Video: US Senator Elizabeth Warren Introduces the the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act

US Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act on May 10, 2013. She made several good points about student loans, the most depressing one being that interest rates for new subsidized student loans will increase from 3.4 to 6.8 percent on July 1, unless congress does something about it.

She noted that banks get to borrow from the Federal Reserve at 0.75 percent, the same banks that destroyed the economy. The Federal Reserve has also lent and or given out tens of trillions of dollars to the banks on behalf of rich investors, so yes we can afford to push interest rates down on student loans.

However, the banks have investors who want more and more profits, while students only invest in themselves. Student loans are purchased by Wall Street investment banks, who then slice and dice them, and sell bonds backed by the loans to rich investors. Much of the monthly loan payments made by students go directly into the pockets of investors.

Consequently, the current purpose of student loans are to redistribute income from the borrowers to rich investors. As they examine the bill, everybody in congress and on Wall Street will look at it and wonder, why would any investor buy bonds backed by such low interest rates?

So don’t expect congress to vote yes on the bill without sizable pressure from voters calling them to support it. And, of course, the corporate press will be sure to never mention that the bill exists, except perhaps in the least obvious way, like in small print on page 57, or with a five second clip on the 2am news. That way they won’t alarm the general population to act on federal legislation to their benefit and people won’t call Wall Street’s congressional representatives, such as Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Earl Blumenauer. That way Wall Street hacks won’t complain to the editors.

Read Full Post »

Book Review: The End of the Free Market by Ian Bremmer

This is an incredibly dumb book and it’s very boring. It lacks clarity and decent research to back up it’s point, whatever it is. For example, the author implies that the Smoot-Hawley Act was responsible for the depth of the Great Depression, yet all academic studies show that the act had little impact on the severity of the Great depression. On top of that, Bremmer argues that modern nations don’t attack each other much, but “In 2010, the US troops are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they’re struggling to overcome militants and insurgents, not foreign military powers.”

How brain dead can one get? The United States was not invited by the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to help them against militants and insurgents. Apparently, Ian Bremmer doesn’t know the United States invaded and occupied those nations. That’s how profoundly stupid this book is.

The central argument of the book is that Wall Street is good, although he doesn’t say for what, and that free trade is good, although he doesn’t say for what. All Wall Street needs is more regulation. As if Wall Street would want that.

An accompanying argument is that foreign governments own corporations that compete with private US corporations. And they do this for political purposes. Duh! But the author’s ignorance is so enormous that he cannot comprehend that US corporations own the US government, lock, stock and barrel. For example, agents of the Monsanto corporation wrote the recently passed Monsanto Protection Act that congress passed and President Obama signed. Wall Street investment banks don’t want more regulation, and so the government of which they are the primary shareholders via their investments in politicians, such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, isn’t going to regulate them.

Bremmer is woefully ignorant on too many levels to be taken seriously. He doesn’t comprehend how free trade treaties, for example, redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent and wreck the economy in the process. According the Federal Reserve, over 27 million US jobs have been off shored since Nafta. The difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages gets redistributed into the pockets of the rich via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices and more dividends.

This book doesn’t even deserve one star because it reads like a apology and justification for Wall Street and the many crimes committed by its CEO’s, lawyers, traders and others. It’s pure pointless propaganda with a weak central argument.

Read Full Post »

After Watering Down Financial Reform, Ex-Wall Street Senator Scott Brown Joins Goldman Sachs’ Lobbying Firm

Always a Wall Street warrior during his nearly three years in the U.S. Senate, Scott Brown (R-MA) frequently came to the aid of the financial sector, like watering down the Dodd-Frank bill and working to weaken it after its passage. He accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the industry. Now, the man Forbes Magazine called one of “Wall Street’s Favorite Congressmen” will use those connections as counsel for Nixon Peabody, an international law and lobbying firm, but he won’t be a lobbyist. Senate rules prohibit former Senators from lobbying their former colleagues for two years after they leave office.

Instead, “he will be leaning heavily on his Washington contacts to drum up business for the firm.” The position will also allow him “to begin cashing in on his contacts with the financial services industry, which he helped oversee in the Senate.”

Nixon Peabody represents Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street giant that reportedly skirted the Dodd-Frank rules . In his senate races, Brown received $10,000 in PAC contributions from Goldman and more than $100,000 in contributions from its employees.

“Brown was also the deciding vote against the DISCLOSE Act, which would have allowed voters to see which moneyed interests were funding secret political ads. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which reportedly received millions from Goldman Sachs, led the opposition to the bill.”

Last month, Brown joined the Fox Propaganda Network.

Read Full Post »

Republicans Are Trying to Kill a Citizen Watchdog

“If you’d like to know why Republicans are trying to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, take a look at three things the agency has already accomplished in its first 18 months:

1. It called a halt to predatory practices by mortgage lenders, ensuring that borrowers are not saddled with loans they can’t afford and preventing brokers from earning higher commissions for higher interest rates.

2. It won an $85 million settlement from American Express, which it accused of deceptive and discriminatory marketing and billing practices.

3. It opened an investigation into questionable marketing practices by banks and credit card companies on college campuses, which often take place after undisclosed financial arrangements are made with universities.

The consumer bureau has taken seriously its mandate to protect the public from the kinds of abuses that helped lead to the 2009 recession, and it has not been intimidated by the financial industry’s army of lobbyists. That’s what worries Republicans. They can’t prevent the bureau from regulating their financial supporters. Having failed to block the creation of the bureau in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, they are now trying to take away its power by filibuster, and they may well succeed.”

It looks like the consumer bureau is taking its mandate seriously enough to protect the public from the kinds of abuses that helped lead to the 2007-09 recession, brought on by redistributing income from the 99 to the 1 percent over the previous thirty years, as well as abuses by Wall Street frims. The agency has not been intimidated by the financial industry’s army of lobbyists. That’s what worries Republicans. They can’t prevent the bureau from regulating their financial supporters. Having failed to block the creation of the bureau in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, they are now trying to take away its power by filibuster, and they may well succeed.

“The bureau cannot operate without a director. Under the Dodd-Frank law, most of its regulatory powers — particularly its authority over nonbanks like finance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders and credit agencies — can be exercised only by a director. Knowing that, Republicans used a filibuster to prevent President Obama’s nominee for director, Richard Cordray, from reaching a vote in 2011. Mr. Obama then gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled in another case that the Senate was not in recess at that time because Republicans had arranged for sham sessions.

If this is upheld by the Supreme Court, is likely to apply to Mr. Cordray as well, and that could invalidate the rules the bureau has already enacted. The president has renominated Mr. Cordray, but Republicans have made it clear that they will continue to filibuster, using lying arguments to keep the agency from operating.

A week ago, 43 Senate Republicans wrote the president, and vowed to block any nominee if “key structural changes” are not made. This includes a “bipartisan commission” to run the agency, which most likely will be made up of Wall Street drones.

Read Full Post »

Does the Federal Reserve Manipulate the Stock Market?

Read Full Post »

Record Corporate Profits? How’d they Do That? The Inflation Income Redistribution Scam

By the third quarter of 2012 (which are the latest available data), according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, corporate profits were on pace to exceed the record earnings of 2011, despite a pathetic economy. How did they do it? It’s simple. They shipped jobs overseas and redistributed the difference between the higher paying jobs in the US and the new lower wage jobs elsewhere into the pockets of the already rich via higher dividends and share prices. But CEO’s have discovered a more sinister way to increase profits at the expense of the 99 percent.

They jacked up their prices, and the government deliberately hides those increases by understating inflation.

Three years ago, I could purchase three cans of generic label tuna for a dollar. Two years ago, I could purchase two cans for a dollar. Now I’m lucky to get one can of the same tuna for a dollar, although sometimes I can get a can for .79 cents. Same thing has occurred with gasoline, lettuce, milk, bread, meat and other items. Okay, it’s true sometimes prices for certain items don’t rise, perhaps I-Phones, but you can’t eat them, nor can you put them in your gas tank.

Just using the tuna as an example, the price per can rose from .34 cents to .50 cents to .79 cents, or roughly 45-50 percent per year. Take a look at most things you purchase. Prices are rising rapidly. The difference between the old, lower, prices and the new, higher, prices go into the pockets of the rich via higher corporate earnings, rising dividends and share prices. And the government is covering it up by understating inflation. that’s because of the massive corruption of the federal government.

The government says the US inflation rate for 2012 was 1.7 percent. On the other hand, the Everyday Price Index calls it closer to eight percent, which is probably closer to the truth, which is something our government and corporate media no longer provide us, unless it is convenient for them.

Last summer, Harper’s Magazine pointed out that the government’s measurement of inflation for 2010 was slightly higher than three percent, but the government has changed the way it measures inflation twenty times since 1980. If the old method of measuring inflation from 1980 was used, inflation for 2010 would be almost 11 percent. We would be outraged and demand the government do something about this serious problem. But we can’t be outraged, so the media and government simply lie to us, thus ensuring that we don’t know there’s a problem since the government is covering it up. We’re like frogs in a slowly heating pot of water.

Below is an example of how the corporate lies to us.

“The combined earnings of the Fortune 500 corporations rose 16 percent from 2010 to a record high of $825 billion in 2011, Fortune magazine said.”

“Given the sluggish recovery and a strapped consumer, you’d expect to see corporate America trudging along, not racing for glory,” Fortune’s senior editor-at-large, said.

“In fact, the Fortune 500 are thriving as a group. Unlike the US economy, they’ve shown quicksilver agility, rapidly shifting their product mix and producing more goods at little new cost.”

That is total bull shit. These corporations haven’t “shown quicksilver agility, rapidly shifting their product mix and producing more goods an little new cost.” That’s a lie. They’ve achieved this result simply by raising prices and shifting jobs overseas. These actions have redistributed income and wealth from the 99 percent to the one percent.

The first duty of the editor of any corporate news media outlet is to lie to the American people. That way they can keep their corporate advertisers happy. That’s precisely what Fortune Magazine does.

Read Full Post »

The Military Industrial Complex: Is it the biggest welfare program of them all?

The military-industry complex is not the biggest government welfare program of all time. It might be second, and like the biggest welfare program, the military-industrial complex is welfare for the rich, the 1 percent. Such corporations as General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin rely heavily on government spending to keep their profits soaring, their dividends rising and their share prices climbing. The 1 percent owns most of their shares.

That’s why the United States has a bloated military that is greater in size than the next nine largest military’s in the world combined, although some analysts suggest the US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. That’s likely.

At the peak of the US conquest of Iraq, the US had somewhere in the vicinity of 150,000 mercenaries earning over a $100,000 each. The government called these mercenaries “contractors,” as if they had been contracted to erect buildings. No, these were just mercenaries that had signed contracts to be US mercenaries. If you count these folks, it is likely the US spends more on its military than all other nations in the world.

Income redistribution from the 99 to the 1 percent. That’s what military spending is all about. Tax money, the blood of working Americans, government lies, they’re all redistributed to the rich.

Read Full Post »

Obamacare has been designed to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent!

Obamacare has been designed to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent. We should have expected this since the legislation was written by executives of publicly traded health care corporations whose stocks and bonds are bought and sold in the financial markets.

Take the case of a family of four in which the policyholder is fifty years old. We’ll call this family the Smiths. Say Mr. Smith is a college graduate. So is Mrs. Smith. Let’s assume they earn $93,699 a year in 2014, when all parts of Obamacare becomes the law. After taxes, that’s not a whole lot of money. The Smith’s might be in the lower middle class, maybe solidly middle.

The government is going to force them to purchase a health insurance policy whether they want to or not, or they’ll be penalized and compelled to pay a tax on something they don’t want to buy, which is ridiculous and clearly unconstitutional, as the insurance industries corrupt Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court clearly knows. The Smiths, however, decide to purchase the policy to avoid the hassle.

The cost of that policy will be $16,858 a year, but the government will subsidize the family and the health insurance industry by paying $8,901 of that policy.

The Smiths, however, have neighbors, the Thompsons. Mr and Mrs Thompson have no insurance coverage and they too will be forced by an unconstitutional law to purchase a health insurance policy from a publicly traded, limited liability, corporation. The Thompsons earn $93,700 a year, which is one dollar more than what the Jones earn. Their insurance policy also costs $16,858 a year, but because they earn one dollar more, they’ll need to pay the entire premium under Obamacare.

This will suck the Thompson’s dry, but it will also push health insurance company profits higher, and send their share prices and dividends for the 1 percent surging. The rich will get richer, but what will it do for the Thompsons? After they pay their taxes, the Thompson’s aren’t going to have a ton of money to spend after the insurance industry (and the 1 percent) financially rapes them via Obamacare. The economy might even contract because of the Obamacare income redistribution scam since 70 percent of the economy is consumer driven and the consumers are going to get financially raped big time. The rich, however, will get richer by sucking the middle class dry with another piece of legislation. That’s precisely why Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden voted for the bill. He’s always looking for ways to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Don’t believe me? Click the following link. It’ll you take to Kaiser Permanente’s Health Care Reform Calculator. Plug in your numbers and see. http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx

By the way, this new law may encourage employers everywhere to opt out of providing their employees with health insurance. Target and Walmart have already cut employee hours to opt out of the law.

Read Full Post »

Is Obama Responsible for the Slow Recovery?

Is this poster correct?

The poster is correct, but only to a certain degree. Obama bears some responsibility for the slow creation of jobs. First of all, Charlie Brown was dumb enough to get fooled by Lucy time and time again. Likewise, President Obama was stupid enough to get fooled by his own economic advisers over and over again, notably by the Wall Street toadie, Lawrence Summers.

For example, Obama’s original stimulus package was about three times too small to engineer an economic recovery, and there were plenty of worthwhile economists who said so, such as Nobel prize winners Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz.

Second of all, Obama continues federal policies that redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent, his masters, such as the Crown Brothers of General Dynamics. Those policies began under Ronald Reagan, and include such legislation as free income redistribution trade treaties. Obama has already signed three of these treaties into law knowing they would cost the 99 percent jobs, and the difference between the old higher wages here and the new lower wages there are going into the pockets of the 1 percent via higher corporate profits, rising dividends and surging share prices. Obama knows this. He isn’t stupid, like Charlie Brown. Now the Obama man is negotiating the biggest free income redistribution treaty in USA history, the Trans Pacific Partnership. This scam will redistribute even more income from the 99 to the 1 percent than Nafta. The Guardian calls it “Nafta on Steroids.”

Sure Republicans obstructed Obama’s agenda for the last four years, but Obama’s agenda included sucking the middle class dry and shifting their former income into the already fat wallets of the 1 percent. So he bears quite a bit of the responsibility for our slow economic recovery.

Obama also failed to recognize that the redistribution of income from the 99 to the 1 percent over the previous 26 years has stifled the demand for goods and services from the 99 percent because they earn less money than they used to. That stifles job growth and has lead to the anemic recovery. Not only that, Obama’s agenda has invigorated America’s economic slow motion collapse.

As for the 1 percent, they usually invest their money in things that destroy rather than create jobs, such as derivatives, buying politicians and legislation, and free income redistribution treaties.

Worse yet, the 1 percent now steal about 31 percent of all US income, compared to 8 percent 31 years ago. That means the 99 percent earn 69 percent compared to 92 percent in 1980.

That’s why President Jimmy Carter looks like such a genius compared to the president’s that have followed him. The deficit was historically small under his watch compared to when Obama, Bush and Reagan have been president, but 208,000 jobs a month were created under Carter, and with rising wage rates. That was with an economy with 60 percent of the GNP and population as we have today. It was because the 99 percent had way more money to spend then, making job growth far more robust compared with now. Obama knows this as surely as I do. But he dare not do much to alleviate the burdens of the middle class for fear of angering his corporate backers. Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden is very much the same as Obama, in this regard.

Read Full Post »

Nobel Prize Economist Paul Krugman Is Urging President Obama Not to Cave In to Republican Blackmail

The Republicans are threatening to tank the economy for the third time since Obama became president if they don’t get what they want. The American people are being held hostage by economic terrorists of the right.

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has challenged President Barack Obama to do the right thing about the so-called fiscal cliff and the Republican threat. “So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Click the link below for his complete article.

Paul Krugman–Let's Not Make a Deal–New York Times

Read Full Post »