Despite the best efforts of the Occupy Wall Street protesters to sabotage Black Friday Christmas shopping, the National Retail Federation reported that shoppers spent a whopping $52 billion over the weekend after Thanksgiving. OWS had hoped to launch protests that would stop the frenzy of consumerism, but alas, the lure of spending prevailed.
New work rules from the Department of Labor will end most teens' farm jobs.
“The only solution is World Revolution” So declares occupywallst.org, the “official” website of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. The website’s heading for November 23 reads: “Occupy Wall Street — NYC Protest for World Revolution”
And right below that is the OWS logo, the communist clenched fist symbol alongside the blaring declaration, “OccupyWallStreet — the revolution continues worldwide!”
Revolution. Lots of talk about revolution amongst the OWS demonstrators and the websites, blogs, publications, and media networks that support them. But what is it they are actually calling for? “Revolution” is one of those words that have many meanings. Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign uses the term but with decidedly different intentions and objectives in mind than the bulk of the OWS protesters. Dr. Paul’s “revolution,” for instance, calls for abolishing the Federal Reserve System, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — for starters. The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie are three of the institutions most responsible for the housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, the bailouts, and the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street insiders at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, AIG, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, et al.
The Fed, Fannie, and Freddie are not capitalist institutions; they are socialist, fascist, Marxist institutions. The Fed is a central bank with virtual monopoly control of credit, as called for by Karl Marx in the The Communist Manifesto (plank number five in his ten-plank program).
UPDATE: The House passed H.R. 3094, which would amend the NLRB's new unionization elections rule, by 235-188.
When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced last Tuesday the imposition of new price controls on a long list of consumer items, he expressed optimism that they would help curb inflation. This is a law to protect the people from capitalism. We have a tough battle ahead [because] inflation is one of the biggest problems we have.
I’m at the front of this operation, and we’re going to occupy factories and companies. We’re going to nationalize what needs to be nationalized. The bourgeoisie hoard milk, sugar and cooking oil and then [they] blame me. But it’s their fault, the hoarders.
The citizens were smarter than Chavez. Having lived under a regime enforcing price controls on cooking oil and sugar with its natural and predictable resulting shortages, they looked at the list of household items about to be “fixed” and went shopping before the items disappeared. Evangelina Guerra, standing in line to get into the Dulcinea market in Caracas, said, “This is more regulation on top of regulation, and what we have is sky-high inflation and a lack of products.” In fact, cars were parked two rows deep and even onto the sidewalk in front of the store. Shelves normally full of toothpaste, soap, and toilet paper were being cleaned out faster than stockers could replenish them.
The American national debt hangs over the nation’s head like the sword of Damocles, ready to drop and severely damage the American economy. The present debt has now reached the astronomical sum of $15 trillion, and continues to grow. The federal budget submitted to Congress by President Obama on February 14, 2011 was $3.729 trillion. But revenues come to only $2.627 trillion, meaning that there would be a deficit of $1.101 trillion. In other words, the federal government would have to borrow over a trillion dollars just to meet its present expenditures.
Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than it takes in, and each year the Treasury Department has had to borrow money to meet Congress’ appropriations, which always increase. Indeed, the Treasury Department has the third largest expenditure in the federal budget. Only Defense and the income redistribution programs of the Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps) are higher.
As the finance ministers from each of the 17 members of the eurozone meet in Brussels today, the main topic is “integration.” It’s a race against the clock.
One of the first items being discussed is putting in place the leveraging of the stability fund — otherwise known as the EFSF, or European Financial Stability Fund. At present, this fund holds some $600 billion in assets, much of which has already been invested in government bonds issued by the eurozone's weak sisters: Ireland, Greece, and Spain. The leveraging, through some opaque maneuvering, will then allow the fund to do some serious purchasing of enough of Italy’s debt to solve two problems at the same time. One is to bring down interest rates to some level that Italy may be able, in the short run, to afford to pay. And the other is to give the new Italian technocrat, Mario Monti (who was appointed on November 12 to replace Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi after he was forced out), enough time to implement even more severe austerity programs in order to meet eurozone guidelines.
That is the next item on the Brussels agenda: Just what are those guidelines, and who is going to enforce them, if necessary? According to Reuters, this would involve “deeper financial integration” among its members. The term “integration” is being increasingly used to disguise the erasing of national sovereignty and the installation of the final step toward a United Europe run by international bankers (such as Monti) and other unelected elites.
Benefiting from a hint from an article titled "Is Harry Potter Making You Poorer?", written by my colleague Dr. John Goodman, president of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis, I've come up with an explanation and a way to end income inequality in America, possibly around the world. Joanne Rowling was a welfare mother in Edinburgh, Scotland. All that has changed. As the writer of the "Harry Potter" novels, having a net worth of $1 billion, she is the world's wealthiest author. More importantly, she's one of those dastardly 1-percenters condemned by the Occupy Wall Streeters and other leftists.
How did Rowling become so wealthy and unequal to the rest of us? The entire blame for this social injustice lies at the feet of the world's children and their enabling parents. Rowling's wealth is a direct result of more than 500 million "Harry Potter" book sales and movie receipts grossing more than $5 billion. In other words, the millions of "99-percenters" who individually plunk down $8 or $9 to attend a "Harry Potter" movie, $15 to buy a "Harry Potter" novel or $30 to buy a "Harry Potter" Blu-ray Disc are directly responsible for contributing to income inequality and wealth concentration that economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says "is incompatible with real democracy." In other words, Rowling is not responsible for income inequality; it's the people who purchase her works.
Republicans are amazing. It's possible they could lose the 2012 presidential election before 2011 is over. Really, they ought to rename that big river in Egypt (You know, “Duh Nile”) the Republican River. If you want to see an entire party in denial, with a few honorable and intelligent exceptions, look at virtually every Republican presidential hopeful but Ron Paul, the premier honorable and intelligent exception.
The others will talk about balancing the budget — though they believe the SuperCommittee should get that job done for them before any of them gets to the White House — but none, with the exception of Ron Paul, is in favor of cutting the military spending, euphemistically called the “defense budget.” Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania made that emphatically clear when I spoke with him in New Hampshire on Sunday. The same Rick Santorum has on op ed piece in today's New Hampshire Union Leader calling for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
No cuts for our worldwide military empire and no tax increases, praise God, but do pass an amendment that will tell us we must balance the budget.
What a wonderful opportunity for the Democrats to tell the country that these allegedly pro-life Republicans really love bombs more than babies — more than old folks, too, whose votes will be up for grabs in 2012.
The British government is looking for a way to jumpstart its stagnant economy. The plan is to use pension funds to invest in big construction projects to the tune of $46.5 billion.
The announcement of this plan came before growth figures were announced by the Finance Minister. The news so far has been very bad. Retail sales fell at the fastest pace in two and a half years. The unemployment rate is at a 15-year high. The national deficit, which has hovered around 11 percent of GDP is not getting better. The OECD forecast on Monday that Britain would slide into a modest recession next year.
The next day the British government announced that growth would be slower than previously believed and that it would need to borrow more money and would not be able to cut the budget as much as projected. George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, told Parliament that “debt will not fall as fast as we’d hoped.” The response of Britain’s public unions was to call for a general strike on November 30, which will cause slowdowns at airports, hospitals, and schools. Osborne also added, “If the rest of Europe heads into a recession, it may be hard to avoid one here in the U.K.”
That is another major economic concern that Britain faces: the connection of the nation with the fate of European nations makes the prognosis for British recovery more dim.