His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
JOE BIDEN TO HIS BANKSTERS: It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
Corporate America puts its money on Biden and the Democrats
The final financial reports before the election were filed by candidates for Congress and the White House by Oct. 15 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), detailing fundraising and spending in the third quarter, July 1 through Sept. 30. These reports are limited to the funds raised directly by the campaigns themselves, and exclude fundraising through supporting PACs (political action committees) usually funded by billionaires. Nonetheless, the FEC data provides some eye-opening insights into the political calculations of the American ruling elite, where there is increasing expectation of a Democratic victory on Nov. 3.
Two preliminary observations can be made. First, large sections of big business favor a shift from Trump to Biden, partly because of differences on foreign and domestic policy, partly because they regard a second Trump term as more likely to provoke an uncontrollable social and political explosion in America. Second, the corporate elite now views Biden and the Democrats as the favorites to win the election, and campaign contributions are a form of political insurance, giving the donors a “seat at the table” when a future Biden administration is staffed and determines its policy priorities.
The Democrats hold a decided edge in fundraising in each of the major sectors of the 2020 political battlefield. In the presidential campaign, Trump’s early dominance is a distant memory. Biden has outraised him beginning in May, and his lead has grown with each passing month.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden peeks out of the roof of an SUV as he leaves a fundraiser on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Biden campaign has raised $810 million and supporting organizations have raised $373 million, for a total of $1.183 billion. The Trump campaign has raised $552 million, supplemented by $256 million from outside groups, for a combined total of $808 million.
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested on Nov. 3. In the 435 House contests, the Democrats hold a slightly narrower lead, $772 million to $653 million. Both figures represent a sharp departure from recent congressional elections, at least until 2018, in which the Republican Party has generally enjoyed a huge financial edge.
The presidential fundraising figures represent sharp increases from 2016, when Democrat Hillary Clinton raised a combined total of $770 million while Trump raised $433 million. By Oct. 1, the Biden and Trump campaigns had already spent three times the amount expended at a similar point in 2016, a reflection both of the massively increased fundraising and the need to reach early and mail-in voters.
The Democratic Party and the corporate media have generally attributed the Biden campaign’s financial edge to a surge of small-dollar contributions. There certainly has been such a surge, at least compared to the early stages of the Biden campaign for the Democratic nomination, when small-dollar internet contributions went overwhelmingly to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. At that point Biden was sustained by a relative handful of wealthy backers.
But according to a recent tabulation by the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains the Open Secrets database of campaign finance information, Trump and Biden have raised roughly equal amounts in contributions of $200 or less, between $200 million and $250 million apiece, mainly over the internet.
The difference between the campaigns is accounted for primarily by big dollar contributions, with Biden raising far more than Trump. As the New York Times admitted in an article posted on its website Wednesday, “the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine.”
The Times continued:
From Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, Mr. Biden’s campaign has aggressively courted the megadonor class. It has raised almost $200 million from donors who gave at least $100,000 to his joint operations with the Democratic Party in the last six months—about twice as much as President Trump raised from six-figure donors in that time, according to an analysis of new federal records.
Million-dollar donors came from Hollywood (Jeffrey Katzenberg), Silicon Valley (Reed Hastings of Netflix and many others), and high finance. “Top executives with investment, private equity and venture capital firms like Blackstone, Bain Capital, Kleiner Perkins and Warburg Pincus all contributed handsomely,” the Times noted.
While Biden has lately attempted to sound a populist note, claiming that he represents Scranton (his birthplace, a decaying industrial city in northeastern Pennsylvania), while Trump represents the moneyed elite of “Park Avenue,” it turns out that “Scranton” has a different meaning to his campaign finance operation. Any affluent donor who solicits a total of $250,000 in contributions is considered a member of the “Scranton Circle” of elite donors, with special access to top advisers of the candidate. There is also a “Philly Founder” level for those generating $500,000 in contributions and a “Delaware Circle” for those accounting for $1 million or more.
Entering the month of October, the Biden campaign had $180.6 million in cash on hand, while the Trump campaign reported only $63.1 million, one-third of the Democrat’s total. This disparity was despite the Biden campaign’s outspending Trump’s by two to one during the month of September. After raising a record-shattering $365 million in August, the Biden campaign raised an even larger amount, $383 million, the following month.
Trump has not lacked for megadonor support, including $75 million from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, $21 million from Isaac Perlmutter, chairman of Marvel Entertainment, and $10 million from banking heir Timothy Mellon.
But these sums are dwarfed by the $100 million for Biden from billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who briefly sought the Democratic presidential nomination for himself—and spent $1.1 billion in that effort—and another $106 million from the Future Forward PAC, based in Silicon Valley, whose funding includes $22 million from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, $6 million from Jeff Lawson of Twilio, $5 million from crypto-currency trader Sam Bankman-Fried and $2.5 million from Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google.
Such figures make nonsense of the fascistic rhetoric of Trump, who continually denounces Biden as the tool of socialists, communists and the “radical Left.” Actually, Biden is a tried and tested tool of Wall Street and corporate America, dating back to his days as a senator from Delaware, a center of tax evasion. The tiny state has more corporations headquartered there for tax purposes, over one million, than human beings.
His services to the corporate elite continued through his tenure as vice president in the Obama administration, when he oversaw both the bailout of Wall Street and the bankruptcy restructuring of the auto industry, in which wages for new workers were cut in half.
It was to his supporters in the financial aristocracy, at an exclusive fundraiser last year in Manhattan, that Biden made his notorious pledge—the most truthful declaration of his entire campaign—that if he were elected president, “No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change.”
The financial constraints on the Trump campaign are unmistakable. In the final week of September and the first week of October, for example, it stopped advertising in four “battleground” states—Iowa, Ohio, Texas and New Hampshire. One advertising industry tally had Biden topping Trump in campaign spending in 72 out of 83 media markets where both campaigns were still competing.
The disparity between the Biden and Trump campaigns has been exacerbated by the timing of their expenditures. Trump spent lavishly in the early months of 2020, even before the Democratic nominee had been determined, and has raised less overall. The result is a cash crunch in the final weeks of the campaign.
Biden began the month of August with a three-to-one advantage in terms of financial resources and has outspent Trump in three critical battleground states—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—by that margin, $53 million to $17 million. According to figures reported in advertising trade publications, Biden has a 5–1 advantage in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, market, and more than a 2–1 advantage in Detroit and Philadelphia.
In Omaha, Nebraska, where a single electoral vote is at stake in the Second Congressional District, Biden has spent $2 million on advertising, six times the Trump total.
With Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden holding an apparently comfortable lead over Trump in the polls, much of the media attention has shifted to the question of which party will be in control of the Senate after November 3. The Republicans currently have a three-seat majority, 53-47, so the Democrats must gain a net of three seats if Biden wins, as a Vice President Kamala Harris would then have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The Democrats must gain four seats if Biden loses, but that combination is highly unlikely, since a Biden defeat would signify a broader Democratic debacle.
Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden peeks out of the roof of an SUV as he leaves a fundraiser on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2019, in Manhattan Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
In the Senate, the Democrats have outraised Republicans by a margin of more than 50 percent, $767 million to $500 million, despite the Republicans holding 23 of the 35 seats being contested November 3. In the 16 seats considered competitive (two held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans), the Democratic lead is $643 million to $415 million. The average Democrat has a $40 million war chest, while the Republican, usually an incumbent, averages $26 million.
More so than Biden, the Senate candidates have benefited from a flood of small-dollar donations over the internet, which expresses, in a distorted way, the popular hatred of the right-wing policies of Trump and the Republicans. But corporate and billionaire cash also plays a significant role. Both small-dollar and large-dollar donations have fueled a record-breaking third quarter of fundraising for the Democrats, with many challengers doubling or tripling the amount raised by the Republican incumbents.
Ordinarily, incumbent senators have a huge fundraising advantage over their challengers, and this applies particularly to Republican incumbents, who usually have closer ties to wealthy donors. But in 2020 this is not the case, and the disparities are remarkable. There are at least eight Democratic challengers who have outraised their Republican opponents. Three of these Democrats have raked in more than $80 million apiece, an astonishing total for an election in a single state.
Democrat Jaime Harrison reported raising $86.9 million in South Carolina, compared to $59.4 million for three-term Senator Lindsey Graham. The combined total of $146.4 million in a relatively small state, where only 2 million people voted in 2016, means an expenditure of better than $70 a vote.
In an even smaller state, Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath has raised $84.2 million for her uphill contest against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has raised $53.4 million. In Arizona, Democratic challenger Mark Kelly has raised $82.8 million and leads in the polls against the incumbent Republican, appointed Senator Martha McSally, who has raised $50.9 million.
Several other Democratic challengers, while raising smaller total amounts, have a much larger percentage edge over Republican incumbents. In Iowa, businesswoman Theresa Greenfield has raised $40.4 million against the $21.8 million raised by first-term incumbent Joni Ernst. In North Carolina, former Army paratrooper Cal Cunningham has raised $43.4 million for his race against first-term incumbent Thom Tillis, who has raised $20.9 million. In Maine, Sara Gideon, the Democratic leader of the state legislature, has raised $63.6 million for her campaign against three-term incumbent Susan Collins, who has raised less than half that sum, $25.2 million.
In Colorado, opinion polls suggest that the contest is a runaway, and political action committees supporting the Democratic candidate, former Governor John Hickenlooper, have pulled out, regarding his victory over first-term Republican Senator Cory Gardner as a certainty. Hickenlooper has outraised the incumbent by $36.7 million to $25 million. And in Montana, Governor Steve Bullock has raised $38.1 million for his challenge to first-term incumbent Steve Daines, who has raised $24.5 million. In Alaska, millionaire orthopedic surgeon Al Gross leads incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, $13.9 million to $9.3 million.
The most lopsided financial disparity is in Kansas, where no Democrat has been elected to the US Senate in a century, but polls show a close race between former Republican state senator Barbara Bollier, who switched to the Democrats only two years ago, and Republican Congressman Roger Marshall, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Republican Senator Pat Roberts. Bollier has raised $20.7 million, nearly four times the $5.5 million raised by Marshall.
Georgia has both Senate seats at stake, because of the resignation of Senator Johnny Isakson for health reasons. The Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, have raised $46 million between them, while the two Republican incumbents, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, both multi-millionaires, have raised $45.2 million.
In only one state is there a seeming Republican financial advantage in a contested race. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has the edge over his Democratic challenger, Mary Jennings Hegar, and that is not an overwhelming one, $29.6 million to $20.6 million. And even this apparent advantage is illusory. The Silicon Valley-based political action committee Future Fund is pouring $28 million into the Texas race to support the Democratic candidate, more money than Hegar has raised herself. This advertising blitz will benefit not only Hegar, but also a group of Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives and a Democratic effort to gain control of the lower house of the Texas state legislature.
Of the two Democrat seats in the Senate which are at greatest risk on November 3, one confirms and one represents an exception to this pattern. In Alabama, incumbent Democrat Doug Jones has outraised his Republican challenger, former football coach Tommy Tuberville, by $24.9 million to $7.5 million, but he is nonetheless considered a distinct underdog in the conservative state. In Michigan, Senator Gary Peters is a slight favorite over Republican challenger John James, a former paratrooper, and he holds only a narrow fundraising lead, $35.7 million to $33.9 million. Only three incumbent Republican senators have raised more money than James, who is being promoted by the Senate Republican leadership and Trump as an African American face to disguise their reactionary politics.
Finally, there is the not-insignificant question of what corporate America is buying through this flood of cash into the coffers of the Democratic Senate candidates. The beneficiaries of this corporate largesse are a collection of political reactionaries deeply committed to the defense of American imperialism abroad and big business at home. They differ only at the margins with their right-wing Republican opponents.
Of the candidates already listed, four have military-intelligence backgrounds as their principal credential: Mark Kelly is a career military pilot and former astronaut; Amy McGrath a retired Marine fighter-pilot; Mary Jennings Hegar flew helicopters for the US military in Afghanistan; Cal Cunningham was an Army Ranger, and still teaches new Rangers every year as a reserve officer. These four are the Senate equivalents of the CIA Democrats who played such a prominent role in the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2018.
Other top Senate Democratic challengers include South Carolina’s Jaime Harrison, a longtime corporate lobbyist; Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, a millionaire businesswoman; Al Gross in Alaska, a millionaire surgeon whose father was state attorney general; Montana Governor Steve Bullock and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, both failed presidential candidates who ran in the right-wing “lane” that produced Biden instead; and Barbara Bollier, who was a Republican state senator in Kansas until switching parties in 2018.
