OPINOINS BASED ON FACTS (OBOF)
THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)
YEAR ONE
YEAR TWO
YEAR THREE
YEAR FOUR
YEAR FIVE
|
OBOF
YEAR FIVE INDEX
|
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM
|
Jan.
07, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 1
|
Jan.
19, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 2
|
Feb. 03, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 3
|
Feb. 23, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 4
|
Mar. 02, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 5
|
Mar. 06, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 6
|
Mar. 13, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 7
|
Mar. 23, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 8
|
Mar. 28,
2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 9
|
Apr. 13,
2015
|
|
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 10
|
May 02,
2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 11
|
May 09,
2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 12
|
May 19, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 13
|
May 26, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 14
|
May 29, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 15
|
July 28, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 16
|
Sept. 15, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 17
|
Sept. 20, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 18
|
Sept. 27, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 19
|
Oct. 07, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 20
|
Oct. 13, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 21
|
Nov.
01, 2015
|
|
OBOF
TYMHM Vol 15 - No 22
|
Nov.
08, 2015
|
Agenda
1. FROM FLOYD
2. Obama rejects Keystone
XL pipeline in win for greens
3. Social Security Secret Slips Out
During Political Debate
4. Mass Mobilization to Stop the
TPP Announced, as Text Is Released
5. Media Outlets Question
‘Fantasy’ Economic Policies Proposed by GOP Candidates in CNBC Debate
FROM FLOYD
The real news of the
week occurred today, Friday
11-6-15. President Obama announced today that he would not
approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada connecting to other pipelines to the Texas
Environmental consideration was the major reason for his
decision, as is explained in the following article. However, there is another reason that isn't
talked about that I knew many years ago and have said a number of times in this
blog.
There has always been a secret agreement that every bit of
the crude sand from Canada
was to be pumped to the Texas duty free refineries
in Texas U.S. U.S.
OTHER IMPORTANT NEWS THIS WEEK.
THERE ARE TWO OTHER
IMPORTANT NEWS ITEMS THIS WEEK.
The first is the
admission, by a prominent Republican Presidential Candidate, Chris Christie,
Governor of New Jersey
Second, the
announcement of a demonstration that has been planned for months, for the day
of the release of the total text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This article has some very interesting
thoughts from readers.
And finally, a look at
the Republican Presidential Candidates economic plans. You sure want to take a look at this.
~~~
Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline in win for
greens
JEFF MASON AND TIMOTHY GARDNER
Nov 6th 2015
2:13PM
U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday rejected the proposed Keystone XL oil
pipeline from Canada
"The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to
our economy," Obama told a press conference. He said it would not reduce
gasoline prices, and shipping "dirtier" crude from Canada would not increase U.S.
The denial of TransCanada Corp's more than 800,000 barrels per day project
will make it more difficult for producers to develop the province of Alberta United States
in a stronger position at global climate talks that start in Paris
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who determined the pipeline was not in
the country's interest before Obama's final decision, said approving Keystone
"would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world
in combating climate change."
Keystone XL would have linked existing pipeline networks in Canada and the United
States to bring crude from Alberta
and North Dakota to refineries in Illinois and, eventually, the Gulf
of Mexico coast.
TransCanada first sought the required presidential permit for the
cross-border section in 2008 but the proposal provoked a wave of environmental
activism that turned Keystone XL into a rallying cry to fight climate change.
Blocking Keystone became a litmus test of the green movement's ability to
hinder fossil fuel extraction in Canada
"This is a big win," said Bill McKibben, co-founder of the
environmental group 350.org which helped make Keystone a symbol of a movement
to slow global oil output. Obama's decision "is nothing short of historic,
and sets an important precedent that should send shockwaves through the fossil
fuel industry."
TransCanada and other oil companies said the pipeline would have
strengthened North American energy security, created thousands of construction
jobs and helped relieve a glut of oil.
But since 2008 the United States
has experienced a domestic drilling boom which has boosted oil production 80
percent and contributed to a slump in U.S.
CANADA-U.S.
RELATIONSHIP
Newly sworn in Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a supporter of
Keystone, voiced disappointment but said the Canada-U.S. relationship "is
much bigger than any one project."
~~~
Social Security Secret Slips Out
During Political Debate
By Allen W. Smith
For three decades, politicians managed to hide from the
public the awful truth about the Social Security trust fund. But the cat finally got out of the bag during
the Republican presidential debate held Oct. 28 in Boulder, Colo.
Most Americans were probably shocked when New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie boldly said: “Let me be honest with the people who are
watching at home. The government has lied to you and they have stolen from
you. They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All
that’s in the trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something
else a long time ago.”
Every word Christie spoke was absolutely true. I have
devoted the past 15 years of my life to researching and writing about Social
Security financing. During that entire period, I have tried to expose the
misuse of Social Security money and the cover up of the theft. Christie’s
words accurately describe the raiding of Social Security and the deliberate
deception to keep the public from finding out about it.
There is no question about the truth of Christie’s
assertion that the trust fund holds no real assets. Anyone can prove that point
by simply checking the annual budgets of the federal government for the years
1984 to 2010, when the surpluses ended.
These budgets make It clear that all of the surplus revenue
was spent and none of it was saved. These budgets are available to the
public, and you don’t have to be an accountant to see the picture.
By adding up all of the federal spending, including payment
of Social Security benefits, and comparing the total with total revenue,
including payroll tax revenue, it becomes clear that there is something
terribly wrong.
In each and every budget year, during that 26-year period,
the government spent all of its own general revenue, plus all of the surplus
Social Security revenue and still had to borrow even more money. The budgets make it absolutely clear that
none of the surplus Social Security money was saved or invested.
The American people have a right to know that the revenue
from higher payroll taxes they paid were used for such things as wars, tax cuts
for the rich, and other government programs. None of the money was saved
or invested.
The question of whether the government saved any of the
surplus revenue, and invested it in marketable U.S.
On Jan. 21, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of
the GAO, tried to alert the public to the fact that none of the Social Security
money was being saved or invested. , Walker
On March 16, 2011, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said, in a
Senate speech: “Congresses under both Republican and Democrat control, both
Republican and Democrat presidents, have stolen money from Social Security and
spent it. The money’s gone. It’s
been used for another purpose.”
Every high-level government official, and every member of
Congress, knows the trust fund is empty, and most of them participated in emptying
it. But the truth about the trust fund, and the cover up, has been kept
from the general public.
It is recognized as a taboo subject by much of the media,
and anyone who claims the trust fund is empty is ridiculed. Christie has
learned that painful lesson. Once he broke with tradition by saying the
trust fund is empty, many media outlets immediately began throwing rocks at
him.
As the government spent the money, it was replaced with
IOUs, which the government calls “special issues of the Treasury.” The
public has been led to believe that the IOUs are real bonds, just like the
bonds held by China
But they are not real bonds. They cannot be sold or
used to pay benefits. They represent only an accounting record of how
much Social Security money has been spent on other things.
In 2015, the cost of paying full Social Security benefits
was $84 billion more than Social Security revenue, and the gap between revenue
and benefit costs will become larger and larger in the years ahead.
Since there is nothing of value in the trust fund, the
government must borrow the needed money from China United States
If in a future year the government is unable to borrow the
money it needs to fill the gap, Social Security benefits will have to be
reduced.
If the surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the
1983 payroll tax hike, had been saved and invested in marketable U.S.
But none of the surplus money was saved and invested. Every
dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue was channeled directly into the
general fund where it was spent as general revenue on whatever the government
chose to spend it on.
The bottom line is that the trust fund holds nothing of
value that can be sold to raise money. The $2.8 trillion that was
supposed to be available for paying benefits to the boomers was instead looted
by the government and spent for non-Social Security purposes.
About Allen W. Smith, Ph.D
Allen W. Smith, author of “Raiding the Trust Fund: Using Social Security
to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich” (www.ironwoodpublications.com),
has devoted much of his adult life to promoting economic education. He taught economics for 30 years before
retiring from Eastern
Illinois University
~~~
Mass Mobilization to Stop the TPP Announced, as Text Is
Released
Authors:
Kevin Zeese
Popular Resistance
Press Release
Published:
November 6, 2015
A mass mobilization in Washington, DC from November 14th
to 18th has been announced to begin the next stage
of the campaign to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP was
made public 10 days from the actions.
The protest, co-sponsored by 59 organizations, is being
spearheaded by Popular Resistance and Flush The TPP and includes environmental,
human rights, labor, climate change and good government groups. They have been
organizing this mobilization for months knowing that the TPP would be made
public around this time.
“At its root, the TPP is about modern colonialism. It
is the way that Western governments and their transnational corporations,
including Wall Street banks, can dominate the economies of developing nations,”
said Margaret Flowers, co-director of Popular Resistance. She continued “The reality is that without
trade justice there cannot be climate justice, food justice; there cannot be
health justice or wage justice. That is why people are mobilizing to stop the
TPP.”
Mackenzie McDonald Wilkins, organizer for Flush The
TPP, said “The TPP impacts every issue we care about as a result, a unified
movement of movements to stop the TPP has developed. People who care about
corporate power versus democracy and our sovereignty or about jobs and workers,
the environment and climate change, health care, food and water, energy
regulation of banks are mobilizing to make stopping the TPP their top
priority.”
On November 16th through 18th the
groups will begin their protests on Monday morning at the US 17th
Street US
Chamber of Commerce and White House then marches along K Street Reagan International
Trade Center
READER
COMMENTS:
The
bodies of government are made up of corporate people and or corporate
controlled people there to represent corporate interests and control government
for corporate agendas. Asking government
to do the right thing and protect the people is a waste of time. We have to
form our own groups and send our own people to government. Voting Dem or REpub is a waste. Their
allegiance is established for oligarchy. As long as we keep thinking that these
parties are who they were in the past, and that they care what we think and
want, we will be exploited by them and the subjugation will continue as it has
bringing us to this unfathomable point concerning the TPP and the essentially
selling out of our country to an international oligarchy.
Calling
Pelosi who works exclusively for oligarchy or any other person allowed in major
power seats is just wasting your time with their foils and illusions ...which
is the vehicle for what has made this all possible.
"Asking
government to do the right thing and protect the people is a waste of
time."
First,
we DEMAND, not ask. Second, it seemed to work quite nicely for the Keystone XL
pipeline, which was just rejected.
There's
power in numbers. We just have to be
united. And loud!
We
absolutely should vote for Bernie Sanders, but it won't matter much. Democracy
is a constant battle. I just watched a documentary on "Whitey"
Bulger. Though his case doesn't directly relate to the economy, it is another
example of how corrupt our government is. The only thing that can stop it is for good
people to be involved. However, as I say
daily, we must also end inheritances (perhaps over $250,000).
If
people were no longer allowed to pass on their estates to their kids, this
could change our culture of money worship. Parents might spend more time with
their kids, instead of throwing money at them and neglecting them emotionally.
Zeese is
one of those purists, who says the revolution has to conform to his silly
little details or he won't support it.
Other
purists have denounced Bernie's stroke of genius in running in the Democratic
Party. If he ran in one of the tiny independent parties, no one would have
heard of him.
Quick:
Who is the Socialist Party's candidate for president? How about the Libertarian presidential
candidate? Couldn't name them, could
you? THAT anonymity would be Bernie's if
he ran as an independent.
NEWSFLASH
TO PURISTS: The Peoples' resistance will take forms you cannot anticipate. Share your energy or get out of the way.
The TPP
and the counterpart in the Atlantic TTIP are the last nails in the Democracy
coffin!!
These are
the final steps on the Corporate take-over of the Planet in their way to
establish a NWO (New World Order) with a
single world government, ruled by un-elected Corporate CEO's more concerned
with profits than with the people's welfare and the biodiversity's balance.
WE HAVE TO
STOP BOTH ATTACKS!!!!
We are
not going to end corruption until we end the worship of the dollar. I understand the benefits of Capitalism, but I
don't see a way to keep it in check without requiring citizens to take active
part in their government. Democracy in the workplace, as Professor Richard
Wolff speaks of, is necessary to stop the master/slave paradigm we have today.
Wages should be attached to profits and inheritances should be banned. Let's see everyone EARN their own way, not
just the poor kids.
Bernie Sanders
Speaks to the Senate About TPP Trade Agreement
233
views as of 11/5/2015
Published
on May 15, 2015
Bernie
Sanders speaks to the US Senate about the harmful effects of the TPP trade
agreement, including lost jobs, lowered wages, environmental damage and threats
to democracy world wide
~~~
Media Outlets
Question ‘Fantasy’ Economic Policies Proposed by GOP Candidates in CNBC Debate
Published: October 30, 2015
Authors: Cydney Hargis
| Media Matters | Research
During the October 28 CNBC
Republican presidential debate, several candidates proposed tax and economic
policies that were later described as “fantasy,” “oddly imaginary,” and even
“insane” by media outlets because their implementation would inflate existing budget
deficits and add trillions of dollars to the national debt.
Republican Candidates Spar over
Economic Policies In Third Presidential Debate
Reuters:
Republicans “Clashed Over Their Tax Plans” During CNBC Debate. An October 29 debate recap by Reuters described how
members of the 2016 Republican field argued over tax policy:
The Republicans seeking their party’s nomination for the November
2016 election also clashed over their tax plans, with Carson
Carson said his plan, based on religious tithing principles,
would get rid of deductions and loopholes and constitute a flat rate of about
15 percent that would be sufficient to fund a sharply reduced government.
“Remember, we have 645 federal agencies and sub-agencies. Anybody who tells me that we need every penny
in every one of those is in a fantasy world,” Carson
Ohio Governor John Kasich was quick to go on the attack against
Trump and Carson, calling their tax plans “a fantasy.” Trump’s plan for cutting taxes on individuals
and corporations has been criticized as an implausible budget-buster by
analysts.
“We are on the verge of picking, perhaps, someone who cannot do
this job,” Kasich said. “You gotta pick
somebody who has experience.”
The remark appeared aimed at Trump and Carson
Post-Debate, Media Outlets
Called Out Candidates’ Proposed Economic Plans As Largely Infeasible
Politico:
Republican Economic Debate Occurred “In An Oddly
Imaginary World” As Candidates “Bemoaned A Nonexistent Fiscal Crisis.” In an October 29 article, Politico‘s
Michael Grunwald explained that the annual budget deficit has dropped by nearly
$1 trillion since President Obama took office in 2009, and that “America’s
fiscal position has improved dramatically since 2009,” despite candidates’
arguments that the “right and left are spending us into oblivion”:
If you got all your fiscal information from last night’s
Republican debate, you would think the federal deficit was exploding. You would also think President Obama had
conspired with Washington
In fact, the federal deficit is shrinking. And both Washington America
Paul and Ted Cruz took particular umbrage at the budget deal that
Obama forged this week with Republican leaders–a deal that will avoid a
crippling default that would have jacked up U.S.
It was really a bit surreal to watch the candidates claim the
mantle of fiscal responsibility as they bemoaned a nonexistent fiscal crisis,
because every one of them–including John Kasich and George Pataki, the closest
approximations of moderates in the field–has proposed multi-trillion-dollar tax
cuts that independent analysts have said could create a real fiscal crisis. Donald Trump has called his plan
deficit-neutral, but in a remarkable on-stage fact-check, CNBC moderator John
Harwood said that was about as likely as Trump flapping his arms and flying out
of the debate hall. Jeb Bush then
pointed out that Trump’s plan could cost as much as $10 trillion, which is
true–although Bush neglected to mention that his own tax cuts have been scored
at $3.6 trillion, potential budget-busters as large as his brother’s from 2001
and 2003. [Politico, 10/29/15]
Slate:
Republican Candidates Showcased “Insane” Economic Policies During Debate. In an October 29 article, Slate’s Jordan Weissmann said
that Republican candidates laid out “implausible tax-cut” proposals, promising
to cut trillions in government revenues. Wiessmann highlighted Trump’s
“thoughtless” proposal to lower taxes so much that he would create a
“budget-busting, $10 trillion monster”:
Early on during Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate,
CNBC moderator John Harwood made a valiant effort to interrogate Donald Trump
on the subject of taxes. He failed, but
the result was still illuminating. The
real-estate mogul had promised to cut the government’s tax haul by $10 trillion
without adding to the deficit, Harwood noted. How was that feasible?
The exchange was a minor triumph for Trump, whose campaign has
been a testament to the complete irrelevance of rational policy debate in the
Republican primary, especially when it comes to economics, the subject of
Wednesday’s debate. Over the campaign,
the GOP candidates have rolled out variously gaudy and implausible tax-cut plans,
all while promising to keep the country from falling deeper into debt. Even Jeb Bush, the early establishment
favorite, has engaged in this sort of magical thinking, offering up a proposal
that could cut up to $3.6 trillion from government revenues over a decade,
according to the conservative Tax Foundation’s high-end estimate. Marco Rubio,
who’s quickly becoming the new favorite of party mainliners, actually goes
further–he’d cut as much as $6 trillion. But Trump’s approach is notable for its sheer
thoughtlessness. His blueprint is suspiciously similar to Bush’s, but with even
lower tax rates, resulting in the budget-busting, $10 trillion monster that he
says he will somehow balance by cutting government waste.
That, essentially, is the state of Republican policy discourse
these days–a debate that’s mostly about signaling conservative bona fides
rather than detailing a realistic way one might actually run a country. Ben Carson says he’s in favor of a
tithing-inspired flat tax of about 15 percent, which he will somehow balance
out by cutting “fat” from the government. Ted Cruz is promising a flat tax of 10
percent. Both would likely cost
trillions. But compared with Bush’s or
Rubio’s plans, they only look like a slight ratcheting up of the crazy. [Slate,
10/29/15]
The New Republic: Economy-Focused Third GOP Debate Was An
“Exercise” In “Fantasy.” In an October 29 article, The
New Republic‘s Suzy Khimm wrote that the candidates answered questions
about their economic policy proposals by “cocoon[ing] themselves from the
truth.” The article noted how the
moderators explained that Trump’s tax plan would increase the deficit, while Carson
As I wrote before the debate, the debate on CNBC could have–and
should have–been an opportunity for the candidates to roll out some tangible,
realistic policies targeted to help working- and middle-class Americans, and to
counter the 2016 Democrats’ laundry list of proposals geared toward working
families. Aside from a brief exchange on
education reform, that just didn’t happen. Instead, what stood out was the candidates’
refusal to own up to the details of the one policy they have embraced as
an economic panacea for all Americans: Huge, deficit-busting tax cuts that
disproportionately benefit the wealthy over ordinary Americans–the same
supply-side logic that informed George W. Bush’s economic policy.
So the candidates spent the night in a defensive crouch on some
of the most detailed–and least realistic–proposals they’re campaigning on. CNBC moderator John Harwood first tried to get
Donald Trump to confront the fanciful thinking undergirding his $12 trillion
tax plan, citing economic experts across the political spectrum who’ve
discredited his assertion that his huge (sorry: HUUGE) tax cuts would somehow
pay for themselves. “They said you have
as good a chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as
you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms,” Harwood
quipped.
The award for smartest and most deceptive dodge of the night goes
to Marco Rubio. Harwood pointed out
that, according to the Tax Foundation, Rubio’s plan would give “nearly twice as
much gain in after-tax income to the top one percent as to people in the people
in the middle of the income scale.” That
is true, even under the most generous assumptions the conservative think tank
makes: Under Rubio’s plan, the top one
percent gains about 28 percent in after-tax income, including dynamic effects;
the middle 40 to 50 percent sees just a 16 percent increase. [The New
Republic, 10/29/15]
~~~
If the
good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again,
hopefully next Fiday, Saturday, or Sunday.
God
Bless You All
&
God
Bless the United States of
America
Floyd
No comments:
Post a Comment