At issue is Obama’s insistence to secure a <b>federal wiretap warrant of Donald J. Trump</b>, the candidate, using the federal court system as the mechanism to do so. The ostensible probable cause was alleged ties between Donald J. Trump and/or his associates with Russia.
The first warrant application was made in June 2016, according to reports published by The New York Times and elsewhere, but was rejected due to the lack of probable cause of criminal activity.
When the request was denied in regular federal court, Obama and his Justice Department attempted an “end around” by citing the existence of a “foreign actor” and made a similar surveillance warrant application through the more specialized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in October of 2016. According to published reports, that warrant application was rejected as well, a rare occurrence in the FISA venue, which strengthens claims that no evidence of any foreign involvement ever existed. It has been reported that the initial warrant application to the FISA court <b>specifically named Donald J. Trump</b>.
The author, in 1943, expect...See MoreEconomist Mark Blyth lead me to the 1943 article by Michael Kalecki titled “Political Aspects of Full Employment.” The article predicts our current economy.
The whole idea is more complex than one post will allow. However, here is the part that tells us about corporations taking over our government.
The author, in 1943, expects us to now return to government spending – as in building infrastructure. However, that is not happening, because the corporate controlled media has convince many that America has a spending problem, and we should continue to cut the budget. The truth is, we have a revenue problem and cutting the budget will sink your economy.
(Quote from 1943)
As has already been argued, lasting full employment is not at all to their liking. The workers would 'get out of hand' and the 'captains of industry' would be anxious to 'teach them a lesson'. Moreover, the price increase in the upswing is to the disadvantage of small and big rentiers, and makes them 'boom-tired'.
In this situation a powerful alliance is likely to be formed between big business and rentier interests, and they would probably find more than one economist to declare that the situation was manifestly unsound. The pressure of all these forces, and in particular of big business—as a rule influential in government departments—would most probably induce the government to return to the orthodox policy of cutting down the budget deficit. A slump would follow in which government spending policy would again come into its own.
This pattern of a political business cycle is not entirely conjectural; something very similar happened in the USA in 1937-8. The breakdown of the boom in the second half of 1937 was actually due to the drastic reduction of the budget deficit. On the other hand, in the acute slump that followed the government promptly reverted to a spending policy.
(End quote)
Again, we are not returning to more government spending, despite that being the right answer. Also, note, the spending does not have to create debt. Aside from borrowing, you can tax idle money, or you can move money from gov. departments that do not create jobs and spend it in areas that create lots of jobs per dollar spent.
Next Keen wrote, “I will overlook...See MoreKeen wrote, “Its peculiar that no historic sources I've seen describe it as such democratization of profits.” Well, Keen needs to read more. However, I also gave the example of farmer's coop as a democratization of profit. I will add to that the Mondragon Corporation of Spain with its 50,000 workers.
Next Keen wrote, “I will overlook your complaints about free-market economies as they are distractions.” That is debate talk for “I don't want to discuss that!
Keen than wrote, “Robotization would be useful for precision jobs but perhaps not so much for 'fuzzy thinking'.” Keen is not paying attention. We are looking at a massive loss of jobs as self driving cars mean unemployment for truckers and taxi drivers. Then add that computers are looking to be better at diagnosing illness than humans. Just what Keen means by “fuzzy thinking” is a mystery!
Next this from Keen, “if someone markets a robot technology, in what world would the gov't have the authority to confiscate the profits from that enterprise and distribute them to anyone?” Governments do it all the time. For example, when the government tells a drug company their patent has expired and will not be renewed, income is redistributed.
Keen now moves to a dystopian vision of the future with “we would see society sink back into squalor and chaos.” Actually squalor by way of income inequality is what we have now, and letting the rich continue to get richer is a guaranteed way to get to Keen's dystopian world.
Keen's dystopian world continues with incompetent government “Eventually the wealthy will die, their wealth will be stolen and squandered by gov't functionaries who have no idea how to build it and distribution will fail (again).” Government failure is by design. The rich have been running our government for decades, and the government failures are design to make them richer. Yet, go back to the New Deal America and look at what tax dollars built – start with Hoover Dam and end with the Interstate highway system.
And finally, Keen knows that the next generation will be awful – as in “The average person won't have the skills or vision to create wealth OR repair the infrastructure.” News flash! People are smarter than you think!
Now this comment is out of contact with reality, “There is no legal right to property you do not own.” Tell that to the farmers who just had their land taken from them so a private corporation could build a pipeline. By the way the concept of private property is only 400 years old. Before that, the King had divine right to all property. He could take what he wanted. The point, the concept of private property was invented to serve a purpose at a time in history. That concept will be replaced if the world finds the need.
Okay, this one is also out of contact with reality, “Subsidizing the poor and supplying a dole might work for a while but highly socialized countries are running out of money.” We have been “subsidizing” the education of the poor for over a hundred years in public education, and we have not run out of money.
Now back to Econ 101, Keen wrote, “they aren't having enough children to pay taxes to support the others.” We do not really live on the dollars paid in taxes. Society needs to create the goods and services we need to live. If, by way of robots, one person produces the wealth of a hundred workers now, there will be plenty. For example, in 1920 there were ten farmers for every 100 citizens. Now it is one farmer for every 100 citizens and no one is starving. Quite the opposite, America wastes vast amounts of food.
About FDR, Keen wrote, “Nice fairy tale but that's not what happened.” Well, economist Richard Wolff would disagree. Just listen to the video below and you will hear the same story I told. Although it starts in the middle because this is Part II. Yet, it is annoying for someone to say “nice fairy tale” without referencing an expert.
This is a debate for another day, but it is wrong! Keen wrote, “rich folks are still generating wealth and paying enormous taxes!” In a simple vein, our economy has been financialized and produces very little real wealth. Plus, wealth is created by the workers.
This is true, too bad we do not have strong one, “The best defense against POVERTY is to ensure a strong economy.” Plus, a strong economy does not depend on 90&37; of the new wealth going to the top one percent.
About “Roosevelt understood this about taxation and confiscation” strange that you should say this when Roosevelt proposed a 100&37; marginal tax rate on the rich! Check your history!
I could mention the estimated 20 million wild animals that die each year from lead poisoning, which includes between 1.6 million and 2.4 million waterfowl. I could explain “bio-magnification” and how animals at the top of the food chain such as the California condor suffer almost chronic lead poisoning. However, it is best to tell you that we are poisoning the land, the water, and every living creature in this country. It is all a matter of entropy!
To show how the very hunters who object to the ban are impacted, you need only go to the study, “Lead shot from hunting as a source of lead in human blood”, you find this in the abstract:
(Quote)
This study investigates the relationship between the intake of birds hunted with lead shot and the lead concentration in human blood. Fifty adult men from Nuuk, Greenland took part in the study. From September 2003 to June 2004 they regularly gave blood samples and recorded how many birds they ate. We found a clear relationship between the number of bird meals and blood lead and also a clear seasonal variation. (snip) This clear relationship points to lead shot as the dominating lead source to people in Greenland.
(End quote)
The other fact that comes to mind is this from the Center for Disease Control:
(Quote)
There are approximately half a million U.S. children ages 1-5 with blood lead levels above 5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), the reference level at which CDC recommends public health actions be initiated. No safe blood lead level in children has been identified.
(End quote)
We have already contaminated most of the lakes in America with mercury. So lead is probably next!
PS quotes: (1) DiFrancisco et al (2003) state that about 2 billion lead pellets are deposited into the environment worldwide each year (hunting and recreational shooting combined). They note that this metal will take between 100 and 300 years to degrade and disappear, depending on soil conditions and the climate.
(2) The Canadian Wildlife Service estimates that between 1988 and 1993 the average annual discharge of lead shot in Canada by hunters of waterfowl, upland birds and small game was about 2000 metric tons per year. This does not include target shooting. In a 1988 report “Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates, a Synoptic Review” put out by the USFWS (Eisler,1988), it was estimated that U.S. hunters deposited some 6000 metric tons of lead shot annually into lakes, ponds, and estuaries.
(3) In Canada, it is estimated that some 500 tons of lost or discarded fishing weights and jigs are deposited into the environment each year. This represents up to 14&37; of all non-recoverable lead releases in Canada (Scheuhammer, et al 2003).
PS quotes are from “Fish and Wildlife Issues Related to the Use of Lead Fishing Gear.”
But the worst, the poster “Mendeleev” seems to be dismissing the use of lead and its role in lead poisoning – arguing that lead in the environment is not a health issue. Yet, such thinking is understandable when you remember conservatives have the philosophy of “the government should do nothing” or “de-regulate, because all regulations are bad!”
"It wasn’t always easy for new immigrants. Certainly it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily, and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more."
I think the liberals here are having a high old time of mocking any defense of the current administration without regard for the hypocrisy it demonstrates. They can't bring themselves to think about the Clintons, Obama, or any other failures of their ideology because that would mean they know they're wrong. By mocking the Trump administration they get to pretend they aren't. I saw where Mr. Kislyak was described as a "well-known spymaster". If this were true, one wonders why President Obama didn't expel him along with the other diplomats. Of course such a claim is ludicrous, the real spies are unknown to the anngry left.
> But CNN reported that, and they had actual sources: > CNN reported Wednesday that Russian ambassador Sergey > Kislyak is considered by US intelligence to be one of > Russia's top spies and spy-recruiters in Washington, citing > current and former senior US government officials.
Well that IS interesting. CNN you say? And somehow this amazing bit of knowledge spilled by unnamed "intelligence sources" names one of Russia's top spymasters? Wow. That is something! especially considering how much time he's spent with democratic senators. You'd think the "intelligence services" would have said something. You'd think that an act like expelling diplomats, usually done as a prelude to war, would include the guy doing all that recruiting and really- isn't espionage against the law in this country? How is it that this guy operated for YEARS right under Obama's nose without a speck of suspicion suddenly acquires this amazing reputation just as soon as Trump is elected? Well, I'm sure Infowars has the scoop for you. You'd think Obama was protecting the guy or something. That would be interesting.
> The charge of "hypocrisy" only holds water when comparable > things were treated differently by partisans.
Really? So when you ignored Hillary taking bribes, payoffs, or contributions as she sold off American uranium interests but are all hot and bothered by Trump associates talking to an ambassador- you think that's "consistent"? OK...whatever helps you sleep. Is it that you're angry by how partisans spoke about Clinton? I don't see why you're upset at all. People are entitled to their own opinions. > Nobody lies like Trump. This has been demonstrated by > analyses by journalists and factcheck after factcheck.
Oh nonsense, Obama lied often and egregiously. He got called on it more than once. "If you like your doctor..." Most of the time he was lying ignorantly because he wasn't very well informed but liked pretending he was.
> Nobody has scandals like Trump.
Scandals? Like what? Has he been charged with crimes? Since he hasn't...besides, just because some are upset with him doesn't mean its a scandal. I think its wonderfully hilarious watching people get all puffed up with self-righteous indignation. It must be exhausting for them.
> Nobody has the personality defects that Trump has. > Nobody says the outrageous things Trump says, or behaves > with the immaturity of a badly-reared 5 year old, like > Trump.
Sounds like you don't respect the office of the president. Hope your kids don't see you talk like that. > And you KNOW this. And you continue to try to draw false > equivalents. And by that compulsive indulgence, you > destroy any credibility you could have, and make a mockery > of your labeling "hypocrisy."
False equivalents? If it was a false equivalent, you'd have explained why and you neglected that detail. Credibility was in short supply around here long before the election. Apparently a nerve was touched by the hypocrisy charge. My guess is that its because it's true. And, has it occurred to you that by constantly ragging on and condemning people with alternative political views you turn yourself into a caricature? Now I don't take offense because what someone thinks of me is none of my business. I did what citizens are supposed to do- vote. You don't have to agree with my vote. I really don't care if you don't. You don't have to agree with the president's policies either. What difference does it make? If you want a website where everyone agrees with you- why not just say so?
> Shame. Except, shame is in precious short supply among > Trump supporters.
