Friday, March 6, 2020

DEMOCRATS FOR BILLIONAIRES AND BANKSTERS STEAL NOMINATION FOR BIDEN - BIDEN WILL UPHOLD SOCIALISM FOR BANKSTERS AND WALL STREET














JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has supported amnesty for illegal aliens since at least 2016 when he announced support for the infamous “Gang of Eight” amnesty, saying, “Let them stay and let them build companies.”

Last month, Dimon said amnesty for illegal aliens was necessary to grow the economy, saying, “If we do these policies right, America will be growing a lot faster.”
Some of the top multinational banks — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — have come out against Trump’s travel ban that effectively stopped all immigration from a handful of foreign countries that sponsor terrorism.


Rigged: Inside the 72 Hours Establishment Democrats Took it from Bernie, Gave it to Biden

Former US vice president Joe Biden, left, embraces Sen. Bernie Sanders during a Democratic presidential primary debate, February 7, 2020, hosted by ABC News, Apple News, and WMUR-TV at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)
AP Photo/Elise Amendola
19:46

In the time of span of 72 hours, between the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday, establishment Democrats rushed to consolidate behind former Vice President Joe Biden in a transparent effort to thwart the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
The machinations started on Saturday, only minutes after polls closed in the Palmetto State. Biden, who had flopped in the first three nominating contests, was declared the instantaneous winner after exit polls showed a rout, thanks to strong support from black voters.
Even though the margin of victory remained unknown for hours, many in the media and pundit class jumped to claim South Carolina had resuscitated the former vice president’s hopes for the nomination. None espoused that argument more so than Terry McAullife, a former governor of Virginia and one time chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Shortly after South Carolina was called, McAullife appeared on CNN, where he serves as a political commentator, to discuss the results. Instead of offering insight, however, the former governor took the opportunity to endorse Biden live on the air.
“I’ve thought long and hard about this,” McAullife told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “For me it’s an electability issue … I’m going all in on Joe Biden, I think he has the best shot of beating [President] Donald Trump.”
The endorsement was not totally unexpected, as McAullife’s wife was already a well known bundler for the former vice president. It did, however, strike many as overly partisan, especially given that McAullife also used the live-TV endorsement to urge Democrats to consolidate behind Biden.
“I’m hoping, tomorrow actually, some of the candidates decide to get out,” McAullife said, right after having suggested Sanders would cripple down ballot Democrats. “If you do not have a pathway, let[‘s] not wait until Super Tuesday.”
When pressed as to whom he meant, the former governor specifically confessed he was talking about Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
“I don’t want to tell people they should get out, because they’ve worked for a year,” McAullife said. They’ve gotten a lot of support, but I think Pete [Buttigieg] and Amy [Klobuchar] and Tom Steyer need to make that decision for themselves.”
Even as the former governor spoke, the Democtat field was already shrinking. Steyer, who had poured more than $252 million into his underdog campaign, was informing staffers of his decision to exit the race after placing third in South Carolina.
Neither Steyer’s exit nor McAullife’s endorsement surprised many, but it did signal what lay ahead.
First, Biden’s looming cash crunch was likely to disappear thanks to McAullife’s fundraising prowess, honed during his tenure at the helm of the DNC. Second, and more importantly, McAullife’s backing ensured that Biden no longer had to fear losing Virginia, a state both Sanders and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg had high hopes for on Super Tuesday. The latter seemed to be proven when several high-ranking Virginia officials announced their backing of Biden on Saturday night, including Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), a power broker within the commonwealth’s black community.
With Virginia appearing to be a lock and money no longer a problem, other establishment Democrats began to fall in line behind Biden. Most notably, Sunday saw former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz announce her endorsement. Wasserman Schultz, apart from being a Florida congresswoman, had infamously been forced to resign her DNC post after it was revealed she worked to the benefit of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primaries.
The list of endorsements grew larger on Monday with the addition of former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Reid’s endorsement was perplexing, since he had pointedly refused to support Biden during his own state’s presidential caucuses two weeks earlier.
All told, prior to South Carolina, Biden only had the backing of one high-profile member of the establishment, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC). After winning the Palmetto State’s primary, the former vice president found himself as the clear favorite among establishment Democrats.
Obama’s Role?
While the endorsements were flooding in for Biden, something strange was happening among the candidates themselves. Buttigieg, who had shown every indication of remaining in the race through Super Tuesday, shocked many by exiting the race.
“Tonight I am making the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for the presidency,” Buttigieg told supporters on Sunday. “I will do everything in my power to ensure that we have a new Democratic president come January.”
The move came only hours after Buttigieg had spoken with two of the Democrat Party’s prior White House occupants. Earlier on Sunday, Buttigieg met with former President Jimmy Carter in Georgia. Although the confines of that meeting have not been made public, the former mayor was reportedly seeking counsel about whether he should stay in the race.
Later that same evening, Buttigieg took part in a phone call with former President Barack Obama. Also on the line was Biden, who lobbied for the former mayor’s endorsement, according to The New York Times.
“Obama did not specifically encourage Buttigieg to endorse Biden,” the Times reported. “But Obama did note that Buttigieg has considerable leverage at the moment and should think about how best to use it.”
Obama allegedly implored Buttigieg to consider that his endorsement “could reshape the Democratic primary … creating a more formidable centrist challenge to Mr. Sanders’ progressive movement.”
Buttigieg, for his part, seems to have agreed, but wanted some time to think through the decision. As the former South Bend mayor contemplated, Klobuchar opted to act. The senator, who was competing with Buttigieg and Biden to be the moderate alternative to Sanders, ended her campaign abruptly on Monday and endorsed the former vice president.
Klobuchar’s exit, which occurred directly after a campaign rally in Utah, took many by surprise, including top staffers. Confounding many is that Klobuchar, by her own admission, was focused on continuing her bid at least until after her home state of Minnesota voted on Super Tuesday.
In a conference call informing supporters of her departure, Klobuchar refused to provide a rationale for her departure or endorsement of the former vice president.
“I’ve been so proud that people have been willing to pitch in and help each other and so that’s why this is a really hard thing to do today,” the senator said on the call, before adding it was “best” for the country that she withdrew in favor of Biden.
After the call, the former vice president’s campaign announced that Klobuchar would appear at a rally with Biden in Texas later that night. Shortly after the news broke, Buttigieg swiftly threw his support behind Biden and also jumped on a plane to the Lone Star State.
“I’m looking for a leader, I’m looking for a president, who will draw out what’s best in each of us,” the former South Bend mayor said in Texas on Monday. “We have found that leader in vice president, soon-to-be president, Joe Biden.”
Joining Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden on the stage in Texas was former congressman Beto O’Rourke. The failed Senate and presidential candidate was there to offer a last-minute endorsement of Biden.
The convenient timing of all three endorsements sparked speculation that someone high up within the Democrat establishment had arranged for the field to coalesce behind Biden. Many believe that figure is none other than Obama himself, especially given the former president’s call with Buttigieg and his ties to O’Rourke.
Warren Refuses to Yield
As the establishment was orchestrating a united front behind Biden, Sanders was facing the opposite predicament on the left.
Despite winning the first three nominating contests, Sanders faced a crushing defeat in South Carolina on Saturday. His long-standing inability to connect with black voters, an increasingly vital part of the Democrats’ constituency, seemed to only accentuate the fears many held about his candidacy.
Posing a bigger problem, at least in the short-term, for Sanders was the fact that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was refusing to yield the progressive lane. Since jumping into the race, Warren had attempted to brand herself as a toned-down version of Sanders. Instead of promising a full-blown political revolution, like the Vermont septuagenarian, Warren vowed to bring radical economic change—while simultaneously pledging an affinity for capitalism.
“Inequality is going to break this country. We can’t sustain a democracy, we cannot sustain an America of opportunity with growing inequality,” Warren told MSNBC in April 2019. “We’ve got to have some great ideas to push back, big ideas to push back against it, big structural change.”
The differences, though, were mostly of style. In terms of policy, the two were nearly indistinguishable. On the campaign trail, both thundered about the need for a Green New Deal, some version of Medicare for All, and a wealth tax.
Sanders, for his part, seemed to tolerate Warren’s presence in the contest until the shadow of a brokered convention began to loom. Earlier this year, when it became apparent the Democratic field was unlikely winnow, given the DNC’s proportional delegate allocation system, Sanders and Warren began to spar openly.
Warren irked Sanders’ base after refusing to drop out and back him prior to Super Tuesday. Sanders supporters, many of whom remain notoriously suspicious of the Democrat establishment given its overt attempts to quash their candidate in 2016, cried foul. While the Democrat elite appeared to deliver marching orders to back Biden, Warren stood defiant, remaining in the race, knowing that her presence would split progressive loyalties.
In January, Warren kicked off the brawl by accusing Sanders of stating, during a 2018 meeting, that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency. Sanders vigorously denied the allegation, claiming Warren had misremembered his remarks. Neither side was willing to back down from the version of events, leading to a heated confrontation after a Democratic presidential debate in Iowa.
The flare-up has only served to underscore the perception among the Sanders faithful that Warren holds personal ambition over progressive principles. That idea materialized during the 2016 primaries, when Warren appeared to side with establishment Democrats over her longtime friend.
Warren, in particular, refused to endorse Sanders over Clinton in 2016. The decision is credited by some to Clinton’s narrow victory in that year’s Massachusetts primary. The minuscule two percentage points that separated Clinton and Sanders in that race has led many a “Bernie Bro” to wonder if Warren’s intervention could have made a noticeable difference and perhaps changed the outcome of the 2016 nominating contest as a whole.
That history, coupled with Warren’s refusal to exit the 2020 race despite failing to win a single primary, has led some to question if the Massachusetts Democrat is in the race to win, build her own political stature, or assist the establishment in blocking a Sanders nomination. Those arguments bubbled over on Super Tuesday when Warren and Sanders split the progressive vote, allowing Biden to score plurality victories in key Super Tuesday states such as Texas, Massachusetts, Maine, and Minnesota.
The DNC Makes a Preemptive Strike
The Democrat establishment, perhaps sensing the oncoming complaints from Sanders supporters, appeared to launch a preemptive strike on Tuesday.
Just hours before polls closed, former interim-DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile lashed out when confronted during a Fox News appearance about claims the primary was being “rigged” against Sanders. Brazile, who infamously was caught feeding Clinton town hall questions during the 2016 primaries, told the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) “go to hell” for weighing in on the Democrat race.
“I want to talk to my Republicans,” Brazile stated. “First of all, stay the hell out of our race … and for people to use Russian talking points to sow division among Americans, that is stupid… go to hell!”
The former DNC chair proceeded to argue that “we’re not trying to prevent anyone from becoming the nominee.”
“If you have the delegates and win, you will win,” Brazile said. “This notion that somehow or another that Democrats are trying to put hurdles or roadblocks before one candidate, that’s stupid.”
“I know what’s going on,” she added, suggesting claims about the primary being “rigged” against Sanders are a talking point of both the GOP and Russia.
That narrative is currently serving as a firewall for the establishment. Instead of easing concerns of Sanders supporters, establishment Democrats easily dismiss them in the same fashion as Brazile, suggesting that progressives are repeating talking points cunningly crafted by the GOP and Russia.
Sanders allies have been anything but relieved by Brazile’s comments. Marianne Williamson, a one-time presidential contender turned Sanders-backer, openly claimed on Tuesday that Biden’s sudden rise was more of a “coup,” than a “resurrection.”
Biden’s Super Tuesday Blowout
With the establishment united behind his candidacy, Biden blew away the competition on Super Tuesday. The former vice president won resoundingly across the board, winning ten contests to only four for Sanders. The breadth of Biden’s victory was all the more astounding because of the shallow infrastructure he had in many of the states prior to the establishment coalescing.
In Virginia, where McAullife’s endorsement likely made a big impact, Biden carried every single county, save for one, despite only spending $233,000. Bloomberg, on the other hand, poured more than $18 million into the state but failed to meet the threshold required to capture a single delegate. Overall in the commonwealth, Biden ran more than 43 percentage points ahead of Bloomberg and at least 30 points ahead of Sanders. The results are even more impressive when taken within the context that Biden only made a handful of appearances in Virginia, having spent most of his time in South Carolina and the other early nominating contests since jumping into the race.
A similar story played out in Minnesota and Texas, where the last-minute endorsements from Klobuchar and O’Rourke helped swing the states to Biden. Exit polling shows that those who took part in early voting tended to favor Sanders, while those who cast ballots on the day were overwhelmingly in favor of the former vice president. That disparity has led some to argue that establishment Democrats disenfranchised thousands of citizens by pushing the field to consolidate and denying early voters a say in the primary contest.
The impact of consolidation was probably most noted in smaller Super Tuesday states, like Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Maine. In each of those, Biden scored easy victories, despite spending little time or money courting voters there.
Sanders Takes it in Stride
Sanders, admittedly aware of the efforts against him, is failing to fight back with a political vengeance so desperately desired by his most ardent supporters.
On Monday, when his rivals began dropping out and endorsing Biden, Sanders struck a lackadaisical tone, telling reporters that he was “not surprised” by the flood of endorsements for Biden.
“The economic establishment, Wall Street, and drug companies and the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry, they don’t want me to win,” the senator told reporters. “Many of the establishment Democrats don’t want us to win.”
Even after his campaign was thwarted on Super Tuesday, Sanders seemed detached from the threat facing his campaign, yet acknowledged the organized effort to take him down.
On Wednesday, Sanders told reporters that Bloomberg’s departure from the race and subsequent endorsement of Biden confirmed suspicions the establishment was trying to stop his movement.
“I suspect we will see, you know, a lot of money coming into Biden’s campaign,” Sanders told the press, upon news of Bloomberg’s exit. “Probably a lot of negative ads attacking me. That’s what we’re taking on.”
Sander’s aloofness is nothing new. Although the senator fancies himself the leader of the movement, he has done little to fight the very political establishment standing in the way of his path to the presidency. It is a phenomenon causing some Sanders supporters to fear a repeat of 2016.
During that contentious primary campaign, the self-described Democrat socialist fought Clinton in the various primaries and caucuses across the country. Even though Sanders lambasted Clinton daily on the campaign trail as part of the failed status quo, he endorsed the former secretary of state, who, to this day, has continued to criticize her competitor.
Clinton offered a trove of political scandal, including the Uranium One dealings detailed in Clinton Cash—a 2015 book by Peter Schweizer, a senior contributor at Breitbart News. Questions surrounding the operations of the Clinton Foundation festered throughout the primary process, yet Sanders largely refused to weaponize them.
“I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States,” Sanders said at the time, demonstrating his willingness to consolidate the Democrat base and ignore the political red flags of his competitors.
Given his history, many fear Sanders will refuse to stand up to Biden in the same manner. Even Democrats admit that Biden provides no shortage of baggage. Nevertheless, Sanders has refused to take advantage of the controversies swirling around the former vice president, including his family’s shadowy business ventures pertaining to Hunter Biden. Instead, Sanders has discouraged his supporters for booing at the mention of Biden’s name and has referred to the former vice president, on more than one occasion, as a “decent guy.”
“And I mean this very sincerely, Joe Biden is a friend of mine,” Sanders told supporters during a recent rally in Minnesota. “I have known Joe for a long time.”
In the rare moments that Sanders has criticized Biden, it has usually been over policy, like the Iraq War or free trade—critiques that clearly had little impact on Super Tuesday voters.
What is more, Sanders has refused to issue any ultimatums, whether it be a third-party run or the outright refusal to endorse the eventual nominee. He has already promised to “be there” for Biden if he wins the nomination, once again bringing flashbacks of his decision to succumb to Clinton in 2016.
The Vermont senator has demonstrated that he is capable of upping his rhetoric when it comes to an opponent like Trump. In the past, Sanders has accused the president of being not only a racist, but also a sexist, fraud, and pathological liar.
When it comes to competitors on the left, however, Sanders has exhibited an unwillingness to fight—igniting fears that it will be all too easy for the Democrat establishment to steamroll his hopes of forging a political revolution yet again.

OBAMA AND HIS BANKSTERS:
And it all got much, much worse after 2008, when the schemes collapsed and, as Lemann points out, Barack Obama did not aggressively rein in Wall Street as Roosevelt had done, instead restoring the status quo ante even when it meant ignoring a staggering white-collar crime spree. RYAN COOPER

The Rise of Wall Street Thievery
How corporations and their apologists blew up the New Deal order and pillaged the middle class.
America has long had a suspicious streak toward business, from the Populists and trustbusters to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. It’s a tendency that has increased over the last few decades. In 1973, 36 percent of respondents told Gallup they had only “some” confidence in big business, while 20 percent had “very little.” But in 2019, those numbers were 41 and 32 percent—near the highs registered during the financial crisis.
Clearly, something has happened to make us sour on the American corporation. What was once a stable source of long-term employment and at least a modicum of paternalistic benefits has become an unstable, predatory engine of inequality. Exactly what went wrong is well documented in Nicholas Lemann’s excellent new book, Transaction Man. The title is a reference to The Organization Man, an influential 1956 book on the corporate culture and management of that era. Lemann, a New Yorker staff writer and Columbia journalism professor (as well as a Washington Monthly contributing editor), details the development of the “Organization” style through the career of Adolf Berle, a member of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s brain trust. Berle argued convincingly that despite most of the nation’s capital being represented by the biggest 200 or so corporations, the ostensible owners of these firms—that is, their shareholders—had little to no influence on their daily operations. Control resided instead with corporate managers and executives.
Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream
by Nicholas Lemann
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 320 pp.
Berle was alarmed by the wealth of these mega-corporations and the political power it generated, but also believed that bigness was a necessary concomitant of economic progress. He thus argued that corporations should be tamed, not broken up. The key was to harness the corporate monstrosities, putting them to work on behalf of the citizenry.
Berle exerted major influence on the New Deal political economy, but he did not get his way every time. He was a fervent supporter of the National Industrial Recovery Act, an effort to directly control corporate prices and production, which mostly flopped before it was declared unconstitutional. Felix Frankfurter, an FDR adviser and a disciple of the great anti-monopolist Louis Brandeis, used that opportunity to build significant Brandeisian elements into New Deal structures. The New Deal social contract thus ended up being a somewhat incoherent mash-up of Brandeis’s and Berle’s ideas. On the one hand, antitrust did get a major focus; on the other, corporations were expected to play a major role delivering basic public goods like health insurance and pensions. 
Lemann then turns to his major subject, the rise and fall of the Transaction Man. The New Deal order inspired furious resistance from the start. Conservative businessmen and ideologues argued for a return to 1920s policies and provided major funding for a new ideological project spearheaded by economists like Milton Friedman, who famously wrote an article titled “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Lemann focuses on a lesser-known economist named Michael Jensen, whose 1976 article “Theory of the Firm,” he writes, “prepared the ground for blowing up that [New Deal] social order.”
Jensen and his colleagues embodied that particular brand of jaw-droppingly stupid that only intelligent people can achieve. Only a few decades removed from a crisis of unregulated capitalism that had sparked the worst war in history and nearly destroyed the United States, they argued that all the careful New Deal regulations that had prevented financial crises for decades and underpinned the greatest economic boom in U.S. history should be burned to the ground. They were outraged by the lack of control shareholders had over the firms they supposedly owned, and argued for greater market discipline to remove this “principal-agent problem”—econ-speak for businesses spending too much on irrelevant luxuries like worker pay and investment instead of dividends and share buybacks. When that argument unleashed hell, they doubled down: “To Jensen the answer was clear: make the market for corporate control even more active, powerful, and all-encompassing,” Lemann writes.
The best part of the book is the connection Lemann draws between Washington policymaking and the on-the-ground effects of those decisions. There was much to criticize about the New Deal social contract—especially its relative blindness to racism—but it underpinned a functioning society that delivered a tolerable level of inequality and a decent standard of living to a critical mass of citizens. Lemann tells this story through the lens of a thriving close-knit neighborhood called Chicago Lawn. Despite how much of its culture “was intensely provincial and based on personal, family, and ethnic ties,” he writes, Chicago Lawn “worked because it was connected to the big organizations that dominated American culture.” In other words, it was a functioning democratic political economy.
Then came the 1980s. Lemann paints a visceral picture of what it was like at street level as Wall Street buccaneers were freed from the chains of regulation and proceeded to tear up the New Deal social contract. Cities hemorrhaged population and tax revenue as their factories were shipped overseas. Whole businesses were eviscerated or even destroyed by huge debt loads from hostile takeovers. Jobs vanished by the hundreds of thousands. 
And it all got much, much worse after 2008, when the schemes collapsed and, as Lemann points out, Barack Obama did not aggressively rein in Wall Street as Roosevelt had done, instead restoring the status quo ante even when it meant ignoring a staggering white-collar crime spree. Neighborhoods drowned under waves of foreclosures and crime as far-off financial derivatives imploded. Car dealerships that had sheltered under the General Motors umbrella for decades were abruptly cut loose. Bewildered Chicago Lawn residents desperately mobilized to defend themselves, but with little success. “What they were struggling against was a set of conditions that had been made by faraway government officials—not one that had sprung up naturally,” Lemann writes.
Toward the end of the book, however, Lemann starts to run out of steam. He investigates a possible rising “Network Man” in the form of top Silicon Valley executives, who have largely maintained control over their companies instead of serving as a sort of esophagus for disgorging their companies’ bank accounts into the Wall Street maw. But they turn out to be, at bottom, the same combination of blinkered and predatory as the Transaction Men. Google and Facebook, for instance, have grown over the last few years by devouring virtually the entire online ad market, strangling the journalism industry as a result. And they directly employ far too few people to serve as the kind of broad social anchor that the car industry once did.
In his final chapter, Lemann argues for a return to “pluralism,” a “messy, contentious system that can’t be subordinated to one conception of the common good. It refuses to designate good guys and bad guys. It distributes, rather than concentrates, economic and political power.”
This is a peculiar conclusion for someone who has just finished Lemann’s book, which is full to bursting with profoundly bad people—men and women who knowingly harmed their fellow citizens by the millions for their own private profit. In his day, Roosevelt was not shy about lambasting rich people who “had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs,” as he put it in a 1936 speech in which he also declared, “We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”
If concentrated economic power is a bad thing, then the corporate form is simply a poor basis for a truly strong and equal society. Placing it as one of the social foundation stones makes its workers dependent on the unreliable goodwill and business acumen of management on the one hand and the broader marketplace on the other. All it takes is a few ruthless Transaction Men to undermine the entire corporate social model by outcompeting the more generous businesses. And even at the high tide of the New Deal, far too many people were left out, especially African Americans.
Lemann writes that in the 1940s the United States “chose not to become a full-dress welfare state on the European model.” But there is actually great variation among the European welfare states. States like Germany and Switzerland went much farther on the corporatist road than the U.S. ever did, but they do considerably worse on metrics like inequality, poverty, and political polarization than the Nordic social democracies, the real welfare kings. 
Conversely, for how threadbare it is, the U.S. welfare state still delivers a great deal of vital income to the American people. The analyst Matt Bruenig recently calculated that American welfare eliminates two-thirds of the “poverty gap,” which is how far families are below the poverty line before government transfers are factored in. (This happens mainly through Social Security.) Imagine how much worse this country would be without those programs! And though it proved rather easy for Wall Street pirates to torch the New Deal corporatist social model without many people noticing, attempts to cut welfare are typically very obvious, and hence unpopular.
Still, Lemann’s book is more than worth the price of admission for the perceptive history and excellent writing. It’s a splendid and beautifully written illustration of the tremendous importance public policy has for the daily lives of ordinary people.
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at the Week. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the New Republic, and the Nation. He was an editor at the Washington Monthly from 2012 to 2014.

Before his first day in office Barack Obama had sucked in more bribes from banksters than any president in history.


During the economic meltdown caused by Obama’s crony banksters, and Obama’s first two years in office, banks made more money than eight years under pro-bankster administration of George Bush.

Both of Obama’s Attorney Generals, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, were chosen by the banks because they were from law firms that had long protected big banks from their victims.

"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY

A key factor in Obama’s newfound and growing wealth are those who profited from his presidency. A number of his public speeches have been given to big Wall Street firms and investors. Obama has given at least nine speeches to Cantor Fitzgerald, a large investment and commercial real estate firm, and other high-end corporations. According to records, each speech has been at least $400,000 a clip.
During his presidency, Obama bragged that his administration was “the only thing between [Wall Street] and the pitchforks.”
In fact, Obama handed the robber barons and outright criminals responsible for the 2008–09 financial crisis a multi-trillion-dollar bailout. His administration oversaw the largest redistribution of wealth in history from the bottom to the top one percent, spearheading the attack on the living standards of teachers and autoworkers.

“This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

Joe Biden, the walking moron, was selected by Obama also because of his ties and servitude to big banks!

OBOMB'S CRONY BANKSTERS DESTROYED MORE 

THAN A TRILLION DOLLARS IN AMERICAN HOME 

VALUES AND NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK FOR MORE WITH THE BANKSTES' RENT BOY BIDEN!


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.


NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM CRIMINAL BANKSTERS THAN BARACK OBAMA!
This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”

Income inequality grows four times faster under Obama than Bush …. we bankroll Mexico's welfare state in our borders as the number of Americans (Legals) sink into poverty! Illegals also get all the jobs!


The study noted that, in the aftermath of the Great Depression, the US undertook policies “during the New Deal [that] permanently reduced income concentration until the 1970s.” In contrast, the study noted a striking absence of any measures to reign in social inequality in the present crisis. Far from it, the Obama administrations’ bank bailouts, austerity program and wage-cutting policies have vastly expanded the prevalence of social inequality.


OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM
THE FED'S OLD BOY NETWORK

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and
"Global Censorship of Health Information"
December 19, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News, performed an enormous service for the American public when it sued the Federal Reserve and the Clearing House Association LLC, an institution created by several of the nation’s largest banks, to force disclosure of secret loans made by the Federal Reserve principally to the six largest U.S. banks but also to certain foreign banks. The treasure trove of evidence ultimately obtained by Bloomberg reveals that while the public Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailed out leading Wall Street firms for the whopping sum of $700 billion, the Fed at the same time doled out some $7.77 trillion (an astronomical sum equal to have the gross domestic product). To make matters worse, the Fed expanded its emergency discount lending program, giving tens of billions more to the same banks at an interest rate of 1%, while the prime lending rate stood at over 3%. The banks getting these funds often turned them into profit centers, lending out proceeds from them at higher interest rates and pocketing the difference, profiting on federal largesse.

The President and his top economic advisers bought the “too big to fail” concept, the notion that regardless of how profligate, irresponsible, even criminal, heads of the leading financial institutions in America had been, it would be worse for the nation if those institutions were to collapse. Consequently, while pushing a legislative agenda of public bail-outs, the Obama Administration maintained a secret program of multi-trillion dollar loans, including billions at below market interest rates. The principal recipients of the funding were JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley.
The General Accounting Office audit of the Federal Reserve revealed that some $16 trillion was supplied in secret loans from the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010. The largest single recipients were Citigroup ($2.5 trillion); Morgan Stanley ($2 trillion); Merrill Lynch ($2 trillion); Bank of America ($1.3 trillion); Barclays PLC ($868 billion); Bear Stearns ($853 billion); Goldman Sachs ($814 billion); the Royal Bank of Scotland ($541 billion); JP Morgan Chase ($391 billion); and Deutsche Bank ($354 billion).
Bloomberg discovered that while top banks were touting in their press releases during the crisis that they had fiscal soundness, their balance sheets were made up primarily of federal funds, most from the Federal Reserve. Moreover, while many banks paid back the TARP funds, they most often did so in reliance on the secret receipts of tens of billions of dollars in Federal Reserve money (in other words, the pay back was in that sense a charade: federal money paid back federal loans). In short, the Administration was complicit in the orchestration of a massive fraud on the American public, making it seem that the banks largely responsible for the financial crisis were weathering the storm of their own accord when in fact they were on board the good ship U.S. Taxpayer.
Meanwhile, the bad lending and financial dealing practices that helped produce the financial crisis have been largely kept in place, underwritten by the federal government. The top banks suddenly realized that far from having to suffer ignominy and defeat for their abuses, they would be kept alive by a seemingly endless flow of federal cash. Indeed, the feds accepted as collateral for loans securities of virtually no worth and other properties that would never support private commercial lending. By propping up the major banks despite their irresponsible lending practices, the federal government has given them a privileged financial status whereby private lenders will give them terms far more favorable than their smaller competitors because they understand the federal government will not let them fail. Economist call this safety net a “moral hazard” (effective federal underwriting for heightened risk taking that permits these lenders to profit at above market rates of return in speculative investing without suffering financial liability for loss). The amounts doled out by the federal government to the banks could have paid off as much as one tenth of all of the delinquent mortgages, Bloomberg determined.

Rather than be forced to take their losses on their enormous junk portfolios and interbank lending practices, the top six banks were allowed to keep the junk portfolios, maintain their dubious lending practices, and turn to the Federal Reserve for money on demand whenever problems arose. Repeatedly when the banks should have gone under due to poor lending practices and grossly speculative profiteering, they were complimented by the Federal Reserve, rescued, and then allowed to tout the falsehood that their success came from sharp management rather than from secret loans. At the same time, these banks and others have shut down commercial lending for small businesses nationwide.
The “too big to fail” justification for the massive federal welfare dole to the top six United States banks was based on a faulty premise. Without question the demise of the leading banks would entail hardship, particularly for the employees of those institutions, but the long term prognosis was good for a restructuring of the financial market through bankruptcies and takeovers. The alternative to allowing the market to impose its own swift and harsh corrective involves imposing a massive burden on every American citizen for generations to come for the trillions spent to prop up a few dozen Wall Street moguls. Rather than have the taxpayers pay an inflated sum to keep the banks responsible for the financial crisis alive, the nation could have spared itself an assumption of massive debt and witnessed the demise of these banks and the rise of new competing financial institutions based on a solid financial model.
The Bush and Obama Administration’s role as Santa Claus for Wall Street has kept from Wall Street the needed lessons that would have otherwise come from the collapse of the major lending institutions. Painful as it may seem to some, it is far better to allow the market to experience a correction for profligate lending practices than to force the American taxpayers for generations to come to pay for the bad decisions made by a few and to let those few go without suffering a single consequence beyond temporary embarrassment.

Obama paid $600,000 for a single speech

 
In the two years since leaving the White House, former President Barack Obama has spent his time raising and solidifying his position in the uppermost echelons of the top one percent of Americans. Obama has raked in exorbitant amounts of money for public speaking events and made deals worth millions with multiple companies.
Despite his quip, made during the depths of the Great Recession, that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” there seems to be no such limit for the Obamas. His family has amassed so much wealth that even Obama himself said he was surprised in a speech in South Africa last year.
Since he left office, the former president has given an estimated 50 speeches a year to corporate audiences for hundreds of thousands of dollars per event. In 2017, the same year he left office, Obama was officially recognized as one of the top ten highest paid public speakers in the US.
Just last month, Obama was reported to have been paid nearly $600,000 to speak at the EXMA conference in Bogotá, Colombia. According to the Bogotá Post, EXMA is Colombia’s largest marketing and business event of the year and one of the largest in Latin America. Simply titled, “A conversation with President Barack Obama,” his talk purportedly addressed “influential growth strategies” in marketing and other aspects of the marketing economy.
Colombia is infamous for the corruption prevalent in its public sector and military, 
which costs the country $17 billion a year, equivalent to 5.3 percent of its GDP. 
Colombia exports half of the world’s cocaine and its drug cartels have been known
to have a hand in the government. Corruption and drug money are so rampant that
Colombia’s Inspector General likened it to “the new cartel.”
While Obama warns of the danger of “exploding inequality” in his speeches, the massive sum granted to him for one night in Bogotá is more than 10 times what the typical household in the US makes in a year, and 72 times the average worker’s annual income in Colombia.
Notably, Obama’s purse was nearly triple the amount Hillary Clinton was paid for her notorious speeches to Goldman Sachs that revealed her and the Democratic Party as Wall Street stooges. Former President Bill Clinton was paid just $200,000 per speech when he toured Latin America in 2005.
A key factor in Obama’s newfound and growing wealth are those who profited from his presidency. A number of his public speeches have been given to big Wall Street firms and investors. Obama has given at least nine speeches to Cantor Fitzgerald, a large investment and commercial real estate firm, and other high-end corporations. According to records, each speech has been at least $400,000 a clip.
During his presidency, Obama bragged that his administration was “the only thing 
between [Wall Street] and the pitchforks.”
In fact, Obama handed the robber barons and outright criminals responsible for the 2008–09 financial crisis a multi-trillion-dollar bailout. His administration oversaw the largest redistribution of wealth in history from the bottom to the top one percent, spearheading the attack on the living standards of teachers and autoworkers.
Under Obama’s watch the stock markets soared as the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by 149 percent. Meanwhile, the “war on terror” in the Middle East was expanded with Obama becoming the first president to spend every day of his two terms at war, much to the delight of the military-industrial complex.
As the wars raged on and the financial oligarchs fattened themselves off the ever-increasing mountain of wealth being concentrated at the top of society, real wages stagnated and an unprecedented opioid overdose crisis spun out of control. Rising numbers of “deaths of despair” during Obama’s tenure, particularly among the working class, resulted in a decline in life expectancy unprecedented in the modern era.
In addition to monetary rewards for his service to the financial elite and military-intelligence apparatus, Obama has been lavishly feted by socialites and billionaires such as Richard Branson. Obama was Branson’s special guest in 2017 on a private island where the pair were seen kite surfing and enjoying the amenities of Branson’s exclusive resort.
Michelle Obama has also benefited after the family’s departure from the White House. The couple signed a $65 million book deal with publishing company Penguin Random House for their political memoirs. Michelle’s memoir “Becoming” was the best-selling book of 2018 with over 10 million copies sold. The pair also signed multi-year deals with Netflix and Spotify to produce content aimed at “fostering dialogue” and promoting diversity in entertainment.
Obama’s lucrative post-White House career hobnobbing with the corporate, entertainment and financial elite epitomizes the revolving door relationship between the US government and the private sector. Obama’s rewards are simply retroactive bribery for services rendered to the capitalist elite, who have welcomed him with open arms.

They Destroyed Our Country
“They knew Obama was an unqualified crook; yet they promoted him. They knew Obama was a train wreck waiting to happen; yet they made him president, to the great injury of America and the world. They understood he was only a figurehead, an egomaniac, and a liar; yet they made him king, doing great harm to our republic (perhaps irreparable.)”
THE RISE TO POWER OF BANKSTER-OWNED BARACK OBAMA
'Incompetent' and 'liar' among most frequently used words to describe the president: Pew Research Center
The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.
OBAMA'S ASSAULT ON AMERICA -WHY WALL STREET, ILLEGALS, CRIMINAL BANKSTERS and the 1% LOVE HIM, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS GETS THE SHAFT TO PAY FOR HIS CRONY CAPITALISM
CEO pay is higher than ever, as is the chasm separating the rich and super-rich from everyone else. The incomes of the top 1 percent grew more than 11 percent between 2009 and 2011—the first two years of the Obama “recovery”—while the incomes of the bottom 99 percent actually shrank.
Meanwhile, Obama is pressing forward with his proposal, outlined in his budget for the next fiscal year, to slash $400 billion from Medicare and $130 billion from Social Security… AS WELL AS WIDER OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, NO LEGAL NEED APPLY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED

OBAMA AND BIDEN: 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.


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.

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

THE WALL STREET BOUGHT AND OWNED DEMOCRAT PARTY

SERVING BANKSTERS, BILLIONAIRES and INVADING ILLEGALS
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ----Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

THE CRONY CLASS:

Income inequality grows FOUR TIMES FASTER under Obama-Biden and their bankster regime than Bush.



“By the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, the Democratic Party had completely repudiated its association with the reforms of the New Deal and Great Society periods. Clinton gutted welfare programs to provide an ample supply of cheap labor for the rich (WHICH NOW MEANS OPEN BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY!), including a growing layer of black capitalists, and passed the 1994 Federal Crime Bill, with its notorious “three strikes” provision that has helped create the largest prison population in the world.”

“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ----Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

INCOME PLUMMETS UNDER OBAMA AND HIS WALL STREET CRONIES


Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

THE REAL ECONOMY:
US “retail apocalypse” expected to exceed annual high with more than 1,100 store closures announced in one day.
The declining living standards of the working class are feeding directly into the retail apocalypse and mass layoffs of retail workers will only exacerbate the issue. Workers’ wages have seen little to no growth in the last four decades, and any economic growth experienced since 2008 has gone to the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Why do all global billionaires want wider open borders, amnesty and no E-VERIFY?
Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.
AMERICA: THE ECONOMY IS RIGGED BY CONGRESS SO THE RICH BECOME SUPER RICH.
The American middle class gets the tax bills for Wall Street’s crimes and bottomeless bailouts!

Wealth concentration increases in US.



The latest research on wealth inequality by University of California economics professor Gabriel Zucman underscores one of the key social and economic trends since the global financial crisis of 2008. Those at the very top of society, who benefited directly from the orgy of speculation that led to the crash, have seen their wealth accumulate at an even faster rate, while the mass of the population has suffered a major decline.
The past 40 years have seen the consolidation of a plutocratic elite, which has subordinated every aspect of American society to a single goal: amassing ever more colossal amounts of personal wealth. The top one percent have captured all of the increase in national income over the past two decades, and all of the increase in national wealth since the 2008 crash.
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan AMERICAN THINKER

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

BILLIONAIRE BETO “BETOMATIC” O’ROURKE PROCLAIMS AMNESTY FOR 40 MILLION INVADING “UNREGISTERED” DEMOCRAT VOTING ILLEGALS.
No word on America’s homeless, housing or jobs crisis for Legals!

Joe Biden Fundraises with Wall Street During Donald Trump Rally

CHARLIE SPIERING
  18 Jun 201984

Former Vice President Joe Biden attended a fundraiser with Wall Street donors during President Donald Trump’s campaign kickoff rally in Florida on Tuesday.

It was the fourth New York City fundraiser for Joe Biden in about 24 hours.
The fundraiser was hosted by Eric Mindich, the CEO of Eton Park Capital Management with about 100 donors including Stephen Scherr, the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs, H. Rodgin Cohen the senior chairman at Sullivan & Cromwell as well as former Clinton and Obama officials
Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.
“You know what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people,” he said. “Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money. The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done.”
Biden warned that if Trump won re-election, he would “literally fundamentally change the nature of who we are and how we function.”
Biden boasted that Obama leaned on him to help bring members of Congress together during their administration.
“Folks, I believe one of the things I’m pretty good at is bringing people together,” he said. “Every time we had trouble in the administration, who got sent to the Hill to settle it? Me. No, not a joke. Because I demonstrate respect for them.”

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

AMERICA: THE RICH GET MUCH RICHER AND THE MIDDLE CLASS GETS BLUDGEONED…. Illegals get the jobs!

*
Why do the billionaire class all want wider open borders and hordes more “cheap” labor illegals? It’s all about keeping wages depressed for greater profits!

*

“Today’s society benefits those who shaped it, and it has been shaped not by working men and women, but by the new aristocratic elite. Big banks, big tech, big multi-national corporations, along with their allies in the academy and the media—these are the aristocrats of our age. They live in the United States, but they consider themselves citizens of the world” Sen. Josh Hawley 

*


“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” THEODORE ROOSEVELT
*

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com

*
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes."
*

"The tax overhaul would mean an unprecedented windfall for the super-rich, on top of the fact that virtually all income gains during the period of the supposed recovery from the financial crash of 2008 have gone to the top 1 percent income bracket."

*

Graph from the Economic Policy Institute

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.
*

Millionaires projected to own 46 percent of global private wealth by 2019


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.

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.
By Gabriel Black
*
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.

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

America Created Just 20,000 Jobs in February...and those all went to foreign born

Exclusive–Mo Brooks: ‘Masters of the Universe’ Want More Immigration to ‘Decrease Incomes of Americans’
Consequently, the pumping of ultra-cheap money into the financial system, fueling speculation and parasitism, together with ever-widening social inequality, is not a temporary measure but must be made permanent.
The declining living standards of the working class are feeding directly into the retail apocalypse and mass layoffs of retail workers will only exacerbate the issue. 
Workers’ wages have seen little to no growth in the last four decades, and any economic growth experienced since 2008 has gone to 

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

“US household net worth sees biggest fall since crisis”

“Trump Touts Legal Immigration System for ‘Our Corporations’ at Expense of 
American Workers “– JOHN BINDER

Trump’s shift from a wage-boosting legal immigration system to one that benefits corporations and their shareholders coincides with recent big business lobby influence over his White House, at the behest of advisers Jared Kushner and Brooke Rollins.
*
“Trump Abandons ‘America First’ Reforms: ‘We Need’ More Immigration to Grow Business Profits”  JOHN BINDER


Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.

Despite a booming economy, many U.S. households are still just holding on

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-recovery-that-never-happened-except.html

"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."  

“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” THEODORE ROOSEVELT


Jim Carrey: America ‘Doomed’ If We Don’t Regulate Capitalism"

The American phenomenon of record stock values fueling an ever greater concentration of wealth at the very top of society, while the economy is starved of productive investment, the social infrastructure crumbles, and working class living standards are driven down by entrenched unemployment, wage-cutting and government austerity policies, is part of a broader global process."


The father of US Treasury Secretary 

Steven Mnuchin just completed the most 

expensive purchase of a living artist’s work in 

US history, spending over $91 million on a 

three-foot-tall metallic sculpture. Ken Griffin,

the founder of hedge fund Citadel, 

recently dropped $238 million on a 

penthouse in New York City, the most 

expensive US home ever purchased. And 

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, 

has invested $42 million in a 10,000-year 

clock.

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.

"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY

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.


Additionally, Koch spokespeople at the donors’ conference said the network has its sights set on pushing amnesty for millions of illegal aliens this year.

Biden defended the wealthy in his speech to the donors but begged them to be aware of wealth inequality.



NO PRESIDENT SUCKED IN MORE BRIBES FROM BANKSTERS BEFORE AND AFTER HIS PRESIDENCY THAT BARACK OBAMA.

Trump criticized Dimon in 2013 for supposedly contributing to the country’s economic downturn. “I’m not Jamie Dimon, who pays $13 billion to settle a case and then pays $11 billion to settle a case and who I think is the worst banker in the United States,” he told reporters.
“The response of the administration was to rush to the defense of the banks. Even before coming to power, Obama expressed his unconditional support for the bailouts, which he subsequently expanded. He assembled an administration dominated by the interests of finance capital, symbolized by economic adviser Lawrence Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.”

Practically every cabinet appointee of Obama’s has close personal connections to the ruling class, many having come directly from corporate boardrooms. Under Obama’s watch not a single executive at a major financial firm has been criminally tried, much less sent to jail, for their role in the financial crisis.
“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG
"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."  
This manufactured crisis has, in turn, been exploited by the Obama administration and both big business parties to hand over trillions in pension funds and other public assets to the financial kleptocracy that rules America.
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

“This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”
"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."  

$2,198,468,000,000: Federal Spending Hit 10-Year High Through March; Taxes Hit 5-Year Low

By Terence P. Jeffrey | April 10, 2019 | 5:09 PM EDT
(Getty Images/Ron Sachs-Pool)
(CNSNews.com) - The federal government spent $2,198,468,000,000 in the first six months of fiscal 2019 (October through March), which is the most it has spent in the first six months of any fiscal year in the last decade, according to the Monthly Treasury Statements.

The last time the government spent more in the October-through-March period was in fiscal 2009, when it spent $2,326,360,180,000 in constant March 2019 dollars.

Fiscal 2009 was the fiscal year that began with President George W. Bush signing a $700-billion law to bailout the banking industry in October 2008 and then saw President Barack Obama sign a $787-billion stimulus law in February 2009.

JPMorgan shares climb after the bank posts record earnings and revenue

Jamie Dimon arriving to testify before Congress. Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters

·         JPMorgan reported first-quarter earnings results on Friday, kicking off another earnings season for the largest US banks.

JPMorgan Chase reported record first-quarter results on both the top and bottom lines Friday morning. Shares climbed 2.3% in early trading to $108.68.
Here's how the results stacked up with Wall Street's expectations as compiled by Bloomberg.

·         Adjusted net income: $9.18 billion versus $7.7 billion expected
·         Earnings per share: $2.65 versus $2.34 expected
·         Revenue: $29.85 billion versus $28.4 billion expected
·         Expenses: $16.4 billion versus $16.7 billion expected
"In the first quarter of 2019, we had record revenue and net income, strong performance across each of our major businesses, and a more constructive environment," CEO Jamie Dimon said in the earnings release. "Even amid some global geopolitical uncertainty, the US economy continues to grow, employment and wages are going up, inflation is moderate, financial markets are healthy, and consumer and business confidence remains strong."
A deeper look into the numbers showed the trading and investment-banking businesses exceeded expectations, though trading declined 17% from the year earlier:
·         FICC sales & trading revenue: $3.73 billion versus $3.67 billion expected
·         Equity sales & trading revenue: $1.74 billion versus $1.73 billion expected
·         Investment-banking revenue: $1.75 billion versus $1.63 billion expected

"The Federal Reserve is a key mechanism for perpetuating this whole filthy system, in which "Wall Street rules."

 

The effect can be seen in the ever more staggering wealth of the financial oligarchy, which has consistently enjoyed investment returns of between 10 and 20 percent every year since the financial crisis, even as the incomes of workers have stagnated or fallen.

 


Wall Street rules

 
The Federal Reserve sent a clear message to Wall Street on Friday: It will not allow the longest bull market in American history to end. The message was received loud and clear, and the Dow rose by more than 700 points.
Hundreds of thousands of federal workers remain furloughed or forced to work without pay as the partial government shutdown enters its third week, but the US central bank is making clear that all of the resources of the state are at the disposal of the financial oligarchy.
Responding to Thursday’s market selloff following a dismal report from Apple and signs of a manufacturing slowdown in both China and the US, the Fed declared it was “listening” to the markets and would scrap its plans to raise interest rates.
Speaking at a conference in Atlanta, where he was flanked by his predecessors Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, both of whom had worked to reflate the stock market bubble after the 2008 financial crash, Chairman Jerome Powell signaled that the Fed would back off from its two projected rate increases for 2019.
“We’re listening sensitively to the messages markets are sending,” he said, adding that the central bank would be “patient” in imposing further rate increases. To underline the point, he declared, “If we ever came to the conclusion that any aspect of our plans” was causing a problem, “we wouldn’t hesitate to change it.”
This extraordinary pledge to Wall Street followed the 660 point plunge in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on Thursday, capping off the worst two-day start for a new trading year since the collapse of the dot.com bubble.
William McChesney Martin, the Fed chairman from 1951 to 1970, famously said that his job was “to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.” Now the task of the Fed chairman is to ply the wealthy revelers with tequila shots as soon as they start to sober up.
Powell’s remarks were particularly striking given that they followed the release Friday of the most upbeat jobs report in over a year, with figures, including the highest year-on-year wage growth since the 2008 crisis, universally lauded as “stellar.”
While US financial markets have endured the worst December since the Great Depression, amid mounting fears of a looming recession and a new financial crisis, analysts have been quick to point out that there are no “hard” signs of a recession in the United States.
Both the Dow and the S&P 500 indexes have fallen more than 15 percent from their recent highs, while the tech-heavy NASDAQ has entered bear market territory, usually defined as a drop of 20 percent from recent highs.
The markets, Powell admitted, are “well ahead of the data.” But it is the markets, not the “data,” that Powell is listening to.
Since World War II, bear markets have occurred, on average, every five-and-a-half years. But if the present trend continues, the Dow will reach 10 years without a bear market in March, despite the recent losses.
Now the Fed has stepped in effectively to pledge that it will allocate whatever resources are needed to ensure that no substantial market correction takes place. But this means only that when the correction does come, as it inevitably 
must, it will be all the more severe and the Fed will have all the less power to stop it.
From the standpoint of the history of the institution, the Fed’s current more or less explicit role as backstop for the stock market is a relatively new development. Founded in 1913, the Federal Reserve legally has had the “dual mandate” of ensuring both maximum employment and price stability since the late 1970s. Fed officials have traditionally denied being influenced in policy decisions by a desire to drive up the stock market.
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, appointed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1979, deliberately engineered an economic recession by driving the benchmark federal funds interest rate above 20 percent. His highly conscious aim, in the name of combating inflation, was to quash a wages movement of US workers by triggering plant closures and driving up unemployment.
The actions of the Fed under Volcker set the stage for a vast upward redistribution of wealth, facilitated on one hand by the trade unions’ suppression of the class struggle and on the other by a relentless and dizzying rise on the stock market.
Volcker’s recession, together with the Reagan administration’s crushing of the 1981 PATCO air traffic controllers’ strike, ushered in decades of mass layoffs, deindustrialization and wage and benefit concessions, leading labor’s share of total national income to fall year after year.
These were also decades of financial deregulation, leading to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, the dot.com bubble of 1999-2000, and, worst of all, the 2008 financial crisis.
In each of these crises, the Federal Reserve carried out what became known as the “Greenspan put,” (later the “Bernanke put”)—an implicit guarantee to backstop the financial markets, prompting investors to take ever greater risks.
In 2008, this resulted in the most sweeping and systemic financial crisis since the Great Depression, prompting Fed Chairman Bernanke, New York Fed President Tim Geithner and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (the former CEO of Goldman Sachs) to orchestrate the largest bank bailout in human history.
Since that time, the Federal Reserve has carried out its most accommodative monetary policy ever, keeping interest rates at or near zero percent for six years. It supplemented this boondoggle for the financial elite with its multi-trillion-dollar “quantitative easing” money-printing program.
The effect can be seen in the ever more staggering wealth of the financial oligarchy, which has consistently enjoyed investment returns of between 10 and 20 percent every year since the financial crisis, even as the incomes of workers have stagnated or fallen.
American capitalist society is hooked on the toxic growth of social inequality created by the stock market bubble. This, in turn, fosters the political framework not just for the decadent lifestyles of the financial oligarchs, each of whom owns, on average, a half-dozen mansions around the world, a private jet and a super-yacht, but also for the broader periphery of the affluent upper-middle class, which provides the oligarchs with political legitimacy and support. These elite social layers determine American political life, from which the broad mass of working people is effectively excluded.
The Federal Reserve is a key mechanism for perpetuating this whole filthy system, in which “Wall Street rules.” But its services in behalf of the rich and the super-rich only compound the fundamental and insoluble contradictions of capitalism, plunging the system into ever deeper debt and ensuring that the next crisis will be that much more violent and explosive.
In this intensifying crisis, the working class must assert its independent interests with the same determination and ruthlessness as evinced by the ruling class. It must answer the bourgeoisie’s social counterrevolution with the program of socialist revolution.

 

 

 

the depression is already here for most of us below the super-rich!


Trump and the GOP created a fake economic boom on our collective credit card: The equivalent of maxing out your credit cards and saying look how good I'm doing right now.

*
Trump criticized Dimon in 2013 for supposedly contributing to the country’s economic downturn. “I’m not Jamie Dimon, who pays $13 billion to settle a case and then pays $11 billion to settle a case and who I think is the worst banker in the United States,” he told reporters.
*
"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."  
*

"Overall, the reaction to the decision points to the underlying fragility of financial markets, which have become a house of cards as a result of the massive inflows of money from the Fed and other central banks, and are now extremely susceptible to even a small tightening in financial conditions."

*
"It is significant that what the Financial Times described as a “tsunami of money”—estimated to reach $1 trillion for the year—has failed to prevent what could be the worst year for stock markets since the global financial crisis."
*
"A decade ago, as the financial crisis raged, America’s banks were in ruins. Lehman Brothers, the storied 158-year-old investment house, collapsed into bankruptcy in mid-September 2008. Six months earlier, Bear Stearns, its competitor, had required a government-engineered rescue to avert the same outcome. By October, two of the nation’s largest commercial banks, Citigroup and Bank of America, needed their own government-tailored bailouts to escape failure. Smaller but still-sizable banks, such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac, died."
*
The GOP said the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" would reduce deficits and supercharge the economy (and stocks and wages). The White House says things are working as planned, but one year on--the numbers mostly suggest otherwise. 




6 April 2009
A series of articles published over the weekend, based on financial disclosure reports released by the Obama administration last Friday concerning top White House officials, documents the extent to which the administration, in both its personnel and policies, is a political instrument of Wall Street.
Policies that are extraordinarily favorable to the financial elite that were put in place over the past month by the Obama administration have fed a surge in share values on Wall Street. These include the scheme to use hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds to pay hedge funds to buy up the banks’ toxic assets at inflated prices, the Auto Task Force’s rejection of the recovery plans of Chrysler and General Motors and its demand for even more brutal layoffs, wage cuts and attacks on workers’ health benefits and pensions, and the decision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to weaken “mark-to-market” accounting rules and permit banks to inflate the value of their toxic assets.
At the same time, Obama has campaigned against restrictions on bonuses paid to executives at insurance giant American International Group (AIG) and other bailed-out firms, and repeatedly assured Wall Street that he will slash social spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The new financial disclosures reveal that top Obama advisors directly involved in setting these policies have received millions from Wall Street firms, including those that have received huge taxpayer bailouts.
The case of Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council and Obama’s top economic adviser, highlights the politically incestuous character of relations between the Obama administration and the American financial elite.
Last year, Summers pocketed $5 million as a managing director of D.E. Shaw, one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, and another $2.7 million for speeches delivered to Wall Street firms that have received government bailout money. This includes $45,000 from Citigroup and $67,500 each from JPMorgan Chase and the now-liquidated Lehman Brothers.
For a speech to Goldman Sachs executives, Summers walked away with $135,000. This is substantially more than double the earnings for an entire year of high-seniority auto workers, who have been pilloried by the Obama administration and the media for their supposedly exorbitant and “unsustainable” wages.
Alluding diplomatically to the flagrant conflict of interest revealed by these disclosures, the New York Times noted on Saturday: “Mr. Summers, the director of the National Economic Council, wields important influence over Mr. Obama’s policy decisions for the troubled financial industry, including firms from which he recently received payments.”
Summers was a leading advocate of banking deregulation. As treasury secretary in the second Clinton administration, he oversaw the lifting of basic financial regulations dating from the 1930s. The Times article notes that among his current responsibilities is deciding “whether—and how—to tighten regulation of hedge funds.”
Summers is not an exception. He is rather typical of the Wall Street insiders who comprise a cabinet and White House team that is filled with multi-millionaires, presided over by a president who parlayed his own political career into a multi-million-dollar fortune.
Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, worked for Citigroup and received more than $7.4 million from the bank from January of 2008 until he entered the Obama administration this year. This included a $2.25 million year-end bonus handed him this past January, within weeks of his joining the Obama administration.
Citigroup has thus far been the beneficiary of $45 billion in cash and over $300 billion in government guarantees of its bad debts.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign’s top strategist and now senior adviser to the president, was paid $1.55 million last year from two consulting firms he controls. He has agreed to buyouts that will garner him another $3 million over the next five years. His disclosure claims personal assets of between $7 and $10 million.
Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, was paid $3.9 million by a Washington law firm whose major clients include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and the private equity firm Apollo Management.
Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, made $227,155 last year from IndyMac Bancorp, the California bank that heavily promoted subprime mortgages. It collapsed last summer and was placed under federal receivership.
The presence of multi-millionaire Wall Street insiders extends to second- and third-tier positions in the Obama administration as well. David Stevens, who has been tapped by Obama to head the Federal Housing Administration, is the president and chief operating officer of Long and Foster Cos., a real estate brokerage firm. From 1999 to 2005, Stevens served as a top executive for Freddie Mac, the federally-backed mortgage lending giant that was bailed out and seized by federal regulators in September.
Neal Wolin, Obama’s selection for deputy counsel to the president for economic policy, is a top executive at the insurance giant Hartford Financial Services, where his salary was $4.5 million.
Obama’s Auto Task Force has as its top advisers two investment bankers with a long resume in corporate downsizing and asset-stripping.
It is not new for leading figures from finance to be named to high posts in a US administration. However, there has traditionally been an effort to demonstrate a degree of independence from Wall Street in the selection of cabinet officials and high-ranking presidential aides, often through the appointment of figures from academia or the public sector. In previous decades, moreover, representatives of the corporate elite were more likely to come from industry than from finance.
In the Obama administration such considerations have largely been abandoned.
This will not come as a surprise to those who critically followed Obama’s election campaign. While he postured before the electorate as a critic of the war in Iraq and a quasi-populist force for “change,” he was from the first heavily dependent on the financial and political backing of powerful financiers in Chicago. Banks, hedge funds and other financial firms lavishly backed his presidential bid, giving him considerably more than they gave to his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.
Friday’s financial disclosures further expose the bankruptcy of American democracy. Elections have no real effect on government policy, which is determined by the interests of the financial aristocracy that dominates both political parties. The working class can fight for its own interests—for jobs, decent living standards, health care, education, housing and an end to war.


“Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).”

OBAMA and HIS BANKS: THEIR PROFITS, CRIMES and LOOTING SOAR


CRONY KING OBAMA: CURL: The Obamas live the 1% life

OBAMAnomics:
FROM THE MAN THAT HATED AMERICAN BUT LOVED AMERICAN BANKSTERS:



OBAMA, THE BANKSTER OWNED LA RAZA DEM

THE GLOBALIST LEGACY OF A SOCIOPATH
Obama warns against “cynicism” at Ohio State commencement address
7 May 2013
At a commencement address on Sunday at Ohio State University, President Barack Obama counseled students not to be “cynical” about government and politics.
There was an almost comically absurd element to Obama’s remarks, delivered with his characteristic demagogy and attempted gestures at profundity. In his first four years in office, along with the first months of his second term, Obama proceeded to systematically repudiate every campaign pledge and to deflate every illusion that, with the assistance of a highly coordinated marketing campaign, led millions of people, including a large number of young people, to vote for him in 2008.
The Obama administration handed trillions of dollars to the banks; has overseen a massive attack on public education; is leading the campaign to slash Social Security and Medicare, the core federal retirement and health care programs; expanded the war in Afghanistan, led a war against Libya, and is preparing a new war in Syria; and has asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, including US citizens, without due process.
After this record of service to the corporate elite, he declares: “When we turn away and get discouraged and cynical… we grant our silent consent to someone who will gladly claim it. That’s how we end up with lobbyists who set the agenda; and policies detached from what middle class families face every day; the well-connected who publicly demand that Washington stay out of their business—and then whisper in government’s ear for special treatment that you don’t get.”
The references to the “whispers” of the wealthy and well-connected is particularly rich, coming only a week after Obama nominated Penny Pritzker for commerce secretary. The selection of Pritzker—a longtime Obama confidant, billionaire heiress and owner of a private equity company—only underscores the fact that the administration is a government of, by and for the financial aristocracy. She will be the wealthiest person ever to serve in a presidential cabinet.
Previous to his appointment of Pritzker, Obama appointed Mary Jo White to head the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), one of the main financial regulators. White made millions of dollars as an attorney for banks responsible for the financial crisis, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, whose CEO, Jamie Dimon, called White the “perfect choice” to head the SEC.
Practically every cabinet appointee of Obama’s has close personal connections to the ruling class, many having come directly from corporate boardrooms. Under Obama’s watch not a single executive at a major financial firm has been criminally tried, much less sent to jail, for their role in the financial crisis.
As a whole, Obama’s speech was characterized by a complete separation from the actual conditions facing the graduates he spoke to, who confront joblessness, falling wages, and a lifetime in debt. “You have every reason to believe that your future is bright,” he told his audience. “You’re graduating into an economy and a job market that is steadily healing.”
He added later, “The trajectory of this great nation should give you hope.” Really? This is under conditions in which over 11 percent of college graduates are unemployed a year after getting out of school, and another 16.1 percent simply drop out of the labor force, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most of those who do find a job are paid barely enough to get by, let alone pay off student loans. Wages for young adults are falling faster than any other part of the population, and are down by 6 percent in the past four years.
Most of the students that Obama addressed Sunday will be so burdened with debt that they will delay or have to completely put off starting a family or buying a home.
It is not surprising that Obama should neglect to dwell on this disastrous situation, because his administration bears responsibility for it. In the government-sponsored restructuring of the auto industry, the White House insisted that the wages of new-hires be slashed in half, setting the stage for vast reduction of wages throughout the economy.
Obama sought to paint opposition to the government’s violation of democratic rights as right-wing hysterics. “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity,” Obama said. “They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”
This comes from a president who has personally overseen the illegal assassination of thousands of people, including at least three American citizens, in weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. The assertions of executive power have been systematically expanded, going beyond those claimed even by the Bush administration. The specter of a police state—the response of the ruling class to growing social opposition—is in fact lurking around the corner.
The moribund state of American politics, of which the Obama administration is a principal expression, is, according to the president, the fault of the American people. “Democracy doesn’t function without your active participation,” he admonished. If politicians “don’t represent you the way you want… you’ve got to let them know that’s not okay. And if they let you down, there’s a built-in day in November where you can really let them know that’s not okay.”
Such limp efforts to encourage illusions in the viability of the “democratic process” in the United States will not go very far. The experience of the past four years has not passed in vain. Millions of people, including many of those in the audience at Ohio State, are drawing the quite justified, if “cynical,” conclusion that the entire political and economic system is rotten to the core.
Mounting evidence of international collusion in Libor rigging - THE RAPE OF THE ECONOMY BY THE BANKSTERS

Mounting evidence of international collusion in Libor rigging

OBAMA'S AND HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS AT WORK:


JPMorgan’s investment arm, which includes its energy group, collects $14 billion annually; in comparison, six months’ worth of fines would amount to a paltry $180 million.

THERE IS A REASON WHY THE BANKSTERS INVESTED HEAVILY IN OBAMA’S CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION!

Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).

Obama: JPMorgan Is 'One of the Best-Managed Banks'

By Mary Bruce | ABC OTUS News – 2 hrs 31 mins ago

Obama: JPMorgan Is 'One of the …

Lou Rocco / ABC News

Just hours after a top JPMorgan Chase executive retired in the wake of a stunning $2 billion trading loss, President Obamatold the hosts of ABC's "The View" that the bank's risky bets exemplified the need for Wall Street reform.

*
JPMorgan Chase investigated for manipulating California energy market

By Oliver Richards
23 July 2012

The California Independent Systems Operator (CalISO), the nonprofit organization that coordinates the state’s electricity market, has alleged that JPMorgan Chase& Co. manipulated the state’s energy market, resulting in at least $73 million in improper payments—costs passed along to the state’s energy consumers.

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS:
STILL SUCKING THE BLOOD OUT OF AMERICA
This manufactured crisis has, in turn, been exploited by the Obama administration and both big business parties to hand over trillions in pension funds and other public assets to the financial kleptocracy that rules America.
 “Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes.  This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan  THEAMERICAN THINKER.com

“This was not because of difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”



OBAMANOMICS TO SERVE BANKSTERS 

AND GLOBAL BILLIONAIRES



"One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact of central bank actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."  
BILLIONAIRES, BANKSTERS AND THE RICH PARTNER WITH TRUMP TO FIGHT … economic equality.


"JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who was known as Barack Obama’s favorite banker and who has been a major donor to
the Democratic Party, centered his annual letter to shareholders on a denunciation of socialism."

BANKSTER SOCIALISM

Dimon’s bank received tens of billions of dollars in government bailouts and many billions more from the Obama administration’s ultra-low interest rate and “quantitative easing” money-printing policies.  He told his shareholders that “socialism inevitably produces stagnation, corruption” and “authoritarian government,” and would be “a disaster for our country.”… UNLESS IT IS SOCIALISM FOR BANKSTERS AND WALL STREET!

*

"This paved the way for the elevation of Trump, the personification of the criminality and backwardness of the ruling oligarchy."
*

"The very fact that the US government officially acknowledges a growth of popular support for socialism, particularly among the nation’s youth, testifies to vast changes taking place in the political consciousness of the working class and the terror this is striking within the ruling elite. America is, after all, a country where anti-communism was for the greater part of a century a state-sponsored secular religion. No ruling class has so ruthlessly sought to exclude socialist politics from political discourse as the American ruling class."
*

Socialism haunts the American ruling class In the two months since Donald Trump vowed in his State of the Union Address that “America will never be a socialist country,” the right-wing demagogue president and the Republican Party have embraced anti-socialism as the defining theme of their campaign in the 2020 elections.


Wall Street Warms Up to Elizabeth Warren: ‘She’s the Smartest,’ ‘Most Policy-Oriented’ Democrat

22 Jul 201968
4:14

Wall Street is warming up to the idea of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) being the Democrat nominee for president against President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, interviews with executives and bankers reveal.

Politico report details how Wall Street insiders are becoming comfortable with Warren as the potential nominee to go up against Trump and his “America First” agenda:
I think she is going to get the nomination because she’s the smartest, she’s charismatic and she’s the most policy-oriented,” said one former top executive at a large Wall Street bank who, like several interviewed for this story, declined to be quoted on record saying anything nice about Warren. “Wall Street is very good at accommodating itself to reality and if the reality is the party is going to be super-progressive, they may not like Warren but she’s a better form of poison than Bernie.” [Emphasis added]
“If she were the nominee, there will certainly be people who will say that Donald Trump represents everything that I’m against,” said Orin Kramer, a hedge fund manager who is raising money for Buttigieg. “And they will find stuff that they like about her and will vote for her.” [Emphasis added]


BLOG: THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OF CRONY CAPITALISM IS THE PARTY OF BANKSTERS AND BOTTOMLESS BANKSTER BAILOUTS... AND NO PRISON TIME! 
Former adviser to President Obama and investor Robert Wolf told Politico that the financial industry has changed over the last few decades and that Wall Street-types are vastly more aligned with the Democrat establishment than Trump’s GOP.
“I don’t think the stereotypes of the industry serve the same purpose as they used to,” Wolf said. “People who work in corporate America and financial services may have the same views that she does on 95 percent of the issues such as income inequality, student loans, climate change, and others.”
Wall Street and Warren have at least one major policy initiative in common: A full repeal of Trump’s illegal and legal immigration reforms.
This month, Warren released her immigration platform that includes increasing overall legal immigration to the U.S. to provide business with an even greater flow of foreign workers to hire over Americans, as well as a decriminalization of illegal immigration, an amnesty for all illegal aliens in the country, and an end of Trump’s reforms such as his immigration ban from terrorist-sponsored countries and reduction of the refugee resettlement program.
Like Warren, Wall Street executives have railed against Trump’s immigration agenda — demanding that his zero-tolerance policy at the U.S.-Mexico border be ended and opposing his travel ban.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has supported amnesty for illegal aliens since at least 2016 when he announced support for the infamous “Gang of Eight” amnesty, saying, “Let them stay and let them build companies.”

Last month, Dimon said amnesty for illegal aliens was necessary to grow the economy, saying, “If we do these policies right, America will be growing a lot faster.”
Some of the top multinational banks — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — have come out against Trump’s travel ban that effectively stopped all immigration from a handful of foreign countries that sponsor terrorism.

“This is not a policy we support, and I would note that it has already been challenged in federal court, and some of the order has been enjoined at least temporarily,” former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein wrote in a letter at the time. “Let me close by quoting from our business principles: ‘For us to be successful, our men and women must reflect the diversity of the communities and cultures in which we operate … Being diverse is not optional; it is what we must be.'”
Meanwhile, Citigroup has promoted mass immigration as a necessary component to growing the American economy in terms of increasing GDP. A report released by executives last year championed migration into the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Germany.
For decades, the big business lobby, Wall Street, and donor class have said mass immigration is crucial to growing GDP in the U.S. though research has shown that increasing legal immigration levels to an enormous ten million admissions a year would only grow GDP by about 2.5 percent. Meanwhile, Trump’s low-migration, high-wage economy has translated to 3.2 percent annual economic growth.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

No comments: