Posts Tagged ‘mitt romney’

People below demonstrate against US multinational investment banking firm Goldman Sachs buying into the National Danish electricity supplier DONG in front of the Danish Parliament on January 29, 2014. (AFP Photo / Jeppe Bjoern Vejloe)

“Today, banks like Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs own oil tankers, run airports and control huge quantities of coal, natural gas, heating oil, electric power and precious metals. They likewise can now be found exerting direct control over the supply of a whole galaxy of raw materials crucial to world industry and to society in general, including everything from food products to metals like zinc, copper, tin, nickel and, most infamously thanks to a recent high-profile scandal, aluminum. And they’re doing it not just here but abroad as well: In Denmark, thousands took to the streets in protest in recent weeks, vampire-squid banners in hand, when news came out that Goldman Sachs was about to buy a 19 percent stake in Dong Energy, a national electric provider. The furor inspired mass resignations of ministers from the government’s ruling coalition, as the Danish public wondered how an American investment bank could possibly hold so much influence over the state energy grid.”

Here’s how corrupt the process is; Goldman Sachs may not have been the highest bidder for the electricity company. How can that be?

And here’s something to ponder; then President Bill Clinton signed this legislation to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent. If Hilliary Clinton becomes president, expect her to do more of the same. Of course, President Mitt Romney would be at least as bad.

Click the link below to see how investment banks were enabled to become owners and manipulators of industry.

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again–Rolling Stone Magazine

Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt addresses the media after the Socialist People’s Party quit the government over the controversial sale of a stake in state-controlled energy group DONG to Goldman Sachs. (AFP Photo / Keld Navntoft)


Read Full Post »

Back in 2009 and 2010, we were told the yearly US debt was too high, that if the total US debt went over 90 percent of yearly GNP, it would inhibit economic growth, increase interest rates, and lower GNP and job growth by 2 percent. All of these claims were the opposite of what history shows us. These claims ignored decades of Economic 101 teaching and practice. The people mass producing these lies knew this.

A new study by University of Michigan economists Mile Kimball and Yichuan Wang shows that sequestration, (the term used for automatic cuts to the yearly deficit via a deal reached between Republicans and our dumb-dumb president who apparently didn’t realize the Republicans were trying to use deficit cutting as a weapon to reduce job growth and sabotage the economy so that Mitt Romney could win the presidency in 2012), has reduced GNP growth by 2 percent per year.

If the debt had been run up, the economy would be stronger, albeit still historically weak. As far as interest rates, they’re still at or near historic lows. In fact, the US spends about the same amount of its tax dollars on paying the national interest (as a percentage of GNP) as it did under President Ronald Reagan, about 3.25 percent. That’s because interest rates are so low.

Interest rates and not the debt is the real issue, a fact conveniently ignored by the corporate propaganda machines, erroneously called the corporate media. That’s because the US debt is a revolving debt. The US Treasury Department sells bonds to cover the yearly deficit. Whenever the bonds come due, the government sells more bonds to pay up, but it uses tax dollars to pay the interest due on the bonds.

Sequestration has inhibited job growth for the 99 percent, reduced demand, weakened the economy, created mass suffering, and all for political gains on behalf of the 1 percent and Wall Street.

During this Sequestration period, real interest rates have been negative at times. In other words, the governmennt has been paying 1 percent interest or less on its debt, but the inflation rate has been 1 to 3 percent, and the real effect has been negative percent interest. That means heavy deficit spending could have accomplished massive works projects on roads, bridges and rails on the cheap, all to the benefit of the 99 percent. 

So why would President Obama agree to this stupidity?

According to a recent story in Mother Jones, Wall Street and the 1 percent benefit from Sequestration by keeping unemployment high and wages down. Goldman Sachs has been Obama’s biggest campaign contributor over the last two election cycles. The rest of Wall Street and many big corporations whose stocks and bonds trade on various financial markets benefit from this in the same way.

In other words, Sequestion is another way of rigging the game to ensure income and wealth is transferred from the 99 to the 1 percent.




Read Full Post »

Contrary to what the corporate media wants us to believe, Hispanics were not responsible for President Obama’s victory over Republican candidate Mitt the Twit Romney in the 2012 presidential election. A new study shows African-Americans made the difference because they had a higher turnout than ever before. Had they voted in 2012 with the same turnout as they did in 2004, our president would be Mitt the Twit, regardless of how Latinos voted.

For example, Obama’s victory in Ohio was almost entirely attributable to historic levels of black turnout in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo. The same is true in North Carolina and Virginia. African-American voter turnout represented 13 percent of voters, compared to 11 percent in 2004.

Had African-Americans not turned out in such record numbers, Romney would’ve won even though eligible white turnout was lower in 2012 than what it was in 2004.

Why was white turnout low? Perhaps it’s because Romney is a Mormon, or perhaps white Republicans didn’t want to vote for a guy’s whose platform called for more failed tax cuts for the rich, exporting more jobs, as well as cutting social security, medicare and medicaid for the 99 percent in order to give those tax cuts to the rich. People are not so easy to fool anymore. Such a platform is more and more becoming a recipe for lost causes.

Obama also suffered a loss of white voters. It’s possible that people have discovered he’s some kind of indentured servant to Wall Street since he does their bidding. Like Mitt, he wants to cut social security, medicare and medicaid, and he keeps signing legislation to ship our jobs overseas, as well as signing other legislation that redistributes income from the 99 to the 1 percent.

Latinos played a role in Obama’s victory, but that role has largely been overstated. That’s because there are millions of undocumented Latinos, and they cannot vote. Another factor is the higher percentage of Latinos who are too young to vote. Obama already had California before the election. An increasing Latino population played no role in that victory, and this may be true in the foreseeable future.

As Nate Cohn of the New Republic magazine reported, “African American turnout could be more important to the outcome of the 2016 election than the ability of Republicans to rekindle their support among Latino voters. A 10 point shift among Latino voters toward the GOP is worth a net 1.5 million votes nationally—even if the Latino share of the electorate increases by another 2 percentage points. But between 3 and 4 million new black voters joined the electorate over the last two cycles, and they voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. If black turnout returns to 11 percent of the electorate and the next Democratic candidate only wins 90 percent of the black vote, there’s room for a shift of a net 4 million votes in the GOP’s direction. Whether those 4 million voters stay home or return” …to the Republicans “from eight years ago could easily decide a close presidential election, especially in states like Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida.”

This suggests that Republican support for some kind of amnesty for undocumented immigrants is suicidal since historically more Latinos will vote for Democrats than Republicans. So why would Republicans want to commit political party suicide? Because Wall Street most likely ordered them to support comprehensive immigration reform.

Why would Wall Street want that? Because it will redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars from the 99 to the 1 percent. Immigration reform will push real wages down for years, probably for more than a decade (like the last time there was amnesty), and the difference between the old higher wages and the new lower wages will travel into the pockets of the 1 percent via higher corporate profits, rising dividends and surging share and bond prices. Add to this something more sinister.

One of the components of immigration reform is that undocumented immigrants will need to pay back taxes. That money, as well as the interest, will be redistributed to Wall Street investment firms, as well the bondholders of the 1 percent. Check out the following link for an explanation of how that will be. Little known Economic Facts About Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Part 2.

By the way, the Democratic Party is also in on Wall Street’s scam against the American people, and they’re in this scheme to make undocumented immigrants become financial indentured servants, as well.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

We’ve been told a ton of bull shit about the deficit and the looming fiscal cliff, which is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that will kick in shortly after the end of 2012. We’re told by our corporate leaders, like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Ron Wyden, Mitt Romney, John Boehner and others that the deficit is too great! They tell us there must be spending cuts and tax increases to solve the problem. This is a total load of bull shit in a grand farce being played out in the halls of congress and the white house to fool the American people. There is no great problem too big to solve. The short term answer to the so-called deficit problems can be found in the words and actions of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Back in 2008 or so, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) printed up $26 trillion and loaned it to several banks. According to Bernanke, the banks paid most of the money back by 2011. That means the Federal Reserve has somewhat short of $26 trillion it can simply give the US government. It’s money that’s just sitting there, hopefully collecting interest.

Think about it. The Fed was willing to bail out rich investors, but Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are unwilling to ask the Fed to do the same thing for the rest of the American people, even though the Fed is sitting on stacks and stacks of cash. Their attitude is simple; what’s good for the 1 percent is way too good for the lower class 99 percent.

Political grand theater is occurring right before our eyes. It’s a great way to get us emotionally involved in an argument with an easy solution other than tax increases and spending cuts.

Yes I know. There are people who will say that it is not possible to use the $26 trillion to save the American people, although it was okay use it to save rich investors from their own stupidity. And these people would be right, but for all the wrong reasons.

Here’s the real reason why it can’t happen. Bernanke lied. The recipients of the $26 trillion never paid it back (Check out the story below). The Fed cooked it’s books, the recipients cooked theirs, to make it appear they paid it back, which was mathematically impossible.

But that doesn’t mean the Fed couldn’t simply print up a trillion or so dollars and help out the other 99 percent of the American people. It should because it can, but it can’t because to do so would change the hidden rules of the grand charade being played out by the 1 percent and their representatives in government, in order to mislead the 99 percent again.

Related stories


Obama Willing to Compromise on the Fiscal Cliff–Guardian.UK

Read Full Post »

The Presidential Election of 2012 in Graphic Novel Form

It’s been a long – really long – campaign, one full of twists and turns, gaffes and memes. As Americans head to the polls to choose between Obama and Romney, catch up on the story so far and stay tuned for the final chapter. Click the link below for the full graphic novel.

A history of the presidential election of 2012 in graphic novel form

Read Full Post »

Let’s get something strait. Polls show this presidential election is close, rather than too close to call, as the corporate media wants you to believe. All the polls have consistently, if slowly, been moving Obama’s way. And yes, Obama enjoys only slim margins in states like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, which are important states for him to win.

What the press isn’t looking at, or rather doesn’t want you to know, is that Obama has a slim lead in Virginia, is tied in North Carolina’s latest poll, and is threatening to win Arizona, of all Republican strongholds! In other words, the race is tight, but it is Wall Street Mitt Romney barely hanging on in the states he needs to win that the press isn’t reporting. In other words, absent electoral fraud, it looks like Mitt is going to fall short by a fair margin in his bid to become president. For more on this subject, click the link below.

The Press Reporting on the Presidential Race Makes You Stupid

Read Full Post »

Take the short poll by clicking on the link below. It turns out I should be voting for the Pacific Green Party candidate, rather than Obama. Find out where you stand.

Take the presidential quiz-click here

Read Full Post »

We’ve had sociopathic liars in high office before. Ronald Reagan comes readily to mind, so does George W. Bush and Dick Cheney come to mind. Yes, I know. President Obama has lied plenty of times, like when he told a crowd in Ohio in 2008 that he would renegotiate NAFTA if elected president, but Obama is not sociopathic! He’s just a liar. Wall Street Mitt the Twit Romney is an habitual liar and a sociopath.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: