Top 1% Own 40% of America’s Wealth

Wealth Inequality in America
Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is.

It’s the Inequality, Stupid
Wealth Inequality in America
How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans
CEO pay is 380 times average worker’s

  1. #1 by brewski on March 6, 2013 - 11:08 am

    I find this amusing coming from the man who wants to lower worker pay.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on March 6, 2013 - 4:00 pm

    By raising the federal minimum wage?

  3. #3 by Shane on March 6, 2013 - 4:14 pm

    I was going to post this last night. Great video, it takes about 25 minutes of what I used to present in the “wealth work idleness and equality of opportunity” section of my ethics class and makes a 6 minute video. I will be using it in class.

    It is also a great example of visual effectiveness. When I explain the difference between average worker wages and CEO pay, it has impact, but not as much as his simple graphic that shows it.

    The man deserves an award of some kind.

  4. #4 by brewski on March 6, 2013 - 4:22 pm


  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on March 6, 2013 - 8:43 pm

    The Harvard study was in Mother Jones two years ago. Rachel Maddow used it on her show last night (probably not the first time, but I can’t remember).

  6. #6 by brewski on March 6, 2013 - 8:51 pm

    Is Maddow going to take a pay cut on principle or is she just full of shit?

  7. #7 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2013 - 7:10 am

    That’s not the point. The point is that Americans want more income equality, despite the fact they are actually unaware that the top 1% already have 40% of the wealth.

  8. #8 by Bob S. on March 7, 2013 - 9:09 am


    The people may want more income equality but few of them are taking the steps to achieve it on their own.

    What do you call it when a firearm is used when one person takes the money of another? Robbery.

    Does it change if 3 – 3,000 – 300,000 – or 3,000,000 people are using firearms (the government’s in this case) to take from more then one person?

    I notice you aren’t doing anything to lead the way either — which quintile do you fall in and how much outside of taxes are you giving to the poor each day?

  9. #9 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 11:16 am

    It’s entirely the point. The left are a bunch of hypocrites.

  10. #10 by Shane Smith on March 7, 2013 - 1:59 pm

    Clearly the left are a bunch of hypocrites. For example it is not blue states providing most of the cash in taxes and red states feeding at the trough. It is not as if progressive religious communities are feeding the poor while conservative religious representatives like the vatican are dressing up in Prada and lecturing nuns for being bleeding heart liberals. It isn’t as though liberals are voting for people who say they will protect safety net programs and raise taxes on higher income brackets, even if they are their own income brackets.

    and clearly income equality can be achieved if only Rachel Maddow would take a pay cut. Hell she makes 80% of that 40% of the wealth that this video mentions. I believe her take home is almost 30% of the GDP.

    Stop bitching and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Hard work is enough to make anyone wealthy. Africa is all the proof you need, where the average single mother of 12 makes 4-5 million a year US…

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2013 - 5:48 pm

    Bob S.–

    Been job-hunting lately? The so-called “job creators” are not doing their job:

    Jobless and financially stretched Americans are reluctant to spend, which holds back demand, which in turn frays employers’ confidence that sales will firm up and justify committing to a new hire. Job creation over the last two years has been steady but too slow to put a major dent in the backlog of unemployed workers, and the February jobs report due out on Friday is expected to be equally mediocre. Uncertainty about the effect of fiscal policy in Washington is not helping expectations for the rest of the year, either.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics (PDF) says that nationally, applicants outnumbered job openings 3.4 to 1 in December 2012.

    • #12 by Bob S. on March 8, 2013 - 6:09 am

      Jobless – — if they are jobless they shouldn’t be spending frivolously. So that makes sense.

      Financially strapped people – maybe if they had more of their money instead supporting those who have never worked they could spend. Or the government wasn’t sending 450 Million to this country or 250 Million to that country — the government could reduce taxes to give them a little more to spend.

      And jobs aren’t the only way to earn a buck but the government has so many rules, regulations and codes in place it is difficult to start a business now days.

      So your answer to all of this and more is more government, right?

  12. #13 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2013 - 6:30 pm

    Bernie Sanders: 1 in 4 Profitable Corporations In America Pay 0 Federal Taxes

    WSJ: Nearly 70% of US Corporations Pay No Taxes

    26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years

    REPORT: You Have More Money In Your Wallet Than Bank Of America Pays In Federal Taxes

    “I have one dollar in my wallet. That’s more than the combined income tax liability of GE, ExxonMobil, Citibank, and the Bank of America. That means somebody is gaming the system.”

    • #14 by Bob S. on March 8, 2013 - 6:13 am

      And you don’t bother to explain that many corporations are also using the tax code to do what the government wants.

      How many companies get a tax credit/reduction for hiring veterans?
      How many implement green energy policies which reduce their taxes?

      The government provides incentives to companies to spend their money in certain ways — those incentives reduce the tax rates/payments and you complain about it.

      Guess we should just appoint you Grand Vizier and let you personally determine how much each company should pay then.

  13. #15 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 7:50 pm

    Pretty hilarious coming from the man who is against tax reform.

  14. #16 by Larry Bergan on March 7, 2013 - 8:16 pm

    That is an amazing video. It’s been up since November and should have many more views then it does.

    Seems to have a disproportional amount of thumbs down on the YouTube page. Couldn’t be Brent Bozell’s phone tree at work, could it?

    Just goes to show you that having all that money doesn’t give you a life.

  15. #17 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 8:20 pm

    “Bernie Sanders: 1 in 4 Profitable Corporations In America Pay 0 Federal Taxes”
    I’d like to see his source.

    “WSJ: Nearly 70% of US Corporations Pay No Taxes”
    This is total crap. The article refers to “pass through” corporations whose taxes are paid by the shareholders at the shareholders’ individual rates on their individual tax returns. Just like Cliff’s companies.