In the House of Representatives, now firmly controlled by the Democrats, 232-197, with five vacancies and a Libertarian, the Democrats are expected to increase their numbers, although by less than the 41 seats they gained in 2018. Republican hopes of retaking control, which would require a net gain of 21 seats, have virtually collapsed, as nearly all the first-term Democrats who won Republican-held seats in 2018 are considered likely victors this year.
The Democrats hold a smaller edge in fundraising for the House of Representatives than in the Senate, having raised $772 million through September 30 according to FEC filings for the 435 seats, compared to $653 million for Republican candidates.
The overall total is less significant, however, because the vast majority of House seats are in districts whose boundaries ensure the victory of one party regardless of how much money the other party spends. Republicans will spend $7 million, for example, in support of businesswoman Kim Klacik against Democrat Kweisi Mfume, in the Baltimore district held by the late Elijah Cummings, and $9.4 million to back millionaire investor Lacy Johnson against Democrat Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. Both Mfume and Omar will win reelection easily despite being heavily outspent.
The more important figure is how much is raised in more closely contested races, fewer than 100 of the 435 seats in the House. In these contests, there are 85 Democrats who have raised more than $3 million, compared to only 50 Republicans. This includes a number of challengers for Republican seats, including Wendy Davis and Gina Ortiz Jones in the 21st and 23rd congressional districts of Texas, with $7.2 million and $5.9 million respectively, and Nancy Goroff and Tedra Cobb in New York’s Second and 21st congressional districts, with $5.1 million and $5.5 million respectively.
In 41 congressional districts where first-term Democrats are defending seats captured from Republicans in 2018, the fundraising is lopsided in favor of the Democrats: $216.5 million to $98.2 million. Only two of the 41 Democrats have less campaign cash than their Republican challenger.
An especially financially advantaged subset is the group of 11 new Democratic representatives with military-intelligence backgrounds, whom the WSWS identified in 2018 as the CIA Democrats . In their 11 reelection contests, the CIA Democrats have raised $62.5 million. Their 11 Republican opponents have raised only $21.4 million.
All 11 CIA Democrats are favored to win reelection, and they will be joined by at least one military-intelligence candidate who won his primary in the heavily Democratic Fourth Congressional District in Massachusetts, and is a prohibitive favorite, Jake Auchincloss. Several more such candidates are likely to win on November 3: Jackie Gordon in the Second Congressional District of New York; Dan Feehan in the First Congressional District of Minnesota; Sri Preston Kulkarni in the 22nd Congressional District of Texas; and Gina Ortiz Jones in the 23rd Congressional District of Texas.
The result of the election is likely to be a greatly strengthened group of CIA Democrats, including Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, first elected in 2014 and the founder of the VoteVets political action committee that has been responsible for recruiting and funding many of the military-intelligence candidates in the last two elections. Together with the 11 elected in 2018 and another half dozen or so in 2020, this would make a “caucus” of nearly 20, enough to exercise considerable influence in the new Congress and in a future Biden administration.
REMEMBER WHEN BRIBES SUCKING LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS SAID OL' JOE'S FINANCES WERE ENTIRELY 'TRANSPARENT'?
This Is How the Left's Power Structure Collapses By David Prentice
Weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh mentioned that the issues defining the election had not come forward yet. He was correct. Not entirely, because all the issues coming out right now have existed. In plain sight.
They just weren't distilled yet.
It's now here, served up on a silver platter. No, not Hunter Biden. This Hunter Biden laptop story simply leads us to the issue. The word. One word that rules them all, and in the darkness binds them.
Corruption.
There it is. That's the issue. To begin, you have the corrupt family Biden. They've been scamming us and our system well for almost fifty years. The man is supposedly worth over 250 million dollars. How is this possible on his salary? It's not. So where did his wealth come from? Not from being a brilliant businessman.
Enter Hunter's laptop. We now know that this is a family steeped in crime and corruption. Ole Corn Pop appears to be awash in money kicked back to him by his family members who have grifted off his reputation for years. Hunter's laptop has betrayed all this and more. Much like Al Capone's bookkeeper. Who would have thought Capone would have been destroyed so completely by a set of crooked books? Such delicious irony. And who would have known that this would become the October surprise of all October surprises?
Corruption. Full grown. Oozing its way into America. It's everywhere on the left. The Biden family. Clintons. The Democratic Party. The FBI. The CIA. The mainstream media. The tech giants. It's a full-out plague, aided and abetted by their demonic philosophy, all of them gone astray.
All of them corrupt.
The New York Post story has been there for about a week now. The Democrat-media complex has ignored it entirely; the tech giants went into overdrive removing all evidence from their platforms. Google. Facebook. Twitter. Instagram. The whole lot of them. Covering up a story that deserved universal distribution and condemnation. Instead, they covered up the most damning story to their side, their chosen side. All of them colluded to bury this mounting evidence of wrongdoing.
How far the mighty have fallen. And are falling.
What's the word for a media establishment that won't report this story?
What's the word for the FBI having this laptop for almost a year, watching dispassionately as the Democrats impeached Trump with hard evidence in their hands of his innocence and the Bidens' guilt?
What's the word for the above group of bad actors colluding to forward the Russia lies for almost three years?
What's the word for Director Wray's involvement?
What's the word for CIA director not releasing documents of the Russia hoax, documents that have been available for a long time?
What's the all-encompassing word that has been revealed at the heart of all these colluding to hide the truth from an America that deserves to know?
Corruption.
This is an issue that won't go away. All the attempts to deep-six the truth here are failing, and miserably at that. It's causing a slow-walk of information to drip out to the American public. First the stories of Ukraine. Drip-drip-drip. Then the stories of drugs. Then the sex problems. Then the Chinese stories. The story of kickbacks to Pop.
It's as if all the smartest people in the world colluded to destroy themselves. By purposefully and unanimously excluding all information concerning this story from the American public. The smartest people in the world actually believe they can be successful in spiking one of the biggest stories to pop up in any American election cycle. Their hubris is so advanced, so viral, so awful, that they can't see what they've done to themselves. They really believe they are going to keep a cork on this.
The derogatory phrase for the establishment has been "the swamp." How bad is this, how deep is this, how criminal is this, how horrifying is it to find out the vast amount of corruption and collusion in so many of our institutions and corporations?
It's staggering. It's infuriating.
These are the most powerful among us. All rich. All corrupt. All once respected by Americans of all stripes. And here, in one fell swoop, they reveal themselves to the average American. As arrogant bullies, as deceitful liars, as evil as anything we've seen in our generation. They have revealed themselves as the cabal of darkness. Terrible motives, terrible actions, virtually unforgiveable in what they have done, and yet failed to finish. And due to the hubris of the cabal, the exposé will be slow-walked until the election.
Today, Trump had an exchange with reporters, where he said, "Biden was a criminal."
This shocked the corrupt media. Reverberations rocked the corrupto-sphere. The lion had roared. There is no way the corrupto-sphere keeps this lid on. There is also no way all these corrupt actors go back on their solemn pledge to one another. They are bound together. They're stuck with each other. And it will overwhelm them.
As this careens into the debate, as this careens into voting, as this careens into Election Day, the ultimate narrative will be set. The doomsday clock will start. All the corrupt actors will be pointed out. All of them will rue the day they couldn't get rid of Donald Trump. He, above most anyone, knows just how corrupt these people are. He above anyone knows how to handle them. He, above all, knows what's all coming out in the next weeks.
It's going to be an avalanche of material. It's going to be a number of fires even Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the DNC, the Bidens, the media, the corrupt government officials, the whole shooting match, will not be able to handle. If they all overtly held emergency meetings with each other, they'd never stop the flood. When Trump roared, you know he had one of his famous moments, that moment when he knows how and when to bring this to a head. Trump the narrative-builder, Trump the destroyer will be unleashing hell on these people.
Anyone who has seen him operate knows. This is his time. This is how the beginning of the end of the swamp, or should I say the sewer, begins. This is the kind of chaos these smartest people in the world, ever, haven't seen before. Algorithms will not help them. Censorship will not help them. It will be a rushing mighty wind, coming to destroy all those who didn't understand that their corruption could be turned on them.
This is going to be epic. Corruption will be their end; it's just a matter of time. And Trump will have four years to finish their corruption.
Vance, an unapologetic populist, has campaigned on a number of issues but most prominently immigration, infrastructure, trade, and foreign wars. Vance, who has been endorsed by Angel Mom Maureen Maloney, has laid out a series of policy solutions for stopping illegal immigration, including banning welfare for illegal aliens, mandating E-Verify, declaring the Mexican drug cartels a terrorist organization, and cutting off federal funds to states that give foreign nationals the right to vote.
Ohio Chamber of Commerce Issues Last Ditch Veiled Attack on Trump-Endorsed J.D. Vance: ‘Beware of Populism’ 1 AP Photo/Joe Maiorana, File
JOHN BINDER
3 May 2022 0
3:52
The CEO of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce issued a veiled attack against J.D. Vance, the Ohio Senate Republican primary frontrunner who has been endorsed by former President Trump, as voters head to the polls.
Vance, who has also been endorsed by Ohio Right to Life and has been leading a number of recent polls ahead of Tuesday’s primary election, has campaigned as a social conservative and economic populist at the front of the midterm election’s swath of GOP candidates running on nationalist-populist platforms.
In a last-minute veiled attack on Vance, Ohio Chamber of Commerce CEO Steve Stivers wrote in a post that voters ought to “beware of populism” and to “vote all populists out today!”
“Beware of populism,” Stivers wrote . “It is not an ideology it is a worldview used to manipulate the masses into giving more power to government to save ‘us’ from some scapegoat group.”
“Populists get power by dividing people. They divide is [sic] into the ‘elite oppressors’ and the poor oppressed masses,” he continued . “They say only they can save us by making government and them more powerful. But Goverment [sic] is more often the oppressor. Vote all populists out today!”
As Breitbart News reported , Vance was the only Republican candidate in the Ohio Senate primary race who snubbed the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. The others, including Josh Mandel, Mike Gibbons, and Matt Dolan, met with the Chamber.
The attack on Vance is only the latest from the donor class and the Washington, D.C., beltway political establishment who have swooped into the state to try to block his nomination. The Club for Growth, which typically opposes tariffs, and political action committees linked to the Republican National Committee (RNC) are some of the outside groups funding attacks on Vance.
Vance, an unapologetic populist, has campaigned on a number of issues but most prominently immigration, infrastructure, trade, and foreign wars. Vance, who has been endorsed by Angel Mom Maureen Maloney, has laid out a series of policy solutions for stopping illegal immigration, including banning welfare for illegal aliens, mandating E-Verify, declaring the Mexican drug cartels a terrorist organization, and cutting off federal funds to states that give foreign nationals the right to vote.
“The ruling class that instead of investing in this country — building institutions, making the people who live here wealthier, happier, more prosperous — it actually enjoys plundering the greatest country in the world because it doesn’t see that it owes anything to the people who live here, to the previous generations that actually built this country,” Vance told Breitbart News in August.
Vance has also campaigned on reducing overall legal immigration levels to the United States — a position that puts him squarely at odds with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has demanded a doubling of legal immigration, more foreign visa workers to take American jobs, and amnesty for illegal aliens.
On trade, Vance has opposed the Chamber’s preferred free trade-at-all-costs agenda and instead has advocated for fiercer U.S. tariffs on foreign imports and China-made products to reshore American manufacturing jobs, as well as punishing multinational corporations that outsource American jobs to foreign countries.
Vance has also been vocal in his support of breaking up the nation’s largest billion-dollar tech conglomerates, a position opposed by the Chamber.
Follow Breitbart News’ Ohio Senate Republican primary election coverage here .
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here .
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Warns Recession is ‘Almost Inevitable’ 49 VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images
JOSHUA CAPLAN
3 May 2022 0
0:58
Appearing Monday on CNBC, Roger Ferguson, former Federal Reserve vice chairman, warned that a recession is “almost inevitable.”
A transcript is as follows:
REBECCA QUICK: The Fed doesn’t have the tools to increase supply. It can only tamp down demand. Maybe in this case it will take a lot more than tamping down to really slow this problem of inflation. They may have to do some serious damage to the demand side of things in order to make any difference.
ROGER FERGUSON: I think a recession, at this stage, is almost inevitable because they don’t control supply. We’ve seen how volatile supply can be with the shutdown in China. We also see uncertainty about oil prices going up and down. As I said earlier, it’s a witch’s brew. The probability of a recession in 2023 is certainly very very high.
VIDEOS
We Are Headed for a Hard Landing with the Economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iAMDWsZhxw
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE PICKS UP SPEED, HOUSING BUBBLE TROUBLE, ENTERTAINMENT SPENDING DROPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AfcYiykhKs
Economic Update: Inflation - How Markets Fail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54R5CcOf4E
15 Signs That Global Financial Markets Smell Blood In The Water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_KpwDUyKgo
LAYOFFS Imminent (Housing Market is NOT PREPARED) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOojj399w0g
Biden Seeks Green Cards for More than 85,000 Afghans Amid Vetting Failures Alex Wong/Cristina Quicler/AFP via Getty Images
JOHN BINDER
2 May 2022 0
4:38
President Joe Biden is seeking to provide green cards to tens of thousands of Afghans who were quickly resettled in American communities over the last eight months amid a federal investigation that found many have possible ties to terrorism and were not properly vetted.
The quasi-amnesty plan is slipped into a funding request where Biden is asking Congress to approve $33 billion in American taxpayer money to send to Ukraine.
As part of the plan, Afghans given humanitarian parole by the Biden administration would be allowed to adjust their immigration status to obtain lawful permanent residence, otherwise known as a green card. After five years of holding a green card, the Afghans would be able to apply for naturalized American citizenship.
“The Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s discretion, may adjust the status of an Afghan national … whose parole has not been terminated, to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence provided that the Afghan national,” the plan states .
Dan Stein with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said in a statement that the plan is simply another effort by Biden “to blow holes in our already crippled immigration system.”
“These are not people who lent material support to U.S. forces during the 20 years we spent in Afghanistan,” Stein said. “Rather, many are random people who arrived in the United States after the Taliban takeover, and were admitted under the Biden administration’s widely abused power of parole.”
Biden has resettled more than 85,000 Afghans in American communities across 46 states since mid-August 2021 and plans to continue resettling tens of thousands of Afghans throughout the year while asking Congress to authorize the resettlement of Afghans for the next decade.
The resettlement failed to properly vet Afghans against counter-terrorism databases, the Department of Defense’s Inspector General revealed in an explosive investigation in February.
As of November 2021, the report states that 50 Afghans already in the U.S. have been flagged for “significant security concerns.” Most of the unvetted Afghans flagged for possible terrorism ties have since disappeared in the U.S. In one instance, only three of 31 Afghans flagged months ago for security concerns could be located.
The resettlement was first authorized by 49 House and Senate Republicans, who joined Democrats in September 2021 to fund the resettlement to the sum of $6.4 billion. Then, in December 2021, 20 House and Senate Republicans helped Democrats pass an additional $7 billion in funds to ramp up the endless Afghan migration.
Refugee contractors, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that rely on American taxpayer money to resettle refugees across the U.S. annually, secured billions as a result of the funding measures.
Every five years, refugee resettlement costs taxpayers nearly $9 billion . Over the course of a lifetime, taxpayers pay about $133,000 per refugee, and within five years of resettlement, roughly 16 percent will need taxpayer-funded housing assistance.
Over the last 20 years, nearly a million refugees have been resettled in the nation — more than double that of residents living in Miami, Florida, and it would be the equivalent of annually adding the population of Pensacola, Florida.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here .
