You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Article image
Paul Buchheit
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Monday 15 October 2012
“The lack of regulation in the financial industry allowed hedge fund manager John Paulson to conspire with Goldman Sachs in a plan to create packages of risky subprime mortgages and then short-sell (bet against) the sure-to-fail financial instruments.”

Five Ways Deregulation is Ripping America Apart

Article image

Conservatives believe that enriching individuals will eventually enrich society, and that government should not get in the way of the process. This is what happens as a result:

(1) The tax loss from one scheming businessman could have paid the salaries of 30,000 nurses

The lack of regulation in the financial industry allowed hedge fund manager John Paulson to conspire with Goldman Sachs in a plan to create packages of risky subprime mortgages and then short-sell (bet against) the sure-to-fail financial instruments. The ploy paid him $3.7 billion. Deregulation in the tax code allowed him to call his income "carried interest," which is taxed at a 15% rate. More deregulation allowed him to defer his profits indefinitely.

The lost taxes of $1.3 billion (35% of $3.7 billion) could have paid the salaries of 30,000 LPNs, 10 nurses for every county in the United States. Instead, one clever businessman took it all.

(2) The 10 richest Americans made enough money last year to feed every hungry person on earth for a year

The richest 10 Americans increased their wealth by over $50 billion in one year. That's enough, according to 2008 estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN's World Food Program, to feed the 870 million people in the world who are lacking sufficient food.

But should anyone be blamed for this imbalance? Didn't the rich people EARN their money through hard work and innovation? No, they didn't. 60 percent of the income for the Forbes 400 came from capital gains. A lot more of it came from other forms of deregulatory subterfuge. CEOs have used carried interest, performance-related pay, stock options, and deferred compensation to make off with extra money that is only available to the beneficiaries of diminishing government.

(3) Avoided taxes could pay off the deficit -- or pay for 20 million jobs

The backlash against government regulation has led to tax abuses that cost us almost a trillion dollars a year.

Corporations doubled their profits to $1.9 trillion in less than ten years, but since 2008 they've reduced their tax payments from a twenty-year average of 22% to just 10%. That's a dropoff of over $225 billion.

Next, the Tax Justice Network estimated that up to $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up 40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, and with a historical stock market return of 6%, $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion.

Finally, the IRS estimates that 17 percent of taxes owed were not paid, leaving an underpayment of $450 billion.

Add it up, and it's almost the size of the U.S. deficit. All because of lax or non-existing regulations that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid their tax responsibilities.

(4) An unregulated trading industry costs us another $350 billion a year in taxes

For a $10.00 purchase of children's clothing, mothers pay up to a dollar in sales tax.

For a $10.00 purchase of financial instruments, investors refuse to pay one cent.

We had a financial transaction tax from 1914 to 1966, but it was repealed in an early surge of Congressional deregulation. Now, it is estimated that $350 billion could be generated every year, enough for almost ten million teachers or nurses or firefighters or medical technicians.

(5) Redistribution is destroying entrepreneurship in America

Largely because of financial deregulation, our country's income and wealth keep moving to the top while the middle class shrinks. Entrepreneurship is going down with it.

Studies reveal that relatively few business startups are initiated by the very wealthy. Only 3 percent of the CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals were entrepreneurs in 2005, even though they made up about 60 percent of the richest .1% of Americans. Instead, they invest over 90% of their assets in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate.

Entrepreneurs come from risk-takers in the middle class. But with financial deregulation causing a redistribution toward the top, the money has been taken out of the hands of middle-class innovators, resulting in a 53% decrease in the number of entrepreneurs per capita since 1977.

We're at the mercy of the deregulators. But they have no mercy. The once-muscular entrepreneurial fiber of our country is being ripped apart, stretched to the limit, thinning in the middle until it eventually snaps in two.



Author pic
ABOUT Paul Buchheit

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher with formal training in language development and cognitive science. He is the founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, RappingHistory.org, PayUpNow.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

If regulations are such a

If regulations are such a problem for manufacturing in America, simply extend them to every import. Every factory in the world that makes products to be sold in America must fallow the same federal regulations, whether they are in this country or not.

1) Nope that's not

1) Nope that's not "Deregulation in the tax code " it's a deliberately created loophole, that is to say a regulation. The first point and you're already lying.

2) "The richest 10 Americans increased their wealth by over $50 billion in one year." And what has that got to do with deregulation? Were the in deregulated industries? I doubt it considering I can't think of a deregulated industry offhand.

"Didn't the rich people EARN their money through hard work and innovation? No, they didn't. 60 percent of the income for the Forbes 400 came from capital gains." So how does that prove they didn't earn it? Capital gains just means that they investing in something that became more valuable. Like for instance a sucesssful company.
"A lot more of it came from other forms of deregulatory subterfuge." Such as what? It sounds to me like a lot of it came from regulatory subterfuge. In fact of course regulation has ALWAYS benefitted the rich, which is why under the great regulator GW Bush they did well.

3) "The backlash against government regulation has led to tax abuses that cost us almost a trillion dollars a year." Bullshit. The tax abuses are the result of REGULATIONS not deregulation. Are you really this ignorant or are you just plain LYING?

4) "An unregulated trading industry costs us another $350 billion a year in taxes"
Well that settles it you're just lying. There are literally thousands of regulations on the financial industry and if you don't know this you've done so little research just talking as though you know the industry is a lie.

5) "the money has been taken out of the hands of middle-class innovators, resulting in a 53% decrease in the number of entrepreneurs per capita since 1977." Yeah and what's happened in those years? The role of government and the power of regulations has grown continuously. Literally. There has not been a time when government didn't become more powerful. Now that all you wanted has come and it's a disaster people like you will do anything to blame the innocent and excuse yourself.

1) Would you mind explaining

1) Would you mind explaining how come how (or where) deregulation works as a regulation?
2) Are short sales or sales of over estimated packages a fair industry?
3) Are money laundering or tax heaven deposits in order to save taxes due to lack of control, due to regulations?
4) Have the SEC applied any control on Lehman Bros mortgage packages? Are the mortgages regulated by the SEC? When a bank presents fake figures to the FED is this due to regulations?
5) Has any regulation impeded to sell the know-how, jobs and licenses to China in 2003 providing the rare earths monopoly to China?
I am sure you will find a thorough and well supported explainations to provide for all of it.
BTW, some people keep outsourcing jobs to China: Bain did it recently with Samsonite. Is this due to regulations or because it received an investment credit?
6) When a bank issues a hedge fund - no problem this is a fund not responding to any regulation - has it valued AAA - and uses it to create another fund as well over estimated as AAA and uses it to create another new fund also valued AAA and so on, is this a Ponzi system?

Can you figure out and explain how come banks are creating huge losses of several BILLIONS gambling against the Dolar and on commodities due to regulations?

Response to Gilbert T

Response to Gilbert T Schwob
1) I don't know what you mean there.
2) There is nothing unfair about selling a promise to deliver something you don't own (short selling), and what do you mean "sales of overestimated packages"? Overestimated by who? If people decieved that's fraud, you don't need thousands of pages of regulations to tell you that.
3) Money laundering is simply not telling the government what it wants to know about your money, and thus perfectly moral. Unless you mean there should be a regulations saying "We get to tax things, even if they're not in our jurisdiction" no, tax havens are not a result of regulations.
4) The SEC and over a dozen other regulators had the ability apply control to Lehman Brothers mortgages, you can't blame anything about Lehman Brothers on lack of regulation. The only reason banks present ANYTHING to the FED (indeed the only reason it exists) is regulation. But why are they bothering to lie to the FED, why because regulations say they have to do certain things, and to avoid being shut down their figures have to show certain things, whether or not it's a good idea to do so. So yes, it's all entirely due to regulation.
5) There is no "rare earth's monopoly" there is simply rare earths being cheaper to mine in China, partly due to regulations in the USA and other places. Why should anyone production going to the place where it's cheaper to produce? Don't give me the jobs argument, if the workers really wanted to keep those jobs why aren't they doing them at prices that would make them competitive? Why because they believe they are better off getting other jobs than preserving their former ones by giving up money. So if it's not worth THEM giving up enough benefits to make up for the losses from not producing in China, why should you?
An investment credit is a type of regulation. In part yes, Bain sent the production of Samsonite to China because of costly regulations in the USA.
6) Hedge funds are not unregulated that is why Madoff had to structure his Ponzi scheme to avoid regulations. Nor is their formation by banks unregulated. What is certainly not unregulated are the credit ratings agencies that rate things AAA. They are in fact so heavily regulated and subsidised they are effectively part of the state. They are a big part of what caused the GFC. In any case you don't understand what a Ponzi Scheme is. Whether something is a Ponzi scheme depends on whether it is designed to actually produce profits or just get more people to pay in money.

Yes I can figure out and explain how banks are doing that. Forex trading is a CREATION of regulations, specifically the regulations that say you have to accept government paper as money and not gold. Only fiat money can vary enough to make the Forex market viable as a speculative market. It's ENTIRELY a creation of government interference in the market. Central banks creating money unpredicatably are the problem speculative Forex markets deal with. That and the massive debt problems government have and conceal are the reason for the foreign exchange instability that created the huge JP Morgan loses.

1) Would you mind explaining

1) Would you mind explaining how come how (or where) deregulation works as a regulation?
2) Are short sales or sales of over estimated packages a fair industry?
3) Are money laundering or tax heaven deposits in order to save taxes due to lack of control, due to regulations?
4) Have the SEC applied any control on Lehman Bros mortgage packages? Are the mortgages regulated by the SEC? When a bank presents fake figures to the FED is this due to regulations?
5) Has any regulation impeded to sell the know-how, jobs and licenses to China in 2003 providing the rare earths monopoly to China?
I am sure you will find a thorough and well supported explainations to provide for all of it.
BTW, some people keep outsourcing jobs to China: Bain did it recently with Samsonite. Is this due to regulations or because it received an investment credit?
6) When a bank issues a hedge fund - no problem this is a fund not responding to any regulation - has it valued AAA - and uses it to create another fund as well over estimated as AAA and uses it to create another new fund also valued AAA and so on, is this a Ponzi system?

Can you figure out and explain how come banks are creating huge losses of several BILLIONS gambling against the Dolar and on commodities due to regulations?

I was unable to delete this

I was unable to delete this comment which is a response to LIVEMIKE.
Beg pardon for the mess!

Everybody should just relax.

Everybody should just relax. Despite being wildly in the wrong, MATINVA will carry the day, simply because he's got enormous momentum behind him. Far right-wing blowhards have been violently shoving the whole country evermore rightward over the past forty-five years, and their takeover of the country is unstoppable for the simple reason that the movement toward the extreme right is spectacularly profitable for the financial boys, US multinationals, business in general, and the by now all-seeing, all-knowing homeland security people and the Pentagon, which like the old Sherwin-Williams pain ad used to have it, "covers the world." That ordinary citizens are being screwed to the hilt and the country itself is being driven straight into the ground and rendered an unlivable place, is of absolutely no concern to anyone "who matters," and who matters is people like MATINVA.

So, cool down, steady yourselves, be gracious, take your hat off and tip it to MATINVA, because it's his tip you'll be hoping to get when you wait on him in your new job at Denny's, if you'll be lucky enough to have a job at all, and if there still are Denny's around.

Off with their heads, one and

Off with their heads, one and all.

I agree with the authors

I agree with the authors assertations - there's nothing in it that is not backed up by careful research as he uses clear statistics from the Tax Justice Network, The Forbes 400 and even the IRS. The rest of it is well known to most astute, well read Americans. Everyone knows of Romney's tax avoidance schemes by hiding his money in The Cayman Islands, Swiss banks, etc. Hecould have added a lot more that is "ripping America apart": no penalties or taxes on corporations outsourcing millions of jobs, wealthy individuals enjoying continuing favorable tax treatmentand which is definitely not reinvested to create jobs,, derregulation in industries such as the airlines that have forced bankruptcies and giant layoffs, the unquestionable growing disparity in inocmes between the rich & poor where the top 1% of wealth is equivalent to the wealth of 150 million Americans - an unbelievable disparity, failure to raise the minimum wage to allow the economy to grow ( of course, fat cat corporate heads despise the idea because it might dilute their obscene wealth ), and so much more. Of course, far right Republicans support the obscene wealthy and nothing to have them ante up and pay a higher share of their wealth and profits to allow our economy to recover, makes much sense to them. What a shame!

The sheer level of 3u11$h1t

The sheer level of 3u11$h1t in this article demonstrates a number of things, not least among them is the breathtaking ignorance of the author.
Mr. Buchheit, how about you do some real homework and quit with the lies. Jimmy Carter foisted the 'Affordable Housing Act' on America. That led to banks being FORCED (as in, required by LAW and severe punishments) to loan money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Thus, the financial crisis.

(2) The 10 richest Americans made enough money last year to feed every hungry person on earth for a year.
This is a stupid assertion on its face. America provides more food aid to the world than virtually all other countries combined. If you, personally, can assure that every dollar given won't be hijacked by local despots to line their own pockets, then maybe we'll cut you some slack and buy into your stupid statement.

(3) Avoided taxes could pay off the deficit -- or pay for 20 million jobs.
Another farce. TAX AVOIDANCE is LEGAL, nitwit!! The vast majority of American businesses, including MINE, do everything by the book...according to the law. If you don't like that, don't bitch at us, CHANGE THE LAW!!

(4) An unregulated trading industry costs us another $350 billion a year in taxes
Yet another joke. Investors pay BILLIONS in taxes because every firm handling transactions charges fees for those transactions. Many of those fees are to cover the cost of taxes and regulation THEY must pay for in order to stay in business.

(5) Redistribution is destroying entrepreneurship in America
Apparently, my cat knows more about economics than you do. 'Redistribution', as you put it, pulls money away from producers and gives it to non-producers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with regulation. Regulation pulls money away from the business community and gives it to government where it is forever lost.

How about you post your educational credentials, with respect to economics, here in your blog so we can better understand your background. Personally, I'm calling you out. I don't think you have a financial background at all. I have run a business for 36 years and am personally tired of your lies about such.

Put up, or shut up.

@ MATINVA Have some respect.

@ MATINVA

Have some respect. We are living in a dying democracy, led into the abyss by special interest groups, the ultra wealthy (Koch Brothers for example) and corporate lobbyists.

It truly is time to roll out the guillotines, that or we just need to let the good ole USA die in peace. The decline we are witnessing truly is a result of deregulation, (within the financial industry in particular). SO, how about you shut up. How about you shut your pie hole.

We've seen and heard enough twisted, "serve yourself only" ignorance from the USA right wing Taliban elite. Besides, you've got yours, so leave the rest of us alone if you haven't anything constructive to say.

And BTW, I had my own business for well over 30 years and it is gone now thanks to the vulture capitalists and legislators who pushed for deregulation, especially over the past 15 years, and who wrecked the world's economy and the industry I worked to support, and it ain't coming back.

You are the one living the life of a pig, while embracing a lie. I am calling you out.

And just in case you want to educate yourself a little before you die and go to the great beyond, watch the documentary, "Inside Job" narrated by Matt Damon. http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

You might not crow so loudly.

Well, well, if it isnt John

Well, well, if it isnt John Gault coming to lecture us people on economics. Since you have claimed to run a business for 36 years, one must assume that it is the same business for 36 years, I am sure you have engaged in shady business practices during that period. How many people did you cheat out of their retirement plan. How many times have you fudged your books to pay lower taxes. You rail against income redistribution, only if it is downward. Income has been redistributed upwards for some 30 years, called the Reagan Revolution. How about you post your credentials and where you live, and the name of the company so we can all fact check your claims.

MATINVA: You're an example of

MATINVA:

You're an example of the uncivility of the Right and the defenders of the real "Takers." Anyone can come here and pretend to be an economics expert and claim umpteen years of running a business. After all, this is the Internet, not a barfight.

You say if we don't like the way things are in business today, don't blame the businessmen, change the law. It seems to me that this was the point of the author's essay. No one can rightly accuse the businessmen of illegal behavior if they take advantage of tax dodges and loopholes, but the ethics of it...?

Anyway, by pointing out the unfair advantages of the wealthy today, the author of this essay leads a person to conclude that the present laws are bad and should be changed.

No need to blow your gasket about your misunderstanding of the essay. Still, you have to wonder about that talk about being "legal," as if that made everything right.

Chill out, and learn some manners. This is not a UFC bout, but a political discourse.

And don't forget that Economics is more of an art than a science, and it's hard, for example, to get "expert" economists to agree on solutions to our Bush-ravaged economy, so forgive us if we think you don't have a private claim to the Truth.

@MATINVA- (2) I think I agree

@MATINVA-

(2) I think I agree with you on this. It's fair to translate money into jobs, as in hiring ten additional nurses for each county in the United States. Translating it into limited goods or resources like food, however, is just deciding who gets to have them.

(3) Getting the law changed is exactly his point.

(4) If firms charge fees for transactions, the firms benefit. These are not taxes paid to the government.

(5) You may want to give some more thought to your simple dichotomy of "producers" and "non-producers". First, what is being produced? Who benefits by it? Is anyone injured by it? If I manufacture burglary tools and sell them to thieves who use them to break into your shop or home and plunder you, I am certainly a producer and a businessperson, but are you satisfied with my contribution to the economy? Second, being a "producer" may be limited by factors other than willingness to work. To produce, one needs access to resources in some form. As an extreme case, we might imagine a world in which the wealth is polarized to such an extent that it all belongs to a single man. Everything he needs is produced by high-tech equipment and serviced by more high-tech equipment. He owns the whole world, and he needs no one else's services. His system can produce everything that everyone needs, but he has no need to employ anybody. You and I are out of work, non-producers who will starve to death unless he takes pity on us and sends some of his produce our way, or we murder him and redistribute his property. Where resources are limited, they cannot be up for grabs, and in this case either ownership or regulations, and not just hard-workingness, will limit whether one can be a "producer" or not.

Best, Rory

Matinva, your incivility is

Matinva, your incivility is topped only by your arrogance.
(You ride that high horse, fella, yee-haw!)
I do have a bit of a bone to pick with your, "Carter" and "Housing Act" references.

I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of greedy little bankers and mortgage brokers further stinking up Wall Street and the major houses of finance by STILL blaming consumers for their toxic "mortgage based securities" schemes.

These gangster-bankers failed grossly to even pretend to perform their due diligence on loan requests; approving of loans with only STATED INCOME and failing to verify even the basic financial and background information on applicants; hell, in the great wall street free for all of 2008, even a few dogs got mortgage approvals! Woof.

Sorry, but, all this giving on behalf of our ever-civic-minded masters of finance, was neither to provide the American dream of home ownership for Americans, nor to escape the sharp lash of federal regulators; rather they were gainfully and gleefully signing off on unsupportable loans, packaging them into massively insured financial instruments and just counting down the hours until these packages reached critical mass and failed, as intended. So they could collect AGAIN when they did fail. Wowsa!
Gosh, that really sounds sort of...criminal, doesn't it?
It was a heinous breach of trust.

@MATIVA I think everyone of

@MATIVA

I think everyone of your arguments is invalid because your premises do not lead directly to your conclusions. here are a few examples using your number points:

(1) 'Affordable Housing Act' on America. That led to banks being FORCED (as in, required by LAW and severe punishments) to loan money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Thus, the financial crisis.

Not true by a long shot. The housing crises came about in the mid nineties after a group of young Yale grands working for a large banking corp were tasked with how to make more money selling loans as derivatives. There just weren't enough loans out there to make the money the bank wanted to make selling them. So they needed a way to either create more loans or turn loans otherwise not meant to be bought and sold as derivatives. So that's when home loans got into play, and bad loans were good loans because you could bet against them failing or not, and make money on them when they failed. The problem with this is that so many banks began selling bad loans--and loaning them-- in order to sell them and then bet on their failure, that the banks putting up the derivative insurance could not pay them--thus the crises.

" Indeed, the use of derivatives to conceal credit risk from third parties while protecting derivative counterparties contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 in the United States.[3][4]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_%28finance%29) It's cited too, so don't argue that its wiki. Use the original source cited in wiki and argue with that.

(2) You miss the point, which is this is how much they made--a comparison of how much 10 people have, and how many people that much money can feed for an entire year. It's not about actually curing hunger.

(3) No one said it wasn't legal. Again you miss the point. His point is that if we closed those loops, we would have no deficit.

(4) Again, you are not seeing the forest through the trees. America had the largest economy and banking system prior to the melt down in 2008. This even in spite of all the taxes you say they have to pay "just to stay in business." In other words, why were banks so solid, and our economy so secure, up until all of the deregulation of the 90s and 2000s?

(5) Again, you miss his point. He's saying that by letting banks and a few people keep so much money isn't creating jobs, or allowing small businesses to thrive. The facts are there too. You should read them. In fact, since deregulation, we have increased unemployed, which means reduced jobs, and weakened our economy, while increasing our debt. Another fact is that corporations, in spite of deregulation and record low taxes, lost 10 million American jobs between 2000 and 2009.

(6) This is a simple informal fallacy called "poisoning the well." In other words, the fact I don't have any mathematical credentials does not mean I cannot say factually that R x T = D.

@dwdallam Your point about

@dwdallam

Your point about derivative being the major contributed to the housing crisis is right on the money. You just forgot to mention the Real factor which is GOOD OLE FASHION AMERICAN GREED from both investors & borrowers that landed our economy into the state that it is in.

The latest deregulation blooper b.k.a the TARP program which was a tax payer rescue fund for financial institutions practicing moral hazardous principals and claiming it to be creative investing. Try illegal investing that has sent or economy into a recession, contributed to our already hushed raising inflation and devalued our currency.

Contrary to what some believe as Paul expels in the article if some serious legislative changes are not made, the economy current state will lead to a redistribution of wealth where only the wealthy i.e 1% income will continue to grow and the middle class will have to kiss the American dream of pure capitalism good-bye .

Then good people, is when we will turn on the evening news and find people like Matavia front and center with her cat at these Too Big to Fail entities (including the white house) with whips, chains, torches and signs that wails "shit just got real." LOL

I am a capitalists thru and thru so I am somewhat opposed to yes I dare say it socialism. But with all the the deregulation our economy is seeing it looks look like we are inadvertently heading in that direction or even worst communism!!!! Moreover , legislation ,GOD bless Bernanke soul, at its current state has the working class tax payer over exposed and unprotected and that's not cool. (metaphor ppl) I mean dang Big Brother I get we all contributed to global warming, but y'all just gonna leave us mid day on July 4th in the middle of Wal-mart huge hot ass uncovered parking lot butt naked with no shades, hat, or SPF 15, that Cold-blooded ,we don't deserve that. Something have to change. I am just saying..............

DWDALLAM: Well said, my good

DWDALLAM: Well said, my good fellow.
Might I carry you around in my pocket awhile?
For my personal, " I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here" moment.

You are wrong; who knows

You are wrong; who knows nothing about economics;most of what Mr Buchheit said is accurate; billions are lost in revenues to the country every tax year; if you doubt that YOU know nothing about basic math and human nature; yes, its all legal and the laws on all of it should be changed but if the laws WERE changed I bet youd be the first to complain about that. And the trading industries fees cover the cost of taxes and regulations? Hardly, they are art of profit mix, profits and earnings which will be misrepresented if they can get away with it and taxes on same will be avoided one way or the other.

It has occurred to me that

It has occurred to me that the one-percenters and the superPACs are using their wealth just to entertain themselves. They have not one iota of concern for this country. Why should they? This is their form of having fun with their power. They care little about the consequences because they, at least for now, are immune from them. And they couldn't care less about the consequences for the rest of us. They just want to have some fun.

Politics, the new toy for the

Politics, the new toy for the super rich. They live in an alternate universe where money can buy anything. The COKE brothers are living examples. David COKE likes Libertarian philosophy, where predators rule. They couldnt convince the public of the wisdom of their strange ideas, so they set about buying polititians. So they can now enforce their Libertarian ideas on the rest of the country. So long as they inhabit their alternate universe, everything will be fine, but if they come out into the real world, their money may not be able to buy everything. It may well turn out that the COKE brothers dreams will be shattered in this election. Personally think they belong in JAIL.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...