WE MUST HAVE FREE PRESS IN ORDER TO REBUILD OUR DEMOCRACY!!!!!
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT OF OFFICE!!! RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!!
Regarding WYPR's failure yet again to announce all of the registered candidates for the coming election:
Did you hear NPR in all its totalitarian bravado give us the UK's Cameron leading the crusade for the UK/US axis of empire? It was truly a blast from the past for those old enough to remember the Chinese Revolution and Hitler's propaganda machines. This is the same thing....corporations as government will lead to totalitarianism. Pakistan's citizens will be satisfied with the elections we are told as they drag the same failed leaders and finance conspirators from the dust and prop them back into place.
As you see by the definition below the US is in the throws of a totalitarian takeover. You see this in the capture of elections, media, suspension of Rule of Law, and dismantling of all democratic institutions like justice, education, corporate regulation and oversight.
When Cokie Roberts on NPR tells us that Obama has been scandal free as he suspends international law with drone killings, builds a surveillance society that ignores all privacy, allows tens of trillions of dollars in corporate fraud these few decades just stay in the hands of the thieves......WE ARE BEING TOLD TO SUSPEND DISBELIEF!!!!!
Remember, public media must have a major portion of its funding from individual donors.......what we are seeing is a complete funding by corporations and their non-profits, ergo.....this NPR programming. We are working to see that NPR/APM be classified as commercial and taken off the public media circuit!!! I went to the national headquarters for NPR in Washington and tried to talk with a public relations person and was told they do not see the public (I have for decades stopped in when in DC and seen plenty of people). I then tried to leave a written letter to the CEO of NPR and I was told I could not leave any letters or packages at the building. I was told on the side as I questioned people on the way out that NPR was receiving all kinds of death threats and bomb threats.....THAT SOUNDS LIKE STATE MEDIA NOT WORKING FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST!!!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary.
The concept of totalitarianism was first developed on a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era, in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other.
Aside from fascist and Stalinist movements, there have been other movements that are totalitarian. The leader of the historic Spanish reactionary conservative movement called the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right declared his intention to "give Spain a true unity, a new spirit, a totalitarian polity..." and went on to say "Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state. When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate it." The political and societal goals and practices of militant Islam have also been labeled as totalitarian ("Islamofascism").
Regarding Basu's used of faulty poverty figures:
Basu uses the figures of 17% poverty in America. This figure comes from a a data set that increasingly uses second world parameters as first world parameters are dropped. So, if you want to view poverty as a level on par with Mumbai, India where there are no quality of life standards....then America has 17% poverty. If you used first world developed country standards we just read an international Human Rights announcement that has the US tied with Bulgaria at the bottom of developed nations for child poverty. We know child poverty in America is above 30%.....we know that more than 50% of America are now people of color and most of that demographic is at poverty. We know that most of the middle-class has fallen to poverty and that was well over 40% of the population, and we know seniors who were victims of the massive financial fraud are increasing the poverty statistics and as the add for AARP tells 'we are 50 million strong'. So why does Basu and a public media use data from a Mumbai-style analysis? Remember my talk about unemployment figures? Where Third Way corporate democrats in the leadership are trying to make 40% un/underemployment the norm by stating it at 7.5%......this is the same thing. They are lowering the standards of living for Americans to that of second world countries by keeping the poverty line at $10,000 a year. The Living Wage has $30,000 a year/$15 an hour as the poverty line.....see now how many actually fall under the poverty line.
If you look at Mumbai you know their standards do not include health care, transportation, education, child care, food and housing as has a first world country. Well, if you take all these parameters out of the US calculation for poverty....you get $10,000 a year as the poverty line. When you have corporations capturing politics as it has with the capture of the democratic party by Third Way corporate democrats starting with Bill and Hillary Clinton, you have a government that preys on people and views citizens as 'masses. THIRD WAY = THIRD WORLD
Principal criticisms of the official poverty measure include:
- Its "headcount" approach identifies only the share of people who fall below the poverty threshold, but does not measure the depth of economic need;
- It does not reflect modern expenses and resources, excluding significant draws on income such as taxes, work expenses, and out-of-pocket medical expenses, and excluding resources such as in-kind benefits (e.g., food assistance);
- It does not vary by geographic differences in cost of living within the contiguous United States;
- It is not adjusted for changes in the standard of living over time; and
- Its strict definition of measurement units—"family"—as persons related by blood or marriage does not reflect the nature of many households, including those made up of cohabitors, unmarried partners with children from previous relationships, and foster children.
Economists question 'official' poverty
statistics used for US mayors' report
By Tony Favro, USA Editor 1 April 2007: In 2006, the US Conference of Mayors formed a task force to address “persistent poverty and middle class erosion” in American cities. The Task Force on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity, chaired by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, worked over a year to craft an action plan. In March 2007, the Task Force released a set of recommendations. While the report makes a convincing argument for a national strategy, its figures probably understate the true extent of poverty in the US.
The poverty-fighting proposals by the U.S. Conference of Mayors include:
• Increased investment in high-quality public education, including universal preschool.
• Increased investment in high-quality, life-long workforce training.
• Public incentives to create more banking opportunities in distressed inner cities.
• Increased public investment in the infrastructure of poor urban neighbourhoods.
The recommendations could cost US$23 billion annually to implement.
While the US Conference of Mayors’ report makes a clear and convincing argument for a common national strategy to alleviate poverty, its calculations are based on the official federal poverty rate. The report notes that “more than 37 million people are officially poor today” in the US [italics added]. Many economists believe this “official” number seriously understates the true extent of poverty in the US.
US poverty measurements
The current method used by the federal government to calculate poverty thresholds was designed in the early-1960s as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Essentially, It is a measure of severe deprivation – the minimum amount of money needed for subsistence. Poverty thresholds are absolute dollar amounts (e.g., $10, 210 for an individual; $20,650 for a family of four). The thresholds vary by family size, but not by geography. In other words, the same dollar amounts officially define poverty in both low-cost-of-living rural areas and high-cost big cities. Poverty thresholds are adjusted periodically using the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation.
The overwhelming consensus of economists, policy analysts, social scientists, and mayors is that the official federal poverty measure is seriously outdated. Most analyses find that a revised poverty calculation would increase the number of Americans classified as poor. Therefore, a major barrier to redefining poverty thresholds is political. US presidents are reluctant to have official poverty numbers revised upward during their terms in office. Another barrier is financial, since expenditures for many federal programs are tied to the official poverty rate – the more poverty, the more the federal government would have to pay into these programs.
The Canadian model
In Canada, America’s neighbour to the north, poverty thresholds are not absolute income levels as they are in the US. They go beyond measuring only society’s most impoverished and most economically deprived and encompass a broader range of economic hardship.
Poverty in Canada is determined by a Low-Income Cut-Off Line, the point at which individuals or families must devote 60 per cent of their annual income to basic necessities such as food, clothing, rent, transportation, insurances, child care, school supplies, and household supplies. Each metro area in Canada has a different Low-Income Cut-Off Line to account for regional differences in the cost of living.
The conceptual and fundamental differences between the American and Canadian poverty measures are striking.
For example, if we used Canada’s Low-Income Cut-Off Line to measure poverty in Rochester, New York – a typical mid-size American city – the poverty rate would not be 25.9 per cent, as officially defined by the US government, but 38.4 per cent.
Using the Canadian standard, New York City’s poverty rate would not be the official 21.2 per cent, but 38.2 per cent.
In San Jose, California – the center of Silicon Valley and the symbol of wealth and power in the US – the poverty rate would leap from 8.8 per cent to 20.9 per cent, when calculated according to the Canadian method.
It is clear that the official federal US poverty measure is woefully outdated.
The application of Canadian methodology to the US situation is not merely an academic exercise. It illustrates that poverty in America goes well beyond the stereotypical image of the homeless vagrant or the drug addict. The new face of American poverty often includes the restaurant dishwasher, office clerk, deli worker, maintenance worker, single working mother with children, and, in some high-cost-of-living cities, the nurse, the firefighter, and the school teacher.
The federal government’s reluctance to acknowledge the extent of economic hardship in the US doesn’t make poverty disappear. As the US Conference of Mayor’s report makes clear, it simply pushes the problem down to the local level and turns financially-strapped mayors into beggars for more federal support.
IF THE ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS THAT THE POVERTY LINE IN AMERICA IS $30,000 AND IT IS AS HIGH IN OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS.....WHY DO WE ALWAYS GET THE $10,000 FIGURE ?
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE FREE MEDIA.....LOOK FOR THE REAL NEWS!
What income, in the U.K. is considered to be 'below the poverty line'?
Apparently, in the U.S. it is $32,000. See the last answer to this question:-
I don't really understand how such figures are reached because a single man on that figure would be coping completely differently from a married man with 3 children. Also, I know we cannot compare with America because they don't have free health care and other things which help us financially but I just wondered what was considered 'poverty' here. My guess is, that whatever the figure, there will be an astonishing number people in the U.K. 'living in poverty'.
The poverty line in Australia for this year, is $43,500 for a family of 4 . It is $26,600 for a family of 2. That figure is about equal to the aged pension, so any aged pensioner with no extra investment funds is living pretty much on the poverty line - doesn't surprise me.
Regarding Basu's insistence in using faulty unemployment figures:
I spoke earlier about the unemployment stats that are widely distributed and held accurate by all leading economists.....unemployment in the US is close to 25%, not the 7.5% that Basu's insists giving us. It is close to 40% if you take into account people working part time wanting full time....all employment issues. So why does Basu stick with the number representing only those currently seeking employment?
The massive corporate fraud that brought the economic collapse had a purpose beyond moving massive amounts of money from the middle/lower class to the top earners. It had as its goal weakening the government and citizens with debt so as to advance their plan to restructure American society/government. That is what using austerity to pay debt rather than simply enforcing Rule of Law to recover tens of trillions in corporate fraud comes into play.....'we have create small government because there is no money'! The problem with small government is the first services to go when you have Third Way corporate democrats in the leadership are all agencies that protect the people from corporate malfeasance....LIKE WE NEED THAT RIGHT NOW! Believe that this was all a long held plan from the Reagan years moving towards the path to empire-building.
What does this have to do with unemployment figures? Well, Wall Street and corporate America are working to move US labor on par with second and third world developing worlds and high unemployment makes for desperate workers willing to take less and less.....which is what is happening. So ignoring the 20% that have temporarily stop looking pretends they do not exist. The economist Krugman calls this level of unemployment the 'new norm'. So stating the unemployment number as 7.5% when it is 25% sends that 'new norm' message. It says.....we don't intend to bring employment back to old levels so forget about it!!!! The second issue is what corporations call 'efficiency' in labor that maximizes profits but creates a system that works employees beyond existing labor laws, doing the work of 1.5 - 2 people, cutting the need for workers....ergo, 25% unemployment.
So, Basu is supporting the corporate exploitation of labor figures rather than using the real numbers so as to put pressure on politicians to get corporations hiring. The people's goal is to return to workplace labor rules that protect people from excessively long days, unannounced and unreasonable schedules, required breaks, sick days, and vacation times.....you know.....FIRST WORLD QUALITY OF LIFE AND WORK!!! We do not want people working for poverty wages in conditions mirroring the Asian sweat shops these corporations ran overseas and that is towards where Basu's economics takes us. We would expect a public interest media to harp on the 25% unemployment and 40% with part time workers' figure over and over making politicians skirm with the outrage of US citizens!!
We know these unemployment figures will continue to get higher with not on these 'efficiency' goals, but with the ever increasing use of undocumented and green card labor....yet another policy to cheapen the work force with exploitation.
WE WANT CITIZENSHIP NOW FOR IMMIGRANTS MEETING GUIDELINES.....NO PATHWAY THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. WE DO NOT WANT EXTENDED NUMBER OF GREEN CARD WORKERS AT THE TOP OR BOTTOM OF THE INCOME SCALE UNTIL EMPLOYMENT FIGURES HIT THE 4% (the real 4%, not the Basu 4%) WE HAVE HAD FOR DECADES.
What is The Real Rate of Unemployment in the United States?
Posted by Larry Doyle on August 13, 2010 8:06 AM |
Pinterest Just what is the true rate of unemployment in our country? Our headline U-3 rate is currently 9.5%. Our U-6 rate, more broadly defined, is 16.5%.
Many people are aware of the differences between U-3 and U-6; however, renowned economist John Williams takes our analysis to an entirely new level. Williams is far ahead of the curve in his work.
William is likely not a regular on the Washington cocktail circuit. Why’s that? He goes far deeper in his work and exposes inconsistencies, if not worse, in government statistics. Let’s learn more about Williams and his work at Shadow Government Statistics:>>>>
Walter J. “John” Williams was born in 1949. He received an A.B. in Economics, cum laude, from Dartmouth College in 1971, and was awarded a M.B.A. from Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business Administration in 1972, where he was named an Edward Tuck Scholar. During his career as a consulting economist, John has worked with individuals as well as Fortune 500 companies.
Formally known as Walter J. Williams, my friends call me John. For nearly 30 years, I have been a private consulting economist and, out of necessity, had to become a specialist in government economic reporting.
One of my early clients was a large manufacturer of commercial airplanes, who had developed an econometric model for predicting revenue passenger miles. The level of revenue passenger miles was their primary sales forecasting tool, and the model was heavily dependent on the GNP (now GDP) as reported by the Department of Commerce.
Suddenly, their model stopped working, and they asked me if I could fix it. I realized the GNP numbers were faulty, corrected them for my client (official reporting was similarly revised a couple of years later) and the model worked again, at least for a while, until GNP methodological changes eventually made the underlying data worthless.
That began a lengthy process of exploring the history and nature of economic reporting and in interviewing key people involved in the process from the early days of government reporting through the present.
For a number of years I conducted surveys among business economists as to the quality of government statistics (the vast majority thought it was pretty bad), and my results led to front page stories in the New York Times and Investors Business Daily, considerable coverage in the broadcast media and a joint meeting with representatives of all the government’s statistical agencies. Despite minor changes to the system, government reporting has deteriorated sharply in the last decade or so. (LD’s emphasis)
What does Williams think about the inherent bias and changes in government models and results generated? He is not bashful in asserting:
Have you ever wondered why the CPI, GDP and employment numbers run counter to your personal and business experiences? The problem lies in biased and often-manipulated government reporting. (LD’s emphasis)
So then what does Williams view as the true rate of unemployment?
Regrettably, boys and girls, by Williams’ measuring stick, unemployment in our country is currently close to 22%.
What do you think about these relative measures? Whom do you feel truly captures our current economic health? My personal opinion is that our overall economy feels like unemployment is far closer to Williams’ measure than that produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For those who prefer pictures to words, what does unemployment look like in terms of our changing economy? Thanks to a friend for sharing the following:
As another friend of mine has told me numerous times, “Larry, it is a privilege to work.”
The Death of Truth: Chris Hedges Interviews Julian Assange
Submitted by admin
May 12, 2013 - 12:31pm This interview is a joint project of Truthdig and The Nation magazine.
Corporate totalitarianism is spreading rapidly, and it’s not just Assange or Manning they want. It is all who dare to defy the official narrative.
London - A tiny tip of the vast subterranean network of governmental and intelligence agencies from around the world dedicated to destroying WikiLeaks and arresting its founder, Julian Assange, appears outside the red-brick building on Hans Crescent Street that houses the Ecuadorean Embassy. Assange, the world’s best-known political refugee, has been in the embassy since he was offered sanctuary there last June. British police in black Kevlar vests are perched night and day on the steps leading up to the building, and others wait in the lobby directly in front of the embassy door. An officer stands on the corner of a side street facing the iconic department store Harrods, half a block away on Brompton Road. Another officer peers out the window of a neighboring building a few feet from Assange’s bedroom at the back of the embassy. Police sit round-the-clock in a communications van topped with an array of antennas that presumably captures all electronic forms of communication from Assange’s ground-floor suite.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), or Scotland Yard, said the estimated cost of surrounding the Ecuadorean Embassy from June 19, 2012, when Assange entered the building, until Jan. 31, 2013, is the equivalent of $4.5 million.
Britain has rejected an Ecuadorean request that Assange be granted safe passage to an airport. He is in limbo. It is, he said, like living in a “space station.”