Feeds:
Posts
Comments

One of the main components of Nazi Germany was the collusion between industry and government against the interests of the German public. Historians have long noted that the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany could not have occurred without the consent of Germany’s rich folks and powerful corporations.

The rise of Ronald Reagan to the US presidency marked the most important inroad into political power by the rich in the USA since the 1920s. By the 1990s, the rich controlled both major political parties. Since then, we’ve had nothing but bubbles fueling US economic expansions. So in this corruption and collusion, we clearly have a fascist government of the rich, with spokespeople whose jobs are to divide us along a large number of lines, including race, ethnicity, guns, abortion, transgender bathrooms, etc….

One of the best examples of the power of this corruption is with Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs). They have been linked to tumors, asthma, obesity, liver damage, cancer, and other health issues since they entered the US food chain during President Bill Clinton’s reign of error; Clinton, many Republicans, and Democrats such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, obviously considered corporate profits more important than the health of the US people.

Our health is a product to be redistributed to major corporations, such as Monsanto (now owned by Bayer),  and morphed into corporate profits, higher share prices and surging dividends.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved placing GMO foods into the US food chain despite limited testing, and the only testing that was accepted by the FDA was provided by the GMO corporations, like Monsanto. Needless to say, the CEO and rich shareholders at Monsanto had wonderful incentives to limit testing and any scientists whose research showed the harm of GMOs would be smeared with GMO corporate lies.

A recent posting on GMO Free USA (Facebook) recounts one of the victims of corporate smears and lies.

“1998: The year Biotech launched its war on science. Arpad Pusztai, an impeccably qualified scientist, received a grant to develop standard animal feeding trial testing methods to assess possible toxicological effects arising from the GMO plant transformation process. The rats fed the GMO potatoes in his feeding study developed organ damage, immune defects, and other health problems. Dr. Pusztai’s response to the study finding was to say… “If I had the choice, I would certainly not eat it. I find it’s very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.”

Dr. Pusztai was humiliated, discredited, fired and legally silenced. Biotech’s anti-science campaign continues to this day. Feel like eating one of those Simplot GMO potatoes? Or how about some GMO Arctic apple slices?”

READ: http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm
READ: http://www.theguardian.com/…/academicexperts.highereducatio…
READ: http://gmofreeusa.org/research/gmo-science-research/

Advertisements

Two academic studies have been made about the effect of Seattle’s minimum wage increase from $9.47 to $15 an hour on food service workers. The increase is taking place over seven years.

A study from Jacob Vigdor of the University of Washington (UW) showed the minimum wage increase was bad for everybody in just about every way. Vigdor, of course, has a clear right-wing political ax to grind. Besides the UW, Vigdor is also a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an institute funded by the Koch brothers and other billionaires opposed to the minimum wage in general. The principal purpose of AEI is to influence public opinion in favor of the billionaires with lies and distortions, as well as truths if possible, disguised as scholarly research papers. It’s all patently propaganda coming from this think tank.

Vigdor has also been a contributing scholar with the Manhatten Institute, another right-wing billionaire-funded so-called think tank, whose principal purpose is the same as the right-wingers at AEI. The sponsors are also opposed to the minimum wage in general.

Quite naturally, the corporate media, both liberal and conservative, reported Vigdor’s negative findings on Seattle’s minimum wage rise as a fact when, in reality, they were fiction. This is how corrupt academia and the corporate news media have become with the influence of billionaire dollars into those fields.

Another, almost completely unreported study of the effects of Seattle’s minimum wage increase from the University of California-Berkeley (UC) showed the exact opposite of Vigdor’s lying propaganda on behalf of Wall Street and other billionaires. Note that the last thing most editors of conservative and liberal news sources, as well as fake news sources such as Fox News, want you to know is that the increase in minimum wages is good for the nation’s economy because it raises the demand for goods and services, rather than provide rising dividends and share prices for billionaire shareholders, which sucks the power out of the economy. That’s why the result of the UC study is unmentionable in the propaganda news media.

According to Michael Reich, lead researcher on the UC team, Vigdor’s research made certain to carefully gerrymander the statistics by omitting nearly half of Seattle’s low paid workers, “by omitting franchises and other businesses with more than one establishment. Seattle’s ordinance is aimed at low-wage, multistate companies, requiring the fastest wage increase to be paid by firms with more than 500 employees worldwide that do not provide health insurance.” In addition, Vigdor’s lying propaganda included only those jobs paying $19 an hour or less in food service, but job gains in higher paid positions in food service far outnumbered job losses in lower paid positions.

What happened? Seattle’s lowest-paid workers began spending their newly raised wages and local businesses began to thrive. When low-wage workers earn more they spend more.

Last February, Marketplace reported that Bill Phelps, CEO of Wetzel’s Pretzels, which grossed $165 million in 2016 from over 300 stores, had opposed minimum wage increases because he feared it would hurt profits, and that sales would fall if he needed to raise prices to compensate. Both times California raised its minimum wage, sales at his California stores immediately shot up. “I was stunned by the business,” Phelps told Marketplace.

This is precisely why all Americans, including wealthy shareholders, have a stake in raising the minimum wage above $15 an hour.

Watch out for the conservative propaganda in which its sole propose is to persuade you of something that benefits the billionaires only and at your expense.

Author of minimum-wage-study-has alarming-alliances–The Progressive

Letter to Seattle mayor from Michael Reich of the University of California-Berkeley


President Donald Trump has proposed tax cuts for the rich and corporations, which is another way of saying Trump wants tax cuts for the rich and then more tax cuts for the rich. In other words, the person who will most likely benefit from the Donald Trump tax cuts is billionaire Donald Trump. The 99 percent will get virtually nothing. In other words, Trump’s tax plan is designed to create greater income and wealth inequality in a nation that already has the most income and wealth inequality among the industrialized nations.

You will note in the video above, while they make some good points about Trump’s tax cuts for the rich, the folks at MSNBC fail to mention growing income and wealth inequality because the Wall Street controlled Democratic leadership doesn’t want its station MSNBC to mention it any more than the billionaires who control the Republican Party want their news outlets to mention it. Currently, the rich steal anywhere from 24 to 38 percent of all income produced in the United States, compared to 8 percent in 1980. In addition, the richest 10 percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, a historic and still growing record.

As corporations get tax cuts, much of those tax savings will go to the rich via higher corporate profits, rising dividends, and surging stock prices. The rest of us will suffer the consequences. In addition, of course, corporations will have more money to invest, supposedly to create jobs, as if giving corporations tax cuts will magically increase consumer demand. That’s not likely. So what will they invest in?

Historically, US corporations buy other corporations, especially rivals, when they receive tax cuts or higher profits. This, of course, creates redundancies in a variety of job areas, such as accounting and computer technicians. When mergers occur, employees are the first thing to go in order to eliminate those redundancies. Of course, to help pay for these mergers, jobs will be exported to low-wage nations and the difference between the higher paying US jobs and the new lower wage jobs in China, India and elsewhere will fuel corporate profits, and push up dividends and share prices. That’s what those free trade treaties have been negotiated to do, and Democrats, like Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, are not stupid little boys and girls who are ignorant of this fact.

This is one of the reasons why there is not a shred of evidence that supply-side economics, otherwise known as tax cuts for the rich, has ever created a single job, but there is plenty of evidence tax cuts for the rich and corporations have destroyed US jobs. Under President George W. Bush, tax cuts were enacted for the rich, making certain that the growth in jobs and real wages were negative, the only time in US history that has occurred under a single president since Republican Herbert Hoover.

Naturally, there are other things the Republicans are refusing to mention.

Gary Markstein / Creators Syndicate

There will be an increased federal deficit of $2.5 trillion, which is typical under irresponsible Republican administrations and Congress, just like the Reagan years, and the other twelve years under the Bush presidents. Naturally, cutbacks in federal spending will be proposed.

Republicans and some Democrats will insist the US is not spending a sufficient number of dollars on its military, so that will not be subject to reductions. The US spends more on the military than the next 25 nations combined, 24 of whom are US allies, but clearly, that’s insufficient because US military spending is quite profitable. However, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other less profitable programs that help the politically powerless will be on the table for cuts if Trump’s tax cuts for the rich sails through Congress.

The rich, of course, have stolen just about all real income and wealth increases over the last thirty-five years, thanks to their financial abilities to corrupt both major political parties and the federal government in the process. Naturally, their dirty money has also corrupted most state and city governments. So, obviously, the financial and political deck is completely stacked against the 99 percent.

Luckily, the Democrats in the US Senate will object to this irresponsible behavior because the billionaires of Wall Street who control the party will object to it. That’s the only reason why Democratic senators like Ron Wyden will likely oppose the legislation. Even some Republicans may oppose Trump’s tax plan because it is completely against the national interest, that is if one assumes the citizens of the United States who make up 99 percent of the population are a part of that national interest.

According to the video above, solar power has now become the cheapest electricity in the world. Tesla has created batteries that will power whole cities. Solar and wind power plants often need to be shut down when they are producing more power than is being used.

So what’s going to happen as the size and capacity of batteries increase, while the cost to produce them drops? Extra electricity produced by solar and wind will be able to absorb the extra power, creating a surplus supply that can power cities, trains and other things.

The result, according to the Bloomberg video above, will be the slow reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

Citizens of the United States spend more per capita for healthcare than another high wage nation. This suggests the US healthcare system is mighty inefficient compared to other systems, both in terms of price and in services provided. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill in the US Senate on

Sanders introduced a bill in the US Senate on Wednesday September 13, 2017 that would provide “cost” and “services provided” efficient “Medicare for All.” 57 percent of Americans support Medicare for All, according to Kaiser Health News. Fifteen Democratic Party legislators support the bill, which is up from 1 (Sanders) a few years ago.

Fifteen Democratic Party legislators support the bill, which is up from 1 (Sanders) a few years ago. “Medicare for All,” but that’s more of a handy slogan than reality, as this plan would greatly expand Medicare and overhaul it — for example, it would greatly expand the type of coverage offered and also eliminate deductibles.

“Medicare for All” would greatly expand Medicare and overhaul it.  For example, it would greatly expand the type of coverage offered and also eliminate deductibles, copays and premiums. Private insurance companies are also currently a part of the Medicare system. That wouldn’t be the case under Sanders’ plan.”

Under the current US system, premiums, copays, and deductables have constantly increased for decades, long before Obamacare came into being. Medical services have been cut back, even as costs (and profits) have risen. Much of this cost increase (if not all of it) is so publicly traded limited liability health care corporations can increase profits, which tend to push up share prices and dividends. In effect, health care provided by publicly traded corporations is really an income redistribution scam perpetrated on the 99 percent by shareholders of the 1 percent. Such corporation distort the market through collusions.

Sanders plan would be phased in over four years and would cover more things than Medicare currently does. His plan would cover dental and vision care, for example, which are for the most part not covered by Medicare.

So how does Sanders propose to pay for this system that covers all Americans? First of all, it would reduce employer and self-employed healthcare costs by eliminating the need for businesses and self employed people to purchase health care for themselves and their employees. According to PBS, “Sanders proposed a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations. In addition, Sanders’ plan says the end os f big health insurance-related tax expenditures, like employers’ ability to deduct insurance premiums, would save trillions of dollars.”

The cost would, obviously, be less expensive and more efficient than the profit motived health care system we now have in the United States.

The Wall Street Democratic National Committee (DNC), arch supporters of the presidential candidate of Wall Street, Hillary Rodham Clinton, want us to believe their lie that automation killed US manufacturing and created greater income and wealth inequality over the last thirty-five years. They don’t want us to believe US corporations have exported millions of jobs because of Bill Clinton’s trade treaties like NAFTA. Hillary, being a good Wall Street pawn, supported income redistribution scams like Nafta and the Trans Pacific Partnership. These Wall Street DNC folks even have people trolling the web looking for stories with Hillary Clinton tags showing automation did not kill millions upon millions of manufacturing jobs, and that they’ve been instead exported to China, Vietnam, Mexico and elsewhere.

The trolls are reading from the same basic script. It goes something like this; “I worked in high tech for (take your pick – 30, 35, 40) years and I witnessed whole categories of jobs being eliminated through automation. Automation has created joblessness and income inequality, not trade treaties. You progressives are all the same. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You need to get your facts straight!”

First of all, there is not a shred of evidence that automation causes joblessness or inequality because advances in technology tend to create more jobs than it displaces. For example, the computer industry wiped out the typewriter industry and created tens of millions more jobs in the process than the old typewriter industry ever created. As a 2017 study from the Economic Policy Institute points out, “Yes, automation has led to job displacements in particular occupations and industries in the past, but there is no basis for claiming that automation has led—or will lead—to increased joblessness, unemployment, or wage stagnation overall.”

Trade treaties are the primary cause of the growth in income and wealth inequality in the United States and throughout the world. This is a no-brainer: When jobs are exported the difference between the old higher US wages and benefits and the new lower Mexican, Chinese and Vietnamese wages go into the already fat wallets of the super rich via higher corporate profits, surging dividends, and soaring share prices. So yes, since Hillary supports trade treaties, she also clearly supports redistributing income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

So Hillary wrote a new book that blames Bernie Sanders for her presidential defeat to Donald Trump, and her trolls are roaming around the Internet advancing her cause with lies, half-truths, and distortions. This suggests Hillary may be getting ready for another run at the presidency. It also suggests the Wall Street Democratic National Committee is behind her possible candidacy.

In 2020, she’ll be the wrong candidate at the wrong time for 99 percent of the people of this nation. We’re heading into an already overdue recession that should be worse than the last one in many respects. Unemployment, for example, will likely be higher than last time. We need a champion of the people, such as Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, or Elizabeth Warren. The last thing the people of the United States will need in 2020 is another brown-nosing Wall Street pawn in the White House.

Hillary Clinton’s new book, What Happened shows she is completely out of touch with reality and voter’s anxieties over the economic policies that have redistributed trillions of dollars from the 99 to the 1 percent. These policies were championed by her, former President Bill Clinton, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and a host of other Republicans and Democrats, such as Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Wall Street’s favorite brown-noser, Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden.

In her book, Clinton blames Bernie Sanders for her defeat in the presidential election. She claims Sanders candidacy split the progressive vote. Hogwash! Hillary lost the presidential election because she is a gold plated pawn of Wall Street. Voters were tired of their jobs and tax dollars being exported to Mexico, China, and Vietnam. Clinton supported the policies that did this. Wall Street loved her support for these policies.

The CEOs of Wall Street, other major corporations, and billionaire investors rewarded her and her husband with $150 million in speaking fees from 2001 to 2016, at $225,000 a pop. Progressive voters knew that yes big money had gotten her to change her mind on legislation cutting back on the abilities of working folks to declare bankruptcy on behalf of the big banks who had purchased her lock, stock and barrel (See video above). Progressives knew the mind boggling millions of jobs that would have been exported from the United States to China with the Trans Pacific Partnership, which she called the “gold plated standard” for trade agreements. Then, of course, there was her support as Secretary of State for the coup that overthrew the lawful government of Honduras and resulted in the death of hundreds. You could go on and on about why progressives could not and would not support Candidate Clinton, but you cannot blame Bernie Sanders.

Hillary is completely out of touch with reality, but the book suggests she might want to run for president again.