Romney Calls America a "Company"

Oh, Mittens. . .

Obama, Durbin in War of Words with Bank of America

I'm a Bank of America customer in good standing, with a decent balance, and a 17-year history. I've been a good customer. I have a no-fee checking account, do all of my bill paying electronically, and make most purchases with my debit card. I might write out one physical check every couple of months. And I rarely carry more than twenty or thirty dollars on me.

I'll be honest, even with pay and benefit cuts in this economy, a $5 per month fee is not going to break me. But $60 a year just to continue banking as I have since the Clinton Administration seems ridiculous. So, I'm contemplating switching banks. Which takes study, detailed notes undoing and redoing my electronic payments. And what's to stop my hypothetical new bank from changing their policy, and charging me for their debit card? [Story continues below]




All of this came out of a bill by Barney Frank and Chuck Dodd, which was created to protect consumers from all sorts of financial abuse by the big banks. The relevant part here cut debit card "swipe" fees at retailers in half. Supposedly, doing this would save retailers money, and they'd pass on the savings. . .which, I'll admit, is dubious. Those swipe fees were costing retailers a huge chunk of change, and the banks were getting very fat and happy from it. I don't know how much it actually costs a bank to move money around electronically, but I'm betting it is in the low pennies range.


So, Dodd-Frank stemmed the tide of mega-millions of dollars the banks were essentially getting for nothing. They're still pocketing a lot, mind you. Just not as much. So, naturally, any corporate entity that finds profits cut needs to find a way to get it back. Even if it's sort of an "ill-gotten gains" sort of situation. And so, Bank of America is sticking it to customers. Good customers.  Like me. 


Details are hard to find. But what I've found so far seems to be this: if you have a mortgage at BofA, or a $20,000 combined account balance, your $5 fee is waived. The Other Half has the mortgage, and my balance isn't that healthy. But in this economy, what percentage of BofA customers' is? So for now, I guess I pay the $5. But I'm keeping my options open in the coming months.

[Excerpt]


Banks Fire Back at President Obama Over Debit Card Fees

The American Bankers Association is firing back at President Obama for his comments in an interview about bank fees, including Bank of America's move to add a monthly fee for customers to use its debit cards. . .

Read more at: ABC News

Some Companies Paid More to CEOs than to Taxes

From ThinkProgress

Hey, don't pick on those poor CEOs. They're "job creators" don'tcha know?  Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

[Excerpt]


REPORT: 25 Corporations Paid More To Their CEO Last Year Than They Paid In Taxes

Last year, as Americans across the country grappled with the widespread effects of the Great Recession, tax dodging by corporations and the wealthy cost the average U.S. taxpayer $434, even as corporate profits soared 81 percent. In fact, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, “corporate tax dodging has gone so out of control that 25 major U.S. corporations last year paid their chief executives more than they paid Uncle Sam in federal income taxes”. . .

Read more at: ThinkProgress

Mitt Romney: Corporations are People!

Before the big debate--in which Willard "Mitt" Romney came off fairly well--Mittens was at a rally where he got heckled fairly badly. And in the heated back-and-forth, he declared that corporations are people. And reiterated that point. Now, Republicans may have convinced themselves that corporations are people. The Supreme Court may have made a tragic decision claiming that to be a fact. But it isn't true. And this is a clip that will turn up in opposition advertising. Count on it.

Michele Bachmann: Cut Taxes for the Rich, More Taxes for the Poor!

The least crazy-looking shot
of Michele Bachmann I've seen.
From source, Think Progress.

I am under no delusion that Michele Bachmann has a snowball's chance of winning the Republican nomination. The increasingly meaningless tea party may love her to pieces, but the fact is, she is only well known because of her propensity to say batshit crazy things. That is how her name has become so recognizable.


But what she is saying now about tax rates for the rich and corporations, versus the taxes paid by the rest of us--while still nuts--is becoming very common on the right side of the aisle. My question: how much longer can a political party remain viable--electable--when their mantra remains cut taxes for business and the rich, but raise taxes on the middle class, and working poor?  How much longer can they depend upon a base that continues to vote against their best interests?


Their only hope seems to be that this very strange, and unproven economic theory has become almost a religion. They've got to hope that their evidence-free economic theory has been drummed in so solidly, that their voters just take it on faith.


[Excerpt]


Bachmann Calls For Huge Corporate Tax Cut Alongside Tax Increase For The Working Poor


In an interview published today by the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — who is toying with a presidential run herself — decided to one-up both Romney and Pawlenty, calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 9 percent. Adding insult to injury, Bachmann wants to pair that huge tax cut with giant tax reductions for the rich, as well as a tax increase on the working poor. . .


Read more at: Think Progress

Are Koch Brothers' Fingerprints on Wisconsin Gov. Walker's Union Busting?

Wow. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

What's With the General Electric Commercials?

I know that General Electric has been doing ads for many decades. They may even have been making non-specific "feel good" ads for the brand. I guess I never paid much attention before. But have you noticed how often a GE commercial is played lately?  Like this one with the dancing elephant:



Or this one with a line dance:



The elephant is cute, the songs are catchy. And for some reason, the people in the bio suits line dancing is adorable. But what is for sale here? Am I supposed to buy GE stock? Random GE products? Maybe I'm just supposed to have warm and fuzzy feelings for a multinational corporate conglomerate?

UPDATE: to add "The Electric Cattle"

That's RepubliCorp!

Are Republican Groups Using Foreign Money to Fund US Elections?

I've touched on this before, but it is very curious that it's raising so few eyebrows outside of liberal circles.  Yes, it's true that this massive influx of corporate cash into the political process is primarily benefiting Republicans right now.  But since the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court is allowing unlimited corporate donations to political races, exactly what is being done to ensure that foreign corporate money isn't steering some of the decision making?  Even if it is being done--this time--to help the GOP, aren't there any conservatives out there troubled by the possibility that foreign companies and even foreign countries could be helping decide elections?

Sen. Al Franken Champions Net Neutrality

For as long as I've known of the term, "Net Neutrality" has not been a partisan issue, and has been nearly unanimously thought of as a good thing.  Net Neutrality would ensure that big corporations can't subdivide the internet into categories like cable television; no basic, extended and premium delivery.  Going to Greenlee Gazette should be just as fast and easy as going to any big corporation's site.  

Lately though, as every issue seems to do these days, there's a partisan fight a-brewin'. Anti-neutrality arguments are now being made, turning the tables, saying that Net Neutrality amounts to "government regulation." Some paranoids assign more sinister motives, and claim that President Obama is "taking over" the internet. Whatever.  With all of the non-troversies coming from the right these days, I don't think I'm going to let them sway me without proof. For now, I'm gonna go with Senator Al Franken's take on this.  Because he's good enough, he's smart enough. . .

[Excerpt]
Franken talks net neutrality as FCC visits Minneapolis

Sen. Al Franken spoke out on net neutrality ahead of a Minnesota visit by officials from the Federal Communications Commission to discuss the same issue. The FCC will hold a hearing at South High School in Minneapolis at 6 pm tonight. Franken said on Tuesday that if telecoms have their way, consumers will end up paying much more and have less open access to the internet. . .

Read more at: Minneapolis Independent

Sen. Al Franken at Netroots, on Corporations and Net Neutrality

Good stuff.

Murray Hill Corporation Running for Congress!

Now that the Supreme Court has declared that corporations are people, there is a corporation running for Congress! It may be satirical, but it makes a pretty good point.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart on Supreme Court's "Corporations are People" Ruling

As usual, good stuff from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm still trying to figure out why this is a left-right issue, and what in the world your average every day (read: not a politician) Republican sees in this that makes it a good thing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Supreme Corp
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Stephen Colbert Takes on "Corporations as People"

It is surprising that such an important topic is really only being covered by liberal radio show The Thom Hartmann Show and The Colbert Report. Well, unless you count right-wing world, which thinks that corporations should have all the rights of individual people.

The Supreme Court is taking up the case, and the outcome will be hugely impactful, depending upon which way it goes. If corporations are people they can put their billions up against our paltry fundage. Doesn't quite seem fair to me. Because if corporations are people, I want to see one of them get a colonoscopy. Anyway, Stephen Colbert is predictably for the idea, in his delightfully sarcastic way, of course.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
http://www.colbertnation.com/
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Blasts News Media

The apple didn't fall far from the tree. Robert F. Kennedy is amazingly well spoken and intelligent. And his views on the news media need to be heard. It's from 2004 or so, but more timely than ever. Check it out.

The Power of Branding: Pavlov's Kids Pick McDonald's

Image from Wikipedia.com

This just made me say, "whoa!" when I heard it on Air America's Rachel Maddow Show this afternoon. Kid's actually think baby carrots taste better, if they come out of a McDonald's wrapper, than a generic one. Mmmmm. . .beefy carrots.

[Excerpt]

Old McDonald's Has A Hold On Kids' Taste Buds, Study Finds

Science Daily — Say what you will, Shakespeare, but a McNugget by any other name is just not as tasty. At least, not to the 3- to 5-year-old set.

Asked to sample two identical foods from the fast-food giant McDonald's, children preferred the taste of the version branded with the restaurant's familiar "Golden Arches" to one extracted from unmarked paper packaging, say researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.

The study shows that even young children are swayed by brand preferences. The results are likely to fuel more debate over a growing movement to restrict marketing to kids under 8 years old.

"Kids don't just ask for food from McDonald's," said Thomas Robinson, MD, director of the Center for Healthy Weight at Packard Children's and associate professor of pediatrics and of medicine at the School of Medicine. "They actually believe that the chicken nugget they think is from McDonald's tastes better than an identical, unbranded nugget."

Continue reading at: ScienceDaily.com