Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Kansas’

Texas and Kansas are the homes of low taxes, low wages and fewer regulations. California is the state of high taxes (especially on the rich), high wages and more regulations. According to conservative economic gospel, Kansas and Texas should be outperforming California.

However, the reality is the opposite. California easily outperforms Kansas and Texas and any other states that are low tax, low wage, and fewer regulations. Robert Reich explains why in the video above.

On the other hand, Minnesota is a higher tax state than Wisconsin. Guess which one is performing the best. You bet. It’s Minnesota.

Forbes magazine listed Minnesota No. 9 in its 2014 ranking of best states for business, even though it had a higher tax rate than Wisconsin. In this same ranking, Wisconsin rated number 32.

Read Full Post »

In 2012, in a town hall in India, then US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said,

“Outsourcing jobs is part of our economic relationship with India. I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefited many parts of our country (the USA), and there are disadvantages that goes toward the need to improve the work skills of our own people (those who lose their jobs), and create a better economic environment. It’s like anything. It’s got pluses and minuses.”

What Clinton didn’t say is who benefits and who loses when she supports exporting jobs. Let’s get something straight, nearly thirty million US jobs were exported from the US from 1990 to 2010. Millions more have been exported since. Notice in the graph below how the exporting of US jobs increased with NAFTA, which Clinton supported. Hillary has also supported the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), until she came under intense criticism as a presidential candidate. No doubt, she still supports it because Wall Street does, and she is Wall Street’s candidate.

manufacturing-jobs-exported-per-year

The United States is in the seventh and likely final year of an economic boom. The statistics are staggering about what exporting jobs have brought about here.

  1. Income inequality perhaps never experienced in US history.
  2. The 99 percent has gone from earning 92 percent of all income produced in the USA in 1980 to 63 percent today.
  3. 48 million people on food stamps, which is nearly one out of six Americans.
  4. A middle class that has shrunk from 61 to 49 percent of US adults from 1970 to 2016.
  5. Wages that have declined in real terms for 36 years.
  6. A rising homeless population.
  7. Wealth inequality never experienced in US history.
  8. The worst economic expansion in terms of wage growth and jobs growth since the Great Depression.
  9. Slower job growth than under President Jimmy Carter, back when the population was 65 percent of today, and the Gross Domestic Product was 45 percent the size of today.
  10. A tax base that is shrinking every year as the jobs are being exported, and this has brought about higher college costs, shrinking social safety nets (such as social security), decrepit public infrastructure, and many more negative things.
  11. A massive trade deficit the United States has with US corporations manufacturing abroad and then exporting those products to the USA.

Obviously, exporting jobs is not a winning formula for the vast majority of US citizens, but Mrs. Clinton thinks so. The rich, of course, benefit from exporting jobs.

When jobs are exported (and let’s face it, jobs are the number export product of the United States), the difference between the old higher US wages and the new lower wages in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, go straight into the pockets of the super rich via higher corporate earnings, rising share prices, and surging dividends.

So the good things about exporting jobs that Hillary spoke about in the video are that exporting jobs is the fuel that causes the stock markets and corporate profits to surge at record levels. Clinton doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about the massive collateral damage to the 99 percent, much of which is listed above.

That’s why every geographic area of the United States outside of the old confederacy is Bernie Sanders country, and why he will win the Democratic nomination.

That why Bernie Sanders whipped Hillary Clinton badly in Kansas and Nebraska on Saturday, March 5. He won by 68 percent of the vote in Kansas, and 55 percent in Nebraska. Hillary, as expected, took 70 percent of the vote in Louisiana.

Clinton has yet to prove she can win decisively outside of the southeast. She appears to be nothing more than an over-hyped regional candidate. True, Clinton edged out Bernie in Iowa, Nevada, and Massachusetts, but outside of the South, it is Sanders who has dominated the Democratic primaries.

Not counting the super delegates, most, of which, have declared for Clinton, Hillary leads in delegates 659 to 455. However, most of the Southern states have voted in the Democratic primary (save for Florida) and the rest of the nation appears to be Sanders country.

Sure most of the super delegates temporarily support Clinton, but if she loses the popular vote in the primaries, which is highly likely, the super delegates are not bound to Clinton. They will switch to Sanders, or experience the end of the Democratic Party by sticking with Hillary.

Read Full Post »

Wall Street’s US House Republican Mike Pompeo (who represents Monsanto in the US congress) last April called for a nationwide ban to label foods with genetically modified organisms in them, and the bill he sponsored is going to be aired in committee on December 10.  The bill is co-sponsored by Wall Street’s US House Representative G.K. Butterfield (a Democrat who represents Monsanto disguised as a representative of North Carolina). On November 21 of this year the editors of the Oregonian newspaper endorsed the ban, effectively calling for suppressing the votes of people nationwide.

In Oregon, Ballot Measure 92 called for the labeling of foods that contained GMOs. The people voted on it November 4. It’s now in the process of being recounted since the vote was so close. There are hints that the yes votes in some counties were under-counted, as reported by local news media, which is not the same as the corporate news media, which is what the Oregonian newspaper is.

Ballot Measure 92 had strong support among local businesses, such as the Whole Foods and New Seasons Food Store chains. Those opposed to the measure were out-of-state companies such as Pepsico and Monsanto. The editors of the Oregonian newspaper were against Measure 92, which shows how important the national corporate agenda to wipe out democracy for the middle class is to the editors when they can defy local advertisers on behalf of out-of-state multinational corporations.

Ballot Measure 92 was a product of signatures, and a process called an initiative. Under this system, citizens can write a possible law, get enough voter signatures, and the proposal gets on the ballot. Then citizens vote yes or no on the thing. Notice bio-tech corporations and food corporations that poison people by putting GMOs in their food products can’t vote on these initiatives. Which brings us to an important point.

There is no such thing as an initiative process on the national level. In other words, Pompeo, Butterfield, and the editors of the Oregonian newspaper, are proposing to wipe out the initiative process on the state and local levels when it comes to GMOs. In other words, they are planning to steal your right to vote by going through congress. Nice scam, huh?

Most of the Republican Party, a large chunk of the Democratic Party, and most of the corporate propaganda machine disguised as news outlets are moving to destroy your voting rights to make the nation safe for the poisons known as GMOs.

The editors of the Oregonian newspaper insist there are no serious studies that show GMO’s are harmful to human health. Any such studies are under dispute, or so they’ve written in the past. Here’s what they haven’t mentioned; those studies are under dispute only by the GMO corporations and organizations funded by GMO corporations. The plot thickens, doesn’t it?

While there are numerous independent studies showing likely harmful effects by GMOs to humans, there are also two studies we know of that demonstrate possible human health problems with GMOs underwritten by GMO giant Syngenta. Both were kept secret by Syngenta. The editors of the Oregonian have kept us ignorant of these studies. Check out the reports on them below.

The honesty of GMO corporate leadership on this issue, and the honesty of the editors and reporters of the Oregonian newspaper, are similar to the honesty of the leaders of the tobacco corporations when they told us for decades that the use of tobacco had no harmful impacts on humans, and they suppressed their own studies on this issue showing the opposite was true. In other words, they lied. And we’re supposed to trust the GMO corporations?

The editors of the Oregonian, Pompeo and Butterfield know this too, yet they support the same tactics for GMO corporations as the tobacco industry once used. That’s how they keep us ignorant, and allow the 1 percent to roll over us. That is their job.

Syngenta charged with lying over cattle deaths–GM Watch

A Valuable Reputation–the New Yorker

Read Full Post »

Ernest Barnes is a wheat farmer in Kansas. Barnes filed a lawsuit this week against the giant biotech corporation, Monsanto. Barnes is claiming “that Monsanto’s genetic pollution has financially damaged himself and other farmers.

A few weeks ago, Monsanto’s genetically modified (GMO) wheat was discovered in a crop in Oregon. Japan and South Korea immediately banned all imports of US grown wheat, damaging the finances of US wheat farmers. Other nations may follow. Monsanto’s GMO wheat is banned in those nations, as well as in United States, although it’s been tested here.

Click the link below for the complete story.

Natural News–It’s on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040625_lawsuit_Monsanto_genetic_pollution.html#ixzz2W7aRUvEF

Read Full Post »

The American middle class hardly needs to be told that it’s struggling: Obama needs to name the enemy, not emote empathy, but he’s not likely to do that. He doesn’t care about the middle class, except during election time. That’s now, and three years ago, and ten years ago. Obama wasn’t politically around ten years ago, but he was three years ago.

Substantively, nothing in Obama’s Kansas speech broke new ground. No new policies were put put forth and no new arguments were made. He spoke to restrained frustration dusted with hope – wasn’t much different from other recent addresses, either.

And you can’t argue he was breaking new ground by showing empathy with a disintegrating middle class.

“When people are slipping out of the middle class,” he said, “it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom.”

This is not news to anyone, anywhere. The president has been aware of this for quite some time.

“Soon, the middle class will only exist in speeches given by politicians and in the minds of workers who cannot allow themselves to identify as something below that. The face of poverty looks more and more like the face in the mirror as thousands of Americans turn to food banks and homeless shelters for the first time. Yet, I think we may be too proud to let the term “middle class” slip away – even as the moderate level of prosperity and disposable income that defined it becomes a day dream.” Ana Marie Cox

some people say that “Obama takes a risk in his willingness to openly discuss the fragility of our national self-image: admitting how bad things have become can only work to his electoral advantage if he offers a solution that feels right to voters – or if he can channel their discontent away from himself.” That may be true, but not likely. Americans are easily swayed. Obama’s core constituents will believe in his populist rhetoric, or at least, pump hope into their financially destroyed hearts. Obama will not follow his words with any substantial action.

The so-called experts have reacted pretty reliably to Obama’s speech: “those on the left have swooned over his embrace of populist rhetoric, those on the right have raised the tattered banner of “class warfare”, apparently not realising that class warfare has been going on for quite awhile now – and the rich have been winning.”

Ana Marie Cox said it best, “Politicians always put themselves rhetorically on the side of the middle class without ever admitting there’s a fight going on. Obama has finally acknowledged that the elephant in the room is crushing us.” Obama can’t and won’t fight the good fight to save the American middle class because he the disciple of Wall Street. He worships at the feet of greed. Just ask the folks at Goldman Sachs.

Read Full Post »