- "Something is Going On" – And It's Worse Than You Thought
Submitted by Justin Raimondo via Anti-War.com,
I used to wonder why in the heck right-wing commentators on Fox News kept repeating the same mantra over and over again: sitting through the Republican debates, my eyes glazed over when I heard each and every candidate denounce the Obama administration for refusing to say the Sacred Words: “radical Islamic terrorism.” What are these people talking about, I thought to myself: they’re obsessed!
In short, I wrote it off as Fox News boilerplate, until the other day when, in the wake of the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump said the following on Fox: “Something is going on. He doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other.” Reiterating this trope later on in the same show, he averred that the President “is not tough, not smart – or he’s got something else in mind.”
The Beltway crowd went ballistic. Lindsey Graham had a hissy fit, and other Republican lawmakers started edging away from the presumptive GOP nominee. The Washington Post ran a story with the headline: “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.” Realizing that this level of bias was a bit too brazen, the editors changed it an hour or so later to: “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to Orlando Shooting.” Not much better, but then again we’re talking about a newspaper that has a team of thirty or so reporters bent on digging up dirt on Trump.
In any case, Trump responded as he usually does: by doubling down. And he did it, as he usually does, on Twitter, tweeting the following:
“Media fell all over themselves criticizing what Donald Trump ‘may have insinuated about @POTUS.’ But he’s right:”
The tweet included a link to this story that appeared on Breitbart: an account of a 2012 intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Syria – and showing how US policy deliberately ignored and even succored it. Secured by Judicial Watch thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the document says it’s very likely we’ll see the creation of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” And this won’t just be a grassroots effort, but the result of a centrally coordinated plan: it will happen because “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” then engaged in a campaign to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar).”
This is precisely what happened, and, as we see, the Iraqi Army is now in the field – with US support – trying to retake Mosul and Anbar, with limited success. Yet it’s not like we didn’t know this was coming – and didn’t have a hand in creating the problem we are now spending billions of dollars and even some American lives trying to “solve.” Things are turning out exactly as the DIA report said they would:
“[T]here is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
And who, exactly, are these “supporting powers”? The anonymous author of the report points to “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” Last I heard, the US is part of the West – although the way things are going, that may not be true for very much longer. And of course the US has had a policy of supporting the “moderate” Syrian Islamist “opposition,” which ended in massive defections from the so-called Free Syrian Army to openly jihadist outfits like al-Nusra and ISIS.
There was a split in the administration over this policy, with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then CIA director David Petraeus arguing for a full-scale effort to overthrow beleaguered Ba’athist strongman Bashar al-Assad with massive aid to a loosely-defined “opposition.” Petraeus even openly argued for arming al-Nusra – the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda – and there were indications that, before Hillary left Foggy Bottom, an arms pipeline was opened up between the Libyan jihadists we aided in overthrowing Ghaddafi and their Syrian brothers.
Obama was reluctant to get more involved, but Hillary and Petraeus were gung-ho, along with the usual “humanitarian” interventionists in the administration and the media, who were accusing the President of standing by while “genocide” was being carried out by Assad. In reality, the jihadists were chopping off heads and wreaking just as much devastation as the Syrian army, but these facts didn’t make it into the media narrative.
In any case, the administration split was finally resolved when the President announced he was going to intervene in Syria with air strikes. This provoked a huge backlash from flyover country, with congressional switchboards tied up and protests coming in fast and furious. Clearly, the American people didn’t want another war in the Middle East, and, one by one, members of Congress who had planned on voting yes began to back down. The President backtracked – happily, I imagine. Hillary, who had alreadyleft the administration, was handed her final rebuke. Yet the seeds planted by her Syria policy would soon sprout into flowers of evil.
War was avoided, at least for the moment – but the prediction of that anonymous DIA agent was coming true. As thousands of US-trained –and-equipped rebels joined ISIS, along with the arms and other goodies provided courtesy of the US taxpayers, their leader declared the “Caliphate” and expanded its operations into North Africa, Europe – and the US.
The long reach of the Islamic State has been felt in this country twice in recent months: first in San Bernardino, and now in Orlando. Both terrorists traveled to Saudi Arabia, ostensibly for religious purposes, where they may have received training – and instructions.
When Omar Mateen opened fire in that Orlando nightclub, killing fifty people and wounding nearly one-hundred, the monster we created came back to haunt us. It didn’t matter that he may not have had direct links to ISIS: inspired by them, he carried out his grisly mission as he swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the “Caliph” of the Islamic State.
The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump’s mouth, ran an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there’s nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an extensive interview:
Al-Jazeera: “You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.”
Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don’t want to talk about that. Neither do the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them much more than they got. They’re all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.
Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.
The idea that we could use Islamists to fight jihadists was always crazy, and yet that is what the foreign policy Establishment and the congressional warhawks in both parties have been pushing. The “Sunni turn,” initiated by the Bush administration, supported (and funded) by the Saudis, the Turks, and the Gulf states, and escalated by the Obama administration, has empowered our worst enemies and endangered the American people. And here is the ultimate irony: it was done in the name of “fighting terrorism.” This gives new meaning to the concept of “blowback,” CIA parlance for an action (often covert) that has the unintended consequence of blowing back in our faces.
It certainly blew back in the faces of those partygoers in Orlando – in a hail of bullets.
That Trump gets this is little short of amazing, and yet truth often comes to us in unexpected ways. He may be an imperfect vessel – and that is surely an understatement – but he is absolutely correct in this instance: this administration and this President either “doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands. It’s one or the other.”
The media and the Never Trumpers leaped on this statement and translated it into the old Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim trope, but that’s not what he was talking about. He was talking about the largely unknown history of our intervention in Syria, where Hillary Clinton was the jihadists’ best friend and benefactor. It was she who led the charge to “liberate” Syria, to arm the “moderate” head-choppers and do to that war-torn wreck of a country what she had done to Libya. Obama knows it: and so does the media. But their lips are sealed.
Fortunately, mine aren’t.
So we finally unlock the Great Mystery: why oh why does is this administration and the Clinton campaign so reluctant to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism”? Is it because of political correctness and a fear of inciting “Islamophobia”? Don’t flatter them: they’re not above that, when it serves their purposes. But it doesn’t serve their purposes this time.
What they’re afraid of is alienating their allies in the Middle East – not just the jihadists they’ve funded and succored in an effort to overthrow Assad, but primarily the Saudis, the Turks, and the Gulf sheikhs who are all in on the game and are playing it for all it’s worth. And of course there’s the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions in “donations” from the Saudi royals and their satellites.
The US policy goal in the region is to block the Iranians and their Shi’ite allies, including Syria’s Assad, from expanding their influence in the wake of the failed Iraq war. That war installed a Shi’ite regime in Baghdad, and in order to protect our vaunted ally Israel – which is set on regime change in Syria – we are backing and have been backing Sunni radicals, precisely those “radical Islamic terrorists” whose name will never pass Hillary Clinton’s lips.
We’ve been pointing this out on this site for years: I’ve written about it extensively. And now the Republican candidate for President is talking about it. To all those well-intentioned hand-wringers out there who think I’ve gone overboard in my coverage of Trump, contemplate that amazing fact for a while – and then get back to me.
- Hong Kong Bookseller Who Was 'Disappeared' By Chinese Authorities Tells Of What Happened
It's no secret that the Chinese government has no problem making people disappear that are causing a problem for the communist regime – we have written about the topic many times (here, here, and here).
However, the latest case of a disappearance (that we're aware of) is most interesting. Beginning late last year, five booksellers from the shop Causeway Bay Books (which among other things sells books containing political gossip) in Hong Kong went missing, and all of them later surfaced in China in police custody for illegally trading banned books in mainland China. All have returned to Hong Kong except one, and the most recent to be returned home is Lam Wing-kee, who was reportedly back in Hong Kong earlier this week. At the time, Lam didn't have anything to say about what happened, "he refused to disclose other details regarding his absence" the police said.
It appears that now, Lam has a lot to say about what happened. In a televised news conference, Lam said he was detained by Chinese authorities while visiting the mainland city of Shenzhen, across the border from Hong Kong, and his travel documents were confiscated. Lam was then blindfolded, handcuffed, and taken by train to the eastern city of Ningbo about 13 hours away where he would spend the next five months in a 200 to 300 square foot cell before being moved to an apartment. Lam would be watched 24 hours a day by Chinese guards, and even something as simple as brushing his teeth would be monitored. A string was even tied to the toothbrush for fear Lam may want to harm himself. Lam said the he was detained by a little known "Central Examination Group" of the Chinese Communist Party, a special task force that reports to senior Beijing leaders.
"I couldn't call my family. I could only look up to the sky, all alone.", "they wanted to lock you up until you go mad" Lam said.
Lam said he had to sign away his right to a lawyer and right to contact his family, and was subsequently questioned 20 to 30 times about his role in Hong Kong's publishing industry. At one point, Lam said that he was forced to sign a confession that books were unlawfully sold in order to harm the Chinese society. The confession also was also written to incriminate his colleague (who also has been disappeared, and has yet to return).
"It was a show, and I accept it. I had to follow the script. If I did not follow it strictly, they would ask for a retake" Lam said regarding the confession.
Chinese authorities thought that Lam would continue to cooperate, so Lam was apparently allowed to travel back to Hong Kong after promising to return to the mainland with a hard drive full of information on customers. Instead, Lam held a press conference, and said "I dare not go back. I don't plan on setting foot in mainland China ever again."
The details provided by Lam not surprisingly contradict China's claims that nobody had been taken, rather everyone who disappeared had turned themselves in voluntarily to cooperate with an investigation – Beijing's go to line whenever anyone mysteriously turns up missing.
"Lam Wing-kee has blown apart the Chinese authorities' story. He has exposed what many have suspected all along: that this was a concerted operation by the Chinese to go after the booksellers." said Mabel Au, Amnesty International's director in Hong Kong.
"If we remain silent, if I, myself, being the least vulnerable among the booksellers remain silent, Hong Kong will become hopeless. It took lots of courage, and two sleepless nights of consideration, for me to decide to share the whole story with you and tell the whole world that this incident is not only about me or the bookstore. It's about the core value that the people of Hong Kong need to safeguard. Hong Kongers should not bow down to the power" Lam said during the press conference.
* * *
The incident, aside for the fact that humans are being abducted, provides Hong Kong with evidence that the "one country, two systems" formula under which Hong Kong has been governed since its return to China from British rule in 1997 is being violated.The system was to guarantee separate laws and freedoms not granted elsewhere in China for 50 years. While we certainly can appreciate that there are theoretical frameworks in place to separate mainland China and Hong Kong, we are realists, and the reality is that China will do what it pleases when it comes to these matters. We hope we don't learn of another Lam Wing-kee disappearance as a result of this decision to expose what really takes place behind the scenes – it certainly was a courageous thing to do.
Here is how China views the "one country, two system" framework:
- Elizabeth Warren’s War On The Poor
Submitted by Patrick Trombly via The Mises Institute,
There is no American politician more closely associated with “progressive” economic causes than Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. The senator is widely regarded by the political Left as an expert on financial issues, is a self-professed champion of the “working poor,” and is a proud, finger-wagging chastiser of the 1 percent and Wall Street. Her cause is to lift up the least powerful and protect them from the most powerful. She appears to genuinely believe in this cause, and has made several policy proposals that she believes will serve it. Because of her position and the public’s association of the senator with this cause, it is assumed that the policies she proposes will in fact serve it, and that anyone who supports the same causes should get on board and support her proposed policies.
Senator Warren’s stated objective of helping the least powerful is laudable. The problem is that, though well-intentioned, many of Senator Warren’s proposed policies would actually harm the very people whom she intends to help, while her other proposals represent distractions from the real threats to the least powerful, and thus have the effect of allowing these threats to continue. By occupying the seat of defender of the least powerful while advocating policies that would harm the least powerful, the senator has become a danger to her own cause. Below are three examples.
Minimum Wage / “Fight for $15”
Senator Warren has long advocated an increase in the minimum wage, to $15/hour, on the premise that raising the minimum wage will lift the wages of the working poor — people presently earning, say, $9 per hour. The problem is that that is not how minimum wage, or any other price floor, works. The minimum wage is a price floor. A price floor does not magically lift prices, but merely establishes a legal minimum price below which exchanges are not allowed to take place, rendering exchanges that would have taken place at lower prices illegal.
Much in the way that a $15 minimum price for a hamburger would not raise the price that people pay for a McDonald’s hamburger from about $2 to $15. A $15/hour minimum wage would not raise the price that McDonald’s franchises will pay for unskilled labor. Instead, it would force McDonald’s franchises and other employers of low-skilled individuals to replace staffs of several low-skilled employees with staffs comprising fewer, skilled employees, and/or to automate. In either case, some low-skilled workers presently earning $9/hour to $11/hour would lose their jobs, or have their hours cut significantly back, to make room for the fewer, higher-skilled laborers and/or robots. While Senator Warren may not intend for this result to occur, it is what would occur if her policy recommendation is adopted. Her proposed policy would transform millions of working poor people into unemployed poor people.
Payday Lenders
Similarly, Senator Warren has recently proposed restrictions limiting the ability of lenders, known as “payday lenders,” to make short-term, fast-approval, unsecured loans to consumers with marginal or no credit histories. Much in the way that Senator Warren disapproves of the wages that low-skilled workers are paid, she disapproves of the interest and fees charged on these unsecured loans to high-risk borrowers. However, interest rates are similar to wages in that they often behave like prices. Interest rates often react to restrictions the same way prices do. And much in the way that outlawing employment of people at wages below $15/hour does not lift anyone’s wage to $15/hour, outlawing high-rate loans does not lower the rate on anyone’s loan. Instead, it prevents loans that would have been made at high interest rates from being made.
In other words, such a policy denies credit to the very people whom Senator Warren claims to want to support — even though those very people have determined that they have a borrowing need. Whatever it is that they need or want to purchase with the borrowed funds will be denied them, whether it is the rent payment, a medical prescription, dental work, car repair, or some other expense. As with the “Fight for $15,” Senator Warren may not intend for this result to occur, but it is what would occur if her policy prescription is adopted.
Income Inequality
Senator Warren and others have pointed out that since the early 1970s, and especially since the mid-1990s, there has been a growing gap between the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent and everyone else, in terms of income and wealth. The underlying causes are quite simple. Generally speaking, the groups with the most wealth tend to generate their income through ownership and trading of financial assets priced in dollars. Everyone else tends to generate their income through wages and salaries paid in dollars. Meanwhile, the central bank has, to an ever-increasing degree, been expanding the supply of dollars, thus perpetually devaluing wages and salaries while inflating the prices of financial assets. This is why real wages have been stagnant for decades while investment returns on real estate, stocks, and commodities have skyrocketed.
In 1971, the last vestiges of the gold standard were abandoned, leaving the Fed free to expand the money supply according to a goal of “price stability,” which it defines as being “mildly inflationary,” but which, curiously, ignores the prices of assets, including some of the very assets directly financed with the newly issued and loaned money, such as houses and stocks.
Since the mid-1990s, naturally deflationary forces such as the end of the Cold War, the liberalization of China and freer trade have — under these definitions — given the Fed increasing room to expand the money supply without triggering significant inflation of the prices that are included in its consumer price metric. This has offset the deflation, and thus the gains in workers’ purchasing power, that the above-mentioned world events should have brought about. This has also made saving more difficult, and, in the short run, less attractive, with the obvious result that the savings rate for the last 20 years has been half the savings rate in the prior 20.
After a generation of low savings, about 40 percent of Americans don’t have enough set aside to cover a surprise $1,000 expense. There is nothing novel or complex about this. Inflating the currency to enrich the already-wealthy at the expense of everyone else is a centuries-old trick, infamously employed by John Law in France in the early 1700s, and many others. Moreover, the boom-bust cycles that also result from inflating the currency via the lending channel create unnecessary volatility in job markets, as employment opportunities are created and then destroyed in boom sectors such as construction in the 2000s and oil drilling in the 2010s.
What does this have to do with Senator Warren? Her position on the Banking Committee gives her an audience with the Chair of the Federal Reserve on a regular basis. Yet she has never taken the opportunity to raise the issue of monetary inflation and its ill effects. Instead she has focused on the Fed’s decisions not to “break up big banks” or “bring bankers to trial” for various misdeeds. Some of these misdeeds are real, but none related to what Senator Warren contends are her main concerns: wage stagnation and income inequality. Indeed, whether most deposits are held and most loans are made by 10 banks or 10,000 banks won’t change income and wealth inequality if the banks are members of a protected cartel that creates money out of thin air and loans it into the financial system. Senator Warren’s efforts in this respect use up attention and energy that could otherwise be devoted to understanding what actually causes the wage stagnation and inequality: the systematic and perpetual wage and savings devaluation, and asset price inflation, conducted by our central bank.
We should not quarrel with Senator Warren’s stated goal of protecting the least powerful in society, but we should take issue with many of Senator Warren’s proposed strategies to achieve her stated goal — because they don’t work. If Senator Warren wishes to achieve her stated goals, then she should re-think her policy objectives, become familiar with basic economic principles, and adjust her policy prescriptions accordingly, especially with respect to the central bank.
- US Citizen Kills Himself In Taiwan Courtroom After Being Convicted Of Drug Possession
A US citizen killed himself in courtroom in Taiwan on Thursday after being given a four year prison sentence for being convicted of growing marijuana and opium at his home in Changhua, in central Taiwan.
Upon learning of his sentence from a court interpreter, 41 year old Tyrel Martin Marhanka replied "four years?" The interpreter told Marhanka that he could appeal, but Marhanka replied "I don't want to appeal." According to the Taipei Times, Marhanka became agitated and yelled "I don't want to live anymore", before removing two 21cm scissor blades and stabbing himself on both sides of the neck, severing the arteries.
At the time of the April arrest, the Taipei Times reports that police found more than 200 cannabis plants, 195 dried cannabis plants and 10 opium poppies at a rented house in Yongjing Township, Changhua County.
A prison term of up to seven years was possible, but the court gave just four years because Marhanka hadn't sold anything, and used just for his own use.
An initial investigation found that Marhanka was able to smuggle the scissor blades into the courtroom with a magazine, and the metal detector didn't uncover the scissors when he entered the building.
The court said it felt "deep regret", and that the building didn't have enough space for a more advanced scanner, but would install X-ray machines in a new building.
Marhanka had lived in Taiwan for more than 15 years, and worked as an English teacher. He leaves behind a wife and two children as a result of this bizarre and tragic incident.
Here is local news covereage of the incident.
- Japan: A Future Of Stagnation
Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,
Take a declining population with declining rates of productivity growth and load it up with debt, and you get a triple-whammy recipe for permanent stagnation.
One of our longtime friends in Japan just sold the family business. The writing was on the wall, and had been for the past decade: fewer customers, with less money, and no end of competition for the shrinking pool of customers and spending.Our friend is planning to move to another more vibrant economy in Asia. She didn't want to spend the rest of her life struggling to keep the business afloat. She wanted to have a family and a business with a future. It was the right decision, not only for her but for her family: get out while there's still some value in the business to sell.
I have written a number of entries on Japan's economic downward-spiral and its largely hidden social depression over the past decade, most recently: Global Bellwether: Japan's Social Depression (September 25, 2014)
Lessons from Japan: Decades of Decay, Unavoidable Collapse (April 26, 2016)
The Keynesian Fantasy is that encouraging people to borrow money to replace what they no longer earn is a policy designed to fail, and fail it has. Borrowing money incurs interest payments, which even at low rates of interest eventually crimps disposable earnings.
Banks must loan this money at a profit, so interest rates paid by borrowers can't fall to zero. If they do, banks can't earn enough to pay their operating costs, and they will close their doors.
If banks reach for higher income, that requires loaning money to poor credit risks and placing risky bets in financial markets. Once you load them up with enough debt, even businesses and wage earners who were initially good credit risks become poor credit risks.
Uncreditworthy borrowers default, costing the banks not just whatever was earned on the risky loans but the banks' capital.
The banking system is designed to fail, and fail it does. Japan has played the pretend-and-extend game for decades by extending defaulting borrowers enough new debt to make minimal interest payments, so the non-performing loan can be listed in the "performing" category.
Central banks play the game by lowering interest rates so debtors can borrow more. This works like monetary cocaine for a while, boosting spending and giving the economy a false glow of health, but then the interest payments start sapping earnings, and once the borrowed money has been spent/squandered, what's left is the interest payments stretching into the future.
Central banks played another game: buying assets to inflate asset bubbles, bubbles that were supposed to spark the wealth effect: once businesses and households see their net worth rise as assets bubble higher, they will be psychologically induced to borrow against that new wealth and spend, spend, spend.
The Bank of Japan has played this game to little effect. The BOJ now owns a significant chunk of Japan's stock market, but the real economy continues its long descent into stagnation.
Demographics matter. As the populace ages, older people spend less and sell assets to raise cash for their non-earning retirement years. As young families have fewer children, consumption declines accordingly.
Take a declining population with declining rates of productivity growth and load it up with debt, and you get a triple-whammy recipe for permanent stagnation. There are Degrowth strategies that make sense because they're designed to be sustainable, but first the systems that have been designed to fail–Keynesian stimulus policies and the banking system–must be allowed to fail.
- Living 'The American Dream' In These Cities Is Not Possible
Originally posted at TheRedPin.com,
"The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement."
That idea – and those words, written by James Truslow Adams in 1931 – forms the foundation upon which the country was built.
But that foundation has cracked.
It’s one thing to fantasize about living the American Dream from regions outside the United States. It’s another to be already living in America and to not be able to attain it.
And while the American Dream ensures that no one is legally barred from reaching their full potential, it doesn’t prevent individuals from being held back in other ways. After analyzing the cost of living and median income levels in 74 U.S. cities, we found significant obstacles to obtaining the American Dream across the country.
Picture Perfect, American Dream–Style
Imagine it: You own a 1,480-square-foot home with a one-car garage, perfect for your family of four and all your needs, all nicely contained by a manicured front lawn and a white picket fence. You also have the funds for two adults-only dinner dates and one trip to the movies per month.
Sounds nice, right? That version of material wealth and comfort will cost you roughly $3,547 per month, or $42,548 per year.
The bulk of your expense is not even the mortgage; instead, it’s the monthly groceries. Clearly, you have very hungry mouths to feed.
Don’t forget, it will cost you approximately $245,000 to raise a child until the age of 18. And the typical American Dream usually includes at least two children.
Getting Ahead, Just by Demographics
Based on three criteria, we can easily divide the 323.5 million people living in the United States into “those who can afford to live on easy street” and “those who cannot” – the “haves” and “have-nots,” a concept that American literature has widely explored and that American citizens experience every day.
According to our research, the first required criterion for becoming one of the “haves” is simply to be a man. Despite the fact that women make up nearly half the workforce – and act as the main, or at least equal, breadwinner in 4 out of 10 households – women earn only 79 cents for every dollar that a man makes, according to 2015 figures. That’s a gender wage gap of 21 percentage points.
The second criterion for becoming one of the “haves” is to be either white or Asian.
And the third criterion is age: those most likely to be “haves” are Asian men between the ages of 35 and 54, and white men between the ages of 35 and 64.
The implications of failing to fall into those three categories are staggering, especially when we focus on the 35 to 44 age range. An Asian man in this age range will make $66,318 each year, but his female counterpart won’t even crack $40,000. The same disparity holds true for white women.
And many black men and women, as well as Hispanic men and women, sit far below the American Dream line – in some cases, by as much as $20,000, according to median results.
Needing Smarts to Succeed
From the first day of kindergarten, and possibly even before, American children learn that an education is the gateway to success. With it, there is nothing they can’t do; but without it, they are destined to fail.
To some extent, this maxim proves to be true. Statistically, both men and women with minimal education – a high school diploma, or less – will not head quickly toward the American Dream. Even those with some college education, but without a degree, sit below the required $42,000.
However, with a master’s, doctorate, or professional degree, a man’s salary is almost guaranteed to exceed the income required to live comfortably. A man with a professional degree can expect to earn at least six figures, while a woman can expect to earn approximately $63,000. And while this discrepancy is shocking, it pales in comparison to the discrepancy between men and women who have an associate or bachelor’s degree. For women with these degrees, even achieving financial security remains a challenge.
Based on median income, a woman who has earned a bachelor’s degree will make $40,033, while a man who has obtained his associate degree will see nearly $44,000. That puts him, but not her, on track toward a white picket fence. It’s a trend that’s echoed in every education increment.
Reality Sinks in for Major American Cities
It’s no secret that coastal living is expensive. However, we might go a step further and say that the American Dream is fast becoming a fantasy on the coasts. That statement sharpens the cold, hard facts and puts them into perspective.
The good news is that middle America and the Southwest still offer a thriving environment for the American Dream. It’s hard to imagine just how far the dollar can go before moving there, according to Holly Johnson.
“For example, when I tell people I bought my 2,000-square-foot Indianapolis home on one-third of an acre for a cool $188,500, they often look at me like I have three heads,” she writes in her article, “A Potentially Easier Way to Get Rich: Move to the Midwest.” “In fact, I’m pretty sure they assume I’m being dishonest somehow, or that my home is actually a giant cardboard refrigerator box. But they’re wrong.”
Sure, she admits, the Midwest isn’t nearly as exciting as the East and West Coasts. However, small-town festivals provide entertainment, and open fields and parks (instead of congested, busy streets) are perfect for children. And community theater, while it’s not the Broadway stage, provides a dose of much-needed culture.
Depending on your priorities, the Southwest and Midwest could be the answer for your American Dream – at least until more people catch on to the trend.
Look No Further for the American Dream
Of these 53 cities where the good life is attainable, the vast majority are inland or comfortably nestled in the Midwest and Southwest– which should come as no surprise.
At the top of the list is Fairfax, Virginia, where the median yearly savings add up to roughly $45,500, mostly thanks to the approximately $100,500 median household income and the fact that 91.7 percent of its residents have finished high school.
Anchorage, Alaska, boasts a yearly savings of about $32,200, with a median household income of $78,121 and a graduation rate of 92.5 percent. Stamford, Connecticut, rounds out the top three cities, with $28,268 in savings, a $77,221 median household income, and a graduation rate of 87 percent.
Zero Dreamers in Sight
New York, New York: It’s a wonderful town – for those with a boatload of disposable income or absolutely zero interest in making it in America.
When purchasing the typical 1,480-square-foot home, New Yorkers pay approximately $1,625 per square foot, for a grand total of $2.4 million worth of real estate. The average person needs to earn nearly $90,000 in addition to their income to afford the American Dream in New York.
That’s the extreme. In San Francisco, the tune is more like $36,500 in supplemental income, which 25-year-old Peter Berkowitz was simply not willing to pay. Instead, he constructed an 8-foot-long bedroom pod inside his pal’s apartment, so he could live up the street from the beach for a fraction of the rent he would otherwise be paying.
Where to Find the American Dream
As shown on the map, the United States comprises pockets of affordability and unaffordability. The states where you are most unlikely to thrive are New York and Massachusetts thanks to housing costs.
And while Hawaii offers insurmountable beauty, very few people can afford the American Dream there. Island living is insanely expensive. A minor example that speaks volumes: In Hawaii, a five-pound sack of potatoes will run you $6.48, more than twice the national average.
Overall, people living in California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, and much of the East Coast have a harder time building their savings accounts than those in the Southwest and Midwest, due to a larger disparity between income and expenses.
Barely Getting By
This past spring, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law that enacted a statewide $15 minimum wage plan. Portland, Oregon, also bumped up its minimum wage, and the issue of minimum wage looms large in this year’s presidential race – for good reason.
In Hawaii, the issue seems most severe. The current minimum wage is $7.75, but in order for Hawaiians to afford the American Dream, minimum wage would need to be raised to $34.49 – nearly 4.5 times higher than what it is now.
The pattern continues throughout the U.S. If citizens are to have any hope of reaching the American Dream, the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. – as well as in New York, California, Alaska, and Connecticut – needs to be about three times higher than it currently is, while the minimum wage in Mississippi needs to be about twice as high.
For now, the minimum wage debate only focuses on getting Americans above the poverty line. Perhaps focusing on the Dream will come next.
Conclusion
For some parts of the country, namely the Southwest and Midwest, the risk of never achieving the American dream is slim. There, the American Dream is alive and well. And while residents give up a certain level of excitement and culture to live in these locations, they get more bang for their buck and live more comfortably.
In the coastal areas and big cities, it’s nearly impossible for Americans to live out the ideal picture of the picket-fenced life. For them, the American Dream changes once again, and they must adjust it to fit their mold of what brings them happiness, security and comfort.
Read more here at TheRedPin.com…
- Rio Declares State Of "Public Calamity", Warns Of Total Collapse In Security, Health And Transport
Earlier today, the IAAF announced that Russian track and field athletes would be banned from the Rio Oympics due to allegations of systematic doping. Rune Andersen, who heads the IAAF task force overseeing Russia’s attempts to reform, said that a “deep-seated culture of tolerance, or worse, appears not to be materially changed”. “No athlete will compete in Rio under a Russian flag,” he said.
Perhaps instead of fighting this decision, Putin’s response should be a simple “thanks” because just hours later, and just 49 days before the start of the Olympics, the Rio state government declared a state of “public calamity” (yes, that’s the technical term) warning of a risk of total collapse in public security, health, transport and virtually everything else, because as the local government explained, the financial crisis is preventing it from fulfilling its requirements for the Games.
‘State of calamity’ decreed in Rio; the state is broke. #Rio2016 #Brazil pic.twitter.com/nJen4WTiQd
— juliana barbassa (@jbarbassa) June 17, 2016
In other words, the money is gone… all gone, and as we jokingly predicted some time ago, as a result of the ongoing economic and now political catastrophe in the country, the 2016 Oympics may never even happen in the country gripped by what may be the worst depression in its history. Oh, and then the whole Zika thing.
As Bruce Douglas adds, the Rio state government fears “total collapse in public security, health, education, mobility, education, environment” due to financial crisis, and that Rio de Janeiro “will adopt exceptional necessary measures to rationalize all public services, with the aim of realizing the [Olympic] Games.”
It was not clear what would happen if the rationalization fails. Finally, by declaring a state of public calamity, the state government of Rio de Janeiro aims to get access to federal cash.
The question is whether there is any left.
And then, on the background of this dire assessment, some humor:
I would like to ask the Rio de Janeiro state government what exactly declaring a state of public calamity means, but website’s down #Rio2016
— Bruce Douglas (@bruceecurb) June 17, 2016
The silver lining: no matter how bad Brazil’s economy gets, it will always remain rich in natural resources
- Las Vegas Going Dry? Largest Reservoir In America Reaches Record Low
Las Vegas and its 2 million residents and 40 million tourists a year may have a problem. As we noted a month ago, America's largest reservoir Lake Mead reached a record low, nearing levels that would force the Interior Department to declare a "shortage," which will lead to significant cutbacks for Arizona and Nevada. Well it has got worse…
At 1072 Feet, Lake Mead has never been more empty…
Under the federal guidelines that govern reservoir operations, the Interior Department would declare a shortage if Lake Mead’s level is projected to be below 1,075 feet as of the start of the following year. In its most recent projections, the Bureau of Reclamation calculated the odds of a shortage at 10 percent in 2017, while a higher likelihood – 59 percent – at the start of 2018.
But those estimates will likely change when the bureau releases a new study in August. Rose Davis, a public affairs officer for the Bureau of Reclamation, said if that study indicates the lake’s level is going to be below the threshold as of Dec. 31, a shortage would be declared for 2017.
That would lead to significant cutbacks for Arizona and Nevada. California, which holds the most privileged rights to water from the Colorado River, would not face reductions until the reservoir hits a lower trigger point.
And now, to put this rapid decline in context, NASA Earth Observatory published the two space images…
As NASA explains, they’re from a pair of Landsat satellites and show the lake near its highest and lowest points over the past 32 years. The Landsat 5 satellite acquired the top image on May 15, 1984. The lake last approached full capacity in the summer of 1983. Landsat 8 acquired the second image – below – on May 23, 2016.
As one water research scientist warned, "this problem is not going away and it is likely to get worse, perhaps far worse, as climate change unfolds."
As population growth and heavy demand for water collide with hotter temperatures and reduced snowpack in the future, there will be an even greater mismatch between supply and demand, said Kelly Sanders, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California who specializes in water and energy issues.
“The question becomes how to resolve this mismatch across states that all depend on the river to support their economic growth,” Sanders said. She expects incentives and markets to help ease some of the strains on water supplies, “but it is going to be tricky to make the math work in the long term.”
- Orlando Killer's Father "Knew Obama"? Schmoozed In Washington, Sought Afghan Presidency
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,
How close was presumed killer Omar Mateen to the bizarre world of Washington politics?
Close enough to raise your hackles about what is really going on.
Mateen’s father, Seddique Mateen, apparently visits the Capitol frequently, take pictures in front of the State Department and White House press room, and likes to pose with Congressmen, especially from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
There are also rumors, though they are unconfirmed, that Seddique Mateen has also met with President Obama.
His activity at the State Department and Foreign Affairs Committee also suggest possible liaisons with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary of State John Kerry, along with other U.S. politicians.
Picture of him were posted to his Facebook account:
Seddique is currently running for president in Afghanistan, and has been lobbying for State Department backing in what would be a tense balance between support for the Taliban and U.S. alike. He also broadcasts a TV show in California that feature his political views and campaign material.
It is father Seddique who planted the story in the media that Mateen was driven to kill after becoming upset at seeing two men kissing in Miami – framing the issue in terms of hate crimes and politically-loaded groups in conflict:
“We were in Downtown Miami, Bayside, people were playing music, and he saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry. They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, ‘Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.’ And they we were in the men’s bathroom and men were kissing each other.”
Given that his son was a long-time security contractor at G4S in conjunction with Homeland Security and FEMA government contracts before he apparently pledged loyalty to ISIS and shot up a gay nightclub, there are many questions about the penetration of security inside the U.S. by radical Islamic, foreign and/or ISIS elements.
Patrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire identified him as a CIA asset in Afghanistan:
FACT: The father of this shooter is very well-connected. Too well-connected for this event’s narrative to considered ‘normal.’
[Seddique Mateen is] an absolutely ideal profile for a Washington-managed, CIA controlled-opposition political candidate….
He also cites Daniel Hopsicker’s interesting addition – that the members of Congress that Mateen has been meeting with are also connected to intelligence activities involving Afghanistan… and so is the media channel:
My own suspicion was first awakened on Monday morning when U.S. news outlets uniformly reported that the father’s TV show aired on a “U.S.-based Afghan satellite channel.”
The name of the nameless Afghan satellite channel, Payam Afghan, is said to be widely-known in Southwest Asia as a CIA-Pakistani ISI construct, as this picture from Flicker shows.
Pictured below is Seddique Mateen with California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Rohrabacher (R-CA) was initially elected to Congress in 1988, with the fundraising help of friend Oliver North.
Rohrabacher’s decades-long involvement in “all things Afghan” eventually earned him the nickname “Gunga Dana.” Today he chairs the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.
Mateen was also pictured with Rep. Ed Royce, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Clearly, there is something very weird up with this mass shooting story… it doesn’t make sense, and the figures involved appear very tied to intelligence networks and security activities.
While the American people at large must endure extra security checks at airports and a growing police state that warrants them with suspicion and contempt, Muslim assets with questionable ties and motives are inside the security system that was set-up in response to 9/11 to stop terrorists and lone wolf attacks.
Ironic, or infiltration by design?
Perhaps there is more to Mateen as well, as his entire story pieces together a very convenient narrative, and his history as an actor raises questions as to the legitimacy of his identity to begin with. Is he a 21st Century Oswald-cutout-style patsy to fit the homegrown ISIS terror plot that the feds wish to advance?
The official story does not check out, so there is clearly some other explanation.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...