Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘corruption’

Inequality in the United States began with a simple idea; give more money to the rich so they can purchase the favors of government. This was called the Reagan tax cuts. The rich used their money to purchase more tax breaks in the political markets, and that’s exactly what the political area is; a market with buyers and sellers.

When President Franklin Roosevelt pushed for a 90 percent top marginal tax rate, he did it to act as a maximum wage, to save democracy from being purchased by the rich. Reagan let the genie out of the bottle.

Since Reagan, all sorts of legislation has been passed to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent, including income redistribution treaties, falsely referred to as trade agreements.

Now President Obama is pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest income redistribution agreement of all time. Since 2009, the rich have stolen 95 percent of all income growth. The TPP will increase this inequality. Wall Street Senator’s Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell and Ron Wyden are all for the TPP, since they have a history of siding with legislation that redistributes income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

In other words, Reagan’s tax cuts began rigging the game of economics and politics in favor of the 1 percent.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

What do international trade treaties, such as the looming Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), have to do with the rising cost of education? Tons!

The Race to the Bottom isn’t working for 99 percent of US citizens. Yet, the corrupt US government continues to follow the same failed economic policies of the last thirty years because those policies benefit the 1 percent at the expense of the 99 percent. That is why President Obama, Republican leaders, and Corporate Democrats like Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden are pushing for Fast Track Authority for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Fast Track will limit debate, so they can push confirmation of this income redistribution scam through the senate without you knowing about it.

The TPP is a massive income redistribution treaty falsely marketed as an international trade agreement. The TPP is about exporting more jobs overseas, redistributing the difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages from the taxpaying 99 percent to the 1 percent via higher corporate earnings, rising dividends and surging share prices.

What does this have to do with education?

Most public universities rely on state tax dollars for much of their funding. Middle class jobs are the United States largest export product. Taxes come from those jobs, especially sales, income and property taxes. Nearly 29 million tax paying US jobs were exported from 1990 to 2010. That’s a lot of tax dollars that used to go toward education.

As these jobs were exported, the cost of education gradually had to be carried more and more by students and their families.

Fight against this latest income transfer scam, the Trans Pacific Partnership, which has been negotiated to redistribute your income and tax dollars to the 1 percent. But that’s not all!

A total lack of transparency over the so-called free trade treaty’s components and some emerging details have created unlikely allies on the issue. Details from negotiations have been leaked against the wishes the president.

From leaked documents, which can be found on Wikileaks, we know the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership will;

* will effectively eliminate your voting rights on local and state issues since it will unconstitutionally grant investors of the 0.01 percent special privileges to challenge labeling and health and safety local laws and regulations of the 99 percent, which most people call voter suppression, but in this case it should be called voter elimination,

* offer new monopolies for Big Pharma to raise medicine prices they charge you (which redistributes income from the 99 to the 1 percent),

* limit food safety standards (which redistributes and transforms your health into the profits of the 1 percent),

* block financial regulations aimed at preventing the next financial crisis (which will make it easier for Wall Street to redistribute your income and wealth to the 1 percent).

* will also kill the remainder of the US textile industry, destroy millions of jobs in Latin America, drive millions of undocumented immigrants into the United States,

* and depress wages in both North and South America, all to the benefit of the 1 percent, and all at the expense of the 99 percent.

* And we can’t forget that it will increase the already massive US trade deficit with other nations, which is supposed to be a bad thing.

* In other words, this scam is the largest income redistribution treaty of all time from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Sounds like a great deal for the 1 percent. And we barely know any of the details.

Why do Wall Street Senator Ron Wyden, President Obama, and the entire Republican Party want to do this to us? Ask them. It’s all about where the money goes, but they’re not going to tell you that.

Read Full Post »

Truth, justice, the Constitution and everything that comes before the US Supreme Court is all about money. If a case comes before it that will destroy 100 years of legal precedence but grant billionaires more political power and ways to steal money from the 99 percent, the corporate wing of the US Supreme Court will rule for it. It’s that simple.

A business corporation is “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.” Legislative authorization created a process for creating and awarding charters for incorporation.

In other words, the corrupt Koch Brothers wing of the US Supreme Court ruled in the Citizen’s United case that “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization” is a person.

Chief Justice John Roberts (a well known perjurer), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (another well known perjurer), Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia are either so stupid or so corrupt as to grant personhood rights to an idea. Corruption most likely played the key roll in this case because these are not stupid little boys still wetting their diapers.

Read Full Post »

After the Koch Brother’s wing of the US Supreme Court came under intense criticism for its incredibly corrupt decision in the Citizen’s United case, which granted business corporations constitutional rights, sometimes called personhood rights, the corporate media attempted to confuse the public, so as to dilute the public wrath toward the court’s five corrupt, corporate members, Chief Justice John Roberts (a well known perjurer), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (Another well known perjurer), Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia. See Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court–New York Times.

Pundits on television and commentators in the written press defended the court’s decision by saying nonsensical things, such as shareholders of corporations are people and deserve constitutional rights. This type of argument was only intended to confuse people.

A business corporation is “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.” Shareholders are the owners of business corporations, which are only ideas.

To suggest shareholders of corporations are the same as the corporations they own is as illogically sound as to suggest that a person who owns a dog is in fact his dog, or the people who own a chicken poop farm are the chicken poop on their farm, or the people who own communal land jointly are the land they own, or the husband and wife who own a house together are the house, or the person who owns toilet paper is the toilet paper she owns.

Don’t let the pundits and commentators of the corporate propaganda machine lie to you.

Another point never made in rebuttal to the “shareholders are corporations” argument was that corporate shareholders already have constitutional rights as individuals. Besides, the US constitution does not grant group rights, it only grants individual rights, and shareholders already had those.

Even that point would have only served to divert our attention from the real issue, which is shareholders are not corporations anymore than the owner of kitty litter is kitty litter, although that nonsense seems to make sense to the folks at Fox News, as well as Chief anti-Justice John Roberts, as well as his fellow anti-justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia.

The economic, political and economic games are rigged in favor of the 1 percent by the 1 percent. The US Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, and the public defense of that decision, and corporate personhood, were just other ways of further rigging the game to hide the the gigantic economic, political and judicial corruption that soaks the United States, its corporations, and its governments. The anti-justices of the US Supreme Court simply did their job, which is why they were nominated by US presidents and confirmed by the US senate, and so they created another conduit to help the 1 percent increase that corruption, and continue to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent without the 99 percent ever seeing it.

That’s the mission of the corrupt, corporate wing of the US Supreme Court: Chief anti-Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia.

Click the link below for more on this issue.

the-easy-case-against-corporate-personhood-part-2-and-the-case-for-money-out-of-politics–JohnHively.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

In 1886, the US Supreme court is thought to have ruled that publicly traded limited liability corporations were persons, and to have equal rights under the law with organic persons, based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. This decision, of course, was based  on corruption within the court, rather than any legal perspective, because there was no other sense to it, especially from a legal point of view. But the decision still stands more than a century later.

A softball team is an association of people. A labor union is an association of people. Shareholders are the owners of publicly traded limited liability  corporations, therefore they are an association of people of a sort, but mostly never meet, and therefore, are not really an association of people, at least not in any real sense.

A corporation is a legislatively created “artificial person,” at least from a legislatively written perspective. A corporation is neither an association of people or a person, but rather, an imaginary business model given life and the legal mechanics to exist and operate by legislative fiat under the legal fiction of “artificial person.”

This brings up an interesting puzzle. If the shareholders are the owners of the “artificial persons” known as corporations, and the US Supreme Court says these artificial persons have the same rights as organic persons, then would not the ownership of corporations by the shareholders be in violation of the 13th amendment which bans the ownership of one person by another? And how can a corporation have such rights if it cannot function in such simple ways as envisioned by the founders as voting? No, corporations are not persons or associations since the associations of shareholders have been ruled as being distinct from corporations.

Besides, the US constitution grants only individual rights, not group rights.

Another point needs to be made; does anybody really think the founders thought you could legislatively create anything out of thin air, label it an artificial person, and then it could be considered a person with all the legal rights and responsibilities of human beings? I don’t think so.

Most likely, a corrupt politician devised the term “artificial person” knowing that a court corrupted by big money would rule such a thing to be equal to an organic person. That’s like creating an artificial person such as a robot, legally labeling it as such, and giving it constitutional rights. Do you really think a court would rule in the robot’s favor if it demanded full constitutional rights? Okay, it might happen if there was a big push by big money to do so, which is something the corporate wing of the US Supreme court seems to favor.

But what if politicians legislatively changed the labels of raccoons or rocks to “artificial persons.” Would the corporate wing of the US Supreme Court rule that artificial humans formerly known as raccoons and rocks have all the legal rights the US Constitution grants even if big money was behind it? I don’t think so.

This suggests the people of the 0.1 percent are the majority shareholders in the US Supreme Court, as well as other judicial markets.

Only rich people looking for a way to rip off the American public could have corrupted the legislative process and the court system to get their artificial person constitutional rights for only they have sufficient money to do so.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,640 other followers