MORE DEBT!

"Under a President Jeb Bush, students wouldn’t be able to go to college debt-free, but they would have access to a $50,000 line of credit provided by the federal government.

The cornerstone of Bush’s plan is a revamp of the student loan system that would allow high school graduates to pay for college through a $50,000 line of credit provided through their Educative Savings Account — his version of the tax-advantaged college savings vehicles known as 529 accounts that families could use to save for pre-K through college. For every $10,000 students use for college or job training, they would be required to pay back 1% of their income for 25 years. Families wouldn’t have to save themselves to have access to the $50,000 line of credit."

I have a better suggestion. Why don't we raise taxes on crap like you and reinvest it in education instead? There was a time when one could go to a decent school without ending up with a mortgage sized mountain of debt.

More drivel here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-jeb-bush-would-fix-the-student-debt-crisis-2016-01-19

I used to think Jeb was the dangerous Bush because he's smarter. He's rapidly proving me wrong.

But he's making "Shrub" look good, and that says a whole hell of a lot.

http://www.alternet.org/food/monsantos-next-target-democracy

Big Food’s greatest fear is materializing. A critical mass of educated consumers, food and natural health activists are organizing a powerful movement that could well overthrow North America’s trillion-dollar junk food empire. Savvy and more determined than ever, activists are zeroing in on the Achilles heel of Food Inc. -- labeling.

But as consumers demand truth and greater transparency in labeling, it isn’t just Big Food whose empire is vulnerable. The biotech industry, which makes billions supplying junk food manufacturers with cheap, genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, has even more to lose. Monsanto knows that if food producers are forced to label the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their food products, they’ll reformulate those products to meet consumer demand for GMO-free alternatives. That’s why companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow, along with Coca-Cola and Pepsi, last year spent more than $46 million to defeat Proposition 37, California’s GMO labeling initiative.

The junk food and biotech industries narrowly (48.5% - 51.5%) prevailed in California, but they know it’s only a matter of time before one or more states pass a mandatory GMO labeling law. More than 30 state legislatures are now debating GMO labeling bills. And consumers have broadened the fight beyond just labeling. Five counties and two cities in California and Washington have banned the growing of GE crops. In addition, given the near total absence of FDA regulation, 19 states have passed laws restricting GMOs.

How is the biotech industry fighting back? By attacking democracy. Experts say the laws are on the side of consumers. But consumers will no doubt still have to defend democracy against an increasingly desperate, and aggressive, industry bent on protecting the highly profitable business of genetically engineered food...

Hence, the TPP and its illegitimate siblings

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-releases-tax-plan-nations-rich-recoil-in-horror/#2715e4857a0b3db9b16d4e9c

Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders took a break from yelling at clouds long enough to release his tax plan today, and it’s, how should I put this…aggressive. Sanders proposes a top rate on individual income of a whopping 52%, which would be the highest since 1980, when tax rates topped out at 70% under Jimmy Carter.

While the 52% rate is reserved for those earning in excess of $10 million, less wealthy taxpayers are not immune to increases under the Sanders plan. For example, the top rate on someone earning $250,000 would increase from 33% under current law to 37% under Sanders, while someone earning $500,000 would see his top rate jump from 39.6% to 43%.

In addition, Sanders would do away with the preferential treatment long afforded capital gains and dividends, meaning those types of income would be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income for taxpayers earning in excess of $250,000. Under current law, the top rate on such income is 23.8%; as a result, a taxpayer who, for example, sells a business for $5 million of gain would pay $1.19 million in federal tax under current law, but would pay $2.4 million in federal tax under the Sanders plan (a rate of 48%).

Sanders would also limit the benefit of all itemized deductions to a 28% rate, meaning a taxpayer who earned $500,000, and was thus in Sanders’ 43% bracket would effectively pay a 15% tax on deductions such as mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions. These changes, when added to the revenue Sanders would generate by increasing the tax rate on the top 0.3% of estates, would raise an additional $235 billion in tax revenue annually...

comparative tax bills vs. income at link

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/04/09/my-cohort-believes-qe-only-benefited-the-nations-wealthiest/#2715e4857a0b5aed3ae64e9c

... two hedge fund mavens, two immensely successful internet investment services, a closely-followed fixed income adviser and two journalists met to hash over the economic and market controversies of our day...there was just about unanimous opinion that Ben Bernanke’s 4 years of quantitative easing (QE) had for the most part benefited only the nation’s wealthiest cohort– without doing much practically to create more jobs for ordinary people.

