OBOMB HAS SPENT
HIS ENTIRE LIFE CONNING PEOPLE.
Obama: 'I Make Love to Men Daily'
In composing my new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, I thought hard about whether I should address the question of Barack Obama's sexuality.
Two considerations persuaded me to pursue the issue. One was the no-holds-barred media treatment of the sex life, real and imagined, of Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh. The second was the fact that despite Obama's early feint to the center, his presidency was something of a golden age for gay America. A May 2012 Newsweek cover story, in fact, dubbed Obama "the first gay president."
Understandably, the fear of offending the “black church” made Obama initially cautious about championing the LGBT cause, but there may have been another reason for his restraint. Obama faced rumors that he himself was gay. No subject made those close to Obama more nervous.
College girlfriend Alex McNear, for instance, redacted a section of a letter she shared with Obama biographer David Garrow, thinking Obama’s reflections on homosexuality “too explosive." Her concern was understandable.
In his early twenties, Obama had written to McNear that he viewed gay sex as “an attempt to remove oneself from the present, a refusal perhaps to perpetuate the endless farce of earthly life.” Obama continued, “You see, I make love to men daily, but in the imagination. My mind is androgynous to a great extent and I hope to make it more so." This passage did not make the hardcover edition of Garrow’s 2017 book, Rising Star.
In the less "inclusive" days of the early 1980s, no straight guy I know would ever have thought to make such an admission, especially to a "girlfriend." Only after McNear sold the Barack Obama letters to Emory University in 2016 was Garrow able to access the original and even then with some difficulty. Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights historian, included the passage above in the paperback version of his book. No one noticed.
Given the admitted bisexuality of Obama's Hawaiian mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, and Obama’s mental indulgence in the same, the honest critic has to think hard about this excerpt from “Pop,” a poem Obama wrote about Davis while in college.
“Pop takes another shot, neat / Points out the same amber / Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine / and / Makes me smell his smell, coming / From me.” A therapist who blogged under the label “Neo-Neocon” hesitated to call the interaction “outright sexual abuse,” but she imagined it at the very least “a boundary violation.” She explained, “This child feels invaded—perhaps even taken over—by this man, and is fighting against that sensation."
After Obama announced for the presidency in 2007, a fellow named Larry Sinclair fueled rumors about Obama’s sexuality when he went public with his allegations of a two-day coke and sex romp with the then-married Obama in 1999. Fearless, if nothing else, Sinclair then booked space at the National Press Club in June 2008 to detail his reputed relationship with Obama.
From the beginning, the mainstream media, including the “responsible” right, pretended Sinclair did not exist. The actual work of extinguishing Sinclair’s credibility was left to the internet's leftist hitmen. As soon as Sinclair announced plans for the press conference, they launched an internet petition drive demanding the Press Club deny Sinclair its stage.
To its credit, the National Press Club refused to buckle. Sinclair held his conference. In watching it years later, I am impressed by how well Sinclair understood Obama’s hold on the media. If you asked a question about a black man who chose to run for president, he observed, “All of a sudden you’re called a racist, a bigot.”
A genuine character, Sinclair acknowledged up front the various crimes he had committed in years past. He wanted to take that cudgel away from the media. Sinclair then explained in exquisite detail the nature of his alleged 1999 interaction with then-state senator Obama.
He provided dates, the name of the hotel, the name of the Muslim limo driver who arranged the assignation, the specifics of their sexual interlude, as well as insights into the menacing phone calls he received from Donald Young, a member of Reverend Wright’s church and an alleged lover of Obama’s.
More than once during the question and answer period, reporters asked Sinclair, given his “tremendous credibility problem,” why they should take him seriously. In turn, Sinclair asked the reporters “to do your jobs and find facts.” He provided them several useful leads and challenged them to follow up. Sinclair specifically asked the reporters to check Young’s phone records. He believed Obama to be complicit in the choir member’s December 2007 murder, a crime that remains unsolved to this day.
True to form, Politico quickly moved to discredit Sinclair. Its editors headlined their article from the day of the press conference, “Obama accuser has long rap sheet.” In an aside that Trump or Kavanaugh might find amusing, Politico refused to publish Sinclair’s “outlandish” allegations because they were “unsubstantiated.” Wired, meanwhile, ran an article celebrating those leftist bloggers who succeeded in getting Sinclair arrested on an outstanding Delaware warrant just as he was leaving the Press Club.
As should be obvious, the media had stunningly different standards for Sinclair and, say, Stormy Daniels or Christine Blasey Ford. The same media that insisted we “believe the women” were not at all inclined to believe the men, at least not this man.
The same media that insisted “love is love” saw something inherently distasteful in Sinclair’s tale of consensual gay sex. The messenger in this case had to be attacked, exposed, eliminated as a threat, and that he was. To this day, few have ever heard of Sinclair. Fewer still have heard of the late Donald Young.
In fact, so quickly were Sinclair’s allegations trashed and burned, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin did not even mention Sinclair in their comprehensive look at the 2008 campaign, Game Change.
Yes, Obama did have girlfriends. In his memoir Dreams from My Father he wraps them up into one white composite girl but tells his half-sister Auma, “There are several black ladies out there who’ve broken my heart just as good.” Obama, however, does not devote a sentence to any of these imagined black ladies, and his future biographers failed to locate a single one.
