Archive for corporate b.s.

When US Doesn’t Prosecute Wall Street Fraudsters, Taxpayers Get the Blowback

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

greed

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

What happens when the government gives a get out of jail free pass to executives who run financial entities “too big to fail”?  The US taxpayers get the blowback.

The stockholders of A.I.G. — the company which most came to symbolize egregious arrogance and double standards of banks and hedge funds (“no government financial regulation, but the taxpayers should bail us out when we gamble and lose”) — are in the process of suing the federal government.  [...]

But the “taxpayer assumes responsibility for our gambling, but we get all the profits from being bailed out” attitude doesn’t sit well with some lawmakers, such as newly elected Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), according to The NYT. Warren issued a statement that included a stern rebuke to A.I.G. and its shareholders [...]

Meanwhile, the honchos at Goldman Sachs just executed a scheme to avoid higher tax rates on their multi-million dollar bonuses, as reported by journalist Susan Antilla [...]

As Antilla, who regularly writes for the Bloomberg View, opines:

Goldman and its too-big-to-fail brethren are banks that accepted welfare and are in debt to U.S. taxpayers for averting disaster. This hasn’t been about hard-nosed capitalism since those first TARP wire transfers made their way into Goldman Sachs’ coffers.

While the DOJ and SEC should have been regarding the 2007 economic crash as a crime scene, they treated it like something deserving a parking ticket for the financial elite.

As a result, the same people who were responsible for so much economic misery have been emboldened to once again let greed trump accountability.

Please read the whole post here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Massachusetts lawmakers rankled by Mitt Romney’s aloof, CEO “do what I say,” “confrontation over compromise” style

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Want some insight into how Willard Romney would handle a Congress that is as gridlocked our current one is now? And how Massachusetts lawmakers felt about Romney’s corporate style? Look no further:

BOSTON (AP) — What worked for Mitt Romney in the corporate boardroom didn’t fly in the more raucous corridors of the Massachusetts Legislature. [...]

[H]is top-down, corporate management style soon rankled Democrats who overwhelmingly controlled the state House and Senate and saw themselves as an equal partner in the government. His approach jolted a clubby political culture where schmoozing over after-hours drinks and cutting backroom deals are well-worn pathways to success.

Unlike his three GOP gubernatorial predecessors, the politically inexperienced Romney was never at ease in the chummy world of trading favors for votes. He bypassed rank-and-file Democrats and dealt mostly with the party’s legislative leaders during his four-year term, though he did work with Democrats to pass the state’s health care overhaul. [...]

Some Democratic lawmakers accused Romney of being aloof, unapproachable and not much interested in working with them to build the kind of friendships and alliances that are needed to help pass legislation.

By treating government as a business, he alienated the very people he needed to work with. The only exception was when he worked with Democrats on the type of health care bill he now wants to repeal.

Former House Speaker Tom Finneran said that “Romney delivered a PowerPoint presentation brimming with numbers and charts on his plan for fixing the budget” and that it was obvious that he didn’t value input, just went around “issuing marching orders.”

There’s your CEO, folks. Not exactly conducive to playing well with others.

“Initially his sense was, `I have been elected governor, I am the CEO here and you guys are the board of directors and you monitor the implementation of what I say,’” Finneran said. “That ruffled the feathers of legislators who see themselves as an equal branch (of government).”

There’s that sense of entitlement again. This out of touch candidate is most definitely not “one of us,” and he appears to revel in his elevated status.

Tom Birmingham, a former state Senate president, said, “To call him disengaged would be charitable.” The AP article says that he opted for confrontation over compromise.

So a President Romney would be more of the same, only on steroids.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Occupy will have a float in the Rose Parade: A 70-foot octopus of corporate greed

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

The video was not embeddable, and only had a short segment on the Occupy Rose Parade float. I’d posted a story about it earlier here:

L.A. Times:

Like activists in the past, they are hoping to widen their impact with an estimated domestic TV audience of 50 million people and about 700,000 people along the route. [...]

Protesters intend to march with large banners that decry wealth inequality in the United States and to unveil a few colorful “floats” of their own, including a giant people-powered octopus, said Pete Thottam, an Occupy spokesman. The octopus … is designed to represent the stranglehold that Wall Street has on the political process, he said.

Others will carry large blow-ups of the Constitution, one with the words “We the People” and the other “We the Corporations,” he said. Planned speakers include Cindy Sheehan, an antiwar activist who lost her son in the Iraq war, local Occupy activists and possibly leftist documentarian Michael Moore.

Today the L.A. Times has another article that includes the video I mentioned:

The octopus, said activist Mark Lipman of Los Angeles, represents Wall Street’s stranglehold on political, cultural and social life, with tentacles “that reach into your pocket to get your money and a tentacle to get your house.”

The Occupiers do not want to disrupt the parade, and are working with– yes, with– Rose Parade officials and the police. There goes that nasty, stinky, rude, intrusive, violent reputation that the GOP is trying to slap on them.

The group says the protest will be “G-rated” and will stick to nonviolence in expressing Occupy’s messages against income inequality and corporate power.

By the by, I managed to catch a CNN Year In Review segment the other day. They mentioned the Occupy Movement, and said it still wasn’t clear what their message was. Really, CNN?

No seriously…

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Occupy protesters to join Rose Parade; #OccupyLA can avoid court trials by paying $355… to a private contractor!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

 

All types of protesters have hopped on the Rose Parade band wagon, and now the Occupy movement is about to join them. What better plan to get a gigantic captive audience than a showy parade that zillions love to watch, especially when it’s all been worked out in advance in a peaceful, legal way?

L.A. Times:

[T]his year, Tournament of Roses organizers and Pasadena police are gearing up for something different as Occupy protesters, fresh from their encampments across the country, plan to converge on Pasadena. Like activists in the past, they are hoping to widen their impact with an estimated domestic TV audience of 50 million people and about 700,000 people along the route. [...]

Protesters intend to march with large banners that decry wealth inequality in the United States and to unveil a few colorful “floats” of their own, including a giant people-powered octopus, said Pete Thottam, an Occupy spokesman. The octopus will be made out of recycled bags, stretching 40 feet from tentacle to tentacle, and is designed to represent the stranglehold that Wall Street has on the political process, he said.

Others will carry large blow-ups of the Constitution, one with the words “We the People” and the other “We the Corporations,” he said. Planned speakers include Cindy Sheehan, an antiwar activist who lost her son in the Iraq war, local Occupy activists and possibly leftist documentarian Michael Moore.

An Occupy spokesperson said there will be people participating from Seattle, Portland, Oakland and New York, and of course, Los Angeles… maybe even thousands of people. Mic check!

Speaking of Occupy Los Angeles, there’s an interesting new privatized wrinkle afoot. The L.A. Times is reporting that the protesters who were arrested can avoid court trials by paying $355 to a private contractor for– wait for it– free speech lessons.  See the irony there?

No, I’m not kidding:

Los Angeles Chief Deputy City Atty. William Carter said the city won’t press charges against protesters who complete the educational program offered by American Justice Associates.

He said the program, which may include lectures by attorneys and retired judges, is being offered to people with no other criminal history and who were arrested on low-level misdemeanor offenses, such as failure to disperse. [...]

But a civil rights attorney who has worked closely with the protesters called the class “patronizing,” and said the demonstrators who were arrested are the last people needing free-speech training.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure the Occupy movement is well aware of how the First Amendment works. However, maybe some of the more violent police officers around the country should be offered the opportunity to pay a private company for classes, too.

Oh, and by the way:

The bulk of Occupy protesters — those who were arrested on the night of the LAPD eviction — were held on at least $5,000 bail and locked up for two days.

“Spending that much time in jail was definitely punishment enough,” she said.

The powers-that-be here in L.A. might want to take a few lessons themselves.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Remember Target’s apology for donating to anti-gay candidates? They didn’t mean it.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Back in August, I wrote this:

Target is a big, family friendly store, right? No, not really. Not if you take a look at their $150,000  donation to MN Forward. MNForward is running ads for a Republican candidate for governor who opposes gay marriage– but I’m sure it’s in a family friendly way.

So family friendly, in fact, that people who have families are boycotting the big, family friendly stores.  And you know what that means: Fewer shoppers, fewer dollars, negative press… which can only lead to one thing.

An apology… sort of:

Chairman and Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel wrote to employees on Thursday to say the company was “genuinely sorry” that the donation upset some employees.

See? They’re “genuinely sorry” that some people would actually take offense at bigotry. They’re “genuinely sorry” that “some” people who work for Target were so thin-skinned and irrational that they were insulted that their employers would fund a small-minded Republican.

I am genuinely sorry that my opinion of Target is now swirling down the drain of my toilet.

It appears all that boycotting was as ineffective as their fake apology:

But as new FEC records indicate that, despite Steinhafel’s apology, Target maintained its corporate contributions to right-wing, anti-gay candidates. After Steinhafel’s written apology, Target’s Political Action Committee “recorded $41,200 in federal election activity. Of that total, $31,200 went to anti-gay rights politicians or PACs supporting those candidates.”

Think Progress has a list, that you can check twice since it’s Christmas eve, of the anti-gay recipients of all those donations. Peace on earth, goodwill toward only some men, right Target?

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

VIDEO: “Greed, greed, and more f***in’ greed, and cheap money.”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

“Wankin’ bankers… get these huge bonuses and salaries…”

H/t: BleuZ00m

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

‘Consumer Reports’ unveils naughty, nice retailers for shoppers

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email

Always good to get this info early, go here for explanations and the nice list.

CHICAGO — Just in time for the holidays, Consumer Reports has released a list of 10 companies that it believes have been naughty to shoppers, and 10 that have been deemed as nice.

The Naughty & Nice Holiday List is based on input from Consumer Reports’ reporters and editors who cover such areas as shopping, travel, hospitality and telecommunications.

Consumer Reports notes that the Naughty & Nice Holiday List is based on specific policies and doesn’t reflect the company as a whole.

Who’s naughty

The 10 companies called out for naughty policies, in no particular order, are:

Verizon Wireless

Macy’s

CompUSA

Buy.com

Best Buy

Spirit Airlines

Dollar car rental

SanDisk

United Airlines

DirecTV

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email