At least one participant was strident about phasing out QE and letting interest rates begin to rise, arguing vociferously that QE was just the most recent terrible major policy making mistake for America. The yelling across the table rose several pitches at this moment. One closely followed blogger of sharp wit and tongue was clear that Messrs. Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner should have let the insolvent giant banks fail rather than stabilizing them with cheap money. There was more consensus about he likelihood of another financial crisis emanating from the Too Big To Fail banking giants...The controversy over QE (Quantitative Easing) brought forth this pithy bit of tartness from the quick-witted chap just opposite me, who exclaimed that “QE is supply side economics for central bankers,” just like cutting taxes was the crux of the supply-side clique that ruled the economics of the Reagan administration in the 1980s. “Interest rates,” quipped my neighbor, ” are the traffic lights of economics today– and there are NO traffic lights,” meaning that zero interest rates are no cautionary obstacle to potential bubbles, I imagine.

What’s more, QE was judged to have created a possible “bubble” in common stocks– and had as well pushed bond prices to peak historical prices, though I didn’t hear the concept of “bubble” bonds used derogatively. As to the possible inflation from QE, there was sharp divisive debate, with no clear resolution. The quick-witted investment blogger with a cool million followers across the table from me was adamant about Bernanke reversing QE now, reducing the amount of money supply by $3 billion a month, and letting the stimulus run off before it caused some terrible denouement. I didn’t hear the rest of the group sign on to this radicalism...As we parted to get to the championship basketball game I asked for a raising of hands for my obsessive fantasy that it just may be that the denizens of Wall Street were more or less in charge of the governing of these United States of America. I got the clear impression all participants impulsively signed on to that sentiment. Wow! Comes the revolution. Their emotional instincts strengthened my resolve to have a more concerted go at proving this supposition.

And yes, I got the feeling my cohort last night felt to varying degrees that we could well experience another meltdown in the financial markets since major banking institutions had not truly reformed themselves into stalwart institutions. Some wickedly irreverent comments were offered about the pathetic level of oversight by the guardians of financial propriety. If you have not learned the lessons of financial history, you are doomed to repeat them.

Nothing good is done for the average person when it comes to economic policy here in the land of debt slaves. But we all know that here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2016/01/16/who-killed-wal-marts-business-model/#2715e4857a0b5aed3ae64e9c

For more than three decades, Wal-Mart ruled the US retailing industry. Its large stores and everyday low prices were too much for smaller neighborhood stores and supermarkets that ended belly-up shortly after Wal-Mart invaded their turf. That’s how Wal-Mart ended with close to a half-trillion in sales, dwarfing the economies of smaller countries.

But in recent years, Wal-Mart’s business model seems to have headed for the graveyard, and the company has closed scores of stores. Apparently, what used to be an asset for Wal-Mart has turned into a liability.

Who killed Wal-Mart’s business model? There is a long list of suspects.

Top on the list is Amazon. Its remote location warehouses, expedient delivery and razor-thin margins have given Amazon a price advantage over Wal-Mart. Not to mention that the proliferation of smartphone and tablets turned Wal-Mart into a storefront for Amazon.

Next on the list is a surge in minimum wage hikes across the country – and the proliferation of labor unrest in Wal-Mart stores, which has undermined another driver behind Wal-Mart’s stellar performance: cheap labor.

Then comes Costco, which has lured away the more affluent shoppers, leaving Wal-Mart with shoppers with the less affluent — shoppers with stretched budgets, relying on social security and other government benefits to pay for their purchases at the cash register, according to a recent study...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2016/01/19/layoffs-wont-fix-walmarts-real-problem/#2715e4857a0b40f8e7335a2b

...Some blame Wal-Mart’s leadership which succeeded the company’s legendary founder Sam Walton.

“Sam’s own children killed them,” writes one commentator. “Sam had a business model even an idiot could follow. KEEP THE CUSTOMERS HAPPY. He said a happy customer was a customer for life. Then the kids started cutting associates to pad lower sales, which lowered sales even more. Then they started part-time only hiring, which cut back on the quality of the people they could hire. In the 20 years I worked there, not one thing was done for the customer. NONE! All changes were to pad the stock so the Walton kids could make more money on less sales. To think anything else is not only ignorant, but dishonest, too…”

“The heirs tried to go upscale,” writes another commentator. “Walmart was the place to buy what you could not find elsewhere at a low price. In the last year it has been returning to the low price roots. It is not easy to win back customers. Walmart needs to understand that for some items the customer will go out of their way and then buy something else while shopping. Online shopping allows for items that there really is not enough shelf space for. Amazon’s advantage is that products that are difficult to find in any store are there.”

Others blame poor pay vis-a-vis competing retailer Costco.

“Wal-Mart killed their own business model when they decided that Costco’s plan of paying for quality employees was not for them. Poor employees = unhappy customers. Failing to retain the better employees (by paying them more) and pleasing the customer will bite one in the arse every time.”

“The problem with Wal-mart is they have lost touch with the needs of the customers. More often than not, finding someone to help you is impossible because they are trying to please stock holders by trimming costs. While I understand that, without customers there are no costs to cut!”

The last sentence summarizes it all. I couldn’t agree more. A sound business doesn’t begin with profits, but with customers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/01/19/why-education-wont-solve-the-crummy-low-paid-jobs-problem/#2715e4857a0b5aed3ae64e9c

Income inequality, earning potential, and education are connected. The higher someone’s education, the more they’re likely to earn over a lifetime. The higher the earning potential, the less likely someone will be hurt by income inequality.

That’s why we hear many politicians, reformers, theorists, and those with particular philosophical axes to grind agree that people must attain higher levels of education for the economy to raor. Here are 2014 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows those with stronger education see lower rates of unemployment and higher incomes than the rest of the population.



Few will claim that more education is bad. Oh, many people don’t like sitting in a traditional classroom, and not everyone necessarily has the aptitudes for all areas of study. But a richer intellectual life and experience is a generally good thing. However, there’s a significant public policy mistake that happens when we move from “education is good” to “education will fix income inequality” or otherwise charge the economy.

Deeply embedded in that claim are three fundamental assumptions:

1. There is a way to pay for everyone going to college.
   
   
2. There is enough room in college for everyone to attend.
   
   
3. There are enough jobs that make natural use of higher education...Assuming for a moment that the higher paying jobs education is supposed to ready one for are the same as those that actually require higher education. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, two-thirds of all jobs in the country require a high school education or less:
   
   
   
   ...To really address the issue of jobs and economic inequality, we must start by acknowledging the reality of work and what more education can, and cannot, do. Solutions of any sort will need significant social changes. Perhaps as a country we forgo much of what automation could do. Maybe the answer is a higher minimum wage, recognition that many people will need income assistance, apprentice programs (maybe you’ll finally be able to find a plumber when the sink leaks before your dinner party), or even a considerable reduction in population over time. But chanting that education is the answer won’t fix anything.

Not to toot my own horn, since it's stunningly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for 10 seconds. This nonsense started with Bill Clinton, I believe - it infuriated me then and still does. WHERE ARE THE JOBS????????????????? And the appalling disrespect for those that do hard, necessary work - road crews, nursing home and home-health aides, agricultural workers, and and and.

It's similar to the fixation on early-childhood education: a good thing in itself, yes - BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CHILDREN ALREADY IN SCHOOL??????????????????????????????????? What about the schools NOW, with not enough books or desks or teachers? With hungry kids? Homeless kids?

Sorry for the shouting. I just get angrier by the day.

Take a break, you earned it. I gotta go.

I've seen so many jobs here shipped overseas in the last couple of decades that it makes me sick. If Hillary wins, expect that to continue.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/04/debunking-the-idea-that-americans-are-overtaxed.html



...Australia has a publicly-mandated private pension scheme in which employers are required to set aside 9% of wages into a “superannuation” fund (workers are encouraged to contribute as well). Of course, we do have a higher level of military spending than the other countries on the list (although if you check the World Bank rankings, some small countries have a bigger proportion of GDP in military expenditures, such as Saudi Arabia). Nevertheless, the overall picture is striking.

I’m using Wolf Richter’s version of this chart, since it’s easier to scan than the original from the Center for Tax Justice. Note that this chart captures total taxes, meaning Federal, state, and local. CTJ also points out how America has always been low tax, but has become relatively even lower taxed. In 1979, the total level of taxation in the US was 26% of GDP versus 24.8% now. That means the vaunted Reagan Revolution served mainly to shift taxation from progressive income taxes (hitting the rich harder) and corporate taxes to regressive sales taxes, rather than lower the level. But our tax level has fallen while they’ve grown in other advanced economies. Tax burdens in OECD countries excluding the US were 31.7% of GDP in 1979 and have risen to 33.4% in 2010. So the US ranking has fallen from 16 out of 24 to 32 out of 34. Any wonder why our infrastructure is crumbling and our educational attainment is falling?

Americans have been trained to resent taxes even though we are trying to run an advanced economy Walmart-style. My impression is that the citizens of many other countries are far less exercised about higher tax levels because they perceive they are getting value for money (medical services, good public transportation, etc). By contrast, we’ve had a 30 year campaign to make government incompetent by running it on the cheap and demonizing people who work in government jobs, and the result is less service and more corruption. This experiment is working just fine for those wealthy enough to be effectively stateless or to otherwise isolate themselves. And it will probably take at least a generation for the costs (such as public health problems) to afflict even them. Nicely played...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/08/1834981/the-us-collects-less-in-taxes-than-all-but-two-industrialized-countries/

President Obama and Senate Democrats have presented deficit reduction plans that would rely on both spending cuts and increased tax revenues, but Republicans continue to insist that the U.S. has only a “spending problem” and that deficit reduction does not require new revenues.

The premise of the argument from Republicans is that Americans already face an extraordinarily heavy tax burden. Citizens for Tax Justice, however, compared levels of taxation in 2010 in the other industrialized countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found that the U.S. not only collects far less in tax revenues than the average OECD country, but that it also collects less in taxes as a share of its economy than all but two other OECD nations, as the chart (PREVIOUS POST) shows.

The U.S. share of taxes has likely increased slightly since 2010, the latest year for which OECD data is available, because of tax increases from Obamacare and from the fiscal cliff deal that restored Clinton-era tax rates on all incomes above $450,000. Those increases likely won’t push the U.S. up the chart and would leave it well short of the OECD average. Similar data for corporate taxes shows that the U.S. collects less than all but one other OECD countries.

The U.S. has historically collected less in taxes and spent less than the majority of its OECD counterparts, in part because it operates such a stingy social safety net that doesn’t assist the least fortunate in society as well as programs in other countries do. Still, the chart shows that the U.S. is far from a high-tax country, and Democratic offers to raise modest amounts of revenues in the budget process would hardly send the nation’s level of taxation through the roof.

DU has a bug in the system ever since they worked on the servers. This the ONLY website that I go to that locks up, and shuts down. It doesn't do it on YOUTUBE, Craigslist, CycleNews and a host of others. I think it all the ads and the tracking cookies it is trying to load. The problem is not your browser it is DU.

I've had a few new sites lock up and crash on me, particularly cleveland.com. And it's always in Firefox, never chrome. And that was happening with my old computer, and my new build with fresh installs on everything.

I've also noticed, that the pages hardly ever stop loading, so the ads probably have a lot to do with it too.

And, I just got a refurbished laptop, with fresh installs, and I'm having the same problems with IE, which I never use anywhere else, just haven't downloaded a new browser for that one yet.

[font color="red"]
Dow 15,742 -274 -1.71%
Nasdaq 4,402 -75 -1.67%
S&P 500 1,850 -31 -1.67%
GlobalDow 2,079 -51 -2.41%
Oil 27.84 -0.62 -2.18%[/font]
Gold 1,100 +11 +1.00%

How's things in Orlando?

My wife and I both lost our fathers last year

But, now my stepmom is in FL (close on her new house, 2 min away, in two weeks) and then my sister and brother-in-law will move down from RI to move in w/her and help take care of her. Will be nice having family close by again!

Have a new job (tourism industry...you can probably guess who given my locale!) and going well so far. Just wish it would warm up some. Car read 44F this morning! BRRRR!


How's life your way?

wind chills -20, otherwise staying in watching the markets crash

but only for another week!

But better. I moved my dad down here from SC a year ago, and he's in an assisted living facility about a mile away. He's got a new girlfriend in there, so he's happier than a clam. And he quit talking about going back to SC every other week.

I'm working a few evenings a week for a few hours, just for extra beer and golf money. Everything is good.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511034695

[font color="red"]Dow 15,628 -388 -2.42%
Nasdaq 4,349 -128 -2.86%
S&P 500 1,831 -49 -2.62%
GlobalDow 2,063 -67 -3.16%
Oil 27.03 -1.43 -5.02%[/font]
Gold 1,101 +12 +1.09%