Obviously, too, Obama got married. His memoir, Dreams from My Father, culminates in his wedding to Michelle. Yet he seems to have chosen Michelle with the same political calculation that he chose his church, a way of rooting himself in the African-American community. As with all previous relationships, this tale of courtship is strikingly devoid of any reference to love, sex, or romance.
At his most passionate, Obama says of Michelle, "In her eminent practicality and Midwestern attitudes, she reminds me not a little of Toot [his grandmother]." That description must surely have warmed Michelle's heart, but that may have been the best Obama could do.
Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, will be published on August 18.
OBAMANOMICS:
The report
observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80 richest people doubled between
2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of the world’s population (3.5
billion people) was lower in 2014 than it was in 2009.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/01/oxfam-richest-one-percent-set-to.html
In 2010, it
took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the bottom half of the earth’s
population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to just 92 billionaires. It fell to
80 in 2014.
THE OBAMA
ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS
“The goal of
the Obama administration, working with the Republicans and local governments,
is to roll back the living conditions of the vast majority of the population to
levels not seen since the 19th century, prior to the advent of the eight-hour
day, child labor laws, comprehensive public education, pensions, health
benefits, workplace health and safety regulations, etc.”
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/01/oxfam-richest-one-percent-set-to.html
“In response
to the ruthless assault of the financial oligarchy, spearheaded by Obama, the
working class must advance, no less ruthlessly, its own policy.”
Michelle Obama: Coronavirus an Opportunity to
Change ‘How Wealth Is Distributed’
PAM KEY6 Aug 202015,357
3:54
Wednesday on
her new podcast, former first lady Michelle
Obama called coronavirus an opportunity to think about “how wealth is
distributed” to lower-income essential workers.
Obama noted
the “power” that would enable what “we” could do to allow such actions.
Journalist
Michele Norris said, “There’s kind of a new COVID vocabulary, isn’t it. There
are also words that have always had some meaning, but that take on different
meaning now, the word hero, the word essential.”
She
continued, “I think we will forever think about the word ‘essential’ in a
different way. And, when we were told to stay home, they got up, got dressed,
and went out into the world, risking their lives, to drive garbage trucks, to
work in warehouses, to work in grocery stores, to work in hospitals. Often
doing invisible, but yes, essential work, and I struggle with it because I’m
not sure that we treat them like they’re essential.”
Obama
replied, “And that’s something that we need to, that’s a part of that
reflection, that we need to do, you know. With ourselves, and, and as a
community. And we have to think about that, in terms of how wealth is
distributed. You know, how, how these essential people are supported. And what
does that mean? A lot of these people are broke. They don’t have health
insurance. That it, if they were to get sick, as essential as they are, we have
not, as a society, deemed it essential to make sure that they can go to the
doctor and get the care that they need. And even if they can get COVID care,
even if they can get tested, to keep working and doing our stuff, after the
effects of the virus have worn off, and they are dealing with some lung issue,
or some breathing issue, or asthma, that they don’t have to wait, in a, an
emergency room, for hours on end, and then worry, that they can even, afford
the prescription medication that they need to survive, I mean we have to think
about this. We have to think about the people who are not from this country,
who are essential workers. A lot of those folks are still out in the fields
picking our corn, and making sure that that food is in our grocery stores, and
working in these meatpacking plants, to ensure that the, that the cow that was
slaughtered, gets into our bellies.”
Later in the
podcast, Obama said, “It’s not enough to just acknowledge that the pain exists,
to acknowledge the struggle, we actually have power we can, we can change so
much of what we do, we can sacrifice a little more, we can, we can shift
priorities, uh, and not just in our own lives, cause it’s not enough, to just
do it in your own life if you’re not willing to do it in our broader policy.
You know, if that, if that, if those conversations aren’t going to happen, then
we’re just giving lip service to it. You know.
She added,
“We’ve seen these times in our history before, not just like this, but, but,
but when things are good, it’s easy to forget about that. To take it for
granted. To start thinking, yeah, how much, do I really want my taxes going to
that, and school lunches? Eh. You know, that’s a lot of money. What does it
matter — let’s cut this, let’s chop that. But, all of that came, all the things
that we look to cut were put in place in response to some crisis. That revealed
to us that hey there are a lot of hungry kids, at home, because their parents
are poor, so what’s the best way to feed them, we’re going to provide them with
nutrition, at school. So, we, we have it, in our country’s DNA to step up.”
She concluded,
“Always with great opposition, because you’re asking people to sacrifice, to
give up, things that, that they think they deserve, that they’re entitled to
for the sake of the greater good.”
Follow Pam Key on
Twitter @pamkeyNEN
New Federal
Reserve report
US median income
has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The
yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or
$6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is just one of the
findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances released
Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class living standards and
a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and the super-rich.
New
Federal Reserve report
US
median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The
yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a massive 12 percent, or
$6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is just one of the
findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances released
Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class living standards and
a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich and the super-rich.
The
report makes clear that the drop in a typical household’s income was not merely
the result of what is referred to as the 2008 recession, which officially
lasted only 18 months, through June 2009. Much of the decline in workers’
incomes occurred during the so-called “economic recovery” presided over by the
Obama administration.
In
the three years between 2010 and 2013, the annual income of a typical household
actually fell by 5 percent.
