Merry Christmas to Bill O'Reilly

To contact us Click HERE
Today is the 5th consecutive Christmas I've celebrated since becoming unemployed after being laid off in October 2008, and the 3rd consecutive Christmas I've celebrated with no income at all since my unemployment benefits expired in June 2010.

Since then, I've lived on the generosity of another person for a spare room and food stamps from the government and Bill O'Reilly.

I no longer own a car, it was repo-ed. I'm living in the suburbs of Las
Vegas, one mile away from the nearest bus stop. But even if I had a car, I still couldn't go anywhere, because I can no longer pay for auto insurance or gas. I can't even pay for a bus ticket --- I'm broke.

I applied for Social Security disability in January 2011, but I was eventually denied benefits at a hearing in September of 2012 -- so now I'm waiting for an Appeal to Counsel for a government hand out entitlement.

I imagine people like Bill O'Reilly, safe and snug (and smug), and secure in a big warm 15-room house with a 10-foot tall Christmas tree with tons of presents underneath it, while nearby a fire roars in the fireplace as it's peacefully snowing outside his living-room windows.

I also imagine Bill O'Reilly has Christmas Day off (with pay) from Fox News. But people earning minimum wage don't usually get the holiday off with pay...that would be a union entitlement.

But for millions of Americans, today Christmas is just like any other day of the year, worrying about how to pay the rent, buy food, and put off paying their enormous heating bill. I for one can say, that if I had a Social Security "entitlement" check, my Christmas would certainly be much more merrier.

The first definition of an "entitlement", as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract."

Their third definition of entitlement is "a belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges."

The first definition refers to people like myself, those who worked for 35 years paying Social Security taxes on 100% of their income before eventually becoming disabled and were no longer able to financially support themselves. They had an expectation that, just like with an insurance policy, they would be entitled to a disability income.

The third definition of entitlement refers to people like Bill O'Reilly, who makes millions of dollars every year, lives in a mansion on the beach, and threatens to quit their jobs if their taxes go up a measly 3% to help pay down our national debt.

These people, those who claim to be American patriots, would rather see other people's disability checks cancelled, while our government builds more war ships, rather than make any personal sacrifices themselves...a meager sacrifice that would in no way alter their standard-of-living.

It is people like O'Reilly who, just because of their own personal success, feel that it is they who are entitled to make judgments affecting other people's lives -- such as influencing government policy and public opinion --- with his daily diatribes, spouting lies that usually provokes decisions that affect people like myself in the most negative of ways.

Bill O'Reilly besmirched the 99ers, the poor, the working poor, single moms, single dads, the disabled, the elderly, war vets, the jobless, the mentally ill, and any other American that's had to rely on some form of public assistance.

Mitt Romney called them the "47%", and that's why he lost the election.

If Bill O'Reilly's huge mansion on the beach in Manhasset, New York had burned down, and his insurance company paid him off to rebuild it (and everyone else's insurance rates went up), could we accuse O'Reilly of getting "free stuff"? Did he feel entitled to a special privilege, or did he have a reasonable expectation that he'd be compensated because he had "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract."

Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment checks are not government hand-outs to lazy people who feel that they are entitled to free stuff (And especially at Bill O'Reilly's own personal expense).

The reason why 46 million Americans rely on food stamps today is because Bill O'Reilly's much beloved corporations refuse to pay their workers a real living wage. Today the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour. I earned that as a high-school drop-out 40 years ago in 1973. Hey O'Reilly, didn't you know? Most so-called "entitlements" are really "wage subsidies".

Bill O'Reilly is not concerned about the working poor, but he is very concerned about his stock prices. But millions of Americans are more concerned about paying for rent, heat, and food....stuff that Bill O'Reilly takes for granted these days.

Bill O'Reilly, his colleagues at Fox News, his Republican henchmen, his Tea Party thugs, and all the other conservative ideologues, are more concerned about themselves rather than this country as a whole. The national debt wasn't such a huge concern to them during the entire time George W. Bush was in office. But now they are using fear to say our children and grand-children are at risk to a national disaster if we don't get entitlement spending under control. (Read my post: Sons & Daughters of the Greatest Generation Struggle)

All of a sudden, the day after Obama was elected, they're saying that somebody's disability check is going to break the government's piggy bank; and Bill O'Reilly fears that someone like me will make America more like Greece. But hey...let's go back in to Iraq you say!!!

Meanwhile, people like Bill O'Reilly believe that they are entitled to make millions of dollars every year, and they believe that they are entitled to live in a mammoth beach-front mansion in a wealthy Long Island neighborhood. And they also believe they are entitled to call people like me lazy; and they believe they are entitled to pay a lower federal income tax rate on their "investment income" than somebody else does who breaks their back doing manual labor all their lives, or those who have to pay those same taxes on their unemployment checks.

When I hear people like Bill O'Reilly whine about quitting their jobs if their taxes go up, just a little, it reminds me of a rich spoiled child who believes that they are entitled to everything.



In reality, Bill O'Reilly is really an uber-rich con artist who pimps for large corporations. He's not a patriot and he's not lookin' out for you, he's only lookin' out for himself. Every night he pimps his books.

When I hear Bill O'Reilly disparage the working poor*, the abject poor (like myself), the elderly, the disabled, and our military veterans on his Fox News cable show (because they have to rely on government entitlements), I hope Bill O'Reilly goes to church today (on the day of the birth of the baby Jesus) and prays for those who don't have it nearly as good as he does.

* 50% of all American workers earn less than $26,965 a year. (Source: Social Security Administration) Could Bill O'Reilly live on that today without any government entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare?

And what about the millions of other Americans who don't work at all, don't file a W-4 form with an employer, are no longer obligated to pay any payroll taxes (FICA), and rely SOLELY on their government checks?

Last year, because my total income was ZERO, I wasn't even required to file a federal income tax return for the first time in 40 years!

I also hope that Bill O'Reilly thanks the good Lord that he doesn't need his Social Security checks that he is also currently entitled to, but that others desperately need just to survive on.

Merry Christmas to the ultra-wealthy people "job creators" like Bill O'Reilly, those who ruthlessly advocates for lower taxes for the rich, while at the same time, demanding huge cuts to entitlements for the poor.

Go ahead, send another good-paying job to China so as to fatten up Bill O'Reilly's stock portfolio! Go ahead, give the CEO another million dollars a year in his salary for doing it...he needs it!

I hope O'Reilly remembers to pray for those millions of other Americans who can't afford to celebrate this most joyful day of the year in the same fashion (and with the same peace of mind) that he can.

This year I asked Santa Claus for razor blades, tooth paste, soap, and socks...because food stamps (my government entitlement) doesn't cover non-food items.

And how did I spend my Christmas Day? In my room, blogging about Bill O'Reilly, stranded in the suburbs. I might as well be in the middle of a corn field. Pathetic.

Will I ever have "a life" again?

But people like Bill O'Reilly would most likely just say, "Bah humbug!"




Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Warren Buffett Wasn't Joking, We're Being Exterminated

To contact us Click HERE

Ever since the mid-70's, when America's middle-class had peaked, our"captains of industry" began suppressing wages until they remainedstagnant, forcing millions of American workers to increasing rely on governmententitlements --- while at the same time, also attempting to completely eliminategovernment entitlements.

Six years ago when Warren Buffettsaid: “There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war --- andwe’re winning," he wasn't exaggerating. The middle-class in America is literally being annihilated.

Earlier this year history was made at Sotheby’s when Edvard Munch’s iconic masterpiece The Scream sold for $119.9 million in New York, marking a new world record for any work of art sold at an auction.(See my post: The "SWAG" Economy of the 1% ) Leon David Black, an American businessman and money manager that specializes in leveraged buyouts, bought the painting on May 2, 2012. Mister Black founded the private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

The painting reminds me of a middle-aged American worker witnessing the destructionof the middle-class before his very eyes.

The statistics that you are about to read below prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out ofexistence in America.

From Business Insider: "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay anAmerican worker ten times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.

What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about 6 unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.

Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.

But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.

The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult nearly impossible to rebuild.

Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they can't afford to contribute anything to retirement savings.
• 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households only held about 7% of total liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40% of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• For the first time in U.S. history, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go higher.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States were living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• The top 10% of Americans now earn around 50% of our national income.

The 9 Articles Below Also Makes Warren Buffett's Case (The headlines alone tell the whole story)

Corporate Profits Hit Record High --- Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc 

The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/ 

CEO's in the S&P 500 Now Average $13 Million a Year, Year after Year
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99 

Capital Gains Taxes for Rich CEOs at Historical Lows
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2011/11/historical-tax-rates-on-rich-1862-to.html 

50% of all American workers earn less than $26,965 a year.
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011 

Why the Rich Live Longer
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0607/113_print.html 

Every Year $1 Trillion Not Taxed on the Rich for Social Security or Medicare
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/05/1-trillion-in-personal-income-not-taxed.html 

Murder, Greed and Betrayal of the Rich and Famous
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/03/murder-and-betrayal-of-rich-and-famous.html 

Every Year Billions of Dollars Lost to Tax Evasion
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/04/385-billion-lost-to-tax-evasion.html 

*** Google "Bank fraud", "libor rate fixing scandal", "robo-signing mortgage foreclosures" (etc.) to complete this list.

Besides busting labor unions to suppress wages, the Republicans also want to suppress the vote to gainpermanent political power. That way the Republicans can totally eliminate unemployment benefits, Social Security and Medicare. The GOP and the rich don't just want to conquer us (the enemy) in this "class war" that they've been waging, they want to completely annihilate us!

And just like Warren Buffett had said, they're winning. And there's not a thingyou and I can do about it. If ignorant Republican voters remain ignorant, themiddle-class is doomed forever.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

If your taxes go up next year, you'd be lucky.

To contact us Click HERE

Think about this: There are more people in America today with NO INCOME AT ALL than there werenet new jobs created since October of 2009 when the unemployment rate peaked at 10.2%.

Sure, since the Great Recession many of the older workers opted out foran early Social Security retirement at age 62 if they had to --- and single moms with children might havequalified for a meager welfare check. And many people even found low-paying temp jobs, only to be laid off again (andqualifying for less in an unemployment check).

And many people (if they were VERY lucky) after perusing a Social Security disabilityclaim, finally were approved after suffering two or more years of worry and amountain of paperwork.

But millions of others have already exhausted all their unemployment benefits over two years ago and never qualified for anyother type of government assistance, and so had NO INCOME AT ALL (I am butone).

So what if people's payroll (and/or federal income) taxes go back to where they once were. Big deal. At least they have an incomeand a tax to pay. What about those who are unemployed, but yet are still obligated to pay federal income taxes on theirunemployment checks?

Also, there's been a lot of talk in the media lately regarding the "fiscalcliff" and how 2 million people might have their extended UI benefits paid retroactively ---bla, bla, bla....

Millions of Americans have already been there, done that.

Exactly two years ago in 2010 the Republicans in Congress bickered overextending the Bush tax cuts (especially for the rich) in exchange for extending unemployment benefitsand food stamps for the poor. Remember that?

That was the time when President Obama once said he didn't want to raise taxes on ANYBODY because of a "bad economy". (Meaning,"bad" for working and jobless people, but not "bad" for big corporations and banks, those who made recordprofits and whose CEOs made record salaries.)

But what about today, and the 7 million+ long-term unemployed people who have already exhausted all 99 weeks of theirunemployment benefits and are still unemployed (and have been so for a very longtime) and have tried living with no income at all?

What about those who couldn't find another job, especially if they're "50-something" -- those who are too old to hire and too young toretire?

What about them, and what about the "99ers"? Why is the media harping about those who are already blessed with jobs and anincome, who might see their taxes go up, just a little. Bid deal. People like me WISH they could pay taxes!

The "99ers" have been literally swept under the rug. I've been out of work since 2008 and I can't collect a REDUCED Social Securitypayment until I'm 62 years old...that's 5 more years from now! And I'm quite sure there are many others in the same boatas I am.

God bless him, Ed Schultz, who used to mention the "99ers" on his TV show on MSNBC, but not lately.

The government's reported unemployment rate (the U-3 rate) was at 10.2% in October of 2009 when over 15 million Americans wereunemployed. At least 8 million of them were laid off between 2007 to 2009 during the Great Recession.

Today the government says the unemployment rate is only 7.7% with 12 million unemployed; and that millions more just simplydisappeared and "dropped out of the labor force". The government claims they stopped looking for work, as though, if they really were looking forthat mystery job, they could actually find one.

NOTE: We had 12 million people consistently unemployed for a very long time, because the labor force's "participation rate" is reduced withall those "discouraged workers" who stopped looking for work. But then, how does the unemployment rate drop if 12 million is a greaterpercentage of the overall shrunken work force? I still don't understand the government's math.

Also, since the unemployment rate peaked:

• How many NET new jobs were created since October 2009?
• How may more layoffs and out-sourced jobs were there since October of 2009?
• How many of those 8 million laid-off Americans found another job since October 2009?
• How many young people who graduated from high school and college found a job since October of 2009?
• How many "guest-workers" from foreign countries were granted jobs here since October 2009?

My unemployment benefits expired in June of 2010 when I was 54 years old. Now in December of 2012 I'm 57 years old and living onfood stamps ---- and only food stamps. If it weren't for food stamps I'd be dead, but the Republicans want to cut food stampstoo!

I guess the Republicans want me dead, because more jobs will go to Asia and moreforeign "guest workers" will come here to work in America.

And all the NEW jobs, meaning, more low-paying jobs at places like Wal-Mart andMcDonalds, will go to young college graduates --- and not to long-term unemployed old people with only a high school education (or less). They were theones who used to get those jobs, them and the teenagers.

I can only hope that within the next 5 years the Republicans don't have their way and completely eliminate Social Security too --- or won't raise the eligibility age to 70. If that happened, I'd be more screwed than I already am.

If your payroll taxes and/or federal income taxes go up (just a little) next year, big deal.I can't pay taxes. I didn't have to file a federal income tax return for thefirst time in 40 years.

If your taxes go up a little next year, count yourself one of the lucky onesbecause you'll have an income and can pay taxes. Many can't, regardlessof whether they wanted to or not.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Upcoming Documentary on America's Longest War: The War on Drugs, "A Holocaust in Slow Motion"

To contact us Click HERE
 
The soon-to-be-released documentary "The House I Live In" is an inside look at America's longest war, The War on Drugs, from executive producers Danny Glover, John Legend, Russell Simons. From the film's website:

"Filmed in more than twenty states, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN tells the stories of individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the narcotics officer, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s criminal justice system, revealing the profound human rights implications of U.S. drug policy."
 
Here are some quotes from the trailer above: 

"The Drug War is a holocaust in slow motion." 

"The Drug War is a war on all Americans." 

"You have to understand that the War on Drugs has never been about drugs."

From a review by US News:

Two years after he was elected president in 1969, Richard Nixon first used the phrase "war on drugs," in a tough speech on drug policy. Four decades and more than 40 million drug-related crimes later, the war on drugs is still simmering.

And now, just months before the presidential election, a new documentary "The House I Live In" explores the ways in which that war could be rethought. The film also implicates President Barack Obama, who promised a compassionate drug policy while running for president but requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement in 2013—the highest yearly total ever.

A reviewer from The Boston Globe says "I'd hate to imply that it's your civic duty to see "The House I Live In" but guess what - it is."   

The movie will be in theaters on October 5.  

Fire: Environmentalist's Way to Thin the Forests

To contact us Click HERE
From Terry Anderson's editorial in today's WSJ "Environmental Protection Up in Smoke": 

Environmental laws since the 1970s require public input into federal land-use decisions including logging on national forests. This has led to lawsuits challenging efforts by the U.S. Forest Service to prevent forest fires by thinning out trees (most of which are dead or diseased) and brush by machines and carefully controlled burns. This dead wood is the fuel that feeds catastrophic wildfires. 

Removing the fuel reduces the likelihood of fires, and if fires do break out, makes them easier to fight. Meanwhile, the suppression of fires costs the federal government nearly $2.5 billion annually. 

A fuels-management project to log and thin 4,800 acres in the Bozeman, Mont., watershed exemplifies the problem. This project has been held up since 2010 on grounds that the environmental-impact assessment did not adequately protect the habitat of the Canadian lynx and the grizzly bear, both listed as threatened species. 

Now a wildfire threatens the watershed, burning over 10,000 acres and costing more than $2 million to fight. As one firefighter put it, "fire is the environmentalist's way of thinning the forests."

Merry Christmas to Bill O'Reilly

To contact us Click HERE
Today is the 5th consecutive Christmas I've celebrated since becoming unemployed after being laid off in October 2008, and the 3rd consecutive Christmas I've celebrated with no income at all since my unemployment benefits expired in June 2010.

Since then, I've lived on the generosity of another person for a spare room and food stamps from the government and Bill O'Reilly.

I no longer own a car, it was repo-ed. I'm living in the suburbs of Las
Vegas, one mile away from the nearest bus stop. But even if I had a car, I still couldn't go anywhere, because I can no longer pay for auto insurance or gas. I can't even pay for a bus ticket --- I'm broke.

I applied for Social Security disability in January 2011, but I was eventually denied benefits at a hearing in September of 2012 -- so now I'm waiting for an Appeal to Counsel for a government hand out entitlement.

I imagine people like Bill O'Reilly, safe and snug (and smug), and secure in a big warm 15-room house with a 10-foot tall Christmas tree with tons of presents underneath it, while nearby a fire roars in the fireplace as it's peacefully snowing outside his living-room windows.

I also imagine Bill O'Reilly has Christmas Day off (with pay) from Fox News. But people earning minimum wage don't usually get the holiday off with pay...that would be a union entitlement.

But for millions of Americans, today Christmas is just like any other day of the year, worrying about how to pay the rent, buy food, and put off paying their enormous heating bill. I for one can say, that if I had a Social Security "entitlement" check, my Christmas would certainly be much more merrier.

The first definition of an "entitlement", as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract."

Their third definition of entitlement is "a belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges."

The first definition refers to people like myself, those who worked for 35 years paying Social Security taxes on 100% of their income before eventually becoming disabled and were no longer able to financially support themselves. They had an expectation that, just like with an insurance policy, they would be entitled to a disability income.

The third definition of entitlement refers to people like Bill O'Reilly, who makes millions of dollars every year, lives in a mansion on the beach, and threatens to quit their jobs if their taxes go up a measly 3% to help pay down our national debt.

These people, those who claim to be American patriots, would rather see other people's disability checks cancelled, while our government builds more war ships, rather than make any personal sacrifices themselves...a meager sacrifice that would in no way alter their standard-of-living.

It is people like O'Reilly who, just because of their own personal success, feel that it is they who are entitled to make judgments affecting other people's lives -- such as influencing government policy and public opinion --- with his daily diatribes, spouting lies that usually provokes decisions that affect people like myself in the most negative of ways.

Bill O'Reilly besmirched the 99ers, the poor, the working poor, single moms, single dads, the disabled, the elderly, war vets, the jobless, the mentally ill, and any other American that's had to rely on some form of public assistance.

Mitt Romney called them the "47%", and that's why he lost the election.

If Bill O'Reilly's huge mansion on the beach in Manhasset, New York had burned down, and his insurance company paid him off to rebuild it (and everyone else's insurance rates went up), could we accuse O'Reilly of getting "free stuff"? Did he feel entitled to a special privilege, or did he have a reasonable expectation that he'd be compensated because he had "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract."

Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment checks are not government hand-outs to lazy people who feel that they are entitled to free stuff (And especially at Bill O'Reilly's own personal expense).

The reason why 46 million Americans rely on food stamps today is because Bill O'Reilly's much beloved corporations refuse to pay their workers a real living wage. Today the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour. I earned that as a high-school drop-out 40 years ago in 1973. Hey O'Reilly, didn't you know? Most so-called "entitlements" are really "wage subsidies".

Bill O'Reilly is not concerned about the working poor, but he is very concerned about his stock prices. But millions of Americans are more concerned about paying for rent, heat, and food....stuff that Bill O'Reilly takes for granted these days.

Bill O'Reilly, his colleagues at Fox News, his Republican henchmen, his Tea Party thugs, and all the other conservative ideologues, are more concerned about themselves rather than this country as a whole. The national debt wasn't such a huge concern to them during the entire time George W. Bush was in office. But now they are using fear to say our children and grand-children are at risk to a national disaster if we don't get entitlement spending under control. (Read my post: Sons & Daughters of the Greatest Generation Struggle)

All of a sudden, the day after Obama was elected, they're saying that somebody's disability check is going to break the government's piggy bank; and Bill O'Reilly fears that someone like me will make America more like Greece. But hey...let's go back in to Iraq you say!!!

Meanwhile, people like Bill O'Reilly believe that they are entitled to make millions of dollars every year, and they believe that they are entitled to live in a mammoth beach-front mansion in a wealthy Long Island neighborhood. And they also believe they are entitled to call people like me lazy; and they believe they are entitled to pay a lower federal income tax rate on their "investment income" than somebody else does who breaks their back doing manual labor all their lives, or those who have to pay those same taxes on their unemployment checks.

When I hear people like Bill O'Reilly whine about quitting their jobs if their taxes go up, just a little, it reminds me of a rich spoiled child who believes that they are entitled to everything.



In reality, Bill O'Reilly is really an uber-rich con artist who pimps for large corporations. He's not a patriot and he's not lookin' out for you, he's only lookin' out for himself. Every night he pimps his books.

When I hear Bill O'Reilly disparage the working poor*, the abject poor (like myself), the elderly, the disabled, and our military veterans on his Fox News cable show (because they have to rely on government entitlements), I hope Bill O'Reilly goes to church today (on the day of the birth of the baby Jesus) and prays for those who don't have it nearly as good as he does.

* 50% of all American workers earn less than $26,965 a year. (Source: Social Security Administration) Could Bill O'Reilly live on that today without any government entitlements such as Social Security or Medicare?

And what about the millions of other Americans who don't work at all, don't file a W-4 form with an employer, are no longer obligated to pay any payroll taxes (FICA), and rely SOLELY on their government checks?

Last year, because my total income was ZERO, I wasn't even required to file a federal income tax return for the first time in 40 years!

I also hope that Bill O'Reilly thanks the good Lord that he doesn't need his Social Security checks that he is also currently entitled to, but that others desperately need just to survive on.

Merry Christmas to the ultra-wealthy people "job creators" like Bill O'Reilly, those who ruthlessly advocates for lower taxes for the rich, while at the same time, demanding huge cuts to entitlements for the poor.

Go ahead, send another good-paying job to China so as to fatten up Bill O'Reilly's stock portfolio! Go ahead, give the CEO another million dollars a year in his salary for doing it...he needs it!

I hope O'Reilly remembers to pray for those millions of other Americans who can't afford to celebrate this most joyful day of the year in the same fashion (and with the same peace of mind) that he can.

This year I asked Santa Claus for razor blades, tooth paste, soap, and socks...because food stamps (my government entitlement) doesn't cover non-food items.

And how did I spend my Christmas Day? In my room, blogging about Bill O'Reilly, stranded in the suburbs. I might as well be in the middle of a corn field. Pathetic.

Will I ever have "a life" again?

But people like Bill O'Reilly would most likely just say, "Bah humbug!"




Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Warren Buffett Wasn't Joking, We're Being Exterminated

To contact us Click HERE

Ever since the mid-70's, when America's middle-class had peaked, our"captains of industry" began suppressing wages until they remainedstagnant, forcing millions of American workers to increasing rely on governmententitlements --- while at the same time, also attempting to completely eliminategovernment entitlements.

Six years ago when Warren Buffettsaid: “There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war --- andwe’re winning," he wasn't exaggerating. The middle-class in America is literally being annihilated.

Earlier this year history was made at Sotheby’s when Edvard Munch’s iconic masterpiece The Scream sold for $119.9 million in New York, marking a new world record for any work of art sold at an auction.(See my post: The "SWAG" Economy of the 1% ) Leon David Black, an American businessman and money manager that specializes in leveraged buyouts, bought the painting on May 2, 2012. Mister Black founded the private equity firm Apollo Global Management.

The painting reminds me of a middle-aged American worker witnessing the destructionof the middle-class before his very eyes.

The statistics that you are about to read below prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out ofexistence in America.

From Business Insider: "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay anAmerican worker ten times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.

What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about 6 unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.

Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.

But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.

The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult nearly impossible to rebuild.

Statistics That Prove The Middle Class Is Being Systematically Wiped Out Of Existence In America

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they can't afford to contribute anything to retirement savings.
• 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households only held about 7% of total liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40% of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• For the first time in U.S. history, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go higher.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States were living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• The top 10% of Americans now earn around 50% of our national income.

The 9 Articles Below Also Makes Warren Buffett's Case (The headlines alone tell the whole story)

Corporate Profits Hit Record High --- Worker Wages Hit Record Low
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/?mobile=nc 

The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/ 

CEO's in the S&P 500 Now Average $13 Million a Year, Year after Year
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99 

Capital Gains Taxes for Rich CEOs at Historical Lows
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2011/11/historical-tax-rates-on-rich-1862-to.html 

50% of all American workers earn less than $26,965 a year.
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2011 

Why the Rich Live Longer
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0607/113_print.html 

Every Year $1 Trillion Not Taxed on the Rich for Social Security or Medicare
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/05/1-trillion-in-personal-income-not-taxed.html 

Murder, Greed and Betrayal of the Rich and Famous
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/03/murder-and-betrayal-of-rich-and-famous.html 

Every Year Billions of Dollars Lost to Tax Evasion
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/04/385-billion-lost-to-tax-evasion.html 

*** Google "Bank fraud", "libor rate fixing scandal", "robo-signing mortgage foreclosures" (etc.) to complete this list.

Besides busting labor unions to suppress wages, the Republicans also want to suppress the vote to gainpermanent political power. That way the Republicans can totally eliminate unemployment benefits, Social Security and Medicare. The GOP and the rich don't just want to conquer us (the enemy) in this "class war" that they've been waging, they want to completely annihilate us!

And just like Warren Buffett had said, they're winning. And there's not a thingyou and I can do about it. If ignorant Republican voters remain ignorant, themiddle-class is doomed forever.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Upcoming Documentary on America's Longest War: The War on Drugs, "A Holocaust in Slow Motion"

To contact us Click HERE
 
The soon-to-be-released documentary "The House I Live In" is an inside look at America's longest war, The War on Drugs, from executive producers Danny Glover, John Legend, Russell Simons. From the film's website:

"Filmed in more than twenty states, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN tells the stories of individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the narcotics officer, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s criminal justice system, revealing the profound human rights implications of U.S. drug policy."
 
Here are some quotes from the trailer above: 

"The Drug War is a holocaust in slow motion." 

"The Drug War is a war on all Americans." 

"You have to understand that the War on Drugs has never been about drugs."

From a review by US News:

Two years after he was elected president in 1969, Richard Nixon first used the phrase "war on drugs," in a tough speech on drug policy. Four decades and more than 40 million drug-related crimes later, the war on drugs is still simmering.

And now, just months before the presidential election, a new documentary "The House I Live In" explores the ways in which that war could be rethought. The film also implicates President Barack Obama, who promised a compassionate drug policy while running for president but requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement in 2013—the highest yearly total ever.

A reviewer from The Boston Globe says "I'd hate to imply that it's your civic duty to see "The House I Live In" but guess what - it is."   

The movie will be in theaters on October 5.  

Fire: Environmentalist's Way to Thin the Forests

To contact us Click HERE
From Terry Anderson's editorial in today's WSJ "Environmental Protection Up in Smoke": 

Environmental laws since the 1970s require public input into federal land-use decisions including logging on national forests. This has led to lawsuits challenging efforts by the U.S. Forest Service to prevent forest fires by thinning out trees (most of which are dead or diseased) and brush by machines and carefully controlled burns. This dead wood is the fuel that feeds catastrophic wildfires. 

Removing the fuel reduces the likelihood of fires, and if fires do break out, makes them easier to fight. Meanwhile, the suppression of fires costs the federal government nearly $2.5 billion annually. 

A fuels-management project to log and thin 4,800 acres in the Bozeman, Mont., watershed exemplifies the problem. This project has been held up since 2010 on grounds that the environmental-impact assessment did not adequately protect the habitat of the Canadian lynx and the grizzly bear, both listed as threatened species. 

Now a wildfire threatens the watershed, burning over 10,000 acres and costing more than $2 million to fight. As one firefighter put it, "fire is the environmentalist's way of thinning the forests."

50 and Unemployed: A Rock and a Hard Place

To contact us Click HERE

The GOP proclaims to be the experts at capitalism andaccuses the Democrats of Socialism. But the GOP must not know beans about“supply-side economics” because they’re still preaching"trickle-down".When people have extra money in their pocket and they spendit on stuff, then the "job creators" hire more people to accommodatethe increase in "demand".But when these supposed “job creators” ship jobs to Chinafor cheaper labor, or have one employee do the work of two ("increasingworker productivity"), or instead, automate or hire robots to do the workof humans, then it means that less people are working --- and so therefore,they don't have extra money in their pockets to spend.That sounds like perfect common sense, right? But not tomulti-millionaires like Bill O’Reilly.Most Republican politicians (receiving government salariesfrom government jobs) and those champions of the “job creators” over at Fox News say there are plenty of jobs,and that Americans who are unemployed are just lazy and want a free ride.  (Just ask Mitt Romney, he’ll tell you.)Republican politicians and Fox News commentators:Dumb and dumber. And many are millionaires, so how can someone so stupid becomeso wealthy, as opposed to some people who are very intelligent but remain sopoor? One might think some good luck and God’s good graces might have somethingto do with it.In an economic system that uses the principles of"supply and demand", the consumers provide the demand forgoods and the "job creators" provide the supply. Simple.Sounds like perfect common sense, right?Nick Hanauer, a multi-millionaire entrepreneur and venturecapitalist, tried to explain this simple economic theory to Neil Cavuto at FoxNews, but Nick Hanauer was rudely talked over by a know-it-all Neil Cavuto.(The video is here at my YouTube channel).Just as Nick Hanauer once explained in a speech he gave at TEDUniversity, "Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands as timesmuch as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times asmuch stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pantsand shirts a year like most American men. Occasionally we go out to eat withfriends."The Republicans hounded President Obama for the past 4years: "Where are the jobs?" But why didn't they ask the "jobcreators"? They have over $2 trillion parked overseas from foreign profitsand don’t want to pay the taxes.I heard that the $600 billion-a-year defense budget createsa lot of jobs (and a lot of profits for defense contractors too). As amatter-of-fact, the government hires more people than Wal-Mart and McDonaldscombined; so maybe "government” really does create jobs.During the latest recession (the Great Recession) the"rebound" in employment has been weaker than the previous tworecessions --- and G.D.P. growth in the current  "jobless recovery" has also been much slower.Laura D’Andrea Tyson, professor at the Haas School ofBusiness at the University of California, Berkeley writes: "The lossof jobs in the most recent recession was more than twice as large as inprevious recessions, meaning a slow recovery has also meant a much higherunemployment rate. Most economists believe that it's because of  weak aggregate demand."What? Did she say "demand"? That makes too muchsense!The 2008 recession resulted from a systemic financial crisisrooted in banking corruption that resulted in an asset bubble that gripped thehousing market with particular ferocity. So private sector demandcontracted sharply.The large and persistent decline in private-sector demandthat began the 2008 recession explains why the painfully slow recovery is soapparent in the private-sector financial balance — net private saving — thedifference between private saving and private investment.The private-sector financial balance swung from a deficit of−3.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2006 (near the height of the last stock market boom)to a surplus of about 6.8 percent in 2010 — and about 5 percent today. Thisrepresents the sharpest contraction and weakest recovery in the private sectorsince post-World War II.But the Republicans and those at Fox News ignore thefacts and blame the jobless for being unemployed, rather than the banks or “jobcreators” who’d do anything to save or make a dollar.Growth in private consumption has been especially slow inthis recovery compared with the average for previous recoveries (meaning, farless demand = far less spending = far less hiring).And weak investment demand cannot be explained by lowprofits and/or high taxes either. After all, corporate profits just recentlyhit another historic peak and taxes on investment income are now at historiclows. (Some guy who once ran for president once said, "I'm not concernedabout the very rich, they're doing just fine.")Another factor contributing to the slow pace of the current"recovery" has been the relatively weak growth of governmentspending on goods and services — by both state and local governments, andby the federal government. (The GOP has been ruthlessly whining aboutgovernment spending and government employees ever since Obama was firstelected.) And the contraction in government spending and decline inpublic-sector employment have also been major headwinds restraining G.D.P.growth.Stronger demand now would encourage more private investmentand stem the loss of skills and productivity resulting from long-termunemployment and the drop in the labor force’s “participation rate”. (More onthat below.)Add to that, all the spending cuts scheduled for next year —the so-called “fiscal cliff” —which would also have a large negative effects ondemand, output, and employment.Nancy Folbre, economics professor at the University ofMassachusetts writes:“For the past four years, this nation has tolerated levelsof unemployment that have essentially made it impossible for most of thoseseeking paid employment to find it, with a ratio of unemployed workers to jobopenings of more than three to one.”Some Republicans have long insisted that many of thejobless, relaxing in a billowy social safety net, simply aren't trying hardenough to find a job.New York Times Economix contributor Casey Mulligancontends that the poverty rate should have risen between 2007 and 2011, but didn't because public assistance was neutralizing the effect of job loss andundermining incentives to work. (WRONG!)Shawn Fremstad of the Center for Economic Policy andResearch challenges that methodology, pointing to measurements showing thatthe poverty rate did rise significantly among working-age adults overthis period. Furthermore, increased unemployment contributed to economic stressacross most of the social spectrum, not just among the poor and near poor.Between 2007 and 2011, average household income declined inall of the four bottom quintiles. The most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau shows America’s poverty rate had a huge spike, and that nearly 50 millionAmericans, more than 16 percent of the population, are now struggling tosurvive.But it's worse than that. The U.S. Census Bureau'slatest poverty report is far from a complete picture. One problem with theCensus report is that it uses the same income threshold to determine if aperson (or household) is impoverished that has been in use since 1964. The onlychanges have been to adjust income levels for inflation. Currently, anyoneearning less than $11,484 per year is considered to be living in poverty. For afamily of four, the earnings threshold is $23,021 per year. Try living on thatin 2013.When Heather Boushey and Jane Farrell at the Center forAmerica Progress reported that "in 2011 the typical U.S. household hadan income of $50,054," they are painting a much rosier picture than mostother economists.I would have said it this way: "The Social SecurityAdministration, in its latest report, shows that 50% of the entire Americanworkforce (those that pay payroll taxes on a W-4 form for wages) earned lessthan $26,363.55 a year after taxes.  Inother words, HALF of all Americans earn poverty or near-poverty wages.When they (and everyone else) reports "a typical U.S.household", what they really mean is "two adults who have to work attwo or more low-paying jobs at places like Wal-Mart with no healthcareinsurance or pension plans --- just to pay the rent."A single parent (with one income) would have an especiallyhard time...part of the 47%...those .who need food stamps (aka "freestuff").And this really ruffles my feathers! Everybody in the mediaconstantly parrots the same old government talking points without everresearching the real facts behind their numbers. A perfect example was AGAIN diatribed inthe  New York Times:"Paralysis by discouragement is a pretty good descriptionof a growing segment of the United States population. In general, the higherthe unemployment rate in a state, the higher the percentage of discouragedworkers (those who did not search for work in the previous four weeks, for thespecific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them) and thehigher the percentage of marginally attached workers (those who did not searchfor work in the previous four weeks, for any reason)."The myth of "discouraged workers" >>>After people run out of unemployment benefits, they have no one, no place, orno government agency to report to on their current status. In reality, they arejust written off as "discouraged workers" --- as people who stoppedlooking for work and dropped out of the labor force. (I for one didn't drop out, I wasforced out.)I have been out of work since October 2008. The unemploymentrate peaked at 10.2% in October of 2009 with over 15 million Americansunemployed at the time. My unemployment benefits ran out of June 2010. Todaythe unemployment rate is reported to be under 8% --- when less than 5 millionjobs were created since the unemployment rate peaked in 2009. That's not evenenough to keep up with natural population growth, let alone the re-hiring the 8million people who lost their jobs between 2007 and 2009.  It’s called “math”.Yes, a few went on disability or took an early SocialSecurity retirement at 62, but…And what about the 6 million high school and college gradsfrom 2008 to the present, who just like the old folks, can't even get a lousyjob at McDonald's? There are literally MILLIONS of Americans who have had noincome  at all for two years and longer(like myself), and so therefore can't buy things to grow the economy.Rich people aren't "job creators", people withgood-paying jobs that spend money and create "demand" are the REALjob creators.The "labor force participation rate" has declinedsignificantly since the last recession began, especially among less-educatedmen like myself, those who were between jobs and didn't have enough seniorityto avoid a layoff, and were too old to be re-hired somewhere else, but yet tooyoung to collect a reduced Social Security check or pension.If you unemployed today (especially long-termed unemployed) and you only have ahigh school education --- and are 50 years or older --- then you’re  competing with 22-year-old college graduatesfor a job as a Wal-Mart greeter for $8.50 an hour.And like me, you are between a rock and a very hard place.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Sons & Daughters of the Greatest Generation Struggle