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE PICKS UP SPEED, HOUSING BUBBLE TROUBLE, ENTERTAINMENT SPENDING DROPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AfcYiykhKs
15 Signs That Global Financial Markets Smell Blood In The Water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_KpwDUyKgo
Global financial markets are facing a devastating downturn that has already led big corporations to report losses of billions of dollars. As signs of weakness spread, speculators have nowhere to hide anymore. All major indexes are plummeting, and several high-flying stocks are dropping by as much as 90% from their peaks. In the US, Europe, China, and Russia, investors are getting increasingly spooked by the prospect of a severe slowdown in economic activity amid extremely stretched market valuations. Pessimism is everywhere and fear is rapidly spreading. Bubbles have started popping, and top Wall Street players can see that a stock market crash is on the horizon. Things could get much uglier on financial markets when the US economy tips into recession. Thanks to 8.5% inflation, real hourly earnings in the US have actually shrunk by 2.7% in March, compromising Americans’ purchasing power. In 2020, consumers used their stimulus checks to pay down credit-card debt, but since 2021, they’ve been borrowing money at a breathtaking pace, and rising interest rates are leading us to another credit crunch. According to market strategist David P. Goldman, this also means that when the US goes into recession, the tech complex could face something like the devastation that ensued after the 2000 recession, when the NASDAQ 100 lost more than 80% of its value between March of 2000 and September 2002. All of that spells more trouble for stocks, especially at a time of extreme overvaluation. The Buffet Indicator is at an all-time high, showing that the U.S. market capitalization was at 211% of GDP in January. In a recent conference, Berkshire Hathaway lambasted Wall Street for encouraging speculative behavior in the stock market, effectively turning it into a “gambling parlor.” “Wall Street makes money, one way or another, catching the crumbs that fall off the table of capitalism,” Buffett said. “They don’t make money unless people do things, and they get a piece of them. They make a lot more money when people are gambling than when they are investing.” Buffett sustained that most large American companies leading the rally have “become poker chips” for market speculation. There is way too much risk, way too much debt, and way too much leverage in the global financial marketplace. The entire system seems to be racing toward another major crisis. Only this time, big governments around the world won't be able to come to the rescue. That is why what is happening right now is so worrying. The global financial markets are like a house of cards built on a foundation of sand, and investors are more vulnerable today than they have been at any other time in history. When a major domino falls, it is likely to spark a massive chain reaction, and once confidence disappears, the game can change very quickly. For that reason, today, we compiled some key signs that the carnage in financial markets is about to get worse. For more info, find us on: https://www.epiceconomist.com/ And visit: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/
SHOW LESS
THE BIDEN CRIME MAFIA - 50 YEARS OF BRIBES
A 'corrupt family occupies the White House'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8EeTFlXWk0
Food Shortages Surge to Record High, Food Price Inflation 2nd Highest Ever Getty Images/ Stas_V
JOHN CARNEY
2 May 2022 0
1:36
The supply of food around the globe saw a sharp uptick in disruptions, survey data from S&P Global indicated Monday.
Supply shortages matched the record hit at the height of the global financial crisis in 2008.
“Supply shortages surged in April to reach a joint-record level as the war in Ukraine continued to hit global food exports. Reports of increased food prices were meanwhile at the second-highest on record,” said S&P Global economist Usamah Bhatti.
The Global Supply Shortages Index signaled that shortages were just under seven times higher than the normal level, unchanged from March’s four-month high. Freight capacity remained the hardest hit, with reports of shortages at the highest since last December, S&P Global said. “Transport capacity remains the most severely affected, with reports of a lack of logistical capacity nearly 32 times above the normal level, as vessel shortages and port congestion continue to disrupt the supply of materials. At the same time, while price pressures eased, firms reported that freight costs were rising at 11 times the normal speed,” Bhatti said.
Global price pressures were also unchanged from March at the start of the second quarter, indicating that tightening by central banks around the world has not yet reigned in inflatin. Reports of higher prices for electrical items reached the highest level since May 2021, S&P Global said.
A Record 4.5 Million Workers Quit Their Jobs in March SeventyFour/ Getty Images
JOHN CARNEY
3 May 2022 0
1:44
A record number of American workers voluntarily quit their jobs in March, signaling the strength of the labor market and putting upward pressure on wages.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said Tuesday that 4.5 million workers quit, up by 150,000 from the prior month. That means three percent of all workers left work.
The record high level of quits is a sign that workers believe jobs are plentiful. Typically, workers quit work when they expect to find another job or have already been offered a position.
“Quits are generally voluntary separations initiated by the employee. Therefore, the quits rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave jobs,” the BLS explained.
“As employers require workers to return to offices, quits are ticking upwards. A major reason for quitting is to find a remote opportunity,” wrote ZipRecruiter chief economist Julia Pollak on Twitter.
Job openings also climbed to a record high, hitting 11.5 million. As a result, there was a record high ratio of openings to unemployed workers at the end of March, with 1.9 openings for every unemployed worker.
Quits levels were highest in areas where competition for workers is fiercest, including construction, manufacturing, and leisure and hospitality. There were 810,000 quits in bars, restaurants, and hotels, 6.1 percent of the workforce in the accommodation and food services sector. That’s the highest level of quits in any sector of the economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment