Guest Post: "The Real Reason The American Dream is Unraveling", by Jim Quinn

This excellent exposé from Jim Quinn was written a week ago but I thought it would serve as a good discussion point this weekend.

The only thing I would add is this...Though the politicians have schemed for decades to remain in power by creating dependency upon government, the corrupt central bankers have been their enablers. Without the full cooperation of The Federal Reserve, gleefully creating new currency upon which they can expand debt and interest charges, the programs derided by Jim in this article would not have been possible. This "Financial-Political Complex" is the root cause of our Keynesian debt disaster...a death spiral from which there is no escape.



by, Jim Quinn of

Marketwatch posted an article this week titled Why the American Dream is Unraveling, in 4 charts. As usual, the MSM journalist and the liberal Harvard academic can create charts that reveal a huge problem, but they completely misdiagnose the causes and offer the typical wrong solution of taking more money from producers and handing it to the poor, with no strings attached. This has been the standard operating procedure since LBJ began his War on Poverty 50 years ago. Do these control freaks ever step back and assess how that war is going?

The poverty rate had plunged from 34% in 1950 to below 20% before LBJ ever declared war. It continued down to 15% just as the welfare programs began to be implemented. The percentage of people living in poverty hasn’t budged from the 15% range since the war began. This war has been just as successful as the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Any time a politician declares war on something, expect a huge price tag and more of the “problem” they are declaring war upon.

The Federal government runs over 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Over 100 million Americans received benefits from at least one of these programs. Federal and state governments spent $943 billion in 2013 on these programs at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient (not including Social Security & Medicare). That is 27% of the total Federal budget. Welfare spending as a percentage of the Federal budget was less than 2% prior to the launch of the War on Poverty.

In the 50 years since this war started, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. In terms of LBJ’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has utterly failed. In fact, a large proportion of the population is now completely dependent upon government handouts, incapable of self-sufficiency, and enslaved in a welfare mentality that has destroyed their communities.

The primary cause of their poverty and dependency on government are the policies implemented by liberal politicians which have destroyed the family unit, promoted deviant behavior, encouraged the production of bastard children, eliminated the need for personal responsibility, provided no consequences for bad life choices, and bankrupted the nation. The rise of the welfare state has coincided with the decline of the American state. The proliferation of welfare programs has broken down the behaviors, social norms and cultural standards that lead to self-reliance, generating a pattern of growing inter-generational reliance upon government handouts. By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater succor in the future.

So let’s get to the four charts that supposedly reveal why the American dream is unraveling. The Marketwatch article makes the following claim:

The upper-middle-class families Putnam profiles separate themselves into affluent suburbs, with separate public schools and social spheres from those of their poorer counterparts. As a result, the poorer children not only face greater hardships, but they also lack good models of what is possible. They are effectively cut off from opportunity.

The faux journalist makes the laughable argument the reason poor children don’t succeed in life is because people who have studied hard, graduated college, succeeded in life, and moved out of poor neighborhoods have left the poor children to face hardship and lack of opportunity. This is a classic liberal storyline. Blame those who have succeeded through their own blood, sweat and tears for the failure of those who languish in poverty due to their own life choices, lack of respect for education, and lack of work ethic. Chart number one reveals one thing to the Harvard academic Robert Putnam and another to me. He believes kids of people who have a college education have some sort of unfair advantage over kids of lesser educated parents:

“The most important thing about the experience of being young and poor in America is that these kids are really isolated, and really don’t have close ties with anybody. They are completely clueless about the kinds of skills and savvy and connections needed to get ahead.”

Why are poor kids isolated, with no ties with anybody? Isolated from whom? They don’t have ties to their family? That is a ludicrous contention, supported with no facts. All kids are completely clueless. You don’t get ahead in life through savvy and connections. You have the best chance to get ahead in life through opening a book, studying hard, and getting good grades, all with the support of concerned involved parents. There are no guarantees in life, but education, involved parents, and working hard dramatically increase your odds of success. It’s not a secret formula. Putnam believes the chart below reveals that kids in households with college educated parents have an unfair advantage over kids in households without college educated parents. To me it reveals the complete and utter failure of LBJ’s Great Society programs and the feminist mantra that men aren’t necessary to raise children.

The percentage of children living in single parent households with a college educated parent is virtually the same today as it was in the early 1960’s, just under 10%. The percentage of children living in single parent households with a high school educated parent in the early 1960’s was 20%. Today that number has risen to 65%. Liberals purposely misdiagnose the problem because admitting the true cause of this disastrous trend would destroy their credibility and reveal the failure of their beloved welfare programs. The key point is that prior to LBJ’s War on Poverty less than 10% of ALL children grew up in a single parent households. Today, that number is 33%. The lesson is you get more of what you encourage and incentivize. The liberal academic solution is for college educated households to give more of their money to the high school or less educated households. Academics with an agenda never ask why their solutions haven’t worked in 50 years.

The number of households in the U.S. in 1960 totaled 53 million and there were 24 million traditional married couple with children households, or 45%. There were 3 million single parent households with children, or 6%. Today the total number of households in the U.S. is approximately 122 million and there are only 25 million with traditional married couple with children households, or 20%. Meanwhile single parent families with children households have skyrocketed to 13 million, or 11%. The war on traditional two parent families by the government, liberal mainstream media, Hollywood, feminists, and academics has been far more successful than the War on Poverty.

The drastic increase in households with fatherless children, especially in the black community, is the primary reason the poverty rate hasn’t dropped over the last 50 years. It is the primary reason poor children remain poor. It is the primary reason why every urban enclave in America continues to degenerate into dangerous, filthy, lawless ghettos.  The statistics tell the story of decline, depravity, failure, and an endless loop of poverty.

  • An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father.
  • Of students in grades 1 through 12, 39% (17.7 million) live in homes absent their biological fathers.
  • 57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.
  • Among children who were part of the “post-war generation,” 87.7% grew up with two biological parents who were married to each other. Today only 68.1% will spend their entire childhood in an intact family.

Annual divorce rates are only marginally higher today than they were in the early 1960’s. So that does not account for the drastic increase in fatherless households. But, the differences among races is dramatic. Blacks divorce at a rate twice as high as whites and three times as high as Asians.

Marriage rates of Asians are almost three times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Marriage rates of whites are two times higher than marriage rates of blacks. Is it really surprising that Asian children score the highest on all educational achievement tests?

The facts prove that people (no matter what race) who marry and stay married offer their children a tremendously better opportunity to succeed academically, thereby giving them a much higher chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. This doesn’t mean that children from a single parent household can’t succeed. It just means they have a better chance with two parents. It’s just simple math. Two adults working together can provide higher income, more help with school work, and offer a more stable environment for the child. The liberal media and those with a social agenda scorn the traditional family as if it precludes people from living however they choose. The results of the war on families can be seen in the chart below.

The unwed birth rate stayed below 5% from 1945 through the early 1960’s. As soon as the government began incentivizing people to not get married and to have children out of wedlock, the rates skyrocketed. Today, four out of ten children are born out of wedlock. Seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock. Only two out of ten black children were born out of wedlock in 1964. These births out of wedlock are not the result of dumb teenagers making a mistake. Almost 80% of these births are to mothers over the age of 20, with 40% of the births to mothers over the age of 25. And these horrific results are after the 55 million abortions since 1973. This didn’t happen because of women’s rights or women feeling empowered to raise children on their own. Knowledge about and access to contraceptives is not a reason for unwed pregnancies. Poor women and the men who impregnate them receive more welfare benefits by remaining unmarried and receive additional benefits by having more children out of wedlock.

Children Living with Mother Only-bwh graph

So all of the data confirms the fact children who grow up in two parent households do better in school, are far less likely to be enslaved in poverty, and have a chance to succeed in life, not matter what the educational level of their parents. In the early 1960s there were very few households with college educated parents. My Dad was a truck driver and my mother was a stay at home mom until we were in high school. We were lower middle class, but all three of their children attained college degrees by studying hard, working part-time jobs to help pay for their education, and having the support of concerned parents. Could we have gotten college degrees if we had been raised by only my mother? I doubt it.

Harvard Professor Putnam prefers to ignore the politically incorrect fact that a return to traditional families would begin to reverse the 50 years of damage caused by the War on Poverty. He believes it is in the moral interest of wealthier families to help improve the economic prospects of poorer children. Liberals also don’t think the $13,000 spent per student per year is enough to educate them properly. He actually believes taking more money from producers and handing it to non-producers will boost the U.S. economy.

“The U.S. economy would get a major boost if the opportunity gap were closed. We cannot continue to live in our own bubbles, or compartments on a plate, without consequences. What I hope people take away is that helping poor kids, giving them more skills and more support would economically benefit their kids.”

The country has spent $22 trillion on the war on poverty and spends approximately $1 trillion per year, but liberal academics think if we just spend more, the complete and utter failure of their solutions will be reversed. They ignore the fact a Democratic President (Clinton) and a Republican Congress instituted welfare reform in 1996 that temporarily stopped the increase in spending, halted the rise in unwed births, and put poor people back to work. Today only one welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), effectively promotes self-reliance. Reforms that created TANF in 1996 moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs. Those gains were reversed as the Obama administration and congressional leadership undid the employment and training requirements enacted 14 years ago. Liberals think it is cruel and inhumane to make poor people work.

Putnam’s final three charts just reinforce the fact traditional families, involved parents, and higher education lead to higher incomes and upward mobility for children in these settings. The reason children in households with college educated parents get more daily attention is because those households are far more likely to have two parents. The time was equal in the early 1970s when two parent families were more prevalent. Having strangers raise kids in government subsidized daycare centers as a substitute for fathers hasn’t worked out so well.

In another shocker, poor children, who are predominantly from single parent households, without a role model to replace their missing fathers, score far worse in tests that predict success in college. The key attribute to educational success is not the educational level of the parents, it’s the need for poor, middle class or wealthy households to have two parents invested in the future of their children.

Attributing obesity rates of children from non-college educated households to the parents’ eduction is quite a reach. In the early 1970’s the obesity rates were very close between high school educated households and college educated households. So why has it surged? The liberals claim the poor go hungry and don’t have enough food. Shouldn’t that lead to higher malnutrition rates and not higher obesity rates? Maybe the surging obesity rates are due to the government lunch programs, the fast food culture in urban ghettos, no fathers around to encourage outside activities, and using food stamps to buy junk food rather than healthier foods. Bad choices generally lead to bad outcomes. Obesity is a choice. Of course liberals now classify it as a disability which needs to be subsidized by the government.

The American dream has unraveled for many reasons. Not spending enough on welfare programs is not one of the reasons. The welfare/warfare state is bankrupt. We spend $1 trillion on welfare programs, $1.4 trillion on Social Security and Medicare, and over $1 trillion on the military/surveillance apparatus. It’s a bipartisan bankruptcy, as Republicans agree to increase the welfare state as long as the Democrats agree to increase the warfare state. The only thing sustaining this debt based house of cards is a Federal Reserve which provides zero interest financing and a never ending willingness to debase our currency to keep the status quo in power. The current rate of spending on the welfare/warfare state is unsustainable. We could voluntarily reduce the spending before the financial collapse or the spending will stop abruptly when our country undergoes a catastrophic financial implosion that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Voluntarily putting the country back on a path of self reliance could be done if there was a will to do so. Reversing the culture of dependency would require a major dose of tough love that would upend the entire ideology of liberalism. Able-bodied, non-elderly adult recipients in all federal welfare programs would be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving food stamps or housing assistance. This would promote personal responsibility and provide the recipients with some self respect.  Obama is a big proponent of national service, why not national service for recipients of welfare?

Anti-marriage penalties should be removed from welfare programs, and long-term steps should be taken to rebuild the family in lower-income communities. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The welfare system needs to be revamped to reduce these counterproductive incentives. The appeal of welfare programs as an alternative to work and marriage could be reduced by requiring able-bodied parents to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Today government advertises in an effort to get more people to sign up for food stamps and dozens of other welfare programs. Government should be promulgating the facts on how marriage prevents social ills – poverty, poor education, juvenile crime – associated with children born to unmarried women.

Lastly, we need to cutoff the illegal influx of low-skill immigrants from the South, whose children will receive far more in welfare benefits than they pay in taxes, if they pay any taxes. The country must reject blanket amnesty or “earned citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants who then could access the welfare system. The welfare system is already unsustainable and adding millions of illegals into the system would be the tipping point.

Lyndon B. Johnson’ s goal was not to create an ever increasing welfare state, but to give the poor a helping hand towards self-sufficiency. His idealistic aim was to cure and prevent poverty. But, once a program is put into the hands of politicians looking to get re-elected every two years, the unintended negative consequences expand exponentially. $22 trillion later the American Dream is virtually non-existent for the 47 million Americans languishing in poverty and the once prosperous middle class who have seen their real wages stagnate due to Federal Reserve created inflation and taxes increase to pay for the ever expanding welfare/warfare state. One chart provides a major explanation of why the American Dream has unraveled, but you won’t see Obama, liberals or the mainstream media talking about it. Traditional married, two parent families are the antidote to poverty, not government welfare programs.

The debate on how to help the poor has raged for centuries. A wise Founding Father told us how the war on poverty would unfold.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” - Benjamin Franklin


KC's picture

1st Really?

....and I even read the article

Keg's picture

Lyndon Johnson

Jim wrote:
Lyndon B. Johnson’ s goal was not to create an ever increasing welfare state, but to give the poor a helping hand towards self-sufficiency. His idealistic aim was to cure and prevent poverty.

Sorry Jim, but that comment is a total lie. 

This is what Johnson said about his poverty programs (sorry if anyone is offended by the language but it is what he said).  It tells the real reason for his poverty program:

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One


Dobocop's picture

news from up north

Future shop is closing all 131 stores immediately and will reopen 65 next week under the name of its parent company best buy.

Big news up north, first target now futureshop, what's next sears?

Although 65 doesn't seem huge relative to population it is significant

infometron's picture

Why stock prices are rising and bond yields are decreasing

One of the best zerohedge posts to date, imho:

"Summing up, central banks first drove interest rates to the zero bound which encouraged corporates to borrow and drove investors into riskier assets. The lower yields went, the more desperate investors became, and the more debt companies issued. Rather than spend the proceeds on capex, companies funnelled the money back into their own stocks, driving up equity prices, which distorted the asset allocations of the very investors who just bought their bonds, which means that ironically, re-leveraging companies utilizing financial engineering to boost their share prices have actually managed to kill two birds with one stone by not only inflating the value of their equity, but by simultaneously ensuring they’ll be still more demand for their debt. Meanwhile, the central banks of the world are now buying ETFs and will soon be buying individual stocks, which will serve to further drive up equity prices creating demand for corporate debt only to have the companies buy back stock, and around we go. The bubble machine is thus complete."

How totally and completely FUBAR! This merry-go-round is spinning out of control.

The complete post is here:

crylandjr's picture


Exactly what I thought of. Why people still assume good intentions from any politician is past me. 

Marchas45's picture

Surprise! Surprise!

Mmmmm Now To Read, Must Be Important As Turd Is Working This Week-End. Keep Stacking

Well I read it.

One Elite to the other Elite, "Boy it's great when we can buy some ones soul with Fiat, I wonder what will happen when we take it away?" Complete Control

Mr. Fix's picture

My Drean is unraveling,

But my Dream is doing just fine! cheeky

For me, success at anything has been directly correlated to my ability to circumvent the system.

I now avoid it at all costs, whenever possible. The system is designed to destroy you. There is still a relatively large degree of freedom available outside of it. This is not even debatable. But it is worth serious consideration.

Safety Dan's picture

Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer - Glyphosate

From PubMed

Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors.


Glyphosate is an active ingredient of the most widely used herbicide and it is believed to be less toxic than other pesticides. However, several recent studies showed its potential adverse health effects to humans as it may be an endocrine disruptor. This study focuses on the effects of pure glyphosate on estrogen receptors (ERs) mediated transcriptional activity and their expressions. Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer, T47D cells, but not in hormone-independent breast cancer, MDA-MB231 cells, at 10⁻¹² to 10⁻⁶M in estrogen withdrawal condition. The proliferative concentrations of glyphosate that induced the activation of estrogen response element (ERE) transcription activity were 5-13 fold of control in T47D-KBluc cells and this activation was inhibited by an estrogen antagonist, ICI 182780, indicating that the estrogenic activity of glyphosate was mediated via ERs. Furthermore, glyphosate also altered both ERα and β expression. These results indicated that low and environmentally relevant concentrations of glyphosate possessed estrogenic activity. Glyphosate-based herbicides are widely used for soybean cultivation, and our results also found that there was an additive estrogenic effect between glyphosate and genistein, a phytoestrogen in soybeans. However, these additive effects of glyphosate contamination in soybeans need further animal study.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Great articles:

Groundbreaking Study Links Monsanto’s Glyphosate To Cancer 

The Corbett report points out Monsanto's Glyphosate & what these chemicals are doing to all life forms 

Roundup Is More Toxic than Declared – Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini

Other Popular Stories:

  1. Breaking: Sri Lanka First Country to Ban Monsanto’s Glyphosate Due to Study on Chronic Kidney Disease
  2. Doctor Discusses Truth About Glyphosate and Chronic Kidney Disease
  3. Sri Lanka Reverses Glyphosate Ban Due to Monsanto’s Bullying
  4. The Netherlands Says NO to Glyphosate, Monsanto’s RoundUp Herbicide
  5. New Study: Monsanto’s #1 Herbicide Directly Linked to Chronic Disease Spike
  6. Monsanto’s Roundup, Glyphosate Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar Diseases

StevenBHorse's picture

This has got to be

The most racist shit ever.


Mr. Fix's picture

Just a little bit of fuel for the discussion:

Market Watch serves the singular purpose of mind control and propaganda.

I know this personally, I posted there regularly, for a couple of years before I came here.

Pointing out the fallacies in their stories was a sure fire way to have your post deleted. Explaining the truth in any manner shape or form was also a sure fire way to have your post disappear. Eventually, those who had a reputation for speaking the truth, Were simply barred from participating anymore. The problem that I see with this article, although it is well researched, and well explained, has several false narratives woven into it, and that is by design.

A lot of times, even arguing a liberal point of view becomes a trap. First off, it is my contention that the real reason the American dream has evaporated, is that the wealth of our nation has been stolen. We see it in a micro scale in the gold markets, but in every possible industry and market, wealth has been stolen at every level.

As it was previously pointed out, LBJ's "great society”, was a completely malevolent farce on its face, as stealing from the productive never increases anyone's chances at success. Although two parent families, obviously add to the stability of society, I think we would still be in a similar position even if parents somehow felt compelled to stick together and raise their children. 

As even this article points out, most still do. The real problem, is that the government under the premise of "taking care of us" has done nothing but take from us, while offering very little but destruction in return.

I firmly believe that mankind was designed to be self-governing.

I have lived that way my entire life. Unfortunately, I am in a distinct minority. Most people seem to believe that governments are necessary for some reason, I credit this false belief to literally a millennia of propaganda and mind control.

Combined with religion, which creates a deadly dual dynamic, people are taught from their infancy to be subservient to some higher power, whether it be a god, or government, makes no difference, you have abdicated your sovereignty over yourself.

 Now realistically speaking, I will admit that humanity has become far too screwed up for most people to even consider self-reliance as an option. Therefore, the inevitable economic and cultural calamity that we are witnessing is indeed unavoidable. 

 Getting people to start marrying again would not stop it. Getting people to be responsible for themselves, and their own families, would make the government  irrelevant, which is why they have engineered this disaster in the first place, as nearly half of society is now completely dependent on a government handout.

  If we have to have a government, which is a premise which I disagree with in all sincerity,

then the only possible legitimate use of government that I can conceive of, would be to serve the singular purpose of protecting individual liberty.  But even with that said, it is the individual's responsibility to protect his own liberty.

Anything the government does  in straying from this one task it refuses to engage in,  it becomes a parasitical organism that serves only to destroy its host. This brings me back to the basic premise of the article, debating whether or not “Families matter”, and of course they do, but this has almost nothing to do with the situation our government has created, it is simply being pointed to as a cause, and then for us to accept the premise that it is our own fault.

It goes on to presume a false fix, while the real underlying destruction of our society goes  un-addressed.

Both the main stream, and even the alternative media have a hard time addressing  the fact that the theft of human liberty through regulation and the confiscation of wealth is the real underlying cause of our dilemma.

This system will collapse, it is completely unavoidable by now, but maybe in the future, when humanity has the task of picking up the pieces of a collapsed global society, maybe, maybe then people will wake up to the fact that they are ultimately responsible for themselves. At this point, it will only be the survivors who have figured that out.

Now that the discussion has been properly framed,

let it rip.  wink

Safety Dan's picture

Australian government set to

Australian government set to tax bank deposits

Tony Abbott Australia

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott

The Australian Federal Government looks set to introduce a tax on bank deposits in the May budget.

The idea of a bank deposit tax was raised by Labor in 2013 and was criticised by Tony Abbott at the time.

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has indicated an announcement on the new tax could be made before the budget.

The Government is heading for a fight with the banking industry, which has warned it will have to pass the cost back onto customers.

Mr Frydenberg is a member of the Government’s Expenditure Review Committee but has refused to provide any details.

argentus maximus's picture

About that publication and

About marketwatch and it's content:

I agree totally with Fix. A high level of reader's scepticism is required.

Though I try to not read it, if doing so for some special reason, I personally apply a contrarian interpretation to that sources' content where my money and beliefs are concerned.

Not saying "do the opposite" to everything it says, but ... well ... pretty close.

4 oz's picture

Best Quote of the Week~~~

"The cost of producing Silver is not it's value."

--Steve St Angelo aka SRSrocco 3-27-2015

Mr. Fix's picture

On the topic:

The American Dream Part 2 - We Now Live In A "Pimpocracy"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/28/2015 - 16:15

Americans still say they believe in free markets, democracy and financial rectitude. But only as platitudes and hypocrisies... the free market was one of the first casualties of the post-1971 fiat money period. In a free market, people earn money by working (income) or by saving and investing it (capital growth). But credit-based money needed neither work nor saving; you just had to know the right people.

Mr. Fix's picture

Another more important element in the death of the dream:

Guest Post: The Only Truly Compliant, Submissive Citizen In A Police State Is A Dead One

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/28/2015 - 22:15

This is the death rattle of the American dream, which was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.

Safety Dan's picture

Yet More Reasons Why The Dream Is Unraveling...

Stolen Uber Customer Accounts Are for Sale on the Dark Web for $1


MARCH 28, 2015 ~ 0 COMMENTS

(Joseph Cox)  Active Uber accounts are for sale on a dark web marketplace for as little as $1 each, Motherboard has learned.

One seller claims he has “thousands” of user logins for sale.

A username and password is all you need to access a user’s trip history, which may include personal details such as a home address. While full credit card information is not exposed, the last four digits and expiration date of the user’s card are viewable in a user’s account.

Over on AlphaBay market, a recently launched dark web site, vendor Courvoisier has a listing for ‘x1 UBER ACCOUNT – WORLDWIDE TAXI!’ For the meager sum of $1, anyone can anonymously purchase an Uber username and password.

Another vendor, ThinkingForward, has a similar offer, but for $5. “I will guarantee that they are valid and live ONLY. Discounts on bulk purchases,” ThinkingForward writes on his product listing.

“It’s terrifying that this information is out there. [It’s a] massive breach of privacy.”

According to Courvoisier, once you’ve bought the login, it’s a simple step to ordering a cab.

“Log in on the Uber mobile website on your phone and book a cab :)” he or she told me in a private message.

A representative for Uber said the company has found no evidence of a breach.

Motherboard received a sample of names and passwords available and verified that at least some of the accounts were active by contacting those users. The data includes names, usernames, passwords, partial credit card data, and telephone numbers for Uber customers.

Motherboard reached out to one of the users whose email address and password was put up for sale: James Allan, sales director for OISG, a technology solutions company.

Allan confirmed that the username and password Motherboard had seen were correct, as well as the expiry date on his personal credit card. He doesn’t actually use Uber anymore, and the last trip he booked was in December 2013.

“Bloody hell,” Allan said over the phone, when he was told what his password was.

Continue reading →

Radio Shack (now bankrupt) just auctioned off your personal info in violation of its own Terms of Service


MARCH 28, 2015 ~ 3 COMMENTS

Continue reading →

lnardozi's picture

The System

You're absolutely correct about the corrosive effect of "The System" on the people that think they're "beating" it, but it is far far more insidious than you've written to date. The purpose is only peripherally about buying votes. Much more important than that is it can be used as a wedge issue to drive "Democrats" against "Republicans" and ensure their continual strife. A few crumbs for some poor people is nothing - less than a trillion, so what? The real meat is  the corporate welfare, whose existence is justified by the War on Poverty largesse. Corporate welfare is given by legislation in favor of company A over company B, creating barriers to entry and legislative hurdles that trip up new competitors. They in turn become entrapped by "The System" being dependent upon it for their newly legislated profits. Why is "The System" willing to share so much of its power? It's called consolidating a power base. They don't care how much they give away and who it hurts or helps because they're playing for ownership of everything that exists.

Safety Dan's picture

The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown

Embedded image permalink

Safety Dan's picture

Caught On Tape – A

Caught On Tape – A Clandestine Federal Reserve Meeting

Submitted by IWB, on March 28th, 2015

Excerpt from the article:

Let’s listen to part of the conversation caught on tape.

“Another meeting; another charade.  How long can we punt this thing down the road?  We are running out of excuses not to raise interest rates.  It’s been over six years since we pushed the federal funds rate to near-zero.  It was supposed to be a temporary measure.  Within a year or so, the economy was supposed to rebound enough so that we could gradually return to a normal range of interest rates without fear of the lapsing back into a recession.”

“Those days are long gone.  What worked in the past doesn’t work anymore.  Our predecessors were asleep at the wheel and let the housing bubble get way out of hand.  They knew full well that the housing market was over-heated and didn’t have the nerve to take away the punch bowl until it was too late.  Why piss off our friends on Wall Street when everybody there was making money hand-over-fist peddling worthless mortgage-backed securities with bullshit AAA ratings to unsuspecting investors?  Why piss off borrowers who could get interest-only mortgages with next-to-nothing down and without having to prove they were creditworthy or even had a job?  To be a killjoy and stop the insanity would be poor form.  It would also be a sure way of getting kicked off the Board and banned from a nice cushy job in the banking industry down the road.”

“So we wound up bailing out greedy bankers instead and then we bought up all their toxic Collaterized Debt Obligations at a premium.  You would think they would show a little restraint…but no.  They couldn’t wait to award themselves huge bonuses and strut around with shit-eating grins across their faces.  No wonder Main Street Americans hate their guts and hate us, in turn, for doing the bankers’ bidding at every turn.”

“If zero interest rates weren’t enough to fill their coffers, we started those insane Quantitative Easing programs, which is printing money out of thin air by any other name.  We were pushing on a noodle.  It got us and the economy trapped in a quagmire.  It also raised expectations that such bat-shit-crazy easing would continue in perpetuity.  And those expectations have turned into outright demands that we continue more of the same.”

“Yeah.  And where did all those low interest rates and QE schemes get us.  They got us nowhere.  In fact, they made matters worse because we boxed ourselves in.  We pushed the stock market to the moon and made rich people richer.  We pressed Joe Six-Pack to take on more risk in order to get a decent return on his investments.  We punished savers, particularly seniors, like my mom and pop, by driving interest rates to nearly zero on the hard-earned money they have in their bank accounts.”

“And to what end?  The economy is languishing, stuck in a lingering malaise.  Real wages are flat or declining for most Americans, as their expenses continue to rise.  People have dropped out the work force in droves; most have given up on ever finding a job again.  Those who have jobs have seen their wages decrease because they are being forced to work fewer hours.”

“And we have the unmitigated balls to pretend everything is unicorns and rainbows.  We have the gall to say we to intend to raise interest rates before the end of the year.  Who the hell are we kidding?  We know if we raise rates, it could crash the market in a heartbeat.  If it doesn’t crash the market, it will certainly crash the economy.  Then we will have to deal with the backlash and have to back down by lowering interest rates to zero once again, losing all credibility in the process.”

“We thought we could smooth the economic cycles, which have occurred from time immemorial.  We thought we could eliminate downturns in the economy by cleverly manipulating monetary policy.  We thought wrong.  We found out the hard way that economic downturns are necessary to purge out excesses in our financial system.  We fooled with Mother Nature and got burnt.  Now we don’t know whether to shit or go blind.”

“With the media hanging on every single syllable that the Fed utters, we can’t even talk intelligently about the bind we’re in.  Can you believe, we couldn’t purge the word “patient” from our FOMC reports without spooking the market?  Hell, if we can’t even hint about raising rates without creating havoc in the markets, how will the market react if and when we actually raise rates?  And, even if the market accepts that we will gradually raise rates, how will a weak economy react to such tightening?  My guess is that it will not react well.  The economy is too fragile for it to react otherwise.  We are overdue for a recession and the next one will hit us real hard.”

“We’re so screwed.  What the hell were we thinking?”

“We weren’t.  That’s the problem.  It sounded good at the time and we went with it.  I can kick myself in the butt for being an imbecile.”

“That’s why we have to stay the course.  Just keep moving the goalposts and keep interest rates where they are.  An economic malaise is better than another Great Recession or, worse, a Depression.  A rising or flat stock market is better than a collapsing market.  When in doubt…punt.  Or, should I say, keep punting.  There will always be a reason for keeping interest rates right where they are now.  Why tempt fate when you don’t have to.”


Safety Dan's picture

Chart (Scotiabank): Central

Chart (Scotiabank): Central bank holdings as % of total outstanding sovereign debt -

Safety Dan's picture

Why People CAN'T Fight Back

Why People CAN'T Fight Back Against the Bankers and New World Order's Global Control!

Mr. Fix's picture

The American Dream Part 3:

The American Dream Part 3 - Moonshine, Scam, & The Delusion Of Democracy

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/29/2015 - 12:45

When we left you yesterday, we were trying to connect the bloated, cankerous ankles of the US economy (Part 1) to the sugar rush of its post-1971 credit-based money system (Part 2). Today, we look at the face of our government. It is older... with more worry lines and wrinkles. But whence cometh that pale and stupid look? That is also the result of the same advanced diabetic epizootic that has infected American society.

Barfly's picture

I call BS on the fed meeting tape

Reeks of a fabrication. No way that's real. I have no doubt as to the veracity of the material that's supposedly discussed, but if it was discussed in that manner is highly suspect. The tip off is the language. Academic fed appointees simply have larger vocabularies and they don't swear at each other. Fabrication start to finish.

SS121's picture

curious thing

ZH is so insightful, yet they never quite get around to pointing a finger at the private owners of the charts and currencies.

Nor do they ever stumble across the eternal reality that Only Silver and Gold are Money.

?:  How about an "edgy" insightful linear documentary on...

Tyler Durden's pictureHow A Privately Owned Fake Silver Chart Came To Control The Price Of All The World's Physical Silver Transactions.

it'd be a nice break ...  and give the sheeple a breather from shadow boxing themselves to their 1,000 deaths.

benque's picture

Barfly - Fed statement

Its an obvious satire.  Thats how I took it anyway.

Libero's picture

The Solution is...

Stop all unemployment compensation and welfare programs!  Just think how people and businesses will save lots and lots.

Then, raise minimum wage across the country to $18 dollars an hour.  There, problem solved.  Let's hear the excuses....

waxybilldupp's picture

Solution ...

>> "Then, raise minimum wage across the country to $18 dollars an hour." << Sayeth Libero

For starters, why $18?  Why not $12 or 13 or 20 or 30?  What's magic about $18?

$18 an hour for some 16 year-old to ask "would you like fries with that?"  Doesn't work for me, Libero.  Pretty simplistic non-solution to anything.  Back to your drawing board.  That little brain fart doesn't solve a thing.  How about letting the marketplace dictate the price of labor and get the .gov out of the picture entirely.  Thanks for playing, though.

wax off

Libero's picture

Hey waxy -my solution is better.

Look at the mess both government handouts AND free market bs crap has gotten us.  So the problem is a 16 year old making $18 an hour for you, okay, then you have to be at least 18 years old, and can't drop out of school either.

I guess things were better back before there was a big government like in colonial america, or let's go even further to the Dark Ages, -yup those were the days.  Now your turn to brain fart.

lnardozi's picture

Oh, and it makes my TEETH hurt to have to agree

But I'm with... Libero on this one. I think it's one of a few places where the Libertarian philosophy breaks down, because it fails to acknowledge the truth that already exists. When an employer underpays an employee, the employee doesn't starve or get 9 jobs to support himself, he gets food stamps or section 8 or one of the hundreds of other giveaway programs. If the employer pays a wage the employee cannot subsist upon (given that the hundreds of programs no longer exist), that employee will eventually starve and die, causing the employer to have to retrain an employee. At the end of the day it benefits neither employer nor employee to offer slave wages.

The person that has money is always in a more powerful negotiating position than the person that needs money.

That being said, when someone works for you for less than is required to maintain their existence, how it that different from slavery? So, if it is in fact given these other programs no longer exist, which employer would not jump for joy at that fact and even pay twice or thrice what the employee receives today to be free of all paperwork relating to that employee? If the employee can not produce enough added value for you to afford to pay them, why are you hiring them in the first place? Training? So you're saying it's not enough for you to reap all the benefits of their labor, they must pay for their own training too? Consider the other end of the equation, not the mom and pop that are always mentioned in Libertarian arguments - Walmart. Walmart hires 23% of retail employees in the US. Walmart employees are almost always eligible for food stamps, section 8 and God knows what else. The Libertarian philosophy is OK with them offering whatever wage pleases them without taking into account the pricing power their market share gives them - market share that was not gained by Libertarian means, I assure you. Once Walmart is not relying on the taxpayer to subsidize their employees' salary, their prices will allow competition. All welfare programs exist to stifle competition in the free market, so picking the minimum wage rule to adhere to whilst disregarding personal and corporate welfare rules is in my not su humble option completely disingenuous.

And don't even get me started on the thousands upon millions of federal regulations that allow such a behemoth as Walmart to exist. Fifty different state compliance departments should have made Wizzle-Mizzle unworkable logistically  from the get go. With only one, it exists as a barrier to competition - which competitor can afford the 200 person legal team up front?

Libero's picture

Good points

As things are, the social programs and safety net of big government basically subsidizes the private sector's low, below living wages.  And then the private sector (and us taxpayers) turn(s) around and complain about high taxes.  It's a vicious circle that can stop if both left and right realize the stupidity of it.   The big increase we have seen in government expenditures for social programs didn't exist prior to 1960.  No food stamps, no rent vouchers, and tax rates went as high as 90%!  And only one working parent could support a household.  

It is quite reasonable and better in the long run that adult workers get paid a living wage (minimum $18 hour), that this would increase demand for goods, and at the same time decrease all those subsidies.

Syndicate contentComments for "Guest Post: "The Real Reason The American Dream is Unraveling", by Jim Quinn"