Top Thief to Lower Orders

Get back to work! More bricks! Less straw!

The amazing thing about the age we live in is that the people he has fleeced will, in large numbers, go to the mat to defend him from those who name him for what he is: a thief who has profited from a $10 billion heist.

"I think part of what is wrong with American politics is that our founders combined ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Not sure if i agree with this. I think this desire for a king highly ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Speaking as a Brit, I am a keen fan of retaining our monarchy principally because ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Fascinating piece Mark, and leads me to reflect on our last election. Essentially, it was ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nonymous

    25 year career is funny — Goldman Sachs execs are encouraged to put in 20 years or so and then “leave” the firm and take up “second careers” at Federal Reserve member banks, state government, or the Treasury Department. Maybe that’s what he means. Social Security was never intended to support me after my 25 year career in auto repair; I’m supposed to leave and take up a “second career” as a Wal-Mart greeter, thereby broadening the client and information base of the old muffler shop with inside tips garnered from the express checkout aisle.

  • One of the Five Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance?

  • Alexander Anderson

    The cajones possessed by this man must be just huge. Either that, or he’s an out-of-touch idiot. I’m leaning toward the latter.

    • Mark Shea

      What need does he have to be in touch with the lower orders? He is pagan power speaking truth to weakness and saying “The powerful do as they will and the weak suffer what they must. Get back to work!” Expect more of this as our civilization de-Christianizes. When you reject the Defender of the alien, orphan, widow, this is all you have to look forward to.

  • Jimby

    He could be referring to public school teacher unions, auto-union guys, public sector union types, etc. They get to retire after 25 years in many instances, often with very generous benefits.

    Not defending the guy. Just saying that there are some professions in which the prolies do get a relatively cushy ride. Besides, is it somehow Catholic to be pro-retirement? Since when? I want old men to work as long as possible and not be forced out of the professional world until they simply cannot do the work anymore, at which point they can switch to other work. Retirement is, to my mind, undignified. The poor, widows, orphans, etc. may have less to do with this statement than you seem to think.

    I’m all for shaming Mr. Golden Parachute here, but what he’s said is not wholly off the wall, right? Think about your other post about good things coming from people in serious error on other issues. Sift the Gold, man. (pun! yay!)

    • ivan_the_mad

      “He could be referring to public school teacher unions, auto-union guys, public sector union types, etc.” Don’t forget the military.

      • Liam

        Or public safety.

  • First of all, Goldman Sachs is insufficiently insured. The creation of the term “too big to fail” is a cover for a certain kind of underinsurance, one that kicks in when your company bloats up like a glutton and nobody can understand the risks, much less cover them in such a complex entity while you have so much political clout that regulators just accept that state of affairs and allow ordinary people to believe the false state of affairs that Goldman Sachs is safe. The CEO is responsible for that. He should have been fired for maintaining such a status.

    Anybody who has a fiduciary responsibility should be careful and avoid dealing with underinsured firms which certainly includes Goldman Sachs today. Were it to shrink down to a status where it was sufficiently insured, this disability would go away. It is unlikely that a sufficiently insured Goldman Sachs would be a systemic risk.

    The question of social security is entirely separate. The US government, by law, has an annual trustees report on the viability of Social Security. Everybody criticizing the Social Security comments really needs to read the trustee reports. In 2036, if nothing else goes wrong, we will have massive social security benefit cuts as per current law. The date of these cuts has been creeping forward (getting worse) lately. Cutting Social Security taxes by 2% as a recession fighting measure made things worse (brought the date closer to today).

    It is important that we fix this situation as it is neither fiscally prudent, nor morally admissible to sit idly by and whiplash the seniors of this country with the massive cuts that will happen suddenly and at a somewhat unpredictable date. For example, we were expected to “go negative” on our SS trust funds in 2017. The actual “go negative” date was 2010 and future projections are that we will continue to be negative until the trust funds are exhausted and the benefit cuts kick in, restoring social security to a paygo basis. It’s reasonable to believe that these massive cuts will occur in 2036 +/- 7 years. It’s reasonable that bad things will happen in between and the funds will go broke prior to 2029. Nobody’s prediction horizon goes out 17 years except in the broadest of ways.

    Part of the fiscal challenge is that in 1940 those who made it to 65 lived an average of 12 years. Now that figure is 18 years. Those extra 6 years are expensive and need to be planned adequately. The USA has not planned adequately or collected sufficient money to cover the difference. While the CEO gets the number of extra years wrong, the concept is fairly uncontroversial.

    Can we agree to mock what should be mocked and not mock the accurate parts? It is perfectly possible for an immorally irresponsible piece of pond scum to get economic analysis correct. The two things are not particularly connected. One should take care to separate that analysis from the moral status of the person giving the analysis.

    • Spot on! Lutus, I would trade a king’s ransom for merely half your eloquence.

      What is ironic is that it’s not but four posts later that mark shea makes the same point about separating analysis.

      Maybe someday we’ll get Mark to lead by example, eh? 😉

      • Mark Shea is not a saint. Neither am I. While he has made egregious mistakes in the past, I do not count them any worse than my own and in such cases try to reflect on the Lord’s Prayer section on forgiveness. That bit has thorns on it and should be a regular topic of meditation in every combox.

        Mark, any chance of adding “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” into the boilerplate on the comment form? I can’t imagine a circumstance where it would hurt and imagine several where it would help.

        • Too true and I’m no more immune. That’s why I try to make it a habit to avoid areas where I know I’m weak against temptation.

          Some days you understand those ascetic monks since I’ve found nothing strains my charity towards my fellow man… more than dealing with my fellow man.

  • tz

    Would that even one bishop echo this.