To contact us Click HERE
Why are you only 50 years old and unemployed in 2012, especially when you live in the richest and mightiest nation on Earth? On the other hand, I could ask a 22-year college graduate that same question.

Why do the Republicans want American workers to work for less and work for longer before they can finally retire, especially if they have been doing labor intensive work for the past 40 or 50 years? Is that what they call  progress?

With the advent of new technologies, shouldn't we all be working less, earning more and living a better life in a more modern society? Or did computers over the last 20 years only make corporations richer, while their employees became poorer. These companies will hire robots before they hire you.

When U.S. companies aren't outsourcing jobs and moving factories overseas to other parts of the world (to further increase excessive company profits in exchange for exorbitant and obscenely high CEO pay) they're hiring foreign "guest workers" to work for much less, displacing American workers and overall lowering the domestic wage base.

When these U.S. companies were confronted about this, they have been claiming that Americans "lack the necessary job skills". (On-the-job training is also cheaper in China.)

This hiring practice has contributed significantly to the very high unemployment rate in America, with a U-6 rate of over 20%. And this is the biggest reason why America now has so few good-paying jobs for college graduates, and that's also why there's such fierce competition for low-paying jobs in the service industry at places such as Wal-Mart, Staples, Dominos, and McDonalds. These jobs can't be outsourced and these companies (so far) have successfully fought off unions that could have bargained for higher wages and healthcare benefits.

High-tech companies, such as Microsoft and Apple, are prime examples of misusing the guest worker program. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, has a pay package approaching $500 million; and Apple is on target to be the first company in the entire world to ever break the $1 trillion market cap, and they do this by using slave Chinese labor at Taiwanese companies like Foxconn, who has a million workers earning an average of $1 an hour.

The "Greatest Generation" were the people who had enabled these larger corporations of today; and like the Republicans, these corporate giants have been feeding the sons and daughters of the "Greatest Generation" (the "Baby Boomers") to the wolves. Yet at the same time, they claim to be so concerned about future of "our children and their grandchildren" when it comes to the national debt.

Those children and their grandchildren, the younger generation of Americans today and tomorrow, might not ever know and enjoy the once-middle-class America that people 50 years and older today once knew. That generation, the Baby Boomers, saw the rise and fall of the middle-class during their life-times.

I find it odd that the GOP is trying so hard to cut Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid and food stamps to the unemployed) for the Baby Boomers, just to give more tax breaks to the rich, while showing little-to-no concern for the well-being of THAT generation (the Greatest Generation's children and grandchildren --- someone else's children and grandchildren).

The CEOs who are earning millions of dollars a year, year after year, aren't very concerned about the hypothetical children and their grandchildren, because THEIR children and THEIR grandchildren will
be well provided for in their inheritances.

The next time someone feeds you that line "America's best days are ahead", if you are in the top 1%, this might be true. But the Baby Boomers have already seen America's best days come and go. They were there, the day the music died.

READ: 50 and Unemployed: A Rock and a Hard Place

Must-See Video Below: Dan Rather Reports on Foreign Workers




Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Social Security: Obama Needs to Stick it to the man...

To contact us Click HERE
...instead of sticking it to the poor, the disabled and the elderly.

But President Obama and Speaker Boehner may be close to reaching a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff", and the details are not good for old people.

First of all, there need not be any deal at all. Obama doesn’t have to “compromise”, the Republicans lost the election, the people have already spoken. Yet the president is reportedly willing to cut Social Security benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) and make $400 billion in unspecified cuts to Medicare in exchange for a modest increase in tax rates on the wealthy.

Calculating COLA payments with a Chained-CPI would essentially reduce seniors income over time as their medical costs skyrocket. We must let our elected officials know that even benefit cuts hidden behind statistical manipulations like the Chained-CPI are unacceptable and that we will not support anyone who facilitates cuts to Social Security, Medicare of Medicaid.

There also are strong objections to using the chained CPI to set the annual COLA. Already, supporters argue, the CPI-W understates the impact of inflation on seniors. That's because it does not reflect their relatively heavy spending on healthcare. If a different index is going to be used, they say, careful study should be given to using an experiment index, the CPI-E, that measures price changes for elderly consumers.
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, AARP, and most other seniors' organizations decry even including Social Security in the fiscal cliff negotiations, let alone cutting benefits. The program is self-funded and has not added to government deficits.

And if Social Security is included in the talks, then let's talk about Social Security taxes. Most people who rely solely on Social Security had worked 46 years or more and paid Social Security taxes on 100% of their life-time income.

But those earning $1 million a year pay no Social Security taxes at all after their first $112,000 in "regular" wages. But if someone ONLY earns income with investments (dividends, stocks, real estate, etc), even if they make $20 million a year, they pay NO Social Security or Medicare taxes at all, because "investment income" is exempt from any FICA taxes and is also taxed at a lower rate as "capital gains", rather than the higher "marginal" tax rate that most people pay.

Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the regular marginal tax rates. Why do those on the Forbes Fortune 400 List get such a better tax deal then everyone else?

And when we cash out our 401ks and union pensions, even though our funds are invested in stocks, WE have to pay the marginal tax according to our annual income.

And why not eliminate the CAP on Social Security taxes entirely? The rich live longer, collect higher monthly SS benefits, and collect much longer than everyone else does.

And why not tax “investment income” for Social Security and Medicare taxes, just like everyone else who has to pay this tax on 100% of our “regular” wages? The tax system is rigged for the wealthy, and always has been.

But I digress, let's get back to the subject of Obama ripping off the poor, the disabled, and the elderly...

Predictably, Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi have already started falling in line behind this awful proposal. But recent polls indicate 60% of Americans oppose the Chained-CPI benefit cut, and even the AARP has come out strongly against it. That's because most people understand that, at a time when 15.1% of seniors are living in poverty, cutting Social Security benefits — which represent the primary source of income for many retirees — would only increase their suffering. If anything, our nation's strongest anti-poverty program needs to be expanded, not contracted. The reality is that seniors have a larger share of income devoted to medical expenses, and therefore are subject to higher rates of inflation than the general population.

By using a chained CPI, Social Security benefits will become increasingly insufficient as an individual ages — forcing severe austerity upon retirees as 401ks, pensions and home equity continue to dry up. Using this method is both cruel and manipulative and does little to strengthen Social Security or address the so-called deficit crisis.

 And, I’m missing the part where the Republicans give up something

Obama has already comprised before in 2010 by letting the rich have their tax cuts for two more years in exchange for funding extended unemployment benefits for those who were already suffering. This time, their is nothing to compromise on. This time around, Obama needs tax the rich their fair share and leave the old people  alone!

Obama needs to stick it to the man, instead of sticking it to us!Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Upcoming Documentary on America's Longest War: The War on Drugs, "A Holocaust in Slow Motion"

To contact us Click HERE
 
The soon-to-be-released documentary "The House I Live In" is an inside look at America's longest war, The War on Drugs, from executive producers Danny Glover, John Legend, Russell Simons. From the film's website:

"Filmed in more than twenty states, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN tells the stories of individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the narcotics officer, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s criminal justice system, revealing the profound human rights implications of U.S. drug policy."
 
Here are some quotes from the trailer above: 

"The Drug War is a holocaust in slow motion." 

"The Drug War is a war on all Americans." 

"You have to understand that the War on Drugs has never been about drugs."

From a review by US News:

Two years after he was elected president in 1969, Richard Nixon first used the phrase "war on drugs," in a tough speech on drug policy. Four decades and more than 40 million drug-related crimes later, the war on drugs is still simmering.

And now, just months before the presidential election, a new documentary "The House I Live In" explores the ways in which that war could be rethought. The film also implicates President Barack Obama, who promised a compassionate drug policy while running for president but requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement in 2013—the highest yearly total ever.

A reviewer from The Boston Globe says "I'd hate to imply that it's your civic duty to see "The House I Live In" but guess what - it is."   

The movie will be in theaters on October 5.  

Fire: Environmentalist's Way to Thin the Forests

To contact us Click HERE
From Terry Anderson's editorial in today's WSJ "Environmental Protection Up in Smoke": 

Environmental laws since the 1970s require public input into federal land-use decisions including logging on national forests. This has led to lawsuits challenging efforts by the U.S. Forest Service to prevent forest fires by thinning out trees (most of which are dead or diseased) and brush by machines and carefully controlled burns. This dead wood is the fuel that feeds catastrophic wildfires. 

Removing the fuel reduces the likelihood of fires, and if fires do break out, makes them easier to fight. Meanwhile, the suppression of fires costs the federal government nearly $2.5 billion annually. 

A fuels-management project to log and thin 4,800 acres in the Bozeman, Mont., watershed exemplifies the problem. This project has been held up since 2010 on grounds that the environmental-impact assessment did not adequately protect the habitat of the Canadian lynx and the grizzly bear, both listed as threatened species. 

Now a wildfire threatens the watershed, burning over 10,000 acres and costing more than $2 million to fight. As one firefighter put it, "fire is the environmentalist's way of thinning the forests."

Upcoming Documentary on America's Longest War: The War on Drugs, "A Holocaust in Slow Motion"

To contact us Click HERE
 
The soon-to-be-released documentary "The House I Live In" is an inside look at America's longest war, The War on Drugs, from executive producers Danny Glover, John Legend, Russell Simons. From the film's website:

"Filmed in more than twenty states, THE HOUSE I LIVE IN tells the stories of individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the narcotics officer, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s criminal justice system, revealing the profound human rights implications of U.S. drug policy."
 
Here are some quotes from the trailer above: 

"The Drug War is a holocaust in slow motion." 

"The Drug War is a war on all Americans." 

"You have to understand that the War on Drugs has never been about drugs."

From a review by US News:

Two years after he was elected president in 1969, Richard Nixon first used the phrase "war on drugs," in a tough speech on drug policy. Four decades and more than 40 million drug-related crimes later, the war on drugs is still simmering.

And now, just months before the presidential election, a new documentary "The House I Live In" explores the ways in which that war could be rethought. The film also implicates President Barack Obama, who promised a compassionate drug policy while running for president but requested $25.6 billion for drug enforcement in 2013—the highest yearly total ever.

A reviewer from The Boston Globe says "I'd hate to imply that it's your civic duty to see "The House I Live In" but guess what - it is."   

The movie will be in theaters on October 5.  

Fire: Environmentalist's Way to Thin the Forests

To contact us Click HERE
From Terry Anderson's editorial in today's WSJ "Environmental Protection Up in Smoke": 

Environmental laws since the 1970s require public input into federal land-use decisions including logging on national forests. This has led to lawsuits challenging efforts by the U.S. Forest Service to prevent forest fires by thinning out trees (most of which are dead or diseased) and brush by machines and carefully controlled burns. This dead wood is the fuel that feeds catastrophic wildfires. 

Removing the fuel reduces the likelihood of fires, and if fires do break out, makes them easier to fight. Meanwhile, the suppression of fires costs the federal government nearly $2.5 billion annually. 

A fuels-management project to log and thin 4,800 acres in the Bozeman, Mont., watershed exemplifies the problem. This project has been held up since 2010 on grounds that the environmental-impact assessment did not adequately protect the habitat of the Canadian lynx and the grizzly bear, both listed as threatened species. 

Now a wildfire threatens the watershed, burning over 10,000 acres and costing more than $2 million to fight. As one firefighter put it, "fire is the environmentalist's way of thinning the forests."