Another Republican President, Another Recession.

[hanimmal]

https://www.rawstory.com/saudi-arabia-trump/?cx_testId=6&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=5&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

Have you noticed gas prices are rising? Get ready: you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The bloodthirsty leader of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia loves his dictatorial soul-mate Donald Trump and is today setting the stage to intervene in November’s election in a big way, much like he did with a smaller test run during the fall of 2022 when he drove US gas prices up above $5, forcing President Biden to release oil from the US strategic petroleum reserve.

As Stanley Reed reported for the Business pages of The New York Times three days ago:

“Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, said Sunday that it would extend [their one-million-barrels-a-day] cuts in oil production through June, noting that it was acting ‘in coordination with some’ other states.”

That “other state” would be their OPEC+ partner Russia, which also announced last weekend a simultaneous production cut of 471,000 barrels a day. Putin wants Trump back in the White House, too.

This time, though, because Trump refused to block the sale of America’s largest gasoline refinery to Saudi Arabia in 2017 (completed in 2019 with Trump’s blessing), no matter how much oil Biden releases from the reserves will be irrelevant: if the Saudis shut down their Port Arthur, Texas refinery this October “for maintenance,” US gasoline prices will explode.

It’s the largest refinery in America, as Foreign Policy magazine noted in May 2017:

“Port Arthur, referred to as the ‘crown jewel’ of U.S. refinery infrastructure, can process 600,000 barrels of oil a day.”

That alone is enough to radically swing gasoline prices in the US.

So, get ready: it’s coming this fall. And unless the administration acts quickly, there will be nothing they can do about it. Gas at $6 a gallon could easily throw the election to Trump, as Biden will take the blame (just like in November 2022) and Fox “News” and rightwing hate media will hang gas prices around his neck like a flaming tire.

MBS and his sovereign wealth fund have funneled literally billions of dollars into the Trump family, between Jared’s investment company and Trump’s golf courses and the LIV Tour, in addition to giving Trump himself additional hundreds of millions over the years renting and purchasing Trump properties.

During Trump’s presidency, MBS funneled additional millions directly into the Trump family’s pockets via Trump’s DC hotel and NYC properties in clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution.

In exchange, Trump broke with the US tradition of new presidents visiting democratic allies and made Saudi Arabia his first overseas destination, blowing away congressional concern about MBS having ordered the brutal murder and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and elevating the international status of that country beyond anything ever done by any US president.

Trump followed that up by organizing a 2019 sale of $8.1 billion in US weaponry in clear violation of US law (such sales require congressional approval). When the Senate voted to block the sale, Trump killed their effort. As Frontline noted in a July 2019 report:

“Both chambers have registered their disapproval of the emergency declaration — the Senate voted to block the sale in June. President Trump, however, has pledged to shoot down the measure when it arrives at his desk.”

When Saudi Arabia and Russia tried to screw Biden and the Democrats by cutting oil production — in October leading up to the midterm 2022 elections — President Biden was furious. Russell Baker wrote about it for The New York Times on October 11, 2022:

“President Biden vowed on Tuesday to impose ‘consequences’ on Saudi Arabia for teaming up with Russia to cut oil production, signaling a rupture in the relationship between two longtime allies and a reversal of his own effort to cultivate the energy-rich kingdom.

“Amid deep anger over last week’s decision by the Saudi-led OPEC Plus, Mr. Biden’s staff announced that he would re-evaluate the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia and expressed openness to retaliatory measures offered by congressional Democrats such as curbing arms sales or permitting legal action against the cartel.

“‘There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done with Russia,’ Mr. Biden told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview broadcast on Tuesday night.”

Weighing in for Democratic Senate leadership, Illinois Senator Dick Durban added on an October, 2022 CNN appearance:

“Let’s be very candid about this. It’s Putin and Saudi Arabia against the United States.”

The Saudis are well aware of the power of gas prices over US politics. Retired Saudi Oil Ministry Adviser Ibrahim Al-Muhanna wrote in his book Oil Leaders: An Insider’s Account of Four Decades of Saudi Arabia and OPEC's Global Energy Policy:

“During the midterm election in 2018, President Trump pushed for lower oil prices—meaning gasoline—and he succeeded, but he used completely different methods. In the middle of June 2018, the oil price was about $75 and the gasoline price in the United States was more than $3.50 in some states. Trump was worried that the Republican Party might lose the majority in both houses of Congress. …

“The OPEC+ group, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, decided in June 2018 to increase their production by 1.2 MBD. Saudi Arabian production in November rose to more than 11.3 MBD, its highest ever.”

For reference, Saudi oil production right now is standing at around 9 million barrels a day, and they just announced a million-barrel-a-day production cut to kick in this summer/fall just in time for the presidential election.

So, what can President Biden do?

One step would be to nationalize the Port Arthur refinery, the “crown jewel” essential to US energy security that never should have been sold to a foreign nation. I’ve written extensively about the process of nationalization here and here, but it would require congressional approval and would probably take more time than Biden has before the November election.

Nonetheless, it would be a shot across the bow of Saudi Arabia and may get their attention sufficiently to stop their intended manipulation of US gas prices this fall. And it’s the right thing to do, even if it takes a year or more.

Another would be to take America back to the oil export policy that was put into place during the Nixon administration, prohibiting the export of any US crude petroleum products. US oil production is higher today than it’s ever been in history, and in 2019 America achieved technical energy independence, as noted by the US Energy Information Administration:

In 1973, at the height of the Arab Oil Embargo, President Nixon and Congress put into law legislation that banned the export of US crude. It stood until December, 2015, when Congress and President Obama, under pressure (bribes legalized by 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court) from the fossil fuel industry, repealed the ban.

American oil companies are currently exporting a bit over 4 million barrels a day, while we’re only importing around 900,000 barrels a day from Saudi Arabia and 290,000 barrels a day from Russia (yes, it sounds wacky). Ending exports would cut the tie between US oil prices and Saudi and Russian production. (Which only leaves that Port Arthur, Texas refinery owned by the Saudis as the weak link MBS could use to manipulate US elections via gas prices.)

While it would be challenged in court, there are emergency powers the president has that may allow him to reinstate that ban, at least temporarily, by executive order. Both The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Timeshave argued in editorials that banning exports and lifting such a ban are both within the president’s powers.

Finally, President Biden could get ahead of the Saudis and Putin by exposing what they’re up to. They increased production (lowering US gas prices) in 2018 to help Trump and the Republicans in that year’s midterm elections, and cut production (raising US gas prices) in 2022 to hurt Biden and the Democrats in those midterms. Arguably, they got a Republican-controlled House of Representatives out of that effort.

Most Americans are probably unaware of this, and letting them know how our system is being manipulated by these two malevolent foreign powers would take some of the political sting out of the high gas prices that we can expect to see this fall.

And even if Biden chooses not to engage in this kind of public and high-stakes brinkmanship with MBS and Putin, you and I can. Tell everybody you know what’s happening and how we can expect it to play out: it may well begin to bleed through to the mainstream media if enough of us raise hell.

 

[hanimmal]

Really a good discussion but at around 24 minutes, I would love to have nitpicked about their use of 'banks'. The 2008 financial crash was not by banks that were under the Federal Reserve system, it was in the non-bank financial institutions that were flooding the market with cash through their NINJA loans and other bullshit that ended up with anyone getting huge lines credit for nothing. The banks actually were the ones that bailed them out and we got paid for it.

 

[hanimmal]

https://apnews.com/article/jobs-hiring-unemployment-economy-inflation-federal-reserve-96162ff805670eb19a44cdf67fa20e3e

WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s employers delivered another healthy month of hiring in February, adding a surprising 275,000 jobs and again showcasing the U.S. economy’s resilience in the face of high interest rates.

Last month’s job growth marked an increase from a revised gain of 229,000 jobs in January. At the same time, the unemployment rate ticked up two-tenths of a point in February to a still-low 3.9%. Though that marks the highest rate in two years, it was the 25th straight month in which joblessness has remained below 4%.

Friday’s report also drastically revised down the government’s estimate of hiring in December and January from what had been blockbuster increases to still-solid gains.

The jobs report also gave the inflation fighters at the Federal Reserve what could be a dose of encouraging news: Average hourly wages rose just 0.1% from January and 4.3% from a year earlier, less than economists had expected. Average pay growth has been exceeding inflation for more than year, but when it rises too fast it can feed inflation.

