Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘wealth redistribution’ Category

The real question is, “Why would anybody trust corporate America? The tobacco corporations lied to us about lung cancer and tobacco, the big banks have lied to us, the corporate press lies to us, the genetically modified corporations lie to us, government politicians on the corporate dole lie to us, and so on and so forth.

Why would anybody purchase pre-manufactured soups and other foods knowing these products might have GMO poisons in them?

The following soups contain GMO poisons, typically in the form of corn-based thickeners and flavoring enhancements:

Campbell’s Basic Soups

Cheddar Cheese
Chicken Noodle
Cream of Broccoli
Cream of Celery
Cream of Chicken
Cream of Mushroom
Green Pea
Tomato

Campbell’s Healthy Request

Chicken Noodle
Cream of Celery
Cream of Chicken
Cream of Mushroom

Campbell’s Select

Baked Potato with Steak & Cheese
Beef with Rice
Chicken Rice
Chunky
Grilled Chicken with Sundried Tomatoes
Hearty Chicken & Vegetable
Pepper Steak
New England Clam Chowder
Roasted Chicken with Rice
Vegetable Beef

Campbell’s Simply Home

Bean & Pasta
Chicken Barley
Chicken Noodle
Chicken & Rice
Chicken & Wild Rice
Corn Chowder
Country Vegetable
Crab Soup
Fat Free Chicken Noodle
Fat Free Lentil
Fat Free Minestrone
Fat Free Roast Chicken
Fiesta Chicken
Garden Vegetable
Lentil
Lobster Bisque
Minestrone
New England Clam Chowder
Roasted Chicken with Rotini
Tomato Basil
Vegetable Beef with Pasta
Zesty Herb Tomato

Campbell’s Soup to Go

Chicken Noodle
Chicken Rice
Garden Vegetable
Vegetable Beef & Rice

Healthy Choice (ConAgra)
All soups

Pepperidge Farms (Campbells)
All soups

Progresso (Pillsbury)
All soups

Read Full Post »

Knowing the truth can set you free. Knowledge of the forces that constrain you is the first step toward achieving freedom. Great spirits always encounter violent opposition from mediocre and bought off mouths and minds.

So here’s economic myths numbers four and five.

4. Myth: Free trade is good, but only if you’re rich.
Fact: International income redistribution agreements are falsely marketed as free trade agreements. These agreements are perhaps the biggest reason why the 99 percent receive only 66 percent of the income created in the United States nowadays, compared to 8 percent.

5. Myth: The United States is a democracy in which all the people are represented.
Fact: The United States is a plutocracy, which is a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. At times in the past, the USA has had a national government that represented most of the people, but never all of the people. When this has occurred the rich only received 8 percent of national income. Today the rich steal 36 percent of the total national income.

In other words, income distribution is solely linked to political power. Whosoever has the gold makes the rules.

Read Full Post »

The war on the middle class began in 1981 with a well orchestrated anti-labor union message spread throughout all aspects of the national news media. It was a full frontal assault. It still is.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, “As a broad attack on unions continues, with Republican politicians leading efforts to eliminate unions or weaken them in Illinois and Wisconsin, Missouri and West Virginia, and county-by-county in Kentucky, it’s wise to think about what’s at stake. We now know what happens when employers hold most of the cards and employee power is diminished: profits and CEO pay skyrocket, and worker pay flat lines.

It is no coincidence that, as the Figure (above) shows, the share of income going to the broad middle class began to fall as union membership and power were reduced. The middle 60 percent of families depend primarily on wages for their income, so as the unions’ ability to raise wages diminished, so did the ability of middle class families to earn a fair share of the nation’s growing income. Research has shown that as unions were less able to establish wage standards the wages of nonunion workers in the same occupations and sectors were also reduced. Politicians who care about the middle class should be looking for ways to help workers gain access to collective bargaining and restore union strength. They certainly ought not weaken them further and limit or forbid collective bargaining.”

International income redistribution agreements, falsely marketed as free trade agreements, have been the primary tool used by corporate CEOs in their war against labor unions. These agreements allowed US corporations to export nearly 30 million jobs between 1990 and 2010, and millions more since then. See Exporting Jobs–Global Intersection. Millions of these were labor union jobs.

When a job is exported the difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages is redistributed from the 99 to the 1 percent via higher corporate profits, rising dividends and surging share prices. The citizens who lose their jobs might wind up with unemployment insurance, if they’re lucky.

This is one of the reasons why Thomas Piketty is able to write in his international best seller Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century that the US has the greatest mal-distribution of labor income of any nation in the history of the world. CEO pay has skyrocketed in large measure because they are able to ship millions of jobs overseas and redistribute part of the proceeds into their own pockets.

This is also why the 1 percent have gotten wealthier over the last thirty years. Currently, the 1 percent steal a little over 36 percent of all the income produced in the United States, up from 8 percent in 1978. At the current rate of growth, the 1 percent will steal about 40 percent of the total income produced in the USA by next year.

The economic and political strategy of the 1 percent has been quite sound; destroy the middle class by shipping jobs overseas, while simultaneously attacking labor unions at home. That’s why there is such a vicious assault on public employee labor unions, and such a large push to give Fast Track Authority to President Obama, so that he can sign the Trans Pacific Partnership into law when it is introduced into congressional debate. This is the largest income and political power redistribution scam in US history, and it is falsely being labeled a free trade agreement.

Read Full Post »

“MSNBC host and labor advocate Ed Schultz blasted the Obama administration for not standing up for labor workers on “The Ed Show” Tuesday.

One day after Scott Walker dealt another blow to unions by signing right-to-work into law in Wisconsin, Schultz said Obama and the administration have been a “no show” since taking office.

“I have wanted to say this for a long time,” Schultz started. “’All of the sudden President Obama and Vice President Biden are concerned about the depletion of union membership in America and the general attack on unions.'”

Schultz also castigated the president, as well as other democrats such as Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, for supporting Fast Track Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the latter is a job killing, income and political power redistribution scam falsely marketed as a free trade agreement. It has almost nothing to do with trade. It’s about redistributing the income and voting rights of the 99 to the 1 percent. It’s about bypassing Wall Street regulations, which will allow investment banks to drive the US economy into the next Great Depression, which coincidentally, the economy is already bracing for.

The TPP is the most secretive treaty of all time, and we know very little about it since what we know has been leaked.

If congress gives the president Fast Track Authority, then there will be almost no public input and congressional debate on the TPP, no amendments will be offered, and no senate filibuster will be allowed once TPP is introduced into the legislature.

Check out Ed’s show on these issues at the link below.

President Obama is a No-show on Labor Union Issues–Daily Caller

Read Full Post »

Why does President Obama want congress to grant him Fast Track Authority and the Trans Pacific Partnership? Why do Wall Street Senators like Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell and Ron Wyden want the president to have these things?

Richard Trumpka, president of the AFL-CIO, tells you in the video above it’s above shipping jobs overseas and lowering wages. He’s correct, and incorrect.

More precisely, the president wants Fast Track Authority in order to limit senate debate on the issue of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest income redistribution scam of all time, falsely labeled as a free trade agreement.  The TPP will ship millions of jobs overseas and lower wages here at home, but it will do so to redistribute the difference between the old higher wages here and the new super lower wages overseas to the 1 percent via higher share prices, rising profits and soaring dividends.

That should tell you who the president and Ron Wyden really represents in the white house (Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffett, massive hedge funds, etc….) and who Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell represents (Goldman Sachs, Koch brothers, and massive hedge funds).

Read Full Post »

If money is free speech, then so too are cocaine, cigarettes, gold, silver, services of a prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

If, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the government is severely restricted in regulating money in politics because money is free speech, then the government also has to be severely restricted in how it regulates cocaine, cigarettes, child pornography, services of prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

There is a simple reason why these assertions are true.

Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange. That’s the heart of the matter.

A medium of exchange is something that buyers will exchange with a seller when they want to purchase goods or services from the seller. While many things could be used as a medium of exchange in an economy, money is the most common and useful medium of exchange in our society.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money was speech. Thirty-four years later, the US Supreme Court rolled back 100 years of legal precedence in the Citizen’s United case and severely restricted the US government’s ability to regulate the expenditure of money in politics, since money was speech. Since then, the court has further rolled back the US government’s ability to regulate the money being spent in politics. Strange as it may seem to the court’s less honest jurors, the First  Amendment doesn’t mention money, but it does protect speech, not money.

If a medium of exchange such as money is free speech, then no government anyplace under the US Constitution can restrict your use of it to purchase anything, such as prostitutes and illegal drugs. Based on the logic of the US Supreme Court, the next time you’re arrested for using your free speech rights to purchase cocaine or prostitutes, you should defend yourself through the “spending money is free speech” legal illogic, and take it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The corrupt wing of that court (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) have no choice but to side with you if they desire to be consistent in their opinions.

Obviously, any medium of exchange has free speech rights. What about gold? What about bartering? What about cigarettes? Cigarettes and gold have been used as medium’s of exchange, and they too have free speech rights.

Dictionary.com defines barter as, “to exchange in trade, as one commodity for another; trade.”

People trade dollars for goods and services, and so anybody who uses money or any other medium of exchange to purchase anything is merely exercising his or her free speech rights.

Since money is a medium of exchange, and is now considered free speech (even if not one cent of US currency can speak a single syllable of English), it stands to reason that the equal protection clause of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects the free speech rights of other forms of medium of exchange–such as bartering.

Long before money was even an idea, people bartered in order to exchange goods and services.

Say that Short Fat Fanny wants to purchase political advertising on the local television station in Fargo, North Dakota. She doesn’t have any money, but she can offer services. And since Fanny is a prostitute and is willing to barter with William, the manager of the television station, for air time, Fanny’s services are clearly just as much free speech as say a Political Action Committee (PAC) using money to purchase air time on William’s station. Fanny’s services are a medium of exchange. Just like a PAC exchanges money for air time, Fanny exchanges services for air time, and maybe tosses in some crack heroin as part of the bargain. Crack heroin now becomes free speech and has First Amendment rights.

People have used cigarettes, gold, fish, crack heroin, sea shells and other things as medium of exchanges, and therefore anything that can be used as a medium of exchange in the purchase of goods and services should be protected First Amendment rights, according to the logic of the court.

In effect, although the corporate propaganda machine doesn’t want you to know this, the supreme court’s decision to give the action of spending money free speech rights, and the court’s later decisions in Citizen’s United and other cases that rolled back the government’s ability to regulate money in politics, extends beyond politics and into every area of government regulation, since spending money is protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Citizen’s United and Buckley v. Valeo have opened a whole new ball game in the world of politics, and in everyday life.

One can only conclude that the corrupt corporate wing of the US Supreme Court has made some incredibly stupid decisions in these cases, or they made some deliberate political decisions in helping the 1 percent in their war against the middle class.

However, these are not stupid little boys on the court, we can be rest assured that the decisions made in equating spending money to free speech, and limiting the government’s abilities to regulate money in politics, was done in order to allow the 1 percent to use as much money as they could to purchase every iota of advertising space on the air waves and in print during election cycles. That way, the corrupt wing of the court no doubt reasoned, they can keep the 99 percent ill informed and confused as to where politicians actually stand on issues, and to confuse the voters on ballot issues, as well.

The justices made the above rulings in order to rig the economic and political games for the 1 percent and against the 99 percent. In other words, the justices mentioned above are avowed class warriors on behalf of the super rich.

Read Full Post »

Editorial by Brian Schweitzer

Ever since I wrote the opinion piece on the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity that recently appeared in several Montana newspapers (for example, the February 19 Billings Gazette:Brian Switzer on the Koch Brothers in Montana , I’ve heard from a lot of friends and acquaintances in Montana and other states. Folks were as astonished as I was at the amount of government subsidies the Koch brothers receive from one ranch in one state while they hired 11 staffers to keep healthcare from people in Montana. And others have pointed out that the former state director of AFP, former state Senator Joe Balyeat, happily received generous government-paid healthcare.

I do need to correct one error in my opinion piece. My calculations on the state and federal grazing subsidies enjoyed by the Koch brothers in Montana were wrong. They were too low. I based the number of cattle on the assumption that during the driest year since 1960, the Koch ranch would have reduced cattle numbers down that year. I gave them the extreme benefit of the doubt, but they actually have 6,500 head, not 2,000 head.

That means the Koch brothers government subsidies, on just one ranch in one state, are actually 225% greater than I had calculated, meaning the government aid to run the Koch ranch in Montana is not 12.5 million bucks, but actually $28 million. My bad.

These government subsidies help pay for the AFP’s “political attack on the moderate wing of House Republicans,” – an attack reported on by Troy Carter of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (Joe Carter on the Welfare Queens Known as the Koch Brothers in Montana). Carter says Americans for Prosperity is spending thousands of dollars on radio and TV ads to attack Republican legislators like Representatives “Geraldine Custer of Forsyth, Doc Moore of Missoula, Christy Clark of Choteau, Frank Garner of Kalispell, Jeff Wellborn of Dillon and Tom Berry of Roundup.”

These are good and honest legislators – some of whom I’ve disagreed with quite a bit in the past – but they are independent Montanans who are being pressured by one of the wealthiest families in the world to deny healthcare to Montanans.

This is the same AFP the Koch brothers announced will spend a “staggering” $889 million on the 2016 elections (National Public Radio, Koch Brothers to Spend More Than a Billion Dollars on 2016 Presidential Election) – more than any political party has ever spent during a presidential election year. This secretive fortune will be spent to ensure that you and I pay for the Koch brothers’ government subsidies while the elderly, students, poor people and working families get little-to-squat. In essence, according to a political scientist quoted in the NPR report linked above, the Koch brothers have bought and paid for a new political party run by the ultra-wealthy for the ultra-wealthy.

When the Koch brothers attacked labor unions, some people stood back because they weren’t in a union. When they attacked the poor, some looked the other way because they were middle class. When they attacked the Democrats, some stood aside because they weren’t a Democrat. Now, they are even attacking Republicans in Montana. Montana, let’s stand together and send the Kochs’ money and message back to Kansas, where they belong!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,663 other followers