Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘wealth redistribution’ Category

US Senator Elizabeth Warren is an honest politician. And she sounded like a champion of the 99 percent during an interview with Salon.com when she bashed President Obama for kowtowing to the interests of Wall Street ahead of the American people.

Warren praised Obama for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency aimed at enforcing consumer protection laws. However, Obama’s financial ties with the elites of Wall Street came under closer review.

Warren told Salon that “there has not been nearly enough change” in the wake of the U.S. financial crisis.

“He picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street. …They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over.”

On lobbyists: Banks spend millions on “armies of lobbyists and lawyers,” she told Salon, but there are few people at “the decision-making table” representing the concerns of everyday Americans.

“And when that happens — not just once, not just twice, but thousands of times a week — the system just gradually tilts further and further.”

Under Obama, during the greatest crisis since the Great Depression, in which massive fraud and money laundering for drug cartels and other crimes were committed by Wall Street executives and their employees, not a single person was charged by Obama’s Justice Department. “I’m the only one standing between you and the pitch forks,” Obama told a group of Wall Street executives during the height of the crisis. He was right, and he did his job for them. Goldman Sachs was the largest of his campaign financiers.

Under George W. Bush, people actually were charged with crimes in corporate scandals, and sent to prison, such as the Enron and Worldcom scandals. Under President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, over a thousand people were convicted of felonies for their parts in the savings and loan scandal.

This indicates how corrupt to the core the government of the United States has become, and  it’s not just Obama. It’s both major political parties, all Republicans in congress, and 90 percent of all Democratic lawmakers. The system is awash in money and corruption, all the way to the corporate wing of the US Supreme Court. The political and economic games are completely corrupted and rigged against the middle class.

For the complete interview, click on the link below.

Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over”–Salon.com

 

 

Read Full Post »

Paul Krugman is a typical, and often correct, critic of President Barack Obama. He’s been right on policy decisions on a number of occasions, and most notably, when President Obama has been wrong.

In a new story in Rolling Stone, Krugman has done an about face on Obama and the president’s historical significance.

“When it comes to Barack Obama,” Krugman writes, “I’ve always been out of sync. Back in 2008, when many liberals were wildly enthusiastic about his candidacy and his press was strongly favorable, I was skeptical. I worried that he was naive, that his talk about transcending the political divide was a dangerous illusion given the unyielding extremism of the modern American right. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me that, far from being the transformational figure his supporters imagined, he was rather conventional-minded: Even before taking office, he showed signs of paying far too much attention to what some of us would later take to calling Very Serious People, people who regarded cutting budget deficits and a willingness to slash Social Security as the very essence of political virtue.”

“And I wasn’t wrong. Obama was indeed naive: He faced scorched-earth Republican opposition from Day One, and it took him years to start dealing with that opposition realistically. Furthermore, he came perilously close to doing terrible things to the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain; we were saved from significant cuts to Social Security and a rise in the Medicare age only by Republican greed, the GOP’s unwillingness to make even token concessions.”

All of this is true, and everything Krugman writes in the Rolling Stone appears on surface to be true, but Krugman misses a major point.

Under President Obama, income and wealth equality has skyrocketed. 95 percent of all income growth in the USA over the last four years has gone into the pockets of the 1 percent. Record levels of income and wealth are now in the hands of the 1 percent, which accounts for much lower demand for goods and services, lower job and wage growth, and slower economic growth, all of which hurts the 99 percent, and all of which serves the 1 percent.

The policies the president has championed have played a major role in this.

Free trade treaties, for example, are negotiated with an eye toward shipping US jobs overseas with the difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages going into the already fat wallets of the super rich via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices and soaring dividends. Right now, as we speak, the president is championing the Trans Pacific Partnership, the largest income redistribution scam of all time. It is a so-called free trade treaty that has been negotiated to jack up prices on goods and services, and lower wages, all of which redistributes income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Under Obama, student loan interest doubled, and the payments of millions of student loans goes straight into the pockets of those who possess bonds backed by student loans: hedge funds and the rich. With a little work, the president might have stopped this madness.

Obama is not stupid, he knows precisely what he is doing. He’s redistributing income on behalf of his largest campaign contributors, the largest investment banks on Wall Street, hedge funds, and the largest investors of the 1 percent. This is precisely why the president refused to unleash his attorney general against the crimes of Wall Street that brought about the tanking of the world economy five years ago.

And these are just a few of the things Obama has done to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent, something Krugman doesn’t want you to know about.

So while Krugman makes his points in his article, and with passion, his defense of Obama is in very narrow terms.

By the way, despite my critic of Obama, he hardly rates among the worst of presidents. That distinction goes to George W. Bush, the man who created the worst mess in US history. Warren Harding, as well as several others, would have to rate below our current president, as well.

rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama

Read Full Post »

Why does the United States wage perpetual war?

1. War generates corporate profits that almost entirely goes to the 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent. The profit margins are quite high.

2. War generates a perceived need for societal control. Wage war, declare protestors unpatriotic, keep people ignorant via the corporate press, and keep dissent within the narrow confines of what the rulers of the 1 percent want.

“The first duty of an editor,” the economist Thorstein Veblen wrote in 1904, “is to edit and omit all news articles with a few as to what the news ought to be.” He was spot on. “The second duty of an editor,” Veblen wrote, “is to never offend any major advertiser.”

Major corporations are advertisers, (and along with their CEO’s and billionaire shareholders) corrupter’s of government and the press, as well as conduits for redistributing income from the 99 percent to the 1 percent.

And quite naturally, when President Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, the corporate press dutifully kept the debate within the narrow confines of what the administration wanted, more or less. Hardly any of the so-called US news media questioned any of the administration’s justifications for war, and all of these justifications turned out to be lies. The foreign press did a much better job on this issue.

Read Full Post »

Bill Moyers says that Eric Holder has a mixed record as attorney general of the United States. Moyers gives Holder an A on civil rights, but an F on the frauds of Wall Street. Bill Black, a former bank regulator, calls the latter, “the greatest failure in the history of the department of justice.”

No banking executives have been criminally prosecuted for their role in causing the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

“I blame Holder. I blame Timothy Geithner,” Black told Bill last week. “But they are fulfilling administration policies. The problem definitely comes from the top. And remember, Obama wouldn’t have been president but for the financial contribution of bankers.”

“While large banks have been penalized for their role in the housing meltdown, the costs of those fines will be largely borne by shareholders and taxpayers as the banks write off the fines as the cost of doing business. And by and large these top executives got to keep their massive bonuses and compensation, despite the fallout.”

But the story gets even more infuriating, the more Black laid out the culture of corruption that led to the meltdown.

“The Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all could have prevented [the financial meltdown],” Black tells Moyers. And what’s worse, Black — who exposed the so-called Keating Five — believes the next crisis is coming: “We have created the incentive structures that [are] going to produce a much larger disaster.”

According to Black, that’s because the bankers have not been proscecuted for their crimes, thanks to Obama and Holder, and federal law prohibits people with criminal records to be in charge of banks. So the same people that brought the economic meltdown are doing the same thing with a nod, a wink, and a helping hand from the white house and both houses of congress.

Check out Moyers interview with Black by clicking on the link below.

Full Show: Too Big to Jail? | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com.

Read Full Post »

I lost twenty pounds from April to September 2014: I didn’t diet, and I barely exercised. I never went hungry, for anything. I ate so much food my girlfriend Z kept telling me I was eating too much. What did I do? I switched from GMO to organic foods. I had been eating about 50 percent organic prior to that, but something I read prompted me to see if there might be a relationship between GMOs and the obesity epidemic. The answer was yes.

The average US male has gained 22 pounds since 1994, while the average female has added 16 pounds. GMO’s entered the US food chain in a big way in 1996, even though US Food and Drug Administration scientists warned of potentially bad health impacts from them. This included risks for allergies, as well as worse things. However, the political appointees (i.e. Monsanto influenced hacks) running the department decided the profitability of the chemical corporations and their shareholders of the 1 percent were more important than the health of the 99 percent.

So I decided to try this personal experiment. I lost weight despite eating somewhere around a pound of organic chocolate (mostly sweet dark) each week. I also ate organic chips, and desserts and drank non-organic wine and beer on occasion. On the road, occasionally I was forced to eat GMO food at restaurants. The girlfriend and I discovered GMO food made us hungrier, and so we craved more of the poison. Luckily, a quick organic meal or a simple organic banana killed that hunger. By the way, my girlfriend went from 113 pounds to 107 in about one and half months eating 95 percent organic foods.

There was also another side effect to eating 95 percent organic food.

I had had an allergy to a cat named Sabina for years. She was the only cat I’d ever been allergic to. My friend Shawn owned her, but he was moving and needed a temporary place for the fat, evil, foul mouthed, bad tempered thing to stay. She moved in with me. I washed my hands after every time I touched her, because every time I’d visited Shawn, and Sabina had gotten close to me, the allergic reactions set in and made me miserable for hours, despite taking allergy pills. One day after the evil feline moved in, I found her in bed with me! I didn’t have an allergic reaction. That allergy was gone.

Back in 98, I got my first allergy. It was to carpet dust. That allergy has also vanished.

I should mention one other thing. Shawn came to visit Sabina. He noticed Sabina had lost weight. We had gotten her off of the GMO diet, and let’s face it, virtually all cat food has the poison in it, or at least I would think so.

So I can say from experience that the weight and the allergies left me when I banished GMOs from my personal food chain.

Additional testimony below.

removing-junk-foods-and-gmos-improved-children’s behavior–Dynamic Health Now

Read Full Post »

US Senator Elizabeth Warren is, of course, is describing a government corrupt to the marrow.

The corruption of the US government goes way back, but a relatively small wave held in check by the New Deal turned into a tidal wave of corruption beginning with the tax cuts for the rich of President Ronald Reagan. That money was used by the 1 percent to stimulate corruption at all levels, and which in turn purchased legislation that redistributes income from the 99 to the 1 percent. That’s why we have inequality and its growing.

Read Full Post »

But how is the profit in university education compared to perpetual war? Guess what is most profitable to the 1 percent. And guess who your government works for? Hint. It isn’t you.

By the way, student loans are purchased by Wall Street investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs. The banks use the loans to issue bonds, which they then sell to rich investors, hedge funds, etc… for large, risk free, government guaranteed profits.

When you make your student loan payments, much of that payment goes to the bondholders. That’s precisely why congress and the president allowed the interest rates for student loans to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent last year. It made the bonds backed by the loans more financially attractive to rich investors. That’s also why the government does not increase grants to needy students. To do so would mean less loans for Wall Street to purchase.

Of course, war is even more profitable to the 1 percent than student loans. However, war and student loans are both big income redistribution conduits through which money travels from the 99 to the 1 percent. And, of course, some of those profits travel back to US politicians in one form or another. So you can see that your elected representatives have absolutely no incentive to do the right thing, and the thing they can do, by providing free tuition at American colleges and universities. To do so would destroy one conduit of redistributing your income to the 1 percent.

That’s what the corrupt US government, and its corrupt representatives are paid to do. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it. They’re not stupid little boys and girls. They’re merely corrupted by the money of the 1 percent.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,456 other followers