Showing posts with label Corporate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Breaking News From Corporate Media: Billionaires Do Not Like Socialism


Just as the press are keen for you to know that Medicare for All is a very bad idea, they are equally anxious to make sure that the voices of beleaguered, unheard plutocrats are given as much of a boost as possible.


February 4, 2020 Alan MacLeod FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN REPORTING (FAIR)



JPMorCEO Jamie Dimon Takes on Socialism, Says It Will Lead to an ‘Eroding Society.’, Scott Olson/Getty Images
Big news, everyone! Billionaires don’t like socialism.
In response to a rising progressive tide in the United States, a new genre of stories has emerged in corporate media: rich guys warning against taxing them, or really changing anything about the system at all. Just as the press are keen for you to know that Medicare for All is a very bad idea (FAIR.org4/29/19), they are equally anxious to make sure that the voices of beleaguered, unheard plutocrats are given as much of a boost as possible.
A case in point is CNBC’s recent article (1/22/20) headlined, “BP’s CEO Chides AOC and Bernie Sanders for Their ‘Completely Unrealistic’ Green New Deal Ideas.” Reporter Jessica Bursztynsky begins:
Outgoing BP chief Bob Dudley on Wednesday criticized sweeping climate proposals from Sen. Bernie Sanders, a top-tier 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a champion of the far left. “They have a completely unrealistic idea of the complexity of the global energy system,” Dudley told CNBC’s Squawk Boxfrom the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
To sum up the story, a CNBC journalist went to Davos (where the cheapest hotel room last year was $1,000 per night) to get ideas about socialism and the environment from the CEO of BP, one of the 100 corporations responsible for over 70% of the world’s emissions. At no point did Bursztynsky warn the audience or even allude to the enormous conflict of interest the oil multi-millionaire might have in discussing solutions to the climate crisis. Instead, his views are presented as a straight and important news story.
In contrast, the first sentence primes the reader against AOC and Sanders by presenting them as “far left” – in other words, as some sort of out-there crazies, even though their ideas are supported by the majority of the American people (FAIR.org1/23/19). It allows Dudley to claim that there is a distinct “lack of realism” from his critics (emphasis added):
“There’s just a lot of people, very well-meaning people, who want to believe that there is a simple solution,” Dudley said at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference.
Jeez, I wonder what oil CEOs at an energy forum in a Mideastern monarchy think about renewable energy? Good thing CNBC is on the case.

Monday, February 4, 2019

Corporate Buy Backs are a Problem


From the mid-20th century until the 1970s, American corporations shared a belief that they had a duty not only to their shareholders but to their workers, their communities and the country that created the economic conditions and legal protections for them to thrive. It created an extremely prosperous America for working people and the broad middle of the country. 
But over the past several decades, corporate boardrooms have become obsessed with maximizing only shareholder earnings to the detriment of workers and the long-term strength of their companies, helping to create the worst level of income inequality in decades.
Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumur 

Monday, August 13, 2018

Trump Feeds Corporate Military Industrial complex.

Military Spending 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/us/politics/fact-check-trump-military-spending.html


This is corporate pay off to the military/industrial complex.
"-- as well as 93 F-35 Lightning II and two dozen F/A-18 E/F fighter jets. The House version also calls for a dozen new Navy ships."
Billions of dollars for 93 F-35s.  We could use 6.  And, the new Navy ships??
June 6 (UPI) -- The House Appropriations Committee unveiled a $674.6 billion defense spending bill Wednesday.
While the committee scheduled a markup session for Thursday and debate with the Senate's version of the budget will likely take months, the House version provides $605 billion in base discretionary funding. That figure is less than President Donald Trump's administration requested, but more than the 2018 level.
The proposed funding would pay for more than 15,000 additional troops and pay raises for those already in military service -- as well as 93 F-35 Lightning II and two dozen F/A-18 E/F fighter jets. The House version also calls for a dozen new Navy ships.
The procurement budget includes more F-35s and littoral combat ships than the military requested, but Congress supports buying the equipment to keep factories and shipyards working and available for future orders, The Hill reported.
"With the changing global dynamics and ever-growing threats to our security, it is absolutely imperative that our military is properly trained, equipped and fully supported in order to do their jobs," panel chair Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., said in a statement. "This legislation does all of this by including robust funding for our troops, the defense programs and activities necessary to accomplish our national goals and ideals, and to continue to rebuild our military."
See updates in the NYT article.