WALL STREET BANKSTERS KNOW HOW WELL OBAMA-BIDEN-HOLDER SERVED AND
PROTECTED THEM DURING THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN THEY CAUSED.
A remarkable article
in The American Prospect—a liberal publication that supports
Biden against Trump—makes a devastating exposure of these militarists for
Biden, under the headline, “How Biden’s Foreign Policy Team Got Rich.”
In other words, Wall
Street favored Biden by better than four to one, and Biden’s $23
million lead among the financial elite accounted for more than his entire $16
million edge over Trump in fundraising in May and June.
“According to figures
released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street in
particular is favoring Biden’s campaign over Trump’s. The group found that
Biden has raised $52.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate
industries, of which $32.2 million came from “securities and investment.”
Wall Street, Republicans and militarists back Biden campaign
9 July 2020
Anyone who wants to
know what type of policies will be pursued by a Biden administration in the
event the Democrats win the November 3 presidential election has only to look
at the social and political forces that are rallying to his campaign.
BLOG EDITOR: BIDEN WAS
ENDORSED VERY EARLY BY WAR PROFITEER AND PARTNER FOR RED CHINA SEN. DIANNE
FEINSTEIN.
They include Wall
Street, prominent Republicans and veterans of the Obama national security team.
Thanks to strong
support from big business, the presidential campaign of the former vice
president outraised President Trump’s reelection campaign in June, according to
figures announced by the two campaigns last week. Joe Biden raked in $141
million, while Trump’s campaign took in $131 million.
It was the second
consecutive month that Biden collected more in campaign contributions than
Trump, following a $6 million edge in May, $80.8 million to $74 million,
according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
The Trump campaign
still leads in cash in the bank, with $295 million on hand as of July 1, as it
had few expenses during the Republican primaries, where Trump had only token
opposition. Biden’s campaign was effectively broke at the time of his
breakthrough victories in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 3, but he now
has amassed a war chest of at least $125 million, according to published estimates.
ActBlue, the online
fundraising vehicle for the Democratic Party as a whole, took in $392 million
in June, shattering all previous records, the bulk of it in smaller donations
and contributions from first-time donors. This is an indication of the widespread
popular hostility to Trump, exacerbated by his vitriolic attacks on the mass
protests against police violence that took place throughout the month, as well
as his refusal to take any serious action to stem the coronavirus pandemic.
BLOG EDITOR: THE RICH
KNOW WHO WILL SERVE THEM BEST! ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. THE GREATEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH TO THE RICH
IN AMERICAN HISTORY OCCURRED DURING THE BANKSTER REGIME OF OBAMA-BIDEN-HOLDER.
But a major factor in
Biden’s fundraising surge has been a series of virtual events featuring former
President Obama, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Kamala Harris, at which
wealthy contributors were invited to give the maximum donation of $5,600
directly to Biden as well as much larger sums to the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and the political action committee favored by the Biden
campaign, Priorities USA, which expects to spend $200 million by itself to
support his election.
Under the terms of an
agreement between the Biden campaign and the DNC, the Biden Victory Fund can
receive checks as large as $620,600 from wealthy donors. The money is then
distributed in smaller amounts to the campaign, the DNC and various state
parties in order to comply with campaign finance regulations.
According to figures
released this week by the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street in
particular is favoring Biden’s campaign over Trump’s. The group found that
Biden has raised $52.4 million from the finance, insurance and real estate
industries, of which $32.2 million came from “securities and investment.”
Trump raised $33.5
million from the broader category of finance, insurance and real estate. He was
competitive with Biden among the real estate moguls, who view Trump as one of
their own, but trailed badly, with only $7.8 million, from the “securities and
investment” subcategory.
In other words, Wall
Street favored Biden by better than four to one, and Biden’s $23
million lead among the financial elite accounted for more than his entire $16 million
edge over Trump in fundraising in May and June.
Along with the support
of the stock exchange and financial institutions, Biden is winning support from
sections of the Republican Party. This includes the well publicized Lincoln
Project, established by former Republican campaign operatives Reed Galen, John
Weaver, Rick Wilson and Steve Schmidt, with the support of other former party
officials like Jennifer Horn, former chair of the New Hampshire Republican
Party, and George Conway, a prominent Republican lawyer and husband of Trump
adviser Kellyanne Conway.
The Lincoln Project
began running television and internet commercials denouncing Trump from a
right-wing foreign policy standpoint, criticizing him as soft on China and
Russia. One ad, released after the New York Times launched
its fabricated and unsubstantiated charge that Russia paid bounties to Taliban
fighters to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, features a former Navy SEAL
who attacks Trump for not ordering military action to kill Russians. The ad is
titled “Betrayal.”
BLOG EDITOR: BOTH BIDEN
AND GEORGE W BUSH ARE GLOBALIST FOR OPEN BORDERS AND ENDLESS WAR. THE BUSH
FAMILY, LONG PARTNERED WITH THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS, STARTED TWO WARS AGAINST
IRAQ WHICH ARE STILL FILLING THEIR POCKETS.
Another political
action committee, “43 Alumni for Biden,” consists of hundreds of former
officials in the Republican administration of George W. Bush (the 43rd US
president). They declare they are “choosing country over party” in the
November election, stating: “We believe that a Biden administration will adhere
to the rule of law ... and restore dignity and integrity to the White House.”
As a Super PAC, the group can raise unlimited sums of money to run ads
attacking Trump or boosting Biden.
The final component in
the rapidly coalescing coalition of reactionaries supporting the Biden campaign
consists of former military-intelligence officials of the Obama administration,
who have made a killing in the lucrative business of “strategic consulting” and
now hope to return to power in a Biden administration. Several of them,
including former deputy defense secretary Michele Flournoy and former deputy
national security adviser and deputy secretary of state Anthony Blinken, have
signed on as Biden’s top national security advisers.
A remarkable article
in The American Prospect—a liberal publication that supports
Biden against Trump—makes a devastating exposure of these militarists for
Biden, under the headline, “How Biden’s Foreign Policy Team Got Rich.”
It documents the
creation of a strategic consulting firm called WestExec Advisors (named after
West Executive Avenue, the street outside the West Wing of the White House in
Washington D.C.). WestExec was founded by two lesser operatives, Sergio
Aguirre, former chief of staff to Samantha Power, UN ambassador under Obama,
and Nitin Chadda, a former aide to Obama Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter.
These two recruited
Flournoy and Blinken to serve as the group’s biggest “names.” Flournoy was
widely expected to become secretary of defense if Hillary Clinton won the 2016
election and she is once again at the top of the list for Pentagon boss under
Biden.
Under Trump, Flournoy
served on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, the President’s Intelligence
Advisory Board and the CIA director’s External Advisory Board, before leaving
once the 2020 presidential campaign heated up. She is a notorious warmonger,
and The American Prospect article details her
role in advocating continued US military support to Saudi Arabia in its war in
Yemen, which has resulted in $3 billion in weapons contracts for Raytheon.
WestExec principal Robert Work, a former deputy defense secretary, is a member
of Raytheon’s board of directors.
WestExec quickly made a
splash in Washington with its launch party attended by top former Obama
national security aides such as Susan Rice, Tom Donilon and Denis McDonough. It
lined up a list of clients so potent that neither WestExec nor the Biden
campaign would release the names, for fear of exposing the fact that Biden’s
foreign policy advisory group is a wholly owned subsidiary of the big military
contractors.
One particularly
noxious principal at WestExec is former Deputy CIA Director Avril Haines, who,
as The American Prospect put it, “helped design Obama’s program
of using drones for extrajudicial killings.” In June, the Biden campaign
announced that Haines would oversee foreign policy for the Biden transition
team.
While the former drone
missile chief prepares plans for the future Biden administration, the current
advisers, with their lucrative “consulting” affiliations, are listed by The
American Prospect as follows: “Nicholas Burns (The Cohen Group), Kurt
Campbell (The Asia Group), Tom Donilon (BlackRock Investment Institute), Wendy
Sherman (Albright Stonebridge Group), Julianne Smith (WestExec Advisors) and
Jake Sullivan (Macro Advisory Partners). They rarely discuss their connections
to corporate power, defense contractors, private equity, and hedge funds, let
alone disclose them.”
This is what Senator Bernie
Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and their various liberal and pseudo-left
apologists have embraced as the alternative to the fascistic Trump
administration—a government of warmongers and corporate shills, no less
committed to the defense of the interests of the American ruling elite.
Josh
Hawley: Counter China’s Plans for Dominance by Ending ‘Forever Wars’
7 Apr 202020
2:34
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) wrote on
Tuesday that the only way America can counter Chinese domination is to end the
“forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hawley said that the United States
has focused more on the response to the coronavirus outbreak than the country’s
engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he charged that America cannot
respond to the Chinese Communist Party’s plans for “domination” by remaining
involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“Our involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan is currently taking a backseat to the #COVID19 crisis, but
let’s remember, the only way we are going to be able to focus on #China and counter
Beijing’s plans for domination is to end the forever wars,” Hawley wrote.
“Can’t have it both ways.”
The Missouri populist’s commentary
follows as he said that the country must remain “laser-focused” on preventing
Chinese “domination.” He said that this proposal will involve revamping
America’s military posture towards countering an increasingly aggressive China.
China understands that the global
pandemic is an inflection point. They are trying to turn this to their
advantage. Make no mistake, they are still pursuing their global strategic
ambitions. The need for us to laser focus on China’s economic and military
ambitions is going to be more urgent once we beat this pandemic, not less.
Hawley’s commentary echoes his
foreign policy vision, which he unveiled in November
2019 at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). The senator’s foreign
policy vision would replace the bipartisan foreign consensus that he called
“progressive universalism” with a foreign policy that would benefit the
interests of the American working class.
Hawley said that the “burden of this
nation’s long wars had fallen disproportionately” on middle-class families.
He said during his CNAS speech that
instead of engaging in further conflict in the Middle East, America should
counter a rising and increasingly imperialist China, which threatens the
freedom of those in Hong Kong and Taiwan. He added that China has increasingly
deployed soft power to pressure American corporations such as Disney and the
NBA to “throw overboard free speech at the first sign of Beijing’s commercial
pressure.”
Hawley said that “the point of
American foreign policy should not be to remake the world, but to keep
Americans safe and prosperous.”
Sean
Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on
Twitter @SeanMoran3.
BY VERONIKA KYRLENDO
Given the extraordinary
pace of events in America and the world this year, it is not hard to imagine
that a bystander — perhaps a bug-eyed alien who has been following the series
"The Earth" — would be pleased with the dynamics of the show. But
he also would be puzzled at the rapid twists of the plot. The U.S.,
for example, enters a 2020 season in all its might and glory, with the strong
economy, where unemployment for everyone is low, where reduced taxes and
regulations promise further growth, and the basic indices of economic activity
spell "victory" for the funny-looking guy who made it
happen. Then — BAM! — a "deadly virus" hits — eh,
unimpressive...the mortality rate would have been much higher for the sake of
the show; 2 percent is a rookie number (would be even lower if the infected
were not placed in the nursing
homes). Nonetheless, America goes into lockdown, losing trillions of
dollars. Unemployment soars. Then — BAM! — massive
protests accompanied by rioting, looting, arson, vandalism, and sheer violence
erupt as a response to the incident of police brutality. The whole
system is declared evil and beyond repair. The crime rate
soars. American flags are burned — not in Iran or
North Korea, but in Washington, D.C. Some parts of the country that
were the envy of the world look like a war zone. Whoa, a
startled viewer would think — what just happened?
What is happening is that
November gets closer, and the country finds itself in a situation that may be
described with a mathematical catastrophe theory used to study discontinuous
processes. An example of a discontinuous process would be an arched
bridge to which more and more weight is added. At first, little
effect is seen as the weight on the bridge is increased — the bridge begins to
bend almost imperceptibly. At a certain point, however, enough
weight is added to the bridge that it collapses. A sudden change in
a discontinuous process is called a catastrophe.
The American model right
now has one active variable, the economic model, and one active parameter, a
necessity to choose one out of two courses of its
development. Speaking scientifically, we have reached a divergence
point that requires a system to follow one of the two possible paths that are
mutually exclusive. At this point, both of them are equally
probable, and the system "freezes" — to land on one of the paths, it
needs a push. It is difficult to accurately prognosticate the
system's behavior at this point, but one can model it. Once the
choice is made, the return to the divergence point is impossible — if you stand
before the abyss, you may either walk around it or take a step into it.
Which paths lie before
America? The first one is presented — and has been practiced for the
last 20 years — by the globalism aimed to secure America's leading place in
monopolar world. The main tools of it are supranational entities
such as international organizations, multinational corporations, and financial
institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Even though
globalization has been pictured by academia and media as an endless pool of
growth, opportunities, and progress, it has been marked by substantial
shortcomings. For example, under the new regime of enhanced
financial mobility and power, with greater volatility of financial markets and
increased risk, real interest rates have risen substantially. This
has discouraged long-term investment in new plants and equipment and stimulated
spending on the re-equipment of old facilities along with a large volume of
essentially financial transactions — mergers, buybacks of stocks, financial
maneuvers, and speculative activities. This explains why overall
productivity growth in the member-countries of the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development fell. So did gross
fixed investment, and so did GDP growth. But the elites have done
well despite the slackened productivity. Because globalization
has helped keep wages down, while increasing real interest rates, the upper 5
percent of households have been able to skim off a large fraction of the
reduced productivity gains, thereby permitting elite incomes and stock market
values to rise rapidly. For the multinational corporations
that shaped foreign policy by
engaging in lobbyism, globalization has also been great. One of
their main objectives that they achieved was cheaper labor
sources. Labor is often cheapest, and least prone to cause employer
problems, in authoritarian states. Capital moves to such friendly
investment climes, shifting resources from the more expensive to the less
costly locale. (That is why the MNCs have vocally opposed the Trump
administration's escalation of trade tensions, tightening of immigration
restrictions, and disruption of global value chains.)
For the global majority,
globalization has been a whole different story. Income inequality
rose markedly both within and among countries. In the United States,
despite a great increase in productivity thanks to new technologies, inequality rose. Underemployment, job insecurity, benefit
loss — all increased.
The Trump administration
disdains globalization and practices a healthy and much needed
protectionism. It withdrew from free trade and other deals and
viciously attacked globalization structures nurtured by the previous
administrations: U.N., NATO, WTO, International Criminal Court, and now WHO,
which proved shockingly unprofessional and frankly hostile to the U.S.
interests.
If Trump gets four more
years as a president, he may get to the holy of holies of the economic
globalism — the IMF and the World Bank — which will undoubtedly face a debt
crisis due to the downfall of the world economy. Ironically, the
COVID-19 hysteria that became an act of desperation for the Democrats — whether
it was a projected event or a natural crisis that would have been a shame to
waste — now plays against the global financial leviathan and its
masters. According to none other than George Soros, the COVID-19 pandemic
is a one-two financial punch for developing economies. Not only has
it put extraordinary pressure on budgets worldwide, but it has also caused a
sharp exodus of capital from emerging markets. JPMorgan Chase &
Co. predicts that 1 in 5 emerging-market countries will default on their debt
obligations — meaning that the core banks may collapse. If some
federal reserve banks fail, the government may nationalize them — but no doubt
Trump would not save them, as Obama did in 2008. That would fatally
undermine the economic foundation of the Democrats for good; that's why Trump's
victory is not an option for them.
If Biden wins, he, as a
true O'Biden-Bama Democrat, will have to save the failing banking system by
unprecedentedly increasing the national debt in a weakened
economy. The previous model that
balanced emission with trade deals would not be possible to execute in a
severely damaged global economy. That is why Biden's victory would
lead to a delayed catastrophe, but with lower chances of surviving it, because
the condition of the country will deteriorate — his leftist policies will make
sure of it.
The choice we as a
country will make in November is clear: Trump and patriotism or Biden and
globalism. Development or decline. It is just that
simple.
Image: Fox News via YouTube.
ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT OPEN
BORDERS FOR MORE CHEAP LABOR AND NO CAPS ON IMPORTING CHINESE AND INDIANS TO
WORK OUR TECH JOBS CHEAP.
Obama’s State of Delusion ... OR JUST ANOTHER "Hope &
Change" HOAX?
”The delusional character of Obama’s State of the Union
address on Tuesday—presenting an America of rising living
standards and a booming economy, capped by his declaration
that the “shadow of crisis has passed”—is perhaps matched
only in its presentation by the media and supporters of the
Democratic Party.”
“The general tone was set by the New York Times in its lead
editorial on Wednesday, which described the speech as a “simple, dramatic
message about economic fairness, about the fact that the well-off—the top
earners, the big banks, Silicon Valley—have done just great, while middle and
working classes remain dead in the water.”
OBAMANOMICS:
The report observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80
richest people doubled between 2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of
the world’s population (3.5 billion people) was lower in 2014 than it was in
2009.
In 2010, it took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the
bottom half of the earth’s population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to just
92 billionaires. It fell to 80 in 2014.
THE OBAMA ASSAULT ON THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS
“The goal of the Obama administration, working with the
Republicans and local governments, is to roll back the living conditions of the
vast majority of the population to levels not seen since the 19th century,
prior to the advent of the eight-hour day, child labor laws, comprehensive
public education, pensions, health benefits, workplace health and safety regulations,
etc.”
“In response to the ruthless assault of the financial oligarchy,
spearheaded by Obama, the working class must advance, no less ruthlessly, its
own policy.”
New Federal Reserve report
US
median income has plunged, inequality has grown in Obama “recovery”
The yearly income of a typical US household dropped by a
massive 12 percent, or $6,400, in the six years between 2007 and 2013. This is
just one of the findings of the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer
Finances released Thursday, which documents a sharp decline in working class
living standards and a further concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich
and the super-rich.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S BILLIONAIRES’
GLOBALIST EMPIRE requires someone as ruthlessly dishonest as Hillary Clinton or
Barack Obama to be puppet dictators.
1.
Globalism: Google
VP Kent Walker insists that despite its repeated rejection by electorates
around the world, “globalization” is an “incredible force for good.”
2.
Hillary Clinton’s Democratic
party: An executive nearly broke down crying because of the candidate’s loss. Not
a single executive expressed anything but dismay at her defeat.
3. Immigration: Maintaining
liberal immigration in the U.S is the policy that Google’s executives discussed the
most.
IMAGES OF
AMERICA UNDER LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION:
Your neighborhood will be next to fall to LA RAZA!
Why the rich favor the Democrats
There's little doubt that
today's Democrat Party is the party of the rich. Actually, that's an
understatement. Far more than billionaires are involved. A better
expression of reality would be to say a fundamental core of Democrat coalition
is the managerial class, also known as the elite. These are the
people who run the media, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the big
corporations, the universities and schools, the investment banks, and Wall
Street. They populate the upper levels of government
bureaucracies. These are the East and West Coasters.
The alliance of the
affluent with the Democrat Party can be seen in the widely disproportionate
share of hefty political donations from the well-to-do going to Democrats and a
bevy of left-wing causes. It's also why forty-one out of the fifty
wealthiest congressional districts are represented by Democrats.
BLOG: DEMS LOVE SOCIALISM
FOR ILLEGALS TO KEEP THEM COMING AND BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE AND
SOCIALISM FOR BANKS. TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF IT!
Bernie Sanders is
an exception. But he's an anomaly viewed as dangerous to the party,
which is why he's being crushed by the Democrat establishment.
Why do the wealthy align
with the Democrats? The answer may seem counter-intuitive, but it is
really quite simple. It's surely not ideals or high-minded
principles. Nor is it ignorance. Rather, it boils down to
raw self-interest.
In his book, The Age of
Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, Christopher Caldwell notes
that rich Americans think themselves to be as vulnerable as
blacks. They are a relatively small minority of the
population. They fear being resented for their wealth and power and of
having much of that taken from them. Accordingly, the wealthy seek
to protect what is theirs by preventing strong majorities from forming by using
the divide and conquer principle.
As R.R. Reno writes when reviewing
Caldwell's book: "Therefore, the richest and most
powerful people in America have strong incentives
to support an anti-majoritarian political system." He goes
on: "Wealthy individuals shovel donations into elite institutions that
incubate identity politics, which further fragments the nation and prevents the
formation of majorities."
Some of the rotten
fruit of the wealthy taking this approach include multiculturalism,
massive immigration of diverse people, resistance to encouraging
assimilation, racial strife, trying to turn white males into pariahs,
and the promotion of gender confusion. Through it all, society
is bombarded with the Orwellian mantra that "diversity is
strength," as if repeating it often enough can make it so. It
is also why patriotism and a common American culture are so disparaged
today. Those from the upper strata of society project the idea that
if you're a flag-waving American, you must be some kind of retrograde
mouth-breathing yokel.
The wealthy as a groups
are content to dissolve the glue that holds the U.S. together. And
it is all done to enhance and preserve their power, wealth, and
influence. This is why they so hate Donald
Trump. He strives to unite people and the country, although
you'd never know that that is what the president is doing if you
live in the media bubble. Trump's MAGA agenda is
an anathema to the managerial class.
To quote Reno one final
time:
The next decade will not
be easy. But it will not be about what preoccupied us in the
sixties, and which Caldwell describes so well. Rather than the
perils of discrimination we are increasingly concerned with the problem of
disintegration — or in Charles Murray's terms, the problem of "coming apart."
Trump and the GOP he is
molding are the vehicles to restore and strengthen national
solidarity. Trump said at the Daytona 500,
"No matter who wins, what matters most is God, family, and
country." That is not the Democrat agenda. As
seen in Democrat politicians, their policies, and the behavior of their major
contributors, the aim is to further weaken the social and national bonds in
America. There is a lot at stake here. If solidarity
wins, the Republic can survive and prosper. If the Democrats
and their wealthy cohorts do, then the middle class withers, the Republic
dies, and the rich and their managerial class get to rule the
roost. That is what it comes down to.
ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT WIDER OPEN
BORDERS, AMNESTY AND HELL NO TO E-VERIFY!
In addition, establishment Republicans are no better than
Democrats at stemming the flow of illegal immigration because big
businesses reap the benefits of this cheap labor without incurring any of the
social costs.
Democrats: The Party of Big Labor, Big
Government...and Big Business
There
is a widespread perception that the Democrat Party is the party the working
class and the Republican Party is the party of big business. Even
though Republicans on average received slightly more from corporate employees
prior to 2002, the overall difference between both parties from 1990 to 2020 is
statistically insignificant (Table 1). In fact, Democrat
reliance on big labor gradually shifted toward big business following the
involvement of solidly Democrat corporate giants in 2002, and from 2014 to
2020, Democrats consistently surpassed Republicans in corporate donations
(Tables 1 & 2).
Based
on data compiled by Open Secrets, Soros Fund Management, Fahr LLC (Tom Steyer),
and Bloomberg LP ranked among the top ten for political contributions that gave
over 90% to Democrats. In sharp contrast, the right-leaning Koch
Industries made the top ten only in 2014. In nearly all other years,
Koch ranked well below the top twenty.
Whether
or not this trend is long-term, there is no denying that large corporations on
average no longer lean right. But what does it mean to be "the
party of big business"? Donations are not definitive
evidence. What ultimately matters is what politicians do once they
get elected.
Many
liberals believe that big government is needed to "rein in" big
business and that in the absence of federal intervention, corporations will
"run roughshod" over the average American. Many liberals
also believe that corporations are the main beneficiaries of laissez-faire
economics and that free-market conservatives who want to scale back regulations
are somehow "in the pocket" of big business.
In
reality, the opposite is true: big business and big government
go
hand in hand because government meddling in the economy
encourages rent-seeking by businesses that
can afford to pay
for
the lobbyists. This crony capitalism grew exponentially as
a result
of New Deal regulations that squeezed out competitors
during
the 1930s. Establishment politicians and well
connected corporations
are beneficiaries of the myth that big
government
and big business are adversaries because it hides
their
unholy alliance.
In
all fairness, neither party has had a monopoly on the dispensation of corporate
welfare: the TARP funds that propped up financial institutions deemed "too
big to fail" during the Great Recession were released by the Bush
administration. In addition, establishment Republicans are no better than
Democrats at stemming the flow of illegal immigration because big
businesses reap the benefits of this cheap labor
without incurring any of the social costs.
If
both parties are playing this game, what is the basis for labeling the Democrat
party "the party of big business"? What policies from
Republicans support small business?
Free-market
conservatism benefits small businesses because the government does not pick the
winners and losers by means of subsidies, tax breaks, and cumbersome
regulations. You will not see policies like these coming from
Washington in a major way because proposals for shrinking the federal
government rarely see the light of day in Congress.
Based
on data collected by Gallup and Thumbtack, red states far outscore blue states
in small business friendliness (Table 3). This may be why less
affluent Americans are fleeing states that score abysmally like California, Illinois, New York, and Hawaii. This might
also be why small business–owners are more likely to vote Republican.
The
Trump administration has been good for businesses of all sizes mainly due to
the unprecedented rate at which it scaled back stifling regulations. This may be
why some of the president's highest approval ratings now come from
small businesses.
Donald
Trump set himself apart from the ruling class when he latched onto the
third-rail issue of illegal immigration and called out the corporate darling Jeb Bush (AKA
"Low Energy Jeb") for his lack of grassroots support. This
may explain in part why Bain Capital, the firm co-founded by Mitt Romney,
switched teams and contributed solidly Democrat in 2018. In 2012,
Democrats accused Bain Capital of destroying jobs by systematically dismantling
the companies it bought off. Times have changed...
Small
businesses generate well over half of all new jobs. Most
importantly, many are family-owned, have strong ties to their communities, and
provide upward mobility for millions of Americans who never attended
college. The Democrats' undermining of this quintessentially
American institution is shameful and disqualifies it as the "party of the
working class." Contributions from big labor do not count
toward "labor-friendliness" because mega-unions care more about
recruitment than about the welfare of working Americans. This is why the SEIU
supports blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.
Democrats
fed up with the corporate status quo are now choosing their own
anti-establishment candidate, not realizing that socialism is just a more
impoverished version of the crony capitalism they are
rejecting. Many Sanders-supporters are also morally shallow because
they want to harness the power of the state to muscle in on the wealth of
Americans who borrowed responsibly and worked hard to pay their bills.
After
the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin said, "This Constitution ... is
likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in
despotism ... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic
government." If Democrats implement the dystopian policies of California
on a national level, their corporate allies will do fine. It is
small business–owners and working-class Americans with nowhere to flee who have
the most to lose. Be careful what you wish for.
To view the tables below, click the links.
*The red lettering highlights a funding
advantage for Republicans. The blue lettering highlights a funding
disadvantage for Republicans.
**Based on a T-test, the difference is
insignificant at P = 0.46
Table 2: Top ten contributors to Democrats and Republicans by category
(union, corporate, and ideological) as compiled by Open Secrets:
*In 2008 Goldman Sachs donated 74% to
Democrats. All other groups in this column donated between 40 and
69% to both parties. This column does not differentiate between
giving equally to both parties and giving 70–79% to Democrats or Republicans.
**This number includes the "City of
New York." Although it is officially listed as
"other" by Open Secrets (not corporate, union, or ideological), I was
personally informed by someone from the organization that Michael Bloomberg was
the main source of this funding.
Table 3: Small business scores states scored by Thumbtack ranked
according to their Democratic advantage by Gallup:
*GPA scores are based on the following
numerical equivalents: A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0, A+ = 4.3, A- = 3.7,
etc.
** Not scored.
***Mean GPA ± standard error. Based on a
T-test, the difference is significant at P = 0.00001.
Grim Reaper Mitch to Pelosi: I'm
Going to Kill Your Stimulus Plan
House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi just got some bad news from Mitch McConnell. Any talk
about another stimulus isn’t going to happen. She may draft a bill, but it’ll
meet a swift death in the Republican-controlled Senate. Mitch is the
legislative grim reaper for most of what the Democratic House sends his way
(via The Hill):
Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hit the brakes Tuesday on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s
(D-Calif.) plan to move ahead with a fourth stimulus package that would include
major infrastructure spending and other Democratic priorities.
“I think we need
to wait a few days here, a few weeks, and see how things are working out,”
McConnell said on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”
“Let’s see how
things are going and respond accordingly,” he added. “I’m not going to allow
this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items
that they would not otherwise be able to pass.”
McConnell's remarks came the same day that President Trump
encouraged Congress to pass a $2 trillion infrastructure bill as the next piece
of coronavirus legislation.
Pelosi
is also mulling a rollback of the SALT taxes, which would be nothing short of a giveaway to
millionaires. And by the
giveaway, it would be something of a $620 billion tax cut for them. Remember,
this is the party of the working people, or so they say, and a part of me hopes
she goes aggressive on this, so we can see Bernie Sanders gum up the Democratic
works for a bit. There is no way a hardcore
lefty would back this nonsense. Yet, there’s another reason why Mitch isn’t
rushing on the House Democrats’ stimulus reloaded plans. They’re off. They
won’t be back to work until April 20. And The Hill added that Mitch hasn’t
forgotten about judges, adding that the Kentucky Republican’s motto is “leave
no vacancy behind.”
THE OBAMA –
BIDEN BANKSTERS CON JOB STARTED BEFORE HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE!
GET THIS
BOOK!
Obamanomics:
How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends,
Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses
BY TIMOTHY P
CARNEY
Editorial
Reviews
Obama Is
Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same
“special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are
profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers,
small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy
P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House
wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering
corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate
America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market
conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and
bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best
and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the
federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and
healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes
it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every
time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are
friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
Investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the
mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather
than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all
while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and
regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics. In this explosive book, Carney reveals:
* The Great
Health Care Scam—Obama’s backroom deals with drug companies spell corporate
profits and more government control
* The Global
Warming Hoax—Obama has bought off industries with a pork-filled bill that will
drain your wallet for Al Gore’s agenda
* Obama and
Wall Street—“Change” means more bailouts and a heavy Goldman Sachs presence in
the West Wing (including Rahm Emanuel)
*
Stimulating K Street—The largest spending bill in history gave pork to the
well-connected and created a feeding frenzy for lobbyists
* How the
GOP needs to change its tune—drastically—to battle Obamanomics
Praise
for Obamanomics
“The notion that ‘big business’ is on the side of the free
market is one of progressivism’s most valuable myths. It allows them to
demonize corporations by day and get in bed with them by night. Obamanomics is
conservative muckraking at its best. It reveals how President Obama is
exploiting the big business mythology to undermine the free market and stick it
to entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers. It’s an indispensable field guide
to the Obama years.”
—Jonha Goldberg, LA Times columnist and best-selling author
“‘Every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting
rich.’ With this astute observation, Tim Carney begins his task of laying bare
the Obama administration’s corporatist governing strategy, hidden behind the
president’s populist veneer. This meticulously researched book is a must-read
for anyone who wants to understand how Washington really works.”
—David Freddoso, best-selling author of The Case Against
Barack Obama
“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still
believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic
liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who
believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit
the common people.”
—Congressman Ron Paul
“It’s understandable for critics to condemn President Obama
for his ‘socialism.’ But as Tim Carney shows, the real situation is at once
more subtle and more sinister. Obamanomics favors big business while
disproportionately punishing everyone else. So-called progressives are too
clueless to notice, as usual, which is why we have Tim Carney and this book.”
—Thomas E. Woods, Jr., best-selling author of Meltdown and
The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to American History
*
• Hardcover: 256 pages
• Publisher: Regnery Press (November 30,
2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1596986123
• ISBN-13: 978-1596986121
No comments:
Post a Comment