The
Fed report exposes as a fraud the efforts of the Obama administration to
present itself as a defender of the “middle class”. It has systematically
pursued policies to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the very top of the
income ladder. These include the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the banks,
near-zero interest rates to drive up the stock market, and austerity measures
and wage cutting to lift corporate profits and CEO pay to record highs.
The
Federal Reserve data, based on in-person interviews, show a far larger decline
in the median income of American households than indicated by earlier figures
from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.
In
line with the figures on household income, the report shows an ever-growing
concentration of wealth among the richest households. The Fed’s summary of its
data notes that “the wealth share of the top 3 percent climbed from 44.8
percent in 1989 to 51.8 percent in 2007 and 54.4 percent in 2013,” while the
wealth of the “next 7 highest percent of families changed very little.”
The
report states that “the rising wealth share of the top 3 percent of families is
mirrored by the declining share of wealth held by the bottom 90 percent,” which
fell from 33.2 percent in 1989 to 24.7 percent in 2013.
The
ongoing impoverishment of the population is an indictment of capitalism. There
has been no genuine recovery from the Wall Street crash of 2008, only a further
plundering of the economy by the financial aristocracy. The crisis precipitated
by the rapacious, criminal practices of the bankers and hedge fund speculators
has been used to restructure the economy to the benefit of the rich at the
expense of everyone else.
Decent-paying
jobs have been wiped out and replaced by low-wage, part-time and temporary
jobs, with little or no benefits. Pensions and health benefits have come under
savage attack, as seen in the bankruptcy of Detroit.
Not
surprisingly, the Fed report has been buried by the American media, confined to
the inside pages of the major newspapers.
Measured
in 2013 dollars, a typical household received an income of $53,100 in 2007. By
2010, this had fallen to $49,000. It hit $46,700 by 2013. At the same time, the
average income for the wealthiest tenth of families grew by ten percent.
While
median income fell between 2010 and 2013, mean (average) income grew, from
$84,100 to $87,200. The report noted that, “the decline in median income
coupled with the rise in mean income is consistent with a widening income
distribution during this period.”
For
the poorest households, the drop in income has been even more dramatic. Among
the bottom quarter of households, mean income fell a full 10 percent between
2010 and 2013.
The
report reveals other aspects of the social crisis. The share of young families
burdened by education debt nearly doubled, from 22.4 percent to 38.8 percent,
between 2001 and 2013. The share of young families with more than $100,000 in
debt has grown nearly tenfold, from 0.6 percent to 5.6 percent.
These
statistics reflect both a historic and insoluble crisis of the profit system
and the brutal policies of the American ruling class, which is carrying out a
relentless assault on working people and preparing to go even further by
dismantling bedrock social programs such as Medicare and Social Security. The
data undercuts the endless talk of “partisan gridlock” in Washington and the
media presentation of a political system paralyzed by irreconcilable
differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.
There
has, in fact, been a seamless continuity between the Bush and Obama
administrations in the pursuit of reactionary policies of war abroad and class
war at home. The two parties have worked hand in glove to make the working
class pay for the crisis of the capitalist system.
The
Federal Reserve has itself played a critical role in the growth of social
inequality in the US. The bailout of the banks, estimated at $7 trillion, has
been followed by six years of virtually free money for the banks.
Every
facet of American life is dominated by the immense concentration of wealth at the
very top of society. The grotesque levels of wealth amassed by the parasites
and criminals who dominate American business, and the flaunting of their
fortunes before tens of millions struggling to pay their bills and keep from
falling into destitution, are fueling the growth of social anger. This anger
will increasingly be directed against the entire economic and political system.
The
figures released by the Fed reflect a society riven by class divisions that
must inevitably trigger social upheavals. The explosive state of social
relations is itself a major factor in the endless recourse by the Obama
administration to military aggression and war, which serve to deflect internal
tensions outward.
The
growth of inequality likewise underlies the relentless attack on democratic
rights in the US, including the massive domestic spying exposed by Edward
Snowden and the use of militarized police to crack down on social opposition,
as seen most recently in Ferguson, Missouri.
The Obamas tackle climate change and wealth inequality
By John
Eidson
In a remarkable
commitment to their tireless fight against climate change and wealth
inequality, Barack and Michelle Obama reportedly are purchasing a magnificent $15-million oceanfront mansion in Martha’s Vineyard, presumably as
a much-needed retreat to supplement the $9-million mansion they already own in
one of the most exclusive areas of the nation’s capitol.
A fierce
opponent of fossil fuels and wealth inequality, the former president has
harshly criticized rich people for the oversized, carbon-gluttonous houses they
buy. On April 25, 2010, the president who would become fabulously wealthy
in retirement scolded Wall Street CEOs with this admonition:
I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.
His views about
the sin of making too much money haven’t changed. During a speech last
year in South Africa, this shining example of environmental stewardship and
unparalleled concern for the poor spoke passionately about the unfairness of
some people having more money than others in blasting rich people for their excessively lavish lifestyles:
There’s only so much you can eat; there’s only so big a house you
can have; there’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough.
That direct
quote came from the lips of a man who, along with his wife, is sitting atop a
nest egg estimated at a meager $135 million. But don’t feel sorry for them, because there’s much more
to come: with money barreling their way like a runaway train, the concerned
couple is rapidly becoming a billion-dollar brand.
Protecting the planet: During his first full day in the White House, President Obama
was photographed without his suit jacket. Senior advisor David Axelrod
explained: “He’s from Hawaii, okay? He likes it warm. You could
grow orchids in there.” While campaigning, Obama vowed to exhibit environmental leadership if elected: “We can’t drive our
SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our thermostats set at 72 degrees.
That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen [with me].”
In decreeing
that rich people make too much money and that global warming is an imminent
threat to our very survival, this ultra-wealthy man and his ultra-wealthy wife
decided to indulge themselves in another opulent mansion, this one sitting on
29 oceanfront acres on one of the most exclusive islands in the world.
While homeless people are sleeping on the streets and our planet is being
destroyed by CO2, the Obamas are living large, a pitifully small reward for two
remarkable people who bend over backwards to show leadership in the fight
against climate change and wealth inequality.
An
electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is
a freelance writer in Atlanta. American Thinker recently published related
article of his titled "Harrison Ford, Climate Hypocrite" and "A $600 fill-up?"
Nolte: Michelle Obama Condemns ‘White
Flight’ After Purchasing Home in Martha’s Vineyard
Gerardo Mora/Getty Images
31 Oct 2019113
5:28
Former first lady
Michelle Obama condemned white people for fleeing minority neighborhoods just
weeks after she and her husband purchased a $15
million estate in Martha’s Vineyard.
Martha’s Vineyard is 95 percent white and just two percent black.
Martha’s Vineyard is almost as white as
an Elizabeth Warren rally.
Martha’s Vineyard is whiter than my subdivision
here in rural North Carolina.
Martha’s Vineyard is whiter than MSNBC.
During a Tuesday appearance at the Obama
Foundation Summit in Chicago, she said, “But unbeknownst to us, we grew up in
the period — as I write — called ‘white flight.’ That as families like ours,
upstanding families like ours … As we moved in, white folks moved out because
they were afraid of what our families represented.”
“And I always stop there when I talk
about this out in the world because, you know, I want to remind white folks
that y’all were running from us.” She went on, “This family with all the values
that you’ve read about. You were running from us. And you’re still running,
because we’re no different than the immigrant families that are moving in … the
families that are coming from other places to try to do better.”
Did I
mention that Michelle and Barry just purchased a $15 million estate in Martha’s
Vineyard, which is 95 percent white?
Oh, and did
I mention the Obamas own a second home, an $8 million mansion, in the exclusive
DC neighborhood of Kalorama, which is
80 percent white and just four percent black.
Oh, and did
I mention the Obamas have a third home, a $5.3 million mansion, in Rancho
Mirage, California, which is 89 percent white and just 2.6 percent black.
Oh, sure,
the Obamas still own their Chicago home in Hyde Park, which is at least 26
percent black. But you would think they could do better than 26 percent!
I like Michelle Obama. I have always
liked Michelle Obama. I’ve never said an unkind word about her, quite the
opposite, and while I find her politics ignorant, she was a terrific first lady.
But this is nuts…
Not only is she attacking white people
for seeking a better standard of living, which I can assure you (as I will
explain below) has little to do with racism, she is also attacking whites after
she herself “fled” to 95 percent white Martha’s Vineyard (I will never stop
repeating this point) and two other homes in areas where the black population
is less than 5 percent.
Worse still, she is putting white people
in a position where they can never win, where they are damned if they do or
don’t, where they are always and forever racist.
If white people move out of a black
neighborhood, they’re racists engaging in white flight.
But…
And this is important…
If white people move into a minority
neighborhood, they are also racists for either engaging in gentrification —
which is just another form of cultural genocide, donchaknow — or cultural
appropriation.
Now I’m going to tell you a little
something about white flight, from my own experience…
Because I was poor, back in the
mid-eighties, I lived in the inner-city of Milwaukee for two years. My wife and
I did not flee (my wife is not white, by the way) because of “icky minorities”
(did I mention my wife is not white?), we fled because it was not safe to live
there. It was never safe. Over those two years, we had been mugged, robbed, and
had our car stolen. That’s why we left.
And when we fled, it was to a community
that was still not as white as *ahem* Martha’s Vineyard.
In 2002, my wife and I moved to
California for nine years and lived in an East Los Angeles neighborhood that
was just four percent white. For nearly a decade, I was
outnumbered 96-4 and never gave it a thought because I was not outnumbered. A
darker skin tone, an accent, and different religious traditions did not make my
neighbors any less American than me, and when I am among Americans I am among
my own. We left because predominantly white leftists are destroying California.
Then there’s my poor dad…
He moved to the Northside of Milwaukee
in 1980, and spent decades, a lot of money, and a ton of sweat, remodeling his
home, building a garage, and paying that home off. He intended to retire there.
And yes, there were black people in his neighborhood when he moved in, and for
most of his adult life he worked in predominantly black institutions. He never
intended to move, and held on for as long as he could… He didn’t flee because
of black people. He was not forced to start all over at age 67 because he
suddenly decided he didn’t like blacks. He left because he was robbed, because
gangs started tagging his house and garage, because it was no longer safe to
live there.
You know…
If we’re going to shame people for such
things, what does it say to black people when other black people, especially
the first black president and his family, reject them? What the hell kind of
message is this to send to black Americans, especially when the Obamas can afford
the security to live safely in any neighborhood they choose?
And if the Obamas wanted to live in
Southern California, why choose Rancho Mirage over Ladera Heights, the Black
Beverly Hills, a predominantly black neighborhood as swank as any in America?
Shame on Michelle and Barack Obama. They
have the money and profile to make an important statement on this issue, but
they obviously prefer to live in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
Diamond Life: Michelle
Obama rents out $23-million Hollywood Hills mansion for a night
Apparently, a
hotel, even a luxury hotel, was not good enough.
Former first
lady Michelle Obama had to go big, renting out a $23-million Hollywood Hills
mansion for...a night. The New York Post has the pictures of
it here. Several news accounts explained it as possibly a
rental to try and buy, something most home-buyers don't get to
do. Whether she actually paid is also a big question mark, and if
so, whether she paid market value (which would have cost more than a
fancy hotel) or received her night there a "gift," which
presents its own ethics problems.
Here's what
a local CBS report said the place was like:
The Shark House, which is located in the 9200 block of Swallow
Drive, is thus named due to its open air shark aquarium. It also has a full
spa, a humidor room, movie theater and walk-in wine room.
It's on the market, currently listed for a cool $22.9 million.
A source told TMZ the Obamas may be looking at real estate in the
Hollywood Hills area, but that was not confirmed.
If they're in
the market to buy that, they've got a lot more money than the press is
reporting. We know they're loaded. But not that
loaded. Not Louis XIV loaded, which is about the range for this
sort of place. Or is it a sweetheart deal in the works we're talking
about? Maybe they'll end up buying it for "a
dollar." Don't know yet, but neither possibility makes them
look good.
It's all part
and parcel of the Obamas' long, luxurious post-presidency, a nonstop vacay
that costs taxpayers millions. It's as though we're financing kings
now, not retired presidents. For a while there, the
Obamas were jetting around with billionaires and staying on
private islands. Then
they bought that expensive Kalorama mansion in Washington, D.C., all
supposedly for the benefit of their daughter Sasha, who was finishing high
school. Surprise, surprise, it actually seems to primarily serve as
a political watch post for longtime Obama loyalist and consigliere Valerie Jarrett. They
did some audience tours and hung out with more billionaires. There
were those lucrative Goldman Sachs speeches by the celebrity president (which
certainly weren't based on economics anyone would want to trade on).
And all of this
has been financed by taxpayers, who pay his $207,000 pension, along with bennies such as unlimited air travel,
transition expenses, office expenses, presidential library funds, and lifetime
Secret Service detail.
Apparently, to
the Obamas, there's no reaching that "certain point" at which "you've made enough money."
For Michelle,
just call her "Mooch." Is this really what an
ex-presidency is supposed to be like? Hitting the money jackpot? What
he makes on his own is his own business (subject to bribery laws), but
taxpayers shouldn't be financing this level of movie-star billionaire luxe
life. Maybe it's time for some pension reform from Congress. Would
be quite a thing to see that idea presented to the House's ruling Democrats.
OBAMAnomics:
Billionaire
Class Enjoys 15X the Wage Growth of American Working Class
The billionaire class — the country’s top 0.01 percent of earners —
have enjoyed more than 15 times as much wage growth as America’s working and
middle class since 1979, new wage data reveals.
Between 1979
and 2017, the wages of the bottom 90 percent — the country’s working and lower
middle class — have grown by only about 22 percent, Economic Policy Institute
(EPI) researchers find.
Compare that
small wage increase over nearly four decades to the booming wage growth of
America’s top one percent, who have seen their wages grow more than 155 percent
during the same period.
The top 0.01
percent — the country’s billionaire class — saw their wages grow by more
than 343 percent in the last four decades, more than 15 times the wage
growth of the bottom 90 percent of Americans.
In 1979,
America’s working class was earning on average about $29,600 a year. Fast
forward to 2017, and the same bottom 90 percent of Americans are earning only
about $6,600 more annually.
The almost
four decades of wage stagnation among the country’s working and middle class
comes as the national immigration policy has allowed for the admission of more
than 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants every year.
In the last
decade, alone, the U.S. admitted ten
million legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing
population of low-wage workers. Meanwhile, employers are able to reduce wages
and drive up their profit margins thanks to the annual low-skilled immigration
scheme.
The
Washington, DC-imposed mass
immigration policy is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big
business, and multinational conglomerates as every one percent increase in the
immigrant composition of an occupation’s labor force reduces Americans’ hourly wages by 0.4 percent.
Every one percent increase in the immigrant workforce reduces Americans’
overall wages by 0.8 percent.
Mass
immigration has come at the expense of America’s working and middle class, which
has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and increased public costs
to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled foreign nationals.
Four million
young Americans enter the workforce every year, but their job opportunities are
further diminished as the U.S. imports roughly two new foreign workers for
every four American workers who enter the workforce. Even though researchers
say 30 percent of the workforce could lose their
jobs due to automation by 2030, the U.S. has not stopped importing more than a
million foreign nationals every year.
For
blue-collar American workers, mass immigration has not only kept wages down but
in many cases decreased wages, as Breitbart News reported. Meanwhile,
the U.S. continues importing more foreign nationals with whom working-class
Americans are forced to compete. In 2016, the U.S. brought in about
1.8 million mostly low-skilled immigrants.
John Binder is a
reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Study: Elite Zip Codes Thrived in Obama Recovery, Rural America
Left Behind
4:49
Wealthy cities and elite zip codes thrived under the slow-moving
economic recovery of President Obama while rural American communities were left
behind, a study reveals.
The Economic
Innovation Group research, highlighted by Axios, details the massive
economic inequality between the country’s coastal city elites and middle America’s
working class between the Great Recession in 2007 and Obama’s economic recovery
in 2016.
Between 2007
and 2016, the number of residents living in elite zip codes grew by more than
ten million, with an overwhelming faction of that population growth being
driven by mass immigration where the U.S. imports more than 1.5 million illegal
and legal immigrants annually.
The booming
44.5 million immigrant populations are concentrated mostly
in the country’s major cities like Los Angeles, California, Miami Florida, and
New York City, New York. The rapidly growing U.S. population — driven by
immigration — is set to hit 404 millionby 2060, a
boon for real estate developers, wealthy investors, and corporations, all of
which benefit greatly from dense populations and a flooded labor market.
The economic
study found that while the population grew in wealthy cities, America’s rural
population fell by nearly 3.5 million residents.
Likewise, by
2016, elite zip codes had a surplus of 3.6 million jobs, which is more than the
combined bottom 80 percent of American zip codes. While it only took about five
years for wealthy cities to replace the jobs lost by the recession, it took “at
risk” regions of the country a decade to recover, and “distressed” U.S.
communities are “unlikely ever to recover on current trendlines,” the report
predicts.
A map
included in the research shows how rich, coastal metropolises have boomed
economically while entire portions of middle America have been left behind as
job and business gains remain concentrated at the top of the income ladder.
Economic
growth among the country’s middle-class counties and middle-class zip codes has
considerably trailed national economic growth, the study found.
For example,
between 2012 and 2016, there were 4.4 percent more business establishments in
the country as a whole. That growth was less than two percent in the median zip
code and there was close to no growth in the median county.
The same can
be said of employment growth, where U.S. employment grew by about 9.3 percent
from 2012 to 2016. In the median zip code, though, employment grew by only 5.5
percent and in the median county, employment grew by less than four percent.
“Nearly
three in every five large counties added businesses on net over the period,
compared to only one in every five small one,” the report concluded.
Elite zip
codes added more business establishments during Obama’s economic recovery,
between 2012 and 2016, than the entire bottom 80 percent of zip codes combined.
For instance, while more than 180,000 businesses have been added to rich zip
codes, the country’s bottom tier has lost more than 13,000 businesses even
after the economic recovery.
The gutting
of the American manufacturing base, through free trade, has been a driving catalyst for
the collapse of the white working class and black Americans. Simultaneously,
the outsourcing of the economy has brought major wealth to corporations, tech
conglomerates, and Wall Street.
The dramatic
decline of U.S. manufacturing at the hands of free trade—where more than 3.4 million American
jobs have been lost solely due to free trade with China, not including the
American jobs lost due to agreements like the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)—has
coincided with growing wage inequality for white and black Americans, a growing
number of single mother households, a drop in U.S. marriage rates, a
general stagnation of working and middle class wages, and specifically,
increased black American unemployment.
“So, the
loss of manufacturing work since 1960 represents a steady decline in relatively
high-paying jobs for less-educated workers,” recent research
from economist Eric D. Gould has noted.
Fast-forward
to the modern economy and the wage trend has been the opposite of what it was
during the peak of manufacturing in the U.S. An Economic Policy Institute studyfound this year
that been 2009 and 2015, the top one percent of American families
earned about 26 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent of Americans.
John Binder is a reporter for
Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Record high income in 2017 for top
one percent of wage earners in US
In
2017, the top one percent of US wage earners received their highest paychecks
ever, according to a report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
Based
on newly released data from the Social Security Administration, the EPI shows
that the top one percent of the population saw their paychecks increase by 3.7
percent in 2017—a rate nearly quadruple the bottom 90 percent of the
population. The growth was driven by the top 0.1 percent, which includes many
CEOs and corporate executives, whose pay increased eight percent and averaged
$2,757,000 last year.
The
EPI report is only the latest exposure of the gaping inequality between the
vast majority of the population and the modern-day aristocracy that rules over
them.
The
EPI shows that the bottom 90 percent of wage earners have increased their pay
by 22.2 percent between 1979 and 2017. Today, this bottom 90 percent makes an
average of just $36,182 a year, which is eaten up by the cost of housing and
the growing burden of education, health care, and retirement.
Meanwhile,
the top one percent has increased its wages by 157 percent during this same
period, a rate seven times faster than the other group. This top segment makes
an average of $718,766 a year. Those in-between, the 90th to 99th percentile,
have increased their wages by 57.4 percent. They now make an average of
$152,476 a year—more than four times the bottom 90 percent.
Decades of decaying capitalism have led to this accelerating
divide. While the rich accumulate wealth with no restriction, workers’ wages
and benefits have been under increasing attack. In 1979, 90 percent of the
population took in 70 percent of the nation’s income. But, by 2017, that fell
to only 61 percent.
Even
more, while the bottom 90 percent of the population may take in 61 percent of
the wages, large sections of the workforce today barely pull in any income at
all. For example, Social Security Administration data found that the
bottom 54 percent of wage earners in the United States, 89.5 million people,
make an average of just $15,100 a year. This 54 percent of the population earns
only 17 percent of all wages paid in America.
However unequal, these wage inequalities
still do not fully present the divide between rich and poor. The ultra-wealthy
derive their wealth not primarily from wages, but from assets and
equities—principally from the stock market. While the bottom 90 percent of the
population made 61 percent of the wages in 2017, they owned even less, just 27
percent of the wealth (according to the World Inequality Report 2018 by
Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman).
The
massive increase in the value of the stock market, which only a small segment
of the population participates in, means that the top 10 percent of the
population controls 73 percent of all wealth in the United States. Just three
men—Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates—had more wealth than the bottom
half of America combined last year.
Wages are so low in the United States
that roughly half of the population falls deeper into debt every year. A
Reuters report from July found that the pretax net income (that is, income
minus expense) of the bottom 40 percent of the population was an average of negative $11,660.
Even the middle quintile of the population, the 40th to 60th percentile, breaks
even with an average of only $2,836 a year.
As
the Social Security Administration numbers show, 67.4 percent of the population
made less than the average wage, $48,250 a year in 2017, a sum that is
inadequate to support a family in many cities—especially, with high housing
costs, health care, education, and retirement factored in.
For
the ruling class, though, workers’ wages are already too much. The volatility
of the stock market and the deep fear that the current bull market will
collapse has made politicians and businessmen anxious of any sign of wage
increases.
In August, wages in the US rose just 0.2
percent above the inflation rate, the highest in nine years. Though the
increase was tiny, it was enough to encourage the Federal Reserve to increase
the interest rate past two percent for the first time since 2008. Raising
interest rates helps to depress workers’ wages by lowering borrowing and
spending. As the Financial Times noted, stopping wage growth
was “central” to the Federal Reserve’s move.
Further
analysis of the Social Security Administration data shows that in 2017, 147,754
people reported wages of 1 million dollars or more—roughly, the top 0.05
percent. Their combined total income of $372 billion could pay for the US
federal education budget five times over.
These
wages, however large, still pale in comparison to the money the ultra-rich
acquire from the stock market. For example, share buybacks and dividend
payments, a way of funneling money to shareholders, will eclipse $1 trillion
this year.
Whatever
the immediate source, the wealth of the rich derives from the great mass of
people who do the actual work. Across the United States and around the world,
workers, young people, and students have entered into struggle this year over
pay, education, health care, immigration, war and democratic rights. This
growing movement of the working class must set as its aim confiscating the
wealth and power of this tiny parasitic oligarchy. Society’s wealth must be
democratically controlled by those who produce it.
OBAMA: SERVANT OF THE 1%
Richest one percent controls nearly half of
global wealth
The richest
one percent of the world’s population now controls 48.2 percent of global
wealth, up from 46 percent last year.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2014/10/how-barack-obama-and-his-crony.html
The report found that the
growth of global inequality has accelerated sharply since the 2008 financial
crisis, as the values of financial assets have soared while wages have
stagnated and declined.
Millionaires projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019
Households
with more than a million (US) dollars in private wealth are projected to own 46
percent of global private wealth in 2019 according to a new report by the Boston
Consulting Group (BCG).
This
large percentage, however, only includes cash, savings, money market funds and
listed securities held through managed investments—collectively known as
“private wealth.” It leaves out businesses, residences and luxury goods, which
comprise a substantial portion of the rich’s net worth.
At the end of 2014, millionaire households owned about 41
percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means that
collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in
liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.
In
total, the world added $17.5 trillion of new private wealth between 2013 and
2014. The report notes that nearly three quarters of all these gains came from
previously existing wealth. In other words, the vast majority of money gained
has been due to pre-existing assets increasing in value—not the creation of new
material things.
This
trend is the result of the massive infusions of cheap credit into the financial
markets by central banks. The policy of “quantitative easing” has led to a
dramatic expansion of the stock market even while global economic growth has
slumped.
While the wealth of the rich is growing at a breakneck pace,
there is a stratification of growth within the super wealthy, skewed towards
the very top.
In
2014, those with over $100 million in private wealth saw their wealth increase
11 percent in one year alone. Collectively, these households owned $10 trillion
in 2014, 6 percent of the world’s private wealth. According to the report,
“This top segment is expected to be the fastest growing, in both the number of
households and total wealth.” They are expected to see 12 percent compound
growth on their wealth in the next five years.
Those
families with wealth between $20 and $100 million also rose substantially in
2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in their wealth in twelve short months. They
now own $9 trillion. In five years they will surpass $14 trillion according to
the report.
Coming
in last in the “high net worth” population are those with between $1 million
and $20 million in private wealth. These households are expected to see their
wealth grow by 7.2 percent each year, going from $49 trillion to $70.1 trillion
dollars, several percentage points below the highest bracket’s 12 percent
growth rate.
The
gains in private wealth of the ultra-rich stand in sharp contrast to the
experience of billions of people around the globe. While wealth accumulation
has sharply sped up for the ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of people have not
even begun to recover from the past recession.
An
Oxfam report from
January, for example, shows that the bottom 99 percent of the world’s
population went from having about 56 percent of the world’s wealth in 2010 to
having 52 percent of it in 2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent saw its wealth
rise from 44 to 48 percent of the world’s wealth.
In 2014
the Russell Sage Foundation found that between 2003 and 2013, the median
household net worth of those in the United States fell from $87,992 to
$56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich also saw their wealth drop during
the recession, they are more than making that money back. Between 2009 and
2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US went to the top 1 percent.
