25 Şubat 2013 Pazartesi

Carlos Slim, World's Richest Man, Profiting Off 'Obamaphones' Aimed At Helping The Poor #p2 #tcot

To contact us Click HERE
source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/carlos-slim-obamaphones_n_1955929.html

The world's richest man is apparently making a lot of money off a government program aimed at helping the poor Americans.

Every time someone gets a phone through Lifeline, a government program that gives phones to low-income Americans, TracPhone, a company in which Mexican telecom mogul Carlos Slim has a controlling stake, nets $10, Fox News reports. The company's CEO, Frederick "F.J." Pollak, who is a major Obama donor, also makes a profit from the data plans and minutes beneficiaries of the Lifeline program buy.

The Lifeline program has been pushed into the spotlight recently after a video surfaced of an Obama supporter saying she would be voting for the president because he gave her a free phone. Though the woman credited Obama for her phone, the president didn't start Lifeline; it began in 1984 -- Ronald Reagan was president then, for your information -- as a landline-only program, and President Clinton expanded it to include cell phones in 1996, according to the Atlantic Wire.

After the "Obamaphone Lady" video was posted on The Drudge Report, some alleged that the video's widespread circulation was fueled by racism, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Regardless of the controversy over the phone itself, the allegations that Slim is benefiting off a program aimed at helping the poor may only fuel characterizations of the $69 billion man as a super-rich mogul who capitalizes on the woes of others. Slim's son noted in an interview with Bloomberg in May that his father was taking advantage of the "opportunities" provided by the European Debt Crisis.

Critics, including hundreds of protesters at George Washington University in May, have also accused Slim of making his money off the backs of the Mexican people, as well as off of stifling the country's economic development. Slim has additionally urged us normals to continue working until we're at least 70, arguing that it would help to boost the world's struggling economies.


this dumbass raises good points on the economy but blames Obama's golf game instead of the conservative policies that got us into this mess

To contact us Click HERE
its still worth the time to read. He raises an excellent point about the middle class shrinking. Thats exactly right. If the middle class is squeezed, no one 's around to buy things at Best Buy, Radio Shack, and the like.

UNFETTERED CAPITALISM is what got us into this mess and the government is going to need to spend its way out of it. Furloughs will not help; they will only make it worse.

I'm not against capitalism; on the contrary - I want people to make as much as they can and inject all those tax dollars into the economy. But, c'mon, to blame Obama is asinine. He didn't create the debt securities that burned our house down. I do blame Obama for not sending one single banker to jail. That is a sin. But conservative policies of paying less then a fair wage to employees, the insistence of no decent affordable health care, the unwillingness to re-work underwater mortgages, the high cost of living in the US and the constant attack on the social saftey net serves to undermine the middle class. We will reap what we sow, however, when the economy implodes under its own weight because no one in the middle class is buying anything.


source http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/retail-apocalypse-why-are-major-retail-chains-all-over-america-collapsing


If the economy is improving, then why are many of the largest retail chains in America closing hundreds of stores?  When I was growing up, Sears, J.C. Penney, Best Buy and RadioShack were all considered to be unstoppable retail powerhouses.  But now it is being projected that all of them will close hundreds of stores before the end of 2013.  Even Wal-Mart is running into problems.  A recent internal Wal-Mart memo that was leaked to Bloomberg described February sales as a "total disaster".  So why is this happening?  Why are major retail chains all over America collapsing?  Is the "retail apocalypse" upon us?  Well, the truth is that this is just another sign that the U.S. economy is falling apart right in front of our eyes.  Incomes are declining, taxes are going up, government dependence is at an all-time high, and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the percentage of the U.S. labor force that is employed has been steadily falling since 2006.  The top 10% of all income earners in the U.S. are still doing very well, but most U.S. consumers are either flat broke or are drowning in debt.  The large disposable incomes that the big retail chains have depended upon in the past simply are not there anymore.  So retail chains all over the United States are now closing up unprofitable stores.  This is especially true in low income areas.

When you step back and take a look at the bigger picture, the rapid decline of some of our largest retail chains really is stunning.

It is happening already in some areas, but soon half empty malls and boarded up storefronts will litter the landscapes of cities all over America.

Just check out some of these store closing numbers for 2013.  These numbers are from a recent Yahoo Finance article...

Best Buy

Forecast store closings: 200 to 250

Sears Holding Corp.

Forecast store closings: Kmart 175 to 225, Sears 100 to 125

J.C. Penney

Forecast store closings: 300 to 350

Office Depot

Forecast store closings: 125 to 150

Barnes & Noble

Forecast store closings: 190 to 240, per company comments

Gamestop

Forecast store closings: 500 to 600

OfficeMax

Forecast store closings: 150 to 175

RadioShack

Forecast store closings: 450 to 550

The RadioShack in a nearby town just closed up where I live.  This is all happening so fast that it is hard to believe.

But the truth is that those store closings are not the entire story.  When you dig deeper you find a lot more retailers that are in trouble.

For example, Blockbuster recently announced that this year they will be closing about 300 stores and eliminating about 3,000 jobs.

Toy manufacturer Hasbro recently announced that they will be reducing the size of their workforce by about 10 percent.

Even Wal-Mart is going through a tough stretch right now.  According to documents that were leaked to Bloomberg, Wal-Mart is having an absolutely disastrous February...

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. had the worst sales start to a month in seven years as payroll-tax increases hit shoppers already battling a slow economy, according to internal e-mails obtained by Bloomberg News.

"In case you haven't seen a sales report these days, February MTD sales are a total disaster," Jerry Murray, Wal- Mart's vice president of finance and logistics, said in a Feb. 12 e-mail to other executives, referring to month-to-date sales. "The worst start to a month I have seen in my ~7 years with the company."

So what in the world is going on here?

The mainstream media continues to proclaim that we are experiencing a robust "economic recovery", but at the same time there are a whole host of indications that things are continually getting worse.

Even global cell phone sales actually declined slightly in 2012.  That was the first time that has happened since the last recession.

Perhaps it is time that we faced the truth.  The middle class is shrinking, incomes are declining and there are not nearly as many jobs as there used to be.

Mort Zuckerman pointed this out in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal...

The U.S. labor market, which peaked in November 2007 when there were 139,143,000 jobs, now encompasses only 132,705,000 workers, a drop of 6.4 million jobs from the peak. The only work that has increased is part-time, and that is because it allows employers to reduce costs through a diminished benefit package or none at all.

So how can the mainstream media be talking about how "good" things are if we still have 6.4 million fewer jobs than we had back in November 2007?

And sadly, things may soon be getting a lot worse.  If Congress does not do anything about the "sequester", millions of federal workers may shortly be facing some very painful furloughs according to CNN...

Federal workers could start facing furloughs as early as April, according to federal agencies trying to prepare for the worst.

Unless Congress steps in, some $85 billion in massive spending reductions will hit the federal government, doling out furloughs to much of the nation's 2.1 million federal workforce, experts say.

If you still live in an area of the country where the stores and the restaurants are booming, you should be very thankful because that is not the reality for most of the country.

I often write about the stunning economic decline of major cities such as Detroit, but there are huge sections of rural America that are in even worse shape than Detroit in many ways.

For example, many Indian reservations all over America have been shamefully neglected by the federal government and have become hotbeds for crime, drugs and poverty.

Business Insider recently profiled the Wind River Indian reservation in western Wyoming.  The following is a brief excerpt from that outstanding article...

The Wind River Indian Reservation is not an easy place to get to, but I had to see it for myself.

Thirty-five-hundred square miles of prairie and mountains in western Wyoming, the reservation is home to bitter ancestral enemies: the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes.

Even among reservations, it's renowned for brutal crime, widespread drug use, and legal dumping of toxic waste.

You can see some amazing photos of the Wind River Indian reservation right here.

It is hard to believe that there are places like that in America, but the truth is that conditions like that are spreading to more U.S. communities with each passing day.

We are a nation that is in an advanced state of decline.  But as long as the financial markets are okay, our leaders don't seem too concerned about the suffering that everyone else is going through.

In fact, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan essentially admitted as much during a recent interview with CNBC.  The following is how a Zero Hedge article summarized that interview...

Starting at around 1:50, Greenspan states the odds of sequester occurring are very high - in fact, the playdough-faced ex-Chair-head notes, "I find it very difficult to find a scenario in which [the sequester] doesn't happen" But when asked how this will affect the economy, Awkward Alan is unusually clearly spoken - "the issue is how does it affect the stock market."

While not so many of our leaders have taken the path to direct truthiness, Greenspan somewhat shocks a Botox'd and babbling Bartiromo when he admits "the stock market is the key player in the game of economic growth."

Bartiromo shifts uncomfortably in her seat, strokes her imaginary beard and stares blankly as Greenspan explains that while the sequester will have a real effect on the real economy, "if the stock market can hold up through this, then the effect will be rather minor."

Do you see?

As long as the stock market is moving higher they think that everything is just fine and dandy.

And the Obama administration?

They continue to pursue the same policies that got us into this mess.

Their idea of "economic reform" is to threaten to sue businesses that do not hire ex-convicts.

And of course now that Obama has been re-elected he is putting a tremendous amount of effort into "stimulating the economy".

For example, he spent this weekend golfing in Florida, and the Obamas recently spent about 20 million taxpayer dollars vacationing in Hawaii.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is getting worse with each passing day.

If you doubt that economic conditions are getting worse, please read this article: "Show This To Anyone That Believes That 'Things Are Getting Better' In America".

When you look at the cold, hard numbers, it is undeniable what is happening to America.

And our leaders are not doing anything to fix our problems.  In fact, most of the time they are just making things worse.

So buckle up and get prepared.  We are in for very bumpy ride, and this is only just the beginning.

Store Closed Until Further Notice - Photo by Gryllida


Israeli Soldier Mor Ostrovski Instagrams A Palestinian Boy's Head In Sniper Crosshairs

To contact us Click HERE
source http://www.policymic.com/articles/26897/wow-israeli-soldier-mor-ostrovski-instagrams-a-palestinian-boy-s-head-in-sniper-crosshairs

wow, israeli, soldier, mor, ostrovski, instagrams, a, palestinian, boys, head, in, sniper, crosshairs,

Wow Israeli Soldier Mor Ostrovski Instagrams A Palestinian Boys Head In Sniper Crosshairs

Mor Ostrovski, a 20-year-old Israeli soldier, posted a photograph of the back of a Palestinian boy's head in the crosshairs of his sniper rifle on his now deleted Instagram profile — reported The Guardian.

The Israeli military said the soldier's commanders were investigating the incident and that his actions "are not in accordance with the spirit of the Israel Defense Forces or its values. 

And, though Ostrovski claims he did not take the picture but found it on the internet, the image has been criticized by — among others — Electronic Intifada, a news site focused on Palestinian issues, which described the photograph as "tasteless and dehumanizing." 

The incident, mirrors the December discovery of racist posts from 22-year-old Israeli soldier Nisim Asis who posted racist images on his Instagram page, including a picture of himself licking tomato ketchup from a knife with the caption: "Fuck all Arabs their blood is tasty."


.@RepPaulRyan The details Paul Ryan doesn't want you to know #p2 #tcot

To contact us Click HERE
source http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/19/17016480-the-details-paul-ryan-doesnt-want-you-to-know

Last week, after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) blamed President Obama for automatic sequestration cuts, I reported an overlooked detail: in August 2011, Ryan told Fox News that he and congressional Republicans deserve credit for the sequester, which contradicts the new GOP line.

The good news is, someone at ABC News noticed my post. The better news is, ABC's Jonathan Karl confronted Paul Ryan with the quote and asked for an explanation. Here's what the far-right congressman said in response:

"So those are the budget caps on discretionary spending [1]. Those occurred. We want those. Everybody wants budget caps. The sequester we're talking about now was backing up the super-committee. Remember the super committee in addition to those caps was supposed to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings. The Republicans on the super-committee offered even higher revenues in exchange for spending cuts as part of that [2]. It was rejected by the president and the Democrats [3].

"So no resolution occurred and therefore the sequester is occurring. And what we've always said is let's cut spending in smarter ways to replace this sequester. We passed two bills doing that and we've heard nothing in response from the Senate Democrats or the president [4]."

This certainly won't help the "Lyin' Ryan" moniker go away anytime soon, since there's almost nothing in the response that was true. Consider: [1] when Ryan boasted about the sequester in August 2011, he wasn't talking about budget caps, he was talking about the sequester; [2] GOP members on the super-committee didn't offer "higher revenues," but rather, they offered tax breaks they said might someday lead to higher revenues; [3] President Obama and congressional Democrats were desperate to strike a super-committee compromise, but Republicans refused; and [4] the White House and Senate Democrats have proposed a sequester alternative, but the House GOP has not.

In other words, Ryan was confronted with a fact -- he took credit for the policy he now wants to blame on the president -- and he responded with a series of claims, each of which are demonstrably false. It's almost as if the House Budget Committee chairman assumes there are no consequences for saying things that aren't true.

Wait, it gets worse.

Here's Ryan explaining in the same interview why he wants a sequester deal in which Republicans get 100% of what they want.

"[T]aking tax loophole[s], what we've always advocated is necessary for tax reform, means you're going to close loopholes to fuel more spending not to reform the tax code. [...]

"[I]f you take tax loopholes to fuel more spending, which is what they're proposing, then you are preventing tax reform, which we think is necessary, to end crony capitalism and to grow the economy."

I'd like to get the DC establishment together and make them write on a blackboard 100 times, "Paul Ryan is not a deficit hawk; he just wants to cut taxes."

This quote is important because it illustrates a larger truth about the fiscal debate. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the tax code has loopholes and unnecessary deductions that should be eliminated. Democrats and Republicans also agree that closing these loopholes and scrapping those unnecessary deductions would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

But Ryan's answer to ABC makes clear exactly where the two parties diverge: Democrats believe the hundreds of billions of dollars should be used to reduce the nation's long-term debt problem, while Republicans believe the hundreds of billions of dollars must be applied to more tax cuts.

I don't know how much clearer this can get for the political establishment: Paul Ryan realizes that bipartisan tax reform could produce a half-trillion dollars or more in savings, which would do wonders to resolve the "debt crisis" Republicans occasionally pretend to care about, but Ryan insists it's not actually tax reform unless all of that money is applied to giving the wealthy tax breaks they don't need.

As Jon Chait explained, "Obama is offering to cut spending on retirement programs and to cancel out cuts to defense -- two things large chunks of the GOP would like -- in return for more revenue. He's not even demanding higher rates. He's merely asking to reduce tax deductions. Ryan insists he won't take the deal, because if he uses the revenue from reducing tax deductions to close the deficit, it won't be available to reduce tax rates. Every other fiscal priority must give way for the overriding goal of reducing marginal tax rates."

If you think Paul Ryan is serious about debt reduction, it's time to accept the fact that you've been suckered.


Justice Department deal reduces BP's Deepwater Horizon fine by $3.4bn @barackobama #p2 #tcot

To contact us Click HERE
source http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/20/justice-department-bp-fine-reduced?CMP=twt_fd

bp deepwater horizon Crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill washes ashore in Orange Beach, Alabama, in June 2010. Photograph: Dave Martin/AP

BP has shaved $3.4bn off the maximum fine for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

A court order, handed down by a judge in New Orleans, means BP will no longer be liable for a maximum of $21bn in fines at next week's civil trial – after a judge ruled the oil company would not have to pay for 810,000 barrels of oil collected at the source of the broken well.

The oil company had been facing up to $21bn in fines in the civil case, based on the amount of oil that gushed into the Gulf following the fatal blowout of its well.

The federal government estimates that about 4.9m barrels of oils were released before BP engineers sealed off the well three months later.

The case was set to be the costliest to date for BP, which has already spent billions on cleanup costs, and settling thousands of claims arising from the 2010 disaster.

But the oil company got a break when the Justice Department agreed not to hold BP accountable for 800,000 barrels of oil which were captured at the site of the broken well.

District judge Carl Barbier, who is hearing the case in New Orleans, accepted the agreement on Tuesday night. "The 'collected oil' … never came into contact with any ambient sea water, and was not released to the environment in any way," he said in the ruling.

The deal reduces BP's potential exposure to the civil trial from $21bn to $17.6bn.

The federal government has said it will establish gross negligence on the part of BP in the 2010 blowout, which killed 11 men and fouled the Gulf of Mexico. That could treble BP's fines under the Clean Water Act.

The oil company, in combative statements this week, accused the federal government of making excessive demands.

The company's lawyers have told journalists they believe damages should be capped at a few billion dollars, and they are ready to take the risk of taking the federal government to court. BP is also disputing the federal government's oil spill estimate, saying the figure is 20% too high.

With Tuesday's court order, however, BP appears to have taken a first step towards reducing its potential liability in the case.


24 Şubat 2013 Pazar

Justice Department deal reduces BP's Deepwater Horizon fine by $3.4bn @barackobama #p2 #tcot

To contact us Click HERE
source http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/20/justice-department-bp-fine-reduced?CMP=twt_fd

bp deepwater horizon Crude oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill washes ashore in Orange Beach, Alabama, in June 2010. Photograph: Dave Martin/AP

BP has shaved $3.4bn off the maximum fine for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

A court order, handed down by a judge in New Orleans, means BP will no longer be liable for a maximum of $21bn in fines at next week's civil trial – after a judge ruled the oil company would not have to pay for 810,000 barrels of oil collected at the source of the broken well.

The oil company had been facing up to $21bn in fines in the civil case, based on the amount of oil that gushed into the Gulf following the fatal blowout of its well.

The federal government estimates that about 4.9m barrels of oils were released before BP engineers sealed off the well three months later.

The case was set to be the costliest to date for BP, which has already spent billions on cleanup costs, and settling thousands of claims arising from the 2010 disaster.

But the oil company got a break when the Justice Department agreed not to hold BP accountable for 800,000 barrels of oil which were captured at the site of the broken well.

District judge Carl Barbier, who is hearing the case in New Orleans, accepted the agreement on Tuesday night. "The 'collected oil' … never came into contact with any ambient sea water, and was not released to the environment in any way," he said in the ruling.

The deal reduces BP's potential exposure to the civil trial from $21bn to $17.6bn.

The federal government has said it will establish gross negligence on the part of BP in the 2010 blowout, which killed 11 men and fouled the Gulf of Mexico. That could treble BP's fines under the Clean Water Act.

The oil company, in combative statements this week, accused the federal government of making excessive demands.

The company's lawyers have told journalists they believe damages should be capped at a few billion dollars, and they are ready to take the risk of taking the federal government to court. BP is also disputing the federal government's oil spill estimate, saying the figure is 20% too high.

With Tuesday's court order, however, BP appears to have taken a first step towards reducing its potential liability in the case.


Universal Theme Park Will Drop Health Coverage For Its Part-Time Workers To Avoid Obamacare #p2 #tcot

To contact us Click HERE
source http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/20/1613841/universal-avoid-obamacare/

Universal Orlando, a theme park resort in Florida that generates more than $1 billion dollars in annual revenue, plans to drop insurance coverage for its part-time employees at the end of this year — a tactic to avoid providing its workers with adequate health benefits under Obamacare.

The health care reform law attempts to put an end to several predatory insurance practices, and requires employers to provide their workers with sufficient insurance plans that don't put limits on essential benefits. Universal would be required to upgrade to a more comprehensive insurance plan under Obamacare. But instead of extending better benefits to its part-time employees, the company would rather drop those workers' health care altogether:

Universal currently offers part-time workers a limited insurance plan that has low premiums but also caps the payout of benefits. For instance, Universal's plan costs about $18 a week for employee-only coverage but covers only a maximum of $5,000 a year toward hospital stays. There are similar caps for other services.

Those types of insurance plans — sometimes referred to as "mini-med" plans — will no longer be permitted under the federal Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2014, the law will prohibit insurance plans that impose annual monetary limits on essential medical care such, as hospitalization, or on overall spending. [...]

Critics of mini-med insurance plans say they ultimately provide little protection for workers, with meager payout limits that are nowhere near enough to cover medical emergencies. Supporters argue they are a realistic option for low-paid, limited-hour workers who can't afford better plans. [...]

Universal's announcement has angered some employees, who say the resort can afford to provide more-comprehensive health insurance for its part-time workers. Universal Orlando's immediate parent company, Universal Parks & Resorts, generated approximately $950 million in operating cash flow last year, up 10 percent from a year ago.


rest at http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/20/1613841/universal-avoid-obamacare/