College Basketball Player Ruled Ineligible For Trying to Feed Family

Jamar Samuels, a senior Kansas State basketball player, had to sit out a 3rd round NCAA Tournament game as his school held him out over eligibility concerns, which resulted from a $200 wire transfer that a former coach, Curtis Malone, sent to him.  Kansas State lost this game to Syracuse, 75-59, and Samuels' career ended without him getting another chance to play.  Malone said of Samuels, "The kid's family doesn't have anything and he called me for money to eat."  Kansas State held him out because of concerns about rigid NCAA rules regarding handouts from non-family members.  Kansas State Coach Frank Martin said Samuels was "our toughest kid," having gone from someone who almost quit the team to a highly respected player on and off the court. 

This story should have people asking lots of questions about the exploitation of college athletes, especially in football and basketball.  The thousands of college basketball and football players across the nation may get full scholarships to play their sports and get an education for free, but they are actually getting ripped off.  They take on very demanding schedules with high expectations in their sports and that they will graduate with a degree.  Their schedules usually mean they cannot take tough courses to get certain in-demand degrees.  They cannot take a part-time job in the off-seasons.  But, if their family has been hit the economic recession, they may have to risk their eligibility at a moment's notice to lift their family out of poverty, as Samuels as had to do. 

Meanwhile, winning schools and the NCAA corporate sponsors are getting rich off of the players, who are the ones doing the hard work while not getting compensated for it.  At a bare minimum, they should get some form of lifetime healthcare coverage as injuries from these sports, especially football, can hurt them permanently.  Too often, the money made from these games ends up fattening the salaries of the University presdients and the most successful coaches.   These sports widen income inequality as the most successful athletes go on to professional sports, where the most successful athletes there become part of the Top 1% before they fully know how to handle money.  And the athletes who do not make it may face disabling injuries like concussions that hamper their ability to work.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2012/3/17/2880980/jamar-samuels-ineligible-curtis-malone-wire-transfer

Laid-off Older Workers Have Bleak Outlook

People who are 55 years or older and are unemployed spend an average of 54.1 weeks in unemployment.  One of these workers, Tom Magnone of Liberty Township, Ohio said he has filed applications for 920 different jobs.  Sometimes workers have to rely on temporary work when possible to make ends meet.  Compared to younger workers, older ones more often spent half of a year in unemployment even before the economic downturn.  Therefore, age discrimination has been a problem.  This helps widen income inequality as jobless older workers cannot make ends meet and younger workers often get paid less than older employed workers.  Meanwhile, CEOs and the upper tenth of the Top 1% continue to take home record paychecks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/jobs-report-unemployment-older-workers_n_1333699.html

Romney Supporter: Billionaires Have Too Little Political Influence

Ken Griffin, a Chicago-based billionaire hedge fund manager, is a Mitt Romney supporter who thinks the super-rich have an "insufficient influence" over American politics, even though he thinks politicians should pay so much attention to CEOs.  He also believes the Obama Administration is at fault for the social unrest over income inequality and that China is pulling people out of poverty by embracing policies favoring the private sector.  He also believes that there is nothing wrong with billionaires, hedge fund managers, and other super-wealthy individuals spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.  It took a fraction of this campaign spending to get policies that benefit only the upper part of the top 1% and these lack of spending limits are designed to keep the system from changing.  Although he thinks companies should not directly harm others, he does not want government picking which businesses succeed and which ones fail.  But, he is out of touch by applying this way of thinking to this recent Chicago coal plant closings.  In response to the overwhelming neighborhood and community pressure to shut them down, he does not believe that "the company that injures people to be shut down and for the government to start a competing enterprise."  Which must means that he want business and government to work together, even if it means screwing over other people's health.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/10/442067/billionaire-romney-backer-ultrawealthy-have-an-insufficient-influence-over-politics/; http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0311-confidential-griffin-web-version-20120311,0,2604121,full.column

Journalists Overpaid, Says Jamie Dimon

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently said journalists make too much money, based on the amount of revenue newspapers generate and media companies' lack of profitability.  The Bureau of Labor Stastistics says journalists make $43,780 annually.  In addition to his $23 million salary last year, Dimon also justified JP Morgan Chase's average wage rates of over $340,000 per year on the basis that it, as a Wall Street Bank, has to hire the best employees.  Attitudes like this from Wall Street CEOs and others in the Top 1% explain why those in the bottom 99% distrust Wall Street Bankers.  Media companies should not be allowed to go bankrupt, but their purpose is to truthfully disseminate the news.  With the amount of money both Dimon and his bank makes, he can hire public relations specialists to help dress up the facts to present to overworked journalists and make the bank look better than it really is.  The consolidation of media companies occurred because of pressure from the banks to be profitable, leading them to pursue the most sensationalizing stories as opposed to the news stories that people need to hear.  As a result, most people do not trust network news and Jon Stewart, even as a comedian, has taken the role of America's most-trusted news broadcaster.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/jamie-dimon-newspaper-reporter-pay_n_1307989.html; http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/02/28/jamie-dimon-want-to-make-sure-everyone-hears-him/?mod=wsj_share_twitter

Top 1%'s Share of 2010 Income Gains Amount to 93% in U.S.

In 2010, the first year of recovery following the painful job-destroying recession of 2007-2009, the top 1% received 93% of all U.S. income gains during the year.  Which means the bottom 99% of the population is left to fight over the remaining seven percent.  The decline of unions has helped spur the decline, as well as tax policy and stock gains by the rich.  Not suprisingly, more Americans are falling into poverty and cannot even afford to eat.  It is very clear that income inequality caused the recession and correcting it is the only way towards recovery. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/1-percent-income-inequality_n_1321008.html

Wealthiest More Likely to Lie, Cheat, & Steal (for 2/29/12)

High-income people lie and cheat more often, compared to those of average income or wealth, according to a recent study.  The wealthy also cut off other drivers on the road and believe in breaking the rules while working.  Greed is one thing that drives the wealthy to exhibit these various socially unacceptable behaviors that may ultimately lead to corruption which angers Americans of average or below-average income.  When the wealthy amass so much riches that they are in th top 1%, they often fail to see how their actions affect others.  This type of attitude may affect how they conduct interviews with potential employees, to whom they withhold important information regarding the positions they seek.  In the workplace, they are more likely to justify stealing money, bribery, and ripping off customers.  When extremely wealthy individuals are heavily involved in philanthropy, it can make one wonder if they are merely using it as a cover for these anti-social behaviors.  The recent reports of the wealth divide between Congressional members and their constituents indicated that insider trading is surely going on among members of Congress.  Constituents are left to wonder if their Congressional Representative or Senator believes it is all right to lie, cheat, and steal.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/27/1068884/-The-1-more-likely-to-lie-cheat-and-steal-Science-says-so-?via=spotlight

$10,000 Mitt Romney Policy Roundtables

Mitt Romney met with wealthy supporters who last week to discuss policy ideas with those who donated at least $10,000. They talked about energy, education, international relations, and healthcare among others. In other words, he is selling policymaking to the upper part of the Top 1% and ignoring the ideas of average Americans. For example, Dominion Power CEO Thomas Farrell was present and likely discussed what American energy policy should be. L.E. Simmons, another wealthy donor, has experience with private equity investments in energy and likely gave Romney ideas on both financial and energy policy. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/11/422858/romney-10k-policy-roundtables/ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/romney-holds-a-policy-round-table-but-attendees-must-raise-10000/

Mitt Romney's Investments Scattered Around The World (1/18/12)

Mitt Romney his hiding his tax returns for a very good reason. They will not help him win the November 2012 Presidential election. While at Bain Capital, he probably moved much of his wealth to accounts abroad to take advantage of various tax breaks used by only the wealthiest bankers and investors in the Top 1%. Bain funds have key international connections for moving money offshore. Romney shifted his wealth to Delaware, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Hong Kong, and Ireland. Romney's family got over $1 million in 2010 from one Cayman Islands investment, Bain Capital Fund VIII. What does this mean for President Obama? In the 2008 campaign, he ran into Joe the Plumber, who questioned why Obama wanted to raise his taxes. Obama can effectively use the phrase, "spread the wealth," and have more credibility than Romney, who spreads his wealth -- around the world, that is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/yet-another-tax-advantage-for-romney/2012/01/18/gIQAvh017P_blog.html

Romney: My Tax Rate is Lower Than Most Americans (for 1/17/12)

Mitt Romney says he pays about 15% taxes on his income. The investments he previously made comprise much of his yearly income over the past decade. He also gets income from his book and giving speeches. Noted investor Warren Buffett has railed against the 15% rate for being lower than average Americans and wants Congress to stop favoring the wealthy. For the year ending February 2011, Romney received over $300,000 for giving speeches. This is not much for him, which speaks to his immense wealth. Tax rates for dividends and capitol gains are only 15%. Democrats do not like seeing people who teach, keep our streets safe, or do hard, physical labor pay higher income tax rates than multi-millionaires like Romney. Even Newt Gingrich wants Romney to make his tax returns public. This should spur tax reform to make the Top 1% pay higher minimum taxes. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57360230-503544/romney-admits-he-pays-lower-tax-rate-than-most-americans/

Tuition for Four Years Could One Day Cost $420K+ (For 1/16/12)

The 4-year total tuition to attend one of the U.S.'s most prestigious colleges will rise to $422,320 in 2034, if current trends continue for children born this year. Public universities will average $81,000 by comparison. Students will pay off debt to attend college for the rest of their lives. The main reward for taking on student loans to get a college degree is a higher-paying job. Manufacturing job losses have shrunk income and benefits for Americans without college degrees. Minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation because of Republican policies. Without reform, only students from households of the Top 1% will be able to afford college. http://www.alternet.org/story/153788/%24422%2C320_for_a_college_degree_with_tuition_skyrocketing%2C_it_is_time_to_rethink_high

Romney: Only the Wealthy Should Run For Office (for 1/9/12)

Mitt Romney suggests only the Wealthy, a.k.a. The Top 1%, should run for Congress. In the NBC/Facebook GOP Debate, he said his father was wise enough to tell him to never run for any elected office "if you need to win an election to pay a mortgage." Only Rick Perry's campaign team took offense among GOP Presidential contenders. Romney ought to tell that to the hundreds of thousands of American kicked out of their homes in the wave of foreclosures over the past 6-7 years. They would seek reparations for all those kicked out of their homes and not just tougher regulations to prevent banks from pushing bad mortgages on unsuspecting homeowners. They would seek topunish them, too. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-dont-run-for-office-if-you-need-the-salary.php

Romney Tax Plan Benfits The Rich; Hurts Everyone Else (for 1/6/12)

Mitt Romney's tax plan would help those in the Top 1% the most. Millionaires will get an average tax cut of nearly $150,000. Those making up to $100,000 get small tax cuts ranging from $27 to $490. Those in the middle class would effectively get a tax hike, as everyone at $40,000 or under would have to pay $14 to 191 in extra taxes. It would also increase the Federal budget deficit, causing the National Debt to go up. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/06/1052212/-Mitt-Romney-tax-plan-would-hurt-low-and-middle-income-Americans,-give-huge-tax-cut-to-wealthy?via=blog_1 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3256

Wealthy Americans Want to Be Anonymous (for 1/2/12)

In this video, an Aljazeera reporter tried interviewing affluent Americans about their riches. They had no success getting anyone to answer. Therefore, many in the Top 1% choose anonymity. The reporters concluded that they gained the wealth through manipulation and use their wealth to gain political power. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2011/08/201182103727247514.html

The 99% are More Giving Than The Top 1% (for 12/28/11)

While the wealthiest 1% of Americans donate more overall income than all other Americans, they are actually less charitable than other Americans. Wealthy people often establish their own philanthropic foundations for giving. Their donations often go to cultural causes, their alma maters, and other causes not primarily interested in helping those in great need. The rest of Americans donate through their churches. The wealthiest Americans' giving is most often influenced by tax breaks. Their donations are fully tax deductible, but the law requires a foundation to only give away 5% of its total funds annually. But, charitable donations have ranged from 1.7 to 1.95% of earnings per year, even as the top individual tax rate has dropped from 70% in 1980 to 35% in 2003. The result of this is huge public sector losses of around $250 billion, maybe more, to Federal and State Governments. Sometimes, as in the case of Charles Koch, their giving serves their own purposes. Since 2008, Koch has donated money to Florida State Univeristy to hire economics professors according to his preferences. Therefore, he can pick professors who will teach students his views on free market capitalism and why government is bad. http://www.alternet.org/story/153560/the_giving_season%3A_why_the_99_are_actually_more_philanthropic_than_the_1/

The Top 1% Cares Most About Deficits, Wants Private-Sector Solutions (for 12/18/11)

Of America's Wealthiest 1%, about 32% thought the U.S. Budget Deficit and Debt is the U.S.'s biggest problem and only 11% thought economic growth/jobs was. Nearly half of all Americans think the economy and jobs are the biggest problem, and only 5% thought the Debt was. The wealthiest 1% often prefer private sector solutions such as philanthropy to the economic problems. But, they often do not engage in more charitable activity, even if they do not trust government. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/the-politics-of-the-1-percent/?hp

If Top 1% Had Not Ripped Off Trillions, You Would Be Making Thousands More Now (for 12/6/11)

In 1947, the wealthiest 1% of Americans received almost 12% of national income. This figure fell to 10.7% by 1967. The wealthiest 1%'s share of America's income never topped 12.8% from 1949 to 1979, and stood at 10% when Americans voted Ronald Reagan President of the U.S. in 1980. This rose to 15.5% when he finished his term in Office and rose to 21.5% when George W. Bush became President in 2001. It rose further to 23.5% in 2007. This means the bottom 99% of Americans have seen their share of America's economic output fall by over 10%. Annually, this equals $1 trillion in extra income for the wealthiest Americans. Since 1980, if trends based on productivity for the middle class held form to today, they would be making an average of $12,500 more per year.
http://www.alternet.org/story/152621/if_top_1_hadn't_ripped_off_trillions,_you'd_likely_be_making_thousands_of_dollars_