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."

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

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

If You Make $250,000 a Year, You're Rich

To contact us Click HERE
And if you are rich in America, you are rich anywhere else in the world.

One of the most expensive places in the U.S. to buy a house is in Los AltosCalifornia, where homesaveraged $1.7 million in 2012. With no money down, a30-year mortgage at 5% on a home in Los Altos costing $1.7 million wouldcost you $131,000 a year (almost $11,000 a month for a mortgage payment).

That is less than half your annual income if you earned $250,000 a year; soyou'd still have enough money left over for heat and food.

But I keep hearing the talking heads on TV saying that for someone living in abig city like L.A. or New York, $250,000 isn’t really all that much. Ohreally?

I once lived in New York City and survived (though not very well) on a waiter'spay plus tips, living in a weekly rental apartment on West 42nd Street beforeTimes Square was renovated. I later moved to Queens with a co-worker to rent ahouse for a lot cheaper (in middle-class neighborhood across the street from aschool).

I also lived in a ritzy area of Philadelphia (Rittenhouse Square), and on awaiter's pay I managed to live in a very nice high-rise apartment called the RittenhouseClaridge. I didn't starve.

$250,000 is 5 times the national average "household income”, when twopeople in a household usually work -- which squares with the Social SecurityAdministration, which says 50%off all U.S. workers earn $26,966 a year or less --- and the Census Bureauthat says 80% of all households have at least two income earners.

Obama wants households earning over $250,000 to pay a little more (the old taxrate under Bill Clinton); but everyone earning more than that (especiallymulti-millionaires) are kicking and screaming like they have it so damn bad.

"Ah-ha!" I can hear Bill O'Reilly saying, because in my littlescenario I'm not figuring in to account federal, state, city, and FICA taxesinto that $250,000 that someone is earning.

Well, in that case, instead of buying a $1.7 million house in Los AltosCalifornia, maybe if you earned $250,000 BEFORE taxes, you could affordone of these "slum" 2 & 3 bedroom condos in New York City for halfthe price --- or far much less.

FOR SALE: $898,000 - South End Ave & West St. - $5,756 a month withno money down at 5%.


FOR SALE: $799,000 - 250 Manhattan Ave - $5,121 a month with no money down at 5%.

FOR SALE: $755,000 - 375 East 68th Street - $4,839 a month with no money down at 5%.
FOR SALE: $350,000 Wadsworth & West 181st - $2,243 a month with no money down at 5%.

What? You can't afford to buy and can only rent? With $250,000 a year you can easily get one of these slummy crash pads...
Apartment for rent in Midtown - $3,275 a month Apartment for rent in Midtown - $3,130 a month
If you lived in Midtown Manhattan, you might pay $3,000 a month for a nice one room apartment (that's $36,000 a year). But even after taxes, you would still be living on Easy Street if you earned "only" $250,000 a year. Most working people in America have to work at least 10 years to make $250,000, which is more than the median price of a home in the U.S. But most people who work in NYC don't live there, they commute. If you earned $250,000 in America, you are rich. If you earned that much money in the Democratic Republic of the Congo you could buy your own army. And Bill O'Reilly could probably buy the whole country. But never fear, because a deal was reached in the Senate tonight on the threshold for extending the Bush tax cuts, and it is now $450,000 a year. So if you earn that much money every year, and you live in Los Altos, New York, Boston, L.A. or San Francisco, you won't have to worry about where your next meal will come from, because your taxes won't be going up anytime soon. Now we have to hope that the Republican idiots in the House will vote for it.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

If You Make $250,000 a Year, You're Rich

To contact us Click HERE
And if you are rich in America, you are rich anywhere else in the world.

One of the most expensive places in the U.S. to buy a house is in Los AltosCalifornia, where homesaveraged $1.7 million in 2012. With no money down, a30-year mortgage at 5% on a home in Los Altos costing $1.7 million wouldcost you $131,000 a year (almost $11,000 a month for a mortgage payment).

That is less than half your annual income if you earned $250,000 a year; soyou'd still have enough money left over for heat and food.

But I keep hearing the talking heads on TV saying that for someone living in abig city like L.A. or New York, $250,000 isn’t really all that much. Ohreally?

I once lived in New York City and survived (though not very well) on a waiter'spay plus tips, living in a weekly rental apartment on West 42nd Street beforeTimes Square was renovated. I later moved to Queens with a co-worker to rent ahouse for a lot cheaper (in middle-class neighborhood across the street from aschool).

I also lived in a ritzy area of Philadelphia (Rittenhouse Square), and on awaiter's pay I managed to live in a very nice high-rise apartment called the RittenhouseClaridge. I didn't starve.

$250,000 is 5 times the national average "household income”, when twopeople in a household usually work -- which squares with the Social SecurityAdministration, which says 50%off all U.S. workers earn $26,966 a year or less --- and the Census Bureauthat says 80% of all households have at least two income earners.

Obama wants households earning over $250,000 to pay a little more (the old taxrate under Bill Clinton); but everyone earning more than that (especiallymulti-millionaires) are kicking and screaming like they have it so damn bad.

"Ah-ha!" I can hear Bill O'Reilly saying, because in my littlescenario I'm not figuring in to account federal, state, city, and FICA taxesinto that $250,000 that someone is earning.

Well, in that case, instead of buying a $1.7 million house in Los AltosCalifornia, maybe if you earned $250,000 BEFORE taxes, you could affordone of these "slum" 2 & 3 bedroom condos in New York City for halfthe price --- or far much less.

FOR SALE: $898,000 - South End Ave & West St. - $5,756 a month withno money down at 5%.


FOR SALE: $799,000 - 250 Manhattan Ave - $5,121 a month with no money down at 5%.

FOR SALE: $755,000 - 375 East 68th Street - $4,839 a month with no money down at 5%.
FOR SALE: $350,000 Wadsworth & West 181st - $2,243 a month with no money down at 5%.

What? You can't afford to buy and can only rent? With $250,000 a year you can easily get one of these slummy crash pads...
Apartment for rent in Midtown - $3,275 a month Apartment for rent in Midtown - $3,130 a month
If you lived in Midtown Manhattan, you might pay $3,000 a month for a nice one room apartment (that's $36,000 a year). But even after taxes, you would still be living on Easy Street if you earned "only" $250,000 a year. Most working people in America have to work at least 10 years to make $250,000, which is more than the median price of a home in the U.S. But most people who work in NYC don't live there, they commute. If you earned $250,000 in America, you are rich. If you earned that much money in the Democratic Republic of the Congo you could buy your own army. And Bill O'Reilly could probably buy the whole country. But never fear, because a deal was reached in the Senate tonight on the threshold for extending the Bush tax cuts, and it is now $450,000 a year. So if you earn that much money every year, and you live in Los Altos, New York, Boston, L.A. or San Francisco, you won't have to worry about where your next meal will come from, because your taxes won't be going up anytime soon. Now we have to hope that the Republican idiots in the House will vote for it.Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

What will make the GOP happy in 2013?

To contact us Click HERE

Early this morning while the top 1% partied like it was 1929, the Senateapproved a bill on the "fiscal cliff". In an overwhelming 89-8 votethey approved a plan to let tax rates go up on families earning more than $450,000a year, postponing the so-called sequester cuts for two months, and extendingunemployment benefits for one year (among other provisions). Only 5 Republicansand 3 Democrats voted against it.

The problem right now is, the bill has to go to the Tea Party controlledHouse of Representatives, and the House Majority leader John Boehner has toallow it come to the floor for an up and down vote (as it is, without amendmentsor any changes). And then (and this is the hard part) a few sane Republicanswill then have to vote in favor of it. The House convenes later today to"take a look at it".

How much you wanna bet there will be more Republican obstructionism? Thesticking point for the GOP has always been government spending (aka"entitlements" = stuff for poor and middle-class Americas. See mypost: Starve the Beast:The GOP's 30-Year Strategy)

"Government spending" does NOT include the billions of dollarsspent every year on defense contracts or congressional salaries (and their"government entitlements"). Members of Congress (50% of who arealready millionaires and "earn" $174,000 a year) will soon be gettinganother pay raise; while at the same time, Republicans are currently attemptingto change the COLA for the disabled and Social Security retirees.

Besides giving very low tax rates to the very wealthy (that's a given), weknow what MIGHT make the Republicanshappy in 2013, and that's entitlement reforms. But what exactly ARE"entitlement reforms"?

• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to Medicare benefits for the elderly"entitlement reforms". 
• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to Social Security retirementincomes for the elderly "entitlement reforms". 
• The Republicans and the media keep calling raising the age for Social Security and Medicare "entitlement reforms", even though it's the rich who live longer.
• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to Social Security disabilitycompensation for those who can no longer work "entitlement reforms". 
• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to unemployment insurance for thosewho can't find work "entitlement reforms". 
• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to healthcare and medicine for the poor and  impoverish children (Medicaid) "entitlement reforms". 
• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to Pell grants (tuition for poorkids who want to go to college) "entitlement reforms".
• The Republicans and the media keep calling cuts to SNAP (food stamps) and TANF(welfare) for the most impoverished in this country "entitlementreforms".

Most Republicans believe that an entitlement is "a belief that one is deserving of and/or entitled to certain privileges."

The Democrats (and the more sensible Republicans) believe that an entitlement is "a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract" (such as SocialSecurity and Medicare, which the Republicans have always been against since 1965).

I personally believe that people like Mitt Romney feel they are "entitled" to write off $17,000 a year from their income taxes for a show horsein the Olympics --- and I believe that ALL human beings (not just wealthy ones) are "entitled" tobasic healthcare (especially in the richest country in human history during moderntimes in a civilized society).

I strongly believe that it is usually the ultra-wealthy who believe that it is they who are more deserving of and/or entitled to certain privileges -- andI truly believe that the poor and middle-class are much more humble and almost never feel that way.

I also believe that it is the rich who feel entitled to a bigger yacht because theytruly believe that they worked harder, were much smarter, and were much moreresponsible than anybody else, and that God and good luck and chance hadabsolutely nothing to do with their good fortunes.

What would make the Republicans and their wealthy sponsors (and the big banksand the major corporations) happy in 2013?

The stock market recovery over the past four years didn't make them happy.Record profits haven't made them happy. Bigger bonuses and higher salaries, yearafter tear, haven't made them happy. The Bush tax cuts for the past 10 yearsdidn't make them happy. 

It seems as though NOTHING will make the wealthiest "job creators" happy or give themANY "certainty" inthe marketplace, because they have been bitterly complaining about"freeloaders" and "entitlements" for decades. If you onlywatch Fox News, you'll hear them whine every day.

And why in 2013, do so many Americans now need to rely on any form of "entitlements"?

It's really quite simple. After the end of the Vietnam War, our American "job creators" have outsourced the better paying manufacturing jobsto China, Taiwan, and Korea --- while leaving us with the lower paying jobs in the service industry(e.g. Wal-Mart, Dominos, Staples, McDonalds, etc.) 

Apple pays their employees at Foxconn in China $1 an hour --- how can American workerspossibly compete with that? Meanwhile Apple's CEO has a pay package worth $500 million.

The Walton's pay their employees $9 an hour while sitting on $100 billion in the bank. How much money do these "job creators" need to put people back to work andto pay them a "living wage".

How much "certainty" do billionaires need, and do the working poordeserve any certainty at all in their lives?

According to the Social Security Administration 50% of all U.S. workers only earns$27,000 a year or less, forcing many families to rely on these "government entitlements", when really,they're "wage subsidies".

Not to mention, the large corporations are paying historically low "effective" tax rates and their CEOs onlypay a 15% tax rate on their "capital gains" earned from stock options, while someone earning $50,000 a year is in the 25%the marginal tax bracket.

For the past 30 years the wealth in this country has been extracted from the bottom to the top. The only thing middle-class taxpayers (and the poor and unemployed) have left going for them is Social Security when they get old, and unemployment benefits and food stamps when their jobs get sent to China. But the GOP wants to end that too.

What would finally make the Republicans happy?

Would it be when 99% of the entire U.S. workforce is making minimum wage, has no healthcare insurance, has no retirement income from SocialSecurity and has no Medicare when they get too old and sick to work any longer?

Would the Republicans be happy if taxes would only be collected and used to fund an already bloated defense budget? Whatexactly does $650 billion a year defend working Americans from? I know itdefends corporate interests abroad and the wayward millionaire who gets lost ontheir yacht in pirate seas.

And I know it fattens the wallets of the CEOs in the defense industry, whomake multiples of millions of dollars every year.

Would the Republicans finally be happy if they could say, "To hell with the poor,the disabled and the unemployed! They can all go panhandlefor quarters or starve in the streets! They're not real Americans,they're lazy freeloaders who take no responsibility for their own lives!"

The GOP says the poor and unemployed could rely on the charityof our neighbors and the church, but the neighbors are in the same boat that weare, and thechurch says they are already over-extended because of the Great Recessionwhen 8 million American were laid off, most who never found work again.

What would finally make the Republicans happy? Their "job creators"have had their tax breaks for the past 12 years, and the few jobs they actuallycreated were mostly low-paying. But yet they keep insisting that if we lowertheir taxes even more (and made them permanent) they would magically create 30million more low-payingjobs! (Where, in China?)

Very few Americans WANT to rely on food stamps or unemployment checks.We don't LIKE living in poverty. We want "stuff" too! We'd rather work. The federal minimum wage today is only $7.25 an hour. I made that as a high school drop-out 40 years ago while working in a factory!

The rich are living longer and evading income taxes, while the rest of us are being left to wither on the vine.But STILL the Republicans aren't happy. Can't their billionaire sponsors EVERbe happy with what they already have?

What can poor people do to make the billionaires happy, besides just bustingtheir asses to the bone while working for them all their lives, before finally dropping dead andhaving nothing to leave behind to their children and grand-children?

What will make the GOP and their wealthy sponsors happy in 2013? 

Nothing. It's impossible to please malcontents, but yet, Democrats keepfoolishly trying to compromise with them. The Democrats have been compromisingwith them for decades, and that's why we're here where we are now.

What will make the Republicans happy in 2013? Nothing; not until 99% of usare left with nothing but sticks and rocks to survive on.

Warren Buffett wasn't joking, America's poor and middle-class are literally being exterminated.
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/12/warren-buffett-wasnt-joking-were-being.html 

The True Burden of Government
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/the-true-burden-of-government/ 

If you make $250,000 a year, you're rich.
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/12/if-you-make-250000-year-youre-rich.html 

Medicare Spending Isn’t Out of Control
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/medicare-spending-isnt-out-of-control/ 

If your taxes do go up next year, count your blessings...you will have been earning a very good a income.
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/12/if-your-taxes-go-up-next-year-youd-be.html 

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 is Not Taxed on the Rich for Social Security orMedicare
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 

Austerity for Posterity
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/austerity-for-posterity/ 

A Conservative Case for the Welfare State
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/a-conservative-case-for-the-welfare-state/ 

*** Google "Bank fraud", "libor rate fixing scandal","robo-signing mortgage foreclosures" (etc.) to complete this list.****And why does Akamai Technologies spy on all computer users? *****ALERT!!! "Get Rabbit TV" is another corporate scam!

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."