November 5, 2017

To Trump Supporters Who Tout the Dow Ind. Avg., Come and See Me When it Hits 54,000

You see, it's the art of the con. Make something look better than it actually is.

I have an annuity. I follow the "market". Increases are not calculated by points, or even dollars per share. It's the percentage of increase that matters.

So, Donald the asshole wants to tout the Dow every chance he gets, before the troops, the boy scouts, rallies, anywhere. Record numbers. No shit. You took office at a record number, so any increase is a record. Try doing it when the market is down 60%.

But I digress. About the 54,000 Dow. President Obama took office with a DJIA of about 6,000. He left office with a Dow at about 18,000. That's a 200% increase (triple, minus my initial investment). If I had $100,000 in the market on January 20, 2009 I would have had $300,000 on January 19, 2017.

So, for Donald the asshole to match that accomplishment by his predecessor, he has to take an 18,000 point Dow and deliver it to 54,000 points in eight years.

You see, if I had $100,000 in the market on January 20, 2017, at 18,000 points, for me to have $300,000, Trump has to have a market of 54,000 points.

So, my Trump enablers, come and talk to me when the Dow hits 54,000.

November 5, 2017

Tax Cuts for Corporations Don't Increase Wages, Unions Do

As the CNN commercial with the apple points out, facts matter.

I'm a union Rep and I have been negotiating union contracts for 25 years. At hospitals, schools, municipal light companies, pharmaceutical companies, sports stadiums and more. Both in the Private Sector and the Public Sector. Most of them are maintenance workers (i.e. electricians, technicians, plumbers, carpenters, laborers and painters), some are security technicians (ADT, TYCO and Direct TV). I am also part of an organizing team. We are responsible for about 42 Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's) in and around Boston.

Tax rates for corporations are irrelevant to this discussion of wage growth. Companies can pass through any taxes to the consumer. The key factor to a company increasing wages is profit. Profits have never been higher in almost all the industries I work with. Our CBA's run between 3 and 5 years, with 3 years being the norm. Raises have run between 2.5% and 3.5%, with some contracts increasing benefits each year. The norm is 3% per year and increases in pension contributions, which happens in a majority of the CBA's. The Pharmaceutical Industry is the most generous. We have at least 8 contracts where the best health care plans are paid 100% by the employer. Let me repeat that, health care premiums for maintenance workers at 100%, with Harvard Pilgrim, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and in some cases the union's health care plan, which is self insured.

Corporations consider labor a commodity. They will not pay more for any commodity than they have to. Hence, the union sets the rate in contract negotiations through collective bargaining and strike threats (I haven't had a strike in the 25 years I've been negotiating).

Licensed personnel (Plumbers, HVAC, Electricians) make, on average, between $85,000 a year and $100,000 a year, the unlicensed personnel make between $60,000 a year and $75,000, depending on the individual CBA. I represent some electrical engineers working at a municipal light company making between $135,000 and $160,000, but those are high end, highly educated positions.

So, to my point. The middle class has shrunk over the past 4 decades in a similar proportion to the reduction in union membership (we call it "density&quot . Profits are doing fine. Look at the stock market. The Market increases as profits go to the share holders. There is no need for a tax cut to increase wages. If the boards of directors wanted to increase wages, there's plenty of money to do so. Do you think the Walton's don't increase wages and benefits at WalMart because they don't have enough money? Do you think that they will do it now because they can leave their offspring their fortune without paying taxes on it?

And Unions don't only increase wages at union locations, but at non-union locations as well. When we start an organizing drive to get a majority of workers to vote in a sanctioned election to become union, the company always promises to increase wages and benefits in order to say to the workers "see, we're good employers. you don't need the union." They can't actually do it during the election drive, as that would be an unfair labor practice (ULP). Kinda like a bribe. But they can make that promise.

In the past 25 years, federal and state laws have made it more difficult to unionize a work force. "Right to Work" laws decimated unions in 28 states. Right to Work makes paying dues optional. Yet, the union must still give full service to every member, whether they contribute or not. The Labor Dept. estimates that a union worker makes between 24% and 28% greater wages and benefits than workers, performing similar work at non-union location. Dues run between 2% and 3% for a union worker. You do the math. Who do you think is better off? That's not including all the other services that a union provides, like seniority, protection against discrimination and arbitrary termination.

Tax cuts have always meant higher profits and higher dividends. But only in a union environment, can profits translate into wage growth, and there is already more than enough profits to accomplish that.

November 5, 2017

Drug Dealer to Cop: "Don't Look in the Trunk".

A drug dealer was pulled over for a traffic violation. As the officer approached the driver, he asked the driver for his license and registration. "Do you know why I pulled you over, sir?" the officer asked. "I think I might have been speeding", the driver admitted to his minor infraction, as he carried 5 Kilos of cocaine in the trunk of his car. "But officer, don't you dare look in my trunk."

<snip>An attorney representing President Trump in the ongoing special counsel investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia said in an interview published Saturday that his team would challenge Robert Mueller if the probe began looking at Trump's business deals.

Politico reported Saturday that Jay Sekulow, a conservative attorney who joined Trump's team in June, said Trump's attorneys would challenge the legality of Mueller's actions if the special counsel were to....<snip>

Link;
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-attorney-we%e2%80%99ll-challenge-mueller-if-he-investigates-old-real-estate-deals/ar-AAurqU1?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17

November 4, 2017

I'll make a deal with my Republican friends.....

If Donald Trump will go before an investigative Committee of Congress and allow himself to be questioned, under oath, for eleven (11) fucking hours, straight, in a single day, I'll give them each $1,000 (Maximum, 5 people).

That's what my hero, Hillary Rodham Clinton, did before a hostile committee, chaired by a Republican, just a couple of years ago. And guess what, she ate them alive.

Let's see how this orange, no good, lying, bigoted, misogynistic, incompetent, traitorous, blow hard, moron sack of sticking shit could do under similar circumstances.

Can you just imagine that hearing? Eleven hours of grueling testimony. Trump can't do a half hour interview on Fox without fucking up.

Link:
http://time.com/4084578/benghazi-hearing-hillary-clinton-analysis/

November 4, 2017

If this story was about Gov. Clinton instead of Gov. Huckabee, do you think it would be over?

Huckabee: 'I take full responsibility" for shooting suspect's clemency


December 1, 2009 6:45 p.m. EST

Can you imagine if this was a Democratic Governor who opposed Trump? How often do you think this would have been brought up on FOX news? It seems that any mistake a Democrat makes is never forgotten and any mistake a Republican makes is never remembered.

But I remember.


<snip>Man accused of killing 4 Washington officers had criminal history in Arkansas:
Washington In 2000, Huckabee commuted his 108-year prison term, making him eligible for parole

Man who put suspect behind bars said Huckabee issued clemency at "an astounding rate"
Huckabee: I "acted on the facts presented to me in 2000," denied 92% of clemency requests

(CNN) -- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Tuesday said he accepts "full responsibility" for granting clemency in 2000 to a man authorities say gunned down four Lakewood, Washington, police officers Sunday.

Maurice Clemmons, 37, was shot and killed early Tuesday by Seattle police. He was the subject of a two-day manhunt after the four officers were killed at a coffee shop as they met before their shifts began Sunday<snip>


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/washington.police.huckabee/

November 3, 2017

Trump: "I have the greatest memory of all time"

How about this for a contradiction?

President Donald Trump says he doesn't "remember much" about a March 2016 meeting with his campaign foreign policy adviser that is now front-and-center in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump says: "It was a very unimportant meeting. It took place a long time ago. I don't remember much about it."

Link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-remember-meeting-center-russia-probe-50907927

November 3, 2017

The Democratic Party for Democrats

Let me start out by giving a little background about myself. I'm a union rep who sits on a number of Political Action Committees. I am also the chairman of my city's ward committee for the State Democratic Party. I have attended each state convention as a delegate for the past 16 years. I contribute financially to the party and individual candidates every year. I think that background information is necessary to put my opinion in perspective.

Independents are not Democrats. I love Bernie and his ideas. I, too, am a Socialist at heart. But Bernie was never a Democrat until this past primary season, and he has returned to being an Independent since the election. As I said, I'm a Democrat. That means that I advance the party's agenda in every election, all the time. Sometimes, my candidate loses in the primary, as Hillary did in 2008. I was an ardent Obama supporter the day after Hillary conceded. You see, I know any Democratic President is better than any Republican President, every time. Supreme Court appointments, lesser federal judges, Labor Board appointments, cabinet members, the entire executive branch. I might not get 100% of what I want, but I know I will be happier about my government on more days than not with a Democrat in the White House.

The Democratic Party stands for something. Workers' Rights (my most important issue), but also other social issues I agree with: Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Voting Rights. They will spend our tax dollars on the most vulnerable of our citizens and work for a fairer tax system that is not tilted to the wealthy.

Hillary has been a Democrat for 50 years (just like me). Toiling in the vineyards of partisan politics. Bernie, on the other hand, was an Independent (albeit, as a Senator, he caucuses with the Democrats). But Bill and Hillary went out on the campaign trail for other Democrats who ran for Congress, Senator, Governor and lesser offices. Bill and Hillary raised money, helped get out the vote and infused energy into Democratic campaigns for decades. Many Democratic office holders owe their seats to the Clinton's. Is it that far fetched to think that that loyalty was transferable? "Super Delegates" have that designation because they have held office as Democrats, by campaigning as Democrats, or providing years of service to the Democratic Party.

Bernie, on the other hand, has great ideas, but has not dedicated his political life to the Democratic Party. As a result, the institutional strength of the Hillary campaign, within the party, should be understood by him and his supporters. When the party was struggling, financially, Hillary knew that would have a very negative effect on Democrats winning not only the White House, but elections at every level. Hillary entered the breach. Bernie did not. Did the people whose jobs she saved at the DNC appreciate her efforts. Well, ya, wouldn't you?

Bernie's a great Senator. But, in the end, he's not a Democrat, by his own admission.

November 2, 2017

There is no Collusion in the Russian-Election Investigation, and My Theory of the Case

First off, collusion is not illegal. Let's stop referring to what the Trump Team did during this election as "collusion". It's conspiracy. Collusion is only an illegal term involving anti-trust law.

Let's look at some of the facts that we know. The DNC and Podesta emails were disclosed through wiki-leaks and Guccifer 2.0. Yet Trump campaign operatives at many levels were told that the Russian Government had these emails well before wiki-leaks divulged them.

My theory is that the Russians had no intention to give these emails directly to the Trump team. There is no doubt that they assessed these morons for what they are, fucking nit-wits. The Russians came to the conclusion that releasing these illegally obtained documents would be far safer through a third party. By letting the Trump campaign know, through Don Jr., Manafort, Kushner et al, the Russians knew that even these morons would figure that they (the Russian government) captured these illegal documents and released them to help Trump get elected. The Russians must have assumed, "you owe us" is the only conclusion anyone could come away with in this conspiracy.

The fact that no Trump advisor turned in any Russians who contacted them about this illegal activity signaled to the Russians that the Trump team and they (the Russians) were on the same page, and that's the conspiracy. When Trump said in a public speech that the Russians should release the "30,000 Hilary E-mails", he told our advisories that he was on board. Here's the part overlooked by many. In the same speech, Trump , while addressing the Russians, said that they would be "rewarded" for such a disclosure. Even though the Moron said that the Russians would be "rewarded by ...the Press" nobody with an ounce of brains thought that the "press" could or would reward "Russia". That sentence, for all intent and purpose, can be cut off at "You (the Russian Government) will be rewarded" and you can add, by inference... by Trump. That was the message being sent that day.

What this investigation needs is any high ranking Trump operative to admit that the Trump campaign acknowledged the existence of the hacked emails, that Russia has (or had) them, and that the Russians would release them at a time that will create maximum damage to the Hilary campaign through a third party. What Russia did, prior to the release, was get the Trump campaign to have prior knowledge and express gratitude. To me, that's the legal definition of conspiracy.