Monday, October 12, 2020

DESTROYING AMERICA - TRUMP AND COVID - "Coronavirus pandemic will cost the US $16 TRILLION - 90% of the GDP - in premature deaths, lost work..."

 

THIS FAMILY HAS NEVER EARNED AN HONEST DOLLAR IN THEIR PATHETIC LIVES!

Trump Is Surrounded by Criminals

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-fall-of-donald-trump-final-days.html

 “The legal ring surrounding him is collectively producing a historic indictment of his endemic corruption and criminality.” JONATHAN CHAIT

Eric Trump claims family 'lost a fortune' in pushback of pay-for-play report

 

ADAM KELSEY

Responding to a story that reported that hundreds of corporations, special interest groups and foreign governments seeking benefits patronized Trump Organization properties in recent years, the president's son argued Sunday that the groups represent a small proportion of their business and that his father has not benefited monetarily from his office.

"We've lost a fortune. My father lost a fortune running for president. He doesn't care," Eric Trump, an executive vice president with the Trump Organization, said on ABC's "This Week." "He wanted to do what was right. The last thing I can tell you Donald Trump needs in the world is this job."

The comments come a day after a New York Times story reported that President Trump "transplanted favor-seeking in Washington to his family's hotels and resorts -- and earned millions as a gatekeeper to his own administration." The article, citing the president's tax records, reports that of the hundreds of individuals and entities seeking favor, "60 customers with interests at stake before the Trump administration brought his family business nearly $12 million during the first two years of his presidency."

"Almost all saw their interests advanced, in some fashion, by Mr. Trump or his government," the news story continued.

ABC News has not viewed the president's taxes and cannot confirm the Times' reporting.

On "This Week," Eric Trump echoed his father's rhetoric calling the story "fake news." He also implied without evidence that the report -- one of several in the past two weeks concerning the president's finances -- was timed to hurt his reelection campaign.

NEW: "My father has lost a fortune," Eric Trump tells @jonkarl when pressed on a NYT report that Pres. Trump turned "his own hotels and resorts into the Beltway's new back rooms, where public and private business mix and special interests reign." https://t.co/fsCP2um0H5 pic.twitter.com/MtZLiszs2K

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 11, 2020

Pressed by ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl about the president's debt, which the Times reported as more than $400 million, Eric Trump characterized it as commonplace for someone with his level of wealth in the real estate industry. He also misleadingly claimed that all of the president's lenders are publicly known.

"It's in his financial disclosures," Eric Trump said, referring to the annual reports the president is required to issue under federal ethics regulations that do not list all of his creditors. President Trump has not voluntarily released his tax returns, as other past commanders-in-chief and candidates for the office have done. "You know exactly who the money's owed to … my father is worth billions of dollars, and on a proportion of his net worth, my father has very, very low leverage."

"If you own buildings, if you own real estate, you carry some debt. That's what developers do, that's what business owners do, they carry some debt," he continued. "We have a phenomenal company, but there's nothing new about that, and by the way, it's the same debt that he got elected on."

.@jonkarl: "Don't the American people have a right to know who (the president) is indebted to?"

"That's what developers do, that's what business owners do, they carry some debt, "Eric Trump says but President Trump still won't release his tax returns. https://t.co/fsCP2um0H5 pic.twitter.com/x3u8GcDpKy

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 11, 2020

In the interview, Eric Trump also responded to the president's refusal to participate in a virtual debate this coming week, as planned by the Commission on Presidential Debates following the president's COVID-19 diagnosis and subsequent hospitalization. The debate was canceled as a result and it is not immediately clear what format the next, and potentially final, scheduled debate will take in two weeks.

"My father wants to stand on stage with his opponent. That's how debates have been handled in America for the last 200 years, you've stood there and you've debated somebody," Eric Trump said, despite the fact that John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon debated on-camera from opposite coasts, appearing on television in a split-screen in 1960.

"My father doesn't want to do it over a glorified conference call," he continued.

Karl noted that several members of the Trump family, including Eric and his siblings, defied protocol by watching the first debate maskless. Second lady Karen Pence also appeared at this past week's vice presidential debate without a mask.

"Given the concerns now, will you commit that the Trump team will abide by those safety precautions that the commission put in place at the next debate?" Karl asked.

"I'm happy to wear a mask," Eric Trump said, going on to accuse Democratic nominee Joe Biden of backing out the debate -- another mischaracterization. It was the commission that announced the plan to hold the second event virtually, and the president who chose not to participate. The Trump campaign said the president would also be willing to attend two more debates if they were each postponed a week to allow for an in-person format, but the Biden campaign rejected the idea.

"My father wants to stand on the stage with his opponent," and "doesn't want to do it over a glorified conference call," Eric Trump tells @jonkarl when asked if the Trump campaign will decline to participate in Oct. 22 presidential debate if it's virtual. https://t.co/R7EgB0oaON pic.twitter.com/s7Vl6T9MY6

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 11, 2020

On Saturday, the president's physician, Dr. Sean Conley, issued a memo stating that the president "is no longer a transmission risk to others" and "the assortment of advanced diagnostic tests obtained reveal there is no longer evidence of actively replicating virus." It remains unclear whether Trump has tested negative.

The memo came hours after the president delivered an address resembling a campaign speech from the White House South Lawn. The administration called the event a "peaceful protest for law and order," which Eric Trump echoed on "This Week." The president heads to Florida Monday to restart official in-person campaign events with a rally in Sanford.

Eric Trump also noted on Sunday morning that attendees at Saturday's outdoor White House event were temperature-checked and wore masks -- the latter measure, Karl noted, a less common sight at Trump campaign rallies prior to the president's diagnosis.

As the president prepares to return to the campaign trail, Karl challenged Eric Trump about his father's rhetoric following the vice presidential debate in reference to Biden's running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

"Vice President Pence, when he debated Kamala Harris, said it was a privilege to be on the stage with her, recognized her history-making pick as Biden's running mate. And then the next day your father said that she was a monster," Karl said, referencing comments the president made on Fox Business Thursday. "Why? How is Kamala Harris a monster? Why did he say that?"

"Well, you know, there are a lot of stances that she takes are just -- they're mind-boggling to me," Eric Trump responded.

"But political differences are one thing. A monster? You're calling the Democratic vice presidential nominee a monster. Your father did," Karl pressed.

"You know, you're also dealing with a person who is willing to lie every single day," Eric Trump claimed, going on to misrepresent Biden and Harris' position on law enforcement funding.

Eric Trump claims family 'lost a fortune' in pushback of pay-for-play report originally appeared on abcnews.go.com


Coronavirus pandemic will cost the US $16 TRILLION - 90% of the GDP - in premature deaths, lost work and mental health treatment, study predicts

  • Researchers predict that the coronavirus pandemic will cost the US an estimated $16 trillion, or about 90% of the annual GDP
  • About $4.4 trillion will be due to the economic cost of 625,000 premature deaths
  • An estimated $2.6 trillion will be spent treating those who survived COVID-19 but have long-term complications and damage
  • Mental health treatment, for those dealing with the loss of a loved one or feelings of isolation, will cost $1.6 trillion 
  • The remaining $7.6 trillion will be due to the economic toll of lost jobs and those filing new unemployment claims 

The coronavirus pandemic will cost the US an estimated $16 trillion - about 90 percent of the annual gross domestic product - in the next year, a new study suggests.

Researchers say about half of the figure, $8.6 trillion, will be due to premature deaths and those who have long-term health implications from contracting COVID-19. 

Additionally, costs will pile up due to new unemployment claims from those who lost their jobs and those seeking mental health treatment.

The team, from Harvard University, says the findings suggest the costs of the crisis will far exceed those linked with The Great Recession and wars fought in AfghanistanIraq and Syria

Researchers predict the coronavirus pandemic will cost the US an estimated $16 trillion, or about 90% of the annual GDP. Pictured: Medical staff treat a patient on a ventilator in the COVID-19 ICU at the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, Texas, July 28

Researchers predict the coronavirus pandemic will cost the US an estimated $16 trillion, or about 90% of the annual GDP. Pictured: Medical staff treat a patient on a ventilator in the COVID-19 ICU at the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, Texas, July 28

'[T]he immense financial loss from COVID-19 suggests a fundamental rethinking of government's role in pandemic preparation,' the authors write.

 'As the nation struggles to recover from COVID-19, investments that are made in testing, contract tracing and isolation should be established permanently and not dismantled when the concerns about COVID-19 begin to recede.' 

In the study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the team estimates the average loss for a family of four will be nearly $200,000 either due to lost income or the effect of a shorter and less healthy life.

They estimate that, based on the current death rate, the pandemic will lead to an estimated 625,000 premature deaths in the US.  

Assuming each life lost is worth $7 million, citing a review from earlier this year, this mean the economic cost of premature deaths in 2021 is estimated at $4.4 trillion.

Additionally, from those who are infected with COVID-19 but survive, the researchers estimate $2.6 trillion in treating those with long-term complications and damage.

'Some individuals who survive COVID-19 are likely to have significant long-term complications, including respiratory, cardiac, and mental health disorders, and may have an increased risk of premature death,' the authors write.  

'Data from survivors of COVID-19 suggest that long-term impairment occurs for approximately one-third of survivors with severe or critical disease.' 

The team notes that because there are approximately seven times as many survivors of COVID-19 compared to deaths, costs of long-term care may far exceed those of deaths. 

Costs are also expected to rise due to the mental health impact of the pandemic due to people suffering from the death of family or friends , fear of contracting the virus and the effects of isolation during lockdowns.  

In line with previous estimates, the authors say the cost of these conditions is valued at about $20,000 per person per year.

Therefore, losses from those suffering from mental health symptoms could reach approximately $1.6 trillion.    

The remaining $7.6 trillion will be due to the economic toll of lost jobs, relying on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The authors note that for at least 20 weeks, beginning in late March 2020, new unemployment claims exceeded one million per week and are currently just below that amount.

Prior to the pandemic, the greatest number of weekly new unemployment insurance claims was 695,000 during the week of October 2, 1982.

In total, this means the economic cost would be four times greater than that of the Great Recession and the money spent on every war post-September 11, 2001. 

The authors also suggest that more money would be saved by increased testing and contact tracing.

The team says it would cost $100 billion dollars to test and contract trace 30 million Americans per week for the next year, which would save 233,000 American lives and reduce the economic cost by about $3 trillion.

NEO-FASCIST BILLIONARE MARK ZUCKERBERG SAYS FACEBOOK IS CUTTING WAGES AND HIRING MORE CHEAP LABOR INDIANS

 Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers.

Silicon Valley Cuts Salaries for Remote Workers, Fueling Tensions

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 29: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies via video conference during an Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee hearing on "Online platforms and market power. Examining the dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple" on Capitol Hill on July 29, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Graeme …
Graeme Jennings - Pool/Getty Images
2:28

Many employees at Silicon Valley tech companies have recently moved to cheaper locales to work remotely amidst the coronavirus pandemic.  Big Tech has responded by slashing salaries using  “cost-of-living” reductions, increasing tensions between the Masters of the Universe and their highly-touted employees. One tech CEO in the midwest called Silicon Valley’s salary cuts “hypocritical.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that tech workers leaving the San Francisco Bay Area to work remotely amidst the global pandemic have found themselves facing unexpected pay cuts. As many tech firms move to entirely remote working situations, employees are finding it less desirable to live in the high-cost San Francisco area, but moving further afield is resulting in some employees’ salaries cut by as much as 15 percent.

