Showing posts with label American economic crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American economic crisis. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Loretta Napoleoni: Rogue Economics
Rogue Economics explained, grab a cup of tea and sit down to watch.
Capitalism and Slavery- Rogue Economics
This is an interview on Democracy Now with a genial Italian economists Loretta Napoleoni. She explains why there is a current economic crisis, both in America and in Europe in a nutshell. The theory of Rogue Economics helps to put our situation into a different perspective in an intelligent and understanding manner.
Former Bank Employees Speak Out - Interviews
Former credit card department bank employees speak out regarding unethical credit card bank practices and incentives for the employees to make more money by gearing the customers into programs that are more profitable for the banks. They were encouraged to target the women and not the men to make these decisions. Even when the spouse tells the bank that their husband is serving overseas, they were told not to tell the customer about lower interest rates.
The Truth About Fraud and Bank of America Foreclosure
This video is spoken by Florida congressman Alan Grayson. He provides examples of the frauds and explains how the fraud works in true life events. He speaks against the power of the banks over the power of the people. He talks about robo-signers, false signatures, 60% of the U.S. mortgages are processed through the Bank of America. Courts have refused to believe that the robo-signers exist. He shows examples of the forged signatures. Factories of Fraud. The banks makes their money from foreclosures, not customers services; that is a $6,000 dollar profit.
Why Bank of America Fired Me
A women speaks about her personal experience as a customer service agent. She share how uncomfortable she was doing the things that they were requiring her to do in her job.
She talks about the 29.99% interest rates for low income Americans. The $39.00 late fees and $39.00 over the limit fee and $15.00 inconvenience fee and how she had to deny those who did not make enough money to get on a lower interest rate, lower monthly requirement program.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Comparrison of the debt under different proposals
According to the CBO from 2012 to 2022:
I. Obama's Proposals:
a. Extends Bush Tax Cuts.
b. Repeals Alternative Minimum Tax AMT.
c. No Medicare Reductions.
These add $2.7-trillion to the deficit.
II. Ryan/Romney's Proposals:
a. Extends Bush Tax Cuts.
b. Repeals Alternative Minimum Tax AMT.
c. Tax cut for those making more than $1 million
d. A 20% cut to all tax rates.
e. Increase military spending by 4% GPD.
These add $8.3-trillion to the deficit, THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS OBAMA.
III. Sa.nt.or.um's Proposals:
a. Extends Bush Tax Cuts.
b. Repeals Alternative Minimum Tax AMT.
c. Cuts capital gains to 12%
d. Cuts personal taxes across board
e. Cuts corporate taxes by 1/2
These add $6-trillion to the deficit, or TWICE AS MUCH AS OBAMA
I. Obama's Proposals:
a. Extends Bush Tax Cuts.
b. Repeals Alternative Minimum Tax AMT.
c. No Medicare Reductions.
These add $2.7-trillion to the deficit.
II. Ryan/Romney's Proposals:
a. Extends Bush Tax Cuts.
b. Repeals Alternative Minimum Tax AMT.
c. Tax cut for those making more than $1 million
d. A 20% cut to all tax rates.
e. Increase military spending by 4% GPD.
These add $8.3-trillion to the deficit, THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS OBAMA.
III. Sa.nt.or.um's Proposals:
a. Extends Bush Tax Cuts.
b. Repeals Alternative Minimum Tax AMT.
c. Cuts capital gains to 12%
d. Cuts personal taxes across board
e. Cuts corporate taxes by 1/2
These add $6-trillion to the deficit, or TWICE AS MUCH AS OBAMA
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Six ways to get the Rich Richer under Romney
1. Housing bargains – but only for the wealthy and uber-wealthy. The largest transfer of wealth from the public to private sector. The federal government will be bulk-selling the massive portfolio of foreclosed homes now owned by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investors — vulture Read More... funds. “You and I will not be allowed to participate” is that these properties will only be sold to those that can bring “a billion dollars or more to each transaction”
2. Tax breaks are good – especially if you’re rich - RYAN PLAN - $MANY TRILLIONS - PLUS CAYMAN and SWISS ACCOUNTS. PAY FOR THIS CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE 99%.
3. Hedge funds: A typical minimum investment is $2.5 million, but many have much higher admission prices. PLANNED SCAMS FOR THE RICH!
4. Borrowing is easy – if you don’t need the money
Mark Twain said, “A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.”
5. Buy low and sell high – easier if you’re rich - capitalize on bad times as prices plummet and demand drops and supply increases.
6. Good credit is money in the bank - More income and money you have, the easier it get credit at ZERO%
related articles:
recalculating romneys four percent gimmick
2. Tax breaks are good – especially if you’re rich - RYAN PLAN - $MANY TRILLIONS - PLUS CAYMAN and SWISS ACCOUNTS. PAY FOR THIS CUTTING PROGRAMS FOR THE 99%.
3. Hedge funds: A typical minimum investment is $2.5 million, but many have much higher admission prices. PLANNED SCAMS FOR THE RICH!
4. Borrowing is easy – if you don’t need the money
Mark Twain said, “A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.”
5. Buy low and sell high – easier if you’re rich - capitalize on bad times as prices plummet and demand drops and supply increases.
6. Good credit is money in the bank - More income and money you have, the easier it get credit at ZERO%
related articles:
recalculating romneys four percent gimmick
Monday, April 02, 2012
Recalculating Romneys Four Percent Gimmick
2 April 2012 (Think before you vote...really) This is one of the most important elections in our history, our future is at stake and this is not a time for playing around...(side note: Susan Brannon)
I have a new piece up at ForeignPolicy.com on Ron Paul and the Republican Party, focused in particular on the strong support that Paul draws from young people, with some additional speculation about where those young people will end up, if and when Paul steps back from his very public role. My instincts are that these young people are motivated at least as much by the ideas that Paul espouses as by Ron Paul, the person. If I am correct, many of them are likely to remain active in politics. I close with a warning to GOP leaders that they would be making a grave error if they ignored this libertarian-leaning voting bloc. Unfortunately, that is what the GOP’s leading candidate, Mitt Romney, seems to be doing by pushing a short-sighted plan for boosting military spending at a time when the country is awash in debt.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that conservatives who rail against welfare dependency here at home miss the pernicious effects of security dependency among our allies. Tim Pawlenty didn’t get it. Neither does Mitt Romney. Rather than questioning the mantras that have guided U.S. foreign policy for over a generation, Romney simply assumes that the United States will remain the world’s policeman, other countries will continue to free-ride on our security guarantees, and U.S. taxpayers will happily foot the bill. He proposes spending at least four percent of GDP on the military’s base budget, plus whatever additional money might be needed to fight the wars that he wants to fight (for example, this one).
I commented on the Four Percent Gimmick a few months ago, and now I have a bit more detail about Romney’s plan relative to the Obama administration’s latest 10-year projections. I alluded to these numbers in the ForeignPolicy.com piece, and below provide some more detail. (I am grateful, as always, for the help of my colleague Charles Zakaib in sorting through these, and in preparing the charts).
The chart above shows spending in nominal, current-year dollars, over the next ten years. The Obama administration plans to spend $5.7 trillion between 2013 and 2022 (the blue bars). If Romney keeps his promise of four percent for defense, he will spend at least $8.3 trillion (using OMB’s GDP projections) over that same period, an additional $2.58 trillion (the yellow bars). His budget in 2022 would top $1 trillion, and would be at least 61 percent higher than Barack Obama’s. He hasn’t said what other spending he will cut, or what taxes he would increase, to cover that difference. Until he does, it is logical to conclude that he plans to pile on more debt.
And we should remember that current laws call for even less spending than President Obama has proposed, but he has chosen to ignore the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act. GOP leaders in Congress seem equally disinterested in following through on their promise to kick the spending habit, and several have put forward plans to undo sequestration for the Department of Defense. Either way, the bottom line is more debt. As I speculate at ForeignPolicy.com, no wonder young people seem to like Ron Paul so much (and Mitt Romney so little).
Another way to demonstrate the absurdity of Romney’s plan is to control for inflation and compare it to future and past trends. Looking ahead, in constant, 2012 dollars, annual Pentagon spending will average $744.8 billion over the next ten years—again assuming the same GDP projections as Obama’s plan. That is 44 percent higher than Obama’s average budget (the bright pink line) over that same period, and nearly 59 percent higher than sequestration (the dark red line).
Now consider how this compares with the recent past. As you can see, Romney’s Four Percent Gimmick would result in taxpayers spending more than twice as much on the Pentagon as in 2000 (111 percent higher, to be precise), and 45 percent more than in 1985, the height of the Reagan buildup. Over the next ten years, Romney’s annual spending (in constant dollars) for the Pentagon would average 64 percent higher than annual post-Cold War budgets (1990-2012), and 42 percent more than the average during the Reagan era (1981-1989).
Mitt Romney may genuinely believe that today’s enemies are 42 percent more frightening than the big bad Soviets. He might believe that spending an average of $450 billion (in constant dollars) every year since 1990 has left the country dangerously vulnerable. If that is true, he should say so. More importantly, however, he should be compelled to answer the question on everyone’s mind: Where is he going to get the money to fund his Pentagon spending binge?
Cross-posted from Cato @ Liberty
Related Information:
(Mar 01, 2012) - T12-0040 - Romney Tax Plan Without Unspecified Base Broadeners; Baseline: Current Policy; Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Level, 2015
I have a new piece up at ForeignPolicy.com on Ron Paul and the Republican Party, focused in particular on the strong support that Paul draws from young people, with some additional speculation about where those young people will end up, if and when Paul steps back from his very public role. My instincts are that these young people are motivated at least as much by the ideas that Paul espouses as by Ron Paul, the person. If I am correct, many of them are likely to remain active in politics. I close with a warning to GOP leaders that they would be making a grave error if they ignored this libertarian-leaning voting bloc. Unfortunately, that is what the GOP’s leading candidate, Mitt Romney, seems to be doing by pushing a short-sighted plan for boosting military spending at a time when the country is awash in debt.
I have always been puzzled by the fact that conservatives who rail against welfare dependency here at home miss the pernicious effects of security dependency among our allies. Tim Pawlenty didn’t get it. Neither does Mitt Romney. Rather than questioning the mantras that have guided U.S. foreign policy for over a generation, Romney simply assumes that the United States will remain the world’s policeman, other countries will continue to free-ride on our security guarantees, and U.S. taxpayers will happily foot the bill. He proposes spending at least four percent of GDP on the military’s base budget, plus whatever additional money might be needed to fight the wars that he wants to fight (for example, this one).
I commented on the Four Percent Gimmick a few months ago, and now I have a bit more detail about Romney’s plan relative to the Obama administration’s latest 10-year projections. I alluded to these numbers in the ForeignPolicy.com piece, and below provide some more detail. (I am grateful, as always, for the help of my colleague Charles Zakaib in sorting through these, and in preparing the charts).
The chart above shows spending in nominal, current-year dollars, over the next ten years. The Obama administration plans to spend $5.7 trillion between 2013 and 2022 (the blue bars). If Romney keeps his promise of four percent for defense, he will spend at least $8.3 trillion (using OMB’s GDP projections) over that same period, an additional $2.58 trillion (the yellow bars). His budget in 2022 would top $1 trillion, and would be at least 61 percent higher than Barack Obama’s. He hasn’t said what other spending he will cut, or what taxes he would increase, to cover that difference. Until he does, it is logical to conclude that he plans to pile on more debt.
And we should remember that current laws call for even less spending than President Obama has proposed, but he has chosen to ignore the sequestration provisions of the Budget Control Act. GOP leaders in Congress seem equally disinterested in following through on their promise to kick the spending habit, and several have put forward plans to undo sequestration for the Department of Defense. Either way, the bottom line is more debt. As I speculate at ForeignPolicy.com, no wonder young people seem to like Ron Paul so much (and Mitt Romney so little).
Another way to demonstrate the absurdity of Romney’s plan is to control for inflation and compare it to future and past trends. Looking ahead, in constant, 2012 dollars, annual Pentagon spending will average $744.8 billion over the next ten years—again assuming the same GDP projections as Obama’s plan. That is 44 percent higher than Obama’s average budget (the bright pink line) over that same period, and nearly 59 percent higher than sequestration (the dark red line).
Now consider how this compares with the recent past. As you can see, Romney’s Four Percent Gimmick would result in taxpayers spending more than twice as much on the Pentagon as in 2000 (111 percent higher, to be precise), and 45 percent more than in 1985, the height of the Reagan buildup. Over the next ten years, Romney’s annual spending (in constant dollars) for the Pentagon would average 64 percent higher than annual post-Cold War budgets (1990-2012), and 42 percent more than the average during the Reagan era (1981-1989).
Mitt Romney may genuinely believe that today’s enemies are 42 percent more frightening than the big bad Soviets. He might believe that spending an average of $450 billion (in constant dollars) every year since 1990 has left the country dangerously vulnerable. If that is true, he should say so. More importantly, however, he should be compelled to answer the question on everyone’s mind: Where is he going to get the money to fund his Pentagon spending binge?
Cross-posted from Cato @ Liberty
Related Information:
(Mar 01, 2012) - T12-0040 - Romney Tax Plan Without Unspecified Base Broadeners; Baseline: Current Policy; Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Level, 2015
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
True America; Where Lies become the Truth
Susan Brannon
25 February 2012
The brief history of America video is to remember who we really are in relation to the Syrian revolution. I do not think that we know how to go and help a country, then leave. We must be able to print money that we don't have and is not backed up to help? Help for what and for who? We all know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, yet we stayed for years. Our president and his two side kicks smiled and made up more stories to tell us. They never went to jail or before court for their manipulation of the American public. I can say the same about CNN, Fox News, CBS, BBC and others for blasting the same propaganda day in and day out without actual research on the facts that they were told by the pentagon. They just told the stories as though they were facts. Why? Because they bowed down to the social cultural and expected norms mandated by patriot lies and wanted to keep their jobs and continue to be invited to the pentagon press briefings.
These well planned and prepared lies from our top leaders lead to the complete destruction of two other countries and now they are trying the same thing for Iran. It lead to thousands of people killed, men women, children of all ages from all walks of life, and all languages.
Our men went out to fight and be killed based on propaganda. Their mothers, fathers, wives, children and family members will forever have a pain in their hearts for their death. If I as a journalist, provided false information, knowingly, I would loose my career, my face, money, and all. I would not have been able to get away with it. I know photojournalists who altered images and are black listed from the field forever.
Nixons wiretapping was nothing in comparison to what has been going on in our country. This is when the lies become the truth and the truth become lies. I remember coming back for a visit from Iraq and saw the changes in America. I was talking to a friend on public transportation and a women came up to me and said, "You can't be talking like that here. You may get arrested. My advice is to stay quiet" I was saddened.
I noticed that my country has been developing on fear. Fear the enemies strongest ally. If you get people to live in fear, then you will have total control. Everyone has been saying that Saddam was horrible, and yes he was. What did he do? He used fear to control his people. Plain fear and became a very wealthy man. But what was that fear compared to the fear that we have created in Iraq? Citizens are scared to walk down the streets anymore. They did not have to fear that in the past. They just knew that they could not walk across the bridge, so they did not. That fear was much less than the fear of random bombings, shootings and kidnappings.
I ask, Why do we need planes, solders and guns to help a country? I never had to carry a gun in a war zone, I just had to look up. (for snipers) I did not have to point my gun at anyone to defend myself, gather information or to help those that needed help. Words and images are a powerful tool to educate and inform others about a situation. Look at what happened after the killing of Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik. The news spread like a virus, the reports from the inside started receiving front page news. Assad had to respond and let the medical professionals inside of Homs Amr to assist and evacuate the wounded women and children. There was too much visibility for him to ignore the effects of his assaults on the civilians.
Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia all woke up to the lies that they have been fed from their leaders. They became tired of the inequality, the division of the classes, poverty and walking in that same fear that we do today. America's fear is the "attack from the Terrorists" Really? Who are the real terrorists, I may ask. Who really flew into the towers? We had drones a long time ago, don't fool yourself. There has been too many stories with missing pieces of the puzzle. There has been too many stories that created a false reality based on lies that became the truth and in turn the truth became the wrong way to think.
25 February 2012
The brief history of America video is to remember who we really are in relation to the Syrian revolution. I do not think that we know how to go and help a country, then leave. We must be able to print money that we don't have and is not backed up to help? Help for what and for who? We all know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, yet we stayed for years. Our president and his two side kicks smiled and made up more stories to tell us. They never went to jail or before court for their manipulation of the American public. I can say the same about CNN, Fox News, CBS, BBC and others for blasting the same propaganda day in and day out without actual research on the facts that they were told by the pentagon. They just told the stories as though they were facts. Why? Because they bowed down to the social cultural and expected norms mandated by patriot lies and wanted to keep their jobs and continue to be invited to the pentagon press briefings.
These well planned and prepared lies from our top leaders lead to the complete destruction of two other countries and now they are trying the same thing for Iran. It lead to thousands of people killed, men women, children of all ages from all walks of life, and all languages.
Our men went out to fight and be killed based on propaganda. Their mothers, fathers, wives, children and family members will forever have a pain in their hearts for their death. If I as a journalist, provided false information, knowingly, I would loose my career, my face, money, and all. I would not have been able to get away with it. I know photojournalists who altered images and are black listed from the field forever.
Nixons wiretapping was nothing in comparison to what has been going on in our country. This is when the lies become the truth and the truth become lies. I remember coming back for a visit from Iraq and saw the changes in America. I was talking to a friend on public transportation and a women came up to me and said, "You can't be talking like that here. You may get arrested. My advice is to stay quiet" I was saddened.
I noticed that my country has been developing on fear. Fear the enemies strongest ally. If you get people to live in fear, then you will have total control. Everyone has been saying that Saddam was horrible, and yes he was. What did he do? He used fear to control his people. Plain fear and became a very wealthy man. But what was that fear compared to the fear that we have created in Iraq? Citizens are scared to walk down the streets anymore. They did not have to fear that in the past. They just knew that they could not walk across the bridge, so they did not. That fear was much less than the fear of random bombings, shootings and kidnappings.
I ask, Why do we need planes, solders and guns to help a country? I never had to carry a gun in a war zone, I just had to look up. (for snipers) I did not have to point my gun at anyone to defend myself, gather information or to help those that needed help. Words and images are a powerful tool to educate and inform others about a situation. Look at what happened after the killing of Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik. The news spread like a virus, the reports from the inside started receiving front page news. Assad had to respond and let the medical professionals inside of Homs Amr to assist and evacuate the wounded women and children. There was too much visibility for him to ignore the effects of his assaults on the civilians.
Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia all woke up to the lies that they have been fed from their leaders. They became tired of the inequality, the division of the classes, poverty and walking in that same fear that we do today. America's fear is the "attack from the Terrorists" Really? Who are the real terrorists, I may ask. Who really flew into the towers? We had drones a long time ago, don't fool yourself. There has been too many stories with missing pieces of the puzzle. There has been too many stories that created a false reality based on lies that became the truth and in turn the truth became the wrong way to think.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
USA in decline while the war machine rages on
I am so sick of our politicians talking about war during the elections. These guys are just ignoring reality, what the American needs are, ignoring our economical frustrations and just talk the same garbble.
The Professor's Compliant Against Age Discrimination
Forced to joke about age...333 years old. McDonald's advertise hiring older people, but ask the age on the application.
He interviewer asked the person to leave or he will call the police, because the man, could not remember his real age.
THE AGED AND AGEISM....PART 1
Aging. Little money, no help, no advocacy. This is in the UK, where they have more involvement with the aging. How is it in the U.S?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Monday, August 08, 2011
Statement: Chad Stone, Chief Economist, on the July Employment Report — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Statement: Chad Stone, Chief Economist, on the July Employment Report — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
This is a great article here are some excerpts:
Last week's report on gross domestic product (GDP) showed the recession was much deeper than previously estimated and growth in the first half of this year was very weak. That helps explain why, despite two full years of economic growth and 17 straight months of private-sector job creation, we still have 6.8 million fewer jobs than at the start of the recession and the unemployment rate remains 4.1 percentage points higher. The economy fell into a very deep hole and has been climbing out very slowly.
It remains very difficult to find a job. The Labor Department's most comprehensive alternative unemployment rate measure — which includes people who want to work but are discouraged from looking and people working part time because they can't find full-time jobs — was 16.1 percent in July, not much below its all-time high of 17.4 percent in October 2009 in data that go back to 1994. By that measure, more than 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed.
Long-term unemployment remains a significant concern. Over two-fifths (44.4 percent) of the 13.9 million people who are unemployed — 6.2 million people — have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. These long-term unemployed represent 4.0 percent of the labor force. Prior to this recession, the previous highs for these statistics over the past six decades were 26.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, in June 1983.
This is a great article here are some excerpts:
Last week's report on gross domestic product (GDP) showed the recession was much deeper than previously estimated and growth in the first half of this year was very weak. That helps explain why, despite two full years of economic growth and 17 straight months of private-sector job creation, we still have 6.8 million fewer jobs than at the start of the recession and the unemployment rate remains 4.1 percentage points higher. The economy fell into a very deep hole and has been climbing out very slowly.
It remains very difficult to find a job. The Labor Department's most comprehensive alternative unemployment rate measure — which includes people who want to work but are discouraged from looking and people working part time because they can't find full-time jobs — was 16.1 percent in July, not much below its all-time high of 17.4 percent in October 2009 in data that go back to 1994. By that measure, more than 25 million people are unemployed or underemployed.
Long-term unemployment remains a significant concern. Over two-fifths (44.4 percent) of the 13.9 million people who are unemployed — 6.2 million people — have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. These long-term unemployed represent 4.0 percent of the labor force. Prior to this recession, the previous highs for these statistics over the past six decades were 26.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, in June 1983.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
