was a major failure in responsibility and they should be punished. Ignorance is no excuse.

Losing money is not the same as committing theft or securities fraud. It just isn't. If you have a problem with that, contact your congressman and ask him to change the appropriate code. There are consequences for losing money, but those consequences are not legal, they are private. Inasmuch as anyone did commit actual theft or securities fraud, then let's figure that out and get them prosecuted.

 

[Alpo]

I was reading a book last night and one of the Princeton mottos was included: "In the Nation's Service". I believe that motto has been around since 1902 when Woodrow Wilson assumed the presidency of Princeton. It is similar in many ways to JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you.." inaugural address.

Today it seems we've moved to "Every man for himself".

I think we all agree that federal power has grown too large and has too much of an effect on the lives of ordinary citizens. Powerful enterprises working hand in hand with government can only lead to corruption.

Last night I was also thinking about wealth concentration and what it will mean in a couple generations. Will your grandkids be able to afford a home...or even buy a home? Will the rentiers own most of the housing? It has happened in big cities. Will future REIT's buy the best neighborhoods in your town? I don't know if it will happen, but it could happen. Continue to leave wealth in the hands of a few and it will happen. Just a matter of when. It has happened with farmland since the 1930's and many ag states have put in place laws protecting family farms....I guess that's a social policy though....

 

[steveh_131]

I think we all agree that federal power has grown too large and has too much of an effect on the lives of ordinary citizens.

Excellent, common ground.

If the government is too large, then the obvious solution is to shrink it... right? Death taxes and such accomplishes nothing of the sort. Let's look at better solutions.

You're not at all wrong in your contempt of crony capitalism. Just don't throw out capitalism, liberty, and the free market as the cause. Government is the cause.

 

[churchmouse]

Excellent, common ground.

If the government is too large, then the obvious solution is to shrink it... right? Death taxes and such accomplishes nothing of the sort. Let's look at better solutions.

You're not at all wrong in your contempt of crony capitalism. Just don't throw out capitalism, liberty, and the free market as the cause. Government is the cause.

There is another factor here......pure greed. When is enough going to be enough.

 

[Alpo]

Taxation is a policy, not necessarily an organization. We have to pay off the debt run up by unfunded wars and the Keynesian approach to the recession. I don't consider social security to be ideally suited to be in the hands of the federal system Better it was set up as a quasi-corporation with many more options to fund retirement. I'd like it out of the hands of the politicians. Do an actuarial valuation of the present obligations to those over 55. Fund any shortfall over the next 20 years and then set up a real semi-voluntary pension system (mandatory minimum contributions or we'll end up paying for those who don't participate, plus voluntary additional contributions for those who wish to do so and investment options for all voluntary contributions).

 

[churchmouse]

Taxation is a policy, not necessarily an organization. We have to pay off the debt run up by unfunded wars and the Keynesian approach to the recession. I don't consider social security to be ideally suited to be in the hands of the federal system Better it was set up as a quasi-corporation with many more options to fund retirement. I'd like it out of the hands of the politicians. Do an actuarial valuation of the present obligations to those over 55. Fund any shortfall over the next 20 years and then set up a real semi-voluntary pension system (mandatory minimum contributions or we'll end up paying for those who don't participate, plus voluntary additional contributions for those who wish to do so and investment options for all voluntary contributions).

This all looks and sounds good but the 40% that live hand to mouth day to day will not opt for anything voluntary. Those people would starve to death just like the ones relying solely on SS now.

 

[Alpo]

I'm not sure I understand you Steve. I'm saying we still would have to each fund a social security system, but there would be a base mandatory funding from each of us and elective/optional funding above that should we choose to do so. We can't let people decided not to participate because they'll be asking for a handout in the future...at least some of them will. I guess this has a lot of the ideas in the "Bush" plan, but I don't really remember that plan all that well.

Americans are terrible savers. We need some form of mandatory plan. Put everyone in it. Government employees, military, etc.

Social security today is fairly successful. I'll put a chart in below. What doesn't work well is disability and that's where the bottom feeders go. Lots of fraud and abuse.

Type of beneficiary	Beneficiaries	Total monthly benefits (millions of dollars)	Average monthly benefit (dollars)
Number (thousands)	Percent
Total	59,530	100.0	72,613	1,219.77
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance	48,609	81.7	61,507	1,265.34
Retirement benefits	42,468	71.3	54,702	1,288.05
Retired workers	39,505	66.4	52,708	1,334.21
Spouses of retired workers	2,306	3.9	1,566	679.20
Children of retired workers	658	1.1	427	650.03
Survivor benefits	6,141	10.3	6,805	1,108.25
Children of deceased workers	1,935	3.2	1,612	833.35
Widowed mothers and fathers	138	0.2	128	928.93
Nondisabled widow(er)s	3,808	6.4	4,877	1,280.71
Disabled widow(er)s	259	0.4	187	721.49
Parents of deceased workers	1	(L)	1	1,126.46
Disability Insurance	10,921	18.3	11,106	1,016.93
Disabled workers	8,939	15.0	10,416	1,165.20
Spouses of disabled workers	146	0.2	46	316.15
Children of disabled workers	1,837	3.1	644	350.80
SOURCE: Social Security Administration, Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data.
NOTE: (L) = less than 0.05 percent.
CONTACT: (410) 965-0090 or statistics@ssa.gov.

