MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
70% of Americans and 76% of Republicans favor banning big Wall Street Bonuses
By Obey on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:22am |More than 70 percent of Americans say big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.
An additional one in six favors slapping a 50 percent tax on bonuses exceeding $400,000. Just 7 percent of U.S. adults say bonuses are an appropriate incentive reflecting Wall Street’s return to financial health.
A large majority also want to tax Wall Street profits to reduce the federal budget deficit. A levy on financial services firms is the top choice among more than a dozen deficit-cutting options presented to respondents.
With U.S. unemployment at 9.8 percent, resentment of bonuses and banking profits unites Americans across political, gender, age and income groups. Among Republicans, who generally are skeptical of business regulation, 76 percent support a government ban on big bonuses to bailout recipients, that’s higher than backing among Democrats or independents.
URL:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/banning-big-wall-street-bonus-favored-by-70-of-americans-in-national-poll.html
- Add new comment
- 2378 reads
Comments
Bloomberg News? Sounds more like the Daily Worker in this political environment.
I understand Obama read these numbers, too. He then asked Summers what they should do about this. Summers suggested he invite McConnell over to see if they could work out a deal. Being a bi-partisan kind of guy, Obama decided this was a good idea. Look for a bi-partisan "Get Tough On Wall Street" program coming right up.
by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:02am
Hi Sleepin, I especially love the 76% of Republicans who stand firmly to THE LEFT of the Obama administration on handling Wall Street.
There is so no excuse for their laissez faire attitude towards the bankers. None!
by Obey on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:17am
You are absolutely right: There is absolutely no excuse for the deference they display to the bankers.
But I suspect they have their reasons, no?
by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:18am
'Incentive' or 'motive' is probably more appropriate than 'reason'.
by Obey on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:32am
So, ummmmmmm, what are you saying Obey? I'm not following you.
Are you saying there might just conceivably be a more progressive path out there which the Administration could follow?
One that might actually earn popular support?
One that might pressure Republicans and right-wing Democrats to move.... left? And if they didn't, to hammer them, hourly, on an issue with public support?
INCONCEIVABLE!!!
Don't you know... AMERICA IS A RIGHT-WING COUNTRY?
And don't you know... THE PRESIDENT CAN DO NOTHING?
by quinn esq on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:03pm
It's even worse than that, isn't it, Q?
Republicans are MORE upset about Wall Street malfeasance than Democrats. I.e. the GOP electorate stands to the left of the administration and of the Democratic party grassroots on regulating Wall Street.
I.e. Obama has managed to corrupt enough of the Dem base, sucking them into this Corporatist stance as they look to him for 'leadership' on what needs to be done. It's not just stupid. It's repugnant what he's doing to the party.
by Obey on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:06pm
Yup ... nothing the wily prairie indi loves more than corporatist crap dipped in a nice centrist coating! Yum. Wins 'em over every time. I feel a Democratic votealanche a-commin.
Even if indeed America were a conservative nation (uuuh yeah). There is still the little niggling problem that it's pretty difficult to define what the hell they are doing as conservative any more than it is liberal.
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 3:21am
Of course, as anyone remotely familiar with American politics knows, once a bill to pass the se types of taxes is drafted, it will be instantly demonized by Fox News and the Republicans as class warfare, threatening to kill job growth in the middle of a recession, the moral equivalent of rounding up people and sending them to the gulag simply because we hate hard work and the resulting financial reward, etc.
The Republicans will be given unlimited access to the airwaves to make their case against the bill in the supposedly liberal mainstream media, and Democrats who are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Wall Street like Chuck Schumer will be brought on the challenge the Republican fire-breathers by expressing his own grave reservarions about the bill, at least as it's currently drafted. Harry Reid will then countenance every inane delaying tactic by Republicans and give the anti-tax forces plenty of time to seize control of the narrative. Public support for the bill will drop down to the high twenties, because everybody knows that, while we like sticking it to fat cats in the abstract, this particular bill is simply more proof of Obama's closet socialism and Mau Mauist hostility to business.
And, as prospects for the bill dim, self-described progressives will blather endlessly about Obama's lack of spine, secret corporatist leanings, and failure to effectively use the bully pulpit, all the while letting the real culprits behind yet another progressive defeat walk away unscathed.
by brewmn on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:11pm
You may have misread, Brew. This was Bloomberg poll, not a hit piece. Bloomberg also found these results about the cut-bill's favorability, just with some different questions:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rbKOdlYIZF80 It turned the polls sorta upside-down from the Gallup poll.
And from the Bloomberg piece:
"U.S. Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat, this year proposed a 50 percent tax on bonuses of more than $400,000, though it failed to win backing from Congress or the Obama administration."
Still, the piece called the Obama fin-regs enacted "Sweeping". ;o)
And Obey; maybe you could put this up as a blog? I tried to delete mine, since this will go bottomly soon, unless you just post it agin, but the comments might disappear.
by we are stardust on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:24pm
Na, don't think it is worth a whole blog. I just thought it was a useful datapoint for our local 'Obama Wars', on where the electorate stands vs where Obama is headed.
A good link to have in the back pocket next time Trope, ArtA and others do their whole 'tactical centrism' schtick...
by Obey on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:04pm
Dude, you sound like Marvin the depressed robot from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
(but then maybe we all do in our own way these days...)
On this particular, if you're starting out with 76% support for a policy amongst republicans, you have a decent CHANCE of winning out in the end, even if the media bias is stacked against you. At some point the GOP can't 'manage the reality' quite as much as they think they can. (remember the lady in a vegetative state in Florida way back when...?)
by Obey on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:44pm
Honestly, Obey, I wish I had the time to fully think through and articulate my gut feelings on these issue polls. In short form, I have a profound lack of regard for the intellectual coherence and consistency of the average American. Their tribal identifications will trump their support of good policy every time. They simply don't look at politics in terms of policy outcomes, but rather in terms of which side wins or loses. And, until a given policy is put to political debate, they don't know which side they are on. Therefore, these issue polls are conducted in a vacuum and are meaningless.
Yes, politics often depresses me. My view of history is that political change happens whens circumstances force that change. And, as bad as things are for many right now, they are not bad enough to bring the forces directly responsible for our current problems into clear enough focus for the average American. The Depression-era breadlines had to become an everyday fact of life before Americans would embrace the New Deal, for example. I think economic conditions would have to be worse by a order of magnitude before Obama could present the type of program I (and presumably, you) feel is necessary to truly revitalize our moribund economy and not be destroyed by the Washington establishment upon doing so.
by brewmn on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 5:04pm
And so, what? We instead continue promoting the status quo? Is that the answer? Leaders of all stripes continue on the path we are on until someone puts a brickbat up alongside the head to get someone to alter course?
I remember a time leaders led. And they considered polls - if at all - as a measure of how far they succeeded in pushing a narrative and the policies to support it.
by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 5:38pm
Brew. Your defeatism is outrunning reality. Seriously dude. Remember, for all the forces of the Right, OBAMA WON. And before that, Clinton won. Various Governors and Congresspeople have won as well. I'm sure of it.
How about.... we give it a try? You know, we just wake up one morning and KICK F*CKING WALL STREET'S FAT CATS FAIR IN THE NUTS? How about it?
We don't need breadlines.
by quinn esq on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 6:43pm
Yes, but...Obama won primarily because the failure of Bush and the Republicans couldn't be ignored by even the most mushy-headed of traditionally right-leaning Independents. Clinton won because Bush the Elder broke the one inviolable commitment a Republican can make: he raised taxes after daring the public to read his lips on that very point.
Plus, neither won by running as an FDR Democrat. Both Clinton and Obama won by presenting themselves as "New", i.e., not very liberal, Democrats and by being not-Bush. And, sadly that is how they are governing, not very liberal. And I still maintain that the minute they ran as true anti-establishment candidates, that would have been the end of their candidacies or their effectiveness as president.
by brewmn on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:36pm
Well, Clinton won because of that about Tax-lips Bush, but also...Ross Perot?
by we are stardust on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:44pm
Which only makes Brew's point even more. Had Perot not come in and siphoned off conservative independents, we would have had four more years of HW. At least in 92, the people were stumbling toward FDR.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:54pm
I love how you bitch about "the people" all the time... and how obama would be so much better if only "the people" were better... then when "the people" want something progressive, and your guy doesn't even make an effort, but just sides with the powers that be... clearly, it's the fault of the people.
Whatever.
If there's nothing Obama can do, tell him to vacate the goddamn job, willya? Let's either find someone who'll take a shot at it, or use the cash for deficit reduction.
by quinn esq on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:40am
Oy. You Canadian geese, you just keep flying over and crashing head-on into our stuff, don't ya?
by LisB on Fri, 12/17/2010 - 12:54am
I do wish so much was not made of the bonuses. They are/were a long-standing tradition in stock brokerage firms. Everyone gets them. They are not necessarily fair because some employees are more equal than others but they are usually based on specific parameters like position, length of service, etc. and are considered by most as part of their total compensation package along with health insurance, etc. They are so normal, customary and specific that an employee could likely sue if they were not paid. Oh, and the really big bonuses are normally part of a written agreement so not paying them would for sure end up in court.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 12:37pm
The bonus-system as it exists is highly destabilizing for the economy. Getting rewarded for short-term performance encourages the dissimulation of the true long-term risk involved in certain financial assets. And encourages the CREATION of financial assets with such a hidden risk. Hence why the capital markets remain dysfunctional.
Beyond that, I find the Swiss solution a decent compromise. Credit Suisse - who got no direct bailout - had their bonus pool invested in their toxic assets, so those first hit by losses would be the bankers themselves before any 'socialized' losses. UBS - who got a bailout - had the managers' bonuses from the bubble years clawed back.
So there are no legal obstacles to such solutions, if the government wishes to implement them.
by Obey on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 1:53pm
The entire FIRE sector is destabilizing to the economy. Focusing on one tiny aspect gives the illusion of solving a problem that has simply been kicked down the road.
FIRE wants us to believe they are the great provider of all that is good economically but they are just parasites. There may still be some symbiosis but it is now negligible.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 2:33pm
Emma, I don't think anyone sees it as a cure-all. It is one of a dozen important issues that need to be dealt with if the financial sector is going to get back to doing what it used to do.
But I don't think it can be helped that it is the most visible issue. It is the most tangible manifestation of the problems with the current set-up, and the most jarring form of moral hazard (the culprits making record profits as the recession they caused continues unabated). And fixing the incentive-structure will help.
by Obey on Sun, 12/19/2010 - 3:29pm