Jon Stewart Rips Obama For Going After Whistle Blowers Rather Than Wall Street Crooks

Why is President Obama so adamant about going after government whistle blowers, while making no effort at all at going after the crooks on Wall Street who tanked the economy? The answer is simple. Obama serves corporate interests, that includes Wall Street. Government whistle blowers are a threat to the corporate/government symbiotic chain of profits that redistributes income from working folks to the 1 percent via Wall Street and taxpayers.

Why doesn’t Obama close down the torture chambers at Guantanamo? Because it’s profitable to the private companies that operate the facilities. Likewise, why is Wall Street interests such a heavy influence in Comprehensive Immigration Reform? The answer is those folks are in it for profits at the expense of everybody else. And so it goes in all sectors of the Federal Government. The quest for private sector profits are determining national policies ranging from the above to federal education policy to whether or not we go to war. The interests of ever expanding profits are more important than people.

The same is true with both ideological sides of the corrupt US Supreme Court. The conservative side is always siding with the Koch Brothers, and the liberal side decided that the government can tax us for not buying health care via legislation that was written by the health insurance companies, which opens the door to other things we could be forced to buy, or else get taxed for not buying it.

In other words, Obama, like almost all Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats, President George W. Bush and many others, is letting the quest for profits determine national policies in almost all areas of American life.

Whistle blowers can reveal information that might prove what is already obvious, but the details might prove even more embarrassing to the administration, to the corrupt congress, to both corrupt political parties, as well as the corrupt corporate media that intends to side with the corrupt federal government . That’s why the whistle blowers need to be stopped. They’re bad for business, and the business of the US government is to make the rich wealthier at the expense of us all regardless of how many laws are broken by Obama’s Wall Street cronies.

Check out the links below for Comedian Jon Stewart’s comments on the issue.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read Full Post »

Video: The Obama Government’s Unprecendented Assault Against Whistle Blowers

Read Full Post »

The African-American Vote in 2012: This is How Stupid the Republican Leadership Is.

Contrary to what the corporate media wants us to believe, Hispanics were not responsible for President Obama’s victory over Republican candidate Mitt the Twit Romney in the 2012 presidential election. A new study shows African-Americans made the difference because they had a higher turnout than ever before. Had they voted in 2012 with the same turnout as they did in 2004, our president would be Mitt the Twit, regardless of how Latinos voted.

For example, Obama’s victory in Ohio was almost entirely attributable to historic levels of black turnout in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo. The same is true in North Carolina and Virginia. African-American voter turnout represented 13 percent of voters, compared to 11 percent in 2004.

Had African-Americans not turned out in such record numbers, Romney would’ve won even though eligible white turnout was lower in 2012 than what it was in 2004.

Why was white turnout low? Perhaps it’s because Romney is a Mormon, or perhaps white Republicans didn’t want to vote for a guy’s whose platform called for more failed tax cuts for the rich, exporting more jobs, as well as cutting social security, medicare and medicaid for the 99 percent in order to give those tax cuts to the rich. People are not so easy to fool anymore. Such a platform is more and more becoming a recipe for lost causes.

Obama also suffered a loss of white voters. It’s possible that people have discovered he’s some kind of indentured servant to Wall Street since he does their bidding. Like Mitt, he wants to cut social security, medicare and medicaid, and he keeps signing legislation to ship our jobs overseas, as well as signing other legislation that redistributes income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Latinos played a role in Obama’s victory, but that role has largely been overstated. That’s because there are millions of undocumented Latinos, and they cannot vote. Another factor is the higher percentage of Latinos who are too young to vote. Obama already had California before the election. An increasing Latino population played no role in that victory, and this may be true in the foreseeable future.

As Nate Cohn of the New Republic magazine reported, “African American turnout could be more important to the outcome of the 2016 election than the ability of Republicans to rekindle their support among Latino voters. A 10 point shift among Latino voters toward the GOP is worth a net 1.5 million votes nationally—even if the Latino share of the electorate increases by another 2 percentage points. But between 3 and 4 million new black voters joined the electorate over the last two cycles, and they voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. If black turnout returns to 11 percent of the electorate and the next Democratic candidate only wins 90 percent of the black vote, there’s room for a shift of a net 4 million votes in the GOP’s direction. Whether those 4 million voters stay home or return” …to the Republicans “from eight years ago could easily decide a close presidential election, especially in states like Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida.”

This suggests that Republican support for some kind of amnesty for undocumented immigrants is suicidal since historically more Latinos will vote for Democrats than Republicans. So why would Republicans want to commit political party suicide? Because Wall Street most likely ordered them to support comprehensive immigration reform.

Why would Wall Street want that? Because it will redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars from the 99 to the 1 percent. Immigration reform will push real wages down for years, probably for more than a decade (like the last time there was amnesty), and the difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages will travel into the pockets of the 1 percent via higher corporate profits, rising dividends and surging share and bond prices. Add to this something more sinister.

One of the components of immigration reform is that undocumented immigrants will need to pay back taxes. That money, as well as the interest, will be redistributed to Wall Street investment firms, as well the bondholders of the 1 percent. Check out the following link for an explanation of how that will be. Little known Economic Facts About Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Part 2.

By the way, the Democratic Party is also in on Wall Street’s scam against the American people, and they’re in this scheme to make undocumented immigrants become financial indentured servants, as well.

Read Full Post »

Reality Check:

Read Full Post »

Give Credit Where Credit is Due: The Obama Economic Indices

The economy sucks under President Barack Obama, especially for those under the age of thirty, but if you’re a member of the top 1/2 of 1 percent, you’re doing pretty good since the president intends to use legislation to redistribute income from the bottom to the top. That’s what he’s been doing. That’s why corporate profits are at an all time high when demand is so slack. That’s why the Dow Jones average is at an all time high, because income is continuously being redistributed from the 99 to the 1 percent. Free trade is a perfect example of an income redistribution scam. The president has signed three of them into law, despite government studies showing how they result in job losses. Check out the following link. http://johnhively.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/the-biggest-income-redistribution-scam-free-trade-treaties/

Still, for the 99 percent it’s a better economy than when George W. Bush left the nation in ruins. However, it’s not as good as under any president since Herbert Hoover (and Bush) left the nation in shambles in March 1933. That’s a lot of presidents.

Think about it this way. Under President Jimmy Carter, the US added 230,000 jobs a month on average, with an economy with 60 percent of the population and 60 percent of the gross domestic product as today. In comparison, it’s an awesome month for Obama if the economy creates 180,000 jobs thirty-three years after Carter left office. Why the difference? It’s simple. When Carter was president, the 1 percent took home about 8 percent of the total national income, compared to slightly over 30 percent today. That’s why there’s such a significant difference in the performance of the economy under Carter and Obama.

The 1 percent invest their money in derivatives, like credit default swaps and bonds backed by home mortgages, and things that produce nothing, and they typically are a drain on the economy. The 99 percent use their money to buy goods and services, which stimulates job growth and wage increases. That’s why income distribution is so important. Obama knows this, but unlike President Franklin Roosevelt, Obama refuses to do anything about it. The president also allows Wall Street criminals to go free, something not even the corrupt and incompetent George W. Bush did when Worldcom and other companies committed criminal acts.

In other words, Obama has no intention of doing anything that makes the nation so ill. His real base is a slice of the 1 percent. Still, give him some credit where credit is due. Okay, not that much credit is due to him except for the gains on Wall Street and the record setting corporate profits. That hasn’t done anything for the 99 percent except suck them financially dry. Check out the graph below.

Read Full Post »

Better Educated People Most Likely Voted For Obama in 2012

Read Full Post »

The Battle Against The Trans Pacific Income Redistribution Free Trade Treaty

The Trans Pacific Pact (TPP) is going to redistribute income and democracy from the 99 to the 1 percent. That’s what all free trade treaties are about. These unconstitutional treaties have nothing to do with trade. TPP is the biggest, baddest one of these treaties. The Guardian newspaper of the UK calls the TPP “Nafta on steroids.” There are those who oppose these income redistribution treaties. An announcement of one such action is below.

Cross-Border Organizing Summit & Rally to Defeat the TPP

Saturday, December 1 * Peace Arch Park
in Blaine, WA on the U.S./Canada border

Join hands with Canadian, Mexican and American trade justice advocates from the labor, environmental, family farm, immigrant rights, Internet freedom and other social movements to help launch a historic, new tri-national campaign to defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) corporate power grab.

RSVP FOR A SEAT ON THE FREE BUS FROM PORTLAND
at http://www.OregonFairTrade.org or call (503) 736-9777

What Is the TPP?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a massive, NAFTA-expanding trade and investment pact under negotiation between the U.S., Canada, Mexico and other countries throughout the Pacific Rim. If implemented, the TPP threatens to:

· offshore jobs, reduce tax bases and increase austerity, while undercutting worker rights globally

· promote fossil fuel exports and hand corporations new tools for attacking environmental rules

· further deregulate Wall Street financial institutions

· prioritize corporate profits over indigenous rights

· destroy family farms, force emigration and concentrate global food supplies into fewer hands

· block access to generic medications and limit freedom and innovation on the Internet

The good news is that, by working together across borders and issue areas, we have derailed similar corporate power grabs before. We can do it again!

What to Expect on December 1st

Meet rock-awesome local activists • Learn about the TPP from organizers throughout North America • Strategize on how to spread the word & mobilize in your community • Participate in a fun border action • Make movement history

For more info, contact the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign at elizabeth@oregonfairtrade.org or (503) 736-9777

Read Full Post »

What Would Jesus Say to Fox News Critics of Obama?

Read Full Post »

US Poverty Increase as Income is Redistributed from Working People to the Rich

Poverty rates in the United States rose during the 2000s; it started happening during and because of the economic policies of the illegal Bush regime. The trend was exacerbated by the Great Recession and its aftermath, which, to fair degree, were products of the Bush tax cuts.

The US government is continuously working on behalf of the 1 percent to redistribute income from working Americans to the 1 percent. In this way, Wall profits can constantly move upward. Without this redistribution, corporate profits would go down, down, down, and Wall Street would shrivel up and die. See links below.

According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), “By 2010, just over 46 million people fell below the U.S. Census Bureau’s official poverty line (according to data from the Current Population Survey).”

EPI’s “‘The State of Working America, 12th Edition’ puts the U.S. experience with poverty in an international context, comparing the lower end of the wage and income distribution in the United States with that of “peer” countries, largely countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with roughly similar GDP per hour worked as the United States.” Check it out at the link below.

Related Stories

Economic Policy Institute–US Poverty Rates Higher, Safety Nets Weaker

Charts Show Tax Cuts for the Rich Destroy Jobs

Obama and Jobs; Hostage to Fortune; or How Free Trade Treaties Redistribute Income From the 99 to the 1 Percent

Read Full Post »

Is Shrinking Our Government Leading Us Into Another Recession?

The conventional wisdom seems to be that our biggest economic challenge is runaway government spending. The reality is that government spending is contracting and pulling economic growth down with it. And worse is yet to come.

Given the federally sponsored redistribution of income and wealth from the 99 percent to the 1 percent since 1981, the demand by the 99 percent for goods and services in sufficient amounts to keep the economy afloat cannot be sustained without heavy and increasing government spending. The economy cannot stand on its own, which is what FDR discovered when the federal government cut back on spending in 1937. This is especially true given that more and more income is being redistributed from the 99 to the 1 percent. The process is continuing unabated under President Obama.

Perhaps the best measure of active government intervention in the economy is something called “government consumption expenditure and gross investment.” This includes total spending by all levels of government (federal, state, and local) on all activities with the exception of transfer payments (such as unemployment benefits, social security, and Medicare).

The graph below shows the yearly percentage change in real government consumption expenditure and gross investment over the period 2000 to 2012 (first quarter). As can be seen, the rate of growth in real spending began declining after the end of the recession, then jumped off a cliff beginning in 2011, which means that government spending (adjusted for inflation) is actually contracting.

The following chart shows the ratio of government consumption expenditure and gross investment to GDP; it highlights the fact that government spending is also falling as a share of GDP.

Adding transfer payments, which have grown because of the weak economy, does almost nothing to alter the picture. As the chart below shows, total government spending in current dollars, which means unadjusted for inflation, has stopped growing. If we take inflation into account, there can be no doubt that total real government spending, including spending on transfer payments, is also contracting.

The same is true for the federal government, everyone’s favorite villain. As the next chart shows, total federal spending, unadjusted for inflation, has also stopped growing.
Another chart

Not surprisingly, this decline in government spending is having an effect on GDP. Real GDP in the 4th Quarter of 2011 grew at an estimated 3 percent annual rate. The advanced estimate for 1st Quarter 2012 GDP growth was 2.2 percent. A just released second estimate for this same quarter revised that figure down to 1.9 percent. In other words, our economy is rapidly slowing.

What caused the downward revision? The answer says Ed Dolan is the ever deepening contraction in government spending:

What is driving the apparent slowdown? It would be comforting to be able to blame a faltering world economy and a strengthening dollar, but judging by the GDP numbers that does not seem to be the case. The following table (see below) shows the contributions of each sector to real GDP growth according to the advance and second estimates from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Exports, which we would expect to show the effects of a slowing world economy, held up well in the first quarter. In fact, the second estimate showed them even stronger than did the advance estimate. The contribution of private investment also increased from the advance to the second estimate, although not by as much. Exports and investment, then, turn out to be the relatively good news, not the bad, in the latest GDP report.

Instead, the largest share of the decrease in estimated real GDP growth came from an accelerated shrinkage of the government sector. The negative .78 percentage point decrease of the government sector is the main indicator that we are already on the downward slope toward the fiscal cliff.

If current trends aren’t bad enough, we are rapidly approaching, as Ed Dolan noted, the “fiscal cliff.” That is what I was referring to above when I said that worse is yet to come. As Bloomberg Businessweek explains:

Last summer, as part of its agreement to end the debt-ceiling debate (debacle?), Congress strapped a bomb to the economy and set the timer for January 2013. Into it they packed billions of dollars of mandatory discretionary spending cuts, timed to go off at exactly the same time a number of tax cuts [for example, the Bush tax cuts and the Obama payroll-tax holiday] were set to expire

The congressional deficit supercommittee had a chance to disarm the bomb last fall, but of course it didn’t. And so the timer has kept ticking. The resulting double-whammy explosion of spending cuts and tax increases will likely send the economy careening off a $600 billion “fiscal cliff.”

The fiscal contraction will actually be even worse, since the extended unemployment benefits program is also scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

So, what does all of this mean? According to Bloomberg Businessweek:

If Congress does nothing, the U.S. will almost certainly go into recession early next year, as the combo of spending cuts and tax hikes will wipe out nearly 4 percentage points of economic growth in the first half of 2013, according to research by Goldman’s Alec Phillips, a political analyst and economist. Since most estimates project the economy will grow only about 3 percent next year, that puts the U.S. solidly in the red.

One can only wonder how it has come to past that we think government spending is growing when it is not and that it is the cause of our problems when quite the opposite is true. Painful lessons lie ahead—if only we are able to learn them.

Read Full Post »