Terry McAuliffe, a top ally of Hillary Clinton's, just let slip that he expects her to change her position and support the TPP if she wins the election.1
McAuliffe tried to walk back the comment after it sparked a backlash from Bernie Sanders supporters—but this week the Clinton campaign has also refused to assert that it would fight a vote on TPP during the "lame duck" session after the November election.
The TPP is an awful trade deal that threatens Net Neutrality, ends protections against Wall Street recklessness, and allows corporations to sue the U.S. government in secret tribunals to overturn laws passed by Congress.
Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back - POLITICO
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Saturday, July 30, 2016
HILLARY R.C.GIVES BERNIE THE BIG FU - REHIRES DEBBIE W.S.
Bernie supporters have once again been given the big FU from Hillary by rehiring Debbie Wasserman Schultz immediately after she stepped down (at Bernie's request) from her post as conspirator and chief of the DNC.
Bernie endorsed Hillary with an understanding that many of the commitments he made to his followers would be honored and accepted by the Hillary/DNC folks. Unfortunately, Bernie and Hillary do not play by the same rules and Hillary has once again proven that she can not be trusted.
On July 22, Wikileaks released 20,000 DNC emails, exposing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC staff of sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In the wake of the fallout, Wasserman Schultz formally resigned from her position asDNC chair, only to be replaced by another Clinton surrogate, DNC vice chair Donna Brazile.
Rather than allowing Wasserman Schultz’s career to go down with her resignation, Clinton has awarded Wasserman Schultz a new role as honorary chair to the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
“There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to Republicans than Debbie—which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and other key states,” Clinton announced.
Bernie endorsed Hillary with an understanding that many of the commitments he made to his followers would be honored and accepted by the Hillary/DNC folks. Unfortunately, Bernie and Hillary do not play by the same rules and Hillary has once again proven that she can not be trusted.
On July 22, Wikileaks released 20,000 DNC emails, exposing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC staff of sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In the wake of the fallout, Wasserman Schultz formally resigned from her position asDNC chair, only to be replaced by another Clinton surrogate, DNC vice chair Donna Brazile.
Rather than allowing Wasserman Schultz’s career to go down with her resignation, Clinton has awarded Wasserman Schultz a new role as honorary chair to the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
“There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to Republicans than Debbie—which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and other key states,” Clinton announced.
Friday, July 29, 2016
HEDGE FUNDS BUY HILLARY -TRUMP NOT FOR SALE
Looks like Hillary is the darling of the hedge fund industry who are throwing money at her as if she were a political "wishing well."
There's also a bonus prize. One Clinton family member is also a member of the hedge fund industry; and insider if you will.
In this election cycle, hedge funds have contributed $122.7 million to Hillary’s campaign. That number is more than twice that of the total contributions hedge funds made in 2012 and it comprises 14 percent of her total campaign purse, reports Market Watch.
Comparing these numbers with Donald Trump (who has allotted just $19,000 from hedge funds), Hillary has $122,681,000 more than Trump from hedge funds.
Trump is an anomaly among Republicans — who so far this campaign cycle have gotten in excess of $65.8 million from hedge funds.
Hillary Clinton is demolishing Donald Trump among hedge-fund donors — so far - MarketWatch
There's also a bonus prize. One Clinton family member is also a member of the hedge fund industry; and insider if you will.
In this election cycle, hedge funds have contributed $122.7 million to Hillary’s campaign. That number is more than twice that of the total contributions hedge funds made in 2012 and it comprises 14 percent of her total campaign purse, reports Market Watch.
Comparing these numbers with Donald Trump (who has allotted just $19,000 from hedge funds), Hillary has $122,681,000 more than Trump from hedge funds.
Trump is an anomaly among Republicans — who so far this campaign cycle have gotten in excess of $65.8 million from hedge funds.
Hillary Clinton is demolishing Donald Trump among hedge-fund donors — so far - MarketWatch
THE DNC AND CLINTON CAMPAIGN ARE CORRUPT - NOT CLASSIFIED
Hacking into political organizations that are involved in corrupt activities is not at all as serious as
taking classified government information and storing them on unsecured personal servers.
The Obama Administration and the Security agencies would be better serving the American public by investigating and determining if a foreign government hacked Hillary'e private servers.
Exposing corruption in the US political system is in essence doing the American people a favor and the tragedy is that the US government is not able to police itself.
taking classified government information and storing them on unsecured personal servers.
The Obama Administration and the Security agencies would be better serving the American public by investigating and determining if a foreign government hacked Hillary'e private servers.
Exposing corruption in the US political system is in essence doing the American people a favor and the tragedy is that the US government is not able to police itself.
READ MORE; Hillary Clinton Campaign Reportedly Hacked
HILLARY BLAMES RUSSIA FOR EXPOSING CORRUPTION IN US POLITICAL SYSTEM
Let's kill the messenger! How else can we avoid having to deal with the rotting political system Americans are being exploited by?
Email exchanges involving top officials at theDemocratic National Committee released along with private documents by WikiLeaks show that DNC officials hoped to reward top donors and insiders with appointments to federal boards and commissions in coordination with the White House.
The revelations give an inside look into how the Democratic Party attempted to leverage its access and influence with the White House to bring in cash.
In an April 20, 2016 email, DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan canvassed what appears to be the committee’s finance department – its fundraising office – for names of people (mainly donors) to reward with federal appointments on boards and commissions.
That email exchange yielded a list compiled by DNC Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer and emailed to Kaplan on April 26 titled “Boards and Commissions Names_Final,” which listed the names of twenty-three DNC donors and insiders.
Email exchanges involving top officials at theDemocratic National Committee released along with private documents by WikiLeaks show that DNC officials hoped to reward top donors and insiders with appointments to federal boards and commissions in coordination with the White House.
The revelations give an inside look into how the Democratic Party attempted to leverage its access and influence with the White House to bring in cash.
In an April 20, 2016 email, DNC National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan canvassed what appears to be the committee’s finance department – its fundraising office – for names of people (mainly donors) to reward with federal appointments on boards and commissions.
That email exchange yielded a list compiled by DNC Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer and emailed to Kaplan on April 26 titled “Boards and Commissions Names_Final,” which listed the names of twenty-three DNC donors and insiders.
READ MORE;
Leaks show DNC asked White House to reward donors with slots on boards and commissions | OpenSecrets Blog
Thursday, July 28, 2016
DID BERNIE GET HIS LINES FROM GEORGE?
Now that Establishment has shuffled Bernie off the stage and into history's dumpster the power brokers are hoping to be able to go back to business as usual and we can rest assured that Hillary will be more than happy to oblige them.
For a brief moment in this years political circus it looked like the average American had a chance to regain a tiny bit of what has been lost (stolen) by the "Billionaires and Millionaires" Bernie was so good at making hay out of.
The message Bernie sent us was articulated years ago by none other than a comedian who some might suspect Bernie took some lines from.
IS AMERICA GREAT? DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK.
President Obama and his now heir to be Hillary Clinton like to boast about how great America is; the implied unsaid part of the message is, don't complain, it makes us look bad.
Both Obama and Clinton are trying to distract us from what the truth is because neither he or his heir apparent want to admit that the Democratic Establishment has failed miserably in delivering what has been promised over and over again when they ask to be elected and then disappear into the mist of history the day after they take the oath of office.
Rest assured there is a select group of Americans that Obama and Hillary are speaking to who can declare that America has been great to them. But that's a very small and select group which ironically include the Clinton's who joined the "millionaire club" by pandering to it's members.
So, is America great? Well, it depends on who you ask;
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS ONCE THE PARTY OF THE NEW DEAL and the ally of organized labor. But by the time of Bill Clinton's presidency, it had become the enemy of New Deal programs like welfare and Social Security and the champion of free trade deals. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.”
The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
Wealth Inequality
Wealth inequality can be described as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
Defining Wealth
We equate wealth with “net worth,” the sum total of your assets minus liabilities. Assets can include everything from an owned personal residence and cash in savings accounts to investments in stocks and bonds, real estate, and retirement accounts. Liabilities cover what a household owes: a car loan, credit card balance, student loan, mortgage, or any other bill yet to be paid.
In the United States, wealth inequality runs even more pronounced than income inequality
America is great to the 1%
The share of America’s wealth held by the nation’s wealthiest has changed markedly over the past century. That share peaked in the late 1920s, right before the Great Depression, then fell by more than half over the next three decades. But the equalizing trends of the mid 20th century have now been almost completely undone. At the top of the American economic summit, the richest of the nation’s rich now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s.
The 21st century has not been kind to average American families. The net worth — assets minus debts — of most U.S. households fell between 2000 and 2011. Only the top two quintiles of the nation’s wealth distribution saw a net increase in median net worth over those years.
The rich don’t just have more wealth than everyone else. The bulk of their wealth comes from different — and more lucrative — asset sources. America’s top 1 percent, for instance, holds nearly half the national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds. Most of the wealth of Americans in the bottom 90 percent comes from their principal residences, the asset category that took the biggest hit during the Great Recession. These Americans also hold almost three-quarters of America’s debt.
The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may be the Forbes magazine list of the nation’s 400 richest. In 1982, the “poorest” American listed on the first annual Forbes magazine list of America’s richest 400 had a net worth of $80 million. The average member of that first list had a net worth of $230 million. In 2015, rich Americans needed net worth of $1.7 billion to enter the Forbes 400, and the average member held a net $5.8 billion, over 10 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation.
Inequality is skyrocketing even within the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest. The net worth of the richest member of the Forbes 400 has soared from $2 billion in 1982 to $76 billion in 2015, far outpacing the gains at either the Forbes 400 entry point or average.
America is not so great to the middle class
The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.
The share of adults living in middle-income households has also dwindled in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Denver. It's fallen in smaller Midwestern metros where the middle class has long made up an overwhelming majority of the population. It's withering in coastal tech hubs, in military towns, in college communities, in Sun Belt cities.
The decline of the American middle class is "a pervasive local phenomenon," according to Pew, which analyzed census and American Community Survey data in 229 metros across the country, encompassing about three-quarters of the U.S. population. In 203 of those metros, the share of adults in middle-income households fell from 2000 to 2014.
Pew defines middle-income households here as those making between two-thirds and twice the national median household income. For a three-person household in 2014, that means an income between about $42,000 and $125,000. The fact that median incomes have declined over this same time frame also means that the bar to get into the middle class is actually lower now than it was in 2000. Pew's metro-level data are also adjusted for household size and local cost of living.
The shrinking middle class is in part a reflection of rising income inequality in America, and of the same underlying and uneven economic forces that have fueled the rise of Donald Trump. And as the middle class has been shrinking, median incomes have fallen, too. In 190 of these 229 metros, the median income dropped over this same time.
As the middle class has shrunk, Pew points out, the lower and upper classes in America have grown in size and significance. In some metros, the middle class is dwindling primarily because families are falling out of it and into the lower class. The share of households in this bottom tier has skyrocketed since 2000, for instance, in Goldbsoro, North Carolina, a railroad junction with an Air Force base.
America is terrible to the working poor;
(the majority of which are non-white)
The Great Recession deepened the longstanding racial and ethnic wealth divide in the United States. The typical white family held a net worth six times greater than the typical black family at the end of the 20th century. That gap has now doubled. The wealth gap between white and Hispanic households has widened as well.
The billionaires who make up the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans now have as much wealth as all African-American households, plus one-third of America’s Latino population, combined. In other words, just 400 extremely wealthy individuals have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households and 5 million Latino households.
Democrats will say, not all hope is lost. The Working poor just need to be patient.
In Congress, 53 progressives, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin and others, are backing legislation for a $15 federal minimum wage by 2020 and the gradual elimination of the subminimum tipped wage. While action on the minimum wage at any level is unlikely
More older Americans – those ages 65 and older – are working than at any time since the turn of the century, and today’s older workers are spending more time on the job than did their peers in previous years, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of employment data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In May, 18.8% of Americans ages 65 and older, or nearly 9 million people, reported being employed full- or part-time, continuing a steady increase that dates to at least 2000 (which is as far back as we took our analysis). In May of that year, just 12.8% of 65-and-older Americans, or about 4 million people, said they were working.
The relatively strong presence of 65-and-older workers is found across age brackets: 65- to 69-year-olds, 70- to 74-year-olds, and those 75 and older. All are working at higher rates than they did in May 2008, the only age groups about which that can be said.
Though we took the current analysis only back to 2000, an earlier Center report noted that the labor force participation rate (that is, workers and those actively seeking employment as a share of a group’s total population) among older adults began rising in the mid-1980s, after declining for more than three decades.
Not only are more older Americans working, more of them are working full-time. In May 2000, 46.1% of workers ages 65 and older were working fewer than 35 hours a week (the BLS’ cutoff for full-time status). The part-time share has fallen steadily, so that by last month only 36.1% of 65-and-older workers were part-time.
America is a disaster zone to the poverty striken
In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four.
15.1%15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007.
27.4%Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8%45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children.
28.0%In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour).
18-25 Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25.
1.8x The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high.
Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That's because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.
In other supplemental-poverty-related news, a study out of UC Berkeley finds that using the supplemental measure is especially useful in identifying the most serious cases: families that are chronically poor.
Both Obama and Clinton are trying to distract us from what the truth is because neither he or his heir apparent want to admit that the Democratic Establishment has failed miserably in delivering what has been promised over and over again when they ask to be elected and then disappear into the mist of history the day after they take the oath of office.
Rest assured there is a select group of Americans that Obama and Hillary are speaking to who can declare that America has been great to them. But that's a very small and select group which ironically include the Clinton's who joined the "millionaire club" by pandering to it's members.
So, is America great? Well, it depends on who you ask;
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS ONCE THE PARTY OF THE NEW DEAL and the ally of organized labor. But by the time of Bill Clinton's presidency, it had become the enemy of New Deal programs like welfare and Social Security and the champion of free trade deals. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.”
The first piece of evidence is what’s happened since the financial crisis. This is the great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10 percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were entirely at his mercy.
The elephant in the room that neither Obama or Clinton want Americans to pay attention to is;
Wealth Inequality
Wealth inequality can be described as the unequal distribution of assets within a population. The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation.
Defining Wealth
We equate wealth with “net worth,” the sum total of your assets minus liabilities. Assets can include everything from an owned personal residence and cash in savings accounts to investments in stocks and bonds, real estate, and retirement accounts. Liabilities cover what a household owes: a car loan, credit card balance, student loan, mortgage, or any other bill yet to be paid.
In the United States, wealth inequality runs even more pronounced than income inequality
America is great to the 1%
The share of America’s wealth held by the nation’s wealthiest has changed markedly over the past century. That share peaked in the late 1920s, right before the Great Depression, then fell by more than half over the next three decades. But the equalizing trends of the mid 20th century have now been almost completely undone. At the top of the American economic summit, the richest of the nation’s rich now hold as large a wealth share as they did in the 1920s.
The 21st century has not been kind to average American families. The net worth — assets minus debts — of most U.S. households fell between 2000 and 2011. Only the top two quintiles of the nation’s wealth distribution saw a net increase in median net worth over those years.
The rich don’t just have more wealth than everyone else. The bulk of their wealth comes from different — and more lucrative — asset sources. America’s top 1 percent, for instance, holds nearly half the national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds. Most of the wealth of Americans in the bottom 90 percent comes from their principal residences, the asset category that took the biggest hit during the Great Recession. These Americans also hold almost three-quarters of America’s debt.
The most visible indicator of wealth inequality in America today may be the Forbes magazine list of the nation’s 400 richest. In 1982, the “poorest” American listed on the first annual Forbes magazine list of America’s richest 400 had a net worth of $80 million. The average member of that first list had a net worth of $230 million. In 2015, rich Americans needed net worth of $1.7 billion to enter the Forbes 400, and the average member held a net $5.8 billion, over 10 times the 1982 average after adjusting for inflation.
Inequality is skyrocketing even within the Forbes 400 list of America’s richest. The net worth of the richest member of the Forbes 400 has soared from $2 billion in 1982 to $76 billion in 2015, far outpacing the gains at either the Forbes 400 entry point or average.
America is not so great to the middle class
The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.
The share of adults living in middle-income households has also dwindled in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Denver. It's fallen in smaller Midwestern metros where the middle class has long made up an overwhelming majority of the population. It's withering in coastal tech hubs, in military towns, in college communities, in Sun Belt cities.
The decline of the American middle class is "a pervasive local phenomenon," according to Pew, which analyzed census and American Community Survey data in 229 metros across the country, encompassing about three-quarters of the U.S. population. In 203 of those metros, the share of adults in middle-income households fell from 2000 to 2014.
Pew defines middle-income households here as those making between two-thirds and twice the national median household income. For a three-person household in 2014, that means an income between about $42,000 and $125,000. The fact that median incomes have declined over this same time frame also means that the bar to get into the middle class is actually lower now than it was in 2000. Pew's metro-level data are also adjusted for household size and local cost of living.
The shrinking middle class is in part a reflection of rising income inequality in America, and of the same underlying and uneven economic forces that have fueled the rise of Donald Trump. And as the middle class has been shrinking, median incomes have fallen, too. In 190 of these 229 metros, the median income dropped over this same time.
As the middle class has shrunk, Pew points out, the lower and upper classes in America have grown in size and significance. In some metros, the middle class is dwindling primarily because families are falling out of it and into the lower class. The share of households in this bottom tier has skyrocketed since 2000, for instance, in Goldbsoro, North Carolina, a railroad junction with an Air Force base.
America is terrible to the working poor;
(the majority of which are non-white)
The Great Recession deepened the longstanding racial and ethnic wealth divide in the United States. The typical white family held a net worth six times greater than the typical black family at the end of the 20th century. That gap has now doubled. The wealth gap between white and Hispanic households has widened as well.
The billionaires who make up the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans now have as much wealth as all African-American households, plus one-third of America’s Latino population, combined. In other words, just 400 extremely wealthy individuals have as much wealth as 16 million African-American households and 5 million Latino households.
Democrats will say, not all hope is lost. The Working poor just need to be patient.
In Congress, 53 progressives, including Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin and others, are backing legislation for a $15 federal minimum wage by 2020 and the gradual elimination of the subminimum tipped wage. While action on the minimum wage at any level is unlikely
This flicker of hope might resonate with teens and 20 year olds, but not so much for the 65 and older Americans.
More older Americans – those ages 65 and older – are working than at any time since the turn of the century, and today’s older workers are spending more time on the job than did their peers in previous years, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of employment data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In May, 18.8% of Americans ages 65 and older, or nearly 9 million people, reported being employed full- or part-time, continuing a steady increase that dates to at least 2000 (which is as far back as we took our analysis). In May of that year, just 12.8% of 65-and-older Americans, or about 4 million people, said they were working.
The relatively strong presence of 65-and-older workers is found across age brackets: 65- to 69-year-olds, 70- to 74-year-olds, and those 75 and older. All are working at higher rates than they did in May 2008, the only age groups about which that can be said.
Though we took the current analysis only back to 2000, an earlier Center report noted that the labor force participation rate (that is, workers and those actively seeking employment as a share of a group’s total population) among older adults began rising in the mid-1980s, after declining for more than three decades.
Not only are more older Americans working, more of them are working full-time. In May 2000, 46.1% of workers ages 65 and older were working fewer than 35 hours a week (the BLS’ cutoff for full-time status). The part-time share has fallen steadily, so that by last month only 36.1% of 65-and-older workers were part-time.
America is a disaster zone to the poverty striken
In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four.
15.1%15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007.
27.4%Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8%45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children.
28.0%In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour).
18-25 Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25.
1.8x The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high.
Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That's because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.
In other supplemental-poverty-related news, a study out of UC Berkeley finds that using the supplemental measure is especially useful in identifying the most serious cases: families that are chronically poor.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
WHO'S FEAR MONGERING HERE? HILLARY OR DONALD?
The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of fear mongering while at the same time filling the airways and Ethernet with claims that we are being attacked by the Russians.
What is left out of the narrative is that the only one being exposed (attacked) is the DNC and Hillary by releasing proof that both were involved in conspiring against one of their own (Bernie) in their efforts to "rig" the primaries in their favor.
Exposing conspiracies and corruption is not by any stretch of the imagination fear mongering but a public service that should be rewarded, not criticized.
American voters are entitled to know what goes on behind the scenes when it involves those who are asking for their support (votes) and trust.
Hillary Clinton Starts Her Own Cold War, Blames Russia For WikiLeaks’ DNC Email Dump
Are Hillary Clinton and the DNC killing two birds with one stone with damage control: distracting the public from the corruption of the two-party system as exposed by the #DNCLeak while simultaneously fanning the flames of a new Cold War?
"It's the Russians!" is a great way to stir up New Cold War fears to distract the public away from how the Hillary Clinton campaign has been keeping the election and media rigged in her favor in collusion with the DNC at the highest level, as revealed by Wikileaks.
A report titled, Hillary Clinton Starts Her Own Cold War, Blames Russia for Wikileaks' DNC Email Dump, takes a deeper dive into the Clinton campaign's efforts to divert attention away from the damning contents of the leaks and instead, blame Putin, by citing shady experts tied to the NSA including one that was caught up in a dick pics scandal after smearing Edward Snowden as a 'Russian tool".
The "Putin did it" line is all too familiar and only fits a neoliberal agenda. Major media outlets, such as NBC, brought in many "experts" to echo the claim of "it's the Russians!" without informing their viewers that these "experts" held a conflict of interest — they worked for either the NSA, the US government, or private contractors associated with US intelligence.
Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails. And other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”
Defense One, a security and national defense news and analysis website produced by the neoliberal Government Executive Media Group, followed up on the Clinton camp’s allegations that “Putin did it.”
In the article titled, “How Putin Weaponized Wikileaks to Influence the Election of an American President,” Patrick Tucker admits that the leaked emails expose “Washington’s campaign monster for what it is,” but asks his readers to “leave aside the purported content of the Wikileaks data dump” and “consider the source.”
“This has all the hallmarks of tradecraft. The only rationale to release such data from the Russian bulletproof host was to empower one candidate against another. The Cold War is alive and well,” Tom Kellerman, the CEO of the cybersecurity firm Strategic Cyber Ventures, told Tucker, backing up the author’s assertions that “considerable evidence shows that the Wikileaks dump was an orchestrated act by the Russian government.”
What is left out of the narrative is that the only one being exposed (attacked) is the DNC and Hillary by releasing proof that both were involved in conspiring against one of their own (Bernie) in their efforts to "rig" the primaries in their favor.
Exposing conspiracies and corruption is not by any stretch of the imagination fear mongering but a public service that should be rewarded, not criticized.
American voters are entitled to know what goes on behind the scenes when it involves those who are asking for their support (votes) and trust.
Hillary Clinton Starts Her Own Cold War, Blames Russia For WikiLeaks’ DNC Email Dump
Are Hillary Clinton and the DNC killing two birds with one stone with damage control: distracting the public from the corruption of the two-party system as exposed by the #DNCLeak while simultaneously fanning the flames of a new Cold War?
"It's the Russians!" is a great way to stir up New Cold War fears to distract the public away from how the Hillary Clinton campaign has been keeping the election and media rigged in her favor in collusion with the DNC at the highest level, as revealed by Wikileaks.
A report titled, Hillary Clinton Starts Her Own Cold War, Blames Russia for Wikileaks' DNC Email Dump, takes a deeper dive into the Clinton campaign's efforts to divert attention away from the damning contents of the leaks and instead, blame Putin, by citing shady experts tied to the NSA including one that was caught up in a dick pics scandal after smearing Edward Snowden as a 'Russian tool".
The "Putin did it" line is all too familiar and only fits a neoliberal agenda. Major media outlets, such as NBC, brought in many "experts" to echo the claim of "it's the Russians!" without informing their viewers that these "experts" held a conflict of interest — they worked for either the NSA, the US government, or private contractors associated with US intelligence.
Speaking to CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, said that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails. And other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”
Defense One, a security and national defense news and analysis website produced by the neoliberal Government Executive Media Group, followed up on the Clinton camp’s allegations that “Putin did it.”
In the article titled, “How Putin Weaponized Wikileaks to Influence the Election of an American President,” Patrick Tucker admits that the leaked emails expose “Washington’s campaign monster for what it is,” but asks his readers to “leave aside the purported content of the Wikileaks data dump” and “consider the source.”
“This has all the hallmarks of tradecraft. The only rationale to release such data from the Russian bulletproof host was to empower one candidate against another. The Cold War is alive and well,” Tom Kellerman, the CEO of the cybersecurity firm Strategic Cyber Ventures, told Tucker, backing up the author’s assertions that “considerable evidence shows that the Wikileaks dump was an orchestrated act by the Russian government.”
Monday, July 25, 2016
BERNIE MAY NEED TO BE RESCUED FROM THE LIONS DEN
Even with the knife still in his back Bernie is staying the course. Very admirable of him but definately not in his best interest.
It's safe to assume that the DNC and Hillary people are grovelling at his feet begging him to not pull a "Trump" and blow up the Democratic party. They are surely promising to behave and throw a few more crumbs to the voters who, at this point, are hitting their limits as to how much BS they are willing to swallow.
The latest Hillary/DNC talking point is "it's the Russians fault" UH?
If the Russians are actually involved they did the American public a favor by blowing the whistle on the corrupt political system that is plaguing this country.
What should be of concern is the FBI is investigating; not the DNC and their shenanigans, but the Russians for exposing it. UH?
Wikileaks posted emails Friday that suggested the DNC was favoring Clinton over her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders during the primary season, prompting Clinton’s campaign to point to a massive hacking of DNC computers in June that cybersecurity firms linked to the Russian government.
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta added fuel to the debate Monday, saying there was “a kind of bromance going on” between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump. The Clinton campaign says Russia favors Trump’s views, especially on NATO.
Donald Trump on Monday dismissed as a “joke” claims by Hillary Clinton’s campaign that Russia is trying to help Trump by leaking thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee.
“The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should have never been written (stupid), because Putin likes me,” Trump wrote as part of a series of Tweets.
The hacking enraged die-hard Sanders supporters who have long claimed that the DNC had its finger on the scale throughout the primaries. The disclosures prompted the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the party’s convention in Philadelphia, where Clinton is expected to officially accept the nomination for president.
It wasn’t immediately clear how WikiLeaks received copies of the internal Democratic emails.
Democratic Party officials learned in late April that their systems had been attacked after they discovered malicious software on their computers. A cybersecurity firm they employed found traces of at least two sophisticated hacking groups on the Democrats’ network – both of which have ties to the Russian government. Those hackers took at least one year’s worth of detailed chats, emails and research on Donald Trump, according to a person knowledgeable of the breach who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
READ MORE; Despite emails suggesting he was right about DNC, Bernie Sanders keeps playing the good soldier
It's safe to assume that the DNC and Hillary people are grovelling at his feet begging him to not pull a "Trump" and blow up the Democratic party. They are surely promising to behave and throw a few more crumbs to the voters who, at this point, are hitting their limits as to how much BS they are willing to swallow.
The latest Hillary/DNC talking point is "it's the Russians fault" UH?
If the Russians are actually involved they did the American public a favor by blowing the whistle on the corrupt political system that is plaguing this country.
What should be of concern is the FBI is investigating; not the DNC and their shenanigans, but the Russians for exposing it. UH?
Wikileaks posted emails Friday that suggested the DNC was favoring Clinton over her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders during the primary season, prompting Clinton’s campaign to point to a massive hacking of DNC computers in June that cybersecurity firms linked to the Russian government.
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta added fuel to the debate Monday, saying there was “a kind of bromance going on” between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump. The Clinton campaign says Russia favors Trump’s views, especially on NATO.
Donald Trump on Monday dismissed as a “joke” claims by Hillary Clinton’s campaign that Russia is trying to help Trump by leaking thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee.
“The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should have never been written (stupid), because Putin likes me,” Trump wrote as part of a series of Tweets.
The hacking enraged die-hard Sanders supporters who have long claimed that the DNC had its finger on the scale throughout the primaries. The disclosures prompted the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the party’s convention in Philadelphia, where Clinton is expected to officially accept the nomination for president.
It wasn’t immediately clear how WikiLeaks received copies of the internal Democratic emails.
Democratic Party officials learned in late April that their systems had been attacked after they discovered malicious software on their computers. A cybersecurity firm they employed found traces of at least two sophisticated hacking groups on the Democrats’ network – both of which have ties to the Russian government. Those hackers took at least one year’s worth of detailed chats, emails and research on Donald Trump, according to a person knowledgeable of the breach who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
READ MORE; Despite emails suggesting he was right about DNC, Bernie Sanders keeps playing the good soldier
HEY BERNIE! THERE'S A KNIFE IN YOUR BACK!
Wikileaks posted emails Friday that suggested the DNC was favoring Clinton over her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders during the primary season, prompting Clinton’s campaign to point to a massive hacking of DNC computers in June that cybersecurity firms linked to the Russian government.
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta added fuel to the debate Monday, saying there was “a kind of bromance going on” between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump. The Clinton campaign says Russia favors Trump’s views, especially on NATO.
Donald Trump on Monday dismissed as a “joke” claims by Hillary Clinton’s campaign that Russia is trying to help Trump by leaking thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee.
“The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should have never been written (stupid), because Putin likes me,” Trump wrote as part of a series of Tweets.
The hacking enraged die-hard Sanders supporters who have long claimed that the DNC had its finger on the scale throughout the primaries. The disclosures prompted the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the eve of the party’s convention in Philadelphia, where Clinton is expected to officially accept the nomination for president.
It wasn’t immediately clear how WikiLeaks received copies of the internal Democratic emails.
Democratic Party officials learned in late April that their systems had been attacked after they discovered malicious software on their computers. A cybersecurity firm they employed found traces of at least two sophisticated hacking groups on the Democrats’ network – both of which have ties to the Russian government. Those hackers took at least one year’s worth of detailed chats, emails and research on Donald Trump, according to a person knowledgeable of the breach who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the matter
Sunday, July 24, 2016
NOW THAT THE "RIG" IS UP DEMOCRAT ESTABLISHMENT CRONIES JUMP SHIP
Once the light shines on the corruption and cronyism the perpetrators run for the nearest exits as if that will make it all disappear. They might be in for a big surprise.
Given the number of angry voters on both right and left alike it's hard to believe that the Democratic Establishment will get a pass rather than suffer the fate of their Republican counterparts.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, long under fire for the appearance of partiality toward Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries, will step down as the party's national chairwoman at the end of its convention this week, she announced Sunday.
The announcement came after internal emails newly disclosed by Wikileaks revived the long-running suspicions of supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that the Florida congresswoman had tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton.
On eve of convention, embattled DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she'll step down
Given the number of angry voters on both right and left alike it's hard to believe that the Democratic Establishment will get a pass rather than suffer the fate of their Republican counterparts.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, long under fire for the appearance of partiality toward Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries, will step down as the party's national chairwoman at the end of its convention this week, she announced Sunday.
The announcement came after internal emails newly disclosed by Wikileaks revived the long-running suspicions of supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that the Florida congresswoman had tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton.
On eve of convention, embattled DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she'll step down
SHOULD BERNIE ENDORSE AND AMERICANS VOTE FOR A RIGGED POLITICAL SYSTEM?
Emails DNC Officials Constructing Anti-Bernie Narrative | The Daily Caller
Bernie Sanders may have ended his battle for the White House with his endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but that’s not stopping thousands of his backers from planning to flock to Philadelphia next week to protest the Democratic National Convention and send a message to party leaders.
The fact that Sanders said last week he would do “everything I can” to help Clinton beat Republican nominee Donald Trump is not dissuading pro-Sanders protest organizers. They say Americans are frustrated with the Democratic Party establishment, and they'll still be out to protest in large numbers.
“It’s ‘We the People’ who are going to continue to lead this revolution,” said Billy Taylor, a pro-Sanders activist who was issued permits to hold rallies on each day of the convention. “We are not going to vote for the demon named Hillary just because you are threatening us with the devil named Trump.”
The city of Philadelphia is projecting 35,000 to 50,000 demonstrators will gather at a half dozen sanctioned protest sites near the Wells Fargo Center each day of the convention, which opens Monday. A bulk of the permits issued by the city are to groups that indicated they are inspired by the Vermont senator.
The showing for the pro-Sanders demonstrations — whose organizers have received nine of the 28 permits issued and are expected to draw the largest crowds, according to city officials estimates — could perhaps provide a sense of the road Clinton has in front of her as she tries to win over some of the Sander’s most rabid backers.
Bernie Sanders may have ended his battle for the White House with his endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but that’s not stopping thousands of his backers from planning to flock to Philadelphia next week to protest the Democratic National Convention and send a message to party leaders.
The fact that Sanders said last week he would do “everything I can” to help Clinton beat Republican nominee Donald Trump is not dissuading pro-Sanders protest organizers. They say Americans are frustrated with the Democratic Party establishment, and they'll still be out to protest in large numbers.
“It’s ‘We the People’ who are going to continue to lead this revolution,” said Billy Taylor, a pro-Sanders activist who was issued permits to hold rallies on each day of the convention. “We are not going to vote for the demon named Hillary just because you are threatening us with the devil named Trump.”
The city of Philadelphia is projecting 35,000 to 50,000 demonstrators will gather at a half dozen sanctioned protest sites near the Wells Fargo Center each day of the convention, which opens Monday. A bulk of the permits issued by the city are to groups that indicated they are inspired by the Vermont senator.
The showing for the pro-Sanders demonstrations — whose organizers have received nine of the 28 permits issued and are expected to draw the largest crowds, according to city officials estimates — could perhaps provide a sense of the road Clinton has in front of her as she tries to win over some of the Sander’s most rabid backers.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES; WITHOUT BERNIE
The old white guy from Vermont gave it his best shot but the Establishment was just "too big" to take down. And, in the end Bernie gave up the dream but not his small donor mailing list.
In another tweet, Stein wrote, "While Trump praises dictators, Hillary takes their money. Remind us again of Saudi Arabia's human rights record?"
As Sanders began speaking, Stein offered her own hashtags to disaffected Bernie backers. "The revolution continues with those who will fight for a government that represents all of us--not just the 1%. #HillNo #JillYes," Stein wrote.
READ MORE; Jill Stein shreds Sanders' Clinton endorsement
AN UN-POPULARITY CONTEST
It's a sad commentary when Americans have to chose between two of the worse liked candidates in history in selecting a leader. Worse yet what does that say about the country?
From the looks of the polls most voters are voting "against" the opposing candidate than "for" a candidate of their choice.
That is indeed hitting an all-time low in American politics.
One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates
From the looks of the polls most voters are voting "against" the opposing candidate than "for" a candidate of their choice.
That is indeed hitting an all-time low in American politics.
One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates
ESTABLISHMENT 1 - REVOLUTION 0
Fortunately this is a much longer game and much more will happen that will have an impact on the Revolution who's objective is to lean up the corrupt political system that is destroying democracy in America.
Unfinished Business
On the loss side of the ledger, the platform committee voted down an outright ban on fracking. While the draft calls for improving past trade deals and improving future ones, Clinton delegates voted down language introduced by former NAACP director Ben Jealous that explicitly rejected the TPP. (The debate over Jealous’ language makes for compelling viewing, especially after Jealous introduces his amendment 15 minutes into this video.)
Language regarding justice for Palestine was rejected. As the Orlando Sentinel reported, “the committee also shot down progressive-backed language to limit political contributions to $100 per person or entity and to publicly finance campaigns; to outlaw racial gerrymandering; and to prevent public officials from joining the industries they regulate.”
These are significant losses. And while some of the platform’s policies can be enacted through executive action, most will remain moot as long as Republicans control Congress.
What’s more, it would be extraordinarily naive to assume that any elected official will feel honor-bound to follow the platform. As I wrote last week about the party’s banking platform, they will be under tremendous pressure from donors to surrender on critical issues.
The Revolution Goes On
But platforms are promises. That makes them useful in the hands of activists willing to hold politicians to them.
It’s easy to lose faith when important battles are lost, or to become overconfident when they’re won. But, in both defeat and victory, this revolution must go on.
This is the most progressive Democratic platform in history, but only because millions of people demanded it – with their votes and their activism. More activism is needed now. Minority reports may be filed on the planks that lost in Orlando. Future platforms must be stronger in their support for Medicare for All and other key initiatives. And Democrats will need to be held accountable after they’re elected.
Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America and a close Sanders adviser, told me after the Orlando meeting: “Bernie Sanders and all of us who have worked for the past year, including millions of Americans in every state in the union, will continue the struggle.”
Don’t Stop the Revolution: The Sanders Movement After Orlando - NationofChange | Progressive Change Through Positive Action
Unfinished Business
On the loss side of the ledger, the platform committee voted down an outright ban on fracking. While the draft calls for improving past trade deals and improving future ones, Clinton delegates voted down language introduced by former NAACP director Ben Jealous that explicitly rejected the TPP. (The debate over Jealous’ language makes for compelling viewing, especially after Jealous introduces his amendment 15 minutes into this video.)
Language regarding justice for Palestine was rejected. As the Orlando Sentinel reported, “the committee also shot down progressive-backed language to limit political contributions to $100 per person or entity and to publicly finance campaigns; to outlaw racial gerrymandering; and to prevent public officials from joining the industries they regulate.”
These are significant losses. And while some of the platform’s policies can be enacted through executive action, most will remain moot as long as Republicans control Congress.
What’s more, it would be extraordinarily naive to assume that any elected official will feel honor-bound to follow the platform. As I wrote last week about the party’s banking platform, they will be under tremendous pressure from donors to surrender on critical issues.
The Revolution Goes On
But platforms are promises. That makes them useful in the hands of activists willing to hold politicians to them.
It’s easy to lose faith when important battles are lost, or to become overconfident when they’re won. But, in both defeat and victory, this revolution must go on.
This is the most progressive Democratic platform in history, but only because millions of people demanded it – with their votes and their activism. More activism is needed now. Minority reports may be filed on the planks that lost in Orlando. Future platforms must be stronger in their support for Medicare for All and other key initiatives. And Democrats will need to be held accountable after they’re elected.
Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America and a close Sanders adviser, told me after the Orlando meeting: “Bernie Sanders and all of us who have worked for the past year, including millions of Americans in every state in the union, will continue the struggle.”
Don’t Stop the Revolution: The Sanders Movement After Orlando - NationofChange | Progressive Change Through Positive Action
Monday, July 11, 2016
THE CLINTON'S LIKE TO PLAY FOR PAY
Bill and Hillary have brought this corrupt game of "pay for play" to a new level and no one seems to care much given the extent to how it has played out during the course of their political careers.
What should be of greater concern now is that the Democratic Establishment is hell bent on bringing the corruption into the White House by nominating Hillary who is a packaged deal with Bill; two of the worse offenders of this cronyism.
Behind a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: A $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two
Clinton changed the rules of political speech-making for cash. He would push not just corporate hosts but also nonprofits and universities to pay fees well beyond what they were accustomed to. His aides would turn what had been a freewheeling format into tightly scripted events where every question from the audience was screened. He and Hillary Clinton would become so skilled at churning profits out of their lectures that they would net more than $150 million from speaking alone after he left the White House.
Inside the negotiations to secure a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: Bartering, bickering and outsize expense reports
Contracts and internal emails connected to half a dozen speeches Clinton gave in the Bay Area soon after departing the White House offer a glimpse into the unusual demands and outsize expense reports associated with bringing him to town. The events took place as part of a speaker series sponsored by the Foothill Deanza Community College District, another by UC Davis and another run by a for-profit firm. The community college hosted him again in 2012. The documents became public through an open-records request filed by the Republican National Committee amid a presidential race in which the lucrative speaking fees paid to the Clintons are being closely examined.
They show a former president who deftly avoided discussing past scandals by refusing questions that were not screened by his staff in advance. There is the nearly $1,400 bill for a day’s worth of phone calls from San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel and the $700 dinner for two. And they also show that an agency representing Clinton continued to pursue a deal with an event host who emailed a racist remark about audiences and jokingly referred to the male aides Clinton traveled with as his mistresses.
Speechmaking is as politically charged as it is lucrative for the Clintons. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to disclose transcripts from speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other large corporations has become a campaign liability. Her husband’s collection of fees from corporations of as much as $750,000 for a single speech is a source of relentless charges of conflict of interest from critics.
By his advisors’ own admission, the former president pushed the limits of what could be charged for speeches when he entered the market in 2001.
Hillary Clinton would later say her family at that time was “dead broke” and deep in debt after years of attorneys’ fees related to impeachment and other Clinton controversies. The going rate for former presidents to deliver remarks in a public venue had been in the range of $60,000 per speech.
What should be of greater concern now is that the Democratic Establishment is hell bent on bringing the corruption into the White House by nominating Hillary who is a packaged deal with Bill; two of the worse offenders of this cronyism.
Behind a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: A $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two
Clinton changed the rules of political speech-making for cash. He would push not just corporate hosts but also nonprofits and universities to pay fees well beyond what they were accustomed to. His aides would turn what had been a freewheeling format into tightly scripted events where every question from the audience was screened. He and Hillary Clinton would become so skilled at churning profits out of their lectures that they would net more than $150 million from speaking alone after he left the White House.
Inside the negotiations to secure a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: Bartering, bickering and outsize expense reports
Contracts and internal emails connected to half a dozen speeches Clinton gave in the Bay Area soon after departing the White House offer a glimpse into the unusual demands and outsize expense reports associated with bringing him to town. The events took place as part of a speaker series sponsored by the Foothill Deanza Community College District, another by UC Davis and another run by a for-profit firm. The community college hosted him again in 2012. The documents became public through an open-records request filed by the Republican National Committee amid a presidential race in which the lucrative speaking fees paid to the Clintons are being closely examined.
They show a former president who deftly avoided discussing past scandals by refusing questions that were not screened by his staff in advance. There is the nearly $1,400 bill for a day’s worth of phone calls from San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel and the $700 dinner for two. And they also show that an agency representing Clinton continued to pursue a deal with an event host who emailed a racist remark about audiences and jokingly referred to the male aides Clinton traveled with as his mistresses.
Speechmaking is as politically charged as it is lucrative for the Clintons. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to disclose transcripts from speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other large corporations has become a campaign liability. Her husband’s collection of fees from corporations of as much as $750,000 for a single speech is a source of relentless charges of conflict of interest from critics.
By his advisors’ own admission, the former president pushed the limits of what could be charged for speeches when he entered the market in 2001.
Hillary Clinton would later say her family at that time was “dead broke” and deep in debt after years of attorneys’ fees related to impeachment and other Clinton controversies. The going rate for former presidents to deliver remarks in a public venue had been in the range of $60,000 per speech.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE POOR; AND A FEW RICH FOLKS
A new study by economist Emmanuel Saez claims that the top 1% income earners in the United States hit a new high in 2015. The study used data from the IRS to show “families at or near the top of the income ladder did substantially better in 2015 than those below them. The share of income going to the top 10 percent of income earners—those making on average about $300,000 a year—increased to 50.5 percent in 2015 from 50.0 percent in 2014, the highest ever except for 2012.”
Saez concludes that the 2013 tax increases had no substantive effect on reducing inequality beyond a “dip in pre-tax income earned by the top one percent in 2013” as “by 2015 top incomes are once again on the rise—following a pattern of growing income inequality stretching back to the 1970s.”
In other words, while President Obama claimed in 2013 that income inequality was the “defining challenge of our time,” his policies have made no meaningful contribution to addressing it.
Economic inequality is not only getting worse, but it may arguably be worse than it has ever been. At least that is the conclusion of economists Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson, who write in a new book that income inequality today is the worst it has ever been in all of American history.
The larger historical argument is problematic, as it starts with colonial America and goes through the time of slavery, where the analysis includes food and shelter for slaves as compensation, but the trend is undeniable. With a few exceptions, contemporary America is unrivaled in its level of economic inequality.
Lindert and Williamson come to conclusions through their long-view historical analysis similar to those of other scholars, restricting their study to the previous decades. Rent-seeking through the financial system provided the rich of America—old and new—with break away wealth. In earlier periods, it was the industrialists and land speculators running away with the gains, whereas today it is derivatives traders and hedge fund managers.
At least the robber barons of old left a railroad or two when the bubble burst. The plutocrats of today leave nothing but heartache once the pillaging is done.
US Income Inequality Reaches Highest Level In History
Saez concludes that the 2013 tax increases had no substantive effect on reducing inequality beyond a “dip in pre-tax income earned by the top one percent in 2013” as “by 2015 top incomes are once again on the rise—following a pattern of growing income inequality stretching back to the 1970s.”
In other words, while President Obama claimed in 2013 that income inequality was the “defining challenge of our time,” his policies have made no meaningful contribution to addressing it.
Economic inequality is not only getting worse, but it may arguably be worse than it has ever been. At least that is the conclusion of economists Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson, who write in a new book that income inequality today is the worst it has ever been in all of American history.
The larger historical argument is problematic, as it starts with colonial America and goes through the time of slavery, where the analysis includes food and shelter for slaves as compensation, but the trend is undeniable. With a few exceptions, contemporary America is unrivaled in its level of economic inequality.
Lindert and Williamson come to conclusions through their long-view historical analysis similar to those of other scholars, restricting their study to the previous decades. Rent-seeking through the financial system provided the rich of America—old and new—with break away wealth. In earlier periods, it was the industrialists and land speculators running away with the gains, whereas today it is derivatives traders and hedge fund managers.
At least the robber barons of old left a railroad or two when the bubble burst. The plutocrats of today leave nothing but heartache once the pillaging is done.
US Income Inequality Reaches Highest Level In History
Friday, July 8, 2016
WHY NO PAPER TRAIL?
It defies reason to not create a record; written, recorded, or otherwise when interrogating a "person of interest" in a criminal investigation.
But then, like all of the other absurdities in this Hillary fest. The crime here is the way this case is being handled.
Hillary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday.
The lack of a sworn oath does not remove the possibility of criminal penalties against Clinton if she lied to the FBI, though he said he had “no basis to conclude” that she was untruthful.
“Still a crime to lie to us,” Comey told the House Oversight Committee.
FBI policy is not to record interviews as part of its investigations.
Yet the revelations will nonetheless raise questions among Republicans, who have been skeptical of the FBI’s investigation and have demanded to see the transcript of the former secretary of State’s interview in downtown Washington on Saturday.
“Well, that’s a problem,” Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) told Comey when the FBI chief explained the terms of the interview.
"It's pretty clear ... that the American people would like to see what Hillary Clinton said to the FBI," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters on Wednesday, a day before Comey’s appearance before House lawmakers.
Under FBI policy — and to the dismay of civil libertarians and staunch transparency advocates — the bureau does not conduct electronic recordings of interviews.
“Under the current policy, agents may not electronically record confessions or interviews, openly or surreptitiously” except in rare circumstances, the bureau said in a 2006 memo.
The FBI did, however, complete a federal form summarizing the interview, known as an FD-302, Comey said.
Mica recommended that a copy of that summary be provided to the Oversight Committee.
Comey himself was not among the “five or six” agents who interviewed Clinton, he testified on Thursday. But he assured lawmakers that Clinton told the truth throughout the session.
"I don’t think the agents assessed she was evasive," he added.
But then, like all of the other absurdities in this Hillary fest. The crime here is the way this case is being handled.
Hillary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday.
The lack of a sworn oath does not remove the possibility of criminal penalties against Clinton if she lied to the FBI, though he said he had “no basis to conclude” that she was untruthful.
“Still a crime to lie to us,” Comey told the House Oversight Committee.
FBI policy is not to record interviews as part of its investigations.
Yet the revelations will nonetheless raise questions among Republicans, who have been skeptical of the FBI’s investigation and have demanded to see the transcript of the former secretary of State’s interview in downtown Washington on Saturday.
“Well, that’s a problem,” Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) told Comey when the FBI chief explained the terms of the interview.
"It's pretty clear ... that the American people would like to see what Hillary Clinton said to the FBI," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters on Wednesday, a day before Comey’s appearance before House lawmakers.
Under FBI policy — and to the dismay of civil libertarians and staunch transparency advocates — the bureau does not conduct electronic recordings of interviews.
“Under the current policy, agents may not electronically record confessions or interviews, openly or surreptitiously” except in rare circumstances, the bureau said in a 2006 memo.
The FBI did, however, complete a federal form summarizing the interview, known as an FD-302, Comey said.
Mica recommended that a copy of that summary be provided to the Oversight Committee.
Comey himself was not among the “five or six” agents who interviewed Clinton, he testified on Thursday. But he assured lawmakers that Clinton told the truth throughout the session.
"I don’t think the agents assessed she was evasive," he added.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
IS HILLARY ELECTABLE?
Does America need to elect someone who has been found to be reckless, careless, and grossly irresponsible in representing the United States?
Can someone who has been found to be negligent in protecting the security of the United States be in a position to do it again?
Can someone who has been found to lie to and mislead the people she was sworn to serve and protect be elected to the highest office of the land?
Washington (CNN)The State Department is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
The State Department's announcement on Thursday was expected, as the department had suspended its probe while it was waiting for the Justice Department to complete its criminal investigation. But the State Department's announcement serves as a reminder that the email issue will continue to dog Clinton's campaign.
The State Department will now focus on whether current employees involved in handling or sending and receiving Clinton's emails should get disciplinary action, which could range from a reprimand to losing their security clearance.
"Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. "I cannot provide specific information about the department's review, including what information we are evaluating. We will aim to be as expeditious as possible, but we will not put artificial deadlines on the process. Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations. I'm not able to make commitments today one way or the other about what we will be able to disclose."
State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said in April it was "standard practice" for the department to pause on its review during the law enforcement investigation.
Earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey recommended that no criminal charges be brought in the case, a finding that the Justice Department accepted on Wednesday. Comey was the subject of a lengthy grilling on Capitol Hill Thursday as he fielded questions from Republicans about the investigation, with House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz saying he would ask the FBI to probe whether Clinton lied to Congress about her email arrangements.
Republicans are trying other avenues to keep alive the email controversy that has clouded her presidential campaign for months.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, for instance, asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to block access to classified briefings for Clinton for the rest of the campaign.
The State Department's inspector general in May blasted Clinton's email use, saying that she failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server.
Can someone who has been found to be negligent in protecting the security of the United States be in a position to do it again?
Can someone who has been found to lie to and mislead the people she was sworn to serve and protect be elected to the highest office of the land?
Washington (CNN)The State Department is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
The State Department's announcement on Thursday was expected, as the department had suspended its probe while it was waiting for the Justice Department to complete its criminal investigation. But the State Department's announcement serves as a reminder that the email issue will continue to dog Clinton's campaign.
The State Department will now focus on whether current employees involved in handling or sending and receiving Clinton's emails should get disciplinary action, which could range from a reprimand to losing their security clearance.
Former employees found to be mishandling classified information could also have notes put in their file that could also have consequences if they seek future employment with the government and need security clearance.
"Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. "I cannot provide specific information about the department's review, including what information we are evaluating. We will aim to be as expeditious as possible, but we will not put artificial deadlines on the process. Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations. I'm not able to make commitments today one way or the other about what we will be able to disclose."
State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said in April it was "standard practice" for the department to pause on its review during the law enforcement investigation.
Earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey recommended that no criminal charges be brought in the case, a finding that the Justice Department accepted on Wednesday. Comey was the subject of a lengthy grilling on Capitol Hill Thursday as he fielded questions from Republicans about the investigation, with House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz saying he would ask the FBI to probe whether Clinton lied to Congress about her email arrangements.
Republicans are trying other avenues to keep alive the email controversy that has clouded her presidential campaign for months.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, for instance, asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to block access to classified briefings for Clinton for the rest of the campaign.
The State Department's inspector general in May blasted Clinton's email use, saying that she failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server.
LIAR-LIAR-PANTS ON FIRE!
Looks like there was plenty of lying going on and the only thing that saved Hillary from being indicted for it is that it was not under oath.
Hillary, did take an oath, however, Clinton Confirmed, Sworn-In as U.S. Secretary of State and she did indeed premeditatedly violate that oath many times over.
To make matters worse and add insult to injury Hillary consistently lied about her breaches and misconduct on numerous occasions in numerous public venues.
During a back-and-forth between Rep. Trey Gowdy and James Comey on Thursday, the FBI director confirmed that Hillary Clinton lied multiple times about her email and server use.
During a hearing in front of the House Oversight Committee Gowdy questioned Comey saying, “Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Was that true?” (VIDEO: Congress To Ask FBI To Investigate Hillary For Lying Under Oath)
“Our investigation found that there was classified information” discovered,” Comey replied.
Gowdy followed up, “Secretary Clinton said there was not anything marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Was that true?”
That’s not true,” Comey replied. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Secretary Clinton said, I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” Gowdy said. “Was that was true?”
“There was classified material emailed,” Comey responded.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?
According to Comey, Clinton “used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
“Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.
“Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“That’s a harder one to answer,” Comey answered. “We found traces of work-related emails on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or a server was changed out something happened to them. There’s no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.”
“Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive,” Gowdy said. “Did her lawyers read the email content individually?”
“No,” Comey replied.
Hillary, did take an oath, however, Clinton Confirmed, Sworn-In as U.S. Secretary of State and she did indeed premeditatedly violate that oath many times over.
To make matters worse and add insult to injury Hillary consistently lied about her breaches and misconduct on numerous occasions in numerous public venues.
During a back-and-forth between Rep. Trey Gowdy and James Comey on Thursday, the FBI director confirmed that Hillary Clinton lied multiple times about her email and server use.
During a hearing in front of the House Oversight Committee Gowdy questioned Comey saying, “Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email. Was that true?” (VIDEO: Congress To Ask FBI To Investigate Hillary For Lying Under Oath)
“Our investigation found that there was classified information” discovered,” Comey replied.
Gowdy followed up, “Secretary Clinton said there was not anything marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Was that true?”
That’s not true,” Comey replied. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Secretary Clinton said, I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” Gowdy said. “Was that was true?”
“There was classified material emailed,” Comey responded.
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?
According to Comey, Clinton “used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
“Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“No. We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.
“Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account,” Gowdy said. “Was that true?”
“That’s a harder one to answer,” Comey answered. “We found traces of work-related emails on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or a server was changed out something happened to them. There’s no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.”
“Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive,” Gowdy said. “Did her lawyers read the email content individually?”
“No,” Comey replied.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
FROM SMOKING GUN TO SMOKING CANON!
Now that the FBI and DOJ have ducked for cover this Hillary inspired fiasco is going to turn into a full blown nightmare for Hillary and her supporters.
The Establishment has demonstrated how effective they can be in protecting the "rigged" system and now it is time for the opposing forces to bust them. How that plays out is still a mystery. Will Wikieleaks fire the canon? Are the Russians getting ready to dump all the hacked emails? Will some of the Hillary loyals break rank?
What comes next will be interesting and dramatic; stuff reality TV shows are made of.
Hillary Clinton has had several explanations as to why and how she used a private email address and server when she was Secretary of State. But in his press conference on Tuesday, FBI director James Comey seemed to refute them all.
The Establishment has demonstrated how effective they can be in protecting the "rigged" system and now it is time for the opposing forces to bust them. How that plays out is still a mystery. Will Wikieleaks fire the canon? Are the Russians getting ready to dump all the hacked emails? Will some of the Hillary loyals break rank?
What comes next will be interesting and dramatic; stuff reality TV shows are made of.
Hillary Clinton has had several explanations as to why and how she used a private email address and server when she was Secretary of State. But in his press conference on Tuesday, FBI director James Comey seemed to refute them all.
EXTREMELY CARELESS FOR PRESIDENT?
You would think Americans could do better than that.
Why settle for someone known to be reckless, careless, no trustworthy, and for lack of a better word; a scandal magnet.
Remarkably, without any major leaks, Comey made his final recommendations to the Department of Justice only days after a three-hour interview with the former secretary of state and a week after a widely controversial “chance meeting” between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former president Bill Clinton.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” Comey clarified. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Contrary to Clinton’s repeated claims, Comey announced that the FBI’s investigation found that she sent or received 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time she sent or received them. The agency also found that Clinton used more than one email server.
Comey said, however, that the FBI “found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”:
Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
[…]
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
“Extremely careless,” not criminal: FBI Director James Comey recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton in private email server case
Why settle for someone known to be reckless, careless, no trustworthy, and for lack of a better word; a scandal magnet.
Remarkably, without any major leaks, Comey made his final recommendations to the Department of Justice only days after a three-hour interview with the former secretary of state and a week after a widely controversial “chance meeting” between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former president Bill Clinton.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” Comey clarified. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Contrary to Clinton’s repeated claims, Comey announced that the FBI’s investigation found that she sent or received 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time she sent or received them. The agency also found that Clinton used more than one email server.
Comey said, however, that the FBI “found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them”:
Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
[…]
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
“Extremely careless,” not criminal: FBI Director James Comey recommends no charges against Hillary Clinton in private email server case
Sunday, July 3, 2016
THE 1% AND THE EU; A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN
The EU is far from the concept of “of the people and by the people.”
Over time, EU’s elites have clearly shown their disdain for referendums and Democracy.
Here are some quick examples:
Denmark rejected the notion of European Union in 1992. So it was forced to vote again after some superficial tweaks and renewed propaganda. And the referendum passed.
When a new EU Constitution was proposed in 2004, the Belgian Prime Minister famously said, “If the answer is No, the vote will have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.”
The Lisbon Treaty was a scam that was created after the EU Constitution was rejected by countries such as France and Netherlands in referendums in 2005.
The elites decided to circumvent the people of Europe by getting the Constitution approved by a “treaty” that was approved and signed by politicians. Democracy be damned!
Ireland was the only country that insisted on having a referendum on the new Lisbon Treaty. And it actually rejected the treaty in 2008. But lo and behold, it was made to vote again. Of course, it passed the next year.
Afterward, the President of the EU Commission made it clear: “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”
Central Banking is one area that very few people understand.
The concept of a private organization – owned by a few banks – controlling the currency of entire nation(s) is accepted widely and questioned rarely.
If you replace the European Central Bank (ECB) with a single individual and ask people, “Would you like this unelected person to have unfettered power and freedom to print money, set interest rates and distribute the money?” and the answer will be a unanimous NO!
The ECB has printed trillions of dollars, created artificial bubbles and bursts, bailed out its favorite banks, sent interest rates into negative territory, forced privatization of vast assets in Greece and elsewhere, showered the Top 0.1% with unimaginable amount of wealth, and created huge inequality all over Europe.
Over time, EU’s elites have clearly shown their disdain for referendums and Democracy.
Here are some quick examples:
Denmark rejected the notion of European Union in 1992. So it was forced to vote again after some superficial tweaks and renewed propaganda. And the referendum passed.
When a new EU Constitution was proposed in 2004, the Belgian Prime Minister famously said, “If the answer is No, the vote will have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.”
The Lisbon Treaty was a scam that was created after the EU Constitution was rejected by countries such as France and Netherlands in referendums in 2005.
The elites decided to circumvent the people of Europe by getting the Constitution approved by a “treaty” that was approved and signed by politicians. Democracy be damned!
Ireland was the only country that insisted on having a referendum on the new Lisbon Treaty. And it actually rejected the treaty in 2008. But lo and behold, it was made to vote again. Of course, it passed the next year.
Afterward, the President of the EU Commission made it clear: “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”
Central Banking is one area that very few people understand.
The concept of a private organization – owned by a few banks – controlling the currency of entire nation(s) is accepted widely and questioned rarely.
If you replace the European Central Bank (ECB) with a single individual and ask people, “Would you like this unelected person to have unfettered power and freedom to print money, set interest rates and distribute the money?” and the answer will be a unanimous NO!
The ECB has printed trillions of dollars, created artificial bubbles and bursts, bailed out its favorite banks, sent interest rates into negative territory, forced privatization of vast assets in Greece and elsewhere, showered the Top 0.1% with unimaginable amount of wealth, and created huge inequality all over Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)