|
Ukraine
Jul 16, 2016 22:08:04 GMT -6
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 16, 2016 22:08:04 GMT -6
from DavidStockmansContraCorner.com davidstockmanscontracorner.com/nato-has-lost-its-collective-mind-the-warsaw-summits-russian-threat-communique-was-completely-bogus/NATO Has Lost Its Collective Mind —–The Warsaw Summit’s “Russian Threat” Communique Was Completely BogusBy Robert Parry "It’s unnerving to realize that the NATO alliance – bristling with an unprecedented array of weapons including a vast nuclear arsenal – has lost its collective mind. Perhaps it’s more reassuring to think that NATO simply feels compelled to publicly embrace its deceptive “strategic communications” so gullible Western citizens will be kept believing its lies are truth. But here were the leaders of major Western “democracies” lining up to endorse a Warsaw Summit Communiqué condemning “Russia’s aggressive actions” while knowing that these claims were unsupported by their own intelligence agencies. The leaders – at least the key ones – know that there is no credible intelligence that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked the Ukraine crisis in 2014 or that he has any plans to invade the Baltic states, despite the fact that nearly every “important person” in Official Washington and other Western capitals declares the opposite of this to be reality. But there have been a few moments when the truth has surfaced. For instance, in the days leading up to the just-completed NATO summit in Warsaw, General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, divulged that the deployment of NATO military battalions in the Baltic states was a political, rather than military, act. “It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing,” Pavel told a news conference. What Pavel blurted out was what I have been told by intelligence sources over the past two-plus years – that the endless drumbeat of Western media reports about “Russian aggression” results from a clever demonization campaign against Putin and a classic Washington “group think” rather than from a careful intelligence analysis. Ironically, however, just days after the release of the British Chilcot report documenting how a similar propaganda campaign led the world into the disastrous Iraq War – with its deadly consequences still reverberating through a destabilized Mideast and into an unnerved Europe – NATO reenacts the basic failure of that earlier catastrophe, except now upping the ante into a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. The Warsaw communiqué – signed by leaders including President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron – ignores the reality of what happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 and thus generates an inside-out narrative. Instead of reprising the West’s vacuous propaganda themes, Obama and the other leaders could have done something novel and told the truth, but that apparently is outside their operating capabilities. So they all signed on to the dangerous lie. What Really Happened The real narrative based on actual facts would have acknowledged that it was the West, not Russia, that instigated the Ukraine crisis by engineering the violent overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych and the imposition of a new Western-oriented regime hostile to Moscow and Ukraine’s ethnic Russians. In late 2013, it was the European Union that was pushing an economic association agreement with Ukraine, which included the International Monetary Fund’s demands for imposing harsh austerity on Ukraine’s already suffering population. Political and propaganda support for the E.U. plan was financed, in part, by the U.S. government through such agencies as the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development. When Yanukovych recoiled at the IMF’s terms and opted for a more generous $15 billion aid package from Putin, the U.S. government threw its public support behind mass demonstrations aimed at overthrowing Yanukovych and replacing him with a new regime that would sign the E.U. agreement and accept the IMF’s demands. As the crisis deepened in early 2014, Putin was focused on the Sochi Winter Olympics, particularly the threat of terrorist attacks on the games. No evidence has been presented that Putin was secretly trying to foment the Ukraine crisis. Indeed, all the evidence is that Putin was trying to protect the status quo, support the elected president and avert a worse crisis. It would be insane to suggest that Putin somehow orchestrated the E.U.’s destabilizing attempt to pull Ukraine into the association agreement, that he then stagemanaged the anti-Yanukovych violence of the Maidan protests, that he collaborated with neo-Nazi and other ultra-nationalist militias to kill Ukrainian police and chase Yanukovych from Kiev, and that he then arranged for Yanukovych to be replaced by a wildly anti-Russian regime – all while pretending to do the opposite of all these things. In the real world, the narrative was quite different: Moscow supported Yanukovych’s efforts to reach a political compromise, including a European-brokered agreement for early elections and reduced presidential powers. Yet, despite those concessions, neo-Nazi militias surged to the front of the U.S.-backed protests on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and many of his officials to run for their lives. The U.S. State Department quickly recognized the coup regime as “legitimate” as did other NATO allies. On a personal note, I am sometimes criticized by conspiracy theorists for not accepting their fact-free claims about nefarious schemes supposedly dreamed up by U.S. officials, but frankly as baseless as some of those wacky stories can be, they sound sensible when compared with the West’s loony conspiracy theory about Putin choreographing the Ukraine coup. Yet, that baseless conspiracy theory roped in supposedly serious thinkers, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who conjured up the notion that Putin stirred up this trouble so he could pull off a land grab and/or distract Russians from their economic problems. “Delusions of easy winnings still happen,” Krugman wrote in a 2014 column. “It’s only a guess, but it seems likely that Vladimir Putin thought that he could overthrow Ukraine’s government, or at least seize a large chunk of its territory, on the cheap, a bit of deniable aid to the rebels, and it would fall into his lap. … “Recently Justin Fox of the Harvard Business Review suggested that the roots of the Ukraine crisis may lie in the faltering performance of the Russian economy. As he noted, Mr. Putin’s hold on power partly reflects a long run of rapid economic growth. But Russian growth has been sputtering, and you could argue that the Putin regime needed a distraction.” Midwifing This Thing Or, rather than “a guess,” Krugman could have looked at the actual facts, such as the work of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland conspiring to organize a coup that would put her hand-picked Ukrainians in charge of Russia’s neighbor. Several weeks before the putsch, Nuland was caught plotting the “regime change” in an intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Regarding who should replace Yanukovych, Nuland’s choice was Arseniy “Yats is the guy” Yatsenyuk. The phone call went on to muse about how they could “glue this thing” and “midwife this thing.” After the coup was glued or midwifed on Feb. 22, 2014, Yatsenyuk emerged as the new prime minister and then shepherded through the IMF austerity plan. Since the coup regime in Kiev also took provocative steps against the ethnic Russians, such as the parliament voting to ban Russian as an official language and allowing neo-Nazi extremists to slaughter anti-coup protesters, ethnic Russian resistance arose in the east and south. That shouldn’t have been much of a surprise since eastern Ukraine had been Yanukovych’s political base and stood to lose the most from Ukraine’s economic orientation toward Europe and reduced economic ties to Russia. Yet, instead of recognizing the understandable concerns of the eastern Ukrainians, the Western media portrayed the ethnic Russians as simply Putin’s pawns with no minds of their own. The U.S.-backed regime in Kiev launched what was called an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” against them, spearheaded by the neo-Nazi militias. In Crimea – another area heavily populated with ethnic Russians and with a long history of association with Russia – voters opted by 96 percent in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a process supported by Russian troops stationed in Crimea under a prior agreement with Ukraine’s government. There was no Russian “invasion,” as The New York Times and other mainstream U.S. news outlets claimed. The Russian troops were already in Crimea assigned to Russia’s historic Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. Putin agreed to Crimea’s annexation partly out of fear that the naval base would otherwise fall into NATO’s hands and pose a strategic threat to Russia. But the key point regarding the crazy Western conspiracy theory about Putin provoking the crisis so he could seize territory or distract Russians from economic troubles is that Putin only annexed Crimea because of the ouster of Yanukovych and the installation of a Russia-hating regime in Kiev. If Yanukovych had not been overthrown, there is no reason to think that Putin would have done anything regarding Crimea or Ukraine. Yet, once the false narrative got rolling, there was no stopping it. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other leading Western publications played the same role that they did during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, accepting the U.S. government’s propaganda as fact and marginalizing the few independent journalists who dared go against the grain. Though Obama, Merkel and other key leaders know how deceptive the Western propaganda has been, they have become captives to their governments’ own lies. For them to deviate substantially from the Official Story would open them to harsh criticism from the powerful neoconservatives and their allied media outlets. Even a slight contradiction to NATO’s “strategic communications” brought down harsh criticism on German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after he said: “What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering. … Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken.” Excoriating Russia So, at the Warsaw conference, the false NATO narrative had to be reaffirmed — and it was. The communiqué declared, “Russia’s aggressive actions, including provocative military activities in the periphery of NATO territory and its demonstrated willingness to attain political goals by the threat and use of force, are a source of regional instability, fundamentally challenge the Alliance, have damaged Euro-Atlantic security, and threaten our long-standing goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. … “Russia’s destabilising actions and policies include: the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine; large-scale snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and underlying posture; and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace. “In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security of Allies and others.” In the up-is-down world that NATO and other Western agencies now inhabit, Russia’s military maneuvers within it own borders in reaction to NATO maneuvers along Russia’s borders are “provocative.” So, too, is Russia’s support for the internationally recognized government of Syria, which is under attack from Islamic terrorists and other armed rebels supported by the West’s Mideast allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO member Turkey. In other words, it is entirely all right for NATO and its members to invade countries at will, including Iraq, Libya and Syria, and subvert others as happened in Ukraine and is still happening in Syria. But it is impermissible for any government outside of NATO to respond or even defend itself. To do so amounts to a provocation against NATO – and such hypocrisy is accepted by the West’s mainstream news media as the way that the world was meant to be. And those of us who dare point out the lies and double standards must be “Moscow stooges,” just as those of us who dared question the Iraq WMD tales were dismissed as “Saddam apologists” in 2003." ............................. Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 4, 2016 22:12:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 3, 2016 13:47:09 GMT -6
from the Huffington Post NO, Trump's Tariff Plan Would Not Crash the Economywww.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/no-trumps-tariff-wouldnt-crash-the-economy_b_9876630.htmlJune 22, 2016 by Ian Fletcher Hillary Clinton has been accusing Donald Trump of having economic plans that would crash the U.S. economy. There’s a NY Times story about the underlying economic analysis here. (Google the article title and enter via Google if you’re not a subscriber to the Times’s paywall.) The underlying report from Moody’s Analytics, a mainstream economics firm, is here. The lead author is Mark Zandi, who used to advise Sen. John McCain and Barack Obama, so its presumed bias is anti-Trump. He has also endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the economic models in support of which have been shown to be wrong. The report concerns three big issues: taxes, immigration, and foreign trade. Now the first two aren’t my area of expertise, so I’ll leave any arguments about them to the experts. But the third is, so let me explain why I think these guys have it wrong. Before we begin, it’s necessary to get clear on the fact that, frankly, a lot of what Mr. Trump says is obviously just campaign rhetoric. So no, we shouldn’t take literally the idea of a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods, which the candidate has proposed. Does this make The Donald a liar? Well, let’s remember that when Pres. Obama was running against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008, he touted a version of heath reform that was supposedly superior because it lacked the individual mandate to buy insurance. That was obviously a nice piece of campaigning (he won) but was a) the precise opposite of what Obama did in office, and b) an obviously impossible proposal given the structure of healthcare reform. So this is basically par for the course in politics. I wish it were otherwise, but there it is. And don’t even get me started on Hillary’s rhetoric. So the correct interpretation of Trump’s tough words on trade is, “I’m going to impose a get-tough policy,” not any particular tariff level. The president can’t set tariffs on his own, and (as Trump has said in other contexts) the 45 percent proposal may just be a negotiating stance designed to bring Beijing to heel. (His actual proposal was for a 45 percent tariff until China lets its currency float freely on international markets, which tends to support this interpretation.) Moody’s interpretation of the 45 percent proposal (even if one grants the unlikely premise that it should be taken literally) is also unacceptably crude. They write: 'The U.S. imports nearly $500 billion in goods a year from China, and another almost $300 billion from Mexico, accounting for approximately 35% of total U.S. non-petroleum goods imports... Slapping a 45% tariff on Chinese imports and 35% on non-petroleum Mexican imports thus increases overall goods import prices by approximately 15%. This in turn lifts overall U.S. consumer prices by almost three percent at its peak... For one thing, they’re ignoring the basic economic concept of elasticity. In a nutshell, prices wouldn’t respond in a linear fashion as described. Profit margins would get compressed, domestic competitors and other foreign nations would move in, and prices wouldn’t move by the amount of the tariff. (The report perfunctorily mentions these issues, but its math doesn’t appear to take them into account.)" ( To put it differently, retailers can't simply pass on 100% of their cost increases as increased prices to consumers. Consumers would buy less goods at higher prices. In reality, sellers--and even producers--would have to absorb some of the cost increases themselves.) "For another thing, they’re forgetting that a tariff offsets other taxes. So if tariff revenue finances, say, a cut in income tax (Trump has indeed proposed one), then the net cost to consumers is zeroed out (pace secondary effects). So no, a tariff is not necessarily inflationary. And in an economic environment where inflation is so low that central banks are unable to cut interest rates because they can’t go (more than a crumb) below zero, else people would hoard cash, worrying about inflation is not especially rational right now anyway. Just so you know, I’m not the only one pooh-poohing the idea that Trump’s tariff would bring disaster. The liberal Nobelist Paul Krugman wrote this, 'Yes, I know there’s a Moody’s study claiming that Trumponomics would be a huge job destroyer, but I really don’t know where they got that result; the best guess seems to be that they’re assuming that former spending on imports just goes away, which is not a good assumption.' Note that this is coming from someone who doesn’t seem to take the upside to Trump’s proposed policies very seriously; he’s just not that frightened of the (in his view, small) downside. More importantly, the Moody’s report doesn’t pay any attention to the economic benefits of relocating production to the U.S. A nation that runs a chronic trade deficit, as we do, is eschewing domestic production in favor of letting foreigners produce for it in exchange for a) debt and b) sale of existing assets. Producing for ourselves instead would, by basic economic definitions, be an increase in U.S. GDP. Since our trade deficit is around $500 billion a year, this is not a minor issue. (Anyone who’s still buying into the “trade deficits don’t matter / aren’t real money” delusion, let’s go over that one more time.) Zeroing out the U.S. trade deficit would also reduce unemployment. Or, more likely, bring back people who have dropped out of the labor force entirely - a huge problem that has enabled us to have nominally low unemployment numbers because people who aren’t looking for work aren’t counted. This, in turn, would increase Federal tax revenue as people started paying income tax again, and reduce the cost of unemployment benefits. So it’s a very virtuous cycle. The Moody’s report makes a number of really odd assumptions. For example, 'But although Mr. Trump is uncomfortable with NAFTA and the WTO-based trade relationship with China, it is assumed that they are not materially changed.' Now I can’t tell you exactly what changes a President Trump would make, but it’s pretty obvious that a) he wants these agreements changed, and b) because NAFTA and the WTO are treaty obligations, which the U.S. negotiated in the first place, the U.S. can renegotiate them. The obvious goal would be to end the practice of U.S. trade obligations being tools to prop open American markets for foreigners while they give us only nominal, not real, access in return. How much traction against the trade deficit could a President Trump get? Well, since the U.S. hasn’t even been seriously trying to control its trade deficit in decades, the short answer is: definitely something. How much would depend on what policies were used. Some of the best policies are things that Trump probably knows about, but can’t talk about because they’re politically unpalatable. For example, if the U.S. introduced a 15% border-adjustable Value-Added Tax like other developed nations have, this would a) provide big leverage against the trade deficit, and b) be absolutely, impeccably WTO-compliant, so none of the deficit-racking usual suspects (China, Japan, Germany) could do a thing about it. Such a tax could, of course, be used to finance a cut in income tax, so it could not be a net tax increase at all. But it’s still a tax, so probably toxic to Republican voters, although a national consumption tax has recently been becoming more acceptable to Republicans stymied in other avenues of tax reform. Is Trump crazy to think he can negotiate better deals for the U.S. with foreign nations? I’m not going to offer an opinion on whether his vaunted negotiating skills will translate from Celebrity Apprentice to summitry vs. China, but I’m not the only person to have noted (like liberal economist Dean Baker below) that: Anyhow, it would make perfect sense to negotiate a path for a higher valued yuan. At the negotiating table it would be perfectly reasonable to threaten various forms of retaliation as pressure, including tariffs. So net-net, I can’t guarantee that Trump would be able to successfully pull off a major reform of America’s ongoing “free” trade disaster, but he would be the 1st president in decades pushing in the right direction and no, he’s not visibly setting us up for disaster."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 3, 2016 13:14:53 GMT -6
Trump has been surprisingly consistent on his opposition to unrestricted free trade, despite media claims about his "inconsistency", and that he changes his positions with the wind.
In fact, Trump proposed 25% Tariffs on China back in 2011, just as he is now proposing Tariffs on China in 2016.
Below are excerpts from an article from CNN Money from 2011 (I'm omitting the Corporatocratic sniping from the so-called "experts" on free trade, & the horrors of Tariffs)
from 2011:
money.cnn.com/2011/04/17/news/economy/trump_china_trade_war/index.htm
Apr 18, 2011 By Chris Isidore "NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Donald Trump's call for a 25% tariff on Chinese goods is winning him a lot of attention as he weighs a presidential run in 2012. But Trump seems to be overlooking the consequences that his economic policy would likely trigger: a destructive trade war and higher prices, according to some experts.... Most economists would agree with Trump's logic that China is holding down the value of its currency to give its manufacturers an advantage when selling goods to the U.S. "They have manipulated their currency so violently towards this country, it is almost impossible for our companies to compete with Chinese companies," Trump told CNNMoney in January, during which he laid out plans for his 25% tariff. He insists that if the right messenger -- "somebody like me" -- makes the threat of imposing that kind of tax on Chinese goods, that Chinese leaders would quickly acquiesce.... Not everyone thinks Trump's call for a tariff is bad idea. A 25% tariff might not be high enough, according to Alan Tonelson, research fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, which represents U.S. manufacturers. "The real degree of Chinese undervaluation is at least 40%," he said. "Tariffs are the only way to fix this. Nothing else has worked, nothing else will work." But even Tonelson concedes it'd be difficult for a tariff to survive a challenge from the WTO." ........................ Trump may not be the perfect messenger.
But he appears to be the best messenger at present.
And he's now the "only" messenger left standing.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 3, 2016 11:26:55 GMT -6
from the Huffington Post Trump's actual words, followed by analysis from economist Ian Fletcher www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/trump-delivers-major-trad_b_10721588.htmlTrump Spells Out the Specifics of his Trade Agenda June 28, 2016 by Ian Fletcher "Hillary Clinton recently gave a long speech attacking Trump on many things. In it, she retreated from her recent feint against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and attacked Trump for “protectionism,” so it seems the divide between them on the issue remains clear. Here are the key excerpts from Trump’s speech: “America has lost nearly 1/3 of its manufacturing jobs since 1997 - even as the country has increased its population by 50 million people.
At the center of this catastrophe are 2 trade deals pushed by Bill and Hillary Clinton:
1st, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
2nd, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.
NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history, and China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest jobs theft in history.
It was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary Clinton who supported it.
It was also Bill Clinton who lobbied for China’s disastrous entry into the World Trade Organization, and Hillary Clinton who backed that terrible agreement.
Then, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton stood by idly while China cheated on its currency, added another trillion dollars to our trade deficits, and stole hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property...
It was also Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, who shoved us into a job-killing deal with South Korea in 2012.
As reported by the Economic Policy Institute in May, this deal doubled our trade deficit with South Korea and destroyed nearly 100,000 American jobs.
As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘Voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs.’ “
The above is all sadly true. He went on,
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the greatest danger yet.
The TPP would be the death blow for American manufacturing.
It would give up all of our economic leverage to an international commission that would put the interests of foreign countries above our own.
It would further open our markets to aggressive currency cheaters. It would make it easier for our trading competitors to ship cheap subsidized goods into U.S. markets - while allowing foreign countries to continue putting barriers in front of our exports.
The TPP would lower tariffs on foreign cars, while leaving in place the foreign practices that keep American cars from being sold overseas. The TPP even created a backdoor for China to supply car parts for automobiles made in Mexico.
The agreement would also force American workers to compete directly against workers from Vietnam, one of the lowest wage countries on Earth.
Not only will the TPP undermine our economy, but it will undermine our independence.
The TPP creates a new international commission that makes decisions the American people can’t veto.
These commissions are great Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street funders who can spend vast amounts of money to influence the outcomes.
It should be no surprise then that Hillary Clinton, according to Bloomberg, took a ‘leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership.’
She praised or pushed the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and even called it the ‘gold standard.’
Hillary Clinton was totally for the TPP just a short while ago, but when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she would be against it too - but have no doubt, she will immediately approve it if it is put before her, guaranteed.”
Here’s Trump’s actual specific agenda on trade:
“Here are seven steps I would pursue right away to bring back our jobs:
One: I am going to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.
Two: I’m going to appoint the toughest and smartest trade negotiators to fight on behalf of American workers.
Three: I’m going to direct the Secretary of Commerce to identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm our workers. I will then direct all appropriate agencies to use every tool under American and international law to end these abuses.
Four: I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don’t mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal.
Five: I am going to instruct my Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator. Any country that devalues their currency in order to take advantage of the United States will be met with sharply
Six: I am going to instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO, and I intend to enforce those rules.
Seven: If China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs consistent with Section 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.”
The above agenda is not crazy. It is, in fact, fairly standard trade-hawk stuff, and would be different from previous trade hawks only in that Trump appears set to actually do all these things, rather than just talk about them. These are all solid, meaningful actions, which have been discussed in knowledgeable circles for years, not impulsive daydreams: the man has been doing his homework. They are all all designed to happen within existing law: even his mention of withdrawing from NAFTA carefully reminds everyone that the treaty itself contains a withdrawal provision. There’s no wild talk of kicking over the existing global trading system by storming out of the WTO. He understands that chaos wouldn’t be good for our economy.
That being said, there’s the obvious hint that a President Trump could hypothetically up the ante if our trading partners don’t fall into line. For one thing, America can hypothetically withdraw from the WTO, just like from NAFTA, and Trump doesn’t have to make that threat openly for it to be tacitly there. For another, the Section 201, 301, and 232 tariffs Trump mentions aren’t quantitatively limited: they could, if things really got nasty, be big tariffs on major industries. So the message seems to be “I’m serious about trade reform, serious about not screwing it up, and I’m willing to play nice if other nations are. But if they’re not, I’ll escalate to whatever it takes to get this done.”
.............................................. Would this agenda actually solve America’s trade crisis? Well, obviously the above steps are all ultimately quantitative in effect, so it would depend on how far they were pursued, but yes, these are the right measures to do the job. They’re not the only possible measures - trade can be manipulated by a lot of different levers - but they’re valid. This is not window dressing. How far a hypothetical Trump administration would push, in a environment where Trump won’t be king, merely a president subject to any number of political constraints from Congress on down, cannot be predicted outright. But it’s obvious that a) this is one of his big priorities, on which he would spend serious political capital, and b) this agenda would be popular with the public, so Congress will feel a lot of pressure to go along. How America’s trading partners would react, is even less predictable. My own guess is that they’ll recognize that the days of Uncle Sam playing Uncle Sucker are over, and strive to maintain as much stability in the global trading system as they can in a world in which the days of racking up huge surpluses against the U.S. are gone for good. They know they can’t stop a truly determined United States from forcing its trade back into balance, they know an endless American deficit can’t go on forever anyway, and they know that causing chaos by kicking up a futile fuss will be very expensive for them. All in all, this is a winning proposal on trade." Ian Fletcher Author, ‘Free Trade Doesn’t Work,’ Advisor, Coalition for a Prosperous America
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 2, 2016 16:54:17 GMT -6
The article below was written in early 2014 by Jeff Faux, the founder of the Economic Policy Institute and author of "The Global Class War".
Despite being written over 2 years ago, it's perfectly fitting to our current Outsourcing-Globalization debacle.
Every point made is just as applicable today, as it was 2 years ago--if not more so.www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-faux/nafta-twenty-years-after_b_4528140.htmlNAFTA, Twenty Years After: A Disaster January 1, 2014 (Updated Mar 03, 2014) by Jeff Faux "New Year’s Day, 2014, marks the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Agreement created a common market for goods, services and investment capital with Canada and Mexico. And it opened the door through which American workers were shoved, unprepared, into a brutal global competition for jobs that has cut their living standards and is destroying their future. NAFTA’s birth was bi-partisan — conceived by Ronald Reagan, negotiated by George Bush I, and pushed through the US Congress by Bill Clinton in alliance with Congressional Republicans and corporate lobbyists. Clinton and his collaborators promised that the deal would bring “good-paying American jobs,” a rising trade surplus with Mexico, and a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration. Instead, NAFTA directly cost the U.S. a net loss of 700,000 jobs. The surplus with Mexico turned into a chronic deficit. And the economic dislocation in Mexico increased the the flow of undocumented workers into the U.S. Nevertheless, Clinton and his Republican successor, George Bush II, then used the NAFTA template to design the World Trade Organization, more than a dozen bilateral trade treaties, and the deal that opened the American market to China — which alone has cost the U.S. another net 2.7 million jobs. The result has been 20 years of relentless outsourcing of jobs and technology. By any measure, NAFTA and its sequels has been a major contributor to the rising inequality of incomes and wealth that Barack Obama bemoans in his speeches. Yet today — channeling Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton — the president proposes two more such trade deals: the Trans-Pacific Partnership with eleven Pacific Rim countries and a free trade agreement with Europe. Like his predecessors, he repeats the mantra that more such trade deals will create “millions of American jobs” because we excel at high technology. But today the U.S. surplus in hi-tech industries has turned into a deficit — including a deficit with China. In the global trade system initiated by NAFTA, any job that can be done with a computer can be out-sourced, unless American workers are willing to work at the wages of Mexico, India or China. That trade system has not delivered the promised benefits because it was designed not to. The agreements traded away the interests of American workers in favor of the interests of American corporations eager to produce for the U.S. market in countries where labor is cheap, environment and public health regulations weak, and governments easily bribable. NAFTA’s fundamental purpose was not to free trade, it was to free multinational corporations from public regulation in the U.S., Mexico, Canada, and eventually all over the world. Among other things, NAFTA granted corporations extraordinary legal protections against national labor and environmental laws that that they could claim threatened future profits. At the same time, workers and unions were denied the legal status needed to defend themselves in these new cross-border jurisdictions. As a result, the bargaining positions of U.S. workers — union and non-union — were severely undercut. As soon as NAFTA became law, corporate managers began using the threat to move elsewhere in order to force U.S. workers to work longer and harder for less. Threatening employees with outsourcing is now standard practice in American business. It is not just workers in export and import industries who have suffered. Labor markets are connected. When autoworkers and steelworkers are hired for $14 instead of $20 an hour, lower wages ripple into the paychecks of those who work for suppliers, construction contractors, restaurants, and retail stores. Nor is it just American workers who have taken the hit. Historically high Canadian wages also have been undercut. In Mexico, although some new jobs are created when production is shifted south of the border, the lack of worker protections in NAFTA insured that corporate investors would reap most of the benefits. The gap between U.S. and Mexican wages remains as wide as it was twenty years ago. In the even poorer countries, unregulated global trade has led to the ruthless exploitation of labor — from teenagers in the sweat shops of Bangladesh to eight year olds working in the gold mines of Tanzania. Promoters of NAFTA-style globalization paint the opposition as “protectionists.” This is demagoguery. The issue is not trade with other nations. It is trade policies. For 200 years US trade policies balanced imports and exports, and the interests of workers and investors. Job losses in one sector were matched by job gains in others. So if a company replaced workers with machines, the increased profits were re-invested in other parts of the domestic economy. But after NAFTA, companies were encouraged to re-invest — and create the new jobs — overseas. As a result, the more trade expands, the more jobs are outsourced. According to the president, the fault lies not in de-regulated trade, but in American workers’ lack of competitive skills. There is little evidence that the problem is lack of American skills. But if the president really believed it, he would hold off on more trade deals until U.S. workers were sufficiently re-trained and re-educated to compete without lowering their wages. Given this dismal history, why would a smart “liberal” Democratic president who says he cares about the middle class continue to plunge ahead with more NAFTA-type trade de-regulation? One explanation is that providing more access to the U.S. market for other countries is a way of shoring up the fading influence of the U.S. political class in world politics. Another is that Democratic leaders have joined their Republican leaders in Corporate America’s deep pockets. Whatever the reason, the 20th anniversary of NAFTA stands as a grim reminder of how little our political leaders and TV talking heads — despite their crocodile tears over jobs and inequality — really care about the average American who must work for a living."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 1, 2016 20:05:53 GMT -6
from the RonPaulInstitute www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/june/27/after-brexit-can-we-exit-a-few-things-too/After ‘Brexit,’ Can We Exit a Few Things Too? Mon, June 27, 2016 by Ron Paul "Last week’s UK vote to leave the EU may have come as a shock to many, but the sentiment that led British voters to reject rule from Brussels is nothing unique. In fact it is growing sentiment worldwide. Frustration with politics as usual, with political parties that really do not differ in philosophy, with an economy that serves the one percent at the expense of the rest of society is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and in the United States as well. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomena are but one example of a frustrated public sensing something is very wrong with society and looking for a way out. What is happening in the UK, in Europe, and in the US, is nothing less than a breakdown of the entire system. The EU was meant to be a customs union where post-World War II Western Europe could rebuild itself through free trade and a reduction in bureaucracy. Through corruption and political ambition it became an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens. Whatever happens in the near future – and it is certainly not assured that the vote to “Brexit” will actually end in the UK’s departure from the EU – a line has been crossed that supporters of more personal liberty should celebrate. Rule from London is preferable to liberty-minded Britons than rule from Brussels. Just as Texans should prefer rule from Austin to rule from Washington. That doesn’t make either option perfect, just more likely to produce more freedom. Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated? Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place? Do we really need still another NATO military exercise on the Russian border? It should be no surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was fear-mongering on the eve of the Brexit vote, warning UK citizens that if they vote to leave they could face increased terrorism. Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony “free trade” agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us. The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 1, 2016 19:22:44 GMT -6
from PaulCraigRoberts.org www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/06/29/the-collapse-of-western-democracy-paul-craig-roberts/The Collapse of Western DemocracyJune 29, 2016 by Paul Craig Roberts "There is controversy around the statement attributed to Martin Schulz, president of the EU parliament:
“The British have broken the rules. It is not the philosophy of the EU that the crowd can determine its fate.”...
However, it appears that the statement was from a satire, whether of Schulz or the EU I do not know...
the fact that apparently it was satire was lost in the transmission chain.
My opinion is that regardless of whether the statement is representative of Schulz’s view, it does reflect the view characteristic in the EU that national sovereignty is to be over-ridden by fiscal centralization and that democratic outcomes in countries, such as Greece, cannot be allowed to prevail over centralized rule in Brussels. Thus, the Greek people are being driven into the ground for the benefit of the profits of foreign banks.
In recent days I have heard news reports in which members of the British parliament say more or less what was attributed to Martin Schulz. The view that the people are not qualified to rule is a widespread opinion in Western political establishments, as I demonstrate in my article, “The Collapse of Western Democracy.”...................... The Collapse of Western Democracy
by Paul Craig Roberts "Democracy no longer exists in the West. In the US powerful private interest groups, such as the military-security complex, Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, agribusiness and the extractive industries of energy, timber and mining, have long exercised more control over government than the people. But now even the semblance of democracy has been abandoned. In the US Donald Trump has won the Republican presidential nomination. However, Republican convention delegates are plotting to deny Trump the nomination that the people have voted him. The Republican political establishment is showing an unwillingness to accept democratic outcomes. The people chose, but their choice is unacceptable to the establishment which intends to substitute its choice for the people’s choice. Do you remember Dominic Strauss-Kahn? Strauss-Kahn is the Frenchman who was head of the IMF and, according to polls, the likely next president of France. He said something that sounded too favorable toward the Greek people. This concerned powerful banking interests who worried that he might get in the way of their plunder of Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. A hotel maid appeared who accused him of rape. He was arrested and held without bail. After the police and prosecutors had made fools of themselves, he was released with all charges dropped. But the goal was achieved. Strauss-Kahn had to resign as IMF director and kiss goodbye his chance for the presidency of France. Curious, isn’t it, that a woman has now appeared who claims Trump raped her when she was 13 years old. Consider the political establishment’s response to the Brexit vote. Members of Parliament are saying that the vote is unacceptable and that Parliament has the right and responsibility to ignore the voice of the people. The view now established in the West is that the people are not qualified to make political decisions. The position of the opponents of Brexit is clear: it simply is not a matter for the British people whether their sovereignty is given away to an unaccountable commission in Brussels. Martin Schultz, President of the EU Parliament, puts it clearly: “It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate.” The Western media have made it clear that they do not accept the people’s decision either. The vote is said to be “racist” and therefore can be disregarded as illegitimate. Washington has no intention of permitting the British to exit the European Union. Washington did not work for 60 years to put all of Europe in the EU bag that Washington can control only to let democracy undo its achievement. The Federal Reserve, its Wall Street allies, and its Bank of Japan and European Central Bank vassals will short the UK pound and equities, and the presstitutes will explain the decline in values as “the market’s” pronouncement that the British vote was a mistake. If Britain is actually permitted to leave, the two-year long negotiations will be used to tie the British into the EU so firmly that Britain leaves in name only. No one with a brain believes that Europeans are happy that Washington and NATO are driving them into conflict with Russia. Yet their protests have no effect on their governments. Consider the French protests of what the neoliberal French government, masquerading as socialist, calls “labor law reforms.” What the “reform” does is to take away the reforms that the French people achieved over decades of struggle. The French made employment more stable and less uncertain, thereby reducing stress and contributing to the happiness of life. But the corporations want more profit and regard regulations and laws that benefit people as barriers to higher profitability. Neoliberal economists backed the takeback of French labor rights with the false argument that a humane society causes unemployment. The neoliberal economists call it “liberating the employment market” from reforms achieved by the French people. The French government, of course, represents corporations, not the French people. The neoliberal economists and politicians have no qualms about sacrificing the quality of French life in order to clear the way for global corporations to make more profits. What is the value in “the global market” when the result is to worsen the fate of peoples? Consider the Germans. They are being overrun with refugees from Washington’s wars, wars that the stupid German government enabled. The German people are experiencing increases in crime and sexual attacks. They protest, but their government does not hear them. The German government is more concerned about the refugees than it is about the German people. Consider the Greeks and the Portuguese forced by their governments to accept personal financial ruin in order to boost the profits of foreign banks. These governments represent foreign bankers, not the Greek and Portuguese people. One wonders how long before all Western peoples conclude that only a French Revolution complete with guillotine can set them free."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 29, 2016 11:26:18 GMT -6
from David Stockmans Contra Corner davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bravo-brexit/Bravo Brexit! June 24, 2016 by David Stockman "At long last the tyranny of the global financial elite has been slammed good and hard. You can count on them to attempt another central bank based shock and awe campaign to halt and reverse the current sell-off, but it won’t be credible, sustainable or maybe even possible. The central bankers and their compatriots at the EU, IMF, White House/Treasury, OECD, G-7 and the rest of the Bubble Finance apparatus have well and truly over-played their hand. They have created a tissue of financial lies; an affront to the very laws of markets, sound money and capitalist prosperity. After all, what predicate of sober economics could possibly justify $10 trillion of sovereign debt trading at negative yields? Or a stock market trading at 24X reported earnings in the face of a faltering global economy and a tepid domestic US business cycle expansion which at 84 months is already long in the tooth and showing signs of recession everywhere? And that’s to say nothing of the endless ranks of insanely over-valued “story” stocks like Valeant was and the megalomaniacal visions of Elon Musk still are. So there will be payback, clawback and traumatic deflation of the bubbles. Plenty of it, as far as the eye can see. On the immediate matter of Brexit, the British people have rejected the arrogant rule of the EU superstate and the tyranny of its unelected courts, commissions and bureaucratic overlords. As Donald Trump was quick to point out, they have taken back their country. He urges that Americans do the same, and he might just persuade them. But whether Trumpism captures the White House or not, it is virtually certain that Brexit is a contagious political disease. In response to today’s history-shaking event, determined campaigns for Frexit, Spexit, NExit, Grexit, Italxit, Hungexit and more centrifugal political emissions will next follow. Smaller government—–at least in geography—–is being given another chance. And that’s a very good thing because more localized democracy everywhere and always is inimical to the rule of centralized financial elites. The combustible material for more referendums and defections from the EU is certainly available in surging populist parties of both the left and the right throughout the continent. In fact, the next hammer blow to the Brussels/German dictatorship will surely happen in Spain’s general election do-over on Sunday (the December elections resulted in paralysis and no government). When the polls close, the repudiation of the corrupt, hypocritical lapdog government of Prime Minister Rajoy will surely be complete. And properly so; he was just another statist in conservative garb who reformed nothing, left the Spanish economy buried in debt and gave false witness to the notion that the Brussels bureaucrats are the saviors of Europe. So the common people of Europe may be doubly blessed this week with the exit of both David Cameron and Mariano Rajoy. Good riddance to both.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 29, 2016 11:19:35 GMT -6
from the RollingStone.com www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627The Elites’ Snobbish Reaction To Brexit Is The Reason Brexit Happened June 28, 2016 by Matt Taibbi "In 1934, at the dawn of the Stalinist Terror, the great Russian writer Isaac Babel offered a daring quip at the International Writers Conference in Moscow: “Everything is given to us by the party and the government. Only one right is taken away: the right to write badly.” A onetime Soviet loyalist who was eventually shot as an enemy of the state, Babel was likely trying to say something profound: that the freedom to make mistakes is itself an essential component of freedom. As a rule, people resent being saved from themselves. And if you think depriving people of their right to make mistakes makes sense, you probably never had respect for their right to make decisions at all. This is all relevant in the wake of the Brexit referendum, in which British citizens narrowly voted to exit the European Union. Because the vote was viewed as having been driven by the same racist passions that are fueling the campaign of Donald Trump, a wide swath of commentators suggested that democracy erred, and the vote should perhaps be canceled, for the Britons’ own good. Social media was filled with such calls. “Is it just me, or does #Brexit seem like a moment when the government should overrule a popular referendum?” wrote one typical commenter. On op-ed pages, there was a lot of the same. Harvard economics professor and chess grandmaster Kenneth Rogoff wrote a piece for the Boston Globe called “Britain’s democratic failure” in which he argued: “This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence… has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.” Rogoff then went on to do something that’s become popular in pundit circles these days: He pointed to the lessons of antiquity. Going back thousands of years, he said, Very Smart People have warned us about the dangers of allowing the rabble to make decisions. “Since ancient times,” he wrote, “philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions.” Presumably playing the role of one of the “informed parties” in this exercise, Rogoff went on: “By some accounts… Athens had implemented the purest historical example of democracy,” he wrote. “Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies.” This is exactly the argument that British blogging supernova Andrew Sullivan unleashed a few months ago in his 8,000-word diatribe against Donald Trump, “Democracies end when they are too democratic.” Like Rogoff, Sullivan argued that over-democratic societies drift into passionate excesses, and need that vanguard of Very Smart People to make sure they don’t get themselves into trouble. “Elites matter in a democracy,” Sullivan argued, because they are the “critical ingredient to save democracy from itself.” I would argue that voters are the critical ingredient to save elites from themselves, but Sullivan sees it the other way, and has Plato on his side. Though some of his analysis seems based on a misread of ancient history (see here for an amusing exploration of the topic), he’s right about Plato, the source of a lot of these “the ancients warned us about democracy” memes. He just left out the part where Plato, at least when it came to politics, was kind of a jerk. The great philosopher despised democracy, believing it to be a system that blurred necessary social distinctions, prompting children, slaves and even animals to forget their places. He believed it a system that leads to over-permissiveness, wherein the people “drink too deeply of the strong wine of freedom.” Too much license, Plato wrote (and Sullivan echoed), leads to a spoiled populace that will turn to a strongman for revenge if anyone gets in the way of the party. These “men of naught” will inevitably denounce as oligarchs any wise group of rulers who try to set basic/sensible rules for society. You have to be a snob of the first order, completely high on your own gas, to try to apply these arguments to present-day politics, imagining yourself as an analog to Plato’s philosopher-kings. And you have to have a cast-iron head to not grasp that saying stuff like this out loud is part of what inspires populations to movements like Brexit or the Trump campaign in the first place. Were I British, I’d probably have voted to Remain. But it’s not hard to understand being pissed off at being subject to unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Nor is it hard to imagine the post-Brexit backlash confirming every suspicion you might have about the people who run the EU. Imagine having pundits and professors suggest you should have your voting rights curtailed because you voted Leave. Now imagine these same people are calling voters like you “children,” and castigating you for being insufficiently appreciative of, say, the joys of submitting to a European Supreme Court that claims primacy over the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. The overall message in every case is the same: Let us handle things. But whatever, let’s assume that the Brexit voters, like Trump voters, are wrong, ignorant, dangerous and unjustified. Even stipulating to that, the reaction to both Brexit and Trump reveals a problem potentially more serious than either Brexit or the Trump campaign. It’s become perilously fashionable all over the Western world to reach for non-democratic solutions whenever society drifts in a direction people don’t like. Here in America the problem is snowballing on both the right and the left. Whether it’s Andrew Sullivan calling for Republican insiders to rig the nomination process to derail Trump’s candidacy, or Democratic Party lifers like Peter Orszag arguing that Republican intransigence in Congress means we should turn more power over to “depoliticized commissions,” the instinct to act by diktat surfaces quite a lot these days. “Too much democracy” used to be an argument we reserved for foreign peoples who tried to do things like vote to demand control over their own oil supplies. I first heard the term in Russia in the mid-Nineties. As a young reporter based in Moscow in the years after communism fell, I spent years listening to American advisors and their cronies in the Kremlin gush over the new democratic experiment. Then, in 1995, polls came out showing communist Gennady Zyguanov leading in the upcoming presidential race against Boris Yeltsin. In an instant, all of those onetime democratic evangelists began saying Russia was “not ready” for democracy. Now it’s not just carpetbagging visitors to the Third World pushing this line of thought. Just as frequently, the argument is aimed at “low-information” voters at home. Maybe the slide started with 9/11, after which huge pluralities of people were suddenly OK with summary executions, torture, warrantless surveillance and the blithe disposal of concepts like habeas corpus. A decade and a half later, we’re gripped by a broader mania for banning and censoring things that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. It seems equally to have taken over campus speech controversies (expanding the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment is suddenly a popular idea) and the immigration debate (where Trump swept to the nomination riding a bluntly unconstitutional call for a religious test for immigrants). Democracy appears to have become so denuded and corrupted in America that a generation of people has grown up without any faith in its principles. What’s particularly concerning about the reaction both to Brexit and to the rise of Trump is the way these episodes are framed as requiring exceptions to the usual democratic rule. They’re called threats so monstrous that we must abrogate the democratic process to combat them. Forget Plato, Athens, Sparta and Rome. More recent history tells us that the descent into despotism always starts in this exact same way. There is always an emergency that requires a temporary suspension of democracy. After 9/11 we had the “ticking time bomb” metaphor to justify torture. NYU professor and self-described “prolific thought leader” Ian Bremmer just called Brexit the “most significant political risk the world has experienced since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” likening it to a literal end-of-humanity scenario. Sullivan justified his call for undemocratic electoral maneuvers on the grounds that the election of Trump would be an “extinction-level event.” I don’t buy it. My admittedly primitive understanding of democracy is that we’re supposed to move toward it, not away from it, in a moment of crisis. It doesn’t mean much to be against torture until the moment when you’re most tempted to resort to it, or to have faith in voting until the result of a particular vote really bothers you. If you think there’s ever such a thing as “too much democracy,” you probably never believed in it in the first place. And even low-Information voters can sense it."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 29, 2016 9:52:31 GMT -6
from the New York Times www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-sanders-democrats-need-to-wake-up.html?_r=0Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake UpJune 28, 2016 by Bernie Sanders "Surprise, surprise. Workers in Britain, many of whom have seen a decline in their standard of living while the very rich in their country have become much richer, have turned their backs on the European Union and a globalized economy that is failing them and their children. And it’s not just the British who are suffering. That increasingly globalized economy, established and maintained by the world’s economic elite, is failing people everywhere. Incredibly, the wealthiest 62 people on this planet own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population — around 3.6 billion people. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99%. The very, very rich enjoy unimaginable luxury while billions of people endure abject poverty, unemployment, and inadequate health care, education, housing and drinking water. Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could. During my campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I’ve visited 46 states. What I saw and heard on too many occasions were painful realities that the political and media establishment fail even to recognize. In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries. Despite major increases in productivity, the median male worker in America today is making $726 dollars less than he did in 1973, while the median female worker is making $1,154 less than she did in 2007, after adjusting for inflation. Nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. An estimated 28 million have no health insurance, while many others are underinsured. Millions of people are struggling with outrageous levels of student debt. For perhaps the first time in modern history, our younger generation will probably have a lower standard of living than their parents. Frighteningly, millions of poorly educated Americans will have a shorter life span than the previous generation as they succumb to despair, drugs and alcohol. Meanwhile, in our country the top 1/10th of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. 58% percent of all new income is going to the top 1%. Wall Street and billionaires, through their “super PACs,” are able to buy elections. Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. On my campaign, I’ve talked to workers unable to make it on $8 or $9 an hour; retirees struggling to purchase the medicine they need on $9,000 a year of Social Security; young people unable to afford college. I also visited the American citizens of Puerto Rico, where some 58 percent of the children live in poverty and only a little more than 40 percent of the adult population has a job or is seeking one. Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.... We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models. We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments. We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels. We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance. The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class. In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, not just a handful of billionaires."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 29, 2016 9:32:13 GMT -6
Below is Clinton's latest speaking fee list. from theDuran.com theduran.com/hillary-clintons-21667000-speaking-fees-fortune-broken-speech-speech/Hillary Clinton’s $21,667,000 “Speaking Fees” Fortune, Broken Down Speech by SpeechMay 23, 2016 by Alex Christoforou "Cashing in...Hillary Clinton amassed $21,667,000 in "speaking fees" from 2013-2015. These amounts reflect the mandatory financial disclosures released this month. In 2 years (from April 2013 to March 2015) Hillary Clinton amassed $21,667,000 in “speaking fees” and another $5,000,000 as an advance for her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” The bullet list below is a doozy…and speaks volumes as to how Trump will deal with Hillary’s obligation to “pay back” the big business fees she collected if elected US President. No wonder he is branding the former first lady and Secretary of State as “crooked Hillary.” And an aside…if you think Hillary’s $21,667,000 was a lot of income for the Clinton clan, you can also tack on an additional $26,630,000 for her ex-president hubby Bill Clinton, and his “speaking fees” collected during the same time period. •4/18/2013, Morgan Stanley Washington, DC: $225,000 •4/24/2013, Deutsche Bank Washington, DC: $225,000 •4/24/2013, National Multi Housing Council Dallas, TX: $225,000 •4/30/2013, Fidelity Investments Naples, FL: $225,000 •5/8/2013, Gap, Inc. San Francisco, CA: $225,000 •5/14/2013, Apollo Management Holdings, LP New York, NY: $225,000 •5/16/2013, Itau BBA USA Securities New York, NY: $225,000 •5/21/2013, Vexizon Communications, Inc. Washington, DC: $225,000 •5/29/2013, Sanford C. Bernstein and Co., LLC New York, NY: $225,000 •6/4/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group Palmetto Bluffs, SC: $225,000 •6/6/2013, Spencer Stuart New York, NY: $225,000 •6/16/2013, Society for Human Resource Management Chicago, IL: $285,000 •6/17/2013, Economic Club of Grand Rapids Grand Rapids, MI: $225,000 •6/20/2013, Boston Consulting Group, Inc. Boston, MA: $225,000 •6/20/2013, Let’s Talk Entertainment, Inc. Toronto, Canada: $250,000 •6/24/2013, American Jewish University Universal City, CA: $225,000 •6/24/2013, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company, LP Palos Verdes, CA: $225,000 •7/11/2013, UBS Wealth Management New York, NY: $225,000 •8/7/2013, Global Business Travel Association San Diego, CA: $225,000 •8/12/2013, National Association of Chain Drug Stores Las Vegas, NV: $225,000 •9/18/2013, American Society for Clinical Pathology Chicago, IL: $225,000 •9/19/2013, American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. Miami, FL: $225,000 •10/4/2013, Long Island Association Long Island, NY: $225,000 •10/15/2013, National Association of Convenience Stores Atlanta, GA: $265,000 •10/23/2013, SAP Global Marketing, Inc. New York, NY: $225,000 •10/24/2013, Accenture New York, NY: $225,000 •10/24/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group New York, NY: $225,000 •10/27/2013, Beth El Synagogue Minneapolis, AIN: $225,000 •10/28/2013, Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Chicago, IL: $400,000 •10/29/2013, The Goldman Sachs Group Tuscon, AZ: $225,000 •11/4/2013, Mase Productions, Inc. Orlando, FL: $225,000 •11/4/2013, London Drugs, Ltd. Mississauga, ON: $225,000 •11/6/2013, Beaumont Health System Troy, 111: $305,000 •11/7/2013, Golden Tree Asset Management New York, NY: $275,000 •11/9/2013, National Association of Realtors San Francisco, CA: $225,000 •11/13/2013, Mediacorp Canada, Inc. Toronto, Canada: $225,000 •11/13/2013, Bank of America Bluffton, SC: $225,000 •11/14/2013, CB Richard Ellis, Inc. New York, NY: $250,000 •11/18/2013, CIIE Group Naples, FL: $225,000 •11/18/2013, Press Ganey Orlando, FL: $225,000 •11/21/2013, U.S. Green Building Council Philadelphia, PA: $225,000 •01/06/2014, GE Boca Raton, Fl.: $225,500 •01/27/2014, National Automobile Dealers Association New Orleans, La.: $325,500 •01/27/2014, Premier Health Alliance Miami, Fl.: $225,500 •02/06/2014, Salesforce.com Las Vegas, Nv.: $225,500 •02/17/2014, Novo Nordisk A/S Mexico City, Mexico: $125,000 •02/26/2014, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Orlando, Fl.: $225,500 •02/27/2014, A&E Television Networks New York, N.Y.: $280,000 •03/04/2014, Association of Corporate Counsel – Southern California Los Angeles, Ca.: $225,500 •03/05/2014, The Vancouver Board of Trade Vancouver, Canada: $275,500 •03/06/2014, tinePublic Inc. Calgary, Canada: $225,500 •03/13/2014, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Orlando, Fl.: $225,500 •03/13/2014, Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies New York, N.Y.: $250,000 •03/18/2014, Xerox Corporation New York, N.Y.: $225,000 •03/18/2014, Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal Montreal, Canada: $275,000 •03/24/2014, Academic Partnerships Dallas, Tx.: $225,500 •04/08/2014, Market° Inc. San Francisco, Ca.: $225,500 •04/08/2014, World Affairs Council Portland, Or.: $250,500 •04/10/2014, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Inc. Las Vegas, Nv.: $225,500 •04/10/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment San Jose, Ca.: $265,000 •04/11/2014, California Medical Association (via satellite) San Diego, Ca.: $100,000 •05/06/2014, National Council for Behavioral Healthcare Washington D.C.: $225,500 •06/02/2014, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association Denver, Co.: $225,500 •06/02/2014, Lees Talk Entertainment Denver, Co.: $265,000 •06/10/2014, United Fresh Produce Association Chicago, II.: $225,000 •06/16/2014, tinePublic Inc. Toronto, Canada: $150,000 •06/18/2014, tinePublic Inc. Edmonton, Canada: $100,000 •06/20/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment Austin, Tx.: $150,000 •06/25/2014, Biotechnology Industry Organization San Diego, Ca.: $335,000 •06/25/2014, Innovation Arts and Entertainment San Francisco, Ca.: $150,000 •06/26/2014, GTCR Chicago, II.: $280,000 •07/22/2014, Knewton, Inc. San Francisco, Ca.: $225,500 •07/26/2014, Ameriprise Boston, Ma.: $225,500 •07/29/2014, Coming, Inc. Coming, N.Y.: $225,500 •08/28/2014, Nexenta Systems, Inc. San Francisco, Ca.: $300,000 •08/28/2014, Cisco Las Vegas, Nv.: $325,000 •09/04/2014, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP San Diego, Ca.: $225,500 •09/15/2014, Caridovascular Research Foundation Washington D.C.: $275,000 •10/02/2014, Commercial Real Estate Women Network Miami Beach, Fl.: $225,500 •10/06/2014, Canada 2020 Ottawa, Canada: $215,500 •10/07/2014, Deutsche Bank AG New York, N.Y.: $280,000 •10/08/2014, Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) Chicago, II.: $265,000 •10/13/2014, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers Colorado Springs, Co.: $225,500 •10/14/2014, Salesforce.com San Francisco, Ca.: $225,500 •10/14/2014, Qualcomm Incorporated San Diego, Ca.: $335,000 •12/04/2014, Massachusetts Conference for Women Boston, Ma.: $205,500 •01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc. Winnipeg, Canada: $262,000 •01/21/2015, tinePublic Inc. Saskatoon, Canada: $262,500 •01/22/2015, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Whistler, Canada: $150,000 •02/24/2015, Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women Santa Clara, Ca.: $225,500 •03/11/2015, eBay Inc. San Jose, Ca.: $315,000 •03/19/2015, American Camping Association Atlantic City, NJ.: $260,000 Total: $21,667,000"
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 4, 2016 22:59:50 GMT -6
from PaulCraigRoberts.org www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/06/03/employment-lies-paul-craig-roberts/EMPLOYMENT LIESJune 3, 2016 by Paul Craig Roberts " Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the US economy only created 38,000 new jobs in May and revised down by 59,000 jobs the previously reported gains in March and April. Yet the BLS reported that the unemployment rate fell from 5.0 to 4.7 percent, a figure generally regarded as full employment. The May jobs increase only covers a small fraction of the monthly growth in the labor force and, therefore, cannot account for the drop in unemployment. Moreover, the BLS reported that the labor force participation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points, bringing the decline to 0.4 percentage points over the past two months. Normally, a strong labor market, such as one represented by a 4.7% unemployment rate, causes an increase in the labor force participation rate. The question becomes: How real is the 4.7% rate of unemployment? The answer is: Not at all. The unemployment rate dropped because people unable to find jobs ceased looking and are no longer counted as being in the labor force. If you are unemployed but not considered part of the labor force, you are not included when unemployment is measured. The BLS says that in May there were 1.7 million Americans who “wanted and were available for work,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.” In other words, the unemployment rate is a useless measure of unemployment, just as the consumer price index no longer measures inflation. What were once useful statistical measures have been converted into good news propaganda. Another inconsistency is the BLS report that, despite the low unemployment rate, in May almost another one-half million Americans were forced into part-time jobs as full-time employment was not available. The average work week is no longer 40 hours. The shrinkage of the average work week to 34.4 hours (May) is another reason for declining real median family income. Assuming 3 weeks of vacation, a 34.4 hour work week is 274.4 hours less per year. At $20 per hour, for example, a 34.4 hour work week produces $5,488 less annual income than a 40 hour week. The loss of annual income is greater for many. The average is a result of shorter and longer work weeks. The shorter work weeks that pull down the average are not full-time jobs and therefore do not receive health and pension benefits. Just as Washington and the presstitute media lie about everything else, they lie about the economy. The United States of America has been reduced to a House of Cards whose foundation is lies. How long can it stand?"
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 4, 2016 9:02:47 GMT -6
www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf06-04-16artEmplymt-May2016-cpseea01.PDF (16.15 KB) Since Obama took office in 2009, there have been a net total of only 4.179 million jobs created, according to the Dept of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Survey. The calculation is based on the current job total of 158.466 million, minus 154.287 in 2008. During Obama's 1st 4 years, there was a net total of 688K jobs created. During Obama's current term, there have been a total 3.491 million jobs created. Even in Obama's current term, there've been less than 1 million jobs/year created. In just the 12 months, (from May 2015 to May 2016, there have been 1.1 million jobs created. That's an average of 91.7K jobs/month. The annual rate during Obama's current term, based on 41 mos (3.417 yrs), is 1.02 mill/yr That comes out to 85K jobs/month. Where does Obama get his bragging rights on job creation? But that's only half of it. The number of non-employed, working age Americans has skyrocketed since Obama took office. (Non-employed is calculated from Unemployed + Not-in-labor-force working age persons) There are now +13.719 million more non-employed Americans of working age than when he took office. Again, where does Obama get off at, bragging about his "job-creation" record? He's accomplished nothing, other than further enrich the wealthiest 1% of Americans, at the expense of the less-wealthy 99%. We don't need a "3rd-term of Obama," which means we don't need a Hillary Clinton as President.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 4, 2016 8:08:25 GMT -6
The Democratic pledged delegate now stands as follows:
Clinton 1,770 Sanders 1,500
It takes 2,383 total delegates to win the nomination.
There are ~781 pledged delegates remaining in the remaining primaries.
Clinton would need to win 613 of those 781 to clinch the nomination before the convention.
Sanders needs to win only 169 of those 781 to prevent Clinton from clinching it before the convention.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 4, 2016 7:48:22 GMT -6
from USA Today www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-richard-nixon-aides-fawning-column/85297456/Nixonian palace guard now protects Hillary: Jonathan TurleyJune 3, 2016 by Jonathan Turley Greatest danger from electing Clinton president may be her cadre of fawning aides."It has taken almost 50 years, but the Democrats have finally found their inner Nixon. Make no mistake about it: Hillary Clinton is the most Nixonian figure in the post-Watergate period. Indeed, Democrats appear to have reached the type of moral compromise that Nixon waited, unsuccessfully, for Republicans to accept: Some 71% of Democrats want Clinton to run even if indicted. While Obama could be criticized for embracing Nixon’s imperial presidency model, his personality could not be more different from his predecessor. Clinton however is the whole Nixonian package. On a policy level, her predilection for using executive and military power is even coupled with praise for (and from) Nixon’s secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. However, it is on a personality level that the comparison is so striking and so unnerving. Clinton, like Nixon, is known to be both secretive and evasive. She seems to have a compulsive resistance to simply acknowledging conflicting facts or changes in position. She only makes admissions against interest when there is no alternative to acknowledging the truth in a controversy. Clinton’s history of changing positions and spinning facts is now legendary. Indeed, a video entitled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight” has become an Internet sensation with millions of viewers. Polls show Clinton with record lows for her perceived honesty and trustworthiness. (In fairness, Trump fares little better). Clinton seems entirely comfortable denying facially true facts. For example, she spent much of a year assuring the public that she was fully cooperating with investigators into her use of an unsecure server for her communications as secretary of State. Indeed, she used her claimed cooperation as the reason that she would not answer more questions. When the State Department Inspector General issued its highly critical report on the scandal, many were shocked to learn that Clinton not only refused to speak at all with investigators but so did her top aides. Where Clinton repeatedly said that her use was allowed by the State Department, the report said that the rule was clearly violated, she never received approval for such a security breach and that a personal server would never have been accepted. Of course, politicians are not known for their allegiance to the truth, and Clinton may be a standout in that group, but she is hardly unique among her peers. However, that tendency is often checked by a staff that forces politicians to recognize reality and even the truth of controversy. The problem is that Clinton has surrounded herself with aides who have demonstrated an unflagging loyalty and veneration. Take Huma Abedin, perhaps her most influential aide. Abedin described her first meeting on the “Call Your Girlfriend” podcast: “She walked by and she shook my hand and our eyes connected, and I just remember having this moment where I thought; 'Wow, this is amazing. And ... it just inspired me. You know, I still remember the look on her face. And it’s funny, and she would probably be so annoyed that I say this, but I remember thinking; 'Oh my God, she’s so beautiful and she’s so little!'" Adebin’s breathless account is similar to communications of other aides who fawn in emails to Clinton over her speeches, dress and demeanor. In the released emails, former National Security Council adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall asked that an aide pass along her praise of Clinton’s performance at a hearing: “If you get a chance — please tell HRC that she was a ROCK STAR yesterday. Everything about her 'performance' was what makes her unique, beloved, and destined for even more greatness. She sets a standard that lesser mortals can only dream of emulating.” (In 2014, Sherwood-Randall was made the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy.) Emails from other close aides like Lanny Davis and Sidney Blumenthal show the same level of constant stroking and exaltation. It is certainly true that Washington's powerful have always attracted a circle of sycophants. Indeed, the most powerful figures often seem to need continual stroking from underlings and there can be a race to the bottom as aides outdo each other in their adoring rhetoric. What is so concerning is that Clinton seems to invite such expressions of absolute loyalty and reverence. The question is whether there is a John Dean willing to walk into her office and tell her of a cancer growing within the White House. After years of scandals and investigations, Clinton has distilled a team down to the truest believers who have little difficulty repeating truth-defying spins or refusing to cooperate with investigators. Indeed, recently, top Clinton aides took the notable step of agreeing to be represented by the same lawyers in both the criminal and civil investigations into the email scandal. That is a move that can greatly assure a more uniform account in the testimony of Clinton aides. It is also a move that rejects potential conflicts between aides in both their recollections and interests. In the most recent depositions, that joint counsel instructed key aide Cheryl Mills to simply refuse to answer most of the questions about the reasons and arrangements made for the use of a personal server at the State Department. So far Clinton's top aides have remained a uniform front. It is hard not to think of Nixon aides like John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman in the “palace guard” surrounding Nixon. They should be a cautionary tale for all of these aides. Ehrlichman would later look back and marvel at the loss of his own sense of self and independence: "I, in effect, abdicated my moral judgments and turned them over to somebody else.” My greatest concern is not that a President Clinton will continue a pattern of false statements but that her aides will gradually forget the difference between what is true and what is not."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 28, 2016 23:06:01 GMT -6
Hillary Clinton's entire pledged delegate margin over Sanders is due entirely to victories in Southern states Democrats are unlikely to win. Clinton's has a pledged delegate lead over Sander of 271. Just 7 Southern states that Dems are unlikely to win provided Clinton with 299 more total delegates than Sanders 1) TX: +93 more delegates than Sanders 2) GA: +56 more delegates than Sanders 3) AL: +40 more delegates than Sanders 4) LA: +31 more delegates than Sanders 5) SC: +30 more delegates than Sanders 6) MS: +26 more delegates than Sanders 7) NC: +23 more delegates than Sanders Clinton has amassed her delegate advantage entirely from states the Dems are unlikely to win in November. In contradistinction, Sanders has won far more total delegates in states the Dems are likely to carry in November www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 28, 2016 0:02:59 GMT -6
MSNBC's Chris Matthews has reported that the media plans on calling the Democratic primary in favor of Clinton on June 7th, before the polls have even closed in California--and before the Superdelegates can be officially included in the total.
Nice to know that elections have already been decided BEFORE the votes are counted.
Sounds kind of like the old Soviet Union.
The only choice was to vote for the chosen candidate (Clinton), or against her. No other options were ever on the table.from the Huffington Post www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination_b_10159432.html?yptr=yahooFri, May 27, 2016 by Seth Abramson "MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has revealed that the major television networks plan to call the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton during the day on June 7th — hours prior to the close of polls in California — on the grounds that Clinton has “clinched” the nomination as soon as she crosses the 2,383-delegate threshold via both pledged delegates (who are already committed to her) and super-delegates (who cannot, by Democratic Party rules, commit themselves to her or be tallied until July 25th). In other words, as recently indicated by Mark Murray, NBC’s Senior Editor for Politics, the networks will make the news on June 7th rather than report it — as, per the Democratic National Committee, the final and indeed only authority on the tabulation of super-delegates, Clinton cannot clinch the nomination on June 7th unless she wins 78.3 percent of the pledged delegates on that date. Which she won’t. No more than Sanders will get 70 percent of the pledged delegates on June 7th. Which is why many of us in the media had thought this Democratic primary would go to the super-delegate vote to be held in Philadelphia on July 25th — nearly every super-delegate interviewed by the media thus far having made crystal clear that they are not bound to vote for either the popular-vote or pledged-delegate leader, but rather the individual the weight of the evidence suggests is the most likely to defeat Donald Trump in November, which at present is Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton. But that was pretty silly, in retrospect. And more importantly it’s really not what “reporting” is — as it’s too easy, I admit, for a blogger like me to forget. Given that every major media outlet is already banking on Clinton getting both every super-delegate who has temporarily endorsed but not yet committed themselves to her plus a large enough stock of the pledged delegates on June 7th to put her over the top — how else to explain Rachel Maddow saying yesterday that Bernie Sanders, who would take the pledged-delegate lead with an unlikely but mathematically possible win (70 percent) of June 7th votes, has “no chance” for the nomination and indeed is “not really in contention” for it — there’s no reason whatsoever for us to wait for the news to happen before reporting it. Waiting for the news to happen is so cringingly Cronkite I’m embarrassed to be even a tangential part of the American media these days. If we can’t report that things have happened when our personal opinion is that they’ve happened or “as good as” happened, I don’t see what the point of having wall-to-wall cable news on fifty different channels is. What else is the First Amendment for, if not the freedom of the press to outpace its own coverage? So, because good reporting can and indeed by all rights should precede the news, without any consequences being visited upon major media for alleged dereliction of their journalistic duties — it’s not like they’ve ever prematurely called a presidential race before, other than 2000, so they should get a mulligan here — there’s absolutely no reason for the citizens of California, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia to vote. Per Mark Murrary and Rachel Maddow, and, as Matthews put it on his television program, “all the numbers people,” Hillary is already the nominee. So let’s dispense with all these arcane DNC rules about what a “super-delegate” is and when and where and how they vote and say what we all know is true: Hillary has clinched the Democratic nomination, and all these upcoming primaries and caucuses should be canceled to save those states’ taxpayers their hard-earned tax dollars. Also, since the super-delegates vote on July 25th but also apparently on June 7th, it seems silly to have a convention in Philadelphia on the 25th of July when we can just declare July 25th to be June 7th and hold the Democratic National Convention in MSNBC’s studios in New York on that date. There’ll be less room for dancing, but equally good catering, I’m told. As Clinton herself has stated to Chris Cuomo on CNN, nothing that anyone voting in the upcoming primaries and caucuses could possibly say or do will change the outcome of the Democratic race, so it’s merely a beauty contest to hold these votes and that kind of thing really shouldn’t happen in America. Only American things should happen in America, like the media being told explicitly by the DNC not to call the election for Hillary Clinton on June 7th and the media ignoring that directive, despite the DNC being the final authority on everything relating to superdelegates. I mean, there’s no point in being a reporter if you can’t also choose to not report the facts, right? If you can trust one thing in this unpredictable election cycle, it’s that nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, could possibly happen in the next two months that would keep Hillary Clinton from being the Democratic nominee. No indictment — of her or anyone close to her — would stop that from happening; no undisclosed medical condition; no cratering poll numbers against her prospective Republican opponent; no historically bad (and worsening) unfavorables; no polling showing that fully 50 percent of her primary opponent’s supporters won’t support her in the general; no sudden disclosure of all her Wall Street transcripts, revealing that much of her campaign platform with respect to Wall Street was a lie; no string of defeats on June 7th, producing a scenario in which Mrs. Clinton would have lost 18 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses, the worst second-half performance of any major-party candidate in a primary election season in U.S. history; no surprise entry into the race by Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren as a unity ticket; no sudden and unexpected news event that changes dramatically the viability of one or many of Clinton’s campaign promises or policy positions; no — and take it from people who sit behind desks in D.C. and New York City — there is nothing anyone could possibly do or that could possibly happen over the next two months that would cause any change whatsoever in how the super-delegates will vote on July 25th. And if you think otherwise you — please don’t take this personally — are a delusional dead-ender. None of which should suggest to anyone that the super-delegate system is a sham intended to guarantee an Establishment candidate is selected no matter what. That’s a pathetic view of the facts and I strongly urge you not to have it at a dinner party. In other news, the Chicago Cubs have won the 2016 World Series."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 24, 2016 16:59:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 21, 2016 22:06:09 GMT -6
from John Tasini's Working Life www.workinglife.org/2015/03/23/tpp-exports-smoke-and-mirrors-or-are-those-lies/by Jonathan Tasini Back in the day when I, reluctantly, took statistics (barely passing, is my recollection), the favorite cliche making the rounds was, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” (as an aside, there is some dispute about whether Mark Twain correctly attributed the saying to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli but whatever). This comes to mind when reading, time after time, the weak arguments for the Trans Pacific Partnership–which perhaps warrants an updated version of the cliche: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and rubbish from the U.S. Trade Representative/White House”. I previously wrote about the Four Pinocchios awarded the president for his fibbing about the wondrous job benefits of the TPP and the ten biggest White House lies about the TPP. In fairness to this president, fibbing on trade deals has a long history: every rancid NAFTA-type so-called “free trade” agreement that gets served up by Republican and Democratic Administrations has to be sold with a hefty pile of lies–or, in the case of NAFTA, Bill Clinton had to actually go out and seduce members of Congress with a variety of promises of goodies he’d deliver to their respective districts. Otherwise, people don’t want to buy the smoldering pile of dung a NAFTA-style deal represents. Today, it’s exports. Oh my god, this is like hitting a softball off a tee (in a bow to the sweet arrival of spring training). Courtesy of Global Trade Watch, we have a sometimes funny litany of the way in which the White House, via the United States Trade Representative Michael Froman, is trying to sell the TPP–with, uh, fibbing on the benefits TPP will bring via increased exports. GTW, in an email: U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman says that the United States has a trade surplus with its 20 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partner countries. This claim is at the center of the administration’s efforts to convince Congress to delegate Fast Track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is modeled on the past FTAs. Yet, if one reviews the U.S. government trade data available to all on the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) website, in fact in 2014 we had a $177.5 billion goods trade deficit with the FTA nations. Typically our services surplus with FTA partners is in the $75-80 billion range. That means we have a large overall trade deficit with our FTA partners. So, how can the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) claim we have a surplus? To make the data support their political message, USTR either cobbles together broad sectors in which we have trade deficits (e.g. what they call “energy”) and simply excludes them, and/or artificially inflates export levels by counting foreign-made goods as U.S. exports.[emphasis added] My favorite: USTR Claim: “If you buy something from Canada for 100 dollars and sell it to Mexico for 200 dollars, you aren’t losing a 100 dollars”[sic]FACT: USTR tries to explain why it counts foreign-made products as “U.S exports,” which is how USTR artificially inflates U.S. export figures and deflates U.S. trade deficits with FTA partners. “Foreign exports” (also known as “re-exports”) are goods made abroad, imported into the United States, and then re-exported again without undergoing any alteration in the United States. (That is the U.S. Census Bureau definition.) USTR’s numbers count as “U.S. exports,” for example, goods manufactured entirely in China that enter the San Diego port and do nothing but sit in a warehouse before being trucked 18 miles south and re-exported to Mexico. In order to get the numbers necessary to support its claim that we have a trade surplus with our FTA partners, USTR counts these as U.S. exports even though the goods were not produced here, nor did they support a single U.S. production job. While USTR is correct that a firm – say, Walmart – does not lose money by landing cases of Canadian grown and processed canola oil at a southern California port, and then shipping it by truck for sale in Mexico at a marked up price – this is unrelated to the fact that these Canadian goods should not be counted as U.S. exports. So, be clear: this is cooking the books. The president and his minions want people to think that manufacturing jobs will increase in any significant way–and increased manufacturing jobs is what these jokers are arguing TPP will bring–because we act, essentially, as a way station for something coming from China on a ship and ending up in Mexico via a truck.This is the strategy used each time–even when the evidence piles up that none of these so-called “Free trade” deals increase exports. Most of the nonsense about the Korean Free Trade Agreement was claptrap, and TPP marketing promises rolled out by this White House are a continuation of the NAFTA-era promises made by the first President Bush and pushed forward enthusiastically by Bill Clinton and Robert Reich. They were false back then and are false now. And in the same way that the lies about NAFTA (I use the word “lies” here because some of the bogus claims were so outlandish that they had to be just plain lies) were exposed by people who were, then, dismissed as “protectionists” who were just afraid to embrace the wondrous future promised by a great global era of trade, so, too, the people who are exposing the nonsense and danger of the TPP are being branded as anti-trade. Except for…reality when the anniversary of the Korean deal rolled around and, opppssss, the promises proved to be bogus in the real world. I mean, really, you do think we’re stupid, don’t you? It’s more than that: it’s pathetically cynical–you have many workers still not being able to find decent work and what you are trying to do is sell them hope by making this shit up? Shame on the president.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 17, 2016 22:49:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 17, 2016 22:20:07 GMT -6
I'm still 'feeling the Bern'. Bernie Sanders closed the pledged delegate gap even further Tuesday, with a big win in Oregon, and a virtual tie in Kentucky. These outcomes will result in Sanders picking up still more delegates than Clinton, making it virtually impossible for her to win the Dem primary with pledged delegates alone, and impossible to win before the Democratic National Convention. Earlier polls were wrong (again), and had predicted big wins for Clinton in both states. www.ibtimes.com/kentucky-oregon-primary-live-updates-election-results-total-delegate-count-still-2370385
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 15, 2016 8:31:50 GMT -6
from Salon.com
The following article from Salon appropriately analyzes Hillary Clinton's weakness as a candidate vs Sanders.
It also critiques some of the 'Sanders-should-drop-out' jackals.
The point is further made that Sanders and Clinton are not similar or in agreement on most issues. To the contrary, they are categorically different.
Clinton advocates Neoliberal, Globalist, job-killing Free Traitor agreements. Sanders rails against free trade, and has voted against ~100% of them
Clinton is a darling of Investment Banks and the Wall Street Cosa Nostra. Her proposed Financial reforms are "better" than Glass Steagal (though nobody knows what they are).
Sanders advocates re-instituing Glass-Steagal. Many people DO know what those regulations are, what they'll do, and what effect they'll have.
Clinton is a pro-War, global interventionist proponent Sanders is an anti-War, anti-interventionist proponent.
Clinton believes Americans should be coerced into funding Corporate Health Insurance profits via direct payment and taxpayer-funded subsidies. (for the record, the Government subsidies go into the pocket of the Insurance Companies, not the patients.)
Sanders believes that Government (Taxpayer) money should go directly into health care, and not be partially siphoned off into Health Insurance Company profits & phony administrative "costs."
I do disagree, however, with the author's characterization of Sanders as an old "socialist." Despite Sanders' own self-labelling as a "Democratic Socialist", he does not meet the definition when questioned on the specifics. In Sanders' own words, he states "I do not believe in Government ownership of the means-of-production." Since Government ownership of the means-of-production is the foundation of socialism, Sanders does not meet the criteria for being a "socialist." www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clintons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton/This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton Sat, May 14, 2016 by David Niose "No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support. Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate. Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day. Maybe. But don’t be too sure. Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar? Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed. A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.” Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them. Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system. Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views. Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless. Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination. The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 13, 2016 23:26:47 GMT -6
from Politico.com www.politico.com/story/2016/05/bernie-sanders-dnc-rules-committee-222978Now it’s the Democratic convention that’s promising to get messy. Sanders: We're 'fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party'By Nick Gass "After piling up millions of votes and wins in 19 states, Bernie Sanders and his supporters are beginning to lay out their expectations for the Democratic National Convention — and they’re expressing deep frustration with what they see as a wall of party resistance. The most recent flare-up occurred last week, when Sanders publicly released a letter to Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accusing her of stacking the deck against him on the convention's standing committees. “[W]e are prepared to mobilize our delegates to force as many votes as necessary to amend the platform and rules on the floor of the convention," wrote Sanders, several days after a tense phone conversation with the chairwoman. According to a Sanders official with knowledge of the call, the senator demanded more representation on the committees but Wasserman Schultz would only assure him that he would have representation. A DNC spokesman declined to characterize the conversation and would only confirm that it took place. For a party that's anxious to unite all its factions behind likely nominee Hillary Clinton after a long slog of a primary, it was an inauspicious — and worrisome — start. "I'm surprised and a little bit shocked that the numbers are so few given the nature of the base in the coming decade. This is not necessary," said Madison Mayor Paul Soglin, a Sanders supporter. "In other words, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, it is not necessary to solidify her election by fashioning a list that's so restrictive." Both the Hillary Clinton and Sanders campaigns had submitted names for consideration on the convention's standing committees, but in January when Wasserman Schultz handed down her final list of 75 nominations — all of whom were approved by the DNC's Executive Committee — nearly all of Sanders' choices had been disregarded. The Vermont senator had provided the DNC with 45 names — a diverse list that included Sanders supporters ranging from Congressmen Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison to former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, a leading progressive populist. Wasserman Schultz picked just 3 of the 45. Months of negotiations with the DNC failed to add any additional Sanders supporters on the standing committees, leading Sanders to go public with his grievance last week. To the Sanders camp, Wasserman Schultz’s selections for committee chairmen rubbed salt in the wound. Among the committee co-chairs she named were two sharp-elbowed Clinton partisans known for their harsh criticism of the Vermont To the Sanders camp, Wasserman Schultz’s selections for committee chairmen rubbed salt in the wound. Among the committee co-chairs she named were two sharp-elbowed Clinton partisans known for their harsh criticism of the Vermont senator: Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. “It's sort of like coded language, dog-whistle politics. You only hear the language if it's directed at you,” said Maine state Rep. Diane Russell, a Sanders supporter who pushed an amendment at the Maine Democratic Party convention Saturday that would make delegates and super delegates align their support in proportion to the state's caucus results. “I think when you saw when the committees were laid out there was no real way to say the DNC was actively shutting out this group of people, supporting this other candidate until you really saw the construction of the committees and I think that brought it to life.” The tensions between the DNC and the Sanders campaign are long running, ranging from disputes over debates to a bitter feud was over the committee's decision to revoke the Sanders campaign's access to its voter data file following after a data breach. Last week, the Sanders campaign accused the DNC of having an inappropriate fundraising agreement with the Clinton campaign..."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 13, 2016 22:59:34 GMT -6
from Yahoo.com/finance www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hillary-clinton-could-end-up-as-wall-street-s-favored-candidate-170126436.htmlIf Bernie Sanders ever goes away, Wall Street will have to gauge which of the 2 remaining presidential candidates is likely to be friendlier to the financial industry. The surprise answer may be Hillary Clinton.As a Democrat,...she has in fact moved leftward on some economic policies.... But Clinton has spelled out fairly modest financial reforms she would seek as president, whereas Sanders would carve up the big banks, as everybody knows. And Republican Donald Trump has rattled financiers with jarring proposals such as sharp new tariffs on imports and a partial default on U.S. debt, while also expressing animosity toward hedge funds for the relatively low taxes they pay. Those views unnerve investors, which could make Clinton the devil Wall Street knows and prefers. “As a Wall Street guy, I’m quite comfortable with her approach toward Wall Street,” Steve Rattner, chairman of Willett Advisors, says in the video above. “She would be good in the sense that she would take a more thoughtful approach [than Trump].” Rattner, who helped run the Obama administration's auto bailout in 2009, is a Democrat who supports Clinton, but many other financiers seem to agree with him. Clinton has snagged 70% of the money donated by employees of the nation’s six biggest banks, for instance, and the finance industry has given more than $26 million to Clinton’s main super PAC, Priorities USA Action –more than any other industry. Sanders and other Clinton critics charge that the former senator and Secretary of State is too close to Wall Street firms, which paid her nearly $4 million for speeches between 2013 and 2015. And she has long enjoyed the support of big Wall Street donors such as George Soros, David E. Shaw and James Simons. Clinton’s major Wall Street proposals include a couple of new fees on financial transactions, to raise government revenue, more oversight of “shadow banks” such as hedge funds and private-equity firms, and the end of the “carried interest” tax provision, which primarily benefits wealthy investment managers. Wall Street wouldn’t like any of that, but Clinton’s plan would basically leave the status quo in place, and she’d have to fight opposition in Congress to pass the new rules she favors. So it's possible nothing would change under a Clinton presidency."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 13, 2016 15:02:14 GMT -6
The latest tally on pledged Democratic primary delegates from FiveThirtyEight is as follows:
As of May 11th
Clinton: 1,715 pledged delegates won Sanders: 1,439 pledged delegates won
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 10, 2016 23:31:46 GMT -6
www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-wins-west-virginia-democratic-primary-n571356Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has won the West Virginia Democratic primary, NBC News projects, a victory that will add yet more fuel to his argument that he should remain in the race... The win comes one week after Sanders prevailed in Indiana's Democratic primary and two weeks after Clinton dominated a series of contests in the northeastern United States. Democrats also voted on Tuesday in a presidential "beauty contest" in Nebraska, although the delegates from that state were all previously assigned during a March 5 caucus. In that contest, Sanders won 15 pledged delegates, compared to 10 for Clinton. "With this outcome, we now have won primaries and caucuses in 19 states," Sanders said in a statement after the results were in. "We are in this campaign to win the Democratic nomination and we're going to stay in the race until the last vote is cast." At a rally in Salem, Ore., later, Sanders emphasized that he believes he has a better chance to beat Trump in November than Clinton. "It is not only in national polls where we defeat Donald Trump by bigger numbers than Secretary Clinton, it is state poll after state poll after state poll," Sanders told the cheering crowd.... "Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump, whose last remaining competitors exited the race after Trump's victory in Indiana last week, also won in West Virginia on Tuesday, easily. Trump also rolled to victory in Nebraska, where 36 delegates are at stake. Sanders, long viewed as the front runner to win in the Mountain State, benefited from Clinton's missteps when speaking about the coal industry in mining-heavy West Virginia. While Clinton has proposed programs to help coal workers laid off due to a changing energy industry, she was haunted by her statement during a CNN town hall in March that "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 7, 2016 11:23:49 GMT -6
Though pledged delegate totals vary somewhat between different news sources, a rough estimate indicates Clinton would need to win over 3/4 of the remaining delegates to sew up the nomination prior to the convention.
Clinton would need to win approximately 677 of the remaining pledge-able delegates of approximately 878.
A rough estimate goes something like this. Clinton has 1,706 pledged delegates Sanders has 1,469. There are 712 non-pledge-able Super Delegates.
Total delegates, both pledge-able & Super Delegates = 4765. 4,765 - 712 super delegates = 4,053 pledge-able delegates.
4,053 - 1,706 - 1469 = 878 remaining pledge-able delegates.
The total needed to win is 2,383
2,383 - 1,706 pledged Clinton delegates = 677 delegates still needed
878 - 677 = 201 delegates
If Sanders wins jut 202 delegates of the remaining 878, he prevents Clinton from winning before the convention.
Again, Clinton has virtually NO chance of winning enough pledged delegates before the convention.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 7, 2016 10:51:33 GMT -6
www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-nets-31-delegates-washington-still-hard-road-142239569--election.htmlBernie Sanders closed the gap further with Clinton, after picking up an additional 49 delegates from Washington state. Sanders had already trounced Clinton in the March caucus, but the full delegate allotment was not allocated until after the Washington state convention. With the completion of the convention, Sanders was awarded an additional 49 delegates. What this really does, despite the media hype, is make it even harder for Clinton to get enough pledged delegates to win the primary before the Democratic Convention. And, once again, the Super Delegates do NOT count until at least the 1st vote at the convention.It is now nearly impossible for Clinton to win the Democratic nomination on pledged delegates alone. As of May 4th, Sanders had 1,417 delegates projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/The addition of 49 delegates puts Sanders at 1,466 Delegates (1,417 + 49). He also picked up 3 delegates in Guam, putting his total at 1,469 delegates.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 7, 2016 10:45:35 GMT -6
|
|