Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The red arrow below shows the Exact Moment When President Donald Trump Saved the United States Economy from Democratic President Barack Obama

Donald Trump claims his economy has no relationship to the economy President Obama saved from the incompetent RepubliCON President George W. Bush. That, of course, is a lie. Both presidents reigned during the longest business expansion in United States history. So who had the better economic statistics between the two presidents? Obama did.

During Trump’s first 36 months in office, the US economy has gained 6.6 million jobs. But during a comparable 36-month period at the end of Obama’s tenure, employers added 8.1 million jobs or 23% more than what has been added since Trump took office. The average monthly gain so far under Trump is 182,000 jobs. During the last 36 months under Obama, employers were adding an average of 224,000 jobs a month.

I should also like to point out that at this point in his first and only term, President Jimmy Carter had enjoyed a gain of 10.1 million jobs. Employers added 8.5 million jobs during the first 36 months of Bill Clinton’s term and 7.8 million jobs during the first 36 months of Lyndon Johnson’s tenure, even though the labor force at that time was less than half the size of what it is today.

Total yearly corporate profits were also higher under Obama. Corporate profits peaked during the third quarter of 2014. That year also witnessed the greatest amount of total corporate profits in U.S. history. Corporate profits were higher in every year of Obama’s second term than in any year since Donald Trump became president.

In the three years under President Trump, Gross Domestic Product (GNP) has grown an average of 2.54 percent per year, while under the last three years of President Obama GNP rose 2.8 percent per year. Obviously, the economy grew faster under Obama.

President Trump pushed for and succeeded in getting tax cuts passed through congress almost exclusively for the rich and their corporations. The bill was signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017. Most of the changes introduced by the bill went into effect on January 1, 2018.

Since the tax cuts went into effect, GNP has grown 2.4 percent per year, which is lower than during Trump’s first year, and lower than the last three years of Obama’s presidency.  As predicted in this blog, the tax cuts have had a negative impact on the growth of GNP, but they have pushed the United States economy into a far more serious stock market bubble that will have dire repercussions and likely send the United States into the deepest recession since the Great Depression. The official stats show that when Trump says the economy is better because of the tax cuts, he is lying, the numbers do not lie. He will deserve some significant blame for the severity of the coming recession due to his tax cuts.

Under Trump, stocks were up 14 percent per year as of February 14, 2020. That is to be expected given his ruinous tax cuts for the rich, which have pushed the market up higher than it otherwise would have gone. Meanwhile, under Obama, stocks flew higher by 13.8 percent on a yearly basis, and he managed this without the tax cut pushed by Trump.

Overall, it appears with Obama we had an economy on the rise, while with Trump we have an economy on the decline. That is not necessarily the fault of Trump. The business cycle must end, and it just might be on his watch.

Average median home prices have declined since the last quarter of 2017, the yield curve has inverted, U.S. vehicle sales declined last year, the number of individuals and households applying for food stamps has risen since last May, sales of vehicles in China plummeted by 8 percent last year suggesting China may be in recession already and before the coronavirus, total business sales in the United States have declined over the last year, U.S. manufacturing has been tanking since last year, durable goods employment is down, corporate debt is at an all-time high as is corporate share buybacks, and all are signs of a possible looming world recession.

Naturally, whoever is president next January will get the blame. If it is Trump, he will simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like Trump’s economy is riding the tailwinds of Obama’s economic miracle and saw him in the right place at the right time.

One of the big lies about Bernie Sanders is that he cannot win against President Trump in the general election and that the Democrats need to choose a so-called moderate candidate in order to defeat the president in the general election. The DNC and the billionaire controlled corporate news media know this is a lie. Anybody can look at the polls and discover this claim is false.

By moderate candidate, the DNC and the corporate news media mean a Wall Street/billionaire controlled Democratic Party candidate. Quite naturally, a self-made capitalist millionaire like Bernie is labeled by the corporate press as a hardline Stalinist Communist who wants to burn all churches, put every citizen on farm communes, and burn all billionaires at the stake, rather than as the person who wants to restore and reinvigorate the middle class with such policies as Medicare for all, which every advanced capitalist nation has except for the USA.

So how do the preferred Wall Street candidates stack up against Trump in the latest poll?

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, released last week, Joe Biden defeats Trump by 7 percent, Pete Buttigieg wins by 4, Amy Klobuchar is up by 6, and the heavily advertised former Republicon mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, beats the president by 9 percent.

Bernie defeats the president by 8 percent. Sanders beats Trump by a greater margin than all the rest except for Bloomberg. In other words, a billionaire/Wall Street controlled candidate is less likely to defeat the president than Bernie. By the way, the candidate who has positioned herself as being between Bernie and the Wall Street Democrats on public policy, Elizabeth Warren, beats Trump by 4 percent.

I can read the polls as easily as anybody else. Don’t let the DNC and the billionaire controlled corporate propaganda machine (so-called news media) tell you what to think. You can check out most of the latest polls at realclearpolitics.com. Just click on the polls link in the upper left-hand corner.

“What CNN did to Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential debate — stabbing him with the gender card on behalf of a weakened Elizabeth Warren — was cheap and unfair. And it was shameful,” John Kass of the Chicago Tribune wrote the day after last week’s little-watched Democratic Party debate.

Did Bernie really tell Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman could not be president of the United States? I suspect it is highly unlikely.

As you can hear in the video above, it’s Sanders saying he thinks a woman can be president, and that was thirty years ago. Likewise, in the video below, Michael Moore says it is highly unlikely Bernie said that. And considering that Hillary Clinton received nearly five million more votes for president in 2016 than the electoral college elected Donald Trump, and you can begin to call in doubt that Bernie ever said anything like what Warren said about women not being able to be president of the United States.

I am not suggesting Warren lied, although it could be the case, but it could also be that she misunderstood something Bernie said. Or perhaps the corporate, that is to say, Wall Streeters who control the Democratic Party, were prepared to do anything to stop the surging in the polls Sanders, and Warren decided to give them a helping hand.

Kass noted, “Just before the debate, CNN ran a story portraying Sanders as a misogynist who thinks a woman couldn’t be elected president. That’s ridiculous. He doesn’t believe that.

And at the CNN debate, moderator Abby Phillip took Warren’s gender card, fashioned it into a knife and stabbed Sanders just weeks before the Iowa caucuses.

“Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?” Phillip asked of Sanders.

“Well,” Sanders said, “as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it.

“I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want,” Sanders added. “Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States.

“Go to YouTube today,” Sanders said. “’There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States.’”

That video is at the top of this story. You can see the obvious. Why would Warren engage in a plot with Wall Street Democrats to derail Bernie Sanders? That too is incomprehensible, but it appears to be so.

It is also, Kass notes, probably not a coincidence that the Democrats are impeaching Donald Trump at this very moment. This pulls Bernie off the campaign trail into the halls of the Senate just when he is surging. Is not that an amazing coincidence?

“And now,” Kass wrote, “after weeks of stalling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has finally brought the impeachment of President Donald Trump to the Senate.

This means Democratic presidential candidates who are also senators, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Warren of Massachusetts and Sanders of Vermont, are stuck in Washington as jurors.

And Joe (Biden)? With Bernie on Trump jury duty in Washington, Biden is left to wander around Iowa with (former) Mayor Pete — who also was not challenged by CNN — and that radical billionaire environmentalist who made his gold in fossil fuels.

No wonder Sanders’ supporters are upset. They’ve seen this before. They watched the same game play out three years ago, when the Democratic nomination was almost his, and establishment media handmaidens of the Democratic National Committee protected Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump.”

Column: CNN’s shameful treatment of Bernie Sanders–Chicago Tribune

Income inequality continues to rise, according to a September 2019 study from the United States Census Bureau. However, it is terribly understated. In Oregon, income inequality continues to grow. This reflects what is happening nationally, as well as internationally.

According to the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), “Oregonians are facing a scary reality: the income gap separating those Oregonians in the middle of the income ladder and those at the very top has never been wider. In 1980, it took 26 typical (median income) Oregonians to equal the average income of the highest-earning taxpayers — the top one-tenth of 1 percent. By 2017, this had grown to 131 typical Oregonians. That is nearly a five-fold increase.”

“As frightening as income inequality is, inequality by wealth is even scarier. Income refers to how much money you earn in a year, while wealth is the sum total of all of your assets minus all of your debts. No good sources for wealth inequality at the state level exist, but national figures show that wealth is even more concentrated at the top than income. In 2018, the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans together held 70 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom half of Americans together owned only 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.” In addition, three Americans (Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) hold more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and these figures are from two years ago, meaning these figures are most likely understated as of 2020.

With rising inequality, our faith in the “American Dream” is fading, being replaced instead with an American Nightmare. Research from the Center for American Progress found that as income inequality has increased, it has contributed to Americans becoming more pessimistic and less trusting of one another and our political leaders.

Federal policy, and the policy of both major political parties, is to redistribute income and wealth from the 99.5 percent to the 0.5 percent, the multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Quite naturally, the corporate media have now undertaken a campaign of disinformation, questioning what is obvious to the vast majority of Americans, seeking to instill doubt about the extent of income and wealth inequality.

However, both inequalities are far more significant than have been accepted. For example, three economists have examined U.S. income tax returns from the last several decades. These three have determined the top 1 percent receive 22-23 percent of all income produced in the United States nowadays compared to 8 percent in 1979. The Census Bureau’s study shows the top five percent took 23.2 percent of all income in 2018, compared to 22.3 percent in 2017.

On the other hand, there is unreported income, income hidden in Panamanian and Swiss banks, as well as elsewhere. The reality is that the top 1 percent steal closer to 38 percent of all income made in the USA. No doubt their accumulation of wealth mirrors that since you need income to generate wealth.

The results of these growing inequalities have not been kind to the 99 percent. Suicide rates, alcoholism, rates of depression and other maladies have all increased for the 99 percent during this era of inequality and political corruption. The corporate news media has been supportive of the growing inequalities by sowing the seeds of discord, pitting a variety of sectors of the 99 percent against each other in order to divert our eyes from income and wealth inequality. People trust each other less than in decades past because of the media.

In the meantime, the corporate news media, the billionaires who control both major political parties, have waged war against the only two presidential candidates of the people, while supporting the candidates of the billionaires, such as Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg’s recent attacks on Sanders and Warren suggest the billionaires who control him have unleashed him in order to stop veteran billionaire brown-noser Joe Biden from having to do so and alienating Warren and Sanders voters in the process, which might not be a good thing to do with the general election coming up.

Do not fall for this con if you are tired of working more and earning less so that billionaires can have more of what you earned.

US Census Bureau on Income Inequality

See https://www.ocpp.org/2019/10/30/scary-facts-economic-inequality/


Donald Trump just secured the votes of millions of American citizens by renegotiating NAFTA. However, it has yet to pass congress and may never, just because it is a big-time body blow to the desires of Wall Street and the billionaires in their efforts to redistribute more income from working Americans to the rich by exporting jobs, thereby creating greater income and wealth inequality using U.S. taxpayer dollars in the process.

The millions of U.S. jobs currently occupied by Mexico’s $3 dollar per hour labor will almost certainly see some jobs returning to the United States, or more than likely, they may be exported from Mexico to Pakistan, China or Vietnam.

Regardless, Richard Trumpka, president of the AFL-CIO wrote of the renegotiated treaty, “The United States Mexico Canada trade agreement is a huge win for working people. After a quarter-century of suffering under the failed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and 18 months of hard-fought negotiations, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) is now proud to endorse a better deal for working people: the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USCMA)…The USMCA isn’t perfect — no deal ever is. But it’s a far cry from the original NAFTA, and that is a huge win for working people in North America. While it won’t bring back every job lost under NAFTA, it will help stop the bleeding and add important new protections for workers across the continent.”

A few things need to be said about the agreement. It will slow the pace of income and wealth inequality that has occurred over the last forty years, but only a little bit. Nowadays, three men own more wealth than the bottom half of the U.S. population and the 1 percent now steal somewhere between 22 to 38 percent of all the income produced each year in the United States, up from 8 percent in 1980; much of this can be attributed to international trade agreements negotiated to export U.S. jobs by the tens of millions.

The difference between the old higher wages and the new third world wages goes directly into the bank accounts of the rich via higher corporate profits, dividends and share prices.

The USCMA passed through the Democratic Party-controlled U.S. House of Representatives last week. However, it now has to pass through the RepubliCon controlled U.S. Senate early in 2020. The RepubliCons and their Wall Street and other corporate masters are dead set against it.

U.S. RepubliCon Senator Pat Toomey, who represents Wall Street and some billionaires, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he will vote against the trade agreement. Here are a few of his objections;

1. Car manufacturers will need to… “pay wages far above prevailing Mexican rates.” In other words, Mexican auto workers do not deserve to earn more than $3 an hour.

2. “First are the laws to facilitate unionization of Mexican factory workers.” Apparently, Toomey thinks that organized billionaires (shareholders in corporations) is something that has God’s blessing, but organized labor is evil. This is class warfare at its worse.

3. “Another flaw is the drastic reduction of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism. U.S. investors don’t always get a fair adjudication of their business disputes in foreign courts, even in Canada and Mexico.”

These were secret tribunals that were highly unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution allows the rules of treaties to override U.S. laws. However, a treaty requires 67 percent of the U.S. Senate to approve of treaties. That was not the case for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was, and notice this, called an “agreement.”

NAFTA only required a majority vote since it was an “agreement.” Consequently, the always secretly held tribunals of the Investor-State clause of NAFTA has always been unconstitutional. Representatives of local government, citizen groups, labor groups, and others, were never allowed into the tribunals. Only lawyers for the governments of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, as well as corporate lawyers, were allowed in. Local and state laws were overturned by this unconstitutional tribunal, but Senator Toomey thinks it unfair the power of the tribunals is no more.

Expect Wall Street and the entire RepubliCon party to reject this agreement in the United States Senate, but expect Donald Trump to benefit politically nonetheless.

Eight billionaires possess the same amount of wealth, and probably more, as the lower half of the world’s population, according to an analysis from the charity Oxfam released last Sunday.

Six of these billionaires, from Forbes’ list of the world’s richest people, are American entrepreneurs: Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO Warren Buffett, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Rounding out the list are Carlos Slim, the Mexican tycoon, and Amancio Ortega, the Spanish founder of a retail conglomerate that includes clothing chain Zara. Together their net wealth ― assets minus debts ― amounts to $426 billion.

“Left unchecked, growing inequality threatens to pull our societies apart,” Oxfam writes in its report, citing Brexit, the rise of President Donald Trump and a rise in the widespread disillusionment with the absolute corruption of mainstream politics, which has been provided by, and benefitted, the rich at the expense of everybody else.

In 2016, the richest 1 percent of the world held slightly more than half of the wealth of the entire planet, Oxfam noted. While the 1,810 billionaires on Forbes’s list, 89 percent male, hold $6.5 trillion, as much wealth as 70 percent of humanity.

In other words, 70 percent of the world’s population is fighting among themselves over crumbs the rich have yet to scoop up.

All of the corruption is used to tilt the economic game in favor of the billionaires allowing them via the government to redistribute income and wealth from the 99 percent to themselves. Some of the corruption in the United States have included the successful negotiation of trade agreements with an eye toward lowering wages worldwide, suppression of federal minimum wage increases, Supreme Court decisions that have nearly eliminated 100+ years of campaign finance laws, the war against labor unions waged by the rich via their helpful federal government and their corrupt United States Supreme Court, lowering the tax rates of the rich to the point where billionaires now pay a lower rate than middle-class income earners. and the privatization of public services.

Last year, when Oxfam did its report, it took 62 billionaires to equal the bottom half of the world. The change this year seems drastic because of improvements in the quality of the data Credit Suisse was able to get. If Oxfam had used that improved data last year, it would’ve taken just 9 billionaires to reach parity with the world’s bottom half, Kripke said.

Rising inequality causes more than a sense of moral outrage and the election of reality TV stars. There’s a wide body of research that shows inequality adversely affects the health of those at the bottom, raising the risk of cardiovascular disease, increasing suicide rates and shortening lifespans. Some attribute the rise in the death rate of white people and the heroin epidemic to inequality.


I paid my wealth tax of almost $3000 earlier this month. Doing so left me broke for a couple of weeks. This wealth tax is called a property tax, but the land you own is part of your wealth and my property tax could just as easily be called a wealth tax since it taxes part of my wealth.

Until recently, progressive taxation had been part of the fabric of American democracy for over a century. The idea the rich can pay more is quite biblical, just ask Jesus. Somebody who has $100 billion in wealth is going to pay $3 billion or so in tax, and some of them are acting as though the taxman is going to swing an ax into their billion-dollar genitals if the tax legislation is enacted.
These billionaires have rigged the economy in their favor by using their billions to corrupt both major political parties and the federal government in the process. They have used corruption to redistribute trillions of dollars from working folks to themselves in the process. This is why three people (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos) own more wealth than the bottom half of the U.S. population. This is why the 1 percent have gained $21 trillion since 1989 and the bottom half of U.S. citizens have lost $900 billion (See  the-corrupting-billionaires-have-gotten-richer-by-21-trillion-since-1989)

Exporting millions of jobs via trade agreements alone sent trillions of dollars from working people to the billionaires over the last forty years. The difference between the old higher US pay and the new lower third world pay goes straight into the pockets of the billionaires via higher corporate profits, rising dividends, and surging share prices.

Corruption and class warfare against the 99 percent are running wild in all three branches of government, and that tiny progressive tax is a step in the right direction that might help put an end to it and restore U.S. democracy in the process.

I do not agree with everything Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders propose. However, I agree with former President Barack Obama when he said: “Income inequality is the defining challenge of our time.” He said it one time. Then somebody likely took him to the side, told him never to say it again, and he never did. Now he makes $400,000 a speech, which is $150,000 more than Bill and Hillary Clinton make.

We can put an end to this type of revolving-door corruption and other forms of political corruption. The wealth tax is just a tiny step in the right direction.

%d bloggers like this: