Best Posts

User avatar
Posted by Herman Two Feather
14 Sep 2016, 10:02 am

Posts: 180
crimsongulf » 05 Sep 2016 6:45 pm wrote:
Herman Two Feather » 05 Sep 2016 6:35 pm wrote:
Why you be hatingum, haterum?

Nigga, why you wanna fuck wit my wampum? :omg:

Nigga you r a wimp
You ridum pony backwards! :ninja:

User avatar
Posted by Misty
25 Sep 2016, 10:50 pm

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 20876
Cannonpointer » 25 Sep 2016 10:10 pm wrote:
You've now named july 25 oe?f 96 and jan 15 of 95 - wanna go with a THOID date? :)

The website where I found the link to Getty Images gave the wrong date.

Image ... e-fiction/

I assume the date on the image is the right one.


You really seem to want to pick a fight with me tonight, don'tcha?

BTW, here is another picture taken at the same time by a different photographer.
So she must also be in on the conspiracy.
As you can see by the text on the presidential seal, she reversed the image, which is why HRC is in the left in this image.


Termn8tor's Photo
Posted by Termn8tor
18 Nov 2015, 1:30 pm

Posts: 35
danobivins » 31 Oct 2015 11:55 am wrote:
I have suggested this before, and I'll point it out again, if the IP address is checked, just for curiosity's sake, I'm nearly certain that rayj and nefarious are soks of one another.
Only game-playing kids with nothing to contribute use soks and post under them. Pathetic.

I am "in their camp," so to speak. But I have to agree with this post.

User avatar
Posted by Herman Two Feather
25 May 2015, 5:39 am

Posts: 180
nuckin futz » 20 May 2015 1:34 pm wrote:
Herman Two Feather » 20 May 2015 1:17 am wrote:

Cannon no usum socks.

Him haveum too much inschmegrity.

What? You have too much insmegmagrity?

You better keep a sock on that thing!!! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

CANNON haveum insndhmegrity. Me havum pregnant squaw.

Dean Martin's Photo
Posted by Dean Martin
08 Dec 2015, 12:26 pm

Posts: 49
NeoConvict » 20 Nov 2015 7:22 am wrote:
Technocrat » 19 Nov 2015 10:58 pm wrote:
I still can't understand how Christianity is really monotheistic either. Catholicism has basically a pantheon of demi-gods called Saints and a bunch of pagan deities transformed into angels and other divine creatures. God has three entirely separate avatars yet "the same being." Sounds almost like Hinduism. Either Catholicism is polytheism lite or Christians just don't know how to arithmetic well.

I don't know how people can claim there are different oceans when they are all just one big connected body of water. Saints are not demigods, just humans who got the job done right. Think of them as life experts. Angels are similarly not gods, just critters more powerful than man. A grizzly is more powerful than man, its not a demigod. I can add just fine. One God, three different aspects of the same being. Not that hard to figure out.

Not according to jews. According to jews, he is the bastard offspring of a roman soldier and a jewish prostitute.

According to muslims, he is a holy man and a speaker of truth.

Dean Martin's Photo
Posted by Dean Martin
08 Dec 2015, 12:30 pm

Posts: 49
NeoConvict » 08 Dec 2015 11:28 am wrote:
Fake Muslim Broad » 08 Dec 2015 11:26 am wrote:
NeoConvict » 20 Nov 2015 7:22 am wrote:

I don't know how people can claim there are different oceans when they are all just one big connected body of water. Saints are not demigods, just humans who got the job done right. Think of them as life experts. Angels are similarly not gods, just critters more powerful than man. A grizzly is more powerful than man, its not a demigod. I can add just fine. One God, three different aspects of the same being. Not that hard to figure out.

Not according to jews. According to jews, he is the badtard offspring of a prostitute. According to muslims, he is a holy man and a speaker of truth.
Get back under your Burka. Does your HUSBAND know you are on the internets? :D


User avatar
Posted by Reverend Al Sharpton
02 Oct 2016, 7:32 pm

Posts: 227
roadkill » 02 Oct 2016 7:29 pm wrote:

No you didn't...I did! :rofl:

You Sharpton snorkle.
You needs to abstitute from agnifying ME in this insigniation - I codify myself nutriatious, bitch.

Dean Martin's Photo
Posted by Dean Martin
18 Apr 2015, 5:40 am

Posts: 49
Vegas » 12 Nov 2014 12:31 am wrote:
Do you idiot libs ever get tired of being owned? I swear it's like you guys are proud of getting your ass kicked or something.

Ben Affleck

Li li li li li li li li...

I am sorry to you for the answer do I give of your post, but you are the ignoramous.

Do I am an American, I am ashame to myself for you. In any civilize country, you and all of your family would be sold like meat in the public market. You have fail you schools, and you schools have fail you.

You are assume the letter is by real muslim woman, but some muslim women not real. Also, maybe she off her meds.

Do I am the minister of emigration, I sending you to turkey because you are turkey. I put poop in your dinner plate, which you eat with left hand. 8-)

User avatar
Posted by Fuelman
29 Oct 2014, 3:46 pm

User avatar

Posts: 5352
I will openly admit I was not aware of this history and how Corporations came to be in the US. Maybe, just maybe, when pointing your finger at the other side, this will stick in the cobwebs of our brains and realize EVERY AMERICAN has been sold down the road for a little pocket change BY ALL POLITICIANS AND JUDGES for the last 150 years.

This may be the proof that WE ALL VOTE AGAINST OUR BEST INTEREST and neither party Politician really has our best interest in mind.

Those old, dead, white guys knew what they were doing. They knew the REAL MEANING of FREEDOM!!

Defend, Debunk, Debate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ... ations-us/

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.
In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.
The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters.
Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”
Many U.S.-based corporations are now transnational, but the corrupted charter remains the legal basis for their existence. At Reclaim Democracy!, we believe citizens can reassert the convictions of our nation’s founders who struggled successfully to free us from corporate rule in the past. These changes must occur at the most fundamental level — the U.S. Constitution.

Dean Martin's Photo
Posted by Dean Martin
26 Dec 2014, 9:51 pm

Posts: 49
Huey » 26 Dec 2014 9:47 am wrote:
Is Cannon allowing the discussions between his multiple personalities in his head to post argue with each other on the forum? Or was did he feel left out because everyone was ignoring him so he decided to argue with himself?

With that clown, who can say? I agree with you 100%.

Still, have a reddie. :)

Brattle Street's Photo
Posted by Brattle Street
24 Sep 2014, 8:55 pm

Brattle Street       

Posts: 14222

just imagine how much phony holy outrage he could muster if women were allowed to vote

User avatar
Posted by Reverend Al Sharpton
11 Apr 2015, 8:02 am

Post 11 Apr 2015, 8:02 am

Posts: 227
Str8tEdge » 11 Apr 2015 7:59 am wrote:

She told me she was in community college. The ones around here don't give bachelor degrees. :)


Dean Martin's Photo
Posted by Dean Martin
21 Oct 2015, 4:56 am

Posts: 49
golfboy » 12 Oct 2015 8:50 pm wrote:
Strange how often that old book of fables turns out to be right.
"Egypt’s Antiquities Ministry announced this morning that a team of underwater archaeologists had discovered that remains of a large Egyptian army from the 14th century BC, at the bottom of the Gulf of Suez, 1.5 kilometers offshore from the modern city of Ras Gharib. The team was searching for the remains of ancient ships and artifacts related to Stone Age and Bronze Age trade in the Red Sea area, when they stumbled upon a gigantic mass of human bones darkened by age.

The scientists lead by Professor Abdel Muhammad Gader and associated with Cairo University’s Faculty of Archaeology, have already recovered a total of more than 400 different skeletons, as well as hundreds of weapons and pieces of armor, also the remains of two war chariots, scattered over an area of approximately 200 square meters. They estimate that more than 5000 other bodies could be dispersed over a wider area, suggesting that an army of large size who have perished on the site.

"Many clues on the site have brought Professor Gader and his team to conclude that the bodies could be linked to the famous episode of the Exodus. First of all, the ancient soldiers seem to have died on dry ground, since no traces of boats or ships have been found in the area. The positions of the bodies and the fact that they were stuck in a vast quantity of clay and rock, implie that they could have died in a mudslide or a tidal wave.

The shear number of bodies suggests that a large ancient army perished on the site and the dramatic way by which they were killed, both seem to corroborate the biblical version of the Red Sea Crossing, when the army of the Egyptian Pharaoh was destroyed by the returning waters that Moses had parted. This new find certainly proves that there was indeed an Egyptian army of large size that was destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea during the reign of King Akhenaten.

For centuries, the famous biblical account of the “Red Sea Crossing” was dismissed by most scholars and historians as more symbolic than historical." ... dus/123111

I am always hear people to say, "stupid ass." Now I am understand - YOU are the stupid ass. :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:

Termn8tor's Photo
Posted by Termn8tor
04 Dec 2015, 7:01 am

Posts: 35
Obummerstinks » 03 Dec 2015 11:38 pm wrote:
The bet's available little lady, care to put a year on this site on it?

He'd just come back as a sok - this fucking board is way too full of soks already. :twisted:

User avatar
Posted by Herman Two Feather
07 Jan 2016, 6:54 pm

Posts: 180
Cannonpointer » 07 Jan 2016 5:53 pm wrote:
Technocrat » 07 Jan 2016 5:49 pm wrote:

I like to live vicariously through your wrongness. ;)
The only tip I can give you is: "If you are going to insult and attack people, make sure you're right first." Style over substance is bad.

I'm sure you're right.

And if you're not, I have solid evidence that I'll not be getting an admission of it from YOU, 1000 batter. :)

Him Injun name-um, "bats-um 1000um."

Termn8tor's Photo
Posted by Termn8tor
18 Nov 2015, 4:00 pm

Posts: 35
Spain also issued a warrant for the Butcher of Santiago.

Good on Spain.

User avatar
Posted by Obummerstinks
16 Dec 2014, 1:07 am

User avatar

Posts: 9031
Cannonpointer » 15 Dec 2014 10:30 pm wrote:

yes yes - good GRIEF! What the heck is going on???

I have a "problem with facts" - i bet. You SAID it. It MUST be true. You COULD have shown my lies. You CHOSE not to - yeah, that's the ticket! :drool:

Let's review the first sentence of this thread, shall we?

Not if but when...

So the thread is NOT, as the post I'm answering falsely implies, about the blameworthiness of some shmoe, shmoe. THAT YOU NEED ME TO AGREE THE MUSLIM IS A FRUIT CAKE SHOWS WHAT A FREAKISH RELATIONSHIP YOU HAVE TO THIS TOPIC, SNEAKY PETE. This thread is about your sneaky agenda, which rears its snout in every blanket head thread. From the first fucking post, this thread has been about torturing ,muslims, going to war with muslims, painting every muslim with the same brush.

You've tried to bullshit us about how you know these people on account of you rub shoulders. My dog goes to the store with me and can't tell you how I get money or how money works. You know one fucking thing about muslims: They scare you. As a result of that ONE THING, you have been a relentless torture apologist and advocate. You have lied that we only waterboarded 3 terrorists, AND you have lied that the recent revelations are old news - which would make it old news that you;ve lied about for a decade.

So you have a pattern of deception - meaning outright, provable lies and I dare you to deny it and get your fucking ass buried in your prevarications. How many times would you LIKE to be dick-slapped with separate instances of you parroting "three wet terrorists, three wet terrorists," side by side with your lies that the senate report divulged no new information - ihe HUNDREDS tortured was all stuff that we already knew? We knew about the coffins, about the beatings that lead to death, about the widespread viollations of international torture treaties? And you lied abo
ut all of that for all these years?

Yeah - good GRIEF! What the heck is going on????

What's going on is that a sneaky, passive aggressive, deliberately dishonest torture advocate is trying to do his little part in shitmouthing this nation back into shameful cowardice - and getting called on every twist of his Judas knife in America's back.

You hate us for our freedoms, son.

You know CP, I'd like to think you're not this truly ignorant. Maybe you're just trying to get a rise and this is one of your attacks du jour - or maybe you are this ignorant. Hard to say. At least with 2 Feathers one could get a better read.

At any rate, I'll play your game for a post or two, why not - I suppose that's partially what this site is about.

You reference a "freakish relationship with this topic". No, I made a simple statement based on fact. Additionally, people general tend to post on topics they're knowledgeable on. Am I a scholar on the topic? Hell no. But I've now spent almost 28 years going in and out of the Middle East and Africa on an all to regular basis, so my statements on the topic are not only based on fact, but it's based on a shitload of experience. How much time have you spent in the ME? Reading shit online doesn't count.

I also note that while you attack on this aspect of the subject, you're mute in many other threads where I support the non-radicalized Muslims, where I make the consistent statement that most are decent people, and it's the whackamoe's perverting their religion for their sick cause. How can I make that statement, in addition to the opening line in the OP? Experience son, something you have none of - other than what you conjure in your mind in the hopes you sound all knowing. I'm curious, how many Muslims do you call friends? I have numerous, both of the brown skin variety and the black variety, and some that I've been friends with for a couple of decades. You? I thought so.....

You like to bring up torture and associated bullshit, why? I don't, nor have I advocated for people to be tortured. While you recklessly spew that meme, you continue to sound more and more like an idiot. Lied that "we only waterboarded three terrorists"? As on another topic a while ago, it seems you have me mixed up with someone else. Go ahead and post where I've said that, I'll be waiting.

Scared of Muslims? What a moronic statement. As referenced earlier, I have many friends in my work overseas for almost 28 years that are good people - that happen to be Muslims. If you had half a clue as to what you were talking about, you'd realize what an ass you're making of yourself. Maybe scared of terrorists? Nope, but I would say an appropriate word would definitely be concerned. You see, we're losing this battle. We're fighting it on their terms. We, and the West, are weakening as they are getting stronger. We spend millions to drop a few bombs, blow a few up here and their - all so a "president" can say he's fighting the radicals. He isn't doing jack shit other than further stirring the pot, and emboldening these fuckers. Looks nifty to the dopes that watch the boob tube to see an explosion here or there, but it means nothing. Ooohhhh, look how tough we are, look how tough Obozo is ehhh skippy? Our country, with spineless twits such as the many represented on this board - has no backbone. We're not what we once were. We're not the good guys, and we're not a nation with resolve - in fact, quite the opposite. This, in addition to all the other fucked up shit destroying our country from the inside out, is what we're leaving for our children. Ya......concerned would be a damn good word.

So by all means, post this massive support of torture, I look forward to it. That, or sit back with your weak ass and shut the fuck up. You're just another chump on an entertainment website, sitting on his haunches spewing a bunch of bullshit.

User avatar
Posted by Henry_
15 Oct 2015, 9:50 pm

User avatar

Posts: 8502
RichClem » 15 Oct 2015 3:50 pm wrote:

I'm recalling from memory, wackjob, and given that it was decades ago and that he immediately renounced Reagan's policies, I'm likely correct.

Got a source, Dim?

No? Then STFU.

I haven't forgotten that at all, liar. Inflation wasn't even the topic. However, it was also Supply Side that helped lower inflation by stimulating supply.

What a babbling leftist liar you are. :\

I cited the liberal NYTimes, your side's Paper of Record admitting that the deficits were caused by spending, not by Reagan's tax cuts.

But lying leftist that you are, you won't admit the truth right in front of your eyes.

You have an annoying habit of breaking up responses into dozens of posts, is it to increase people to follow you

You know damn well he was a supply sider and no his opinion later expressed does not mean that he wasn't a supply sider,
it means he acknowledged its flaws. Unlike you, you're a simpleton/cultist, a non thinker. The cultist you are demands that
you look at that entire period with cherry picked stats and irrelevant questions to deflect. The Fed Chair's influence and
decisions played a significant role on curtailing inflation...the boom was NOT related to sole tax reductions as you claim.

Stockman became one of the most controversial OMB directors ever, which lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine
of supply-side economics, he assisted in the passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped would be a serious
curtailment of the "welfare state" ( wiki source )

His own words: ... 1&lpg=PT23

Why do you keep harping on the revenues during that period? Revenues nearly doubled during earlier periods without supply side what is it you're trying to prove?

REVENUE EFFECTS OF MAJOR TAX BILLS by Jerry Tempalski U.S. Department of the Treasury ... ota81.pdfs

snip*But we can get even more specific about the impact of the 1981 cut in rates. A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion. Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.

Moore, in an interview, acknowledged that “certainly there were tax increases” but he insisted that the cut in tax rates generated “huge revenue gains.” He said that the “tax increases were small, compared to the tax cut, which was huge.” In particular, he said that the wealthy started paying more in taxes, and he said the booming economy resulted in increased tax revenues.

That’s actually not readily apparent from the data. Certainly, the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent went from 17.9 percent in 1981 to 25.2 percent in 1989, for an increase of 37 percent, according to IRS data. But the income share of the top 1 percent increased even more dramatically, from 8.3 percent to 14.2 percent—a gain of 71 percent. So a lot of the increase in taxes came from a more dramatic increase in wealth.

Moore directed us to a paper he co-wrote in 1996 while at the Cato Institute, which offered a defense of the Reagan economic record. As we said, that’s for economic historians to sort out. But the paper says it was “an enduring myth” that Reagan officials believed tax cuts would pay for themselves. “This was nonsense from day one, because the credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedbacks from tax cuts is 35 cents per dollar, at most,” the paper says, noting that “the Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves.” ... s-of-jobs/

Where do you get the bullshit you can blame Democrats for his spending? Out of your ass? Reagan demanded billions more for foreign aid and
HE pushed through Congress HIS goal to give more than 8 billion to the know that LEFTY group you hate so much.

You're a fucking partisan hack and if ANYTHING/ANYONE from that administration goes off script, you have no clue how to explain it.

User avatar
Posted by Huey
23 May 2017, 8:10 pm

User avatar

Posts: 29872
Jeremy » 23 May 2017 7:59 pm wrote:
Huey » 22 May 2017 8:41 pm wrote:
Is this how we grow the forum? Allowing the senior moderator to attack posters and then threaten to ban them when they attempt to rebut the comments?

Go for it Misty. Abuse those powers. Is this your personal forum?

As a three time loser, in more ways than one, I can tell you that you will lose this battle miserably. And you'll be lucky if your balls are still intact after Cannonpunter kicks your ass.

Lol! Cannon and I have had some epic battles. I'm sure this is not going to start another, chicken hawk. Believe it or not we even agree sometime. So if you want to go at it, son, pick a real topic. Don't become a strap hanger to a bullshit thread.

I have been here for years battling the idiot known as Misty as well as the old forum. I'm still here. Under the same name.

Can you say the same?

User avatar
Posted by Reverend Al Sharpton
26 Apr 2015, 5:39 am

Posts: 227
Reasonable » 25 Apr 2015 11:11 pm wrote:
Wonder why we never hear conservatives talk much about Wall St. Cough cough.

California’s report said $440 million. New Jersey’s said $600 million. In Pennsylvania, the tally is $700 million. Those Wall Street fees paid by public workers’ pension systems have kicked off an intensifying debate over whether such expenses are necessary. Now, a report from an industry-friendly source says those huge levies represent only a fraction of the true amounts being raked in by Wall Street firms from state and local governments.

“Less than one-half of the very substantial [private equity] costs incurred by U.S. pension funds are currently being disclosed,” says the report from CEM, whose website says the financial analysis firm “serve(s) over 350 blue-chip corporate and government clients worldwide.”

Currently, about 9 percent—or $270 billion—of America’s $3 trillion public pension fund assets are invested in private equity firms. With the financial industry’s standard 2 percent management fee, that quarter-trillion dollars generates roughly $5.4 billion in annual management fees for the private equity industry—and that’s not including additional “performance” fees paid on investment returns. If CEM’s calculations are applied uniformly, it could mean taxpayers and retirees may actually be paying double—more than $10 billion a year.

Public officials are overseeing this massive payout to Wall Street at the very moment many of those same officials are demanding big cuts to retirees’ promised pension benefits.

“With billions of public worker and taxpayer dollars put at risk in the highest-cost, most opaque investment schemes ever devised by Wall Street for a decade now, investigations that hold Wall Street profiteers accountable are long, long overdue,” said former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Ted Siedle.

Private equity firms have argued that their fees are worth the expense, because they supposedly deliver returns for investors that beat low-fee index funds, which track the broader stock market. But those private equity returns are typically self-reported by the firms over the life of those longer-term investments, meaning there are few ways to verify whether the returns are real. Indeed, a recent study from George Washington University argued that private equity firms are using their self-reporting authority to mislead investors into believing their returns are smoother and more consistent than they actually are.

In a 2014 speech, the SEC’s top examiner, Andrew Bowden, sounded the alarm about undisclosed fees in the private equity industry, saying the agency had discovered “violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50 percent of the time” at firms it had evaluated.

To date, however, the SEC has taken few actions to crack down on the practices, but some states are starting to step up their oversight.

In New Jersey, for instance, pension trustees announced a formal investigation of Gov. Chris Christie’s administration after evidence surfaced suggesting that the Republican administration has not been disclosing all state pension fees paid to financial firms.

In Rhode Island, the new state treasurer, Seth Magaziner, a Democrat, recently published a review of all the fees that state’s beleaguered pension fund has paid. The analysis revealed that the former financial firm of Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo is charging the state’s pension fund the highest fee rate of any firm in its asset class.

In Pennsylvania, the new Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf used his first budget address to call for the state “to stop excessive fees to Wall Street managers.”

These moves are shining a spotlight on one of the most lucrative yet little-noticed Wall Street schemes. With so much money at issue - and with pensioners retirement income on the line—that scrutiny is long overdue.

David Sirota is a senior writer for the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover,” “The Uprising” and “Back to Our Future.” Email him at, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at

Annuva hitten espence is the UL. We pays ten times ackshul costs for lots of items because of NO COMPETITION. The Underwriters Laboratory is a gate keeper which prevents main street from getting into the market. If you can't access Wall Street level financing, then you are locked out of the market. A good example is solar panels. You can make one for two hundred bucks in material and a hundred more in labor. But it costs millions to get that UL stamp - and almost every regulatory environment requires it. So wall street has a lock - instea dof competing for market they seize ownership of it, And we pay.