If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Liberals: 3, Wall Street Democrats: 0   (politico.com) divider line 45
    More: Cool, Wall St, Democrats, Blasio, Democratic Coalition, Peter Beinart, Michael Bloomberg, New Republic, Business oligarch  
•       •       •

2968 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2013 at 8:55 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-19 08:14:40 AM
Good.
 
2013-09-19 08:36:48 AM
It would be nice to see the pendulum start to turn around to the liberal direction.
 
2013-09-19 08:36:59 AM
Wall Street Democrats??

Bububut I thought all of the money-grubbing, looking-out-for-the-1%ers were Republicans!
 
2013-09-19 08:46:45 AM
I just hope none of them end up like Paul Wellstone.
 
2013-09-19 08:57:11 AM
Yep, de Blasio is such a man of the little people that his face-time fee just jumped by a factor of 15, higher than that commanded by the New York Democratic bank-toadies subby despises.

Turns out even liberal saviors have their price, and the question is not whether they'll be bought, but for how much.

That tiny piece of land in Lower Manhattan full of all those evil bankers? They pay between 14 and 20% of the entire state of New York's tax revenue, and they're smarter than the thieves and pimps on the city council and state legislature. (apologies to all the thieves and pimps for dishonoring their professions with the comparison)

Over the past five years or so, Sheldon Silver and the leftist brain trust in Albany pushed hard for a "millionaire's tax". They got it, Paterson signed it, Cuomo signed a revised version of it...and tax revenue from the richprick sector dropped even as Wall Street was bouncing back because many of the Wall Street motherfarkers who remained after the crash shifted their compensation to nontaxable forms.

I get the principle behind a progressive tax, but if you're NY (state or city) and you want those eight- and nine-figure sonsabiatches paying up you need to speak their language. After a progressively higher rate for their first millions, knock the rate back down again for subsequent millions so that they're persuaded to keep more of their income in taxable form.
 
2013-09-19 08:58:59 AM

xanadian: Wall Street Democrats??

Bububut I thought all of the money-grubbing, looking-out-for-the-1%ers were Republicans!


Wall Street Democrats, like Obama.
 
2013-09-19 09:07:15 AM
FTFA:  But leaders on the more liberal end of the Democratic coalition say there's a sense of momentum among progressives, who have been urged since the 1990s to hold back their hostility to corporate power or risk losing middle-of-the-road voters and donors

The crash and the resulting jobless recovery has changed all of that.  People are starting to get that the Wall Street economy and the actual economy are not the same thing, and that a deregulated Wall Street economy has a parasitic relationship with the real one.
 
2013-09-19 09:07:28 AM
Look, trolling I get, but wtf is this headline?
 
2013-09-19 09:10:49 AM
Got to 2 paras on.my mobile before a pop up so that and the enigmatic headline leaving me none the wiser.

Thanks to gulper for proving that circular logic is alive and well by pointing out that bankers a so farking rich they pay a disproportionate amount of tax.. cheers!
 
2013-09-19 09:13:27 AM
You're keeping score pretty selectively there, subs.
 
2013-09-19 09:14:12 AM

Gulper Eel: After a progressively higher rate for their first millions, knock the rate back down again for subsequent millions so that they're persuaded to keep more of their income in taxable form.


If they already figured out how to keep their income untaxable, why would they subject them to taxes again?
 
2013-09-19 09:19:20 AM
Good. 'bout time.


xanadian: Wall Street Democrats??

Bububut I thought all of the money-grubbing, looking-out-for-the-1%ers were Republicans!



Anyone who's paid just a little attention in the last five no, 20 years has noticed that tendency for Presidents, even Democratic ones, to raid Goldman Sachs when it's time to staff the Treasury department or hire an economic advisor.
 
2013-09-19 09:26:12 AM

Gulper Eel: Yep, de Blasio is such a man of the little people that his face-time fee just jumped by a factor of 15, higher than that commanded by the New York Democratic bank-toadies subby despises.

Turns out even liberal saviors have their price, and the question is not whether they'll be bought, but for how much.

That tiny piece of land in Lower Manhattan full of all those evil bankers? They pay between 14 and 20% of the entire state of New York's tax revenue, and they're smarter than the thieves and pimps on the city council and state legislature. (apologies to all the thieves and pimps for dishonoring their professions with the comparison)

Over the past five years or so, Sheldon Silver and the leftist brain trust in Albany pushed hard for a "millionaire's tax". They got it, Paterson signed it, Cuomo signed a revised version of it...and tax revenue from the richprick sector dropped even as Wall Street was bouncing back because many of the Wall Street motherfarkers who remained after the crash shifted their compensation to nontaxable forms.

I get the principle behind a progressive tax, but if you're NY (state or city) and you want those eight- and nine-figure sonsabiatches paying up you need to speak their language. After a progressively higher rate for their first millions, knock the rate back down again for subsequent millions so that they're persuaded to keep more of their income in taxable form.


You need to dumb that down for the target audience.
 
2013-09-19 09:29:05 AM

Gulper Eel: Over the past five years or so, Sheldon Silver and the leftist brain trust in Albany pushed hard for a "millionaire's tax". They got it, Paterson signed it, Cuomo signed a revised version of it...and tax revenue from the richprick sector dropped even as Wall Street was bouncing back because many of the Wall Street motherfarkers who remained after the crash shifted their compensation to nontaxable forms.


Yeah, who could have seen that coming?
 
2013-09-19 09:29:20 AM
Democrats are less liberal than most countries' conservative party.
 
2013-09-19 09:40:58 AM

Gulper Eel: Yep, de Blasio is such a man of the little people that his face-time fee just jumped by a factor of 15, higher than that commanded by the New York Democratic bank-toadies subby despises.

Turns out even liberal saviors have their price, and the question is not whether they'll be bought, but for how much.

That tiny piece of land in Lower Manhattan full of all those evil bankers? They pay between 14 and 20% of the entire state of New York's tax revenue, and they're smarter than the thieves and pimps on the city council and state legislature. (apologies to all the thieves and pimps for dishonoring their professions with the comparison)

Over the past five years or so, Sheldon Silver and the leftist brain trust in Albany pushed hard for a "millionaire's tax". They got it, Paterson signed it, Cuomo signed a revised version of it...and tax revenue from the richprick sector dropped even as Wall Street was bouncing back because many of the Wall Street motherfarkers who remained after the crash shifted their compensation to nontaxable forms.

I get the principle behind a progressive tax, but if you're NY (state or city) and you want those eight- and nine-figure sonsabiatches paying up you need to speak their language. After a progressively higher rate for their first millions, knock the rate back down again for subsequent millions so that they're persuaded to keep more of their income in taxable form.


So wall street is contributing 14% less to tax revenue since the crash, and that is entirely due to them hiding money to escape higher taxes (because they were NEVER doing that before the crash)

It has nothing to do with the 10% employment loss from the crash, nor the diversification of NY's economy into technology. NY State tax revenue rose $3.6 billion last year, and is now above pre-tax levels primarily driven by rising income tax rates.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-tax-revenue-data.html
 
2013-09-19 09:48:28 AM

xanadian: Wall Street Democrats??

Bububut I thought all of the money-grubbing, looking-out-for-the-1%ers were Republicans!


When it comes to corporate whores, the GOP is in service to the energy sector, whereas the Dems are generally in service to the financial sector. Simply look at campaign donations, it's public info.

It's important for Dems to make sure their candidates are ideologically hostile to corporate America. That way you end up with Elizabeth Warren and not Joe Libermann.
 
2013-09-19 09:50:50 AM

Wooly Bully: Look, trolling I get, but wtf is this headline?


Exactly, since Bloomberg is not a Dem. But Dem darling Cory Booker is a WS Dem.
 
2013-09-19 09:54:47 AM

Zeno-25: When it comes to corporate whores, the GOP is in service to the energy sector, whereas the Dems are generally in service to the financial sector. Simply look at campaign donations, it's public info.


Where are you getting this from? Every source I've ever seen shows the financial industry donating far more to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html
 
2013-09-19 09:58:30 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: xanadian: Wall Street Democrats??

Bububut I thought all of the money-grubbing, looking-out-for-the-1%ers were Republicans!

Wall Street Democrats, like Obama.


Obama in 2008, yes.  But in 2012, Wall St put the bulk of their money behind the guy who they knew had their back.  Obama's attempts at even the mildest of regulation of the banking industry cost him hundreds of millions in campaign contributions.
 
2013-09-19 10:02:06 AM
Take one good look at what Pat Quinn has done for Illinois before you say "Good".
 
2013-09-19 10:03:37 AM

AMonkey'sUncle: Wooly Bully: Look, trolling I get, but wtf is this headline?

Exactly, since Bloomberg is not a Dem. But Dem darling Cory Booker is a WS Dem.


That's the weird thing, it's not even inflammatory, it's just random nonsense. Poor trolling.
 
2013-09-19 10:08:23 AM

Arkanaut: If they already figured out how to keep their income untaxable, why would they subject them to taxes again?


Sorry, should've been clearer in my original post - meant to say that the compensation was shifted from salary/bonuses to forms either not taxable under NYS/NYC law, or at least less taxable.

If the Wall Streeters take their compensation as stock options or in other tax-sheltered ways, depending on how they structure those they can wait things out until the tax rates drop again, then cash in at the lower rate. I figure it'd be better for all concerned to discourage the song-and-dance by offering a lower rate for the really big cash compenation packages.

For argument's sake I'm assuming that no government is going to start treating the options and so forth as taxable each year, based on whatever that year's profit/loss was, because such a thing would be beyond the intelligence of a majority of Congress.
 
2013-09-19 10:10:24 AM

Wooly Bully: Zeno-25: When it comes to corporate whores, the GOP is in service to the energy sector, whereas the Dems are generally in service to the financial sector. Simply look at campaign donations, it's public info.

Where are you getting this from? Every source I've ever seen shows the financial industry donating far more to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html


I believe it was overall contributions to either the congressional committees of each party or the Obama/Romney campaigns specifically. From the same website, too, but I haven't looked at the numbers since around the 2012 election.
 
2013-09-19 10:11:57 AM

Wooly Bully: Zeno-25: When it comes to corporate whores, the GOP is in service to the energy sector, whereas the Dems are generally in service to the financial sector. Simply look at campaign donations, it's public info.

Where are you getting this from? Every source I've ever seen shows the financial industry donating far more to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html


Generally speaking, Wall Street donates to both.  Energy donates to Republicans, and unions donate to Democrats.
 
2013-09-19 10:13:49 AM

imontheinternet: Wooly Bully: Zeno-25: When it comes to corporate whores, the GOP is in service to the energy sector, whereas the Dems are generally in service to the financial sector. Simply look at campaign donations, it's public info.

Where are you getting this from? Every source I've ever seen shows the financial industry donating far more to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html

Generally speaking, Wall Street donates to both.  Energy donates to Republicans, and unions donate to Democrats.


But lets not pretend unions have anywhere near the power they had even 30 years ago... The percentage of people that belong to a union has been crippled over the years by shiatty right wing legislation with little to no opposition by the democrats.
 
2013-09-19 10:21:30 AM

FarkedOver: But lets not pretend unions have anywhere near the power they had even 30 years ago... The percentage of people that belong to a union has been crippled over the years by shiatty right wing legislation with little to no opposition by the democrats.


True.  Obama's campaign was able to offset a lot of those losses with a strong internet presence and small donors.   Of course, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase were still among his biggest contributors, as they were for Romney.
 
2013-09-19 10:23:28 AM

imontheinternet: Generally speaking, Wall Street donates to both.


True, but it's worth noting how disproportionately those donations favor the Republicans. The previous chart showed the disparity for the parties as a whole; if you look at the last Presidential campaign donations, it's even more pronounced:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/03/wall-streets-huge-bet-on-rom ne y.html
 
2013-09-19 10:23:58 AM

dumbobruni: It has nothing to do with the 10% employment loss from the crash


You really think it's the biggest big guys who lost their jobs?

NY State tax revenue rose $3.6 billion last year, and is now above pre-tax levels primarily driven by rising income tax rates.

That's a temporary revenue goose because a lot of rich people were anticipating trouble not too far down the road and would rather pay some now rather than a lot later. I doubt we're looking at the same picture this time next year.
 
2013-09-19 10:24:22 AM

imontheinternet: FarkedOver: But lets not pretend unions have anywhere near the power they had even 30 years ago... The percentage of people that belong to a union has been crippled over the years by shiatty right wing legislation with little to no opposition by the democrats.

True.  Obama's campaign was able to offset a lot of those losses with a strong internet presence and small donors.   Of course, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase were still among his biggest contributors, as they were for Romney.


No doubt about it.  Both parties are bought by big business.  They dictate the narrative, they steer the ship.
 
2013-09-19 10:27:21 AM

SilentStrider: Good.


This; the political environment is ripe for a more Progressive stance to economic policies.
 
2013-09-19 10:35:46 AM
It's really sad when "Sanity" gets labeled as "Liberal."
 
2013-09-19 10:36:31 AM

Wooly Bully: Zeno-25: When it comes to corporate whores, the GOP is in service to the energy sector, whereas the Dems are generally in service to the financial sector. Simply look at campaign donations, it's public info.

Where are you getting this from? Every source I've ever seen shows the financial industry donating far more to Republicans.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html


I seem to remember a survey that showed that if you break it down by the number of donors instead of amount donated, the people who work for big corporations tend to donate to Democrats, while their bosses tend to donate to Republicans (and of course the bosses tend to have more money).  It might not have been strictly Wall Street (maybe just Fortune 500 companies or something), but you'll probably find the same dynamic on Wall Street.

Among my friends and acquaintances who have worked there, a lot of them can't bring themselves to vote Republican because of their social policies, but a lot of them are very vocal of the Obama economic policies.  And certainly at the top, as we discussed in the Warren Buffett thread a little while ago, CEOs donate to whoever they think is going to make them the most money.
 
2013-09-19 10:44:18 AM

Wooly Bully: imontheinternet: Generally speaking, Wall Street donates to both.

True, but it's worth noting how disproportionately those donations favor the Republicans. The previous chart showed the disparity for the parties as a whole; if you look at the last Presidential campaign donations, it's even more pronounced:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/03/wall-streets-huge-bet-on-rom ne y.html


2012 is not the best example, because as a lifelong vulture capitalist Romney was one of their own.  He was a dream candidate for Wall Street.  In '08 and '04, the numbers weren't nearly as lopsided.
 
2013-09-19 10:53:54 AM

imontheinternet: Wooly Bully: imontheinternet: Generally speaking, Wall Street donates to both.

True, but it's worth noting how disproportionately those donations favor the Republicans. The previous chart showed the disparity for the parties as a whole; if you look at the last Presidential campaign donations, it's even more pronounced:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/03/wall-streets-huge-bet-on-rom ne y.html

2012 is not the best example, because as a lifelong vulture capitalist Romney was one of their own.  He was a dream candidate for Wall Street.  In '08 and '04, the numbers weren't nearly as lopsided.


Well, the point of posting those two charts was to counter the technically true but (perhaps not intentionally) misleading statement that "the Dems are in service to the financial sector". It's misleading because the Republicans are more so. That the disparity spiked a lot because of Romney isn't really relevant.
 
2013-09-19 11:52:59 AM
I see the "we can't possibly tax the rich because they can hide/move their money" crowd has chimed in. As right wingers they instinctually want to carry water for the very wealthy but they have a microscopic amount of shame so they have to figure out a way to tell us not to tax the rich without actually coming across like bootlickers.
 
2013-09-19 12:15:23 PM
BTW... how is Jon Corzine(R-NJ) doing?
 
2013-09-19 12:18:18 PM

Headso: I see the "we can't possibly tax the rich because they can hide/move their money" crowd has chimed in. As right wingers they instinctually want to carry water for the very wealthy but they have a microscopic amount of shame so they have to figure out a way to tell us not to tax the rich without actually coming across like bootlickers.


Boy, that's obtuse.

It's easier for capital to relocate than it is for people to relocate. Take high-paid pro athletes, for example - many cities and/or states have had "jock" taxes where the locality takes a piece from the per-game salary of any athlete who comes through town. Kobe Bryant pays a New York tax whenever the Lakers are at the Garden or Brooklyn, even though otherwise he's not a New York resident of any kind that I'm aware of. Kobe can't avoid paying that tax.

Wall Streeters can (and do) avoid or defer paying taxes through vehicles that are beyond the reach of state and city law, means that are not available to Kobe. The NY state legislature did something with only the short term in mind, and raised the rates on the rich as if the rich were just going to sit there and take it like biatches. Instead, they paid taxes either before the higher rates kicked in (resulting in a one-time revenue spike), or set up instruments where they could wait out the stupid pouring forth from Albany until they've established Florida residency.

My point was that if you want the uberrich to stay within the state/city income tax system, you've got to either change the rules on deferred compensation (not likely even in NY), or structure your tax rates so that plain old cash compensation is more attractive to them.

That's where you use their dick-measuring instincts in your favor - a high tax rate for the first X millions, but then a lower rate for the millions beyond that. That way the state maxes out what they can pull in from the rich instead of losing it to deferred compensation, and the rich get an incentive to max out their salaries because there's a lower rate available for them IF they first get over the hump.
 
2013-09-19 12:58:38 PM
Wouldn't life be great if the Republican part was "Wall Street Democrats" and the Democrat party would be liberal pro-labor dems.

Wow, that would be awesome.
 
2013-09-19 01:45:07 PM

xanadian: Wall Street Democrats??

Bububut I thought all of the money-grubbing, looking-out-for-the-1%ers were Republicans!


They were Republicans until the Evangelic monster they created got out of control, so the money people went to the Democrats.

/as soon as the purge is done they'll go back to the GOP
 
2013-09-19 01:51:41 PM

Mrbogey: Gulper Eel: Yep, de Blasio is such a man of the little people that his face-time fee just jumped by a factor of 15, higher than that commanded by the New York Democratic bank-toadies subby despises.

Turns out even liberal saviors have their price, and the question is not whether they'll be bought, but for how much.

That tiny piece of land in Lower Manhattan full of all those evil bankers? They pay between 14 and 20% of the entire state of New York's tax revenue, and they're smarter than the thieves and pimps on the city council and state legislature. (apologies to all the thieves and pimps for dishonoring their professions with the comparison)

Over the past five years or so, Sheldon Silver and the leftist brain trust in Albany pushed hard for a "millionaire's tax". They got it, Paterson signed it, Cuomo signed a revised version of it...and tax revenue from the richprick sector dropped even as Wall Street was bouncing back because many of the Wall Street motherfarkers who remained after the crash shifted their compensation to nontaxable forms.

I get the principle behind a progressive tax, but if you're NY (state or city) and you want those eight- and nine-figure sonsabiatches paying up you need to speak their language. After a progressively higher rate for their first millions, knock the rate back down again for subsequent millions so that they're persuaded to keep more of their income in taxable form.

You need to dumb that down for the target audience.


He's dumbed it down for you all he can, even being factually inaccurate wasn't good enough.
 
2013-09-19 03:40:06 PM
"Don't ask me to apologiza
I wont ask you to forgive me...
If I'm gonna go down
You're gonna come with me

Hand in hand
Hand in hand
Hand in hand
Hand in hand...."
 
2013-09-19 05:48:27 PM

EvilEgg: It would be nice to see the pendulum start to turn around to the liberal direction.


If you hate freedom, leave the country. But don't try to ruin it for everyone else.
 
2013-09-19 09:23:21 PM

R.A.Danny: Take one good look at what Pat Quinn has done for Illinois before you say "Good".


then take a good look at his opposition.
 
2013-09-20 04:45:27 PM
Yeah, the split between "Wall Street Democrats" and the liberal/progressive wing has been coming for a while. Honestly, I was hoping it would've come a lot sooner than it has. Occupy Wall Street should've been the answer to the teatards on the left, but they were too tied up in navel-gazing, so they crawled up their own butt and disappeared. They accomplished practically nothing of a concrete nature - no laws were passed, no candidates elected, no bankers went to jail, and no banks were broken up.

Still, they got people talking about the right issues, and progressive Democrats listened, which is why Liz Warren is so popular (and possibly how she got elected). The teatards might be full of racists and bad ideas, but their racist bad ideas are winning elections, while Occupy is now a punch line and a forgotten movement. Except for the Strike Debt Rolling Jubilee, which is awesome.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report