Posts Tagged ‘Democratic’


Read Full Post »

US Senator Elizabeth Warren is an honest politician. And she sounded like a champion of the 99 percent during an interview with Salon.com when she bashed President Obama for kowtowing to the interests of Wall Street ahead of the American people.

Warren praised Obama for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency aimed at enforcing consumer protection laws. However, Obama’s financial ties with the elites of Wall Street came under closer review.

Warren told Salon that “there has not been nearly enough change” in the wake of the U.S. financial crisis.

“He picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street. …They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over.”

On lobbyists: Banks spend millions on “armies of lobbyists and lawyers,” she told Salon, but there are few people at “the decision-making table” representing the concerns of everyday Americans.

“And when that happens — not just once, not just twice, but thousands of times a week — the system just gradually tilts further and further.”

Under Obama, during the greatest crisis since the Great Depression, in which massive fraud and money laundering for drug cartels and other crimes were committed by Wall Street executives and their employees, not a single person was charged by Obama’s Justice Department. “I’m the only one standing between you and the pitch forks,” Obama told a group of Wall Street executives during the height of the crisis. He was right, and he did his job for them. Goldman Sachs was the largest of his campaign financiers.

Under George W. Bush, people actually were charged with crimes in corporate scandals, and sent to prison, such as the Enron and Worldcom scandals. Under President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, over a thousand people were convicted of felonies for their parts in the savings and loan scandal.

This indicates how corrupt to the core the government of the United States has become, and  it’s not just Obama. It’s both major political parties, all Republicans in congress, and 90 percent of all Democratic lawmakers. The system is awash in money and corruption, all the way to the corporate wing of the US Supreme Court. The political and economic games are completely corrupted and rigged against the middle class.

For the complete interview, click on the link below.

Elizabeth Warren on Barack Obama: “They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over”–Salon.com



Read Full Post »

Warren: We’re in this mess because Washington has ignored the middle class for a generation (via Raw Story )

On Wednesday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stopped by “The Rachel Maddow Show” to discuss economic populism, wealth inequality and possible ground games for the Democratic and the Republican Parties in the coming years. Maddow began the segment…


Read Full Post »

On October 24, Goldman Sachs paid Hilliary Clinton $200,000 for a half hour speech. They were so impressed by her investment sagacity, they invited her back on October 29 and paid her another $200,000 for another speech. Big money is flowing to Democratic and Republican Party politicians every day. Does anybody think that if I give Hilliary $100 that she’d come and give a speech at my house with my neighbors in attendance?

If Hilliary becomes president, she’ll be just as friendly to Wall Street as any other Wall Street president, like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, GW and HW Bush. In other words, the presidential election of 2016 has already been rigged against the 99 percent. Goldman Sachs has already purchased a Democratic nominee for president. Tons of other corporations are purchasing politicians as you read this.

Check out the complete story below.


Read Full Post »

Hilliary Clinton is likely to make a run for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016. Polls show she is an overwhelming favorite to defeat such Democratic salwarts as current Vice President Joe Biden.

The Democratic Party currently represents corporate interests almost as much as the Republican Party. The only difference between the two parties is which sections of the top 0.05 income earners and corporations do they represent? Quite naturally, both parties happen to represent Wall Investment firms about equally. But for the most part, the battle between the parties is a battle between the parasites of the 1 percent, which is nearly always against and at the expense of the 99 percent. For example, Democrats represent Costco, while Republicans represent Walmart.

However, things are changing. By 2016, income and wealth will have continued to be redistributed from the 99 to the 1 percent via federal, state and local legislation. The corporate propaganda media, from Fox News to the New York Times, will attempt to limit debate on this crucial issue, as it always does. By 2016, the oncoming train wreck called the US economy may be completely off track, or at least, closer to it than it is now, and its already riding only on one rail. This suggests the issues of income and wealth redistribution will become an important topic, despite desperate attempts by the media to turn our attention away from it.

Hilliary Clinton was corrupted by and sold out to the 0.05 percent decades ago. She has a track record to prove it. So who could challenge her and win?

“Any candidate who challenged Clinton would need several key assets. The candidate would almost certainly have to be a woman, given Democrats’ desire to make history again. She would have to amass huge piles of money with relatively little effort. Above all, she would have to awaken in Democratic voters an almost evangelical passion. As it happens, there is precisely such a person. Her name is Elizabeth Warren.”

Check out the videos below in which Senator Warren questions US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geither. The second video is how she wondered at her very first Senate hearing why so few Wall Street banks are ever taken to court.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

In his recent budget proposal, President Obama proposed using something called a “Chained CPI” to calculate cost of living increases for Social Security recipients. This would understate the way the federal government currently understates inflation on which it bases cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for retirees.

Republicans are quite happy with the president’s proposal since it massively redistributes income from senior citizens on fixed incomes to the 1 percent. See How Corporations Create Profits: inflation, tax-breaks, and-free-trade. Many Democrats are opposed to this scam, but, of course, some corporate Democrats back the president on this issue, even if they won’t publicly say so.

The way the government measures inflation has been changed twenty times since 1982, and each change has made the official inflation rate smaller (See graph below). The losers are the 99 percent, especially Social Security recipients, and the winners are the price fixers and price hikers, whose price collusion is largely hidden by an understated inflation rate. Check out the link above for an explanation.

“Chained CPI is shorthand for the “Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.” It’s an inflation measure that essentially ties tax rates and entitlement spending to the rise in prices over time.

The government currently uses a different inflation measure to calculate Social Security benefits, applying the CPI-W, or “Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” to its formula.

Using Chained CPI instead of CPI-W would slow the rate of growth for entitlement benefits and cause people to enter higher tax brackets more quickly — because the income parameters for each bracket would rise more slowly.

Chained CPI would reduce entitlement benefits by about 0.3 percentage points per year. That’s a small amount, but it results in big savings for the government over time. On the other hand, the relatively minute cuts can build up for recipients.”

That doesn’t seem like much, but a senior receiving $1000 a month in Social Security payments today would lose $48.53 five years later if a Chained CPI is used. Worst yet, you can tell from the graph above that the real inflation rate is understated by 5 to 10 percent per year. After five years, using the real inflation rate, the real spending power of that $1000 drops to a range of $595 to $765. Then on top of that, using the Chained CPI, seniors would lose another $48.53, which means their real spending power would drop to a range of $547 to $617. That’s why so many seniors are living in poverty.

A new report from the Economic Policy Institute shows that “…19.9 million (48 percent) of America’s seniors are economically vulnerable—meaning they are either in poverty or just one bad economic shock away from significant material hardship. This share rises to 63.5 percent among elderly blacks and 70.1 percent among elderly Hispanics. For these seniors, and even for those with greater means, Social Security and Medicare are the bedrock of their financial security. As illustrated in the infographic accompanying the report (which is below), an additional 3.5 million seniors would become economically vulnerable if medical out-of-pocket expenses doubled (under proposed changes to Medicare).”

“After working hard their entire lives, millions of our elderly are struggling to pay for basic needs like food, medicine, and housing, even with Social Security and Medicare,” said report coauthor Elise Gould.

“Almost half of seniors are either in poverty or close to it,” added coauthor David Cooper. “We shouldn’t be cutting the benefits that are barely adequate as is, effectively legislating more of them into poverty.”

But that is precisely what President Obama is proposing, which is something congressional Republicans are overjoyed with. Think about this. The average senior citizen survives on less than $20,000 a year, with $15,000 coming from Social Security.

Now the president and Republicans want to reduce that miniscule figure even more. And think about this. If inflation was measured the way it was in 1980 to provide raises for Social Security recipients, that $1000 a month example I used above would be in the range of $1276 to $1610. These are the kind of Social Security raises seniors would need to keep up with our corporate driven, income redistributing, price increases. Obama knows this. So do the Republicans.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: