thetruthisvital

Massive Wave Of Resignations From Top Level Bankers.

Here are the recent resignations in chronological order:

February 6, 2012:  Dhanlaxmi Bank CEO Amitabh Chaturvedi quits 

February 10, 2012: Tamilnad Mercantile Bank MD resigns

February 13, 2012: Kuwait central bank chief resigns amid political tensions

February 14, 2012: Nicaragua’s Central Bank President Antenor Rosales quit admist row

February 15, 2012: Slovenia’s Two Biggest Banks’ CEOs Step Down

February 15, 2012: World Bank President Zoellick Resigns

February 16, 2012: CFO of ANZ Bank Resigns Amid Turmoil 

February 16, 2012: Royal Bank of Scotland’s Stephen Williams quits the role

February 17, 2012: Credit Suisse’s Private Bank Chief Asian Economist Tan Resigns

That’s 9 resignations in eleven days, we have not included the other resignations from the likes of the head of the central bank in Switzerland a month ago, and the talk of the head of Goldman Sachs leaving. Why are the heads of very large financial instutitions resigning? Corporate governance experts would say that people resign to make room for new policies, but this is a peculiar situation of contagion amongst those with key exposure.

The first to see the flame usually leave the building first…maybe this is not the case, nonetheless, such events with obvious patterns should be taken note of. 

And many, many more:

Read More

jacklindstrom

jacklindstrom:

I’ve condensed From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp into an “Executive Summary” so that anyone who hasn’t read it can check what it’s all about and so those who have can get a birds-eye view on it to grasp the broad strokes—exactly the sort of thinking the book requires. 

For anyone unfamiliar, this is THE how-to book on taking down a dictatorship, which I believe the 1% qualifies as at least enough for this book to be the most helpful one I’ve found so far on taking them down and making our society a more equitable one.

Weirdly enough, it took me a LONG time and a LOT of research to come across what I was looking for (i.e. how the heck to do a social/political movement), so I figured I’d try to spread the word about it so other people don’t have to go through the same process. The more well-known this book is, the better off we will all be, as we won’t just be floundering and expending useless energy in our fury and despair.

Super-PAC’s: Would You Like to See Who’s Buying Our 2012 Election?

The 2008 presidential election was the most expensive on record, with candidates, parties, and outside groups dropping $5.3 billion. This year’s contest promises to break that record, due in part to the new rules of political fundraising: Donors can pour unlimited cash into outside-spending groups that can freely boost or attack the candidates of their choice. Which means that wealthy donors who have maxed out on their gifts to candidates or just want a lot more bang for their political buck can write massive checks to any of the new super-PACs that are popping up as proxies for politicians and parties.

Throughout the year, we’ll be keeping tabs on these superdonors (many of them couples who double up or spread out their gifts). As primary season heats up, we’ve tallied the current top 20 political givers based on donation data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Here’s a quick look at how they’re giving, starting with their partisan tilt: 17 out of 20 are giving to Republican or conservative groups and candiates.

And half of the top 20 are major donors to the pro-Mitt Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future:

The full list (don’t worry, I’m sure your vote will have just as much influence on the results of the election and, subsequently, the policies that follow):

Read More

mochente

Thank you! Perfectly on point with my previous post. Nice analogy.

fralcon:


You don’t take your car in because it’s making a funny noise, and hand the mechanic an orderly list of bolts to remove and belts to tighten and computer variables to check. The man who wants to be in a position to enact the reforms required should come to the table with a list of credible actions based on responsible research, and not expect it to be handed over by the constituents.

This is important to keep in mind when people ask why Occupy itself doesn’t have a detailed how-to for fixing all the problems. That’s not their job, and they are angry because the people who have that job are dropping the ball.

The number of Capitol Hill millionaires has grown in recent years to include nearly half of all members of Congress - 250 in all - and the wealth gap between lawmakers and their constituents appears to be growing quickly, even as Congress debates unemployment benefits, possible cuts in food stamps and a “millionaire’s tax.”

Representative Ed Pastor buys a Powerball lottery ticket every weekend and says he does not consider himself rich. Indeed, within the halls of Congress, where the median net worth is $913,000 and climbing, he is not. He is a rank-and-file millionaire. But compared with the country at large, where the median net worth is $100,000 and has dropped significantly since 2004, he and most of his fellow lawmakers are true aristocrats.

Largely insulated from the country’s economic downturn since 2008, members of Congress - many of them among the “1 percenters” denounced by Occupy Wall Street protesters - have gotten much richer even as most of the country has become much poorer in the last six years, according to an analysis by The New York Times based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group.

Congress has never been a place for paupers. From plantation owners in the pre-Civil War era to industrialists in the early 1900s to ex-Wall Street financiers and Internet executives today, it has long been populated with the rich, including scions of families like the Guggenheims, Hearsts, Kennedys and Rockefellers.

But rarely has the divide appeared so wide, or the public contrast so stark, between lawmakers and those they represent.

The wealth gap may go largely unnoticed in good times. “But with the American public feeling all this economic pain, people just resent it more,” said Alan J. Ziobrowski, a professor at Georgia State who studied lawmakers’ stock investments.

There is broad debate about just why the wealth gap appears to be growing. For starters, the prohibitive costs of political campaigning may discourage the less affluent from even considering a candidacy. Beyond that, loose ethics controls, shrewd stock picks, profitable land deals, favorable tax laws, inheritances and even marriages to wealthy spouses are all cited as possible explanations for the rising fortunes on Capitol Hill.

The median wealth of House members grew some two and a half times between 1984 and 2009 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while the wealth of the average American family has actually declined slightly in that same time period, according to data cited by The Washington Post in an article published Monday on its Web site.

mochente

fralcon:

Facing deep spending cuts, the Department of Defense, including Secretary Leon Panetta, and military-industrial trade associations have complained that tightening the U.S. security budget will cause greater unemployment. And even while toeing the (dubious) conservative line that government spending cannot create jobs, right wingers like Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) insist thatmilitary spending must stay high to keep unemployment from increasing.

But a new study (PDF) from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, highlighted by economist Dean Baker shows that, contra the conservative talking point, non-military spending can create more jobs than money going to defense programs. The study’s authors, economists Robert Pollin and Heidi Garret-Peltier of the Political Economy Research Institute, used statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources to deduce how many jobs are created by public spending in various arenas. Among them, military spending was the lowest, creating fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than even consumer-oriented tax cuts.

Unsurprisingly, the New York metropolitan area has the largest number of very high-income households. Nearly 12 percent of top-income households live in the New York region, compared to about 7 percent of all households. Second-place Los Angeles is home to about 5 percent of the very rich, compared to about 4 percent of all households.
There are 54 metropolitan areas whose share of very high-income households exceeds their share of all households. These include 18 of the 20 metropolitan areas with the most very high-income households, several others among the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas (including Hartford, Austin, Raleigh, Charlotte, New Haven, Poughkeepsie and Richmond), some smaller university towns (Trenton, which includes Princeton, plus Boulder, Ann Arbor, Santa Cruz, Charlottesville, Durham, Ithaca, and Iowa City), and some other small metropolitan areas (Naples, Florida; Midland, Texas; Sebastian, Florida; Napa, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Reno, Nevada; Barnstable Town, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire; Lafayette, Louisiana; Tyler, Texas and Rochester, Minnesota).
Courtesy Brookings InstitutionA drill-down to the zip code level shows that the zip code with the largest number of very rich households is 10023 on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, with 7,621 such households. That zip code, plus one other on the Upper West Side, one on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and the Washington suburb of Potomac, Maryland, each have about 0.2 percent of all the nation’s very high-income households. 
Rounding out the 20 zip codes with the most very high-income households are several in Manhattan (on the Upper East and Upper West Sides, Midtown East, and Greenwich Village), the New York suburb of Scarsdale, Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Cupertino in Silicon Valley, the Houston suburb of Sugar Land, part of Houston’s west side, the Chicago suburb of Barrington, Princeton, a suburban area north of San Diego, and the Washington suburb of Bethesda, Maryland. Wall Street itself doesn’t make the list, since few people live there. 
There are Occupy movements in nearly all the metropolitan areas where the top 3 percent are concentrated. All of the 20 metropolitan areas with the most top-income households have groups listed in the directory on the Occupy Together Web site. So do all but six of the 54 metropolitan areas where the very rich are disproportionately located.  (The missing six are Bridgeport, Connecticut; Naples, Florida; Sebastian, Florida; Lafayette, Louisiana; Midland, Texas; and Tyler, Texas.) 
Yet movements in support of Occupy Wall Street also exist in many places other than those where the very rich are concentrated, including such seemingly unlikely locales as Anderson, Indiana, and Texarkana, Texas.  Geographically, their reach is greater than that of the very rich.

Unsurprisingly, the New York metropolitan area has the largest number of very high-income households. Nearly 12 percent of top-income households live in the New York region, compared to about 7 percent of all households. Second-place Los Angeles is home to about 5 percent of the very rich, compared to about 4 percent of all households.

There are 54 metropolitan areas whose share of very high-income households exceeds their share of all households. These include 18 of the 20 metropolitan areas with the most very high-income households, several others among the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas (including Hartford, Austin, Raleigh, Charlotte, New Haven, Poughkeepsie and Richmond), some smaller university towns (Trenton, which includes Princeton, plus Boulder, Ann Arbor, Santa Cruz, Charlottesville, Durham, Ithaca, and Iowa City), and some other small metropolitan areas (Naples, Florida; Midland, Texas; Sebastian, Florida; Napa, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Reno, Nevada; Barnstable Town, Massachusetts; Manchester, New Hampshire; Lafayette, Louisiana; Tyler, Texas and Rochester, Minnesota).

Courtesy Brookings Institution

A drill-down to the zip code level shows that the zip code with the largest number of very rich households is 10023 on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, with 7,621 such households. That zip code, plus one other on the Upper West Side, one on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and the Washington suburb of Potomac, Maryland, each have about 0.2 percent of all the nation’s very high-income households. 

Rounding out the 20 zip codes with the most very high-income households are several in Manhattan (on the Upper East and Upper West Sides, Midtown East, and Greenwich Village), the New York suburb of Scarsdale, Chicago’s Lincoln Park, Cupertino in Silicon Valley, the Houston suburb of Sugar Land, part of Houston’s west side, the Chicago suburb of Barrington, Princeton, a suburban area north of San Diego, and the Washington suburb of Bethesda, Maryland. Wall Street itself doesn’t make the list, since few people live there. 

There are Occupy movements in nearly all the metropolitan areas where the top 3 percent are concentrated. All of the 20 metropolitan areas with the most top-income households have groups listed in the directory on the Occupy Together Web site. So do all but six of the 54 metropolitan areas where the very rich are disproportionately located.  (The missing six are Bridgeport, Connecticut; Naples, Florida; Sebastian, Florida; Lafayette, Louisiana; Midland, Texas; and Tyler, Texas.) 

Yet movements in support of Occupy Wall Street also exist in many places other than those where the very rich are concentrated, including such seemingly unlikely locales as Anderson, Indiana, and Texarkana, Texas.  Geographically, their reach is greater than that of the very rich.

What ‘Percent’ Are You? The Numbers Behind the Tax Divide Debate

When it comes to dividing up our class structure, the middle is a good place to start — namely, the 60% of households wedged between the poorest 20% and the richest 20%. These families make between $20,001 and $100,065 a year, and were the group hardest hit by the recession: In 2008, their average income fell by 3.6%, thebiggest single-year dropin history. At the same time, they were also devastated by rising unemployment, mass foreclosures, soaring tuitions and frozen wages. By comparison, households below the 20% line often qualify for social welfare programs, were far less likely to own real estate, and were less affected by massive layoffs. In other words, they had less to lose, and ended up losing less.


On the other end of the spectrum, many of those above the 80% line were shielded from the harsher effects of economic downturns. And over the last 30 years, the top 20% have done quite well: Their share of all wages paid in the U.S. has gone from 50% to 60%. Everyone else has lost ground.

The 53% vs. the 47%

The dividing line between the 99% and the 1% is stark, but some argue there’s a better one: The boundary between those who pay income taxes and those who don’t. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 53% of households pay federal income tax; the rest either break even or get back more in refunds than they pay.

In fact, thesecond-to-lowest20% of the country — households making between $20,001 and $38,043 — get back about 0.4% more income tax than they pay; for families who make less than $20,000, it’s about 6.8%.

Some conservatives — notably on the Tumblr blogWe are the 53%— have taken these numbers to heart, arguing that this means the bottom 47% is getting a free ride. But the 53%/47% division is a bit misleading.

To begin with, almost all households pay state taxes, Medicare tax, Social Security tax, excise taxes, sales taxes, and a raft of other government fees. When this broader, and more accurate, assessment of taxation is used, the 47% doesn’t look to be getting off so easy: Thesecond poorest quintile— the ones that got 0.4% of their income tax back — still paid more 10% of their incomes in various federal taxes.

In fact, when everything is factored in, 86% of the country pays more than it gets back in federal taxes.As for the rest, it’s not the split you might expect: More than half (8% of Americans) are senior citizens receiving Social Security.

And that last 6% — the ones who really pay nothing to the federal government? They are unemployed, disabled, in school, or making very low incomes. But even this small group pays state and local taxes, sales taxes, and other government fees.

Where the Poor Pay More


When it comes to percentage of income, the line is even clearer: For some taxes, the bottom 20% of the Americans pay more than the top 20%. For example, a household on the bottom pays almost 54% more of its income into Social Security than a household on the top. The same goes for excise taxes — fees attached to certain commodities like gasoline and alcohol: As a percentage of income, the poorest 20% pays more than four times as much as the richest 20%.

occupyharvard
American youth have realised the dream they have been prepared for won’t happen - now they fight for a fair future.

Something is unravelling in America. The dream, the purpose and the drive are worn and tired. The people are under siege.


In Boston - an American city with a storied revolutionary past - an Occupy nucleus quickly took root and developed. Protesters here channelled the city’s potent symbolism by building their encampment across the street from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Shortly thereafter thousands of labour union members, regular citizens and students from local universities joined the Occupy Boston movement to march for the restoration of their economic and political rights.

Weeks later, on November 9, several hundred students, faculty and staff and members of the community employed the lessons learned in New York and Boston to occupy Harvard.


We collected in the heart of the university, marched along its breadth and out into the surrounding community to protest university policies. Most visibly, there is evidence that Harvard holds investments in funds that derive profits from speculative land acquisition in Tanzania.


Harvard and the one per cent


Nor is it clear that a code of ethics is being effectively communicated to young and impressionable students. An outsized number of undergraduates here - roughly 20 per cent of every class - enter the financial services industry upon leaving the university.

Or as Public Policy Professor Tim McCarthy put it to me, “At Harvard, we would like to believe that this is an institution that works solely on behalf of the broader good, and there are many instances where we try to do just that. But in reality Harvard, as an institution, is also a factory that produces the one per cent, the very people who have caused a great deal of our present suffering.”

Indeed, the university has likely produced more privilege than any other in America. While that alone is not a meaningful indictment, too many students employ their privilege in service of their own needs, often at the expense of their fellow citizens. Their decisions are the rational product of a society that has failed to provide them with better choices.


 … Towards the end of our march, we turned back in the direction of the yard at the heart of the university. We found that security guards and police had sealed the gates; we were locked out. As I looked on, I was stricken by the allegory. Here was our America. An America of gates and gatekeepers.
wespeakfortheearth
My heart might literally break from depression if I read any more of these comments. People so don’t get it and I really don’t know how to communicate with such people. I would never dream of telling anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with their opinions, to go die, go to hell, or even such petty and immature name calling as libtards…why?  I would say live and let live, who am I to attempt to educate them on my ethics or beliefs, but I cannot help but feel their ignorance and complacency adds to an overall societal problem that is hurting so many innocent people (themselves included).  Of course, I suppose from their perspective, we are the ignorant and immature ones ruining their country. *sigh*
It truly is an affliction to care and think beyond yourself, isn’t it?

wespeakfortheearth:

mohandasgandhi:weexist-weresist:socialistexan:thepoliticalfreakshow:dropfox:




Fox News offers a suggestion for what to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
Please tell me this is a joke! 
UPDATE: It’s not!
Well isn’t it obvious who Fox supports and belongs to?
They don’t even try to pretend anymore.
being american poor isnt like being somalian poor
lol
omg
the comments
i cant
My personal favorite:


I honestly cannot believe Fox. It’s a giant joke being played on - and against - humanity.

My heart might literally break from depression if I read any more of these comments. People so don’t get it and I really don’t know how to communicate with such people. I would never dream of telling anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with their opinions, to go die, go to hell, or even such petty and immature name calling as libtards…why?  I would say live and let live, who am I to attempt to educate them on my ethics or beliefs, but I cannot help but feel their ignorance and complacency adds to an overall societal problem that is hurting so many innocent people (themselves included).  Of course, I suppose from their perspective, we are the ignorant and immature ones ruining their country. *sigh*

It truly is an affliction to care and think beyond yourself, isn’t it?

wespeakfortheearth:

mohandasgandhi:weexist-weresist:socialistexan:thepoliticalfreakshow:dropfox:

Fox News offers a suggestion for what to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

Please tell me this is a joke!

UPDATE: It’s not!

Well isn’t it obvious who Fox supports and belongs to?

They don’t even try to pretend anymore.

being american poor isnt like being somalian poor

lol

omg

the comments

i cant

My personal favorite:

I honestly cannot believe Fox. It’s a giant joke being played on - and against - humanity.

reagan-was-a-horrible-president

Members of the 1% are clearly at an advantage when it comes to opportunity, and that advantage carries through when it comes to finding a job.

While it’s common for people to find employment through family and friends, there’s a direct correlation between a father’s income and the likelihood his son will work for the same employer, according to a report last year in the Journal of Labor Economics (via Miles Corak, who co-wrote the paper).

The researchers found that that among its subjects, around 40% of young Canadian men had been employed by an employer for whom their father worked.

But for earners in the top percentile, that figure jumps to around nearly 70%.

Writes Corak:

All parents want to help their children in whatever way they can. But top earners can do it more than others, and with more consequence: virtually guaranteeing, if not a lifetime of high earnings, at least a great start in life.