    “26 Major Corporations Paid No Taxes For The Last Four Years”
    I looked at this list and the facts behind them. Notable is Obama’s best buddy, GE. I also see that the years quoted are only 2008-2010 a period when many losses were taken and then carried forward for several years due to the government induced financial meltdown. Also Obama’s 2009 ARRA included a bonus depreciation tax provision. This is the stimulus bill Krugman said wasn’t big enough. Many of those companies are paying taxes now at a rate higher than the statutory rates.

    “REPORT: You Have More Money In Your Wallet Than Bank Of America Pays In Federal Taxes”
    This story refers only to 2009, much of which was caused by the government caused financial meltdown. Exxon is paying taxes now at 41%.

    So why are you against tax reform if the tax code is so game-able? Why don’t you want to fix it? Are you insane?

  16. #18 by Richard Warnick on March 7, 2013 - 8:20 pm


    Tax reform proposed by right-wingers is nothing more than a dodge. All they want is lower effective tax rates for the rich, and they think “reform” is a convenient smoke screen.

  17. #19 by brewski on March 7, 2013 - 8:26 pm

    As you know, in Canada the statutory rate is far lower and the effective rate is far higher than in the US. But according to you this isn’t possible. Your Sarah Palin esque denial of evidence.

  18. #20 by Richard Warnick on March 8, 2013 - 7:53 am

    Nice of you to cite Think Progress. I never said it wasn’t possible. What I said is that it isn’t doable because both parties are dedicated to lowering taxes on the rich and corporations. When they say “tax reform” they mean lower effective tax rates, paid for with budget cuts that hurt the American middle class.

  19. #21 by brewski on March 8, 2013 - 8:03 am

    Yes you did. You have said repeatedly that the only way to collect more in revenue is to increase statutory rates and that any reduction in statutory rates will result in lower revenues. You have said that over and over again. I have repeatedly shown how tax reform which includes lower rates would result in higher revenues and you told me it was impossible. You are totally walking away from what you said.

  20. #22 by Larry Bergan on March 8, 2013 - 10:29 pm

    Both brewski and Bob S. portray themselves as just simple working guys. They always stand up for guys who make hundreds of times more then they do, but probably golf a lot while their computers make stock market deals in microseconds.

    I’m sure that’s a simplistic assessment of all people who make hundreds of times more then their countrymen, but…

    I don’t get it.

    • #23 by Bob S. on March 9, 2013 - 5:52 am


      If I come across as a simple working guy there is a simple reason for that.

      Because I am one.

      I work for a manufacturing company. I have a desk job making me more gray collar than white collar.
      I have money in 401(k)s and IRAs but other than stock in companies I previously worked for, I don’t play the stock market.

      I’m sure that’s a simplistic assessment of all people who make hundreds of times more then their countrymen, but…

      I don’t get it.

      It is and you don’t.

      Which is part of the problem — because it doesn’t stop you from talking about things you don’t know.

      That chart is a little simplistic – little details like the fact that it includes children under the working age in the income distribution — a fact that skews the lower end.
      Yet Cliff and Richard want to use it to make policy. Policy they are not willing to live themselves first.

      If you agree with income redistribution, I’ll ask you the same question that Richard and Cliff have answered negatively — Are you giving anything you make over what is absolutely necessary to keep you (and your family) fed, sheltered, clothed and educated to others?

      It is a simple question – if you believe that people who make less than you should have more money, are you living your beliefs?

  21. #24 by Cliff on March 9, 2013 - 4:53 am


    How many time must I tell you. They are authoritarians.

    Listen to the interview!

    • #25 by Bob S. on March 9, 2013 - 6:05 am


      LOL….talk about making someone an enemy — that is a trick you do. You are doing it here. The Southern Poverty Law Center does it well – how do you feel about that organization?

      I’m much more Libertarian than I am Conservative.
      Keep calling names, keep making adhomien attacks. It is what you do instead of addressing the issues.

  22. #26 by brewski on March 9, 2013 - 7:49 am

    I am definitely not an authoritarian. Quite the opposite. Cliff is the one who is a cult of personality worshipper.

    Larry, what I don’t get is why you want to give more power to the same people who have screwed things up so much. Explain that to me.

  23. #27 by Richard Warnick on March 9, 2013 - 10:40 am

    Bob S.–

    My goal isn’t to reduce my standard of living, but to maintain it and increase opportunities for others to join the middle class. In 2010, 16.4 million American children, or 22 percent, were poor. I’m sure you agree they deserve opportunities.

    If the top 1% sit on mounds of cash, then that starves the real economy and leads to financial bubbles, crashes, and recessions like the one that capped off the Bush maladministration.

    • #28 by Bob S. on March 10, 2013 - 7:50 am


      Nice to admit your a greedy selfish person who doesn’t want to reduce his standard of living to help others.

      Nope, you want to steal money from others using the government’s guns in order to satisfy your goals.

      Instead of leading the way, you want to use the mob majority to force them to give up their money.

      In 2010, 16.4 million American children, or 22 percent, were poor. I’m sure you agree they deserve opportunities.

      Poor people with free public education, free public transportation in many cases, free/low cost medical care, free housing in many cases.

      Yeah our poor people have it so bad — they have to use last year’s cell phones, only watch basic cable in their air conditioned houses, many of them can barely afford insurance for their car or cars.

      So — instead of giving them opportunities to improve themselves, you sit on your money and don’t share. Hypocrite.

      You can reduce your income and still be in the middle class – yet do you?

      You can use those opportunities available to every citizen and improve your situation after giving your money to others — but it seems you don’t want to — HYPOCRITE.

  24. #29 by Larry Bergan on March 9, 2013 - 11:13 am

    Bob S. (noname) says:

    I’m much more Libertarian than I am Conservative.
    Keep calling names, keep making adhomien attacks. It is what you do instead of addressing the issues.

    Sean Hannity runs from the republican party too, saying he’s with the conservative party.

    That’s a new one. What is the “conservative” party? Is that a branch of the tea bagger party?

    We only have two parties in America and you know it. Only the republicans have the audacity to rename themselves because they’re too embarrassed to say they’re greedy.

  25. #30 by Larry Bergan on March 9, 2013 - 11:24 am

    And Bob,

    I really don’t want to go over this again with you, but people don’t want your fucking handouts to survive. They work really hard for their money and don’t want your jacked up overflow.

    Oh! I forgot.

    You’re a simple working guy in 2013 who has enough money to spread around to poor people. 🙂

    Save it for bullets.

    • #31 by Bob S. on March 10, 2013 - 7:45 am


      I am a simple person. Never claimed I was poor but my financial situation is far from perfect. My wife lost her job last year when she went to North Carolina to watch 2 of our grandkids while the newest one was in ICU for 12 days.

      I still find a few dollars to contribute to causes here and there and the people are grateful. I pay my taxes — taxes where an ever increasing percentage of that money is being used for ‘handouts’.
      So I don’t know what color the sky is on your world but saying people don’t want handouts is denying reality.

  26. #32 by Larry Bergan on March 9, 2013 - 11:40 am


    I saw John Dean on public television in the seventies. He could bring Bob Woodward down with both hands tied behind his back using words.

  27. #33 by brewski on March 9, 2013 - 11:43 pm

    “If the top 1% sit on mounds of cash, then that starves the real economy and leads to financial bubbles, crashes, and recessions like the one that capped off the Bush maladministration.”

    I’m still waiting for the answers to my questions about Marx.

  28. #34 by Cliff on March 10, 2013 - 7:52 am

    Bob S,

    Since you are so concerned about your taxes going to hand-outs, dont you think you ought hav those numbers close at hand?

    Because, I think you dont ACTUALLY know what they are. I think you prefer not to know the FACTS so that you can continue to believe what you WANT to believe.

    Yes, Bob S, that what I think, And I an VERY sure of it.

  29. #35 by cav on March 10, 2013 - 10:45 am

    Not to continue to promote the duopoly, but…somebody’s got to say it.

  30. #36 by cav on March 10, 2013 - 1:21 pm

    WASHINGTON – March 7 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to strengthen Social Security by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax that nearly everyone else already pays.

    Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the companion bill in the House. He joined Sanders at a news conference in the Capitol to discuss their bill to bolster Social Security without raising the retirement age or lowering benefits.

    We all need to contact our US House member and tell him/her to co-sponsor Rep. De Fazio’s bill, and contact our two US Senators and tell them to co-sponsor Sen. Sanders’ bill.

    Be sure to remind your Democratic Party Reps. who are up for re-election in 2014 that just as Obamacare resulted in voter backlash against Democrats in 2010, Obama’s 2013 Social Security and Medicare sellout will result in more voter backlash against Democrats in 2014.

  31. #37 by Larry Bergan on March 10, 2013 - 6:13 pm

    Might just work cav. After all, who would have thought the Republicans would back down on violence against women. Maybe they are finally starting to see themselves in the mirror.

    What am I saying. Grover Norquist is still waving his big tax stick around.

  32. #38 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 8:56 am

    I’m worried that my taxes are going to handouts for defense contractors as part of the bloated Pentagon budget. So things are tough all over.

    Let’s stipulate that we all give to charity, but non-profit organizations by themselves do not have the power to level the playing field for those 16.4 million American children living below the poverty line.

    • #39 by Bob S. on March 11, 2013 - 9:32 am


      Let’s not stipulate anything. You admit you don’t give all that you can — because you selfishly don’t want to impact your standard of living — then claim that non-profits can level the playing field.

      Of course they can If People like you who claim to want to level the playing field would step up.

      Lead the way Man. Step up and show us how it is done.

      Don’t like the budget — oh, wait Congress and the President haven’t passed a budget in 4 years !

      But if you don’t like the spending; change who goes to Washington. Don’t whine that we are spending too much on Defense so we have to make the people who pay 75-95% of all taxes pay more to salvage your conscience.

      Step up and pay more.

  33. #40 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 10:00 am

    Bob S.–

    You want me to reduce my standard of living because why? We know that 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth, and they could contribute much more without reducing their standard of living at all.

    I said the opposite of what you say I said. Non-profits CANNOT level the playing field. Only the government can do that.

    You know and I know that Republican obstructionism is the reason why the budget can’t pass Congress.

    • #41 by Bob S. on March 11, 2013 - 12:39 pm


      I don’t want you to lower your standard of living. YOU WANT TO level everyone’s standard of living, isn’t that right?

      Isn’t that your goal? Reducing income inequality?

      Yet you aren’t willing to do it first.

      I said that non-profits can — if people like you step up. YOU aren’t interested in losing a single dime of your money to support the values you claim though.

      While some governments can level the playing field (making everyone poor) it isn’t within the power of our government to do so.

      What is hard to understand about that?
      YOU on the other hand suffer no limitation on leveling the playing field. YOU can give as much as it takes — yet you don’t. HYPOCRITE.

      YOU can voluntarily live on poverty level wages or just enough to keep you/your family fed, sheltered, clothed and employed.

      YET YOU don’t. Because YOU want to force other people to support YOUR principles. While publicly claiming you don’t want to lower your standard of living. HYPOCRITE.

      The point is non-profits could do much to lower the income inequality if you would stop bleating about how bad it is and start doing something about it yourself.

  34. #42 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 10:19 am

    Richard, you do want other Americans to lower their standard of living. So why should you be exempt from your own principles?

  35. #43 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 10:22 am

    “Only the government can do that.”

    Yes, see Cuba, North Korea. The suffering is universal.

  36. #44 by cav on March 11, 2013 - 11:07 am

    I’ll lower mine proportionately, Mkay? Something about when enough is enough.

    I’ll drop so much of my wealth that I’ll be forced to fast two days a week if Warren Buffet and others of his class will do the very same.

    Not only would that be the ‘Christian’ thing to do, but it would most certainly end this cat-food theater – such as it is.

    • #45 by Bob S. on March 11, 2013 - 12:44 pm


      Fortunately you don’t get a vote in how I spend my money.

      Instead of waiting for Warren Buffett and the others; why don’t you start it?

      Great leaders don’t wait until the movement has started and then jump in front – they lead the way.

      The poor in America generally aren’t starving. Only a very small portion of the population is; heck many of the poor people have a problem with obesity.

  37. #46 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 2:00 pm

    Bob S.–

    Can you write anything that’s true? I pay my share, as do you I’m sure. The problem is that those who have astronomically more than we do don’t pay their share, or anything close to it. Their standard of living will not change in the slightest. Did you watch the video?

    • #47 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 6:32 am

      No Richard,

      The problem isn’t those who make more, it is those who don’t do what they say they want done.

      YOU are the problem.

  38. #48 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 2:02 pm


    The choice is not between the New Gilded Age and North Korea. It’s not. But your hyperbole is amusing, just like the people who think President Obama is a socialist. In reality, he treats right-wingers to dinner at fancy restaurants — maybe they are socialists, accepting a free meal?

  39. #49 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 2:03 pm

    “I pay my share”

    Richard, that is almost certainly not true. You probably pay not even close to your share. At a minimum, you are only paying 1/3 of your “fair share” for Medicare. And income taxes are so skewed that you don’t pay anything close to your fair share.

  40. #50 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 2:06 pm

    Federal government spending was $29,691 per household in 2012.

    Did you pay almost $30,000 in Federal taxes last year? Not including state and local taxes?

    If not, you didn’t pay your fair share.

  41. #51 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 2:08 pm

    I pay a higher percentage of my income than multimillionaire Willard (“Mitt”) Romney. I personally pay more taxes than a number of big and very profitable corporations.

    If your idea of a “fair share” of federal taxes is $30,000 on a middle-class income, then you don’t understand the concept of progressive taxation. Sadly, many of our elected representatives share your ignorance.

    • #52 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 6:36 am


      If you pay a higher percentage it is because you aren’t taking the tax breaks/deductions that Romney is; right?

      Do you donate a higher percentage of your income to charity than Romney does?

      Do you donate a higher raw amount of money then Romney?

      Probably NOT. Yet YOU feel you shouldn’t inconvenience your life style a bit but force Romney to give even more.

  42. #53 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 2:12 pm

    We have THE MOST progressive tax system on the planet. See the chart.

    You are the one against tax reform. Want to rethink that position?

    My plan would make Buffett’s taxes go up 150% or more.

  43. #54 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 2:17 pm

    You don’t understand the meaning of the word ignorance based on your use of it. You switched from talking about “fair share” to arguing about progressivity when we already have the most progressive tax system on the planet. So obviously if we have the most progressive system on the planet and we still have an income inequality problem as you see it, then maybe taxes isn’t the problem, but maybe something else. Have you ever considered that? How about supply and demand? How about punishment for hiring people? How about punishment for repatriating profits? Don’t you think those affect hiring in the US? Do you even understand any of this? Or is your hate for old people so deep that you can’t see anymore?

  44. #55 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 2:34 pm


    I never said I was “against tax reform.” I just think that what’s being proposed is a diversion intended to lower already too-low tax rates for the rich and corporations. What I said was, and you know this, let’s raise rates and then close loopholes to bring in more revenue.

    Your plan is like Romney’s so-called plan. It’s smoke and mirrors. Nobody believes the intent is to raise taxes on the rich.

    If the rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class, that’s the opposite of progressive taxation. It’s regressive.

  45. #56 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 2:40 pm

    Yes you did.

    My plan raises Romney’s taxes by over 100%. There are no smoke and mirrors. You just don’t understand it so you call anything which is over your head smoke and mirrors. I don’t know who “nobody” is. I keep saying raise taxes on Buffett and Romney and you keep saying smoke and mirrors.

    See the chart.

  46. #57 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 3:17 pm

    The US has had a lot of different tax codes and a lot of different rates. But no matter what, with 95% rates or 28% rates, one thing remained the same. Total revenues to the US government have never ever ever exceeded 21% of GDP. That is true in the depth of WWII, the depth of FDR-ism, the high rates of the Eisenhower era, etc. So don’t think you can all of a sudden ignore data and be able to get more than 21%. It has never been done. So that is your limit. So if we can manage our promises and our belief in unicorns and your penchant for Sarah Palin intelligence, we need to keep our spending around that level too. You know, just like Bill Clinton’s budget. So let’s take Bill Clinton’s spending, and match it to a simple tax code which triples Buffett’s taxes and we’re done. Wishing for unicorns and Sarah Palin math isn’t going to work for you.

  47. #58 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    No, I didn’t. What chart? Thanks for conceding that we don’t have a progressive tax system.

  48. #59 by cav on March 11, 2013 - 4:05 pm

    Seems rather arbitrary to me. Why not just settle on 66.666% ?

  49. #60 by brewski on March 11, 2013 - 6:06 pm

    This chart

    Who conceded that? We have the most progressive on the planet.

  50. #61 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 - 10:42 pm

    I think this graph explains the true relationship.

    Source: Just How Progressive is the U.S. Tax Code?

  51. #62 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 4:43 am

    Interesting definition of progressively. Never heard of the definition as being how much does that tax code redistribute income rather than defining it as what share you pay per decile of income.

  52. #63 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 8:58 am

    As long as Willard’s taxes are a lower as a percentage of income than mine, you’ll never convince me we have a progressive taxation system.

    • #64 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 9:26 am


      Thanks for admitting you are a bigot

      bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

      Romney donates more in charity then you do, pays more in taxes than you do– yet you want him to pay more while you sit on your money. Amazing hypocrisy.

  53. #65 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 9:35 am


  54. #66 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 9:45 am

    First of all, you keep telling me how little money you make. So if you do make little money then you probably don’t pay much in taxes at all.

    Let’s calculate the total tax for a family of 4 at the median household income:

    Income: $50,502
    Standard deduction: $12,200
    Personal exemptions: 4 x $3,900 = $15,600
    Taxable income: $22,702
    Tax amount: $2,512
    Child tax credit: 2 x $3,000 = $6,000
    Net tax paid/(received) = ($3,487)
    Effective tax rate = – 6.9%

    So if Romney paid a tax rate of 13% or so, and the median household has an effective tax rate of minus 6.9%. Then that sounds very progressive to me.

    Richard, you suck at math.

  55. #67 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 10:35 am


    That’s nice, if you have a family of four. My effective tax rate is higher than Romney’s.

    • #68 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 11:51 am

      PROVE IT

  56. #69 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 11:02 am

    You need to give $30 million to charity.

  57. #70 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 11:50 am

    Have you seen Romney’s tax returns?

  58. #73 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 12:12 pm

    I didn’t run for President. But if I did, I would definitely make all my tax returns public. Romney left everyone to assume he must be hiding some serious illegality– otherwise, why take the negative press from not releasing the returns?

    • #74 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 12:15 pm

      What a double standard. You advocate people who pay more in taxes then you not only give up more of their money but their privacy.

      And why? Because you don’t think they are giving to charity what they say.

      And do you lead by example. NOPE.

      Another example of blatant hypocrisy from you.

      Given how you won’t release your tax and charity records, I think you must be hiding some serious illegality.

      Just what are you hiding Richard?

    • #75 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 3:06 pm

      How about every candidate subject themselves to an IRS audit so that we know that the law has been followed, but not make them public?

      If illegality is your concern then why do you have to see them?

  59. #76 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 12:24 pm

    We had a balanced budget before the Bush tax cuts which Obama the closet republican could have ended like he promised and he could have done by simply doing nothing.


    Thanks again to the not so ‘supreme’ court.

    • #77 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 3:11 pm

      Clinton Surplus? Don’t you mean Gingrich Surplus?

  60. #78 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 12:54 pm

    Bob S.–

    Basically every presidential candidate except Willard (“Mitt”) Romney released years and years of tax returns. We all wonder what Romney was hiding.

    I’m not hiding anything, but there is no incentive for me to give you my tax returns because I’m not asking for your vote.

    • #79 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:14 pm


      Maybe it is your suspicious mind ( or guilty conscience ) that makes you suspect Romney of doing something wrong by valuing his privacy.

      YOU seem to set a pretty high value on your privacy……hmmmm makes a person wonder.

      You aren’t asking for my vote ? LIAR.

      YOU are asking me to vote for a law you advocate. You are asking me to vote for a principle you hold (but don’t seem to live).

      YOU are asking people for their vote. Heck most advocacy groups have to disclose their income and expenses, don’t they?

      So what are you hiding that you are unwilling to disclose?

  61. #80 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 1:29 pm

    Bob S.–

    Let me break it down for ya.

    (1) If Romney values his privacy, then he made a mistake running for political office.

    (2) Unlike Romney, I am not a politician.

    (3) I don’t expect anything from you except to parrot the Gun Lobby propaganda.

    (4) Aside from not being a politician, I’m also not a member of an advocacy group.

    (5) I don’t even know your name, why would I want to publish personal information on a blog on your say-so?

  62. #81 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:44 pm


    1. Politicians don’t give up all of their rights and privacy when they run for office — remember Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?

    2. Let’s look at the definition of ‘politician’ shall we?

    a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
    b. One who holds or seeks a political office.
    2. One who seeks personal or partisan gain, often by scheming and maneuvering: “Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but . . . they do not want them to become politicians in the process” (John F. Kennedy).
    3. One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government.

    Emphasis mine — so Yes you are involved in politics. You are a politician !

    3. Nice straw man via word substitution – you may not expect anything from me but you are seeking to persuade me and others to vote for principles, ideas and laws you advocate.

    4. Didn’t say you were part of an advocacy group – I said advocacy groups have to disclose. You call for others to disclose personal information but you don’t want to lead the way. YOU want your privacy but expect other to give up theirs. YOU want others to give up their money but you don’t want to give up yours.

    Maybe you should form a group – – “Hypocritical Utahns for Political Change”

    If you don’t know my name, you are a complete and utter idiot. MY name is Bob !

    How hard is that to figure out?

    Mitt Romney doesn’t know you but you want to force him to disclose his information on your say so.

    Again, very hypocritical of you. What are you hiding Richard?

  63. #82 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 2:01 pm

    Bob S.–

    (1) Great example. I think Bill Clinton would say he wasn’t left with the smallest shred of privacy, not to mention going through an impeachment trial.

    (2) I’m not involved in party politics. I used to volunteer for Republican candidates, but haven’t been involved in party politics for at least a dozen years.

    (3) Not seeking to persuade anybody. I just offer the truth as I see it, you can take it or leave it.

    (4) I disclose publicly what I want to disclose. I contribute what I want to contribute to nonprofit organizations of my choice. Same as any private citizen.

    (5) Bob the Builder?

    (6) I just pointed out that Romney apparently made a major mistake by not following his own father’s example and disclosing his tax returns. The only way it wasn’t a mistake would be if the tax returns contained evidence of a crime.

    • #83 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 2:11 pm


      Your claims ring a little hollow. You claim you aren’t involved in politics despite being an author here has been an ersatz public square for Utah since January 2006. We feature the writings’ and commentary of over 40 of Utah’s most thoughtful and articulate citizens, community leaders, educators and law-makers.

      You advocate for larger, more intrusive government while you work for that very government

      Richard Warnick was born in New York and moved to Utah in 1981 after serving in the U.S. Army. He earned a degree in History from Georgetown University and a B.S. and M.S. in Geography from the University of Utah. A former seasonal park ranger for both the BLM and the National Park Service, he now works for the U.S. Forest Service as a resource information specialist. He lives in Draper, Utah.

      You do advocate for a ‘more progressive tax’ system. That isn’t stating facts, it is trying to persuade people.

      Mitt Romney is a private citizen — yet you want him to disclose his tax returns. You disclose what you want but don’t grant the other person the same privilege.

      I’ve built many things, a decent career, a thriving family, a strong group of friends I can trust and a reputation for telling the truth. So if you want to call me Bob the Builder, I’ll take it as a compliment.

      At least I have the decency not to require something of others I’m not willing to do myself.

  64. #84 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 3:00 pm

    Comment stuck in moderation

  65. #85 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 3:21 pm

    Bob S.–

    I express my opinion, and try to get the truth out. Call it advocacy if you like, but as noted in your comment this blog is a public square, not an arm of any lobbying group or political party.

    I don’t believe in “larger, more intrusive government.” Where do you get that idea?

    Yes, we need a more progressive tax system. But who am I going to persuade? Utah’s congressional delegation isn’t going to listen to me.

    I don’t care if Romney releases his tax returns, but I think he refusal to do so while running for President may have helped him lose the election.

    “Bob the Builder” is what came up when I Googled “Bob.” If I put in “Bob S.” I get Bob’s Discount Furniture.

    Again, every presidential candidate except one has released his/her tax returns.

  66. #86 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    BUSH SQUANDERED THE SURPLUS. Let the terrorists fly into the WTC (twice), Lied us into wars, Crashed the economy, ETC.


    • #87 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 3:39 pm

      The surplus was in part created by tons of temporary revenue generated as part of the Clinton Bubble which crashed in 2000, before Bush took office. GDP was already heading into recession before Bush took office. So even if Clinton was still president in 2001, there still would have been a recession, revenues would have cratered anyway, the terrorists still would have flown into the WTC twice anyway. Afghanistan still would have happened, but Iraq would not have. The crash to the economy was caused by the Fed, not Bush. Just ask Krugman. That would have happened anyway as well.

  67. #88 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 3:24 pm

    My position is that Romney did not write the US Tax Code. Congress does. So if Romney faithfully followed the law to his benefit, then that is Congress’ problem and not Romney’s problem. If Romney doesn’t pay enough much in taxes, legally, then blame Harry Reid.

  68. #89 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 3:26 pm

    Richard…try Bill. Works for me.

    Oh, and FREE BILL’S COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  69. #90 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 3:54 pm

    I approved the comment (#83). Just a personal attack on me, nothing substantive.

    • #91 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 4:00 pm


      It wasn’t a personal attack unless you think showing you are not credible about your activities is a personal attack.

      You claim you only state fact but your posts are meant to persuade people people. You are involved in politics but claim you aren’t. So either you are ignorant of what words mean or you are lying.

      If you are ignorant about the simple facts of meanings why should we read what you right?

      If you deny, unconvincingly, that you aren’t political- you are lying and not worth reading.

      Fess up to the truth. There is nothing wrong with being part of the political process.
      YOU just can’t claim immunity from the same standards and values you want to force on others.

  70. #92 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 4:22 pm

    If ad hominem is your style, go for it. But I take it as a sign you’ve run out of logical arguments on the issue at hand.

    Most Americans, including me, don’t care about partisan politics. Both major political parties are controlled by corporatists.

  71. #93 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 4:40 pm

    Richard, your middle name is ad hominem. Pretty hypocritical of you to get upset when anyone else does it.

  72. #94 by brewski on March 12, 2013 - 4:41 pm

    “Most Americans, including me, don’t care about partisan politics.”

  73. #95 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:34 am


    I don’t make personal attacks on my fellow bloggers. You can’t even cite one example.

    • #96 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 10:52 am

      How about from this own thread?

      #46 by Richard Warnick on March 11, 2013 – 2:00 pm

      Bob S.–

      Can you write anything that’s true? I pay my share, as do you I’m sure. The problem is that those who have astronomically more than we do don’t pay their share, or anything close to it. Their standard of living will not change in the slightest. Did you watch the video?

      Certainly looks like a personal attack, doesn’t it?

      You get upset when I call you out on your lying but you are implying that nothing I say is true.

      Factually wrong and a personal attack.

      So if you can’t tell the truth….that makes you a what?

  74. #97 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:56 am

    Bob S.–

    Apparently you don’t know the difference between mere snark and an ad hominem attack.

    I did not call you a liar, a hypocrite, or question the sincerity of your beliefs. Simply noted that you are repeating Gun Lobby propaganda.

    Frankly, I’m happy when a person I’m debating resorts to ad hominem. It means they have conceded that I’m right, so they need a distraction.

    • #98 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 11:00 am

      Oh so when you do it it is snark, when I do it is an ad hominem attack.

      Prove something I’ve said is factually untrue and I’ll accept being called a liar.

      Show me where I’ve been hypocritical.

      You stated in your title of the post that 8 children are killed by guns every day. That is factually untrue as I’ve shown using the reports source — the CDC. I’ve posted the numbers showing the truth.

      You still have not admitted the “8 children” a day is a lie.

      Is it the truth or not?

  75. #99 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 11:06 am

    Bob S.–

    I asked a question. I did not accuse you of being a liar. It is factually untrue that the proposed gun safety laws are unconstitutional. Believing that they are unconstitutional does not make you a liar, just wrong.

    I also didn’t accuse you of being hypocritical, but if the shoe fits…

    You are clinging to a legal technicality, in the face of a powerful video about mothers concerned for the lives of their children. Can you understand how this is not going to work for the Gun Lobby position? Can you understand that using a different definition of “child” to get 4 instead of 8 children killed by guns every day is not a winning argument?

    • #100 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 11:23 am


      If you have proof that the gun laws proposed are constitutional, please present it now.

      Otherwise this is just another case of you writing your opinion.

      You didn’t accuse me of being hypocritical, I accuse you of it.
      You lie, you distort, you advocate for policies you are unwilling to live yourself.

      You state opinion as fact and then when as to support your facts you state your opinion again….see ‘unconstitutional’

      Let’s talk about that — the Heller decision held that banning an entire class of firearms was unconstitutional, right?

      So how can banning an entire class of another type “assault weapons” be constitutional.

      Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

      As far as clinging to a ‘legal technicality’ — I guess you having sex with children is doing the same thing as long as you cling to the fact they were over 18.

      I point out the ‘legal technicality’ to show how people like you have to lie to influence public opinion. I point that you are willing to enact laws based on those lies.

      I point out that the laws you propose or support do not and will not stop criminals — the majority of which account for those deaths you so wail over.

      Let’s look at the number of actual children as I’ve shown before.

      In 2008 and 2009; 2,867 children died in firearm related incidents. 1,882 of those were homicides or legal interventions – 65.6% of the total number killed.

      Now who are killing children?

      Guns and gangs

      Gangs have proliferated rapidly since 1980, when there were about 2,000 gangs with 100,000 members in 286 cities.22 By 1996, there were 31,000 gangs with 846,000 members in 4,800 cities and towns.23

      Gangs are more likely to recruit adolescents who own firearms, and gang members (who are twice as likely to own guns for protection than nongang members) are more likely to carry guns outside their homes.24 The risk of being killed is 60 times greater among young gang members than in the general population25 and in some cities, far higher. For example, the St. Louis youth gang homicide rate is 1,000 times higher than the U.S. homicide rate.26

      We have a gang and drug problem that you don’t address. Why not? Why focus on law abiding people like me instead of the gang/drug issue?

      If you really wanted to save children’s lives; you would propose laws that address the drug problem.

  76. #101 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 11:30 am

    Bob S.–

    Do I have to cite Supreme Court decisions? Again? You know gun safety laws are constitutional. I don’t have to educate you on that.

    One common misperception is that regulation of gun rights automatically infringes on a constitutional right and that Americans have a right “to unlimited use of weapons with unlimited firepower.” In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that reasonable gun regulation can be an appropriate exercise of governmental power and that no American has unfettered rights to possess firearms.

    You know what Justice Scalia said in the majority opinion in Heller. So you know I’m right.

    We’re waay off topic for this post. So let’s continue to discuss gun safety laws on the appropriate threads.

    • #102 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 12:13 pm

      Yes, I know what Scalia said. But you’ll note that he was talking about existing laws, not your proposed laws.

      The article you cite isn’t accurate.

      n 1939, the court unanimously decided U.S. v. Miller. Miller challenged the 1933 National Firearms Act, which limited possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,” also known as a “sawed-off” shotgun common among organized crime figures in the 1920s and 1930s. The court unanimously ruled that a federal law prohibiting possession or use of such a firearm was constitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment.

      Miller did not decide “a federal law prohibiting the possession or use of such a firearm was constitutional”. NOT at all.

      What it decided was a TAX on the possession and use of such a firearm was constitutional.
      You’ll note the people still have a right to keep and bear arms such as a sawed off shotgun.

      Major difference.

      No one is claiming an unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Just as there are laws against fraud or libel; laws covering the misuse of firearms are legal and constitutional.

      That isn’t what you seek. You see the banning and confiscation of an entire class of firearms — firearms that are in common use by citizens, law enforcement and military personnel.

      You seek to limit magazine capacities — although why it is okay to carry 7 rounds but not 8 or 10 but not 11 isn’t explained very well.

      You seek to let the government keep track of what people legally buy and sell.

      New York’s soda ban was just thrown out as unconstitutional — see any parallels between it and you proposed or supported laws?

  77. #103 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 12:38 pm

    Bob S.–

    The federal assault weapons ban (AWB), or what I prefer to call a mass-murder weapons ban, was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004. As I recall, no one called it unconstitutional and there was no court challenge.

    The Gun Lobby has become more radical in its propaganda. Otherwise, I think you would agree that a mass-murder weapon ban is constitutional, even if you don’t like the idea.

    • #104 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 1:25 pm


      The Assault Weapon ban was challenged in court; they just never made it to the Supreme Court.

      Next the ban took place before Heller and McDonald.

      Third, the Assault weapon ban still allowed semi-automatic weapons to be purchased, sold and manufactured. It just limited the appearance and cosmetic features permissible.

      The current versions would prevent the majority of all semi-automatic weapons from being manufactured, purchased, bought or sold.

      Didn’t you carry an Mass Murder Weapon when you were in the military? A fully automatic version?

      So how many people did you kill with it Richard?

  78. #105 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 1:32 pm

    Bob S.–

    So your claim is that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the federal government even to regulate “cosmetic” features of firearms? That’s absurd.

    This post is about wealth inequality. I’m not going off-topic here anymore.

    • #106 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:05 pm

      BZZZZZZ.. YOU lose again. Thanks for playing “Let’s make a straw man argument”

      Sorry Richard, That isn’t even close to what I said. In fact is it the absolute OPPOSITE.

      I said the law was allowed because it only prohibited cosmetic features — such as a bayonet lug and a forward handgrip. Or a magazine outside of the grip.

      Now, consider the magazine outside of the grip. Does a semi-automatic firearm function the same regardless where the magazine is located?
      Yes it does.

      So the law was constitutional. Barely in my opinion.

      But the new proposal does more than that. It limits the tools people use for sport, for hunting and enjoyment

      And yes, the tools used to keep the government in Check.

  79. #107 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 2:08 pm

    Let’s take it to the other post. This one is about wealth inequality.

    • #108 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:33 pm

      Okay…Let’s keep talking about how you want to vote other people’s money to be taken from them.

      While you hypocritical refuse to lower your standard of living in order to reduce income inequality.

      Come on Richard — if it can reduce the inequality of just one person; isn’t it worth it?

      • #109 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 2:40 pm

        Taking from the middle class to make the super-rich even richer is not a sustainable political goal. It will be interesting to see how long our politicians can get away with it.

        • #110 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:56 pm


          That doesn’t even make sense. I’m talking about Richard Warnick picking out someone — paying their medical insurance premiums or feeding them or giving them cash to do something with.

          Would that reduce income inequality?

          Yes it would.

          So if you are interested in reducing income inequality — why aren’t you giving away your money instead of selfishly and possibly bitterly clinging to it?

          • #111 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 4:09 pm

            You could just as logically ask, if I’m concerned about the threat of terrorism why don’t I personally go to Pakistan and hunt down the remaining members of al-Qaeda?

        • #112 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 4:49 pm

          Bob, Richard never makes sense. He also never answers questions. Nor does he ever use as a source anyone other than other bloggers or other far left advocacy groups or op-ed pieces. When anyone cites objective data such as from the CBO or BLS, he just declares it is wrong and then invokes his feelings regardless of facts. In other words, he is Sarah Palin. That’s all he knows and that’s all he does. He also admitted he is a Marxist and wants the government to own his home and all businesses. You need to put everything he says in that context.

  80. #114 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 2:32 pm


    We have a new Pope, and, yes, he IS Catholic, and has been known to occasionally shit in the woods.

  81. #115 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 3:01 pm


    This is what your version of government seems to be leading to

    (Reuters) – The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

    The proposed plan represents a major step by U.S. intelligence agencies to spot and track down terrorist networks and crime syndicates by bringing together financial databanks, criminal records and military intelligence. The plan, which legal experts say is permissible under U.S. law, is nonetheless likely to trigger intense criticism from privacy advocates.

    Looks like you won’t be able to hide your finances much longer — after all, the only reason you won’t disclose your tax returns is you have something to hide, right?

    We, all of us, have to stop this non-sense. My finances and yours are not the domain of the government to roam through at will.

    It may be permissible by law but is it constitutional?

  82. #116 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 4:06 pm

    Bob S.–

    You really enjoy hurling accusations, don’t you? I think it was Archie Bunker who said, “If you ain’t got nuttin ta hide, you don’t need no privacy.”

    But seriously, we have a problem because corporations collect all sorts of data without giving much thought to the privacy implications. Then the government decides they want to use those databases, and we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

    Our laws haven’t kept pace with technology, and neither has public awareness.

    • #117 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 7:08 pm

      Hey did you vote for Obama? Yes or no.

      If you did vote for him, and I’m betting you voted for him twice — then you own part of his administration’s efforts to deprive us of our rights.

      You accuse Romney of having something to hide because he want release his records — and you won’t release your tax returns — curious minds wonder if you are psychologically projecting on to Romney your issues.

      I think you are wrong about the laws not keeping up. The Supreme Court has ruled the 4th Amendment protects our information as if they were our persons, places or papers.

      What hasn’t kept up is us — both parties — holding politicians accountable to the limits in the Constitution.

      What hasn’t kept up is the moral values of the politicians — of both parties — especially in upholding the Oath of Office they take.

      So out with it Mr. Accusation Hurler — what do you have to hide? Inquiring minds want to know.

  83. #118 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 7:29 pm

    Richard votes for all kinds of lunatics including Cynthia McKinney.

  84. #119 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 8:19 pm

    I live in Utah. Everybody on the ballot is usually some kind of a lunatic. 😉

    Bob S. doesn’t follow One Utah regularly, so he doesn’t know who I voted for in the last two Presidential elections like everybody else does.

    In fairness to the people who did vote for President Obama, they chose what they believed to be the lesser evil. You can’t blame them any more than you can blame the Bush supporters for invading Iraq, leaving people to die in New Orleans, or the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

  85. #120 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 9:23 pm

    And brew’, you can take your McKinney hatred and stick it up Dick Cheney’s ass. And follow it in – for the good of the nation.

  86. #121 by brewski on March 13, 2013 - 10:18 pm

    I don’t hate McKinney. She provides good entertainment value with her Muammar Gaddafi worship.

  87. #122 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 10:24 pm

    She was just jealous of Condi Rice.

  88. #123 by cav on March 14, 2013 - 8:19 am

    Just for fun D Day lists the criminal wrong-doing that Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan Chase are accused (guilty?) of at NC:

    Bank Secrecy Act violations;
    Money laundering for drug cartels;
    Violations of sanction orders against Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor;
    Violations related to the Vatican Bank scandal (get on this, Pope Francis!);
    Violations of the Commodities Exchange Act;
    Failure to segregate customer funds (including one CFTC case where the bank failed to segregate $725 million of its own money from a $9.6 billion account) in the US and UK;
    Knowingly executing fictitious trades where the customer, with full knowledge of the bank, was on both sides of the deal;
    Various SEC enforcement actions for misrepresentations of CDOs and mortgage-backed securities;
    The AG settlement on foreclosure fraud;
    The OCC settlement on foreclosure fraud;
    Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;
    Illegal flood insurance commissions;
    Fraudulent sale of unregistered securities;
    Auto-finance ripoffs; Illegal increases of overdraft penalties; Violations of federal ERISA laws as well as those of the state of New York; Municipal bond market manipulations and acts of bid-rigging, including violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act;
    Filing of unverified affidavits for credit card debt collections (“as a result of internal control failures that sound eerily similar to the industry’s mortgage servicing failures and foreclosure abuses”); Energy market manipulation that triggered FERC lawsuits; “Artificial market making” at Japanese affiliates; Shifting trading losses on a currency trade to a customer account; Fraudulent sales of derivatives to the city of Milan, Italy; Obstruction of justice (including refusing the release of documents in the Bernie Madoff case as well as the case of Peregrine Financial).

  89. #124 by Larry Bergan on March 15, 2013 - 7:08 pm

    I love to see Grassley trying to act like he’s Elizabeth Warren:

    Rep. Grassley; you’re no Elizabeth Warren.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: