Random Politics & Religion #00

I did, but it's difficult to articulate your words any other way. Apologies if I somehow misinterpreted that.

I like to see it more as legislate the prosperous into investing in the future of those below them rather than sitting on it for their own gains. Besides, I think the hyper-wealthy have little to nothing to worry about in regards to having their lifestyles threatened.

I don't think this is exactly the Robin Hood scenario you're playing it out to be. Taxes go to a much more fundamental foundation that affords others greater opportunities and other worthwhile investments for the growth and longevity of communities therein.

I don't even necessarily see how this is a bad thing in particular. That's kind of how taxes work. They're dues to citizens to pay for things that would otherwise not be pragmatic to rely on individuals (or corporations for that matter) to fund and maintain.

I think you can. Like I said earlier, it's an investment; and returns can be worthwhile over a long enough timeline. Though I share your pessimism in terms of the ROI figures...

I agree that we're quickly approaching a point where the work force will diminish over the rate at which our population increases, but this is more a matter of technological advances, automation and simply creating an environment in which for many tasks, humans need not apply. To that end, I feel the concept of basic income will become a far greater necessity. To what extent? Well, only time will tell.

What right do you have to take something you have not earned?

Some do, not all taxes are bad. Taxes on things that people use like roads and schools are a necessity for everyone.

Your missing the point.

Dividing $100 dollars between five people does not multiply it. Sure if you want to say one or two of those people invest that money it will multiply in time back to the original amount or exceed it. But what kind of timeline is acceptable? 50 yrs.. 100?

If we would stop shipping/losing millions of jobs overseas because we tax them out of the country this would not be a problem.

You're saying these things as if the taxed money would just go directly into the wallets of the poor, and nothing more. Instead, it would be going towards improving essential public services (education, health care, and infrastructure) that benefit technically everybody, especially people who aren't privileged or wealthy. The result is that we should end up with a smarter, healthier, and more effective nation.

You're saying these things as if the taxed money would just go directly into the wallets of the poor, and nothing more. Instead, it would be going towards improving essential public services (education, health care, and infrastructure) that benefit technically everybody, especially people who aren't privileged or wealthy. The result is that we should end up with a smarter, healthier, and more effective nation.

I wonder who owns that company..... I wonder how they were punished...

Very easy to find out, since they have operations in Texas.

Texas Franchise Tax Account Status. Click the Officers/Directors button and it lists the owner (President) and officers of that LLC.

Things you know when you are/were a tax accountant.

and he testified before congress

dennis greenley

Edit:
my point was it isn't listed on their website

Meredith Burak is a third-generation Wall Street executive. At 32, she has worked in global wealth management for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. She thinks Wall Street is one of the few places in the country where people can truly realize the American Dream.

And she's supporting Bernie Sanders for president of the United States.

The same Bernie Sanders who said this about Burak's industry: "The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country."

Burak doesn't take it personally. "Wall Street has been very good to my family," she said. "It has enabled myself and my cousins and people around me to go to college."

But at the same time, Burak said, Wall Street needs tougher regulation and rules. "People on Wall Street want the game to be fair," she said. "It is when people cheat that things get messed up for everyone. And to the extent that we can have rules and more enforcement to get people like [Ponzi schemer] Bernie Madoff out of the financial system, the better it is for the economy."

Burak said she left Merrill Lynch earlier this month and is traveling in Israel this week, focusing on charitable work on behalf of a cancer foundation in honor of her mother. But Burak said she'll be using the skills she learned on Wall Street for the rest of her career. "I was raised not to talk about politics and money, and somehow I talk about both of them all day," she said with a laugh.

She's not the only one.

Sanders, unlike his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton or many of the Republican candidates, has received a relative pittance in campaign contributions from people in the securities and investment industry: just more than $55,000 in all of 2015, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

And the vast majority of those financial professionals who have written checks to the Sanders campaign work in regional financial hubs across the country: in cities like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh or San Francisco.

But scattered through the list of Sanders donors are a very small number of people who work in the heart of New York's financial center, with offices on Wall Street and Park Avenue in Manhattan. They include people who are employed at some of the industry's biggest names: JPMorgan (JPM), Citigroup (C), Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley (MS).

It's difficult to draw broad conclusions about what drives the political beliefs of such a small group, but their personal experiences may hold a clue. Two of the Sanders supporters on Wall Street work in wealth management — where their jobs necessarily include helping rich people get richer. One holds a position whose purpose appears to be minimizing taxes on hedge funds and alternative investments, based on his LinkedIn description. Some have personal connections to Sanders' home state of Vermont.

Working in an industry where rank-and-file employees and executives overwhelmingly support other candidates, it's perhaps not surprising that the Sanders supporters on Wall Street are reluctant to speak publicly about their political views. "I appreciate your call and the story, but I would rather not participate," said one when contacted by CNBC.

One Sanders supporter explained that he grew up in Vermont, and has fond memories of Sanders campaigning across the state. "Bernie was such a fixture of Vermont politics for many years, so I sort of have a soft spot in my heart for him," this supporter said. And although he contributed to the Sanders campaign, he added that he's not committed to actually voting for Sanders. "I don't know at the end of the day if I would vote for him," he said. "I grew up wearing Bernie T-shirts my dad gave me."

Still, the supporter does not see any irony in Wall Street executives supporting a self-declared democratic socialist. "You've got Warren Buffett — one of the wealthiest people in the country — and he's out there supporting raising taxes and the things that Bernie talks about," he said.

Meredith Burak said her family has known and supported Sanders since he first ran for mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in 1980 — before she was born. But she cites a more recent development — the financial crisis of 2008 — as driving her support for Sanders.

"His issue is if you look at the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, no one at the top has been brought to court or indicted," she said. "Compare that to this whole generation of African-American and Latino kids who are put in the jail system for having a little bit of pot. There's something wrong there. People need to be held accountable."

I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion from the article, I just can't see how.

Did you bother to read

For somebody who's against Wall Street, one would think he wouldn't accept any money from executives from Wall Street.

but your article says she left wall street "Burak said she left Merrill Lynch earlier this month and is traveling in Israel this week, focusing on charitable work on behalf of a cancer foundation in honor of her mother."

I bet neither Sparth or Shiroi knows either of the 2 other parts of the economic collapse.

She wasn't the only donor.

There are 3 parties at fault for the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009.

You mean gov't pushes to get everyone into a home which led to subprime mortgages in the attempts to mitigate risk which led to a bubble that would then pop when these shitty loans were bundled, bet against and sold leading to a snowball effect of default and financial ruination?

I admittingly don't understand every detail but I've got the broad idea. Greed feeding greed feeding a political agenda. Banks wanted to make money, pols wanted to taut the American Dream for all. Unsustainable goals that resulted in a massive market correction.

she is the only one named in the article you posted.

that's great kid....but the article you posted is about bernie sanders... how is anyone else supposed to know wtf you are talking about?

Why do you think they want to throw everybody in Wall Street in jail for 2008 when they ignore the other two parts of the problem that lead to the economic collapse in 2008 and 2009?

I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion from the article, I just can't see how.

Or are you talking about my commentary paragraph about liberals/democrats ignoring most of the problem?

Both