BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company…

MATT TAIBBI: There's vast criminality in Wall Street now. It's bribery, theft, fraud, bid rigging, price fixing, gambling, loan sharking. All of these things, it's all organized.

YVES SMITH: If you really believe that CEOs of businesses that are really fundamental to the economy are corrupt, you have to think of a very serious restructuring of the business and financial system.


PETER EDELMAN: You want to call this redistribution? That's what you call it. I call it economic justice. I call it fairness. I call it being fair to the people in this country who are being absolutely screwed.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. This past week, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, was back on Capitol Hill, testifying before the House Financial Services Committee, as he had earlier done before the Senate Banking Committee. He was being questioned on how his bank had lost two billion dollars -- or more -- on risky trading. His reception in the House was less fawning than what he got from the senators. Although many of them also are beneficiaries of JP Morgan largesse, House members were more combative.

BARNEY FRANK: You said you have a fortress balance sheet. That assumes there's something special about the way you are that made us have to worry less. But we can't assume that's going to be the case for every financial institution.

JAMIE DIMON: But I also said that we'd be solidly profitable this quarter. So relative to earnings–

BARNEY FRANK: That's not the question. Mr. Dimon, please don't filibuster.

SEAN DUFFY: You didn't know about these trades. You didn't know about these losses. How do you come forward today and say the regulators should have known that -- what one of the best CEOs in the industry didn't know and couldn't have known?

MICHAEL CAPUANO: With the regulatory regime that we have today -- we both agree that it's not what we want, but it's what we have. Do you really think it's a smart idea to be cutting the legs out of one of those major regulators? Do you think that's good for America?

JAMIE DIMON: I have enough problems. I'm going to leave that to you.

MICHAEL CAPUANO: Well, Mr. Dimon, the only reason I ask is because you have had no hesitancy whatsoever in expressing opinions on other matters. I thought you might want to take an opportunity to express one today.

BILL MOYERS: Coincidentally, just before Dimon’s House testimony, Bloomberg News published data indicating that JP Morgan Chase receives a government subsidy worth about 14 billion dollars a year in taxpayer money.

Money, said Bloomberg editors, that “helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses, and more important, distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy.”

With me are two guests who can guide us through the thicket of testimony and beyond. Matt Taibbi, contributing editor at "Rolling Stone" magazine, has investigated the folly and corruption of banks and government with scathing, often profane wit and perception. His book, Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America, described the events leading up to the financial meltdown in 2008. His newest piece for Rolling Stone is a chilling expose called “The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia.”

Yves Smith created and runs Naked Capitalism, the popular blog on finance and economics. She once worked for Goldman Sachs, McKinsey & Company, and Sumitomo Bank, and now heads a management consulting firm. You'll want to read her book, ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism.

Welcome to both of you.

YVES SMITH: Thanks so much.

MATT TAIBBI: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: So in this particular case, what is JPMorgan's sin? That's the question Representative David Schweikert raised on the day of the hearing. He asked, "What sin has JPMorgan committed other than being big enough to lose billions of their own money in a quarter and still turn a $4 billion profit?" Want to take a stab at answering?

MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, sure. Their sin wasn't the loss. The sin was in being a too-big-to-fail company where we can't afford to have them go under. Why are we there in the first place? If this was a company that, if it went out of business, it wouldn't affect our lives personally and wouldn't have major ramification for the economy, we wouldn't be holding hearings in the Senate and the Congress.

We would say, fine, they lost so much, a bunch of money. Too bad for them. But that's not the case. As we saw in 2008, when these companies go down, we all end up paying for it. You know, we ended up financing of, what, five, six, seven trillion dollar bailout in 2008. And if a company like JPMorgan Chase goes under, there will certainly be some sort of federal action, which is why we have to know about it. We have to know what goes on when they have unexpected two, three billion dollar losses that affects all of us.

YVES SMITH: They were guilty of gaming the system. And the way that they've done it is this unit was using depositor money and yet taking very large bets.

And in this unit, all the other banks similarly have similar units in their treasury department, and the purpose of these portfolios is supposed to be to have liquid assets in case there's a run on the bank.

And Bloomberg News had a story where they actually reported that all the other banks take less risk in these portfolios. And that's before we get to the credit default-- that's before we get to the blow-up part, just in the, even the simpler part of the portfolios. They have, they keep more in treasuries. And they have less in corporate bonds. So Dimon is already taking more risk in this unit than he should have.

And this is something which is frustrating about the testimony. There's a sort of, you know, one of the, again, stories that Dimon was promoting was, oh, well, we didn't find out about it. And then when we found out about it, we jumped on it and now it's all fine. And, therefore, the regulators shouldn't have been able, you know, how could the regulators have found about it?

And, therefore, since the regulators couldn't found out, you know, more regulation is futile. And, in fact, you could have found this information from the outside. You could have seen that prices were moving in this instrument in a really weird way.

BILL MOYERS: Was everybody looking the other way? Have we forgotten so quickly?

MATT TAIBBI: Well, the entire derivatives market is essentially a gigantic black box. It's not like the regulators have access to all this information.

YVES SMITH: I think they're not used to looking for the information.


YVES SMITH: I think it's been acculturated that they're used to having tea and cookies with the banks and reviewing their internal reports and not doing any type of external validation and this kind of basic external checking they could do that they're not habituated to doing.

BILL MOYERS: A very curious thing happened when the House hearings opened. Some members of that committee felt that Dimon should be sworn in. But the chairman of the committee, a Republican from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, said, no, that wasn't necessary. Am I making too much out of that?

MATT TAIBBI: I thought that was an incredible moment for a couple of reasons. Obviously, the reason there was a hullabaloo over that was because of what happened when Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, came and testified before the Senate a couple of years ago. There later was a controversy over whether or not he had perjured himself in those hearings.

So the question was if, you know, Jamie Dimon is going to be sworn in, whether he would have to tell the truth, would be obligated, or whether it would just be a friendly conversation. But what was amazing about that, was that it Spencer Bachus who came to Jamie Dimon's defense. Spencer Bachus is the congressman for the Birmingham, Alabama, region which has been decimated by the Jefferson County swap disaster, which was caused by Chase, which was fined $700 million by the SEC.

So here's a guy who represents the county that has been most affected by Chase's bad behavior, and he comes to Chase's defense in the hearing, which I thought was-- it set the tone for the whole thing.

YVES SMITH: Matt mentioned the toxic swaps. Jefferson County isn't the only example.

There have been a whole series of, you know, since Jefferson County and other municipalities blew up by deals they did before the crisis, there have been a series of swaps done after the crisis with transit authorities, where they are losing a tremendous amount of money. You can look at the way JPMorgan has serviced mortgage loans.

You know, they had to get up and admit that they had been basically breaking the law, and there were criminal penalties associated with this law, by foreclosing on servicemen in Iraq and not giving them rate breaks that they were entitled to. And there are some egregious cases.

MATT TAIBBI: There's $228 million fine that they paid last year for municipal bond bid rigging. There was another $153 million fine that they paid for failure to, for fraud in CDO trades. I mean, there are case after case after case that involve these criminal charges. And what I thought was amazing about these hearings is that nobody brought any of those things up.

BILL MOYERS: Both of you have mentioned the Jefferson County story. Give me a quick summary of what JPMorgan did in Jefferson County, Alabama.

MATT TAIBBI: Well, Jefferson County had to build a new sewer system. And they had to borrow a bunch of money to do that. And it was originally a $300 million project. But they got into a series of swap deals with JPMorgan Chase to basically push their financing into the future. But the deals were heavily mispriced in Chase's favor. And Chase actually bribed another bank to stay away from Chase because they wanted that business. They wanted to give the--

BILL MOYERS: Bribed them?

MATT TAIBBI: They bribed them.

BILL MOYERS: That's against the law, isn't it?

MATT TAIBBI: Yes, yes.


MATT TAIBBI: And they were caught for it. A couple of their executives were caught for it, and they were heavily fined by the SEC for doing it. And this resulted in this disaster where Jefferson County's going to be bankrupt for a generation. It ended up costing them $3 billion out of what was originally, what, $300 million?

YVES SMITH: Million dollar, yeah, yeah, yeah. What got to be $2.9 billion deal in the end. And on top of that, my mother happens to live in Jefferson County.

BILL MOYERS: Oh, I didn't know that.

YVES SMITH: You have the average person in-- basically you cannot have access to the sewage system and not pay more than-- and not pay less than 50 bucks a month. So there are people in the poor areas who are deciding what they're going to have: electricity, water, or sewer. I mean, you can't-- they can't afford all three.

BILL MOYERS: Why is that JPMorgan's fault that they have to make that choice?

MATT TAIBBI: They basically got them into these onerous toxic swap deals that were poorly understood by the local politicians. And they bribed the local politicians to accept the swap deals. They did it through middleman companies that bribed the--

YVES SMITH: The consultant on the deal is in jail. The former mayor was involved in other improprieties, too. But the former mayor's in prison. You know, this is--

MATT TAIBBI: For signing off on these deals.

BILL MOYERS: Is there a question you would have asked Dimon if you had been on either of those committees that was not asked?

MATT TAIBBI: The question I wanted to ask is, was, really more about the criminality. I mean, none of the members in either the House or the Senate really got into the issue of all the different offenses that these banks have committed in the last few years. You know, or, an ordinary person, if he commits welfare fraud, never gets a food stamp again in his life.

So given that these banks have systematically and repeatedly committed fraud, repeatedly been caught, you know, in situations like Jefferson County, municipal bid rigging, why should we still give them billions and billions of dollars in emergency lending from the Fed, bailouts, all of this aid from the government? How come there's no consequences for them and there are consequences for ordinary people?

YVES SMITH: I would have asked questions more having to do with what's the justification for complex banking at all? That why do we need, why shouldn't banks be run on the utility basis? Why should we have people like Dimon and his, the members of the CIO unit, most of which he's fired, what the justification for literally that hundreds of millions of bonuses were paid collectively to those people.

And now he says they didn't know what they were doing. There's no justification for this, the sort of level of compensation that we generally have on Wall Street. And I would like to see that myth starting to be punctured in more public places.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean when you say banks should be more like a utility?

YVES SMITH: Banks, more than any other business, more than military contractors, live off the government. They depend on government backstopping. They exist only by way of government issued licenses, which if you had open entry you'd see much lower fees. And they get some confidence from the public from the fact that they are regulated. Oh, and the most important thing is they have access to--

MATT TAIBBI: The Federal Reserve.

YVES SMITH: --the Federal Reserve.

MATT TAIBBI: They're getting huge amounts of free money.

YVES SMITH: Well, not just the free money. The Federal Reserve basically guarantees the payment system. You know, that's the really critical architecture that banks control is that, you know, we write checks to each other. We have credit cards. They clear through banks.

But the fact that banks can exchange money with each other confidently is because the Fed stands behind that. So there's a much-- there's another layer of Fed backstopping beyond what we think of the way they step in in a crisis or the way they're now intervening to help the banks. So the fact that these institution really depend in a very fundamental way on government support means they don't have any right to the upside.

I mean, they should really be paid like public servants. I mean, I'm not kidding. I mean, and if they had been, if the pay had been ratcheted down after the crisis, I would have had a lot more sympathy for them, even if they just behaved for a couple of years. You know, they were bailed out. And then in 2009 the industry went and paid itself record bonuses, higher than 2007 instead of rebuilding their balance sheets. I mean, this was just a slap in the face for the public.

BILL MOYERS: And there's no shame.


BILL MOYERS: You're describing a corrupt financial and political system. And both of you in recent writings, your current article in "Rolling Stone," which is devastating on the scam that the "Wall Street learned from the Mafia," and a recent column you wrote about the mafia state, you're both using that metaphor to apply to our financial and political system. When I read your pieces, you're not playing with words there. You mean it.


BILL MOYERS: Why do you mean it?

YVES SMITH: Well, the mafia, when it gets to be big enough, first thing it has services that people feel they need if they're in a difficult situation. So, for example, loan sharking. If you really need money, they do have the money. And people enter into these loan shark deals even though they know it's going to be very difficult to pay 20 percent or more interest and they'll have their legs broken if they don't pay back.

And the banks actually behave very much in that manner when they find people who really need money. So you see this with credit cards, you know, that, or, and with mortgages. That if you hit-- it's not this if you hit any tripwire, that, you know, become in arrears, the banks basically act in this very extortionate manner and don't cut any breaks.

MATT TAIBBI: And I think that there's also this, they are the mafia because of their vast criminality in Wall Street now is that it's bribery, theft, fraud, bid rigging, price fixing, gambling, loan sharking. All of these things, it's all organized.

I mean, the story I just wrote about, which was about the systematic rigging of municipal bond auctions, which affected every community in every state in the country and all of the major banks were involved, including Chase.

They were rigging the auctions that were designed to create a fair rate of return on the investments that towns were getting on their-- the money they borrowed for municipal bonds. And this is not like something that the mafia does. This is what the mafia does. The mafia has historically, it's one of their staple businesses, is bid rigging for construction or garbage or, you know, street cleaning services, whatever it is.

They're doing exactly the same thing. The only thing that's different is there's no violence involved. But what their method of control is that they're ubiquitous. They have this incredible political power that the mafia never had.

YVES SMITH: And they also have what amounts to an oligopoly. I mean, for many of these services, you have a great deal of difficulty going beyond the five biggest banks, you know? This is-- it's the consequence of too big to fail is that when, you know, some of the smaller players, again, you know, like-- JPMorgan buying Bear Stearns.

In the crisis, when the smaller players got sick, they were merged into the bigger players. So now if you want-- for a lot of these services, there aren't that many players for you to go to. You really have no choice in-- other than to deal with the big banks.

BILL MOYERS: Congress is paid to be informed and to hold these guys accountable. Why don't they ask the kind of questions you're dealing with here?

MATT TAIBBI: People refuse to look at these banks and think of them as organized crime organizations.

They in their eyes, organized crime is always either the Italian mafia or the Irish mafia. This isn't what it looks like. But that is who they are. And I think that they're treated with a kind of deference and respect, because traditionally that's not who they were. They were these icons of finance who helped build this country.

But that's not who they are anymore. And I think, it's hard for people to wrap their heads around that and treat them the way they should be treated.

YVES SMITH: Well, I think people don't want to think that there's something wrong with leaders. And CEOs are leaders of the business community. If you really believe that CEOs of businesses that are really fundamental to the economy are corrupt, you have to think of a very serious restructuring of the business and financial system.

And even if people kind of intellectually might be willing to contemplate that, they don't really want to go to what the implications are. So it's much easier for them to block out that thought.

BILL MOYERS: Both of you have been writing a great deal lately about the crisis in Europe. So explain to us simply what hand Wall Street has in what's going on in Italy, Greece, and Spain today and why we should care.

YVES SMITH: Well, I almost want to go one step of abstraction higher because people tend to focus on the immediate ways Wall Street was involved like Goldman Sachs helped Greece cover up how serious its deficits were.

MATT TAIBBI: Which in the situation, it was very similar to Jefferson County, by the way.

YVES SMITH: Right. But the more important story is much higher, which is that the reason the big reason that all, you have basically a sovereign debt crisis, that the governments in Europe, many of them had to borrow a tremendous amount of money in the wake of the crisis. And the euro zone is not well set up to adapt to that. I could go into technical reasons why, but it's not unlike a state.

You know, when a state has a budget problem that suddenly they have to think about, you know, cutting costs and doing all kinds of draconian measures. And while maybe a state or a city can do that, you can't have the biggest economy in the world. I mean, Europe is the biggest economy in the world doing that and not have it basically turn into a down spiral, that you cut spending and then that leads to less income.

And your deficits get worse rather than better. So, but the reason they had that problem is, in fact, very directly the result of the financial crisis. That you had countries that weren't running deficits, government deficits like Ireland and Spain, that were held up as poster children before the crisis of doing things right.

And that when the crisis hit, you both had a big drop in tax revenues. You had bank bailouts. And these countries had decent social safety nets so that, you know, things like, you know, unemployment insurance went up. And so the budget crisis they're having is the direct result of the financial crisis. And yet it's somehow being treated as if they're separate events. Like somehow these governments were profligate and that borrowers were irresponsible –

MATT TAIBBI: Social safety net.

YVES SMITH: Safety net.

MATT TAIBBI: Exactly. Right. That's clearly going to be the place that is going to take the brunt of the damage. I mean, I think the most direct example here in America was a lot of unions and state pension funds were primary victims of the sort of broad fraud scheme to sell fraudulent mortgage backed securities.

So they, a lot of these institutional investors were buying these bad mortgages, huge pools of mortgages from all these, the usual suspects, the big banks. And then when they decreased in value and suddenly there they don't have, it's harder for them to meet their obligation and suddenly the finger is pointed at them and everyone saying, "Oh, look at those pens, the state pensioners or look at those union employees, they're they cost too much money. We have to cut their services. We have to cut pensions. We have to do all these things."

Whereas, in fact, they were buying a fraudulent product from Wall Street and that's why they're in such bad shape now. And I think, but politically, the direction is always going to be let's blame-

BILL MOYERS: The poor.

MATT TAIBBI: That person. The poor.

BILL MOYERS: The guy on the pension. The woman on the pension –

MATT TAIBBI: Right. And we'll never point the finger in the other direction.

YVES SMITH: Well, in fact, the implications, that's true. But the implications are actually quite grim, and they're not being discussed honestly. We're talking about old people dying faster. We're talking about children being homeless and not getting education, and we're talking about grim outcomes like that.

And they're not even part of the discourse. I mean, you look, Greece is the extreme example. But in Greece, the hospitals are breaking down. Garbage is not being picked up. And if you look at the results of the last election, what you saw is even with the efforts to scare people into staying in the euro, you see this polarization where the Nazi Party got seven percent of the vote even after there was an incident in a TV station where there was literally an on-air fight where a Nazi Party member beat up on somebody basically I think it was on camera, you know?

So you've got a real social polarization with radicalization going on. And I've seen a number of reports out of Greece saying that it's basically on knife edge of breakdown.

BILL MOYERS: Could it happen here?

YVES SMITH: If things, if we have another crisis and things aren't addressed, I could see this definitely happening maybe not nationally but in significant regional pockets. I mean, you know, this is a country full of guns. And people don't like to think about what happens when people are pushed, you know, I mean, the kind of random violence, the sort of, you know, going postal phenomena?

MATT TAIBBI: When I was in a foreclosure court last year. I spent a week in a foreclosure court in Jacksonville.

BILL MOYERS: Reporting on it.

MATT TAIBBI: Reporting on it. And the amount of raw anger that you see in these proceedings from people who have lost their homes, they have no illusions about who's to blame for the situation. They know exactly, you know, where the problem is. And I--

BILL MOYERS: And it's where?

MATT TAIBBI: It's with these banks that sold them these mortgages. And I think there's a growing awareness out there in the public, more and more people have had a personal problem on some front with Wall Street, whether it's credit card debt or a mortgage debt or they've lost their jobs. And I think there's anger and it's starting to become more organized.

BILL MOYERS: Both of you trace this back to what you call fraudulent debt. Is that right?

MATT TAIBBI: In the case of the mortgage markets, absolutely. I think what a lot of these, this was a fraud scheme. It's the same scam that you see here in the streets of New York when somebody's selling a phony Prada bag or a phony Rolex watch in the street. These banks were selling phony mortgages that were, they were selling them as triple A rated instruments when, in fact, they were essentially worthless.

They were highly risky, toxic instruments. And they knew it. They were buying, they were in cahoots with companies like Countrywide and Long Beach, these sort of fly-by-night mortgage operations who went out and they gave mortgages to everybody and everybody who had a pulse. They took these mortgages. They bundled them. They waved a whole bunch of phony hocus-pocus math over them and reconfigured them into triple A rated investments.

Then they went out into the world and they sold them to every customer all over the world, pensions, unions, foreign trade unions, foreign governments. And they--

YVES SMITH: Trade councils in Australia. I mean, real know nothings.

MATT TAIBBI: Everybody. Everybody bought this stuff. It all blew up like, everybody who was in on it knew it eventually would because they were betting against the stuff as they were selling it. And, and the, and that's why we have this, this situation that we're in now.

YVES SMITH: Yeah, but even the most even if I'm giving Wall Street more credit than it deserves. But even if you take out the bad creation and selling of the product, you also have the fact that Wall Street basically demands an asymmetrical deal with contracts, that if you have a credit card deal or if you have a mortgage, if you make the tiniest, little violation, you know, we get to take our pound of flesh.

And yet if you're a union member, it's perfectly fine to break your contract. You know, our contracts count, but we can break all the other contracts in society to get our obligations honored. I mean, this is just crazy.

MATT TAIBBI: But they genuinely think that they earn their money. And I think that was one of the illuminating things not only about the Dimon hearings but also the Lloyd Blankfein, slash, Goldman Sachs hearings a couple of years ago. These guys really think that they're, they have a unique and special genius that entitles them to earn the vast sums of money that they pay themselves, that somehow that they're creating all this wealth for themselves.

And they really genuinely don't think that they're getting their money-- from all of us. And to them it's irrelevant that they're getting all their money for free from the Fed and that they're lending it all out to us at five percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, you know, 25 percent. They think they deserve the money. And I think that's the scariest part.

BILL MOYERS: There's a definition of a sociopath as being radically deprived of empathy. Do you see characteristics of sociopathic behavior on Wall Street?

MATT TAIBBI: Absolutely.


MATT TAIBBI: I'm sorry, just what Yves was talking about with, you know, the old people who were dying earlier now, people who don't have kids, who aren't going to school, garbage that's being left in the streets. That's all because some guy was sitting up in a skyscraper in Wall Street and knowingly selling some communities, some municipality a fraudulent, toxic mortgage backed security.

I mean, he knows that that instrument is going to blow up in, you know, six months, a year. But he's selling it to them anyway. But he doesn't care, you know, because he can't see it, you know? I think in the eyes of a lot of these guys if they can't see the effect, it doesn't really exist. And to me, that's classic sociopathic behavior when you're blind, you're willingly blind to the consequences.

YVES SMITH: I mean, it's really the growth of the trading culture. You know, in the old days, I worked on Wall Street when Wall Street really was only criminal around the margins. I mean, you really, Goldman Sachs in those days had the expression long-term greedy which meant you didn't kill the--

BILL MOYERS: Long-term what?

YVES SMITH: Long-term greedy. That they were long-term greedy. And that meant you didn't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. You know, you wouldn't put your customer into egregiously bad deal. If you took a little extra, you only took it when the customer was making money, too, so if they ever figured it out they wouldn't be really upset.

That attitude has changed completely. And I attribute it significantly to the growth of derivatives. Over-the-counter derivatives where you can't see the price on an exchange. You can't see the history.

And they're much more complicated. And those started growing really in the early '90s and became, and it becomes very interwoven in the practice of finance. Because the derivatives are so complicated, you can't price compare. The risks are often bundled in within formulas that the buyers can't understand. And so they can load all kinds of basically what's equivalent to hidden fees in these things by the way they structure the risks in the terms.

So they're the perfect vehicle for stealing because you're selling, no, you're selling somebody something they can't evaluate.

BILL MOYERS: When you come back, I want you to take the whole hour and explain to me what a derivative is and how it works. Okay? Is that a promise?

MATT TAIBBI: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Alright, Yves and Matt, thank you very much for joining us.

MATT TAIBBI: Thank you.

YVES SMITH: Thank you.

BILL MOYERS: During those hearings before the House and Senate, I kept my ears open, hoping someone might ask Jamie Dimon how he feels about his bank riding out the deep recession with $25 billion worth of taxpayer money while at the same time reaping profits from the poor and hungry.

That’s right: JPMorgan Chase processes food stamp benefits for the government in 24 states and makes a neat bundle doing so. As the number of people using food stamps goes up, so do the bank’s profits. Furthermore, to make even more money off the poor, JPMorgan Chase has been known to outsource food stamp debit card calls to India, whose workers can make three and a half bucks an hour answering questions from poor people in this country.

It’s all legal, it's how the system works. But it says something, don’t you think, about the contradictions of modern state capitalism?

ERIC HOVDE: Hi, I’m Eric Hovde…

BILL MOYERS: And so does a comment made the other day by the Republican candidate for the Senate in Wisconsin, Eric Hovde.

After calling for a cut in the corporate tax rate even as he advocated austerity measures to reduce the deficit, he instructed the press to stop covering stories about low-income people who can’t get benefits and start writing instead about that deficit.

ERIC HOVDE: I see a reporter here. I just pray that you start writing about these issues. I just pray. You know, stop always writing about, oh, the person could get, you know, their food stamps or this or that. You know, I saw something the other day – it’s just like, another sob story, and I’m like, but what about what’s happening to the country and the country as a whole? That’s going to devastate everybody.

BILL MOYERS: A good thing Sister Simone Campbell wasn’t passing through town at that very minute, or Eric Hovde might have really had to pray – for his own soul. Sister Simone is leading a group of Roman Catholic nuns on a bus trip across nine states, trying to call attention to the poor and hungry. They’re challenging not only the Vatican, which has been critical of American nuns for their spirit of independence, but also Congressman Paul Ryan, another Wisconsin Republican. He's invoked his own Catholic faith to justify his proposed federal budget that cuts help for working families and the poor.

PAUL RYAN: Our budget offers a better path, consistent with the timeless principles of our nation’s founding and, frankly, consistent with how I understand my Catholic faith.

BILL MOYERS: The nuns paid a call earlier this week on Ryan’s district office in Janesville, Wisconsin.

SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL: We just had a very lovely conversation with Congressman Ryan’s staff. We gave her the faithful budget and we mentioned our concerns about the budget that Congressman Ryan proposed.

BILL MOYERS: Producer Andy Fredericks is traveling with the nuns on the bus and filing reports on our website,

Meanwhile, for anyone who wants to understand why, in one of the richest nations in the world, millions of people, even those with jobs, are teetering just a medical bill or missed paycheck from disaster – here’s a book that’s must reading: So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America, by Peter Edelman.

For more than forty years, no one has fought harder or longer to keep poor people on the political agenda. Except, possibly, Peter’s wife, Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children’s Defense Fund. They met when he worked for Senator Robert F. Kennedy and she guided them through the Mississippi Delta as they investigated first-hand the devastating conditions under which impoverished children and their families lived. Peter Edelman helped shape legislation to ease poverty around the country, and was a top official in President Bill Clinton’s Department of Health and Human Services. He famously resigned when Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislation.

Peter Edelman teaches at Georgetown University and is faculty director there of the Center on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy.

Peter, welcome.

PETER EDELMAN: Thank you. I'm so glad to be here.

BILL MOYERS: Let's indulge in a little bit of nostalgia.


BILL MOYERS: Because 50 years ago, you and I were part of the same era. I was a young White House assistant for Lyndon Johnson working on some poverty issues. And you were a young assistant to Senator Robert F. Kennedy when you made that celebrated tour through Mississippi.

You seemed absolutely shocked, you and Robert Kennedy, and the party that went with you, seemed absolutely shocked at what you found. What did you see?

PETER EDELMAN: We saw children with in the United States of America, with swollen bellies, with running sores that wouldn't heal…

ROBERT F. KENNEDY: Have they had any lunch?

PETER EDELMAN: Who had something meager for breakfast if that, were not going to have any lunch, whose refrigerators were empty in their houses. They had been forced off the plantations as a political matter because of the fear of increasing black political power.

BILL MOYERS The governor of Mississippi then was pressuring the White House to cut off assistance to the children's program that was going, because he feared the people working in it, the poverty, anti-poverty workers would encourage the civil rights movement. Do you remember that?

PETER EDELMAN: Absolutely. That's why we went down there. This was in the spring of 1967. And the Mississippi political hierarchy saw the Head Start Program as a political threat. A group of doctors went down there a month or two later and examined hundreds of children. And found, not just pernicious anemia but rickets, and kwashiorkor and marasmus. Diseases that you only find in the most underdeveloped of countries were there in the United States.

BILL MOYERS: I remember so well when CBS sent cameras following you. Subsequently one of the CBS News reports showed a child dying from malnutrition on camera. And the racist chairman of a very powerful committee from--

PETER EDELMAN: Yeah. Jamie Whitten.

BILL MOYERS: Jamie Whitten from Mississippi was outraged about that. And he launched an investigation to see if he could find out if that scene had been staged.

PETER EDELMAN: Absolutely. Sent the F.B.I. to find out. It's hard to know what was obviously in the head of Jamie Whitten and others. Because these things do have a serious political aspect to them but. BILL MOYERS: Were we naïve to think that we could make a lot of progress given the political opposition?

PETER EDELMAN: I don't think we were naïve. I do think that the '60s in retrospect were a very unusual decade in American history. We still had the optimism of having freed the world from fascism. And so there was a sense that America could accomplish anything. And then the civil rights movement came along particularly the men who had served in the war and came home to find the same segregated conditions.

And the young people who had the sense of that maybe from their parents who went out and were active. So I think that the combination of the civil rights movement pushing on President Kennedy and then on President Johnson, and the leadership that came particularly from President Johnson was a tremendous and unusual combination.

BILL MOYERS: You could not have imagined then, I suppose, that half a century later, you'd be writing a book with the title, “So Rich, So Poor: Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in America.”

PETER EDELMAN: I could not have imagined it. I thought onward and upward and now there's so many things that happened that we didn't foresee. And it's not just that there was the political change of Richard Nixon. The fact is that Richard Nixon was the first president who ever sent a message about hunger to Congress.

And many things that we had wanted actually happened under President Nixon. So we still looked like we were doing pretty well about these issues, housing vouchers, and the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. Long list of things on into the '70s. But the economy caught up with us.


PETER EDELMAN: So the manufacturing jobs went away, the good paying jobs that had created much of the black and other middle class in this country, and started to be replaced, at least they were replaced, by this wave, this ocean of low-wage jobs that we have. So that's really at the heart of the change.

And then of course the country went in a very different direction politically. The disillusionment of Vietnam, the disillusionment of Watergate, the loss of trust in government, all those things. And part of that was a kind of maybe unconscious or subconscious sense that people were in tougher, tougher economic straits. And I'm not just talking at the very bottom. I'm really talking about the whole lower middle. And they weren't getting any help to see themselves moving forward.

BILL MOYERS: Well what about today? You've got Barack Obama and Mitt Romney who are going to, are facing off each other this election, and both of them seem to not know that the word "poor" is in their political vocabulary.

PETER EDELMAN: Well, we have to say about Barack Obama. He gets elected. And when they go for having health insurance for our whole country, they added 16 million people to Medicaid. That's phenomenal.

BILL MOYERS: Under the Affordable--

PETER EDELMAN: Under the Affordable Care Act--

BILL MOYERS: Sixteen million--

PETER EDELMAN: Sixteen million people, 18 to 64 year olds who had been completely left out of Medicaid from the time it was enacted in 1965. And that had never been fixed. So if you look at the 45 to 50 million people who didn't have healthcare, a big chunk of them were lower income adults. We added children up to the age of 18.

And then in the stimulus legislation, in the Recovery Act, the president put in there, probably 30 percent of the money was about low-income people, was helping low-income people. So, his record is good.

BILL MOYERS: So it's not as if nothing has been done since you and I were in our early 30s, right?

PETER EDELMAN: That is absolutely correct--

BILL MOYERS: I mean, Medicaid, earned income tax credit, children's tax--


BILL MOYERS: --credit. A lot of programs have been inaugurated and funded.

PETER EDELMAN: And food stamps.

BILL MOYERS: Food stamps, right.

PETER EDELMAN: And so those programs added together are keeping 40 million people out of poverty. So somebody says, "Nothing works," give me a break. These are successful policies. Now the next question then is okay, well 40 million people who would be in poverty, but why is the level of poverty prior to the recession about the same as it was during it’s the most success, 11.1 percent poverty in 1973, 11.3 percent when Bill Clinton leaves office.

We're now up to 15.2 percent. So just take those two, 1973 and 2000 about the same, and there are all these programs that works. What's with that? It's about these changes that we've already talked about a little bit in the economy. Where there are all these low-wage jobs, and people can't make it. And then the other things that changes in the composition of the family. And we have to put that on the table. There are so many more women who are raising children on their own. And lots to debate about, about why that is. It's a worldwide phenomenon.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, you list country after country where whose rate of single motherhood or children born out of wedlock higher than here.

PETER EDELMAN: Yes. Yeah, I certainly want people to understand that. I certainly want people to understand that the rate in the United States in the white community, in the Hispanic community, it went up everywhere. It went up most in the African American community. Although it actually steadied off about the end of the 1970s and kept going up in the white and Hispanic communities.

But the economic point is all of those women trying to raise kids on their own, when the jobs that they can get are not enough for a single wage earner to feed a family fully. And so that's what started to happen in the '70s, and is essentially been happening ever since. The 40 million people who are being kept out of poverty, that's great. But that just kept us even. And now we've been losing ground heavily, horribly over the last 11, 12 years.

BILL MOYERS: And then came of course the great crash in the fall of 2008, the recession that followed it. Is that why you conclude in the book that we're actually heading in the wrong direction and you're not optimistic at the moment?

PETER EDELMAN: It's not just the recession, because the, presumably we come out of recessions. The central tenet of any anti-poverty strategy is work. Is having the job. You need to arrange the incentives and arrange the policies so that you clearly are favoring work. But everything that goes with it, having the child care making it possible to succeed. But what I'm worried about is the longer term continuance of this plethora of low-wage jobs. Of the inability of people at the bottom, and not just the poor, I'm talking about the whole lower half. The way the median wage absolutely stagnated beginning 1973. The economy grew over the last 40 years basically doubled in size. And the entire lower half got none of that. The median wage- went up 7 percent in 40 years. A fifth of a percent a year.

BILL MOYERS: And right now it's what in this country?

PETER EDELMAN: $34,000 a year or less.

BILL MOYERS: And how many people are making $34,000 or less?

PETER EDELMAN: You'd be talking about 75 million, something like that.

BILL MOYERS: And a quarter of all jobs, I read in your book, pay less than the poverty line, which is what?

PETER EDELMAN: $22,000 for a family of four.

BILL MOYERS: So 25 percent of this country is living on that little money?

PETER EDELMAN: If they have only one wage-earner in the household.

BILL MOYERS: What does that say to you?

PETER EDELMAN: It says that there's something wrong. It says that where there's a really wealthy country, and we had growth from 1973 to now, and it all went to the people at the top. That's why this book is “So Rich, So Poor.” Because you can't look at the poor in isolation. You got to look at the inequality as well.

BILL MOYERS: I when I finished reading it, Peter, I had to ask myself if the word "democracy" still describes America, given what you underscore as the huge chasm between rich and poor. Do you think democracy still describes our political system?

PETER EDELMAN: I think we're really at great risk particularly with Citizens United--

BILL MOYERS: The Supreme Court decision--

PETER EDELMAN: The Supreme Court decision that lets the corporate money flow in like water. But there's increasing power of the wealthy and of special interests that particularly begins in 1973. That’s a real turning point year. And they figured out during Nixon that they needed to have much more of a play, much more sway in politics.

And they organized themselves to do that in a way that they hadn't between World War II and then. And so they start winning politically and reinforcing themselves. And I think we're been in a kind of vicious circle where they reinforce themselves, they're in a stronger position, et cetera. And that's the fundamental worry, is that our democracy is really at stake.

BILL MOYERS: So what's your, what do you explain to yourself as you're sitting there thinking about this, is the motive for continuing to accumulate such great wealth even though all around them, the society, the infrastructure, the school system, public parks, and the plight of the poor?

PETER EDELMAN: I think it's the short-sidedness of the balance sheet. Now, that can't be all of it. It's, there's also some kind of ideological thing, or attitudinal thing that goes with it. But everything in the corporate world is short term. How did you do in the last quarter? And if you thought about it in the longer term and said, "Over the longer period of time, we really will make more money if we have more people who are included in the economy," they just don't think that way.

BILL MOYERS: You say the challenge is to get people in the middle to understand which side of the line they are on.


BILL MOYERS: What do you mean which side--

PETER EDELMAN: I mean that they are in the position of really holding the short end of the stick. And they don't have any purchase, they don't have any hand-hold to get onto the longer end of the stick. They're stuck where they are. And I just don't really foresee a major change. Well if that's true, beyond raising the minimum wage, which we need to do, although that'll only take us so far.

Because after a while, it does have a negative effect on jobs. Really investing in the kind of work supports that a socially responsible country does, the healthcare, the childcare, the help with housing, the help with the secondary education. Those things are all income equivalents. Those all effectively add to income.

And then we have the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families that have children. It's that area where we need a public discussion. We have to be talking, I think, as these years unfold here about wage supplements. If we're going to have a fairness in this country that doesn't just leave half the country to sit in a stagnated place, we're going to have to talk about how do we raise their income so they can make ends meet? It's not just poverty. It's all the way up to the middle.

BILL MOYERS When you talk about a wage supplement, income supplement for people who are making so little money even though they're working that they can't live a decent life, you're running right into that buzz-saw of a word "redistribution." And you know, you hear Mitt Romney and others saying today.

MITT ROMNEY: In a merit-based society, people achieve their dreams through hard work and education, risk-taking, and even a little luck […] In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy real rewards are those who get to do the redistributing, government. The truth is that everyone may get the same rewards under that kind of system, but virtually everyone will be worse off.

BILL MOYERS: And that's a real force in the minds of many ordinary people around this country. They just don't believe in "my working hard to make money and paying taxes to provide somebody else with money who isn't working hard."


BILL MOYERS: That's a reality. You understand that--

PETER EDELMAN: Oh, I certainly do.

BILL MOYERS: How do you overcome these built-in deep concerns about people that "Others are getting away with something I'm not?

PETER EDELMAN: We need more people who will stand up in one way or another. We, I don't mean to say that I have a formula for a public education curriculum a massive expression by public intellectuals, a clear mobilization of individual people being organized at the local level.

I just know that what we need to do is to have other people who stand up and say, "You want to call this redistribution? That's what you call it. I call it economic justice. I call it fairness. I call it being fair to the people in this country who are being absolutely screwed by the way things are set up. And you ought to think about the fact of why it is that we have half the people who have jobs where their wages have barely moved the needle over a 40 year period." We need people to talk back to that.

BILL MOYERS: You resigned, as famously known, from the government, in protest over President Clinton signing the new welfare law, Welfare Reform, ending welfare as we know it, as he said, in his political speech in New Hampshire--


BILL MOYERS: --in the year he was running. And you say there was something wrong with welfare when Bill Clinton became president.


BILL MOYERS: What was wrong with it?

PETER EDELMAN: What was wrong with it is that it did not, it had not ever said to people "We really need for you to get out and get a job and earn money. And we will do that in have a policy in a way that we will help you do that. But we're not going to just let you sit there and stay for your whole life on welfare." If you look at the some of the families, particularly at that period of time, they had essentially gotten too used to having that check.

And 14 million people, which is the number that were on welfare when Bill Clinton took office, that was too many. We didn't have sufficient economic crisis on our hands that there were people lined up because it was a recession, it was just because we had gotten soft about it.

BILL MOYERS: Culture of dependency?

PETER EDELMAN: Well, I don't like the terminology, but I'm afraid that's, find the right words, and that's what we're talking about, yes.

BILL MOYERS: Why did you write that article in Atlantic saying the worse thing Bill Clinton has done because--

PETER EDELMAN: Because they--

BILL MOYERS: --it had its problems.

PETER EDELMAN: They did exactly the wrong thing. I said in that article that welfare needed to be fixed. But what they did is they said one size fits all. Everybody just go look for a job. They said it's a block grant to the state. What that means is the state can, doesn't have to help anybody. Which proved itself in the recession, you know, food stamps up to 46 million, welfare 3.9 million to 4.4 million.

Why? Because you go to a welfare office and they say, "You look healthy, go look for a job." "What job?" "Oh, we're not interested in hearing about that." So they took away the legal right to help, they said the states could, with that block grant, do what they want. And they put in a time limit. Didn't matter what these circumstances of the family were. It was all a basically punitive approach. And it did not more in the direction of really helping people to get the skills and the supports that they needed to succeed in the workplace.

BILL MOYERS: So the conservative who fought for ending welfare as we know it would say of Bill Clinton signing that legislation, "It worked." We went from 14 million to four million. And when the recession came, people got food stamp help.

PETER EDELMAN: And six million of them got only food stamp help and that income is one-third of the poverty line. That's a pretty blindfolded, myopic way of looking at it, to say that that means that it worked. What that means is that it did not work. And that in the time when you really, really you know, incontrovertibly ought to help people, because you have 9 percent, 10 percent unemployment in the country, there's no such thing as welfare.

BILL MOYERS: And what's the consequence of that? What's the practical therefore?

PETER EDELMAN: The practical therefore is that we have 20 million people who are in deep poverty who have incomes below half the poverty line, below $9,000 for a family of three, and we have ripped the safety net down to having only the food stamp to it, at the very bottom. And that it means that you, in all of these states that for so many of them where it basically doesn't exist anymore it leaves people in this incredibly destitute position. That's what it means.

BILL MOYERS: The book is "So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America" and I think it’s must reading. Peter Edelman, thank you for being with me.

PETER EDELMAN: Thank you, Bill

BILL MOYERS: At our website,, there’s more about poverty in America and the nuns on the bus – including an interactive map of their road trip.

That’s all at See you there and see you here, next time.

Watch By Segment

How Big Banks Victimize Our Democracy

June 22, 2012

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s appearances in the last two weeks before Congressional committees — many members of which received campaign contributions from the megabank — beg the question: For how long and how many ways are average Americans going to pay the price for big bank hubris, with our own government acting as accomplice?

On this week’s Moyers & Company, Rolling Stone editor Matt Taibbi and Yves Smith, creator of the finance and economics blog Naked Capitalism, join Bill to discuss the folly and corruption of both banks and government, and how that tag-team leaves deep wounds in our democracy.  Taibbi’s latest piece is “The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia.” Smith is the author of ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism.

Meanwhile, for anyone who wants to understand why, in one of the richest nations in the world, so many poor people are teetering on the edge, author and advocate Peter Edelman talks about continuing efforts to fight poverty, and what it will take to keep the needs of poor people on the American political agenda. A former aide to Robert F. Kennedy and faculty director of Georgetown University’s Center on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy, Edelman’s new book is So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America.

  • submit to reddit
  • Ken

    I want to understand how President Obama can hear these things– and we have to assume that as an informed and learned man and President, he does hear about them– and do nothing!  Can someone please explain this in some way other than simply accusing him of corruption or weakness?  I assume he justifies his inaction, if only to himself.  What justification is there for his passivity?

  • Jwbeene

    There’s two reason:

    Cost to be elected

    Passing any bill is corrupted by the need to please not only the politicians but corporations which the bill may effect.


  • Ken

    Sorry, Beene.  What you say may be true but I would file that under “weakness and corruption”.  I just don’t see Obama justifying his inaction in this way.   

  • DNelson

    The second half of the program you got your usual liberal political licks in…. Bad Paul Ryan,bad Mitt Romney.. you like half of the nation dependent on the govt so your party can count their votes..Forty seven % pay no taxes.. 10% pay 70% of the taxes… you would have them pay all..never mind putting people to work earning a living, giving them a since of accomplishment…their vote is more important.. All the trillions we have spend on poverty since LBJ, your guy, has not reduced the poverty level in the nation

  • SteveF

    Mr. Obama spent too much time saving the banks, then on a seriously vitiated healthcare reform (more precisely: _medical_ care) which was bought at the price of kowtowing to big pharma and to a lesser extent, the insurance companies and AMA. 
    He failed to recognize the depth of our economic problems and the social problems that accompany them: the catastrophic loss of industrial jobs to China, in particular; the enormous increase in wealth of the 1%; and the triumph of right-wing ideology since President Reagan convinced a majority of voters that any talk of equality or social justice equals socialism, if not communism. 
    Like President Clinton and every Democratic candidate since, President Obama has failed basically to show a majority of Americans the terrible consequences of the triumph of that ideology, of which the Tea Party is far more extreme than President Reagan espoused – and the other Republicans are terrified of saying anything against it. 
    Both Presidents Clinton and Obama possess the intelligence and charisma to break the stranglehold of this ideology; but the job remains to be done, and in the meantime we are paying enormously for the consequences. 

  • davidp

    I always had it in my mind that these companies edge on mafia-style business.

  • ABC

    Capitalism, 1 capital must exist 2 capital must be used, meaning it can’t be in more than one place at one time. Meaning.. If there is no investment there is no debt. All American banks “issuing loans” are thieves. They are not investing money. Do the math. Math is supposed to be used. Why do people think it doesn’t apply to money???? Americans really are uneducated. I’m referring to the literati.

  • Jwbeene

    Ken have a look at Obama’s Deal on frontline and perhaps
    that will give you an idea of the problems anyone has in correcting known
    problems.  You can watch this video on

  • Anonymous

    Before globalism, we were the First World, and the Third World was elsewhere.  We were rich BECAUSE they were poor.

    Globalization created “equality”: Every country now has its 1% vs 99%.   The 99 percent are poor BECAUSE the 1 percent are rich. 

    In other words, Edelman is right: you cannot talk about the poor without reference to the rich.  We exist in binary opposition.

    And as Taibbi and Smith make clear, the 99 percent will get poorer as long as the 99 percent are not abjectly poor — as long as there is still a bit of wealth among us, there will be a system to distribute it upwards. 

    Like the greengrocer who pays the mafia “protection money” to protect himself from the mafia, we will continue to have no choice but to subsidize the 1 percent, whether through our taxes, interest on our mortgages and credit cards, or our banking fees.  


  • Anonymous

    the 47% pay LOTS of taxes. They don’t pay “Income” tax, because they don’t make enough money to do so.

  • Curt

     The deception that 47% of Americans pay no taxes has been debunked many times over the past couple of years.  Here’s the real story.

    In 2009, 47% of Americans paid no FEDERAL INCOME TAX — because their income was so low that they owed none.  Most of these “lucky ducks” live on Social Security, disability, or minimum wage employment that offers no benefits.  The latter did pay payroll taxes (a highly regressive tax), which amounts to about 9-10% for income up to about $107,000.  They also paid state and local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc.

    In fact, the tax burden of many of the poor is greater, in terms of percent of income, than the tax burden of many of the wealthy.  Hence, Warren Buffett talks about paying a lower effective federal income tax rate than his secretary.  We learn that Mitt Romney, who made about $45 million in 2010-2011, paid an effective federal income tax rate of about 14-15%, also lower than Buffett’s secretary, and millions of other struggling Americans.

    I don’t know about your figures stating that 10% pay 70% of the taxes.  But if true, the 70% figure is also probably fairly representative of the proportion of income the top 10% make.

  • wing7nut

    With so much crime, where’s the law? BOUGHT! If anyone believes, or hopes, that they will be making money “once everything turns around”, think again! Where have ethics gone? I was once told that ethics has nothing to do with economics – we are living that truth right now.

  • Laser Haas

    We can get a federal Racketeering indictment on Bain Capital & Goldman Sachs for the intentional destruction of a public company (eToys) so that Goldman Sachs could hide pump-n-dump SEC & Federal Frauds and Bain Capital could monopolize the independent retail Toy industry.

    Bain Capital & Goldman Sachs secret attorneys are MNAT in Delaware and Paul Traub in New York. Who secretly & fiendishly did plot & ploy to steal from the court approved clients (eToys / creditors) to sell to their undisclosed clients (Bain / Kay Bee)

    and they have CONFESSED to lying under oath 34 times – to perpetrate intentional federal frauds. But no prosecutions transpired because a MNAT law partner became the US Attorney in Delaware (Colm Connolly) who then refused to investigate and /or prosecute his former partner/ clients (MNAT/ Goldman Sachs & Bain Capital) 

  • wej7

    I’ve been telling the young men from the old gangstaHood for years the real wiseguys were from the WallStreetGang…People all over are now seeing them for what they are and–seeing how they persohisnally lose–are not so easily fooled as before…thanks for this one in particular Bill & Co……

  • RGS

    I was quite interested in the question posed to Mr Edelman to the effect of whether or not the US remains a democracy. As an interested observer, it seems that the phrase “fiduciary oligarchy” describes the current US government fairly well.  I can’t help but wonder if this is a step towards establishment of “royal lineages”  leading to a monarchy?

  • Therage

     AND let’s add to the debunk that alot of so-called Southern Conservative Governors LOVE the administrative fees levied in support of the indigent class. It’s all us “Saps” who are now working “survival jobs” or on unemployment  being kicked to the curb by the likes of Tricki Nicki Haley who as a “Christian of Convenience” (self-described) never could keep a real job OR dislike any H-1 Visa applicant which took an American’s job.
    As someone said on Mr. Moyer’s program last week (6-17-12)…What we need is an American Labor Party in this country and we need it NOW!

  • Therage

     Mike is right!. How much could someone making 8 bux an hour actually PAY in income tax anyway?. That’s only 16k GROSS a year IF you worked 40 hrs..Most jobs consider 30 to be full..

    I made 8 bux an hour in 1980 and will never forget a bank turning down a car loan for 7500 bux because “I didn’t make enough”.

    Until we stop accepting Chinese and other slave-shop junk in our ports-of-entry, the buying power of Good American Workers won’t improve and therefore, neither the economy.

  • Reddoor2

     I began to pick up on it in 2006 when the  economic news really stopped reflecting a reality that made sense,  and it was confirmed in my mind after living in Italy, returning just in time for the crash. 

    We are at least thirty years down the road that brought us here.  How realistic is it really, to expect that Obama is going to turn this around in 3.5?  It is really up to the 99% to recognize and accept what they’re up against and stand up for the nation, and the economy they want. 

    The corruption that Matt Taibbi speaks of, as he says “goes back to the building of the Appian Way.”  It is always a problem when money is concentrated in the hands of a few, for the good of many, that some gets siphoned off as well as leading to “industry protection” measures.  This was the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned of, and now it is Wall Street, Big Pharm, Big Farm, and many others.

    We need to realize that “privitization” requires profit and will not
    save money by eliminating graft, but will only give us less recourse to
    address our collective concerns-  Is it any wonder they want to
    “privatize social security”?  Is it any wonder they want to privatize
    prisons.  It is still your tax dollars at work,.  In Florida, Gov. Scott
    tried to slide a prison privatization bill through, contracting with
    prison corps which required a fee per prisoner (tax dollars) and a
    guaranteed 90% occupancy.  Can you imagine the incentives the State
    would have to pass laws to ensure that 90% threshold was met.  It is
    unconscionable to imprison for profit, but that is what they are talking

    It is all part and parcel of the same greed and corruption, trying to profit from your tax dollars, and mine, but putting a gloss on it to make it somehow seem noble and just.  It is not, it never has been and never will be.  Politics is a dirty business, but we can either sink to the bottom with them, or rise above politics, and demand they come up to our level.   What we, as a nation must decide, is what we want our taxes to do for us and how do we want to prioritize.  I for one think the social safety nets are crucial to the survival of the middle class, as well as the young and would not sacrifice them at any cost.  I feel the same about education, and health care. 

    MIC has gotten more than it’s share of taxes as has Wall Street.  It is now time to say no to business subsidies, and say yes to paying taxes FIRST for the people, for the things that keep us alive and keep us safe, and for the things required to build and maintain life.  Education, food, shelter, security.  What good does it do to “spread democracy” when we have people starving in this country, people who cannot get a decent education, or a decent job even with an education.  We need our taxes to stay at home, and be used for the people, not for the MIC, Big Pharm, Big Farm, et al. 

  • Martha Swaim

    re: How big banks victimize our Democracy. The Bankers have it both ways and should not have it either way. If a Banker can claim that derivatives and loan contracts and insurance contracts are too difficult for the banker to understand, the banker is incompetent and is not doing due diligence and should be fired. If the banker claims that huge bonuses and pay packages are needed to retain that same talent, then the talent did know what the talent was doing and the talent should be fined and go to prison and be taxed 100 percent on all bonuses and pay received leading up to the crisis in 2008 and continuing until that talent can be replaced and imprisoned.

  • Edie

    What a terrific program with Matt Taibbi and Yves Smith discussing criminal banks comparing them to the mafia. Along with disucssion with Peter Edelmen on so rich so poor and his illuminating book on inequality and poverty. Their voices need to be heard on the mainstream media too. We need economic justice and the Wall St. criminals need to be prosecuted and punished . Our politicians are corrupted by unlimited and secret money with the financial criminals so they can’t represent the 99% of us. They have an incestous relationship that feeds their greed. Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidders of wealth represented in Mitt Romney and all Republicans and some Democrats who play the game. We need to get involved and support honest progressives who aren’t corrupted and really are willing to speak truth to power and act to change it and not tea party puppets backed by the Republican Party money machine.

  • bob

    why do the banks have their way in Congress?

    check their contributions to Congress members campaigns?

  • Joan C. Grim

    Peter Edelman is an icon in social justice for the poor and marginalized. His son, Jonah, sadly has turned Stand for Children from a grassroots  organization into a tool to privatize public schools under his leadership. Parents Across America describes Edelman’s Stand for Children as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Instead of standing for children it stands for
    corporate edu-reforms and buying elected officials.

    Diane Ravitch asks troubling questions about Jonah Edelman on her blog:

    Why did Jonah Edelman sell out? Why did the son of iconic figures in the
    civil rights movement become a pawn for big money and big business? Was
    it for money? Was it for power? I try not to speculate about people’s
    motives (usually unknowable) and to judge them by their actions, but
    this puzzle is just too puzzling and too hard to crack.

  • Partyrecon

    Reps and Dems have been selling their services, including justice, to the highest bidder and the Citizens United decision legalized it further.   And if it wasn’t bad enough having to choose between two rival gangs that don’t care a lick for those living around them and the collateral damage they cause, we now have the politics of obstruction.  The party in power acts as a juggernaut, pushing through whatever they want and leaving a wake of destruction in its path.   The party in the minority simply tries to obstruct the party in power.   There is no compromise, there is no fairness.  We are totally screwed as a country as long as we can only choose from the two major parties who are bought and paid for by large corporations, unions, and uber-wealthy individuals.  

  • chief

    This is one of the most informative straight forward talk shows ive ever seen. Their are plenty of educated intelligent people thant don’t understand and cannot see the big picture on what has happened or what the current status of the large banks in this country. This segment was brilliant, to the point and educational.

  • Anonymous

    Economic inequality dates all the way back to the beginning (circa 1789) and was in fact planned that way by the founding fathers.
    “By and through its undertaking the new federal government created a system of preference for the so called moneyed class over the remaining classes of society that were not moneyed.”

    Experience Life among the Ordinary and rediscover President Washington’s Dilemma, or The Birth of US Capitalism at 

  • Daniel Doe

    Dear Bill Moyers-

    It’s GAME ON!  I am completely OUTRAGED by the Financial Community in America!  How Long Can A Middle Class Family Survive By the ACTS OF BANK
    true in the State & Federal Judiciary all the way to
    the United States Supreme Court!


    Dennis Andrew Ball//s//

  • zoe

    why weren’t any of these bankers arrested?

  • Judith McDonald

    When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty. Thomas Jefferson

  • Jackboyle54

    They’re protected by those we have put in politcal office.

  • Splunkett1

    Why do people say that a major industry (banking and finance), right in the heart of an economic machine producing in such unmatchable quantity that it rarely receives serious threats to it’s mainly brutal policies thought to have all-of-a-sudden thrown caution into the wind and made decisions no one can account for?  Wouldn’t it be more likely that they received misleading information from a government source that induced them to take such inexplicable risks?  If you are going to look for particular suspects, shouldn’t you then start with the high echelons of The Executive Branch, where broad economic policy originates? 

  • Tom Paine II


  • JonThomas

     You’d have to give more detail.

    For example…I really don’t accept your premise, but for the sake of discussion, did you mean the Bush Presidency?

    Bush’s was the executive branch head at the start of the world banking debacle. It was also during his presidency that the bail-outs started. You may remember that it was McCain who left the campaign trail to vote on the bail-outs. Obama followed suit and it was that situation which threw the campaign momentum to Obama when he was in meetings with Wall St. and banking executives.  Obama showed himself conversant on the issue and McCain was almost clueless.

    So, not only do I not accept the premise that banking corporations follow the advise of the Governments, it was Bush who was in office for the  establishment of the Wall St. and banking calamity.

    Matter of fact, as was recently exemplified by Jamie Dimon’s recent appearance in congress, and by the size of the lobbying business in this country, often, unfortunately for it’s citizens, the U.S. Government does just the opposite… it is Government which takes it’s advise from business and industry.

  • Derek

    On the Mafia state . . . this is a very accurate portrayal of what is going on.  As someone from a region where the Sicilian Mafia has made rather incredible inroads into government, lobbying, and has a monopoly on infrastructure construction and maintenance, the only thing I can add is that the behavior these guests described shows an advanced state of the cancer.  The term ‘sociopath’ is not misused. 

  • Mary Bess

    Matt Taibbi and Yves Smith should be a regular feature.   They are able to bring the subject to life and render it comprehensible. Please  do the  program on new financial instruments and  their prescriptions  for a new social contract. When are we going to face it:  the debt must be written down or a majority of the population will end up indentured servants with no chance of financial recovery.

  • Splunkett1

    I refer to President G W Bush indeed.  My point was rather that the only viable explanation for the derivatives debacle was financial institutions anticipating governmental policies that weren’t enacted.

  • DNelson

     GlassSeagal was repealed under Clinton.  The clinton treasurer robert rubin & Larry sumner along with A. Greenspan who stopped regulation on derivatives & hedge funds.. Alan Greenspan kept interest rates too low  during the 90s.. you see there is allot of fault to go around

  • jeffbas

    Counting the payroll tax as a “tax” in this context distorts the issue.  Payroll taxes get explicit and directly related inflation-adjusted retirement/disability/survivor/medical benefits in return, which have historically been a good “return on investment”. Payroll taxes are more like forced savings.

    However, I agree that state and local taxes, sales and excise taxes, including property taxes paid directly or through rent, should count and are non-trivial.

  • JonThomas

     Good attention to history. :)

  • JonThomas

     Frontline did a great 2 part(4 hour) expose about a month ago that detailed the origins and history of the types of financial instruments, along with the regulation changes, at the heart of the debacle.

    I didn’t fully understand how Europe fit into the crises until I saw that program. Now, when I hear pundits comment how the trouble in Europe is only about austerity, and did they have too many worker benefits it turns my stomach.

    If I remember correctly, it also detailed the Glass/Seagal changes on which DNelson commented.

    Have you had a chance to watch those episodes?

  • JonThomas

     Ooops, the episode on Europe was different from the 4 hour expose. All are great shows and extremely educational.

  • Splunkett1

    No.  It wouldn’t surprise me if the sovereign debt crises had as inexplicable an element as most and the best of the financial industry betting wrong on a short-term economic future most every standard indicator ruled out.    For now I’ll just state GWB’s was the only American Executive Branch ever capable of so defrauding all of Wall Street by assuring them of policy directives they then didn’t implement.   

  • JonThomas

     I just checked…they are available on their website. I think you’ll enjoy watching.

  • Splunkett1

    Thank you.

  • Splunkett1

    Thanks again.

  • Anonymous

    When servants, as in Civil Servants,  refuse to serve (regardless of reason,  if it thwarts the Majority Will of the People) then the charge must be Treason – right?

    Three times since 2000 our Congress has acted in a blatently opposite fashion to that expected by the obvious Majority: I site only the request we made, quite loud and clear, to please stop giving our Tax dollars to the richest industries on the planet – and they said no.

    It doesn’t matter what moronic reasons they gave to say no, what does matter is whether or not these people are being true to their Oaths of Office. If they are not, then they are practicing Sedition in order to secure their wealth/position at our expense (Treason).

    We either have a Representative Government or we don’t.

    If we don’t, then all of this is moot – right?

  • Sue Taylor

    I was an insurance agent and NASD licensed registered representative in the finance industry when all this gambling/fraud started. It has nothing to do with the executive branch other than how regulations and oversight have been eroded by some presidents/Congressional votes. Regulation and oversight are absent and banks/insurance companies DO NOT CARE what happens to this country. They – the individuals who participate and run the institutions – are filled with GREED. Unless the markets are regulated, this will continue. Unless there is a spirit of sharing wealth in this country – it will get worse.

  • Sue Taylor

    Dead wrong here @SteveF – Wall Street, banks, insurance companies have been virtually unregulated for decades. GREED has captured the hearts and minds of those who run these institutions and participate in them. Time to hold ALL elected officials accountable – and to turn around the Supreme Court ruling that allows PRIVATE money to corrupt PUBLIC space…i.e., Citizens United. Takes time, but it will happen. A few crooks at the top cannot ruin this entire country – even though they’re giving it a real try right now.

  • Splunkett1

    A fool and his money soon go separate ways, which is why all of this is so difficult to understand.  I don’t much fault the regulatory agencies or even the regulatory standards in a matter like this!  I can only think someone willing to risk retaliation from something as powerful as Wall Street induced them to issue this ruinous derivatives by assuring them of economic policies they didn’t enact.  As of November 2000, utilities prices inexplicably skyrocketed, damaging the .com business severely.  A “terrorist” dressed in Army surplus clothes, clearly different people in different video statements, then perpetrated the vertical collapse of three buildings, supposedly unintentionally.  Firms connected to The White House received no-bid contracts in occupied countries.  The currency supply expanded threefold.  Government securities purchases can’t keep it out of circulation forever.  Then, the best and the brightest in a large, crucial industry issued derivatives every economic indicator mainly weighed against.  I have trouble imagining financial fools so high and so prevalent at Wall Street.  A corrupt President, on the basis of the above, NO.     


    For the first time in my 55 years as a citizen of the United States of America, I have called both Senators that representative Oregon, Senator Jeff Merkley and Senator Ron Wyden with my outrage given this reporting, how little I knew about what has been going on and what are they both going to do about it!

    All of congress, both houses should be forced to watch ” How Big Banks Victimize our Democracy.” And then comment of how as our representatives they are going to truly address these problems so someday we can trust these institutions.

  • TheRoc

    WOW, finally an NPR show with guest that are calling government officials and Wallstreet for what they are “Organized Crime Syndicate”  Thank You !

  • PRdream

    What is to be done?  Make the banks utilities.  Yves Smith is my new hero!

  • Shaman175

    You and your guests confirmed what I suspected all along.  In fact, when I say the U.S. is finished and becoming a fascist state most agree with me. We are in deep trouble! I’ve been  telling my Union brothers and sisters for YEARS that the AFL-CIO needs to run their own candidates with their own party as another alternative!  The media brainwashing led by moguls like Ruppurt Murdock and the bunch with Wall St. support have most of the citizens believing the lies that it is the fault of the public sector Unions as causing the problems.  Maybe you…Bill …can run for President  or suggest someone as a legitimate candidate.

  • Robert

    Great show Bill!  You have exposed the dirty underbelly of the 1% in this country again. 
    Now, with all the information that’s out there informing the 99%, what are we to do to effect the actual change we so desperately need?

  • FreedomFan

     Now that the plutocracy is naked before our citizens, instead of celebrating July 4th, will we celebrate July 14th?

  • Tina Kimmel, PhD, MSW, MPH

    I completely agree with Taibbi and Smith, so I won’t comment on them. 

    I want to address something Peter Edelman said, which I deeply disagree with: that those on welfare had indeed become too used to receiving a check, rather than working. I believe this looks at the problem from the wrong end.

    Recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children were by definition PARENTS. The most important thing is to assure that all children are fed, housed, educated… and if possible, in a loving environment. 

    Clearly the ideal is for someone in the household to have sufficient income, while other loving family members are there to raise the young children. But if not, the measly AFDC checks helped.

    OTOH, having a mother work at a minimum wage job while her young, impressionable child languishes in poor quality daycare — which is the GOAL of the “new welfare” TANF program — does just the opposite. 

  • Wildec9

    Terrific show. I especially liked it because I agreed with everything 100% OK, seriously — it was such a relief to hear people with far better educations say many of the things I’ve been thinking and saying all along. Of course, it also made me mad enough to throw a potato across the kitchen, but it was a good kind of mad. When are we going to get that banks are not our friends???

  • David

    I looked high & low on the blog,
    but could not find the article by Yves Smith, on
    Mafia Capitalism — where is it hidden??
    David — Chicago

  • Diane

    She is there. The contributors are listed on the right-hand side. But it’s a tough blog to navigate. I could not find the blog post by Yves Smith that Moyers referred to in the program. It would really be great if Moyers would include links to his guests’ writings. It would also be great if would fix their blog to be more readable. 

  • Anonymous

    Visiting another country recognized as a shiny example of what a country shouldbe as was prior to 1980

    When are going to stop talking and do something?

    History has always shown that when a government ignores it,s people, the people get mad enough to create a new government mainly thru revolution. The USA is not exempt even though Congress with an 87% disapproval rate seems to think otherwise. Congress better start listening to the people and not the corporation, banks, and Wall street who are bribing our government.

    Congress better wake up

  • Dave
  • James Lesley Jones

    Labor Unions are not corrupt,
    Corporations are not corrupt.
    Our Government is not corrupt.
    Corruption is what brought down the Soviets.
    And until an American Spring only
    an endless War on Terror with Marshall Law,
    my voice is small and easly squashed,
    Jimmy Carter  my spokesman
    Let his voice ring loud as it is true..

  • JonThomas

     Just like the integrity of a car can be corrupted by rust, so too can the systems behind Unions, Corporations, and Government.

    The difference is that rust is a natural process. Much of the corruption in the organizations you mention have had their integrity weakened by a chipping away, or outright misuse.

  • Anonymous

    and this is the crux of the problem in Europe too…
    A Spanish company and an Italian company are buying water rights in Chile…if their countries are
    going under and are so poor how is this happening?
    Answer is that the 1% is not going under just the 
    99%….we need to nationalize banks, wall street, oil
    and a lot of things temporary to even the playing 
    field….something has to give…..

  • Anonymous

    Bills are bundled with many things before they are
    passed…we had to do this when our country was
    young b/c congressmen had farms, plantations, etc
    had to go home and couldn’t stay in DC or Philadelphia or whatever…anyway the time has passed for this type of bill, this is exactly what 
    the real estate bubble was like….we should submit
    transportation bill and things that deal with transportation and can be overseen by the transportation department, bill that deal with farms
    should deal with farms so that we can track these 
    bills and interpret them easily.  No one addresses
    this…what the heck…

  • Mary Bess

    See Yves Smith’s dissection of the first 2 programs in Frontline’s series on Wall Street  at Naked Capitalism.  As I wrote to Frontline:  the situation calls for a scream, not a squeak, which was what Frontline delivered.

  • Mleonjanssen

    I would like to share a story with anyone who is actually interested in “democracy” in the U.S.A.
    My parents lived on a 160 acre farm in S.E., KS for over 65 years.  This “farm” cost them $2,000 back in 1947 which was a lot of money then.  My father never did make enough money farming and, eventually, had to take corporate factory work where ever he could find it at minimum wage or maybe a little higher.  He did recieve some money from the Federal Government for not farming a portion of his land (called farm subsidies).
    He was a flag waving veteran of World War 2 (the war to end all wars, remember?).  He only had an 8th grade education but did have some common sense.
    He was a registered republican which made sense to him since he thought he was a farmer and, therefore, a business man.
    He now resides in a nursing home, along with my mother, which is just a step above a chicken house that cost them both around $6,000 a month to live in (just another corporate operation).   He will soon be turning 90 years old on July 6, 2012 and is laying in bed wearing diapers and needs assistance getting in or out of his wheelchair.
    For those of you who think you have a hard life, and many of you probably do, you might think twice about how hard your life really is.
    I decided to honor him with the following poem.  Read into it what you will:

    “Old Barns and Farmers”

    Can’t say much ’bout corporate greed
    They get a lot more than they need

    And the banks ain’t no better than a thief
    They give a lot of good folks grief

    But give me an old farmer any day
    Who puts up his hay

    In that old barn
    Down on the farm 

  • Aridzonan_13

    Both of your guests made great points.  But, they did not go deep enough into the problem.  Last Feb. FraudClosure settlement destroyed contract law.  When the last 4 State AG’s caved on a Federal settlement of $0.10/$ and a Federal “Get Out of Jail Free” card.  FraudClosure was the most egregious  mass felony fraud ever committed.  Where hundreds possibly thousands of obviously forged documents were accepted by our cOURT system. Sometimes over an inked original mortgage contract.  How is this possible? William K. Black has a great deal to say about this. Yet, he will never be called back into action.  Becuz FedGov.Inc (note domain suffix) is making mega fortunes on our demise.  The O’BushBama continuity plan for Wall St. is still if full force.  The first sign of a 3rd World country is the selective enforcement of it’s laws.

  • Anonymous

    As usual Bill, GREAT show. KEEP exposing these pigs of the banking cartel and the world-wide banksters who have been and continue to destroy democracy.

  • Anonymous

     Dude, get over yourself and your arrogance. Yes, people are corrupt, the very SAME PEOPLE who make up Corporations and Unions.

  • Anonymous

    Here you go buddy

  • Anonymous

     Bastille Day!
    Oui, Veuillez…

    Oh mon dieu!

  • Anonymous

     Not at all Fascist, but rather  a Plutocracy. Fascism has nothing but disdain for financial
    capitalism and does NOT promote political partisanship. 

  • Tacticleted

    create a non-profit central bank,  to create funds for economic demand. this fund shall be given the ability to create funds upon demand for the lawful citizen in order to stabilize economic imbalance. the amount of funds available for demand might be indexed on the collective debt. a lawful citizen is one who has not committed a violent crime. it is reasonable because the big lie, is within the nature of debt. money is created by debt from noting. the principal is the only real money created. yet, the borrower is responsible for the interest. the interest is hypothetical. it does not exist. the debt is impossible to pay back because the real money to cover it, does not exist. this demand fund can correct this by creating the real money for the debt. as the current money trickles down like rain. (in theory). rain is inadequate, unstable, seasonal, prone to droughts. the people need a full well in addition to the rain.  as we create the rain, we can create the well. the well can fund the economic bill of rights suggested by FDR.  lets vote on it. easy breezy.  just a thought.

  • snuffydogood

     hear hear!

  • Missing Xtension

    Its good to see that someone else besides RT picked up on Matt Tabibi, I have been seing him on shows like the Keiser Report,  and  The Alyona Show.  Maybe Bill Moyers can have a talk with Max Keiser, that guy has gone crazy on Jamie Dimon way before anyone had ever heard about him. He was pointing to JPMC a long time ago.

  • G Nicoletti

         Because of our banks, the real bankers today are PARENTS keeping their grown-up children afloat. As a teacher, my son’s little inheritance funds go to him NOW. I honestly feel we are in some ways like Russia in 1905. What the heel is good about no laissez-faire nationally if internationally there is laissez-faire?

  • Rev Julia Mckay

    extravagant privilege that is unearned or falsely earned is a moral issue… 
    abusing the majority for the benefit of the few is a moral issue…
    dismantling democracy in the name of greed is a moral issue…

  • Allan J Krueger

    Our corrupt government has nothing to fear from a revolution!  Most people in this country are too lazy and misinformed to do anything except continue to watch FOX News!

  • Allan J Krueger

    Why weren’t any of the priests arrested?

  • Jerry

    In response to Peter Edelman’s call for people to speak out about the growing disparity between “haves” and “soon not to haves”, I’d like to see the President take the fight to conservative Christians  by simply asking the following questions:  1)  Do you truly believe what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13-15 (below)?  2) If so, why do you fight gov’t programs that seek to aid those among us that need help?

    This should do 2 things:  Publicly confirm his Christian faith and, if they’re honest, shame the selfish into reexamining their politics in light of their religious beliefs.

     13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”[b]

  • mbrecker

    According to a new survey, do you know who’s considered the most accurate source for financial news? Answer: Max Keiser on RT and Press TV. If like many you’re saying “who?”, consider this your search for the day.

  • Theheartcare

    Although his views are, in general, something that is in tune with the anti-WS sentiment that we can all agree on, his site, and his reports are tainted by a conflict of interest in the promotion of gold as some sort of panacea for everyone with the coming apocalypse. This conflict of interest weakens his credibility. 

  • Wolfman

    Your piece on Peter Edelman about the poverty in the south is reflective of this recent article,
    Conservative Southern Values Revived: How a Brutal Strain of American Aristocrats Have Come to Rule America

  • William W Haywood

    Matt is trying to say how many of these criminal banksters have committed felony’s that all of the rest of us would go to jail for a long time for doing. Lying, cheating, and stealing are the main tools these bankers use to rape the American banking system. All of our financial elites are above the law, and our bankers are a part of that financial elite, and so are the politicians that we elect. Like the mafia, this is a cabal that is going on with full knowledge by all of the players. They are protecting one another in a massive, criminal, cover-up of their total control of all of our money. It is political, judicial, and corporate cronyism at its worst. Those we have elected to represent us are easily bought off with the huge sums of money involved. Put these criminals in jail and much of this will immediately stop!

  • Guest

    I was wondering whether Edelman included or excluded widows when coming up with the single women heading up households stat.  Seems to me that the northern European countries decided that whoever is left as a “single” heading up a household deserves the support for keeping together a “family” unit.

  • FranG

    I like this quote. Especially since the new mantra of the extreme right is, “social justice is our enemy.”

  • Otis L Griffin

    agree d.. sooner we start the turnaround the sooner victory

  • Otis L Griffin

    Money has removed the need for foot soldiers ,,