Janet Yellen Trolls America’s Poor: Tells Them It Is Important To Get Rich

Remember when over the weekend we reported, that “America’s Poor Have Never Been Deeper In Debt“, showing how this tragic development took place over the past few years, accelerating almost exponentially into the New Normal…

 

… and in its proper context, using one of our favorite charts, showing that while the rich hold assets, the poor are merely drowning in ever more debt:

 

Well, Janet Yellen has a message for America’s poor.

The day after tomorrow’s much anticipated FOMC meeting which will surely make the richest 1% in the nation even richer, the Fed chairman will address everyone else, as follows:

Speech–Chair Janet L. Yellen

The Importance of Asset Building for Low and Middle Income Households

At the Corporation for Enterprise Development’s 2014 Assets Learning Conference, Washington, D.C. (via prerecorded video)

8:45 a.m. ET

Not surprisingly “everyone else”, namely America’s low and middle income households, aren’t even worth a live appearance, hence the “prerecorded video.”

But the punchline is the actual message, in which Janet Yellen tells those mired in debt to build more assets.

In other words, the Fed Chairman has some words of encouragement for the tens of millions of Americans who live at or below the poverty level, including that threatened with extinction class, affectionately known as “the middle.”

Her message? It is important to build assets, or said otherwise…  get rich.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mba3jQ Tyler Durden

Janet Yellen Trolls America's Poor: Tells Them It Is Important To Get Rich

Remember when over the weekend we reported, that “America’s Poor Have Never Been Deeper In Debt“, showing how this tragic development took place over the past few years, accelerating almost exponentially into the New Normal…

 

… and in its proper context, using one of our favorite charts, showing that while the rich hold assets, the poor are merely drowning in ever more debt:

 

Well, Janet Yellen has a message for America’s poor.

The day after tomorrow’s much anticipated FOMC meeting which will surely make the richest 1% in the nation even richer, the Fed chairman will address everyone else, as follows:

Speech–Chair Janet L. Yellen

The Importance of Asset Building for Low and Middle Income Households

At the Corporation for Enterprise Development’s 2014 Assets Learning Conference, Washington, D.C. (via prerecorded video)

8:45 a.m. ET

Not surprisingly “everyone else”, namely America’s low and middle income households, aren’t even worth a live appearance, hence the “prerecorded video.”

But the punchline is the actual message, in which Janet Yellen tells those mired in debt to build more assets.

In other words, the Fed Chairman has some words of encouragement for the tens of millions of Americans who live at or below the poverty level, including that threatened with extinction class, affectionately known as “the middle.”

Her message? It is important to build assets, or said otherwise…  get rich.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mba3jQ Tyler Durden

Justin Amash: I Will Vote Against Arming Syrian Rebels

AmashThe libertarian-leaning Congressman from Michigan
isn’t buying the Obama administration’s rationale for arming the
Syrian rebels and plans to vote against the measure
sponsored
by House Republican leadership.

The House of Representatives is expected to take up the bill
later today. Rep. Justin Amash
explained on Facebook
 why he opposes it:

As we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
we must plan for multiple satisfactory ends to military conflicts
before we commence them.

If the Syrian groups that are “appropriately vetted” (the
amendment’s language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result?
Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad
fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen
to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent
would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild
the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would
Syria’s territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control
one of the resulting countries?

If the Syrian groups that we support begin to lose, would we let
them be defeated? If not, is there any limit to American
involvement in the war?

Perhaps some in the administration or Congress have answers to
these questions. But the amendment we’ll vote on today contains
none of them.

As evidenced by his Facebook post, Amash shares some of the
concerns
raised by Sen. Rand Paul and others
regarding the reliability
of the rebel forces. There have been
accusations of collusion
between the rebels and ISIS, as well
as fears that the Free Syrian Army is by far the weakest force in
the region.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1BMEQHz
via IFTTT

Top U.S. Military Official: Our Arab “Allies” Support ISIS

America’s top military official – the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey – just admitted in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing what we’ve been saying for months … America’s closest allies are supporting ISIS:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA, MEMBER OF ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE:   Do you know any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL?

 

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I know major Arab allies who fund them.

 

GRAHAM: Yeah, but do they embrace them? They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight Assad. They were trying to beat Assad. I think they realized the folly of their ways.

Maybe a good start for defeating ISIS would be to stop funding them and their BFFs?

Call your Congress Critter TODAY: Vote ‘NO’ on Military Aid to Syrian ‘Rebels’

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ra7Ztb George Washington

President Obama Delivers More Remarks – Live Feed

Another day, another Presidential address. We wonder, popcorn-drooling-mouth agape, what the warmonger-in-chief will be talking about today as he delivers remarks at MacDill Air Force Base… Will it be a Fed hint (economy’s doing great but we need to do more), Scottish DEpendence support, Anti-ISIS coalition propaganda, Ray Rice, Ebola-battling benefits, or standard vote-grabbing populist rhetoric? We will have to wait and see…

 

President Obama is due to speak at 1150ET – tune in accordingly




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ra7YWd Tyler Durden

BofA Stopped Out Of EURUSD Short: Stolper 2.0 Strikes Again

There is no point in lamenting the disappearance of the gospel of that god among FX gods, Goldmans’ Tom Stolper, whose fades generated anyone who did the opposite of his recos nearly 15,000 pips in profits over the years. It is time to move on… and start doing the same to his peer at Bank of America, the firm’s head chartist, MacNeil Curry, aka Stolper 2.0, who incidentally was just stopped out of his EURUSD short.

From BofA:

Stopped out of €/$ short, but the bearish view remains. £/$ to squeeze higher. Stay bearish €/£

 

Yesterday, we were stopped out of our €/$ short recommendation, shortly after initiating the trade. However, while the break above 1.2990 points to a different type of correction (and a potentially larger one) than anticipated, it does not change our view that gains remain corrective ahead of new lows to 1.2787/1.2694. However, for now, it is not immediately clear as to how far higher the correction can extend. A break of Wedge support (now 1.2932) says the downtrend is resuming. In contrast to the uncertainty surrounding how high €/$ can extend, it is a clearer picture for £/$. We look for further gains into the 1.6392/1.6487 zone before renewed topping and a resumption of the larger downtrend for 1.57 and below. HOWEVER, of the two currencies (€ and £), £ is the stronger of the two. Indeed, the € /£ trend remains clearly lower, with a break of the 7-week channel support at 0.7896 pointing to a resumption of this downtrend for the Jul’12 lows at 0.7756 and below.

 

Alas MacNell doesn’t understand that now that only algos trade FX (since all institutional traders have quietly quit after it has been revealed that the biggest coordinated asset manipulation, probably in history, took place in FX for the past decade and even one or two wrists may be slapped) the only trigger points are limit and stop levels, which means that the best way to be stopped out of a trade is to tell the world just where your stops are…

That said, we will be sure to advise readers about any and all exciting future opportunities to do what (what little remains of) BofA’s FX prop desk does, i.e. the opposite of what its clients are advised to do.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/XDnJJ7 Tyler Durden

Election 2014: Democrats Take the Lead on Social Issues, Obama Drags His Party Down

With less than 50 days until the 2014
midterm election, the race for the biggest prize—control of the
Senate—is running awfully close. Republicans, who are almost
certain to pick up several seats in November, ran ahead in most of
the forecasts throughout the summer.

But in recent weeks, Democrats have narrowed the gap. The
Washington Post’s
election model now gives Democrats a 51
percent chance to
hold the Senate
. The current RealClearPolitics no-toss-up map

projects
that Republicans will end up with 50 seats in the
Senate. Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model gives Republicans a

53 percent chance
of picking up the Senate.

Essentially, it’s a dead heat, and despite early predictions of
a GOP wave, it looks rather like voters aren’t particularly
enthusiastic about either party this year. Obama’s approval ratings
are low, but Republicans don’t have much to run on except
disapproval of the president. In a variety of ways, it’s rough
terrain for both parties. 

Democrats increasingly have an edge on social
issues.
Opinions have shifted over the decades, and voting
coalitions have changed, and there are
multiple

signs
that, after decades in which social and cultural issues
favored Republicans, Democrats are finally gaining an edge. For one
thing, the party is highlighting its stances on contraception,
abortion, and gay marriage. In Colorado, for example, Sen. Mark
Udall’s campaign is built almost entirely on social issues. It
might even be working: Udall currently has a 3.7 point lead on his
opponent, Republican Cory Gardener, according to the
RealClearPolitics (RCP) poll
average
. But even if Udall loses, it’s clear that social
issues—and contraception in particular—are where Democrats feel
very comfortable fighting. That Democrats want this fight now, in a
midterm election with an older and more conservative electorate,
suggests that the politics are only going to shift further in their
direction in 2016.

The other sign that the ground is shifting is that Republicans
aren’t engaging on these fights—at least not like they used to. In
Florida, a swing state that frequently offers a glimpse of the
national mood, Republican Gov. Rick Scott declined to respond to a
question about same-sex marriage. Republicans are openly discussing
a
push to make contraception available over-the-counter
. Social
issues used to be the wedge concerns that Republicans used to split
Democratic voters.

President Obama is a drag on his own party.
There are two related parts to this. The first is that—and this
will be news to almost no one—Republicans really don’t
like the president, and they plan to vote accordingly. According to
a Washington Post-ABC News poll from
earlier this month
, 62 percent of Republicans say that when
they cast their votes for Congress later this year, one reason
“will be to express opposition to Obama.”

That brings us to the second part, which is that Democrats
aren’t particularly enthusiastic about their own side.  Less
than half of Democrats—just 42 percent—say that their congressional
vote will be intended to support President Obama, according to the
same Post-ABC poll. Overall, as RCP’s polling average
shows, President Obama’s approval rating has been growing steadily
worse for more than a year (with a spike last fall during the
Obamacare exchange fiasco). RCP’s average now puts disapproval at
53.9 percent, two points shy of the high it hit in November of
2013. The big concern this election amongst Democrats is that their
voters simply won’t show up, hence Bill Clinton’s
message
in Iowa this week: Democrats should not sit this one
out. 

The economy isn’t great for Democrats—but Republicans
can’t seem to capitalize on it.
By most accounts, the
still-sluggish economy is the top issue for voters this year. And
yet in the states and races where it matters most, neither party
has the advantage. 

Politico
polled
likely voters in close races about which party was
trusted more to handle the economy and found respondents were
split: 36 percent picked Republicans, 36 percent picked Democrats,
and another 28 percent said they weren’t sure. Voters in
battleground states, which tend to be more conservative, may not
have a clear preference for which party they trust on the economy,
but a majority seem to be frustrated by President Obama’s handling
of economic issues: In the same
Politico
poll
, 57 percent disapproved of his “economic
leadership.”

It’s difficult to discern what the Republican party is
actually for at this point.
When conservative
flagship publication National Review runs an
unsigned editorial
pushing Republicans to propose an actual
governing agenda—to just have one, at all—you know there’s a
problem. It’s possible, of course, to find individual Republican
legislators—folks like Mike Lee and Rand Paul in the Senate, or
Paul Ryan in the House—who have strong, identifiable policy
commitments. But as a party, it’s hard to identify an agenda other
than opposing President Obama, and whatever it is he wants to do
(except, possibly,
escalate
American involvement in conflict in the Middle
East).

Look at the continuing resolution deal that’s moving through
Congress right now: As Nicole Kaeding of the Cato Institute

notes
, it takes a stand on almost nothing, extending the
authorization of the Ex-Im bank, declining to make the Internet tax
moratorium, and keeping discretionary spending levels constant.
Avoiding a serious shutdown fight was necessary after last year’s
fall showdown, but it’s hard to find an election-year agenda
anywhere.

To some extent, that just reflects the fractured and uncertain
interests of the party’s voters, who don’t quite seem to know what
they want either. But GOP voters haven’t exactly been given a lot
to latch onto in the Obama era. The long-promised
Obamacare replacement plan, for example, never arrived, and

now Republicans politicians don’t really know how to respond
to
questions about what to do with the law’s coverage expansion in
place. 

What we have, then, is a sort of “meh” election. Democrats are
attempting to turn out their base by pushing them to vote against
Republicans on social issues, and Republicans are attempting to
motivate their voters by focusing entirely on opposition to
President Obama. But there’s almost no enthusiasm
for either party. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/Xi5ZTe
via IFTTT

John Stossel: Make Immigration Easier

Conservatives rightly point out that America is a
nation of laws. No one should be exempt. That’s why many oppose
amnesty and other paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants who
are here now. “If they want to be in America,” the argument
goes, “they ought to return to their own countries and apply for a
visa legally.

“That sounds sensible, writes John Stossel, but what happens
when the immigrant does that, goes to the U.S. embassy and says,
I’d like to work in America legally? He gets paperwork to fill out
and is told to go home to wait. And wait.
Forbes investigation found that a computer
programmer from India must wait, on average, 35 years. A high
school graduate from Mexico must wait an average 130
years. 

We tell eager workers, “Do it legally; just wait 130 years”?
This makes no sense. We should make legal immigration easier, relax
the rules, and issue work permits, argues Stossel. Immigration
bureaucracy makes life harder not just for the immigrants but for
the rest of us.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/Xi5Q22
via IFTTT

Why Is the Pentagon Sending Grenade Launchers to College Campuses?

At least 117 colleges have acquired
surplus military equipment
from the Department of Defense,
according to a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher
Education
.

The surplus military gear was made available under a program
known as the 1033 program, which shot to public attention following
the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri.

Campus police departments have used the program to obtain
military equipment as mundane as men’s trousers (Yale University)
and as serious as a mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle (Ohio
State University).

Modified grenade launchers were also acquired, by University of
Central Florida, and Hinds Community College, whilst at least 60
institutions used the program to obtain M-16 assault rifles.

Trousers and office supplies aside, why do campus police
departments require military equipment designed to withstand
roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Among those contacted by the Chronicle was Michael
Qualls, an associate professor of criminal justice at Fort Valley
State University, Georgia. In Qualls’ view, there is no reason for
campus police departments not to gain access to military
equipment:

“If we continue on with the 1033 program, as those items become
obsolete at the military level and if they become available, why
not get ’em?” Mr. Qualls said. “It’s better to be prepared than not
prepared.”

However, one thing that the events of Ferguson showed was that
once police departments possess military equipment, they are
increasingly likely to use it. The improper use of such equipment
can further exacerbate tensions with law enforcement, and is
potentially disastrous.

America has already seen the disastrous consequences that can
occur when a militarized force clashes with students.  In 1970
it resulted in the death of four young college students, in what
became known as the Kent State massacre.

This senseless loss of life was recently used as
inspiration for a sweatshirt design
, in what was probably a
publicity stunt by Urban Outfitters. Regardless of your view of the
garment, it’s a reminder of what is at stake when it comes to
police militarization.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1DjX0C5
via IFTTT

New Ad Campaign Urges Cannabis Consumers to Learn From Maureen Dowd’s Marijuana Mistake

A new new public
awareness campaign
in Colorado, aimed at encouraging
responsible use of marijuana edibles, features a billboard that
alludes to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s

famously unpleasant encounter
with cannabis-infused
chocolate:

Mason Tvert, communications director at the Marijuana Policy
Project, which is sponsoring the ad campaign, explains:

For decades, efforts to educate people about marijuana have been
led by government agencies and organizations that want to maintain
marijuana prohibition. Their campaigns have been characterized by
fear mongering, misinformation, and derision, and they have not
made anyone safer. Like most Americans, Ms. Dowd has probably seen
countless silly anti-marijuana ads on TV, but she never saw one
that highlights the need to “start low and go slow” when consuming
marijuana edibles.

Now that marijuana is a legal product like alcohol in some
states—and on its way to becoming legal in others— it needs to be
treated that way. That’s where the Consume Responsibly campaign
comes in.

MPP highlights how far we’ve come in “A
Brief History of Marijuana Education in America
.”

I
discussed
the special hazards posed by cannabis-infused foods
in a column last July. Short version: Edibles are indeed tricky,
but consumers are not as helpless as Dowd portrays them.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1soo2zQ
via IFTTT