Activate the Mechanism!

Please Signal boost: Thanks to everyone for the support

abaldwin360:

glittertitties:

baconbeernboobs:

I sorta feel like my life just ended. I honestly have no idea what I’m going to do. 

The kids are ‘ok’ for now, but I question how long that’s going to last.

On top of being poor with overdue bills and no food, I now have to pay for a funeral service. 

If anyone can please help, even a little, my paypal is quinnoriley@ymail.com

Please, everyone. This mother of 4 just lost her husband and is in dire need. Every little bit helps, $2 here, $4 there. If you can’t donate, please signal boost.

Love to you, Quinn.

Signal boosting for anyone out there who can help, and if you can’t give, at least re-blog it so that more people who might be able to help will see this.

I would love for more eyes to see this, please signal boost so hopefully more people will see this that might be able to help.

Thanks to everyone for the support

glittertitties:

baconbeernboobs:

I sorta feel like my life just ended. I honestly have no idea what I’m going to do. 

The kids are ‘ok’ for now, but I question how long that’s going to last.

On top of being poor with overdue bills and no food, I now have to pay for a funeral service. 

If anyone can please help, even a little, my paypal is quinnoriley@ymail.com

Please, everyone. This mother of 4 just lost her husband and is in dire need. Every little bit helps, $2 here, $4 there. If you can’t donate, please signal boost.

Love to you, Quinn.

Signal boosting for anyone out there who can help, and if you can’t give, at least re-blog it so that more people who might be able to help will see this.

(via glittertitties-deactivated20130)

Billionaire Koch Brothers Try To Buy Court

The new stealth campaign against three Florida Supreme Court justices is being backed by those meddling right-wing billionaires from Wichita, Charles and David Koch.

They couldn’t care less about Florida, but they love to throw their money around.

Last week they uncorked the first of a series of commercials from their political action committee, Americans for Prosperity. The targets are Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince.

They were three of the five-vote majority that in 2010 knocked down a half-baked amendment slapped together by Florida lawmakers seeking to nullify the federal Affordable Health Care Act.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions in finding that the proposed amendment contained “misleading and ambiguous language,” the hallmark of practically everything produced by this Legislature. Stoned chimpanzees have a keener grasp of constitutional law.

Conservative groups have gone after local justices before. In Iowa, a place which has nothing but vowels in common with Florida, three state justices were fired by voters after being vilified for ruling against a ban on gay marriage.

On the November ballot, Lewis, Pariente and Quince are up for merit retention, meaning voters can choose to retain them or not. This simple system was put in place to keep the state’s high court above the sleaze of political races.

The mission of the Kochs, hiding as always behind their super PAC, is to get the three justices dumped at the polls so that Gov. Rick Scott can appoint replacements.

This is worth repeating: If the Kochs have their way, Rick Scott — yes, that Rick Scott — gets to pack the Supreme Court with his own handpicked crew.

read more

Your PAC’s dollars at work: In 40 minutes of Olympics coverage, four times as many Romney ads

http://ecopoliticalecon.com:

In the 40 minutes between 6:25 PM and 7:05 PM (Mountain Time), I counted eight pro-Romney ads and two pro-Obama ads. That’s an average of one pro-Romney ad every five minutes. Pro-Romney ads ran back-to-back in two of the six commercial breaks during that time (these weren’t typical commercial breaks - some were much longer than others).

In this timespan, there were five different pro-Romney ads, funded by the Crossroads and Restore Our Future super PACs, the Republican National Committee, and the Romney campaign. The most common ad was “Where Did All the Money Go?” (embedded below) funded by the Romney campaign.

In the same timeframe, there were two different pro-Obama ads, both funded by the Obama campaign. The ad titled “The Choice” was more common throughout the evening.

read more

NY Fed May Have Known About Libor Fixing in 2007

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York may have known as early as August 2007 that the setting of global benchmark interest rates was flawed.

Following an inquiry with British banking group Barclays in the spring of 2008, it shared proposals for reform of the system with British authorities.

The role of the Fed is likely to raise questions about whether it and other authorities took enough action to address concerns they had about the way London Interbank Offered Rates, or Libor, were set, or whether their struggle to keep the banking system afloat through the financial crisis meant the issue took a backseat.

A New York Fed spokesperson said in a statement that “in the context of our market monitoring following the onset of the financial crisis in late 2007, involving thousands of calls and emails with market participants over a period of many months, we received occasional anecdotal reports from Barclays of problems with Libor.

“In the Spring of 2008, following the failure of Bear Stearns and shortly before the first media report on the subject, we made further inquiry of Barclays as to how Libor submissions were being conducted. We subsequently shared our analysis and suggestions for reform of Libor with the relevant authorities in the UK.”

read more

More on the LIBOR fixing scandal.

Barclays Rate Fixing Scandal - Barclays manipulated Libor, the London inter-bank lending rate, considered to be one of the most crucial interest rates in finance.

On 27 June Barclays admitted to misconduct.

The UK’s FSA imposed a £59.5m penalty. The US Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) imposed fines worth £102m and £128m respectively, forcing Barclays to pay a total of around £290m.

One day later, Barclays’ share price plunged 15%.

Chief executive Bob Diamond said he would attend a Commons Treasury Committee and that the bank would cooperate with authorities. In a letterto the committee chairman Andrew Tyrie, he wrote: “Even taking account of the abnormal market conditions at the height of the financial crisis, and that the motivation was to protect the bank, not to influence the ultimate rate, I accept that the decision to lower submissions was wrong.” However, he said he would not resign.

On 29 June Prime Minister David Cameron urged regulators to use “all the powers at their disposal” to pursue Barclays. “This is a scandal. It is extremely serious. They’ve had a very large fine and quite rightly. But frankly the Barclays management team have some big questions to answer,” he said.

The same day, Bank of England Governor Sir Mervyn King called for a “cultural change”, adding: “The future calculation of Libor on ‘my word is my Libor’ is now dead.” He said implementing the Vickers banking reforms was the most important first step, but ruled out a Leveson-style enquiry into the banks.

July

On 2 July:

• Barclays chairman Marcus Agius resigned and also tendered his resignation as chairman of the BBA and Mr Diamond said in a letter to staff that he would “get to the bottom” of what happened

• The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) considered whether to bring criminal charges against bankers who tried to manipulate the inter-bank lending rate.

• Prime Minister Cameron announced a parliamentary review of the banking sector, to be headed by the chairman of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie. The review should ensure that the UK had the “toughest and most transparent rules of any major financial sector”, Mr Cameron said.

On 3 July Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond resigned, saying that the external pressure on the bank risked “damaging the franchise”.

read more - Timeline: Barclays’ widening Libor-fixing scandal

Why is this a big deal?

Libor (and Euribor, which Barclays also tried to manipulate)is used to set interest rates for loans, mortgages and derivatives. It’s one of the underpinnings of the global financial market.

While these manipulations netted the bank an extra few tens of thousands of dollars, it at the same time drove the cost of borrowing up by billions for consumers and businesses world wide.

Four other large banks are also now being investigated, they are Citigroup, UBS of Switzerland, Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC of Britain.

After winning right to spend, political groups fight for secrecy

WASHINGTON — During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from.

Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.

High-profile donors could face bullying and harassment from liberals out to “muzzle” their opponents, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a recent speech.

Corporations could be subject to boycotts and pickets, warned the Wall Street Journal editorial page this spring.

Democrats ”want to intimidate people into not giving to these conservative efforts,” said Republican strategist Karl Rove on Fox News. “I think it’s shameful.”

read more

Whoa… WHOA!!!

Stop right there. You mean, if people know what causes businesses are giving money to, people might take issue with those causes? That theses corporations are going to be bullied by big, bad evil liberal consumers?  

How is this “muzzling” free speech?

This goes back to free speech not meaning speech free of consequences of what you say, or in this case what agendas your company  is supporting with their money.

This is a childish and ridiculous definition of free speech.

Study: Mega bank JP Morgan Chase receives a $14 billion annual subsidy from the US government

When JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon testifies in the U.S. House today, he will present himself as a champion of free-market capitalism in opposition to an overweening government. His position would be more convincing if his bank weren’t such a beneficiary of corporate welfare.

To be precise, JPMorgan receives a government subsidy worth about $14 billion a year, according to research published by the International Monetary Fund and our own analysis of bank balance sheets. The money helps the bank pay big salaries and bonuses. More important, it distorts markets, fueling crises such as the recent subprime-lending disaster and the sovereign-debt debacle that is now threatening to destroy the euro and sink the global economy.

How can all this be? Let’s take it step by step.

In recent decades, governments and central banks around the world have developed a consistent pattern of behavior when trouble strikes banks that are large or interconnected enough to threaten the broader economy: They step in to ensure that all the bank’s creditors, not just depositors, are paid in full. Although typically necessary to prevent permanent economic damage, such bailouts encourage a reckless confidence among creditors. They assume the government will always make them whole, so they become willing to lend at lower rates, particularly to systemically important banks.

read more

How about we stop pissing and moaning about “poor people on food stamps” and go after the real leaches?

I suppose welfare is cool with the people as long as it’s corporate. 

Forbes - The Real Job Creators: Consumers

Today on Face the Nation (hosted by fellow Horned Frog, Bob Schieffer), I heard Mitt Romney add his voice to the chorus of those saying that economic recovery would follow if only we relieved the terrible burden that the government has placed on the nation’s job creators: business. Were taxes and regulations were relaxed, this would reduce costs sufficiently to allow firms to do what they are already dying to do, which is expand operations.

But even if we grant the argument that business taxes and regulations are high (which is by no means clear–in fact, it’s easier to make a case for the opposite), this ignores two crucial facts. First, as my friend Mike Norman has pointed out, employees are a cost, usually the most significant one faced by firms (Mike Norman Economics). For that reason, every rational entrepreneur’s goal is to reduce, not increase, the number of workers they have to pay. And quite right. Entrepreneurs have families, too, and they need to feed and clothe them. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Second and more fundamentally, no matter how much you lower costs, if you don’t have more customers, you won’t hire more workers. If the demand for goods and services stays where it is today and we only cut industry taxes and regulations, there is absolutely no reason to think that firms would expand employment. Rather, they would continue to produce at the same level and simply earn higher profits. On the other hand, if we leave taxes and regulations untouched but increase demand, entrepreneurs will happily add workers. And that is the root of the problem today. The bottom line, lost on Mr. Romney and many others, is that the real job creators are consumers.The direct route to reducing unemployment is boosting demand, not reducing costs.

read more

I’ve been practically screaming this for years, though it’s usually met with something like “Stoopid loony liberal logic”.

*sigh*

Average CEO pay at largest companies grew twice as fast as worker wages in 2011, rising to $14.5 million; the average Fortune 500 CEO now makes 380 times more than the average worker, as CEO pay has grown more than 127 times faster than worker pay over the last 30 years

Median pay for America’s 200 highest-paid chief executives rose to $14.5 million in 2011, a 5 percent increase over 2010, according to an analysis done by the New York Times. Worker pay, meanwhile, rose just 2.8 percent for the year. CEO pay on Wall Street rose even faster, growing by more than 20 percent in 2011. The average Fortune 500 CEO now makes 380 times more than the average worker, as CEO pay has grown more than 127 times faster than worker pay over the last 30 years. The growth in executive compensation that has contributed to skyrocketing levels of income inequality isn’t necessarily tied to performance of the top companies, however: while their pay continues to increase, average stock prices have remained flat, and many of the companies with the highest paid CEOs actually saw drops in their share prices over the course of the year.

source

I would just like to remind everyone that the wealth was supposed to trickle down.

John McCain calls Supreme Court ‘uniformed, arrogant, naive’ for Citizens United: Says he’s “worried” that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly may contribute up to $100 million in support of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, much of it from foreign sources, could have an undue influence on elections…

Former Republican presidential nominee John McCain says he’s “worried” that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly may contribute up to $100 million in support of GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, and others could have an undue influence on elections as a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

“I’m not only worried about him, I’m worried about may others,” McCain told NBC’s David Gregory on Sunday. “I’ve always been concerned about the labor unions who take money from their union members and without their permission, contribute to causes that they may not support. So am I concerned about the incredible amount of money that’s washing around? Yeah.”

“Sheldon Adelson makes money from a foreign casino as well,” Gregory noted. “You said this week it’s tantamount to foreign money getting into the [Romney] campaign.”

“I think there will scandals as associated with the worse decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century,” McCain explained. “Uninformed, arrogant, naive. I just wish one of [the justices] had run for county sheriff. That’s why we miss people like [former Chief Justice] William Rehnquist and [former Justice] Sandra Day O’Connor, who had some experience with congressional and other races.”

“Do you think Adelson himself will have undo influence on Mitt Romney?” Gregory pressed.

“Not any more than other people who give lots of money,” McCain replied. “The whole system is broken and it’s a wash. I don’t pick out Mr. Adelson and more than I pick out [AFL-CIO President Richard] Trumka.”

“So the fact is that the system is broken. I predict to you that there will be scandals and I predict to you that there will be reform again.”

In a Friday interview on PBS, McCain had said that Adelson’s contributions to Romney’s presidential ambitions amounted to “foreign money” influencing a U.S. political campaign.

read more

I don’t agree with McCain on unions (or a lot of other subjects) but he’s spot on here.