This is the most distorted post-recession income gain on record.
As the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted, in the
United States “between 2007 and 2013, net wealth fell on average 2.3 percent,
but it fell ten-times more (26 percent) for those at the bottom 20 percent of
the distribution.” The 2015 report concludes that “low-income households have
not benefited at all from income growth.”
Another
report by Knight Frank, looks at those with wealth exceeding $30
million. The report notes that in 2014 these 172,850 ultra-high-net-worth individuals
increased their collective wealth by $700 billion. Their total wealth now rests
at $20.8 trillion.
The
report also draws attention to the disconnection between the rich and the
actual economy. It states that the growth of this ultra-wealthy population
“came despite weaker-than-anticipated global economic growth. During 2014 the
IMF was forced to downgrade its forecast increase for world output from 3.7
percent to 3.3 percent.”
OBAMA’S CRONY CAPITALISM – A NATION
RULED BY CRIMINAL WALL STREET BANKSTERS AND OBAMA DONORS
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/05/pritzker-obama-adds-to-his-harem-of.html
GET THIS BOOK
Culture of Corruption: Obama and His
Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
by Michelle Malkin
In her shocking new book, Malkin digs deep into the
records of President Obama's staff, revealing corrupt dealings, questionable
pasts, and abuses of power throughout his administration.
PATRICK
BUCHANAN
After Obama has completely destroyed the
American economy, handed millions of jobs to illegals and billions of dollars
in welfare to illegals…. BUT WHAT COMES NEXT?
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2015/05/patrick-buchanan-when-obama-bankrupted.html
OBAMANOMICS: IS IT WORKING???
Millionaires
projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019
By
Gabriel Black
18 June 2015
Households with more than a million (US)
dollars in private wealth are projected to own 46 percent of global private
wealth in 2019 according to a new report by the Boston Consulting
Group (BCG).
This large percentage, however, only
includes cash, savings, money market funds and listed securities held through
managed investments—collectively known as “private wealth.” It leaves out
businesses, residences and luxury goods, which comprise a substantial portion
of the rich’s net worth.
At the end of 2014, millionaire households
owned about 41 percent of global private wealth, according to BCG. This means
that collectively these 17 million households owned roughly $67.24 trillion in
liquid assets, or about $4 million per household.
In total, the world added $17.5 trillion
of new private wealth between 2013 and 2014. The report notes that nearly three
quarters of all these gains came from previously existing wealth. In other
words, the vast majority of money gained has been due to pre-existing assets
increasing in value—not the creation of new material things.
This trend is the result of the massive
infusions of cheap credit into the financial markets by central banks. The
policy of “quantitative easing” has led to a dramatic expansion of the stock
market even while global economic growth has slumped.
While the wealth of the rich is growing at
a breakneck pace, there is a stratification of growth within the super wealthy,
skewed towards the very top.
In 2014, those with over $100 million in
private wealth saw their wealth increase 11 percent in one year alone.
Collectively, these households owned $10 trillion in 2014, 6 percent of the
world’s private wealth. According to the report, “This top segment is expected
to be the fastest growing, in both the number of households and total wealth.”
They are expected to see 12 percent compound growth on their wealth in the next
five years.
Those families with wealth between $20 and
$100 million also rose substantially in 2014—seeing a 34 percent increase in
their wealth in twelve short months. They now own $9 trillion. In five years
they will surpass $14 trillion according to the report.
Coming in last in the “high net worth”
population are those with between $1 million and $20 million in private wealth.
These households are expected to see their wealth grow by 7.2 percent each
year, going from $49 trillion to $70.1 trillion dollars, several percentage
points below the highest bracket’s 12 percent growth rate.
The gains in private wealth of the
ultra-rich stand in sharp contrast to the experience of billions of people
around the globe. While wealth accumulation has sharply sped up for the
ultra-wealthy, the vast majority of people have not even begun to recover from
the past recession.
An Oxfam report from January, for example, shows that the bottom 99 percent
of the world’s population went from having about 56 percent of the world’s
wealth in 2010 to having 52 percent of it in 2014. Meanwhile the top 1 percent
saw its wealth rise from 44 to 48 percent of the world’s wealth.
In 2014 the Russell Sage Foundation found
that between 2003 and 2013, the median household net worth of those in the
United States fell from $87,992 to $56,335—a drop of 36 percent. While the rich
also saw their wealth drop during the recession, they are more than making that
money back. Between 2009 and 2012, 95 percent of all the income gains in the US
went to the top 1 percent. This is the most distorted post-recession income
gain on record.
As the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) has noted, in the United States “between
2007 and 2013, net wealth fell on average 2.3 percent, but it fell ten-times
more (26 percent) for those at the bottom 20 percent of the distribution.” The
2015 report concludes that “low-income households have not benefited at all
from income growth.”
Another report by Knight Frank,
looks at those with wealth exceeding $30 million. The report notes that in 2014
these 172,850 ultra-high-net-worth individuals increased their collective
wealth by $700 billion. Their total wealth now rests at $20.8 trillion.
The report also draws attention to the
disconnection between the rich and the actual economy. It states that the
growth of this ultra-wealthy population “came despite weaker-than-anticipated
global economic growth. During 2014 the IMF was forced to downgrade its
forecast increase for world output from 3.7 percent to 3.3 percent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment