(from Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken)
". . . In all this talk, one thing that gets lost is that there are forty-two million working Americans who have not gotten one cent in (Bush) tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal refers to them as "Lucky Duckies" because they earn so little that they don't pay any income taxes. Many lucky duckies are deeply in debt to predatory lenders. Man of these lucky duckies couldn't afford college and cannot afford health insurance. Some of these lucky duckies, working Americans, will be homeless sometime during the year. Their children, the lucky ducklings, are far more like than my kids, or Paul Gigot's, to be killed violently or die of a preventable disease. . . Apparently, the Wall Street Journal thinks that the unluckiest thing in the world is paying taxes. . . "
(from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-finance-202/2018/01/18/the-finance-202-trump-is-eager-to-claim-credit-for-apple-moves-but-it-s-a-bit-more-complicated/5a5fa11d30fb0469e88401c2/?utm_term=.ff1cc6d308cb)
". . .The Wall Street Journal’s Tripp Mickle does a careful job parsing the company’s statement: . . . The company previously said it planned $16 billion in capital expenditures world-wide in the fiscal year that ends this September, up from $14.9 billion the previous year. However, Apple doesn’t break out its spending in the U.S., making it difficult to gauge how much of the $30 billion over five years it announced Wednesday is new. . . Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said Apple’s plans are in line with Trump administration goals, but that it isn’t clear how much of the commitments are new. And he said the company could deliver on those commitments with existing cash flow — without needing to tap cash holdings. . .“It’s a nice number and puts a foot forward in line with where the administration wants to go with adding jobs and building in the U.S.,” he said. But he added, “It’s not clear these investments were impacted in any way by tax reform.”. . . "
(from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-big-banks_us_570ea9d6e4b03d8b7b9f52aa)
". . . But Warren directed her sharpest words at an unnamed set of people who have recently downplayed the role of big banks in the financial crisis and questioned the value of breaking up big banks — an apparent reference to the Nobel Prize-winning Krugman. . .“There’s been a lot of revisionist history floating around lately that the Too Big to Fail banks weren’t really responsible for the financial crisis,” Warren said. That talk isn’t new. Wall Street lobbyists have tried to deflect blame for years. But the claim is absolutely untrue.”. . ."
My latest solo offering, No Frills, is now available at - No Frills
(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)
. . . you think it's relevant to today's campaign, did you know? . . .
(from http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world) Bill Clinton was a:
1. Prison-loving president. In May, on the heels of the unrest in Baltimore sparked by Freddie Gray’s death in police custody, Clinton apologized for locking too many people up. Thanks, Bill.
2.Welfare reform President whose bill has been devastating for millions of American families. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 took a page directly from Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. In an atmosphere steeped in decades of conservative scaremongering around the specter of sexually reckless “welfare queens,” Clinton’s 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it” played directly to white voters' fears of black crime and poverty. Twenty years after scrapping the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children in favor of the right wing’s underfunded and more punitive vision, the number of poor American children has exploded and black welfare recipients are subject to the system’s most stringent rules.
3. Wall Street Deregulator-in-Chief. As president, Clinton outdid the GOP when it came to unleashing Wall Street’s worst instincts, by supporting and signing into law more financial deregulation legislation than any other president, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.
4. Gutter of manufacturing via trade agreements. Bill Clinton helped gut America’s manufacturing base by promoting and passing the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress. That especially resonates today, when another Democratic president, Barack Obama, and Republicans in Congress, are allied against labor unions and liberal Democrats to pass its like-minded descendant, the Trans Pacific Partnership.
5. Non-LGBT equality president: Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was one of conservatives' biggest victories in the 1990s. Passed by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in 1996, the bill defined spouse as "heterosexual" and deprived legally wed same-sex couples of many significant benefits, from Social Security benefits to hospital visitation rights. It allowed states to refuse legal recognition of couples married in other states.
6. War on drugs president. Although Clinton called for treatment instead of prison for drug offenders during his 1992 campaign, once in office he reverted to the same drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors. He rejected the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. He rejected lifting the federal ban on funding for needle exchange programs. He placed a permanent eligibility ban on food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense, even marijuana possession. And he prohibited felons from living in public housing.
7. Death penalty expander. When running for president in 1992, then-Arkansas Gov. Clinton allowed his state to execute Ricky Ray Rector, a convicted murderer with severe mental impairments. Despite much criticism, Clinton's decision not to commute the sentence not only established his tough-on-crime credentials as a national candidate, it also became a precedent to the expansion of the federal death penalty under his White House.
8. Proponent of Cold War priorities. As the Soviet Union collapsed, the U.S. under President George H.W. Bush forged ahead with the same imperialist stance toward Europe. As Bush's successor, Clinton had an historic opportunity to attempt a cooperative, non-aggressive international model based on international law. While his administration frequently gave lip service to these ideals, a far-reaching economic and political agenda to bring Eastern Europe into the NATO-E.U.-U.S. orbit was in the works. As Clinton's former national security advisor Anthony Lake summarized, "Throughout the cold war, we contained a global threat to market democracies: now we should seek to enlarge their reach." And enlarge they did.
9. Wimp with regard to Joycelyn Elders and the culture war. At a 1994 U.N. Conference on AIDS, the U.S. Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, was asked if “a more explicit discussion and promotion of masturbation” could help limit the spread of the virus. Elders said she was “a very strong advocate” of teaching sex education in schools “at a very early age.” She added, “As per your specific question in regard to masturbation, I think that it is something that is a part of human sexuality and it’s a part of something that perhaps should be taught. But we’ve not even taught our children the very basics.”
10. Condo operator Turning Lincoln Bedroom into fundraising condo. The Lincoln Bedroom is an historic bedroom on the second floor of the White House that was at one time Abraham Lincoln's personal office. Under Clinton, it served another purpose: an overnight apartment for top political donors. Between 1995 and 1996, donors who gave a total of $5.4 million to the Democratic National Committee—including businessman William Rollnick, who gave $235,000 to the DNC, and investor Dirk Ziff, who gave $411,000—stayed overnight as White House guests.
11. Bomber of Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. On Aug. 20, 1998 the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum North, Sudan was annihilated by a cruise missile strike launched by the Clinton administration. President Clinton claimed the plant was making a deadly nerve agent and maintained connections to Osama bin Laden, who was unknown to most Americans at the time. Sudan claimed it was a factory producing medicines that saved thousands.
12. Hardliner on Iraq sanctions. Due to President George W. Bush’s disastrous war of choice in Iraq, people forget Bill Clinton’s Iraq humanitarian disaster: U.S. sanctions that decimated the Iraqi economy, crippled the civilian infrastructure, and according to a 1999 UNICEF survey, ultimately led to the deaths of more than 500,000 children. Though the sanctions began under President George H.W. Bush in 1990, Clinton expanded them, insisting a week before he took office in 1993, “There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the [Bush] administration” and squashing any subsequent effort to rein them in.
13. Master of Political smears: Sistah Souljah. Clinton was highly regarded by African Americans during the 1992 election cycle for his ability to articulate how racism impacted their communities. However, when it mattered most, he dropped the ball on race when it was completely unnecessary. It started when he blasted hop-hop artist Sistah Souljah over her comments in a Washington Post article about the Los Angeles riots, which were sparked by the acquittal of several Los Angeles policemen who beat truck driver Rodney King. “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” she said.
14. Knowledgable party regarding the coming Rwandan genocide. This might be Clinton’s worst foreign policy failure. Intelligence analysts knew in advance about the plans for the Hutu-led genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda, yet the White House did nothing to try to stop it. In 2013, Clinton told MSNBS that he could have sent some 10,000 U.S. troops to the Central African nation to support a U.N. peacekeeping force and perhaps saved 300,000 lives—about a third of those who perished.
15. Drug war proponent - In Clinton's second term, he initiated Plan Colombia, a multibillion-dollar effort to reduce that country's coca and cocaine production and end a decades-long war between Bogota and leftist FARC rebels. While Colombian President Andres Pastrana Arango originally envisioned the initiative as an economic development, roughly 80% of U.S. aid under Plan Colombia was military assistance, making Colombia the third largest recipient of foreign aid after Israel and Egypt.
My latest solo offering, Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak, featuring original, instrumental piano music is now available at - Just More Music by Ray Jozwiak
(To Access all Ray Jozwiak - Gonzo Piano music you can copy-and-paste this URL directly to
your browser: http://http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/RayJozwiak)
The radio is rambling on about Syria with mention of car bombs, Assad, opposition, terrorists, negotiators etc., very sad indeed. The umpteenth snowstorm is coating the complete pre-spring landscape and once again, complicating a morning commute. The president has spoken with high schoolers about going to college and how they're going to pay for it. Mere distractions to be sure.
But once again, prompted by the dinner conversation last night, distribution of wealth sneaked into the mix. The angle this time was not the greed of Wall Street or big business. This time we zeroed in on the entertainment industry. Not only the vast amounts of money required to make a major-release motion picture, but also the salaries commanded by professional sports players. See . . .
". . . For the first time since SI.com began publishing the Fortunate 50 in
2004, Tiger Woods is not No. 1. He's not even No. 2. That honor goes
once again to Phil Mickelson. The new No. 1 (for now) is Floyd
Mayweather, who was unranked a year ago but scored two huge pay-per-view
paydays to earn $85 million without a single endorsement.
This year's list is unique for a couple more reasons. NBA players,
who have historically claimed more spots in the Fortunate 50 than any
other group, had their salaries slashed by nearly 20 percent this season
because of the 66-game schedule brought on by the lockout of 2011.
Our findings consisted solely of salary, winnings, bonuses,
endorsements and appearance fees. We consulted players' associations,
tour records, agents and news reports. Our endorsement estimates for
2012 came from Burns Entertainment & Sports Marketing, other
sports-marketing executives and analysts, and agents. Salary figures
were based on current or most recently completed seasons (July 1 for the
NFL, which is why Drew Brees, who just signed a $100 million deal last
Friday, isn't on the list). For winnings-based sports (auto racing,
golf, tennis), we used the 2011 calendar year. Boxing purses are from
June 2011 through May 2012. Candidates for the U.S. 50 had to be
American citizens and currently active in their sports.
For the 20 highest earning international athletes, go here
. . ."(Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specials/fortunate50-2012/#ixzz2wDNJ0k1u)
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
(from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB40001424052702303519404579352551767664072?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB40001424052702303519404579352551767664072.html by James Piereson)
""Income inequality" has emerged as the issue du jour in U.S. politics, threatening to displace the unpopular health-care law and the slow-growing economy this election year. Speeches and columns now routinely attack the banks or "the undeserving rich" and call on Washington to do something to redistribute income from the "super rich" to the poor and middle class. Democrats from President Obama to the new mayor of New York City are leading the charge on behalf of the "99%."
This crusade is based on three questionable claims. One is that the wealthy are mostly Wall Street bankers benefiting from rising stock and real estate prices, or executives who pay themselves extravagant salaries. Another claim is that such people unfairly benefit from a system that taxes capital gains at half the highest marginal rate paid by those who earn salaries and wages. Then there is the assertion that the "super rich" have abundant funds that can be taxed to improve the living standards of everyone else.
All of these claims are false. By promoting them, the president and his supporters may hope to distract attention from ObamaCare and the economy. Yet they are igniting hopes they can't possibly fulfill. . ."
(from http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-american-inequality/index)
" . . . This shared prosperity of the postwar years was no accident or lucky combination of circumstances. A "rising tide" of robust economic growth does not necessarily lift all boats. Political struggle and policy choices determine whose boats rise. The inequality of the 20th century's early years actually began closing before economic growth took off in the 1940s, as a consequence of the political response to the Great Depression. . . "
(from me. . . )
Mr. Piereson seems content with making the sole point that wealth inequality is basically untrue because the 1% of the population holding the majority of wealth does not consist exclusively of bankers and Wall Street wizards but includes sports, movie, rock and roll and other 'entertainment' types in addition to 'business' executives who draw salaries. And this point alone contents Mr. Piereson that there is no inequality of wealth (with no mention of course about caring for the less fortunate) and that ". . . At a time of slow economic growth, mounting government debt, a stalemated politics and the impending retirement of the "baby boomers," the attacks on the "one percent" look more and more like a diversion from America's real problems."
". . . are filling a large hole in America’s democracy. Congress, the president, the media, and even the think tanks were not reflecting the frustration, confusion and anger among Americans. They talked, they did not listen. I have witnessed these people several times now, talked to the group twice, talked to them in private—they listen. It is quite wonderful.
But what bugs me most is the widespread criticism of their ignorance of economics. What they know and what Wall Street and much of Washington do not is that the American model has been failing for decades. Look at income inequality. More important, look at average hourly earnings adjusted for inflation, now back to their 1969 level. Look at our crummy roads, our unequal education, our uniquely absurd healthcare system. Look even at relatively weak capital investment.
Then they are lectured by people like the Competitive Enterprise Institute that they do not understand how markets work. There have been no free markets by neo-classical or even Hayekian standards for decades on Wall Street. When there is no transparent pricing of derivatives, there is no free market. When five major banks control the entire market, there is oligopoly, not free markets. When enormous banks in every avenue of finance exchange information within their own companies, information asymmetries, not to mention potential for insider trading and front-running, are rife. When the conflicts of interest between ratings agencies and their clients are built into Wall Street, who can but laugh that this is real competition. And what about asymmetric financial incentives that made the bankers rich? They rewarded risk when you won, but did not penalize when you lost.
Don’t lecture the OWS movement about competitive markets. In league with Washington regulators, Wall Street learned how to rig those markets. And then they could misprice risk and lead to runway speculation that was bound to result in failure. One number always grabs me. Private financial firms wrote 18 percent of mortgages, which resulted in 42 percent of all serious defaults. There is the culprit. And then they didn’t have the capital to cover the losses. They drove the housing market sky high. Then they built debt on the bad mortgages.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that even had markets run on more competitive lines speculation and crisis would have been completely avoided. There is little in neo-classical theory that suggests mild corrections are all that is needed to set economic growth on its inevitably stable path. But people like Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke stuffed the deep crises of 1982, 1987, 1989, 1994, 1997, 1998 and 2000 into that mild model. The great moderation was born.
Then wise guys who cannot help but champion Wall Street with little sense of history tell us that all the OWC criticism is unwarranted. Capitalism must be allowed to make mistakes. This is true.
But on balance, OWS is not against capitalism, it is against wild capitalism. And it is against injustice. Is Wall Street?" (by: Jeff Madrick, TripleCrisis Op-Ed http://www.Truth-Out.org)
What do YOU think? http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Download your very own copy of ANOTHER SHOT by Ray Jozwiak
. . . for a smart and savvy politician to step up and say, "These Wall Street protesters are correct" - Simply because THEY ARE. I don't think many people would argue that the housing bubble-burst and the financial meltdown were the result of excessive GREED on the part of those in a position to exhibit increasingly large amounts of GREED - OOOORRRR - show some RESTRAINT with regards to their POCKETBOOKS and simply accept a SMALLER PROFIT (or at least remain satisfied to cover costs) IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION!!
from WBAL-TV, Baltimore... "President Barack Obama discussed the growing movement, saying demonstrators "are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works."
Speaking at a White House news conference, Obama also defended the country's financial sector, which has taken the brunt of protesters' criticism, focusing on Wall Street and its regulators' purported role in expanding economic disparities.
"We have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order for us to grow," the president said.
Still, Obama discussed a need to pursue action aimed at improving government oversight and blamed Republican lawmakers for obstructing financial reforms.
Friday marked the 21st day of the grass-roots Wall Street protests.
Demonstrations have erupted in more than a dozen cities throughout the week, ranging from thousands who marched in lower Manhattan Wednesday after receiving support from local unions, to the dozens of college students who staged walkouts at various college campuses.
The movement started in New York and some of the protests there have been marred by scuffles with police.
New York authorities set up at least one vehicle checkpoint as police appeared in larger numbers throughout the financial district Thursday and established a perimeter around Zuccotti Park, which is considered a rallying point for the largely leaderless movement in that city.
"We hope that our message continues to resonate with everyone who has felt disenfranchised by the current state of our country," said Tyler Combelic, a spokesman for the Occupy Wall Street group."
What do YOU think? http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Download your very own copy of ANOTHER SHOT by Ray Jozwiak
. . . issues. (Root of all evil? Maybe not ALL, but MANY!)
The Wall Street Journal ran an article last week about why it's a 'BAD IDEA' to tax wealthier folks at a higher rate.
A former economic forecaster for California, said that the state was overdependent on its wealthier citizens. Upon encountering a group protesting state spending cuts whose signs said "We Love Jobs!", this forecaster thinks THEY are missing the real problem. California, he says, depends upon the top 1% of 'earners' (important choice of words on his part, don't you think?) for almost half of its income tax revenue. That's the guys making more than $490,000 per year.
But do you know why this forecaster thinks that's a PROBLEM???? It's because theses unfortunate 'earners' have "especially volatile incomes." They are the state's most unstable income group, according to this financial wiz. (Such a sad story, isn't it????) He further 'justifies' his argument by stating that New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois being the states most heavily reliant on taxes from the rich are now among those with the biggest budget holes.
The top federal tax rate—which applies to joint filers reporting $379,000 in taxable income—is still twice as high as the rate for joint filers reporting income of $69,000 or less. But alas, as they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable. That unconscionable growth of income, read GREED, is how we got into this economic mess in the first place. Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell 16%, compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole. But they didn't tell us about the rise on the other side of the 'mountain.' As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more unstable. (I think I'm gonna cry!) Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to financial markets—through stock-based pay or investments—they are more prone to sudden shocks. Again, I think our problem here is obvious and this 'street' dog is barking up the wrong tree.
Many republicans advocate a flat tax in California to reduce volatility and keep high-earners from leaving the state. Instead of a steeply disproportionate income tax rate, a flatter, broader tax rate would help stabilize the most volatile of California's revenues, they say. The other camp says, and I think rightly, that the volatility problem can be solved by making sure citizens are fully employed and decently paid. Progressive tax systems are the best way to equalize the rising riches at the top and rising poverty at the bottom. Flattening the tax system only adds to income inequality.
So in short, the Wall Streeters and conservatives would prefer a different system. . . tax the poor people whose incomes (if they have incomes) are not as 'volatile' as the rich people and, VOILA!!! Problem solved.
Is it me or is something wrong with that picture??????????
small.jpg)