Friday’s figures reflected the job market’s sustained ability to withstand the 11 rate hikes the Fed imposed in its drive against inflation, which made borrowing much costlier for households and businesses. Employers have continued to hire briskly to meet steady demand from consumers across the economy.

Yet despite sharply lower inflation, a healthy job market and a record-high stock market, many Americans say they are unhappy with the state of the economy — a sentiment that is sure to weigh on President Joe Biden’s bid for re-election. Many voters blame Biden for the surge in consumer prices that began in 2021. Though inflationary pressures have significantly eased, average prices remain about 17% above where they stood three years ago.

When the Fed began aggressively raising rates in March 2022 to fight the worst bout of inflation in four decades, a painful recession was widely predicted, with waves of layoffs and high unemployment. The Fed boosted its benchmark rate to the highest level in more than two decades.

Inflation has eased, more or less steadily, in response: Consumer prices in January were up just 3.1% from a year earlier — way down from a year-over-year peak of 9.1% in 2022 and edging closer to the Fed’s 2% target.

Many Americans are exhibiting confidence in the economy through their actions: Consumers, whose average wages have outpaced inflation over the past year and who socked away money during the pandemic, have continued to spend and drive economic growth. The economy’s gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services — grew by a solid 2.5% last year, up from 1.9% in 2022. And employers keep hiring.

Immigration has helped invigorate the job market since the end of pandemic-related travel bans. Last year, foreign-born individuals accounted for 62%, or 1.5 million, of the 2.4 million people who either obtained a job or began looking for one. The economy’s growth depends on a steady influx of job seekers.

In the meantime, the job market’s modest slowdown is happening so far in perhaps the most painless way possible: Companies are posting slightly fewer job openings rather than laying people off. The number of Americans filing for weekly unemployment benefits — a rough proxy for the number of layoffs — has remained low, suggesting that most workers enjoy solid job security.

Wage growth still remains slightly high from the Fed’s perspective because it can contribute to inflation pressures. Some economists argue, though, that pay increases don’t need to drop so much: A surge in productivity that started last year — as companies invested in machines and used their workers more efficiently — means that employers can pay more and still reap profits without raising prices.

 

[cannabineer]

Really a good discussion but at around 24 minutes, I would love to have nitpicked about their use of 'banks'. The 2008 financial crash was not by banks that were under the Federal Reserve system, it was in the non-bank financial institutions that were flooding the market with cash through their NINJA loans and other bullshit that ended up with anyone getting huge lines credit for nothing. The banks actually were the ones that bailed them out and we got paid for it.

from Wiki on the Glass-Steagall Act.

Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz argued that the effect of the repeal was "indirect": "[w]hen repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank culture came out on top".[10][11]

 

[hanimmal]

from Wiki on the Glass-Steagall Act.

Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz argued that the effect of the repeal was "indirect": "[w]hen repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank culture came out on top".[10][11]

That bit took decades for them to pick at like vultures playing Jenga with our economic safeguards. They have been picking at the ones put in place after the 2008 meltdown too. Got to give it to those bastards, they are persistent, but I guess when you have enough money to consider how to spend it over entire lifetimes it's easier to have long game gambles pay off when they can capitalize on others suffering.

 

[cannabineer]

This is a very long article — but a compelling read. It describes the size, shape and operating principles of the ideology that is destroying freedom and prosperity worldwide.

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems | Economics | The Guardian

Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?

amp.theguardian.com

Economics
Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?
George Monbiot
@GeorgeMonbiot
Fri 15 Apr 2016 07.00

7 years old

Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us | Paul Verhaeghe

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society– it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

 

[cannabineer]

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.


Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes’s economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.

After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”. But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – “my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

 

[cannabineer]

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Those who own and run the UK’s privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. “Like rent,” he argues, “interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort”. As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

 

[cannabineer]

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Chris Hedges remarks that “fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the ‘losers’ who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment”. When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to “cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them”.

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised”.

The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks.

The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

 

[cannabineer]

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks.

The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

 

[hanimmal]

https://apnews.com/article/inflation-prices-rates-economy-biden-federal-reserve-4ac316b6a435ef44c370ce7686da67c0

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer prices in the United States picked up last month, a sign that inflation remains a persistent challenge for the Federal Reserve and for President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, both of which are counting on a steady easing of price pressures this year.

Prices rose 0.4% from January to February, higher than the previous month’s figure of 0.3%, the Labor Department said Tuesday. Compared with a year earlier, consumer prices rose 3.2% last month, above January’s 3.1% annual pace.

Excluding volatile food and energy prices, so-called “core” prices also climbed 0.4% from January to February, matching the previous month’s rise and a faster pace than is consistent with the Fed’s 2% target. Core inflation is watched especially closely because it typically provides a better read of where inflation is likely headed.

“It’s a disappointment, but not a disaster,” said Eric Winograd, U.S. economist at asset manager AB. “The underlying details are more encouraging than the top-line number, which was boosted by a few volatile categories — the type of prices that tend not to repeat month-to-month.”

Those volatile items include gas prices, which jumped 3.8% just from January to February but are still below their level of a year ago. Air fares surged 3.6% after two months of much smaller increases. Clothing prices rose 0.6% after three months of declines but are unchanged compared with a year earlier.

Housing and rental costs, though, which tend to change more slowly, cooled in February: They rose 0.4% from January, slower than the 0.6% increase the previous month. Measures of new apartment leases, which have cooled, will likely feed into the government’s inflation data in the coming months.

New car prices ticked down 0.1% in February. Though these prices remain much higher than they were before the pandemic, they’re expected to decline further as more vehicles show up on dealer lots.

Grocery prices were unchanged last month and are up just 1% from a year earlier.

Despite February’s elevated figures, most economists expect inflation to continue slowly declining this year. At the same time, the uptick last month may underscore the Fed’s cautious approach toward interest rate cuts.

Overall inflation has plummeted from a peak of 9.1% in June 2022, though it’s now easing more slowly than it did last spring and summer. The prices of some goods, from appliances to furniture to used cars, are actually falling after clogged supply chains during the pandemic had sent prices soaring higher. There are more new cars on dealer lots and electronics on store shelves.

By contrast, prices for dental care, car repairs, and other services are still rising faster than they did before the pandemic. Car insurance has shot higher, reflecting rising costs for repairs and replacement. And after having sharply raised pay for nurses and other in-demand staff, hospitals are passing their higher wage costs on to patients in the form of higher prices.

Voter perceptions of inflation are sure to occupy a central place in this year’s presidential election. Despite a healthy job market and a record-high stock market, polls show that many Americans blame Biden for the surge in consumer prices that began in 2021. Though inflationary pressures have significantly eased, average prices remain about far above where they stood three years ago.

In his State of the Union speech last week, Biden highlighted steps he has taken to reduce costs, like capping the price of insulin for Medicare patients. The president also criticized many large companies for engaging in “price gouging” and so-called “shrinkflation,” in which a company shrinks the amount of product inside a package rather than raising the price.

“Too many corporations raise prices to pad their profits, charging more and more for less and less,” Biden said.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell signaled in congressional testimony last week that the central bank is getting closer to cutting rates. After meeting in January, Fed officials said in a statement that they needed “greater confidence” that inflation was steadily falling to their 2% target level. Since then, several of the Fed’s policymakers have said they believe prices will keep declining. One reason, they suggested, is that consumers are increasingly pushing back against higher prices by seeking out cheaper alternatives.

Most economists expect the Fed’s first rate cut to occur in June, though May is also possible. When the Fed cuts its benchmark rate, over time it reduces borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and business loans.

One factor that could keep inflation elevated is the still-healthy economy. Though most economists had expected a recession to occur last year, hiring and growth were strong and remain healthy. The economy expanded 2.5% last year and could grow at about the same pace in the first three months of this year, according to the Federal Reserve’s Atlanta branch.

Last week, the Labor Department said employers added a robust 275,000 jobs in February, the latest in a streak of solid hiring gains, and the unemployment rate stayed below 4% for the 25th straight month. That is the longest such streak since the 1960s.

Still, the unemployment rate rose from 3.7% to 3.9%, and wage growth slowed. Both trends could make the Fed feel more confident that the economy is cooling, which could help keep inflation falling and lead the central bank to begin cutting rates.

 

[hanimmal]

https://apnews.com/article/biden-budget-deficit-9ac66a99e741dab656c15116408060a5

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — President Joe Biden on Monday released a budget proposal aimed at getting voters’ attention: It would offer tax breaks for families, lower health care costs, smaller deficits and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

Unlikely to pass the House and Senate to become law, the proposal for fiscal 2025 is an election year blueprint about what the future could hold if Biden and enough of his fellow Democrats win in November. The president and his aides previewed parts of his budget going into last week’s State of the Union address, and they provided the fine print on Monday.

If the Biden budget became law, deficits could be pruned $3 trillion over a decade. It would raise tax revenues by a total of $4.9 trillion over that period and use roughly $1.9 trillion to fund various programs, with the rest going to deficit reduction.

The president traveled Monday to Manchester, New Hampshire, where he called on Congress to apply his $2,000 cap on drug costs and $35 insulin to everyone, not just people who have Medicare. He also advocated for making permanent some protections in the Affordable Care Act that are set to expire next year.

“I’m here in New Hampshire to talk about the budget I released today that would, I think, help in a big way,” Biden said.

Biden aides said their budget was realistic and detailed while rival measures from Republicans were not financially viable.

“Congressional Republicans don’t tell you what they cut, who they harm,” White House budget director Shalanda Young said. “The president is transparent.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., issued a joint statement with other GOP leaders calling the Biden proposal a “glaring reminder of this Administration’s insatiable appetite for reckless spending.”

“Biden’s budget doesn’t just miss the mark — it is a roadmap to accelerate America’s decline,” the House Republican leaders said.

Under the proposal, the government would spend $7.3 trillion next fiscal year and borrow $1.8 trillion to cover the shortfall from tax receipts. Biden’s 188-page plan covers a decade’s worth of spending, taxes and debt.

Parents could get an increased child tax credit in 2025, as payments would return briefly to the 2021 level funded by Biden’s coronavirus pandemic relief package. Homebuyers could get a tax credit worth up to $10,000 and the plan includes $10 billion in down payment aid for first-generation buyers. Corporate taxes would jump upward, while billionaires would be charged a minimum tax of 25%.

Biden said in his State of the Union that Medicare should have the ability to negotiate prices on 500 prescription drugs, which could save $200 billion over 10 years. Aides said his budget does not specify how many drug prices would be subject to negotiations.

Biden’s plan would permanently keep Medicare solvent, according to aides, but as noted by Maya MacGuineas, president of the fiscal group Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it does not appear to fix Social Security, which projections say will be unable to pay full benefits starting in 2033.

The proposal would provide about $900 billion for defense in fiscal 2025, about $16 billion more than the baseline.

The Biden administration is still seeking money to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia and aid for Israel. His budget plan reiterates the supplemental funding request made last October for Ukraine, Israel and humanitarian relief for Palestinians.

It’s also requesting funding to expand personnel and resources at the U.S. southern border. Still, military spending over 10 years would decline $146 billion to $9.57 trillion.

One key theme in the budget plan is an effort to help families afford their basic needs, as the impact of inflation hitting a four-decade high in 2022 continues to leave many voters feeling as though they’re worse off under Biden.

The budget proposal includes $258 billion to help build or preserve 2 million homes, helping to address a national shortage that has kept housing prices high. Parents making under $200,000 annually would have access to child care, with most eligible families paying no more than $10 a day.

It would eliminate origination fees on government student loans, possibly saving borrowers $1,000 over the life of the debt. It also includes $12 billion to help universities develop strategies for reducing their costs.

All of this is a chance for Biden to try to define the race on his preferred terms, just as the all-but-certain Republican nominee, Donald Trump, wants to rally voters around his agenda.

Trump, for his part, would like to increase tariffs and pump out gushers of oil. He called for a “second phase” of tax cuts as parts of his 2017 overhaul of the income tax code would expire after 2025. The Republican has also said he would slash government regulations. He has also pledged to pay down the national debt, though it’s unclear how without him detailing severe spending cuts.

In a Monday interview with CNBC, Trump indicated that he would be willing to reduce spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, though he did not offer a full policy.

“There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting,” Trump said.

The interview drew Biden’s attention, prompting him to tell the audience in New Hampshire that cuts were off the table: “The bottom line is he’s still at it. I’m never going to allow that to happen.”

House Republicans on Thursday voted their own budget resolution for the next fiscal year out of committee, saying it would trim deficits by $14 trillion over 10 years. But their measure would depend on rosy economic forecasts and sharp spending cuts, reducing $8.7 trillion in Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Biden has pledged to stop any cuts to Medicare.

Meanwhile, Congress is still working on a budget for the current fiscal year. On Saturday, Biden signed into law a $460 billion package to avoid a shutdown of several federal agencies, but lawmakers are only about halfway through addressing spending for this fiscal year.

Vs this dumbass who had us going into a recession prior to his shit handling of the pandemic allowed our economy to melt.

 

[hanimmal]

https://apnews.com/article/biden-inflation-housing-trump-home-price-rent-248ef02e197c3a7ffb801e370c529d33

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden came out in opposition to the planned sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel of Japan, saying on Thursday that the U.S. needs to “maintain strong American steel companies powered by American steel workers.”

In a statement, Biden added: “U.S. Steel has been an iconic American steel company for more than a century, and it is vital for it to remain an American steel company that is domestically owned and operated.”

By opposing the merger, Biden has chosen to support unionized workers in a critical election year at the risk of upsetting the business community and an essential ally in Japan. Thursday’s announcement, coming as Biden is campaigning in the Midwest, could have ripples in his race against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

The Democratic president has made the restoration of American manufacturing a cornerstone of his agenda as he seeks reelection, and he has the endorsements of the AFL-CIO and several other prominent unions. The White House said Thursday that Biden called David McCall, president of United Steelworkers, to reiterate his support for its members.

Nippon Steel announced in December that it planned to buy the Pittsburgh-based steel producer for $14.1 billion in cash, raising concerns about what the transaction could mean for unionized workers, supply chains and U.S. national security.

The Japanese company reiterated Friday how the deal benefits U. S. Steel, union workers, the American steel industry and national security.

“Nippon Steel will advance American priorities by driving greater quality and competitiveness for customers in the critical industries that rely on American steel while strengthening American supply chains and economic defenses against China,” it said in a statement out of Tokyo.

“No other U.S. steel company on its own can meet this challenge while also meeting antitrust requirements,” it said, stressing it already employs 4,000 American workers.

The company has also committed to keeping the U.S. Steel name and Pittsburgh headquarters.

The company, which is the world’s fourth largest steel producer, launched a website with supportive statements from Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary, and Pat Toomey, a Republican and former senator from Pennsylvania.

Shortly after the steel deal was announced, the White House indicated it would be under review by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The government does not officially provide updates on the CFIUS review process.

Biden has a big megaphone to weigh in on the matter, but he is not intervening in the review process or formally blocking the deal, according to a person familiar with deliberations who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation.

When asked about the deal on Thursday, White House national security spokesman John Kirby declined to say if the president wanted to stop it outright or would be amendable to changes in its structure. But Kirby told reporters that the United States sees its alliance with Japan as “stronger than it’s ever been.”

Still, the president holds sway over CFIUS. The treasury secretary leads the committee, which is also composed of the heads of federal agencies and, as deemed appropriate, directors of White House councils on the economy and national security.

Trump said earlier this year after meeting with the Teamsters union that he would stop the U.S. Steel acquisition: “I would block it. I think it’s a horrible thing, when Japan buys U.S. Steel. I would block it instantaneously.”

Biden traveled Thursday to Saginaw, Michigan, which was once home to multiple General Motors plants and where he hopes his backing from union workers can resonate with voters.

The city is in a swing county that narrowly backed Trump in 2016 and then flipped to Biden in 2020, making it a crucial contest in this year’s presidential race.

Biden has a close relationship with the United Steelworkers. He gave the union members “personal assurances” that he has their backs, according to a February statement by the union about Nippon Steel’s plans. U.S. Steel is headquartered in Pennsylvania, another key state in this year’s election.

The United Steelworkers issued a statement last week after meeting with representatives from Nippon Steel that it had concerns about whether the company would honor existing labor agreements and about the company’s financial transparency, adding that there were “barriers” to closing a merger.

The U.S. considers Japan to be one of its closest allies and a key partner in countering China’s ambitions and influence in Asia. Biden has visited the country twice as president and will host Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the White House on April 10.

But Nippon Steel’s connections to China have raised concerns within the Biden administration. More than half the steel produced globally comes from China, according to the World Steel Association. India is the second-largest producer, followed by Japan and the United States.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned in a February blog post that it would be foolhardy of the Biden administration to block the deal. Doing so could hurt foreign investment into the United States, cause other countries to block the overseas investments that U.S. companies want to make and undermine the U.S.-Japan alliance, the chamber said.

John Murphy, the head of international issues for the chamber, said Thursday that it was “inappropriate and counterproductive” of Biden to politicize the CFIUS review.

“It’s imperative that the CFIUS review proceed; and if, as expected, it reveals no national security concerns, the sale should proceed,” Murphy said.

But Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, who is up for reelection, applauded Biden’s statement, saying, “I’ll work like hell against any deal that leaves our Steelworkers behind.”

This is the part I think it comes down to:


The U.S. considers Japan to be one of its closest allies and a key partner in countering China’s ambitions and influence in Asia. Biden has visited the country twice as president and will host Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the White House on April 10.

But Nippon Steel’s connections to China have raised concerns within the Biden administration. More than half the steel produced globally comes from China, according to the World Steel Association.

 

[hanimmal]

 

[hanimmal]

https://apnews.com/article/biden-congress-budget-funding-bills-government-shutdown-fa9c4c169613bc0ca991e66829f25f77

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden and congressional leaders announced Tuesday that they have reached an agreement on this fiscal year’s final set of spending bills. Now, the question is how fast lawmakers can get the bills passed to avoid a partial government shutdown.

While Biden said he’ll sign the bill package as soon as he receives it, time is running short. Legislative staff needs time to finish the bill text, an arduous task. The House has a rule that lawmakers get 72 hours to review a bill before voting. And the Senate has never been known for its ability to sprint. Meanwhile, funding for several key agencies expires at midnight Friday.

“We have come to an agreement with Congressional leaders on a path forward for the remaining full-year funding bills,” Biden, a Democrat, said in a statement Tuesday morning. “The House and Senate are now working to finalize a package that can quickly be brought to the floor, and I will sign it immediately.”

Work on the final spending bills hit a late snag around funding for the Department of Homeland Security, but the contours of that bill were resolved late Monday. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the relevant committees are now drafting bill text to be considered by the full House and Senate “as soon as possible.” Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, issued a similar statement, saying “in the next few days, upon completion of the drafting process,” Congress would consider the package.

The action comes nearly six months into the fiscal year, with Congress still only halfway home in passing spending measures expected to total about $1.65 trillion. Lawmakers passed the first portion of spending bills in early March, representing about 30% of discretionary spending for the year. Now lawmakers are focused on the larger package and, in what has become routine, are brushing up against a shutdown deadline.

The package is expected to provide about $886 billion for the Pentagon. It will also fund the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and others.

Overall, the two spending packages provide about a 3% boost for defense, while keeping nondefense spending roughly flat with the year before. That’s in keeping with an agreement that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy worked out with the White House, which restricted spending for two years and suspended the debt ceiling into January 2025 so the federal government could continue paying its bills.

House Republicans have been determined to end the practice of packaging all 12 annual spending bills into one massive bill called an omnibus. They managed this time to break the spending bills into two parts.

With the possible release of legislative text late Tuesday, the House’s 72-hour rule means that chamber would not take it up until late Friday, just hours before funding expires. Johnson would then likely have to bring the bill up through a streamlined process requiring two-thirds support to pass.

Most of the “no” votes are expected to come from Republicans, who have been critical of the overall spending levels as well as the lack of policy mandates sought by some conservatives, such as restricting abortion access, eliminating diversity and inclusion programs within federal agencies, and banning gender-affirming care.

Then, the Senate would act on the bill, but it would require all senators to agree on speeding up the process to get to a final vote before the midnight Friday deadline. Such agreements generally require Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to allow for votes on various amendments to the bill in return for an expedited final vote.

 

[Towwelie]

 

[cannabineer]

‘Lies’: Biden Impeachment Hearing Turns Fiery As Ex-Hunter Biden Business Partner Testifies

The hearing comes as Republicans have begun to acknowledge the impeachment probe appears dead.

www.forbes.com

KEY FACTS
In his opening statement before the committee, Bobulinski accused Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., of lying to the media.

He also alleged Hunter Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, has tried to “smear” him, while defending what he described as a “successful business career” following his time in the Navy.

Raskin jumped in, asking Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., if Bobulinski was subject to decorum rules, while Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., reportedlyshouted “keep going, you fool!”

Bobulinski, who worked briefly with Hunter Biden in 2017 on a company called Sinohawk, has claimed to possess evidence showing the president profited from his son’s business deals in China, including a widely cited email that allegedly references “10% held by H for the big guy,” which Bobulinski has repeated claimed is a reference to the president.
Bobulinski’s claims have never been verified, however, and multiple other witnesses have told the committee the president was not involved in his son’s business ventures.
TANGENT
Moskowitz wore a Vladimir Putin mask around the Capitol before the hearing to mock Republicans for spreading allegations about the Bidens that reportedly stem from Russian disinformation.

CHIEF CRITIC
Raskin accused Bobulinski of making “hazy allegations against the Bidens for the first time at a press conference choreographed by the Trump for President campaign,” he said in his opening statement, referring to the 2020 press conference in which Bobulinski initially aired the allegations. Referencing the possibility that the GOP could make criminal referrals to the Justice Department based on their findings, Raskin said “criminal referrals require evidence of crime . . . and the only crimes we have seen are those of the GOP’s own star witnesses alike,” he said, referencing Alexander Smirnov, who claimed Biden and his son were involved in a bribery scheme and was recently indicted by the FBI for allegedly lying to the agency.

 

[hanimmal]

lol that dude cracks me up how hard tries to give GQP "See we are not racist" cred to the MAGA cult while selling the rich white man's agenda.

So let me get this straight, If I am working for a company, and that person pays the company when they buy something it goes from their account into the companies account, and that company then direct deposits my paycheck, and I then use the account that the money went into to write a check to my niece for a graduation present, if that original person plays for the Detroit Red Wings, does that mean that my niece got paid by a professional sports team and therefore should not be able to be considered a amateur athlete and not be able to compete in the olympics?

lmao the pretzel logic that the Republicans are trying to sell is worthy of a cult.

btw, AOC torched him, the TikTok of it was pretty good. But screw TikTok, I can't wait for a better alternative to pop up so it can go the way of whatever that one was before Facebook with Tom.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/16vjbgh


It shows him sitting back with his stupid smug troll look while running his mouth pretending like he is not being exposed as a fool pushing Russian propaganda in real time.

btw, this is a really good 'squirrel' post in a thread about the fact that every Republican in my lifetime has led us into a recession and left it to the Democrats to pull us out of it while the GQP sits back and trolls them with stupid shit.

 

[Towwelie]

lol that dude cracks me up how hard tries to give GQP "See we are not racist" cred to the MAGA cult while selling the rich white man's agenda.

So let me get this straight, If I am working for a company, and that person pays the company when they buy something it goes from their account into the companies account, and that company then direct deposits my paycheck, and I then use the account that the money went into to write a check to my niece for a graduation present, if that original person plays for the Detroit Red Wings, does that mean that my niece got paid by a professional sports team and therefore should not be able to be considered a amateur athlete and not be able to compete in the olympics?

lmao the pretzel logic that the Republicans are trying to sell is worthy of a cult.

btw, AOC torched him, the TikTok of it was pretty good. But screw TikTok, I can't wait for a better alternative to pop up so it can go the way of whatever that one was before Facebook with Tom.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/16vjbgh
View attachment 5379910

It shows him sitting back with his stupid smug troll look while running his mouth pretending like he is not being exposed as a fool pushing Russian propaganda in real time.

btw, this is a really good 'squirrel' post in a thread about the fact that every Republican in my lifetime has led us into a recession and left it to the Democrats to pull us out of it while the GQP sits back and trolls them with stupid shit.

She speaks about taking part of the mesege out of context, not that those words weren't in the masege.
She neither denies the movement of the money. Hunter received money from Chinese company, gave them to his unt and she gave them to Joe. That is a proven fact.

 

[Towwelie]

The prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden's involvement in Ukrainian government corruption.