Table 2. Social Security benefits, May 2015

 

[steveh_131]

There is another factor here......pure greed. When is enough going to be enough.

Greed is simple human nature. It persists in a free market as it does in a communist market. I don't think the government should decide when enough is enough, I think the laws of supply and demand should decide it.

I'm not sure I understand you Steve.

That was CM discussing social security, not me. I don't think anybody wants to hear my thoughts on social security

 

[Alpo]

LOL! Yeah.

 

[MisterChester]

Losing money is not the same as committing theft or securities fraud. It just isn't. If you have a problem with that, contact your congressman and ask him to change the appropriate code. There are consequences for losing money, but those consequences are not legal, they are private. Inasmuch as anyone did commit actual theft or securities fraud, ghen lists figure that out and get them prosecuted.

It's not the exact same, but the victim is still out of the money because of gross negligence instead of willful theft. With that line of thinking no one ought to get in legal trouble for accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian with a car. Just let the community shun them.

 

[MisterChester]

When crimes are committed they should be punished. Contracting for exorbitant compensation and inane severance packages is just a contract and not illegal. And that's what you were lamenting. If a candidate CEO is savvy enough to negotiate a deal that makes her not accountable to the company and its shareholders for her actions as CEO that's one thing. A CEO who breaks the law, that's another.

I'd rather just ban bailouts altogether. But that's just not going to happen. Too many people are afraid of the sky falling to do that.

So how about this. Since we have ****ed up finance laws anyway, let's add another that makes CEOs and boards of directors of all companies "too big to fail" financially responsible for all bailouts, up to the value of their assets or the amount of the bailout, whichever is least. In other words, if they run a company too big to fail into the ground, that company gets not one dime of public money until they've exhausted their personal assets to bail out the business themselves. After they're poor, then the the company gets the rest bailed out by the public. Oh, and we can add sterilization/killing of first born if that's not hateful enough.

This is why I am for keeping businesses in check from becoming too big to fail. If they get too big, split them up and let them compete. It'll weed out the bad and/or dumb seeds over time. If one fails there will be a line of companies to pick up the pieces. But I do like your idea if they must exist.

 

[Ericpwp]

Forcing people to save will go over worst then Obamacare. There is an available 401k option for anyone that does not have access to one. Citizen's 401k accounts are looking like a good starting point for the .gov to fix SS. When will they be assumed as Federal Property?

 

[churchmouse]

Forcing people to save will go over worst then Obamacare. There is an available 401k option for anyone that does not have access to one. Citizen's 401k accounts are looking like a good starting point for the .gov to fix SS. When will they be assumed as Federal Property?

They have already been looking at them.

 

[Alpo]

You already have something in excess of 12% contributed to social security. If this amount was "yours", rather than a government trust account, I think there would be less objection. Take it out of the hands of government and make it a quasi-corporation. No political involvement.

Looking back, I know I would have felt better about having a plan that I own.

 

[Expat]

When you think about it, how is it fair that some people have the extra income to save in a 401k account and others don't. It only makes sense to raid those accounts and give the money to the poor and downtrodden.

 

[Woobie]

This is why I am for keeping businesses in check from becoming too big to fail. If they get too big, split them up and let them compete. It'll weed out the bad and/or dumb seeds over time. If one fails there will be a line of companies to pick up the pieces. But I do like your idea if they must exist.

How are you going to build military aircraft on a $1B budget? How about do research pharaceuticals? No. If they are failing, let Darwin do his thing. The economy is for the faster, stronger, smarter. That's how real progress is made, not by mandating from Washington the size a company can be.

 

[Alpo]

Tell me about Elon Musk and NASA please.

And Pluto.

 

[Woobie]

It's not the exact same, but the victim is still out of the money because of gross negligence instead of willful theft. With that line of thinking no one ought to get in legal trouble for accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian with a car. Just let the community shun them.

Once again, if you feel that way, contact your congressman and get a law passed to punish such things. But let's not be prosecuting for things that don't fit the description of the criminal code. If we start that, they can prosecute me for having an NFA item because the barrel on my ar-15 looks short.