I feel absolutely no shame that the guy I voted for won the election. I think the liberals should be ashamed and furious that they had to have Clinton as their candidate. I suppose they are but just can't bring themselves to admit they backed a loser. What is it you think we should be ashamed of? Seriously, the choice came down to a corrupt liar like Hillary versus a successful entrepreneur with a colorful past. Wasn't really much of a choice.
> A day will come when all is laid bare, and you will have to > account - not to others, but yourself - for how studiously > you carried water for this egomaniac who is working to > advance his own interests, at the persistent cost of our > national pride and trust in our institutions.
Maybe that will happen. I have a funny feeling that Hillary will be caught up in a corruption investigation, that Obama will be tainted by the actions of his former employees who will be prosecuted and there will be a remake of My Mother the Car but I'm not banking on it. I teach. I don't carry water for the president. He's doing a pretty good job of that all by himself.
"The House Oversight Committee will not investigate President Donald Trump's unproven claims of wide-spread voter fraud during the 2016 election, Chairman Jason Chaffetz said Tuesday.
Speaking on CNN, the Utah representative said he does not see any evidence to back up Trump's tweets."
WASHINGTON — <b>American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications</b> and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.
One official said intelligence reports based on some of the <b>wiretapped communications</b> had been provided to the White House.
I'm out of free reads on the NYT, but why would any of Trump's campaign staff be calling from his actual home? Now, the tower is not as big as Trump claims, but it is still a large building. Other people live in that building. I wonder who may have lived in other units, in the building, at that time, who might have been bugged.
This is absurd! An epipen can cost more than an iPhone! Next, so...See MoreSo this is where the Republican Party is on health care. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah says, “So maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on, maybe they should invest in their own healthcare.”
This is absurd! An epipen can cost more than an iPhone! Next, some Republican will be telling us we cannot eat out, go to a show, or buy steak at the grocery store, because we will need the money for health care. Worse, we already have way too many Americans being forced to decide between health care and food.
Health care is already 18&37; of GDP, and the idiots in health care think they can take that to 25&37; or 33&37;, because, as capitalism tells us, profits must increase every year.
Just how public officials can say this stuff on the national media and find an audience that agrees is beyond me. And for sure, do not tell me you agree with Chaffetz and you are a Christian. That makes absolutely no sense.
Some, but not most. It's a twisted sense of values. And, Chaffetz is right about most people who face the decision of healthcare vs "something else." The reason is, that those people consider healthcare something they are owed just for breathing. I've mentioned here many times that I do volunteer tax preparation for low income people, and I literally have clients that live from tax refund to tax refund. It's not because they are poorer than anyone else, it's because they want to live beyond their means. And, I do know what their "means" are because I do their taxes. When given the choice between their kids dental work or his and hers I phone 7s, they will go for the I phones most of the time. They walk around with no money for groceries, and a new I phone. And, they laugh at me for my 3 year old Razr. Some of them will adhere to a budget when I help them work one out, but most of them won't.
First, fifty percent of America lives in poverty, and ETS seems to think “if they just quit spending, they will be rich enough to buy health care.” Worse, ETS seems to think you should “budget” for health care. That is not possible.
This is like owning a house. Few Americans can afford to say, “I will save to replace my house if it burns down.” So, in this case and any other where the loss is too big to handle, we do “risk management.” I go to my insurance agent and tell him I want to trade the “risk” of a large loss for a guaranteed, monthly, small loss that I can handle.
The problem is, in America, you can not do risk management with your health care. Basically, this country spends 18&37; of GDP on health care. That fact makes risk management of health care by most Americans impossible. The cost of health care is so high, the trade with the insurance company is too expensive.
Yet, in the face of this, ETS and the Republicans basically say, “if those people would just not buy luxuries like iPhones all would be well.” Let me give ETS and others a real life clue. A friend of mine has cancer. The cost of the chemotherapy was more than $30,000 per month. Fat chance of the poorest half of America “budgeting” for that!
Robby Mook, Hillary's former campaign manager, just admitted on a Fox interview that there were wiretaps, and Hillary's campaign KNEW ABOUT THEM as early as October of last year!
I thought these were supposed to be secret LOLOLOL!
Next Keen wrote, “I will overlook...See More