The Republicrats led by their fearful leader have come up with a plan that will meet the desires of Chairman Limbaugh and the Top 1%. It appears that the national debt will be paid off by the middle class and seniors, while the rich and large corporations will get more subsidies and tax breaks.
Thank God we will be able to make life better for the rich, it was touch and go there for a while when some of those progressive house "democrats" thought they should stand up for their constituents. The important thing is that the bond holders will be protected and you and I will have the satisfaction of knowing we will be able to assume the tax burden for the very wealthy.
Some people may still be grumbling that this all seems to be going to prop up investments by the Chinese. Not so, a very large portion of our national debt is held by the top 1% of richest Americans. So, rest well knowing that a lot of the debt that was incurred by tax cuts for the wealthy will be financed by those same lucky individuals, and paid off by us and our kids.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Giant Banks Lobby to Raise the Debt Ceiling and Slash Public Benefits ... So They Can Keep Sucking at the Public Teat
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Economist Dean Banker notes:
Wall Street will suffer more than anyone from a default and it will not let it happen. The public should know this, certainly Wall Street does.No wonder the fatcats running the giant banks which received tens of trillions in bailouts, loans and guarantees from the American public are screaming loudly that the debt ceiling must be raised.
Robert Reich points out:
Why has Standard & Poor's decided now's the time to crack down on the federal budget -- when it gave free passes to Wall Street's risky securities and George W. Bush's giant tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby contributing to the very crisis its now demanding be addressed?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Street pays Standard & Poor's bills?Remember, the big 3 government-sponsored rating agencies routinely took bribes as their normal business model, committed massive fraud which greatly contributed to the financial crisis, covered up improper ratings after the fact, and otherwise sold their soul (in their own words). And see this and this.
Some complain about the poor sucking on the government teat.
But the fact that Wall Street controls the rating agencies, and the rating agencies are now creating an artificial emergency sounds like the powers-that-be - the giant banks which run this country - are trying to protect their government teat of perpetual bailouts from the public coffers.
And of course, they are the ones calling for slashing of spending which helps the public. Even though - as conservative writer Michael Rivero points out:
Social Security is not "unfunded" nor is it an "entitlement." That is YOUR money in that trust fund. You worked for it, and it was taken out of all your paychecks your entire working life.The debt crisis might be real ... I've been warning about it for years (and see this and this).
The Social Security Trust fund invested your money by loaning it to the US Government, which is the largest single holder of US Government debt. But the US Government is already in default in fact, as the actual tax revenues have not even come close to the projections on which the budgets were drawn up.
So the US Government has looked at all the entities they owe money to and decided that stiffing the American people is the least likely to cause them harm. They will pay the bankers and they will pay foreign nations and they will continue to bail out Wall Street for the mortgage-backed securities fraud by embezzling your retirement money you gave them in trust. The US Government is robbing you to save the private central bank! [i.e. the big banks. See this and this.]
The potential downgrade to America's credit is real ... I've been warning about that for years, as well.
But the way that the rating agencies and Wall Street are approaching the debt ceiling debate is a scam. See this, this and this.
After all, they aren't even discussing the spending cuts which must be enacted to reduce our debt:
(1) Ending the imperial wars, which reduce - rather than strengthen - national security (and see this and this);
(2) Ending the never-ending bailouts for Wall Street;
(3) Prosecuting fraud and clawing back the ill-gotten gains;
(4) Ending the Bush tax cuts, which are hurting the economy; and
(5) Slashing pensions for public employees, at least when they are pegged to an artificially "spiked" final year's salary.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Cult That Is Destroying America
Paul Krugman
Watching our system deal with the debt ceiling crisis — a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences — it’s increasingly obvious that what we’re looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.
And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.
No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.
Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.
So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.
The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.
What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what’s really going on.
You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.
And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.
It’s a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Plutocracy and the Debt Ceiling Debate
July 21, 2011 - 5:58pm ET
Looking for a lesson in the goings-on in D.C. these days? Here’s one: The more our nation's wealth concentrates, the more our democratic give-and-take becomes all take — by the rich.
Once upon a time in America, back a century ago, our nation's rich paid virtually nothing in taxes to the federal government. And that same federal government did virtually nothing to better the lives of average Americans.
But those average Americans would do battle, over the next half century, to rein in the rich and the corporations that made them ever richer. And that struggle would prove remarkably successful. By the 1950s, America's rich and the corporations they ran were paying significant chunks of their annual incomes in taxes — and the federal projects and programs these taxes helped finance were actually improving average American lives.
America's wealthy, predictably, counterattacked — and, by the 1980s, they were scoring successes of their own.
Today, the rich and their corporations no longer bear anything close to their rightful share of the nation's tax burden. The federal government, given this revenue shortfall, is having a harder and harder time funding initiatives that help average working families. The result: a “debt crisis.”
This “debt crisis” in no way had to happen. No natural disaster, no tsunami, has suddenly pounded the United States out of fiscal balance. We have simply suffered a colossal political failure. Our powers that be, by feeding the rich and their corporations one massive tax break after another, have thrown a monstrous monkey wrench into our national finances.
Some numbers — from an Institute for Policy Studies report released this past spring — can help us better visualize just how monumental this political failure has been.
If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year.
In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.
Similarly stunning numbers have come, earlier this month, from MIT economist Peter Diamond and the University of California's Emmanuel Saez, the world's top authority on the incomes of the ultra-rich. These two scholars have shared some fascinating “what ifs” that dramatize how spectacularly the incomes of our wealthiest have soared over recent decades.
In 2007, Diamond and Saez point out, taxpayers in the nation's top 1 percent actually paid, on average, 22.4 percent of their incomes in federal taxes. If that actual tax burden were to about double to 43.5 percent, the top 1 percenter share of our national after-tax income would still be twice as high as the top 1 percent’s after-tax income share in 1970.
So why aren't we taxing the rich? Why are we now suffering such fearsome “debt crisis” angst? Why are our politicos so intent on shoving the “fiscal discipline” of layoffs and cutbacks — austerity — down the throats of average Americans?
No mystery here. Our political system is failing to tax the rich because the rich have fortunes large enough to buy off the political system. Again, some numbers can help us better visualize that plutocratic big picture.
Read More: Here
500 Million Debt-Serfs: The European Union Is a Neo-Feudal Kleptocracy
Friday, July 22, 2011
charles hugh smith
The banks of Europe are the new Feudal Manors and Masters. All Europeans now serve them as debt-serfs in one way or another.
If we knock down all the flimsy screens of artifice and obscuring complexity, what we see in Europe is a continent of debt-serfs, indentured to the banks under the whip of the European Union and its secular religion, the euro.
I know this isn't the pretty picture presented by the EU Overlords, of a prosperity built not just on debt, but on resolving the problem of debt with more debt, but it is the reality behind the eurozone's phony facade of economic "freedom."
What else can we call the stark domination of the big banks other than Neo-Feudalism? In one way or another, every one of the 27-member nations' citizens are indentured to the big international banks at risk in Europe, most of which are based in Europe.
Amidst the confusing overlay of voices and agendas, there is really only one agenda item: save the big European banks. Everything else is just mechanics. The banks are the new feudal manor houses, the bankers are the new feudal lords, and the politicians of the EU and its influential member nations are the servile vassals who enforce the "rule of law" on the serfs.
Here is the fundamental fact: there are trillions of euros of debt which can never be paid back. In a non-feudal system, one in which the banks were not the Masters, then this fact would be recognized and acted upon: something like 50% of the debt would be written off in one fell swoop, all the banks whose assets had just been wiped out would be declared insolvent and liquidated, the remaining debt would be sized to the economic surplus of each debtor nation, and a new, decentralized banking sector of dozens of strictly limited, smaller banks would be established.
To the degree that is "impossible," Europe is nothing but a Neo-Feudal Kleptocracy serving its Banker Lords.
The Greek worker whose pay has been slashed in the "austerity" demanded by the banks serves the Banker Lords, as does the German worker who will be paying higher taxes to bail out Germany and France's Banker Lords. Though the German is constantly told he is bailing out Greece, the truth is Greece is just the conduit: he's actually bailing out the EU's Banker Lords.
We can clear up much of the purposeful obfuscation by asking: exactly what tragedy befalls Europe if all the sovereign debt in the EU was wiped off the books? The one and only "tragedy" would be the destruction of the "too big to fail" banks, not just in Europe but around the world. As the big European banks imploded, then their inability to service their counterparty obligations on various derivatives to other big banks would topple those lenders.
While the political vassals call that possibility a catastrophe, it would actually spell freedom for Europe's 500 million debt serfs. From the lofty heights of the Manor House, then the loss of enormously concentrated power and wealth is indeed a catastrophe for the Lords and their political lackeys. But for the debt-serfs facing generations of servitude for nothing, then the destruction of the banks would be the glorious lifting of tyranny.
Just as a refresher, here is a definition of kleptocracy:
Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, from the Ancient Greek for "thief" and "rule," is a term applied to a government subject to control fraud that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves".
Read More: Here
Thursday, July 21, 2011
CORRECTED-SPECIAL REPORT: Banks still robo-signing, filing doubtful foreclosure documents
(Corrects paragraphs 11-12 to clarify remarks of Mortgage Bankers Association President David Stevens)
* Banks that settled continue filing questionable paperwork: Reuters
* Reuters identifies 6 robo-signers still pumping out documents
By Scot J. Paltrow
NEW YORK/IMMOKALEE, Florida, July 18 (Reuters) - America's leading mortgage lenders vowed in March to end the dubious foreclosure practices that caused a bruising scandal last year.
But a Reuters investigation finds that many are still taking the same shortcuts they promised to shun, from sketchy paperwork to the use of "robo-signers."
Read More: Here
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Sorry Elizabeth, Wall Street Said No
Posted on Jul 19, 2011
 |
| AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais |
President Barack Obama shakes hands with Richard Cordray after announcing his nomination as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is at Elizabeth Warren’s right. |
The defining moment of Clinton’s capitulation was his destruction of Brooksley Born, the one member of his administration with the courage and prescience to warn him about the unregulated derivatives trading that ultimately led to the housing collapse. For Obama, it is his decision not to nominate Elizabeth Warren to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she fought so hard to create.
Obama’s refusal to take the fight to Senate Republicans by nominating Warren should be taken as the vital measure of the man. This gutless decision comes after the president populated his administration with the very people who created the financial meltdown.
The Harvard credential worked for the likes of economist Lawrence Summers, who carried water for Wall Street under both Clinton and Obama, but not for that university’s distinguished law professor Warren, an outspoken defender of consumer rights who dared represent the interests of the victims of the banking scams. It is a painful reminder that for Democrats as well as Republicans, governance is still all about serving the rich.
Statement on the Gang of Six Plan
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), issued the following statement on the Gang of Six deficit plan:
"The budget plan produced by the Senate’s “Gang of Six” offers the promise of huge tax breaks for some of the wealthiest people in the country, while lowering Social Security benefits for retirees and the disabled. Despite claiming that they will "reform" Social Security on a "separate track, isolated from deficit reduction," the plan includes cuts to Social Security that would be felt in less than six months, as the plan calls for a new inflation formula that will reduce benefits by 0.3 percentage points a year compared with currently scheduled benefits. The plan also calls for a process that is likely to reduce benefits further for future retirees.
"The proposed cuts to Social Security are cumulative. This means that after ten years, a beneficiary in her 70s will see a cut of close to 3 percent. After 20 years, the cuts for beneficiaries in their 80s will be close to 6 percent, while the reduction in annual benefits will be close to 9 percent by the time beneficiaries are in their 90s. For a beneficiary in her 90s living on a Social Security income of $15,000, this means a loss of more $1,200 a year in benefits.
"The plan also calls for large cuts in tax rates including a targeted top rate of between 23-29 percent, which will be at least partially offset by elimination of tax deductions. For the highest-income people, this is likely to mean a very large reduction in taxes. For example, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein, the CEOs of J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, respectively, are both paid close to $20 million a year at present. If this pay is taxed as ordinary income, then they would be paying close to $7.5 million a year in taxes on it after 2012. However, if the top rate is set at 29 percent, they may save as much as $1.9 million a year on their tax bill. If the top tax rate is set at 23 percent then the Gang of Six plan may increase their after-tax income by more than $3 million a year.
"It is striking that the Gang of Six chose to respond to the crisis created by the collapse of the housing bubble by developing a plan that will give even more money to top Wall Street executives and traders. By contrast, the European Union is considering imposing financial speculation taxes to reduce the power of the financial industry and raise more than $40 billion a year in revenue.
"The plan calls for substantial cuts elsewhere in the budget which are likely to cut into the incomes of large segments of the population, especially the sick and the elderly. The cuts it proposes to the military are just over 1.0 percent of projected spending over the next decade.
"In short, this is a plan that should be expected to please the wealthy since it will mean large reductions in their tax liability in the decades ahead. On the other hand, most of the rest of the country is likely to feel the effects of lower Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, in addition to other cuts that are not yet fully specified."
Look, Enough With The 'Shared Sacrifice' Talk. We've Already Had More Than Our Share, Time For The Wealthy To Feel The Pain
July 20, 2011
I've been looking over the Gang of Six's bipartisan class war manifesto. Uh, politicians? Although it's unlikely, you may successfully shove these radical and undemocratic changes down our collective throat (if the House progressives let you), but you can't make us go along with your pretense. You all keep talking about "shared sacrifice" and "belt-tightening" when there's an 16% or so effective unemployment rate, wages are continuing their 30-year decline, jobs are non-existent and millions have lost their homes. For far too many of us, if we tighten our belts any more, we'll break our backs!
Meanwhile, Wall Street is doing better than ever.
In what universe is this "shared" sacrifice?
So here's my question to the gentlemen millionaires of the Senate, and their dear friend in the White House: When is it your turn? Where's your pain? We already had our turn. No more.
Economist Dean Baker says it's "striking" that the Gang of Six chose to respond to the crisis created by the collapse of the housing bubble by developing a plan that will give even more money to top Wall Street executives and traders - by taking it from little old ladies' Social Security.
And just to add insult to injury, there's an upcoming series of trade deal votes that amount to a series of setbacks for American workers and taxpayers, unions and public interest groups. But hey, it makes it easier for the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of manufacturers to offshore jobs -- and to keep their corporate tax havens.
It just makes me long for the days when we had actual, ass-kicking Democrats:
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Paul Krugman Says We Need To Hold The Bankers Accountable
Paul Krugman says that letting the bankers walk is a really big mistake -- and is a major factor in the recession:
Last fall, we learned that many mortgage lenders were engaging in illegal foreclosures. Most conspicuously, “robo-signers” were attesting that banks had the required documentation to seize homes without checking to see whether they actually had the right to do so — and in many cases they didn’t.
How widespread and serious were the abuses? The answer is that we don’t know. Nine months have passed since the robo-signing scandal broke, yet there still hasn’t been a serious investigation of its reach. That’s because states, suffering from severe budget troubles, lack the resources for a full investigation — and federal officials, who do have the resources, have chosen not to use them.
Instead, these officials are pushing for a settlement with mortgage companies that, reports Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post, “would broadly absolve the firms of wrongdoing in exchange for penalties reaching $30 billion and assurances that the firms will adhere to better practices.”
Why the rush to settle? As far as I can tell, there are two principal arguments being made for letting the banks off easy. The first is the claim that resolving the mortgage mess quickly is the key to getting the housing market back on its feet. The second, less explicitly stated, is the claim that getting tough with the banks would undermine broader prospects for recovery.
Neither of these arguments makes much sense.
The claim that removing the legal cloud over foreclosure would help the housing market — in particular, that it would help support housing prices — leaves me scratching my head. It would just accelerate foreclosures, and if more families were evicted from their homes, that would mean more homes offered for sale — an increase in supply. An increase in the supply of a good usually pushes that good’s price down, not up. Why should the effect on housing go the opposite way?
You might point to the mortgage relief that would supposedly be extracted as part of the settlement. But if mortgage relief is that crucial, why isn’t the administration making a major push to reinvigorate its own Home Affordable Modification Program, which has spent only a small fraction of its money? Or if making that program actually work is hard, why should we believe that any program instituted as part of a mortgage-abuse settlement would work any better?
Sorry, but the case that letting banks off the hook would help the housing market just doesn’t hold together.
What about the argument that getting tough with the banks would threaten the overall economy? Here the question is: What’s holding the economy back?
It’s not the state of the banks. It’s true that fears about bank solvency disrupted financial markets in late 2008 and early 2009. But those markets have long since returned to normal, in large part because everyone now knows that banks will be bailed out if they get in trouble.
The big drag on the economy now is the overhang of household debt, largely created by the $5.6 trillion in mortgage debt that households took on during the bubble years. Serious mortgage relief could make a dent in that problem; a $30 billion settlement from the banks, even if it proved more effective than the government’s modification program, would not.
So when officials tell you that we must rush to settle with the banks for the sake of the economy, don’t believe them. We should do this right, and hold bankers accountable for their actions.
Some Good Advice From the Big Dog to The Frightend Little Dog
July 19, 2011 01:00 PM
Bill Clinton: I'd Raise The Debt Ceiling And Force The Courts To Stop Me
Joe Conason interviews Bill Clinton, who probably knows why Obama's dragging this out but can't resist offering advice anyway:
Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.
Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”
Lifting the debt ceiling “is necessary to pay for appropriations already made,” he added, “so you can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.”
Having faced down the Republican House leadership during two government shutdowns when he was president -- and having brought the country’s budget from the deep deficits left by Republican presidents to a projected surplus -- Clinton is unimpressed by the GOP’s sudden enthusiasm for balanced budgets. But he never considered invoking the Fourteenth Amendment -- which says “the validity of the US public debt shall not be questioned” – because the Republicans led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich didn’t threaten to use the debt ceiling as a weapon in their budget struggles with him.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Taibbi: Obama's Not Pretending. He Doesn't Want A Progressive Budget Deal.
Like Matt Taibbi, David Swanson also thinks the debt ceiling debate is a fraud.
Matt Taibbi describes the debt ceiling charade in his own inimitable way:
But what is becoming equally obvious, to both sides, is that the Obama White House is using this same artificial calamity to pitch its own increasingly rightward tilt to voters in advance of the 2012 elections.
It has been extremely interesting in the last weeks to see observers on both sides of the aisle make this point. Just yesterday, the inimitable New York Times conservative Ross Douthat listed Obama's not-so-secret rightward push as a the first in a list of reasons why the Republicans should dig in even more, instead of making a sensible deal: Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal. For months, liberals have expressed frustration with the president's deficit strategy. The White House made no effort to tie a debt ceiling vote to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last December. It pre-emptively conceded that any increase in the ceiling should be accompanied by spending cuts. And every time Republicans dug in their heels, the administration gave ground.
The not-so-secret secret is that the White House has given ground on purpose. Just as Republicans want to use the debt ceiling to make the president live with bigger spending cuts than he would otherwise support, Obama's political team wants to use the leverage provided by those cra-a-a-zy Tea Partiers to make Democrats live with bigger spending cuts than they normally would support.
Douthat makes this observation, then argues that the Republicans should recognize Obama's hidden motive and hold out for an even better deal. It will then be a race to see which party can abandon employment in favor of deficit reduction faster. He writes:
Why? Because the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president's re-election effort. In that environment, Republicans have every incentive to push and keep pushing. Since any deal they cut will be used as an election-year prop in 2012, they need to make sure the president actually earns his budget-cutting bona fides.This is interesting because just last week, the liberal opposite of Douthat at the Times, Paul Krugman, came to the same conclusion:
It's getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama's motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.'s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that's not a false impression; maybe it's the simple truth.One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend's presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: "Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can't afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs."
Krugman seems to believe that Obama has basically purged all of his real economic advisors and is doing what Bush did on foreign policy -- engaging in complex and portentous policy initiatives at the behest not of experts, but political advisors. Just as Bush had Karl Rove telling him when and how to launch military invasions and drop bombs on unsuspecting foreign human beings in order to establish electoral credentials, Obama might be playing chicken with the budget for the benefit of undecideds in Florida and Ohio.
Read More: Here
Obama Is A Bankster Puppet “Who Brought On The Depression That The Republicans Never Could Have Gotten Away With”
--
In a recent interview with Guns and Butter, Michael Hudson summed up the financial war against the American people, with a focus on the key role President Obama is playing:
AmpedStReport )))
In a recent interview with Guns and Butter, Michael Hudson summed up the financial war against the American people, with a focus on the key role President Obama is playing: “He’s going to go down as the man who brought on the depression that the Republicans never could have gotten away with. Only a Democrat posing as a left-winger could support the anti-labor, anti-wage, pro-Wall Street policies that his advisors have been pressing….
The economy’s going under because Wall Street and investors realize that it’s a done deal. That Mr. Obama is going to succeed in pushing the economy much further into a depression. We need the depression in order to cut living standards and labor by 30 percent. We need a depression in order just to lower the wages of America and to have an excuse – of course, a depression is going to make the budget deficit even larger and the solution to the depression has already been written up, just like the invasion of Iraq was all written up before 9/11, the solution is going to be that the government is going to sell off its land, whatever is in the public domain.
The American government is going to look just like Greece and just like Ireland. They’re going to be told, ‘The states can’t pay, there’s no federal revenue to share with Minnesota or Wisconsin or the city of Chicago. They’re going to have to sell off their roads, sell off their streets, sell off their infrastructure, sell off their public utilities, sell off their business. The government will sell whatever it has, the Postal Service, to essentially buyers who will now borrow the money from the banks making a huge new market for banks and investment bankers, in privatizing and cutting up what used to be the public domain and turning it over to the wealthiest 10 percent of the economy. So people realize yes, the class war’s back in business. We’re going into a depression. We’ll buy back all these stocks after they go but meanwhile, the game’s over. Let’s grab what we can and just bail out. And that’s what’s happening now.”
This Week: Are We Going To Be Taken Seriously By The Very Serious People On The Debt Ceiling?
July 17, 2011 05:00 PM
Nothing reminds me to take my blood pressure medicine like another Sunday morning in Absurdistan! Is it just me, or is it crazy to turn the deficit "crisis" into a political argument, and not an economic one? Have the Villagers so completely bought into the Grand Bargain narrative that it doesn't even occur to them that this is a really bad idea?
Oh, you already know the answer. These shows are nothing more than a high school vanity project for the Village elders. And that, of course, includes the media "journalists" who take part. What an incoherent mess.
Why does multimillionaire host Christian Amanpour [$2m salary, married to James Rubin, executive editor at Bloomberg News, adjunct professor at Columbia University, salaries unknown] allow Sen. Jon Kyl [worth between $519,090 to $746,082 ] to get away with saying a targeted tax increase on billionaire hedge fund managers is a "job killer"? She probably asks tougher questions of her 11-year-old son.
And OMB head Jacob Lew [In 2009, got $944,578 bailout bonus after working for Citigroup, where his salary was $1.1 million and "additional compensation". Current salary unknown] speaks in spin, all of which whizzes past Amanpour like a whiffle ball.
Could we just once have a real discussion on the nuts and bolts of the issues, instead of partisan spin?
Read More: Here
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to open without a director
With political wrangling holding up the appointment of a leader, the federal government's new agency to protect consumers from financial fraud won't have the authority to regulate mortgage brokers and other firms outside the conventional banking industry.
 |
Reporting from Washington—
When it opens its doors next week, the federal government's new agency to protect consumers from financial fraud won't be quite the aggressive watchdog promised a year ago.Because of political squabbling, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau formally will launch without an appointed director. And the lack of leadership has real consequences.
"It's very disappointing that the centerpiece of the president's financial reform agenda is not ready to hit the ground running," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America.
Vehement opposition to the agency from Republicans and much of the financial services industry has stalled efforts by the Obama administration to install a director, a five-year appointment that must be confirmed by the Senate.
With the agency formally opening for business Thursday, there is not enough time to put a director in place. And without an appointed director, the agency legally cannot exercise expanded consumer protection powers that Congress granted it in last year's financial regulatory overhaul to try to prevent another crisis, government officials said.
Besides being unable to use its authority to regulate mortgage brokers and other financial firms outside the conventional banking industry, the agency would be denied, at least initially, broad authority to prohibit "unfair, deceptive or abuse acts or practices" or to issue rules requiring better disclosures of the terms of financial products, the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve determined.
Read More: Here
Friday, July 15, 2011
The housing slump is far worse than you think - Key housing market statistics point to years of stagnation
Doug Ramsey of Minneapolis investment firm Leuthold Group is a student of asset bubbles, from tech stocks in the late ’90s to commodities in the late ’70s and railroads in the 19th century. His outlook is very different from the HUD Secretary’s. Ramsey calculates that single-family housing starts would have to soar an unprecedented 60 percent to 70 percent from their current half-century low of a 419,000 annual rate just to hit the average low of the past six housing busts since 1960 (650,000 to 700,000).
Ramsey says every housing statistic he tracks, including new and existing home prices and the performance of homebuilding stocks, has so far matched the pattern of prices after the bursting of other bubbles, including the Dow Jones industrial average following the crash of 1929 and Japan’s Nikkei after its 1989 peak. It starts with a steep decline lasting three or four years, followed by a brief rally that ends in years of stagnation. The Dow took 35 years to return to pre-crash levels. The Nikkei trades at less than a third of where it peaked 22 years ago. “The housing decline,” he says, “will be a long, multiyear process, and the multiplier effect across the economy will be enormous.”
Others are equally gloomy. “It’s still a vicious cycle of foreclosures, prices falling and buyers remaining on the sidelines,” says Jonathan Smoke, head of research for Hanley Wood, a housing data company. With the homeownership rate possibly headed to its pre-bubble level of 64 percent from 69 percent at the peak, Smoke calculates that the nation needs 1.6 million fewer homes that it now has. “We’ve gone through a period when we should have been tearing down houses,” he says. “The supply of total housing stock is beyond what is necessary.”
For full article, visit this link.
Elizabeth Warren: Government Hasn't Sufficiently Probed Foreclosure Abuses
Elizabeth Warren, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, told a congressional panel that government agencies may not have sufficiently investigated claims that borrowers' homes were illegally seized by banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial.
"I think there's a real question about whether there's been adequate investigation," said Warren, the temporary custodian of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a new federal agency charged with protecting borrowers from abusive lenders. Her statement came in response to questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor who asked Warren why her agency needed to oversee such abuses when the U.S. Department of Justice is already probing such matters.
Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, has long questioned whether the state and federal probes have been comprehensive, according to people familiar with her views. The investigations were launched last year amid news reports that the lenders were at times improperly repossessing borrowers' homes and breaking state laws and federal rules in the process.
But she had not publicly shared that view, which is widelyspread among individuals with direct knowledge of the probes, until the Thursday appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
She's the first senior administration official to publicly question the thoroughness of the investigations led by the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, Federal Trade Commission, all 50 state attorneys general and more than 30 state bank regulators.
Read More: Here
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The President's Jobs Plan (Not)
July 12, 2011 |
What did the president do in response to last week's horrendous jobs report -- unemployment rising to 9.2 percent in June, with only 18,000 new jobs (125,000 are needed each month just to keep up with the growth in the potential labor force)?
He said the economy continues to be in a deep hole, and he urged Congress to extend the temporary reduction in the employee part of the payroll tax, approve pending free-trade agreements, and pass a measure to streamline patent procedures.
To call this inadequate would be a gross understatement.
Here's what the president should have said:
This job recession shows no sign of ending. It can no longer be blamed on supply-side disruptions from Japan, Europe's debt crisis, high oil prices, or bad weather.
We're in a vicious cycle where consumers won't buy more because they're scared of losing their jobs and their pay is dropping. And businesses won't hire because they don't have enough customers.
Here in Washington, we've been wasting time in a game of chicken over raising the debt ceiling. Republicans want you to believe the deficit is responsible for the bad economy. The truth is that when the private sector cannot and will not spend enough to get the economy going, the public sector must step into the breach. Cutting the deficit now would only create more joblessness.
My first priority is to get Americans back to work. I'm proposing a jobs plan that will do that.
First, we'll exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for the next two years. This will put cash directly into American's pockets and boost consumer spending. We'll make up the revenue shortfall by applying Social Security taxes to incomes over $500,000.
Second, we'll recreate the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps -- two of the most successful job innovations of the New Deal -- and put people back to work directly. The long-term unemployed will help rebuild our roads and bridges, ports and levees, and provide needed services in our schools and hospitals. Young people who can't find jobs will reclaim and improve our national parklands, restore urban parks and public spaces, recycle products and materials, and insulate public buildings and homes.
Third, we'll enlarge the Earned Income Tax Credit so lower-income Americans have more purchasing power.
Fourth, we'll lend money to cash-strapped state and local governments so they can rehire teachers, fire fighters, police officers, and others who provide needed public services. This isn't a bailout. When the economy improves, scheduled federal outlays to these states and locales will drop by an amount necessary to recover the loans.
Fifth, we'll amend the bankruptcy laws so struggling homeowners can declare bankruptcy on their primary residence. This will give them more bargaining leverage with their lenders to reorganize their mortgage loans. Why should the owners of commercial property and second homes be allowed to include these assets in bankruptcy but not regular home owners?
Sixth, we'll extend unemployment benefits to millions of Americans who have lost part-time jobs. They'll get partial benefits proportional to the time they put in on the job.
Yes, most of these measures will require more public spending in the short term. But unless we get this economy moving now, the long-term deficit problem will only grow worse.
Some in Congress will fight against this jobs plan on ideological grounds. They don't like the idea that government exists to help Americans who need it. And they don't believe we all benefit when jobs are more plentiful and the economy is growing again.
I am eager to take them on. Average Americans are hurting, and their pain is not going away.
We bailed out Wall Street so that the financial system would not crash. We stimulated the economy so that businesses would not tank. Now we must help ordinary people on the Main Streets of America -- for their own sakes, and also so that the real economy can fully mend.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Iceland, A Country That Wants to Punish the Bankers Responsible For The Crisis
Since 2008 the vast majority of the Western population dream about saying "no" to the banks, but no one has dared to do so. No one except the Icelanders, who have carried out a peaceful revolution that has managed not only to overthrow a government and draft a new constitution, but also seeks to jail those responsible for the country's economic debacle.
Last week 9 people were arrested in London and Reykjavik for their possible responsibility for Iceland’s financial collapse in 2008, a deep crisis which developed into an unprecedented public reaction that is changing the country's direction.
It has been a revolution without weapons in Iceland, the country that hosts the world's oldest democracy (since 930), and whose citizens have managed to effect change by going on demonstrations and banging pots and pans. Why have the rest of the Western countries not even heard about it?
Pressure from Icelandic citizens’ has managed not only to bring down a government, but also begin the drafting of a new constitution (in process) and is seeking to put in jail those bankers responsible for the financial crisis in the country. As the saying goes, if you ask for things politely it is much easier to get them.
This quiet revolutionary process has its origins in 2008 when the Icelandic government decided to nationalise the three largest banks, Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir, whose clients were mainly British, and North and South American.
After the State took over, the official currency (krona) plummeted and the stock market suspended its activity after a 76% collapse. Iceland was becoming bankrupt and to save the situation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) injected U.S. $ 2,100 million and the Nordic countries helped with another 2,500 million.
Great little victories of ordinary people
While banks and local and foreign authorities were desperately seeking economic solutions, the Icelandic people took to the streets and their persistent daily demonstrations outside parliament in Reykjavik prompted the resignation of the conservative Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde and his entire government.
Citizens demanded, in addition, to convene early elections, and they succeeded. In April a coalition government was elected, formed by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, headed by a new Prime Minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir.
Throughout 2009 the Icelandic economy continued to be in a precarious situation (at the end of the year the GDP had dropped by 7%) but, despite this, the Parliament proposed to repay the debt to Britain and the Netherlands with a payment of 3,500 million Euros, a sum to be paid every month by Icelandic families for 15 years at 5.5% interest.
The move sparked anger again in the Icelanders, who returned to the streets demanding that, at least, that decision was put to a referendum. Another big small victory for the street protests: in March 2010 that vote was held and an overwhelming 93% of the population refused to repay the debt, at least with those conditions.
This forced the creditors to rethink the deal and improve it, offering 3% interest and payment over 37 years. Not even that was enough. The current president, on seeing that Parliament approved the agreement by a narrow margin, decided last month not to approve it and to call on the Icelandic people to vote in a referendum so that they would have the last word.
The bankers are fleeing in fear
Returning to the tense situation in 2010, while the Icelanders were refusing to pay a debt incurred by financial sharks without consultation, the coalition government had launched an investigation to determine legal responsibilities for the fatal economic crisis and had already arrested several bankers and top executives closely linked to high risk operations.
Interpol, meanwhile, had issued an international arrest warrant against Sigurdur Einarsson, former president of one of the banks. This situation led scared bankers and executives to leave the country en masse.
In this context of crisis, an assembly was elected to draft a new constitution that would reflect the lessons learned and replace the current one, inspired by the Danish constitution.
To do this, instead of calling experts and politicians, Iceland decided to appeal directly to the people, after all they have sovereign power over the law. More than 500 Icelanders presented themselves as candidates to participate in this exercise in direct democracy and write a new constitution. 25 of them, without party affiliations, including lawyers, students, journalists, farmers and trade union representatives were elected.
Among other developments, this constitution will call for the protection, like no other, of freedom of information and expression in the so-called Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, in a bill that aims to make the country a safe haven for investigative journalism and freedom of information, where sources, journalists and Internet providers that host news reporting are protected.
The people, for once, will decide the future of the country while bankers and politicians witness the transformation of a nation from the sidelines.
Source: www.elconfidencial.com
Pressenza Editorial Team in Chile
translation: Silvia Swinden
Monday, July 11, 2011
Economy Faces a Jolt as Benefit Checks Run Out
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: July 10, 2011
An extraordinary amount of personal income is coming directly from the government.
Multimedia
By the end of this year, however, many of those dollars are going to disappear, with the expiration of extended benefits intended to help people cope with the lingering effects of the recession. Moody’s Analytics estimates $37 billion will be drained from the nation’s pocketbooks this year.
In terms of economic impact, that is slightly less than the spending cuts Congress enacted to keep the government financed through September, averting a shutdown.
Unless hiring picks up sharply to compensate, economists fear that the lost income will further crimp consumer spending and act as a drag on a recovery that is still quite fragile. Among the other supports that are slipping away are federal aid to the states, the Federal Reserve’s program to pump money into the economy and the payroll tax cut, scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
“If we don’t get more job growth and gains in wages and salaries, then consumers just aren’t going to have the firepower to spend, and the economy is going to weaken,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, a macroeconomic consulting firm.
Read More: Here
Quelle Surprise! DoJ Pushing State AGs to Whitewash Servicing Abuses; Failure to Investigate Confirmed
Actually, we already knew Miller was a liar. Shortly after the effort was launched, Miller promised that “”We will put people in jail.” He then started walking that back. Not only did he tell Bloomberg that they were NOT pursuing criminal charges, but per an e-mail:
I was w/ a European documentary maker this weekend who spoke to Miller a few days ago and said Miller relayed the fraud isn’t so bad, everything will be worked out .. the standard line; he’s already made up his mind. He doesn’t want those European governments demanding their money back. The meeting is a photo-op setup because the too-big-to-fail crowd is scared of put-back liability and shorts; they’re working hard to make it appear they’re doing something to quiet everybody down.Note this message was sent BEFORE MIller made the “jail the baddies” promise that MIller recanted. And it indicates that this entire affair was intended to be an exercise in kabuki theater rather than anything remotely resembling a real investigation.
That brings us to MIller’s second lie. After a staffer ‘fessed up that no investigations were being undertaken, Miller maintained that extensive examinations were underway. That, as Nasiripour indicates, confirming earlier intelligence via Gretchen Morgenson, is complete crap (emphasis ours):
According to sources familiar with the ongoing state and federal probes, state and federal officials have wasted months not digging into the details of the foreclosure crisis, yielding little of value in court and undercutting the lenders’ incentive to strike a settlement of greater benefit to homeowners and taxpayers.Even Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, and a long-standing critic of Wall Street, is not happy with the lack of investigations:
The investigators have yet to gather many documents, conduct depositions or assemble tallies of aggrieved homeowners. They don’t yet have a good handle on the number of wrongful foreclosures, the amount of fraudulent documents filed in local courts or the volume of legal instruments processed by so-called “robo-signers,” the agents that lenders employed to process foreclosure filings en masse without examining the underlying paperwork.
“The evidence a prosecutor would use is not in the possession of the prosecution,” said one person familiar with the ongoing settlement talks.
We need a full-fledged investigation,…There’s no substitute for a thorough investigation and finding of fact
Read More : Here
No, We Can’t? Or Won’t?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
If you were shocked by Friday’s job report, if you thought we were doing well and were taken aback by the bad news, you haven’t been paying attention. The fact is, the United States economy has been stuck in a rut for a year and a half.
Yet a destructive passivity has overtaken our discourse. Turn on your TV and you’ll see some self-satisfied pundit declaring that nothing much can be done about the economy’s short-run problems (reminder: this “short run” is now in its fourth year), that we should focus on the long run instead.
This gets things exactly wrong. The truth is that creating jobs in a depressed economy is something government could and should be doing. Yes, there are huge political obstacles to action — notably, the fact that the House is controlled by a party that benefits from the economy’s weakness. But political gridlock should not be conflated with economic reality.
Our failure to create jobs is a choice, not a necessity — a choice rationalized by an ever-shifting set of excuses.
Excuse No. 1: Just around the corner, there’s a rainbow in the sky.
Remember “green shoots”? Remember the “summer of recovery”? Policy makers keep declaring that the economy is on the mend — and Lucy keeps snatching the football away. Yet these delusions of recovery have been an excuse for doing nothing as the jobs crisis festers.
Excuse No. 2: Fear the bond market.
Two years ago The Wall Street Journal declared that interest rates on United States debt would soon soar unless Washington stopped trying to fight the economic slump. Ever since, warnings about the imminent attack of the “bond vigilantes” have been used to attack any spending on job creation.
But basic economics said that rates would stay low as long as the economy was depressed — and basic economics was right. The interest rate on 10-year bonds was 3.7 percent when The Wall Street Journal issued that warning; at the end of last week it was 3.03 percent.
How have the usual suspects responded? By inventing their own reality. Last week, Representative Paul Ryan, the man behind the G.O.P. plan to dismantle Medicare, declared that we must slash government spending to “take pressure off the interest rates” — the same pressure, I suppose, that has pushed those rates to near-record lows.
Excuse No. 3: It’s the workers’ fault.
Unemployment soared during the financial crisis and its aftermath. So it seems bizarre to argue that the real problem lies with the workers — that the millions of Americans who were working four years ago but aren’t working now somehow lack the skills the economy needs.
Yet that’s what you hear from many pundits these days: high unemployment is “structural,” they say, and requires long-term solutions (which means, in practice, doing nothing).
Well, if there really was a mismatch between the workers we have and the workers we need, workers who do have the right skills, and are therefore able to find jobs, should be getting big wage increases. They aren’t. In fact, average wages actually fell last month.
Excuse No. 4: We tried to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work.
Everybody knows that President Obama tried to stimulate the economy with a huge increase in government spending, and that it didn’t work. But what everyone knows is wrong.
Think about it: Where are the big public works projects? Where are the armies of government workers? There are actually half a million fewer government employees now than there were when Mr. Obama took office.
So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: some of us warned from the beginning that tax cuts would be ineffective and that the proposed spending was woefully inadequate. And so it proved.
It’s also worth noting that in another area where government could make a big difference — help for troubled homeowners — almost nothing has been done. The Obama administration’s program of mortgage relief has gone nowhere: of $46 billion allotted to help families stay in their homes, less than $2 billion has actually been spent.
So let’s summarize: The economy isn’t fixing itself. Nor are there real obstacles to government action: both the bond vigilantes and structural unemployment exist only in the imaginations of pundits. And if stimulus seems to have failed, it’s because it was never actually tried.
Listening to what supposedly serious people say about the economy, you’d think the problem was “no, we can’t.” But the reality is “no, we won’t.” And every pundit who reinforces that destructive passivity is part of the problem.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
JP Morgan Chase Fine: Another Slap on the Wrist for Wall Street
SEC Enforcement Director and former Deustche Bank general counsel Robert Khuzami
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Courtesy of my good friend Eric Salzman comes this latest outrage – SEC Enforcement Director and former Deustche Bank general counsel Robert Khuzami boasting about the latest slap on the wrist directed at a major bank, this time a $228 million fine of JP Morgan Chase for a bid-rigging scheme involving municipal bonds. The Chase ruling is the latest to come down in a series of fines involving a number of banks, including Bank of America and UBS.
Courtesy of my good friend Eric Salzman comes this latest outrage – SEC Enforcement Director and former Deustche Bank general counsel Robert Khuzami boasting about the latest slap on the wrist directed at a major bank, this time a $228 million fine of JP Morgan Chase for a bid-rigging scheme involving municipal bonds. The Chase ruling is the latest to come down in a series of fines involving a number of banks, including Bank of America and UBS.
What these banks did is they got together and carved up territory between them, arranging things so that they wouldn’t be bidding against each other in municipal debt auctions. That means the 18 different states involved in these 93-odd deals all got screwed out of the best prices, leaving the taxpayers in those places severely overcharged for their public borrowing.
This is absolutely no different from what mafia groups in New York used to (and probably still do) do for public contracts – the proverbial five families would get together, divide up the boroughs and neighborhoods between them, and each family would individually buy or intimidate their way into the bidding process, corrupting the game so that the public had to overpay for their garbage collection or their construction labor or whatever. The only difference here is that we’re talking about debt, not garbage. But the concept is exactly the same; it’s the same crime.
If Khuzami’s defendants had been a bunch of Italians from Howard Beach, they would be facing RICO charges and would be looking at years in prison, plus seizure of all their ill-gotten gains, in addition to civil suits and penalties.
As it is, as my friend Eric points out, the endgame for banks like Chase is, “Admit nothing, pay two hours of revenue and all good!”
You don’t have to take my word for it. Go back for yourselves and look through bid-rigging cases in the past. If you see a bunch of Italian names in the list of defendants (see here for instance), you can pretty much guarantee that there’s a RICO prosecution involved.
But if the defendants are a bunch of Ivy-League educated bankers from Wall Street, what we end up getting is a negligible fine (officials will brag about this $228 million, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what the banks make scamming communities and governments) and, as always, no admission of guilt. This is how the SEC’s own press release reads:
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, JPMS has consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining it from future violations of Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 …That the settlement includes language like this is another gift to the banks. Allowing Chase to settle without admitting guilt leaves the conned states and localities facing an uphill climb in any attempt to recoup more money through litigation.
Read More: Here
Thursday, July 7, 2011
New jobs plan: Give rich people everything they want and pray they don't go Galt
"Millionaires can contribute to deficit reduction by spending part of their millions," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). "I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial this morning: We should cut the corporate income tax from 35 to 25, and close loopholes that are in, and make sure that everything is revenue neutral, and that is a great approach."I do love how McCain makes sure to cover his ass by saying only that they should spend only "part" of their millions. Wouldn't want to get too pushy, now, lest our sensitive rich folks decide to go Galt, and then we'd be sorry, oh yes yes we would! I also love how simply spending part of their millions counts as an actual "sacrifice" that our Galtian overlords should make. Ergo, going to a high-end strip club and making it rain now counts as a sacrifice, according to John McCain. Or when they blow thousands of dollars on a gold-plated trashcan, they're making a vital contribution to deficit reduction.
Lindsey Graham is even funnier:
"Create jobs, hire more people that pay more taxes, grow the economy, stay in America, don't leave, hire people -- that's how millionaires can help, is create more workers, and if you raise taxes you're gonna make it harder to keep the job you got," explained Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).If a big-name CEO stepped into Graham's office and said to him, drill sergeant-like, "Graham! Hump my leg on the double, maggot!" you know he'd do it without hesitation.
Graham's jobs plan reminds me a lot of Ohio's attempts at begging LeBron James to shun the beautiful beaches of Miami in favor of the home town that had loved him since draft day:
And, well, we all know how well that worked out.
The point, my friends, is sometimes it seems as though much of our country has internalized "Atlas Shrugged" to such an extent that we've come to believe that it's our fault that our corporate overlords aren't hiring more people. Clearly, the thinking goes, we have not done enough to appease them.
"Another tax cut, m'lord? Oh yes, right away! Those pesky and out-dated child labor laws? You bet, they'll be scrapped tomorrow! You want to... sleep with my spouse? Uh... and you swear you'll consider hiring me to work at the local Taco Bell? Sounds like a fair trade to me!"
At some point I'd like to believe that basic human dignity will kick in and we won't feel the need to kiss rich peoples' asses anymore. But I've been waiting for this to happen for a long, long time now.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
This Is What Happened To the Middle Class
Overworked America: 12 Charts that Will Make Your Blood Boil
Why "efficiency" and "productivity" really mean more profits for corporations and less sanity for you.
DonateYou have nothing to lose but your gains
Productivity has surged, but income and wages have stagnated for most Americans. If the median household income had kept pace with the economy since 1970, it would now be nearly $92,000, not $50,000.
...But jobs aren't
Sorry, not hiring
The sectors that have contributed the most to the country's overall economic growth have lagged when it comes to creating jobs.
The wage freeze
Increase in real value of the minimum wage since 1990: 21%
Increase in cost of living since 1990: 67%
One year's earnings at the minimum wage: $15,080
Income required for a single worker to have real economic security: $30,000
Increase in cost of living since 1990: 67%
One year's earnings at the minimum wage: $15,080
Income required for a single worker to have real economic security: $30,000
Working 9 to 7
For Americans as a whole, the length of a typical workweek hasn't changed much in years. But for many middle-class workers, job obligations are creeping into free time and family time. For low-income workers, hours have declined due to a shrinking job market, causing underemployment.
Labor pains
Median yearly earnings of:
Union workers: $47,684Non-union workers: $37,284
Dude, Where's My Job?
More and more, US multinationals are laying off workers at home and hiring overseas.
Proud to be an American
The US is part of a very small club of nations that don't require...
Digital overtime
A survey of employed email users finds:
22% are expected to respond to work email when they're not at work.50% check work email on the weekends.
46% check work email on sick days.
34% check work email while on vacation.
The second shift
Working moms pick up more child care and household duties than working dads—about 80 minutes more every day. Meanwhile, dads enjoy nearly 50 more minutes of watching TV and other leisure activities on a daily basis.
Chore wars
Thanks, guys—you're pitching in more than twice as much as you did in the '70s. But women still get stuck with the majority of work around the house.
Productivity/income: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office (PDF), Economic Policy Institute, Census Bureau (Excel)
GDP/jobs: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Stephen Gordon, Université Laval
Sector growth: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Minimum Wage: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic Policy Institute, Wider Opportunities for Women (PDF)
50 hours: Center for American Progress (PDF)
Benefits maps: McGill Institute for Health and Social Policy
Email: Pew Internet & American Life Project (PDF)
Second shift: Bureau of Labor Statistics (PDF)
Housework: Michigan Institute for Social Research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)