Politico comments section includes hate-filled remarks on “these slimy stinky thieving disgusting Jews who rob us blind”

Why are public hate comments about Jews tolerated in our media?

Magazines and websites are known by the company they keep, but the comments section seems immune from editors at Politico.com.

The following example is from yesterday’s Politico website on just one article from just one commentator. This appeared, believe it or not:

” Really, how can we Americans not love these slimy stinky thieving disgusting Jews who rob us blind. I just don’t see it. And can you please let us Americans know where we can send our children and families to die in the next war Israel plans to start? Really, we Americans are just so happy to die for Israel and just have our politicians just hand over our entire economy to a bunch of slimy parasitic Israelis. What a blessing Israel has been to us. I as an American can’t think of anything better than being allies with Israel other than getting ebola, AIDS, the black plague, and severe anemia all at the same time. Really, such a blessing to be allies with Israel. Thank you so much you parasite pro-Israeli scum.”

“Without Israel where would we Americans be right now? We would still be loved around the world and have a strong global economy and continue to happily trade with every country in the world. Who wants that?”

Here is a sampling of other comments on the same article “Gallup poll: Democrats losing sympathy for Israel”:

“Americans being pissed off at Israel for stealing billions of taxpayer money, bribing politicians to watch out for Israel’s interest over that of America, and trying to get Americans to die in wars for Israel is somehow wrong. Game’s over. The cat is out of the bag. People hate Israel and its Jews because of warmongering, money theft, political infiltration, terrorism against the American people, and financial fraud. “Anti-semitism” is a garbage diversion to try and play on the false holohoax guilt that Americans have no part in. In fact, Americans died trying to save these ungrateful piles of feces and this is the thanks they get. America destroyed from the inside out to benefit Israel. With “friends” like Israel, who needs ebola, aids, and black plague.”

* * *

“Jews use special terms to describe people that “dare” to criticize them. Presumably these terms like antisemite, nazi, jew hater, Hitler don’t have real meaning.Those terms are meant to intimidate and destroy the enemy and completely incapacitate them from defending even their own lives. The Iraq war itself pushed by Paul Wolfowitz and his zionist cohorts should be proof enough. AIPAC trying to push Americans into a war with Iran should have made that entire organization an enemy of Americans everywhere. AIPAC Jews pushing that war with bribery money to American politicians by all rights should all be in prison.”

* * *

“Sure, not all Jews are evil or cockroaches and it would be silly to think so. There is however something that can not be ignored and that is the massive cultural conflicts that result from mass invasions and occupations imposed on one culture by another. This will never end well. There is also a problem with one Jewish culture invading the political offices of the American people and imposing financial on Americans while funneling money into Israel. No amount of “antisemite” or “nazi” references will stop the hatred from the American people for this theft.”

* * *

“The American economy is now a reflection of the German economy. What Jews in Europe have done to Germany, Russia, and Ukraine they are now doing to America. It’s not “antisemitism” that got Jews killed in Europe, it is THEFT JUST LIKE ISRAEL IS DOING TO AMERICA TODAY. It is called NATION WRECKING and Hitler pointed it out. American congress is pro-Israel and just gives away American taxpayer money to Israel while starving the American people just like the German government did when Jews took positions of power. This is the reason that the American congress has a less than 4% approval rating. NO ONE IN AMERICA LIKES ISRAELIS JEWS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.”

In a comment on another Politico story “GOP gets bad news on Obama Care repeal plan” was this garbage:

” Benjamin Franklin This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)
“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.”

“In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal…”


“Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.” Benjamin Franklin”

* * *

Imagine the repercussions if such comments were made about the Vatican and Catholics, Lutherans, African Americans, Cubans or Nigerians? But allowing so-called ‘freedom of expression” hate speech seems only to apply to one group of people, as if the pogroms and the death camps are gone, but neither forgotten nor condemned by all. Publishing hate and garbage proves that there is no “politico correctness” for Jews.

It may not help, but for the record you may contact:
1100 Wilson Blvd, Suite 601, Arlington, VA, 22209

If we extend Social Security benefits to the richest, we can stop fiscal hawks’ insane crusade to raise the retirement age to 70

Casa Casuarina
Opulence of the late Gianni Versace’s Casa Casuarina $125 million estate in Miami (now a boutique hotel) suggests that some homeowners have the means to help us better fund Social Security by increasing FICA cap.

Under the current Social Security rules, anything we do that creates a higher percentage of low paid workers than currently, results in a larger deficit for the entire government pension system and hastens the day when less money is paid into FICA taxes than is paid out in benefits. The reason: Social Security has been “adjusted” many times by politicians to become an extremely regressive program. As a result, the more you pay in FICA taxes, the lower the percentage of benefits you receive from those contributions.

Your salary and wage FICA tax is 6.2% up to $118,000 in 2015 earnings. Under the law your employer has to match this amount. Earnings above $118,000 are exempt from the retirement portion of FICA. Interest and dividend income is also exempt. If you are very rich and don’t need to work at a job, your income should be free of FICA taxes, unlike the servants in your home or the waiter at your country club.

Businesses don’t like to pay for pensions, and most of these programs for retirement are disappearing, and instead employees are offered 401Ks, savings that you fund with your own money. The only contributions from the employer (unless you have a union contract) are from the goodness of their heart. Fewer and fewer companies now offer such contributions (goodness) to 401ks, simply because they can get away with saving money by not partially funding your retirement.

Even without many company pension plans, some politicians still argue that enough is enough and we cannot pour more money into “entitlements” – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. (Actually, Medicare and Social Security are paid benefits, and Medicaid is a program to help the very, very poor.)

With a 401k at 67 and your mortgage paid, why would you need Social Security? Saving your money in a 401k and self-funding your silver years, sounds like a great concept, except…

The average retired couple receives about $21,000 in Social Security benefits. From that money they pay a Medicare premium of about $2,400, supplemental Medicare insurance of about $3,000, average prescription costs of $2,000, plus a few hundred dollars each time they are admitted to the hospital and they are responsible for all of their expenses for dental, hearing aids etc. With such basic medical bills, there’s not a great amount remaining for real estate taxes, transportation and food.

How much do you need in savings to replace that “inadequate” average Social Security benefit. At 2.1% net interest after inflation, $1,000,000 is required to pay out $21,000 a year. An average American household income of $50,000 (before taxes), requires you to save $25,000 a year for 40 years, exclusive of interest earned and inflation adjustment.

The deficit hawks in the White House and Congress, who want to reduce Social Security cost of living (COLA) adjustments, hike retirement age to 69 or 70, and means test the program to eliminate higher earners from benefits, are wrong-headed in a moral sense and ignorant in a critical economic analysis.

Rather than taking from the middle class, it would be wise to extend a program called overly generous by its detractors, to everyone. And, save money at the same time.

The dirty secret is that increasing the FICA income cap from $118,000 to a billion dollars or more, will bring in much more money than the benefits will cost. From Social Security website:

  1. “For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2015, or who dies in 2015 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: 90 percent of the first $826 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus
  2. 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $826 and through $4,980, plus
  3. 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,980″

If the cap is raised, payments from the wealthy will result in benefits from the higher amounts over $118,000 at 15% of the base wages, versus 40% average. Increased payments plus lower percentage payouts are a bonus to the system.

According to the IRS 85% benefits rule, virtuallyall of this new money will be subject to normal personal income tax rates. For the new contributors, all in the high bracket, the income tax on each additional $1,000 in these 15% benefits would be be subject to income tax of some 40%. That means the 15% benefit will be reduced 40% to just 9% of prior earnings. The bottom tier of beneficiaries would receive 90% and the top tier, 9%.

Top income employees would receive 1/10th of the benefit of the lowest bracket taxpayers. This positive ratio would contribute mightily to the financial strength of the system. While some have suggested a cap on benefits, extending them to all contributors squashes suggestions of an unfair tax to benefit only middle and lower classes of seniors, and still brings in far more money than would ever paid out in benefits..

If a higher FICA cap sounds reasonable, why not make the change?

Although the government would gain from a more fiscally sound Social Security program, and individuals would be assured of current or higher benefits, plus a positive margin to increase reserves, business owners would object. But there is a solution. Companies could just pay fewer persons huge salaries that need matching 6.2% FICA, and by lowering executive pay, also increase the profit share to stockholders, not just company managers.

Two political parties with same fiscal plan prey on middle class

The federal government elections are winner takes all, which means the tiniest majority insures the elected party powers, as though everyone voted one way. Many other nations use proportional representation. In those systems if one party gets 75% of the vote, it is awarded 3/4 of the delegates to the governing body, and the minority party or parties gain 1/4 of the representation.

Proportional, or true democratic elections, insure that GOPDem Boxing Ringa small party can join the debate, and not be ignored, because it has no representatives. For example, a national proportional election for Congress might give the Democrats 40% of the representatives, 40% to the Republicans, 7% to the Greens, 4% to the Teas, and 9% to the Coffees.

Under such a system it would be very difficult to gain an absolute majority, which means that more than one party would have to vote on a bill for passage, and this consultation requirement would eliminate caucus domination by either the Republicans or Democrats.

We suffer two national parties, led by politicians who publicly espouse vastly different social values, but both parties also advocate basic economic principles that favor the wealthy class, pander to the lower class, and deny benefits and fair taxation to the middle class.

An example of this singular economic approach is the cry to “reform” Social Security and Medicare. This is only a smokescreen campaign to lower benefits for the middle class, so that no FICA tax be raised, no defense budget will require reduction, and no bevy of political party-loving bureaucrats will be dismissed from unnecessary public administration.

Internationally, many nations have third and fourth or more parties. Some concentrate almost solely on issues like minimum wage, paid leave, universal healthcare and childcare. When you vote for one of them, you vote solely for their pocketbook issues. For some of us, such a choice would be welcome in order to promote a progressive economic agenda. For others, their party of choice might urge more industrialization, shorter prison sentences, public housing expansion, or less social safety net programs.

Acting alone, both of our current political parties have tremendous baggage, when they try to attract votes from the other’s social issue spectrum. It is almst like fraternity or club politics – you get a list of ideas and you must agree to all of them to be a party player.

On one side, the Democrats have lost most of the working class vote, because the party has too many litmus tests. Do you agree that guns should be nearly banned? Do you approve of in-state college tuition for folks who are not even American citizens? And to join the GOP side, do you believe that we should have mandatory prayer in public school, a law that rules sodomy requires incarceration, or curiculums that preach the world was created less than 4,000 years ago?

An economic party with candidates that only stood for fairness in income distribution and common sense worker protections, might elect ten or fifteen Senators, a couple dozen Representatives – not enough to select the Senate Majority leader or Speaker of the House, but enough to create a swing vote that represented the people’s financial interests, a block that would need to be consulted for its support.  For other citizens their choice might be a party devoted to environmental protection, promoting mass transit or enabling the labor movement.

A small third or fourth party might also be immune to the usual Washington pressures. There would be less need for advertising, when every party gets a proportion of representation and a voice in legislative deliberations.  The small party would not try to control every aspect of our government. but instead help to craft national policy through discourse and cooperation with the other parties of like mind on particular issues.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a boon for corporations, blatant welfare for companies that underpay their workers

Congressional Map TY12

It’s budget season time again. The Washington Post and NYT have already published their obligatory stories on why we need to “reform” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because if not, we won’t have hardly any money left to spend on military and discretionary programs. Fox and NBC stations this week said we must “deal” with the budget deficit caused by “entitlement spending.” Paul Ryan has agreed, and so has the Chamber of Commerce. Unfortunately, the White House sees this attack on the middle class as yet another chance to negotiate with Koch and company.

In the midst of self-inflicted austerity talk, Republicans heartily approve of spending billions of dollars to raise the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which currently gives up to $6,143 (tax free) each year to couples and families, who have have lousy paying jobs.

Also in agreement are most Democrat lawmakers, who believe that EITC subsidizing business by supplementing wages is a kind thing to do for the needy.  Looking down from the top, the “little people’s” dependance on the government for their livelihood is not demeaning and demoralizing, just curing social injustice of some sort.

When the wealthy masters of both parties in Congress agree on a policy, it is often wise for the rest of us to duck. The GOP loves EITC, because it rewards employers who pay poverty wages.  Under normal circumstances such wages would lead to bare subsistence livelihoods for workers, increasing turnover and encouraging unions and other “troublemakers” to end working for starvation pay. However, with the middle class taxpayers sending billions of EITC dollars to these underpaid workers, all is well for the employer, who knows the poor will survive to work another day, and the boss can continue to compensate workers below the level of subsistence.

When will Democrats in the WH recognize that most benefits (food stamps, public housing, etc.) for the working poor are just subsidies to corporations, and that the solutions for reducing inequality must instead include higher minimum wages and more public benefits for all Americans – free college, free childcare, free healthcare and free nursing homes? Or do they already know this and have bowed to pressure from lobbies and campaign contributors.

If you wonder which employers are gaining the most from EITC, the graphics here tell the story. Most of the EITC recipients are from states dominated by austerity advocates, right to work laws, and generally low wages.

EITC Percentage of Filers by State