Tech firms are highlighting the fact that changing pay based on the local cost of living is common practice for many companies, but Silicon Valley firms have spent years going beyond standard salary practices in order to attract the best talent in the world.

Jason Fried, the chief executive of Basecamp, a Chicago-based maker of workplace software that has a remote workforce commented on the situation stating: “If anyone should be standing up for high pay, equal pay and great talent, it should be these companies—I find it to be pretty hypocritical.” Fried added that tech firms are so profitable that they could easily afford to maintain employee salaries. “You’re hiring a person and the skills they bring,” he said.

Tech giant Facebook announced in May that it would be moving towards a substantially remote workforce and that location would affect compensation. Twitter also stated that it would allow employees to work remotely permanently but has a “competitive approach” to pay localization. Microsoft has since announced plans to allow employees to work from home on a permanent basis.

Now as remote working becomes more common, some hiring consultants are recommending that employees resist taking salary reductions due to their living locations.

Read more at the Wall Street Journal here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or contact via secure email at the address lucasnolan@protonmail.com

H-1B Supporters Denounce Wage-Boosting Regulations

In this photograph taken on December 13, 2016, an employee of Indian IT security solutions company Innefu Labs works at their offices in New Delhi. In the darkened offices of a tech start-up, a handful of computer engineers sift through a mountain of intelligence data that would normally be the …
SAJJAD HUSSAIN/AFP/Getty Images
8:23

Advocates for the H-1B visa-worker program are protesting the wage increases required by President Donald Trump’s deputies, saying the raises will sharply reduce hiring of the foreign workers.

The labor department “requires the employers to agree to pay foreign workers significantly higher than the market rate—which would prevent many employers from seeking foreign talent in the first place,” said a report by the pro-migration American Immigration Council.

Bloomberg reported:

“It is an earthquake for the H-1B program right now,” said Nandini Nair, immigration partner at Greenspoon Marder LLP in Edison, N.J. Employers looking to renew H-1B visas for workers could see a $30,000 to $40,000 increase in those workers’ wages. “They cannot afford that, that is not something that is sustainable for many employers that I have spoken to,” she said.

The protests show that “the entire H-1B project has been nothing but cheap [labor for] tech,” said Kevin Lynn, founder of U.S. Tech Workers.

“The fact that they would say increasing the wages of the H-1B workers will result in an exodus of H-1Bs from the United States and an increase in [job] offshoring, demonstrates that for the entire time since 1990, the purpose of the H-1B program was to bring in cheap labor — and I emphasize cheap labor — to displace Americans college-grads,” said Lynn, who is encouraging Trump’s deputies to tout their reforms of the H-1B program in the 2020 campaign.

The complaints are higher wages are coming from many people who gain from the increased use of the H-1B temporary visa workers.

“The Department of Labor’s wage rule should be understood as an attempt to price many H-1B professionals out of the U.S. labor market,” complained Stuart Anderson, the director of the pro-migration National Foundation for American Policy.

Anderson calculated that a 2020 salary for imported, inexperienced H-1B “medical scientist” in Boston would jump from $53,810 up to $86,622 under Trump’s rules — and the employer would also have to pay the legal costs of importing the foreign worker.

The new wage calculator is posted at the labor department’s Foreign Labor Certification Data Center.

For example, an employer in Detroit who wants to hire a foreign mechanical engineer will now have to offer $92,830 a year to a new graduate, or $135,990 a year to an experienced, mid-career graduate.

“These regulations will lay the groundwork for the pricing out of foreign labor, which is essential to the solvency of countless American businesses,” said Benjamin Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The science employers at U.S. universities are also concerned that they will have to pay higher wages to their imported lab-workers. Law360.com reported:

Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education, stressed that the higher salary levels could pose a challenge to universities that depend on highly educated international researchers on H-1B visas.

“Big science cannot be done without international students and scholars and professors. Just look at the vaccine research and who’s involved,” she said, referring to the race to develop a coronavirus vaccine at universities across the U.S.

Universities exploit their postdoc “students” — including their J-1 and H-1B foreign workers — according to a November 2018 report in Nature.com. The universities also provide a gateway into the U.S. labor market for roughly 400,000 foreign graduates each year.

“The new H1B wage levels are totally insane,” said a tweet from an advocate for H-1B visa workers. “While a correction to minimum wage offered was much needed for too long, this is certainly a bad faith effort at reforming H1B program.”

“They bumped the wage requirements to more than 50%,” said another tweet from a pro-H-1B twitter account. “This will kill whole program not 1/3rd of the H1b holders. … [and] will also have a huge impact on international student enrollments.”

Media coverage of the regulatory changes has been muted and often echoes businesses’ demand for cheap imported labor. For example, the Los Angeles Times’ Molly O’Toole wrote on October 9:

Apart from concerns that too many H-1Bs have gone to Indian-owned outsourcing firms, critics say the program displaces American jobs and depresses wages. But while studies have suggested that can happen when there’s excess labor in lower skilled occupations, there’s little evidence of such effects in fields requiring high-skilled workers.

The article, which had only 13 comments on October 11, portrayed the visa workers as “immigrants,” and said the federal government allows the inflow of 85,000 H-1Bs per year.

In reality, the federal government approves roughly 100,000 H-1Bs per year and also estimates the resident H-1B population at almost 600,000.

Other estimates say the H-1B resident population may reach a million, including at least 100,000 spouses with H-4EAD work permits.

That number is very large. Roughly 800,000 Americans graduate from four-year colleges each year with degrees in business, healthcare, science, software, or math.

The H-1B workforce works in three roles.

Some of the H-1Bs arrive for a year or so of training by Americans, after which they are sent home to India to perform the work at low wages.

Some H-1Bs are paid high wages, usually by elite tech firms, sometimes by hospital chains. These inflow of these better-paid H-1Bs will likely be unaffected by the new rules.

At least 400,000 H-1Bs work as subcontractors for other firms, usually for the Fortune 500 firms which are trying to cut payroll costs by outsourcing routine work. This group is likely to be hit hard by the new rules.

But the new rules will not directly impact foreign workers who arrive under different visas or work-permit programs, such as the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program.

Overall, the federal government allows companies to keep roughly 1.3 million foreign contract-workers in white-collar jobs. They arrive via the H-1B,  J-1, L-1, H4EAD, OPT, CPT, TN pipelines. They are also supplemented by a shadow economy of gig-worker white-collar illegals, including foreign graduates who overstay their visas or enter the country on B-1/B-2 visas.

Many of the visa workers — especially the illegal gig-workers —accept low wages, in part, because many are working in exchange for their employers’ promise to sponsor them for the massive prize of green cards. Once sponsored, the visa workers can stay long past their visa expiration date while waiting for a green card. This legal opportunity to pay white-collar workers with green cards has created a “Green Card Economy” of Fortune 500 employers, universities, and subcontracted, gig-worker foreign employees, so cutting many Ameican graduates out of entry-level jobs.

The H-1B reform may shrink the underlying Green Card Economy if they ensure that only higher-paid workers can get into the H-1B program — and if officials reverse the “early filing” rule adopted in late September.

But the impact of the new rules will likely be muted — or even eliminated — by industry’s response.

Industry groups are expected to ask judges to strike the program down. Already, industry lawyers have blocked – likey, temporarily — Trump bar against the entry of H-1B, J-1, and L-1 workers before January.

Industry groups also claim the federal government miscalculated and inflated the needed wage levels by 26 percent.

Senior Democrats have dismissed Trump’s reforms.


 

While America’s working and middle class have been 


subjected to compete for jobs against a constant flow of 


cheaper foreign workers — where more than 1.2 million 


mostly low-skilled immigrants are admitted to the country 


annually — the billionaire class has experienced historic 


salary gains." Sen. Josh Hawley 

 

Analysis conducted last year reveal that 71 percent of tech workers in Silicon Valley are foreign-born, while the tech industry in the San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward area is made up of 50 percent foreign-born tech workers. 

"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

 

“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

  

TRUMPERnomics IS ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE MASSIVE TRANSFER OF WEALTH UNDER THE BANKSTER REGIME OF OBAMA-HOLDER-BIDEN!

This process was sped up by the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Obama administration took measures to gut autoworkers’ pay while funneling trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

 

Richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as bottom 165 million

The Federal Reserve released data this week on US household wealth that documents the acceleration of wealth inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the second quarter of 2020, the bottom 50 percent of households—some 165 million people—held $2.08 trillion, or $12,600 per person, while the richest one percent of the population controlled $34.2 trillion, i.e., over $10.4 million per person. In percentile terms, the top one percent of the population held 30.5 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 50 percent controlled only 1.9 percent.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of the data, the richest 50 Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of the population. The increased concentration of wealth at the top in the course of 2020 is the result of the unprecedented injection of money into the stock market by the Fed, which has led to an explosive growth in the fortunes of moguls such as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla chief Elon Musk and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The divide in wealth appears even more gigantic when one looks at the top 10 percent of the population as a whole. Combined, the top one percent and next nine percent held 69 percent of the nation’s wealth at the end of the second quarter of 2020, a total of $77.32 trillion.

Between the first and second quarter of 2020, the top one percent of the population increased its share of the country’s wealth from 30 percent to 30.5 percent. The biggest losers were those in the 50 to 90 percentile range of wealth holders, who saw their overall share shrink from 29.7 percent to 29.1 percent. The 90 to 99 percentile and the bottom half remained largely unchanged.

While these changes may appear slight, they actually represent a substantial shift in a short period of time. The top one percent of the population substantially increased its share of the country’s wealth as the Fed effectively printed over $3 trillion and injected it into the financial markets. Better-off sections of workers, who, unlike the bottom half of the working class, have some level of savings, retirement funds or other assets, saw their wealth share decline, as they were forced to draw on savings amidst the global downturn.

One explanation for this sharpening division between, roughly, the top 10 percent of the population and the bottom 90 percent of the population is the disproportionate ownership of stocks and mutual funds. The top one percent of the population owns 52.4 percent of all corporate equities (stocks) and mutual funds, the next nine percent owns 35.8 percent.

Combined, 88.2 percent of the US economy, as represented in corporate equities and mutual funds, is owned by just 10 percent of the population.

While the bottom half of the population has for the last several decades held only one percent of the nation’s stocks, better-off sections of the working class, the 50th to 90th percentiles, held 21.4 percent of this wealth in the early 2000s. However, today this share has fallen to just 11.2 percent. In other words, better-off sections of the working class, less connected to the financial markets, have seen their fortunes move in an opposite direction to those in the top 10 percent of the population.

Another interesting feature of the Fed data is its breakdown by age group. The Millennial group—those born between 1981 and 1996—is today the largest share of the American workforce, accounting for 72 million workers. However, Millennials own just 4.6 percent of US wealth.

In contrast, the data shows that in 1989, when the typical member of the Baby Boomer generation was 34, that generation controlled about 21 percent of wealth.

This contrast between the wealth of Millennials and that of Boomers at similar times in their life cycles reflects the incredible difficulty that young people today face in landing a decent-paying job, paying for college and paying for health care, let alone taking out a mortgage, raising a family and saving for retirement.

The Fed data comes on top of several other recent reports and announcements about social inequality, including:

  • A UBS report showing that the world’s billionaires have increased their wealth by over $1.3 trillion, more than 10 percent, in just three years.
  • An announcement by the World Bank that the fallout from COVID-19 will push as many as 150 million people into what it classifies as extreme poverty (living on less than $1.90 per day) by 2021. This is the first time the number of people in extreme poverty has increased since 1998.
  • Wall Street Journal report that, using Labor Department data, demonstrated the divergence of fortunes for educated and noneducated workers amid the pandemic. The Journal found that, while those with college degrees have nearly recovered from COVID-19 job losses (which were smaller), high school dropouts still have 18 percent fewer jobs.
  • A RAND report that found the bottom 90 percent of Americans would be making 67 percent more without last four decades of deepening inequality.

The ever-growing concentration of wealth at the top of the population weighs like a malignant tumor over society. No social problem, whether it be inequality, global warming, education, health care, retirement or the pandemic, can be solved without mobilizing these vast fortunes at the top and placing them under the democratic control of the broad majority of the population.

The process of extreme class restructuring, and the decimation of the ranks of the better-off, “middle-class” workers depicted in the Fed data, has been underway for at least 40 years. Under Democratic no less than Republican leadership, president after president, Congress after Congress, policies have been carried out that inflated the wealth of the ultra-rich while degrading the conditions of the working class.

This process was sped up by the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Obama administration took measures to gut autoworkers’ pay while funneling trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

Now, a similar but even more drastic social restructuring is underway in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions have been thrown into long-term joblessness and poverty, while $3 trillion have been injected into the financial markets and hundreds of billions of dollars given out to major corporations under the bipartisan CARES Act.

The needs of the working class—the broad majority of the population—stand in direct conflict with the interests of the parasitic financial elite. The major banks and corporations, which control nearly every aspect of global life today, must be placed under the democratic ownership and supervision of the working class so that that the needs of the population can be met.

As pandemic death toll approaches 200,000, American oligarchs celebrate their wealth

 

The United States is passing through a historic social, economic and political crisis. The death toll from the coronavirus pandemic is nearing 200,000 and could double by the end of the year. Democratic forms of rule are breaking down, with the Trump administration intensifying its open incitement of fascistic violence. Tens of millions are unemployed and face impoverishment and homelessness. Wildfires are burning out of control on the US West Coast.

It is impossible to understand any of these processes outside of the massive levels of social inequality. The United States is an oligarchy, with a concentration of wealth that is historically unprecedented.

The release of the Forbes 400 billionaire report gives a sense of this reality. The richest 400 individuals (0.00012 percent of the population) now possess more than $3 trillion.

The report declares: “Pandemic be damned: America’s 400 richest are worth a record $3.2 trillion, up $240 billion from a year ago, aided by a stock market that has defied the virus.” The surge in the stock market, underwritten by the multi-trillion-dollar CARES Act passed in March, has filled the already overflowing coffers of the super-rich, who now hold claim to the equivalent of 15 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Even the numbers provided by Forbes, based on figures from July 24, are a major underestimation of the current reality. Since that time, the wealth of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, has shot up to more than $200 billion, while the wealth of Tesla CEO Elon Musk has grown to over $100 billion. Bezos’s holdings are three million times greater than the annual income of the typical American household.

The staggering level of inequality reflected in the Forbes list is the central feature of American society, which is defined by the transfer of obscene and ever larger amounts of wealth from the working class into the hands of a tiny financial oligarchy through tax cuts, bailouts, the slashing of wages and the clawing back of pensions and other benefits won by workers in the struggles of the 20th century.

The latest rise in the billionaires’ wealth is not based on any exertion of labor on their part, but on the inflation of the stock market, with trillions of dollars in debt from the Federal Reserve and Congress, which will be paid off the backs of the working class. Everything has been subordinated to ensuring that the Dow and the S&P 500 rise to new heights.

It would take the median American, who earns $33,000 per year, 97 million years to earn as much as is controlled by the wealthiest Americans. Consider what $3.2 trillion could pay for in a year:

  • In the 2016-17 school year, $739 billion was spent on public elementary and secondary schools, providing education for 50.8 million students and employing 3.2 million teachers and another 3.2 million school employees.
  • The Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal government will spend $1.3 trillion on health care programs this year.
  • Diabetes cost the US economy $327 billion in 2017, with insulin accounting for $40 billion of this total. The average cost of insulin, critical for the survival of diabetes patients, is up to $6,000 per year and continues to rise.
  • According to the US Department of Agriculture, $800 billion was spent by Americans on food and beverages for consumption at home in 2019. The federal government provided $60 billion of this in food stamps for the poorest and most vulnerable to gain access to essential nutrition.
  • The 2018 fire season cost $24 billion, driven by record devastation, including the destruction of the city of Paradise, California. All told, extreme weather and climate disasters that year cost $91 billion.

Added up, the wealth of just 400 people could pay for an entire year of public education, health care, nutrition and disaster relief for millions of Americans. The UN recently reported that 132 million more people will go hungry worldwide this year due to the pandemic, driving the number of undernourished close to 1 billion.

Despite the burning need to save millions from malnourishment and starvation, the World Food Program faces a shortage of $5 billion in its effort to deliver food to those in need. The wealth of the 400 richest people in the US is more than 600 times this amount.

Every element of politics is subordinated to the interests of this social layer. It is for this reason that the danger of the pandemic was initially covered up, the bailout of Wall Street was organized and the back-to-work and back-to-school campaigns were implemented.

The systematic looting of society left the country vulnerable to such an outbreak. The subordination of health care to the predatory interests of for-profit health care companies and insurance giants turned nursing homes for the elderly into death chambers and left nurses and doctors without the necessary personal protective equipment and other medical equipment—such as ventilators—needed to treat patients.

The drive of the Trump administration toward fascism and the cultivation of the extreme right cannot be understood except in relation to the class interests of the oligarchy, representing that faction of the ruling class that seeks to smash outright any sign of opposition from the working class. On the other side of the coin, the Democrats represent the faction that seeks to use the politics of race and identity to smother the class struggle, while cultivating sections of the upper-middle class that use the politics of race and gender to fight for access to positions of power and carve out for themselves a bigger share of the wealth of the top 10 percent.

As only the latest example, the racially fixated New York Times published its “Faces of Power” list this week, noting that too many people in “influential positions” are white. What difference would it make if everyone one on the list were black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American? In fact, the report found that a majority of police chiefs in the largest cities are black or Hispanic: Cold comfort for the young black men who are disproportionately killed by police.

The obsession among upper-middle class academics and journalists on race and gender is a distraction from the grotesque levels of wealth that define social relations in American society. This form of politics has nothing to do with the interests of the working class. Instead, it seeks to harness anger over racism and social inequality to advance the interests of a small layer of minorities in the top 10 percent who want a larger piece of the pie hoarded by the top 1 percent.

At every point, science, reason and human solidarity collide with the economic interests of the current rulers of society—the oligarchs, the parasitic masters of finance capital. It is impossible to defend democratic rights or save lives without confronting this issue.

Mass problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic, increasingly deadly fires fueled by climate change and global hunger require mass solutions. The problems of mankind cannot be resolved without breaking the stranglehold of the capitalist oligarchy in every country. Its wealth must be expropriated and directed toward meeting social needs. The large corporations and banks must be transformed by the working class into democratically controlled institutions oriented to meeting human need and not private profit.

The social inequality that characterizes capitalist society—and all the policies that flow from it—are fueling an immense growth of social anger and working class struggle. These struggles must be organized and united on the basis of a conscious, revolutionary and socialist program.

ALL BILLIONAIRES ARE GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT AMNESTY AND WIDER OPEN BORDERS. ALL BILLIONAIRES WANT NO CAPS ON IMPORTING CHEAPER FOREIGN WORKER.

 

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

Millionaire Democrat Donor Says Joe Biden Will Be Good for Wall Street

Scott Olson/Getty Images

15 Sep 2020395

2:53

A millionaire Democrat donor, who was once listed as a billionaire by Forbes, says Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden will be good for Wall Street in the long run.

Michael Novogratz, the former Goldman Sachs executive and hedge fund manager, told CNBC in an interview that while a Biden win against President Donald Trump may initially drag the market down, Wall Street will stand to benefit.

“I think Biden’s going to win. I hope Biden wins,” said Novogratz, who now runs an investment firm. “But if he wins, I think the market will go down, at least initially because he’s going to raise capital gains tax … he’s going to raise corporate taxes some and he’s going to raise personal income tax.”

“I think it’s probably better for the markets [if Biden wins] because the chaos Trump brings every week, every day just gets tiring,” Novogratz said.

Novogratz donated $200,000 to the Biden Action Fund in June.

Despite endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Novogratz said Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) platform “sounds a lot more conservative than the Republican team when you’re talking about their plans.”

“There’s going to be so much pressure to start redistributing wealth whether it’s paying for college, paying for loans, if it’s Medicare for All,” Novogratz said. “Those are things the Democrat Party cares about and there’s going to be pressure and maybe we’re not going to get all of those but we’ll be heading in that direction. So I don’t see our deficits miraculously collapsing.”

Biden and Harris have sought to distance themselves from their large Wall Street backing in recent weeks. Although Biden blasted Wall Street executives in a town hall with the AFL-CIO union, a new report revealed that the former vice president’s campaign has assured Wall Street donors that his administration will maintain an economic status quo to their benefit.

This month, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

  

Biden’s Billionaires

 

By Steve McCann

Many years ago, while participating in a voter registration drive, I came upon a grizzled and disheveled old man sitting in the overgrown and weed-infested yard of his paint-starved house calming smoking his pipe.  Despite his gruff demeanor, Ully (Ulysses) was very pleasant and loquacious as we talked for over an hour on topics ranging from the weather to the innate foibles of mankind.  It turned out that he had to leave school after the fourth grade in order to work in the fields to help support his family and had toiled in a variety of menial and labor-intensive jobs ever since.  Yet, he had a deep and thorough insight into human nature.  Among his comments about the rich and ostensibly well-educated was: “All the money in the world cain’t buy a fool a lick of common sense.”

I was reminded of that observation after reading an article describing the 131 billionaires who are pouring millions into the coffers of the Democrat party and Joe Biden’s campaign in their mindless obsession to defeat President Trump in November.  Among the prominent names are Jeff Skoll, a founder of eBay who has contributed $4.5 million; Laurene Powell Jobs of Apple and owner of The Atlantic magazine has donated $1.2 million,  and Josh Bekenstein, Chairman of Bain Capital (co-founded by Mitt Romney), $5 million.  

Far more Wall Street financers have also jumped on the Biden/Democrat party bandwagon than are supporting Donald Trump, whose policies have overwhelmingly revived the economy after the stagnation of the Obama-Biden years. The tech billionaires, not content to simply cough up untold millions in direct political contributions, are also funding massive voter drives, promoting mail-in balloting, creating divisive partisan news sites, aiding and designing the Democrat party’s digital campaigns and unabashedly censoring the social media accounts of the Trump campaign and innumerable conservatives. 

The political party they are gleefully underwriting in order to oust Trump is no longer the party of the middle and working class (which is now one and the same) but a two-tier assemblage in which the prey is sleeping with the predator.  The witless wealthy and socially aware are in bed with the avowed socialists and militant Marxists.  What is holding this marriage of convenience together is a mutual hatred of Donald Trump and the undoable promises made by Joe Biden and the Democrat party hierarchy.

In a 2019 meeting with 100 super-wealthy potential donors, Biden assured the gathering that he would not demonize the rich and would only increase their taxes slightly while ensuring that their standard of living would not be affected by any of his policies.  He also stated: “I’m not Bernie Sanders.  I don’t think 500 Billionaires are the reason why we are in trouble”.  Further, he unabashedly emphasized that the wealthy are not the reason for income inequality and “If I win this nomination.  I won’t let you down.  I promise you.”  

Further, the dubious choice of Kamala Harris as the vice presidential nominee was made solely to placate and reassure Wall Street and the wealthy, as she was viewed by them as being very deferential to the mega-rich class based on her days in California. 

When the time came to deal with the Marxist/socialist wing of the Democrat party’s anti-Trump coalition, policy commitments, many diametrically opposite of what was promised the wealthy donors, were also guaranteed with a non-verbal pledge of we won’t let you down.

The first step was a de facto party platform.  The 110-page Biden-Sanders Manifesto which includes, among other commitments, a massive job killing $2+ trillion climate agenda to phase out fossil fuel usage within 15 years, the elimination of cash bail, redirecting (i.e. cutting) funding for the police, dismantling all border protections, legalizing virtually all illegal immigrants and massively raising corporate and individual tax rates on the wealthy.  This manifesto is a socialist screed that would destroy the middle class and permanently neuter the economy and nation. 

An effusive Bernie Sanders proclaimed to the world that Biden and the Democrats have embraced his socialist agenda and that Biden would be the most progressive president since FDR.  Sanders exposed not only the behind the scenes reality of today’s Democrat party but Biden’s figurehead role.

Further confirmation of the radicalization of the Party came about unexpectedly as the militant Marxist faction of the Sanders coalition forced the issue.  Impatient and unwilling to wait until after the 3rd of November, Antifa and Black Lives Matter used the death of George Floyd as a pretext to take to the streets and begin their long-hoped for revolution.  They claimed that rioting, looting, committing arson and attacking law enforcement was a necessity as this was a systemically racist country.  Yet, they openly demanded immediate changes rooted in their radical Marxist ideology of class warfare not so-called systemic racism.  As two of their preferred chants and graffiti slogans “eat the rich” and “abolish capitalism now” confirms. 

Biden, the Democrat party hierarchy as well as virtually all Democrat elected officials refused to address the violence and those responsible.  Thus, they tacitly approved of the lawlessness and by doing so flashed a green light to continue the riots.  When forced to acknowledge the reality on the streets of the nation’s cities, they instead blamed Trump, the police, white supremacists and even the Russians.  Due to their spinelessness, the armies of anarchy and revolution Biden and the Democrats unleashed will never be defeated or mollified by them.   

Considering the vast dichotomy in the litany of promises made and actions taken, it is inevitable that either the moneyed elite or the mob of passionate true believers will be betrayed.  There is no middle ground.  Who will prevail? 

Will it be the elites whose only weapon is money and fleeting political influence or the passionate mob whose weapons are unconstrained violence and intimidation?  Will it be those who believe a revolution could never happen here or those who are currently inciting revolution with the implicit blessing of a major political party?  Will it be those who believe that Biden and the Democrats, if elected, will be able to forcefully deal with the insurgents or the insurgents who now know that riots and extortion causes Democrat politicians to cower in the corner?

Beginning with the French Revolution and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, history has recorded that passionate mobs always prevail when dealing with a feckless ruling class or party.  And the first casualties have inevitably been the wealthy elites.

I can envision sitting with my old friend, Ully, and asking him if he thought the wealthy elites, indiscriminately tossing money at the Democrats for the sole purpose of defeating President Trump, understood the pitfalls involved.  He would lean back, slowly exhale a puff of smoke from his well-worn pipe and with uncontrollable anger in his eyes would say: “Nope.  Those damn fools ain’t got a lick of common sense.”

 

Report: Joe Biden Promises Wall Street Donors the Status Quo in Private Calls

OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

8 Sep 2020343

3:50

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden is promising Wall Street donors the economic status quo that they became used to before President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a report.

An investment banker on Wall Street told the Washington Post that in private calls with financial executives two months ago, Biden’s campaign assured them that talk of populist reforms on the campaign trail was nothing more than talking points.

The Post reports:

When Joe Biden released economic recommendations two months ago, they included a few ideas that worried some powerful bankers: allowing banking at the post office, for example, and having the Federal Reserve guarantee all Americans a bank account. [Emphasis added]

But in private calls with Wall Street leaders, the Biden campaign made it clear those proposals would not be central to Biden’s agenda. [Emphasis added]

“They basically said, ‘Listen, this is just an exercise to keep the Warren people happy, and don’t read too much into it,’” said one investment banker, referring to liberal supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The banker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks, said that message was conveyed on multiple calls. [Emphasis added]

In a statement to the Post, Biden’s campaign downplayed the influence of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) — left populists on trade and economic policy — on the former vice president’s agenda.

“The Biden-Sanders task forces made recommendations to Vice President Biden and to the [Democrat National Committee] platform drafting committee,” Biden spokesperson TJ Ducklo said. “This anonymous source appears to be confused and uninformed about this very basic distinction.”

The report comes as Biden told AFL-CIO members on Labor Day that he will be the “strongest labor president” union workers “have ever had.”

“You can be sure you’ll be hearing that word, ‘union,’ plenty of times when I’m in the White House,” Biden pitched. “The words of a president matter. Union. We’re going to empower workers and empower unions.”

In the Democrat presidential primary, Biden told a group of rich Manhattan donors at a private fundraiser that “nothing would change” for them or their wealthy lifestyles if elected.

“I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money,” Biden said at the June 2019 fundraiser.

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished,” Biden said. “No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

Like failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Biden has enjoyed a cozy relationship with Wall Street executives, along with his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

Most recently, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.

The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

 

As Bloomberg pledges $100 million, Wall Street boosts Biden campaign


15 September 2020

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pledged to spend at least $100 million to support the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in Florida. This announcement Sunday is only the largest pledge of support from the financial oligarchy for the Democratic campaign.

Bloomberg aide Kevin Sheekey said the pledge of virtually unlimited financial backing to Biden in Florida, the most critical “battleground” state in the 2020 election, “will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states, in particular the state of Pennsylvania.”

Florida has 29 electoral votes, the most of any closely contested state, following California with 55, overwhelmingly Democratic, and Texas with 38, leaning Republican. New York state, also with 29 electoral votes, is heavily Democratic.

Only once in the last 60 years—Bill Clinton in 1992—has a candidate won the presidency while losing Florida. The last Republican to lose Florida and still win the White House was Calvin Coolidge in 1924, when the state was lightly populated swampland.

Early voting begins in Florida September 24, and Bloomberg’s money will pay for massive campaign advertising on behalf of Biden, in both English and Spanish. Campaign officials said the funds would be devoted almost entirely to television and digital ads.

Even before the Bloomberg commitment, the Biden campaign and supporting Democratic groups had outspent Trump and the Republicans by $42 million to $32 million. The flood of cash from the billionaire media mogul will give the Democrats a three- or four-to-one advantage over the final seven weeks of the campaign.

The efficacy of Bloomberg’s huge financial commitment is open to question. The media billionaire spent $1 billion (a mere one-fiftieth of his gargantuan personal fortune) on his own pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination. He launched his campaign at a time when he believed Biden’s candidacy was near its demise, hoping that his money might forestall the nomination of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The sudden revival of Biden’s campaign with his victory in South Carolina in February and then in the Super Tuesday primaries on March 3 led Bloomberg to abandon his own efforts and endorse the former vice president, since their right-wing views on a range of topics, and particularly on foreign policy, were virtually identical.

Since then, Bloomberg has transferred $20 million from his abortive presidential campaign to the Democratic National Committee, as well as pumping in another $120 million to local, state and congressional campaigns, making him by far the largest single backer of the Democratic Party.

Florida is only the most glaring example of the general trend in the 2020 election, in which the financial oligarchy and Wall Street have indicated a distinct preference for Biden and backed it up with heavy financial commitments.

During August, the Biden campaign broke all records for fundraising in a single month, raking in $365 million, nearly double the previous record of $203 million set by the campaign of Barack Obama in September 2008, and more than Hillary Clinton and Trump combined to raise, in August 2016, $233 million. The Trump campaign also broke the Obama record, but its total of $210 million in August was far behind the pace set by the Democrats.

Approximately $205 million of the $365 million came through online donations, including 1.5 million new donors. This is more an indication of the widespread hostility to Trump among millions of working-class and middle-class people than any groundswell of support for Biden, who personifies the corrupt US political establishment, having spent 36 years in the Senate before his eight years as Obama’s vice president.

That means that $160 million—a near-record amount by itself—was raised through large donations from wealthy supporters of the Democratic Party. While Trump continues to rake in the lion’s share of support from industries such as oil and gas, mining and real estate, Biden has collected the bulk of financial backing from the banks, hedge funds and insurance industry.

Under rules set by the Federal Election Commission, a wealthy donor can now give as much as $830,600 to support a presidential candidate, routing much of the money through federal and state party committees rather than the candidate’s own campaign.

The result of the disparity in fundraising throughout the summer is that the Democratic presidential campaign has now caught up with and even surpassed Trump’s war chest. The Trump reelection campaign, despite raising an unprecedented $1.1 billion, has less cash on hand for the fall than the Biden campaign. According to press accounts, more than one-third of the money raised by the Trump campaign was used to pay the expenses of fundraising itself.

There were several reports last week that the Trump campaign was experiencing a “cash crunch,” and was unable to sustain advertising in all 15 of the so-called battleground states. Both the Washington Post and Bloomberg News reported that Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien has halted television advertising in Michigan and Pennsylvania at least temporarily, and that Biden was outspending Trump in nearly every closely contested state.

Stepien replaced Brad Parscale as campaign manager in July, at least in part because of concerns that Parscale had squandered Trump’s substantial initial fundraising advantage.

According to the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics, the Biden campaign spent $17 million in television and digital advertising in nine battleground states during the week of September 3, compared to $4 million by the Trump campaign.

The Clinton campaign outspent Trump by similar margins in 2016, but Trump campaign aides had boasted they would not face such a deficit in 2020. Trump has hinted he would seek to make up the difference from his personal fortune, but there has been no sign yet of any direct outlay by the billionaire to back his own campaign.