House Republicans voting to cut Funding for WIC, while continuing subsidies for the Rich, Big Oil and Brazilian cotton farmers!!!!
Tom Jigme Wheat
majority numbers in the House of Representatives to cut funding for
WIC, Emergency Food Assistance program, by 13 percent that's 650
million dollars. The program also cuts SNAP (Food Stamps), while
continuing funding for subsidies to Brazilian cotton farmers. The
hypocrisy of the republicans is astounding. On the one one hand they
claim to be pro life, but their stance on this issue stops after
gestation, and their expected vote signals their harsh stance on lthe
value of human life after you are born as the over 9 million people
who recieve WIC, will have their numbers reduced by 350,000, so
millionaires and billionaires, and oil companies can get corporate
welfare subsidies. This means 350,000 low inome women will not be able
to buy nuitritional infant formula for their babies. This will
increase infant mortality rates in the United States just so the rich
and oil companies can get tax subsidies.
WIC serves low income women and children and provides health and
nutrition assistance programs for them.The fact is with HR 2112,
these program cuts will cause, between 250000 - 350000 people to be
eliminated from the program. This means these people will not have
access to Pre-Natal Care, or access to Healthy food, since the
republicans are also cutting funding for Loacal and regional Food
Banks.
While this is going on republicans voted to continue to subsidize the
oil companies despite the fact that they reported record profits, 36
billion dollars last quarter. At the same time they voted to cut
funding from the CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Comission) by 30
million, and gut their power to regulate speculation in the oil
futures market. The fact is Goldman Sachs reported in April of this
year that 20 percent of the price of oil per barrel is due to
speculation on the New York mercantile exchange. But the republicans
dont stop there, under their newly found pseudo Fiscal conservativism
despite voting time and again for the reckless spending deficit
raising programs of the George W. Bush administration were the
majority of republicans voted every year to raise the debt ceiling,
they now are gutting the social safety net, i.e., the Paul Ryan Budget
that guts Medicare, Medicaid, while continuing to increase tax breaks
for millionaires and billionaires, despite the fact that the top 1
percent of income earners own 40 percent of all private wealth in this
country.
The fact is if we repealed the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires for one week we could fund WIC and food banks for a whole
year. The hypocrisy of the republicans is astounding.
thomaswheat1975
RichTravsky
Tom Jigme Wheat
million dollars from SNAP,(Food Stamps), WIC, which serves over 8
million low income women and children, and Health and Nutrition
programs for US Food Banks, while they voted to continue cotton
subsidies to brazilian trade farmers and american cotton farmers. This
class warfare is nothing new to republicans as of late, as they voted
to continue multi-billion dollar oil subsidies to the major oil
companies despite there having posted record profits last quarter, to
the tune of 36 billion dollars. They also voted to cut funding by 30
million dollars for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, CFTC,
severly hampering its ability to prevent speculators in the Futures
markets from driving up the price of oil, which both Goldman Sachs and
ExxonMobil's Ceo Rex Tillerman, in congressional testimony, admitted
was responsible for between 20 - 30 percent of the inflated price of
gasoline at the pump. So now that overall House republicans, under the
Paul Ryan Budget, have proposed dramatic cuts to Medicare and
Medicaid, in the name of fiscal conservatism, they voted for more
corporate welfare for big oil, and further tax breacks for
millionaires and billionaires, in addition to the current extended
Bush tax cuts. It should be noted that 4 republican Tea Party freshman
on the House Agriculture committee, recieved million dollar tax
subsidies from the federal government for their family farms. Also the
Citizens for tax Justice reported in its June 2011 report, that the
top 12 largest corporations in america, had an effective tax rate of
negative 1.5 percent on over 170 billion dollars of profits, from 2008
- 2010. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf
So why is it that we have corporate welfare for the rich, and "rugged
individualism," for everybody else?
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/f34889cc5b71d26d
regarding Tea Party members on the Agriculture committee on the
corporate welfare ag subsidies dole (see article below)
Farm subsidies test GOP frosh
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56788.html
By: Marin Cogan
June 12, 2011 11:09 PM EDT
excerpts
"Commodity prices are near all-time highs, an anti-spending mission
dominates among the House majority and the House Agriculture
Committee
is packed with 15 GOP freshmen, some of whom were swept into office
backed by a tea party movement that seemed poised to slash everything
— including crop subsidies.
But it’s an open question whether these freshmen will move to slash
the sacred cow of farm subsidies — as several of the rookies
themselves have received hundreds of thousands in subsidies over the
years, including some on the Agriculture Committee, which will debate
a farm bill in the coming year
One of the top subsidy recipients among GOP rookies is Missouri Rep.
Vicky Hartzler, who with her husband, Lowell, received $774,489 from
1995 through 2009 for their family farm, according to USDA data
compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Indiana Rep. Marlin
Stutzman’s farm received $179,370.13 in the same period. Ohio Rep.
Bob
Gibbs’s farm got $27,304.59.
Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, by any measure one of the party’s most
conservative members, took a bit of federal cash — just $258 in a
disaster relief payment. But according to the Environmental Working
Group, H & H Farms, which is owned by Huelskamps’ parents, received
$1,169,499 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009.
These freshmen, now on the Agriculture Committee, will bring these
experiences to bear when deciding how and where to slash farm
subsidies long derided by conservatives and good government groups as
corporate welfare.
Other freshmen not on the Agriculture Committee have done even better
by the feds. The farm owned by Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher and his
wife, Lynn, has received $3,254,324 from 1995 through 2009. Racota
Valley Ranch, owned by South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem’s family,
received $3,058,152.
thomaswheat1975
"
thomaswheat1975
> > thomaswheat1975- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf
individualism," for everybody else? Just think if we suspended the
Bush
tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for one week, we could
fully fund
the WIC program for a whole year. But now 200000 - 300000 people will
have
to be eliminated from the program because of republican Victorian
Dickinsonian cruelty.
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/f34889cc5b71d26d
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56788.html
thomaswheat1975
"
Larry Hewitt
>
> But it�s an open question whether these freshmen will move to slash
> the sacred cow of farm subsidies � as several of the rookies
> themselves have received hundreds of thousands in subsidies over the
> years, including some on the Agriculture Committee, which will debate
> a farm bill in the coming year
>
> One of the top subsidy recipients among GOP rookies is Missouri Rep.
> Vicky Hartzler, who with her husband, Lowell, received $774,489 from
> 1995 through 2009 for their family farm, according to USDA data
> compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Indiana Rep. Marlin
> Bob
> Gibbs�s farm got $27,304.59.
>
>
> Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, by any measure one of the party�s most
> conservative members, took a bit of federal cash � just $258 in a
> disaster relief payment. But according to the Environmental Working
> $1,169,499 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009.
>
> These freshmen, now on the Agriculture Committee, will bring these
> experiences to bear when deciding how and where to slash farm
> subsidies long derided by conservatives and good government groups as
> corporate welfare.
>
> Other freshmen not on the Agriculture Committee have done even better
> by the feds. The farm owned by Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher and his
> wife, Lynn, has received $3,254,324 from 1995 through 2009. Racota
protection of the azalea exhibit at the National Arboetum.
Larry
Tom Jigme Wheat
is meant to deflect attention from the aggregious House republican
support for Oil subsidies, cotton subsidies, for both american and
brazilian farmers, which cost way more than their vote to cut 650
million dollars from Women Infants and Children (WIC). Obviously we
have some misplaced priorities regarding "welfare" and who is entitled
to it.
thomaswheat1975
discussion archived here:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
> Larry- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
Committee calls for over 140 million dollars in subsidies to Brazilian
cotton farmers, while they call for cuts of 650 million to WIC, which
serves low income pregnant women and children. Obviously this shows
misplaced priorities favoring international corporate welfare at the
expense of our most vulnerable citizens.
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 15, 12:44 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I can see your distaste for flora fauna, however, it seems your post
> is meant to deflect attention from the aggregious House republican
> support for Oil subsidies, cotton subsidies, for both american and
> brazilian farmers, which cost way more than their vote to cut 650
> million dollars from Women Infants and Children (WIC). Obviously we
> have some misplaced priorities regarding "welfare" and who is entitled
> to it.
> thomaswheat1975
>
> discussion archived here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
> Note the Republican introduced legislation in House Agriculture
> Committee calls for over 140 million dollars in subsidies to Brazilian
> cotton farmers, while they call for cuts of 650 million to WIC, which
> serves low income pregnant women and children. Obviously this shows
> misplaced priorities favoring international corporate welfare at the
> expense of our most vulnerable citizens.
> thomaswheat1975
news articles regarding House republican agriculture committee's
proposed cuts to WIC while advocating for 147 million dollars in
subsidies to Brazilian cotton farmers. Also the republican plan cuts
funding for food stamps (SNAP) 2 billion dollars less than the
President's request.
Democrats get creative to prevent deep cuts to anti-poverty programs
By Erik Wasson - 06/02/11 05:50 AM ET
"Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was able late Tuesday to convince her
colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to restore $147
million to the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food assistance
program, which otherwise would have been cut by $832 million, or 12
percent, in the 2012 agriculture bill.
With a voice vote, DeLauro fought off the cuts by identifying a
program less popular than assistance to the poor: cash payments to
Brazilian cotton farmers
The DeLauro amendment forbids payments under an Obama administration-
negotiated deal with Brazil meant to satisfy a World Trade
Organization ruling against U.S. cotton subsidies, which were found to
be illegal under international trade rules."
The fact is if republicans hadn't voted to subsidize american cotton
farmers, they would not have been required by the WTO, to also
subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act may be
used to provide payments (or to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel to provide payments) to the Brazil Cotton Institute,” the
DeLauro amendment states.
In an interview, DeLauro said she fears the victory could be both
short-lived and one of a kind.
“I don’t think they will let it stand. I think they will attack it on
the floor,” she said of Republicans.
“There are so many things we weren’t able to stop: cuts to food
safety, the CFTC,” she said, referring to the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, which Democrats say will not be able to implement
financial regulatory reform due to cuts.
DeLauro is the ranking member on the Labor and Health and Human
Services Appropriations subcommittee, which will see the deepest cuts
to spending this year. She said that the fight over that bill, slated
for July, will be brutal and will likely result in a bill similar to
the original GOP 2011 spending measure, which made significant cuts to
the social safety net.
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated the
original cuts to the WIC program, before DeLauro’s amendment, would
force WIC to turn away 325,000 to 475,000 eligible low-income women
and young children next year."
GOP questions federal rules on healthier eating
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press – May 31, 2011
excerpt
"The overall spending bill would cut billions from USDA and FDA
budgets, including for domestic feeding programs and international
food aid. Even after some of the money was restored Tuesday, the bill
would still cut about $650 million — or 10 percent — from the Women,
Infants and Children program that feeds and educates mothers and their
children. It would cut almost 12 percent of the Food and Drug
Administration's $2.5 billion budget, straining the agency's efforts
to implement a new food safety law signed by the president early this
year.
The Republican spending bill also encourages the FDA to limit new
guidelines that require calories to be posted on menus to restaurants,
asking that grocery stores, convenience stores and other places whose
primary purpose is not to sell food be excluded from the rules.
"This shows a very clear trend in trying to undermine some of the
important gains in nutrition policy," said Margo Wootan, director of
nutrition policy at the advocacy group Center for Science in the
Public Interest."
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2011/06/gop-house-targets-cuts-in-food-safety-nutrition-p.aspx
"As reported by the Associated Press, the legislation questions a
government proposal to curb marketing of unhealthy foods to children
and urges FDA to limit rules requiring calorie counts be posted on
menus. The revised legislation also would roadblock new nutritional
standards that would require school breakfast and lunches to include
more fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. "
"The bill also would fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) at $2 billion less than the president's request."
Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com�
<thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[ nothing of value...]
Tom Jigme Wheat <thomasw...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
thomas wheat <thomasji...@gmail.com>|67.169.2.30
Thomas Wheat (35)
1131 Evans Dr.
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Email:thoma...@hotmail.com
707-542-2288 (landline)
707-291-4931 (cellphone)
[Thomas Wheat]
Stepfather: Thomas S. McIntyre, 64
Tommy's Mommy: Margaret A. Wheat, 57
Tommy's Little Sister: Tara A. Wheat, 26
209 Simone Pl S
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
707-540-0234 (landline)
707-321-1249 (cellphone)
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/200119007
Pic:
http://a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/120/3f614cfd4a1930803c10a0523118f4d6/m.jpg
About: I am a single 32 year old college graduate with a degree in
history. I am passionate about politics and am proud to be a liberal.
Twitter Account: http://twitter.com/#!/thomaswheat1975
Website: http://www.georgebushconspiracy.com/
--
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame�!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
5/27/11: Galleries Updated! Over 300 New Cartoons, Pics...
Over 5,000 Cartoons & Pics!
(Smaller thumbs, pagination.)
4/8/11: Clipboard Manager v3.5.1! (Still FREE!)
Added Spam Warnings!
FREE Windows� Screensavers! Muzzy Screensaver, 15Mb; DemocRAT Screensaver, 18Mb!
FREE Windows� Gadgets! Including: Bumpersticker Slideshow, Obama
Cartoon Slideshow, Take Back America 2010 & 2012!, Are DemocRATs
Ugly?, Is Helen Thomas Ugly?, Is Nancy Pelosi Ugly?, Disco Muzzy
(1 & 2)!, Obama's Lies!, "Uh-Oh! Something's Burning!", and the
Racial Slur Database.
Learn the TRUTH about: BSWS, Bob LeChevalier, Bret Cahill, Brian Wraith,
Chom Noamsky, Clams Casino, Cop Welfare, Curly Surmudgeon, Dakota,
Dave Fritzinger, David Johnston, Freestyle, Gandalf Grey, Iarnrod,
Igor, Joe Steel, Juanjo, Kevin Cunningham, Kurt Lochner, Lorad,
Lamont Cranston, Lookout, Lickin Ass' and Fakin' Names, Malcolm Abel,
Lubow, Major Debacle, Michael Coburn, Mitchel Holman, Phlip, Peter
Principle, Ramon Herrera, Ramrod, Ray Fischer, Rightardia, RobW, Rod
Speed, Roneal, Sanders Kaufman, Scotius, Sid9, SilentOtto, Siobhan
Medeiros, Snakehawk, Spike Lee, Stile4aly, Tab182, Tater Gumfries,
Tim Crowley, Tim Howard, Tom Sr.
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:cfc61fc5-91f0-43cd...@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf
discussion archived here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread/thread/f34889cc5b71d26d
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56788.html
� including crop subsidies.
But it�s an open question whether these freshmen will move to slash
the sacred cow of farm subsidies � as several of the rookies
themselves have received hundreds of thousands in subsidies over the
years, including some on the Agriculture Committee, which will debate
a farm bill in the coming year
One of the top subsidy recipients among GOP rookies is Missouri Rep.
Vicky Hartzler, who with her husband, Lowell, received $774,489 from
1995 through 2009 for their family farm, according to USDA data
compiled by the Environmental Working Group. Indiana Rep. Marlin
Stutzman�s farm received $179,370.13 in the same period. Ohio Rep.
Bob
Gibbs�s farm got $27,304.59.
Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp, by any measure one of the party�s most
conservative members, took a bit of federal cash � just $258 in a
disaster relief payment. But according to the Environmental Working
Group, H & H Farms, which is owned by Huelskamps� parents, received
$1,169,499 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009.
These freshmen, now on the Agriculture Committee, will bring these
experiences to bear when deciding how and where to slash farm
subsidies long derided by conservatives and good government groups as
corporate welfare.
Other freshmen not on the Agriculture Committee have done even better
by the feds. The farm owned by Tennessee Rep. Stephen Fincher and his
wife, Lynn, has received $3,254,324 from 1995 through 2009. Racota
Valley Ranch, owned by South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem�s family,
Tom Jigme Wheat
> Are the republicans the only ones who wage class warfare?
interloculators:organized crime elements, the sheep that make up the
masses, who are conditioned by the rigged monopolistic system to buy
in, and trade their conscience and free will for acceptance, of
measely scraps of contrived sense of belonging to the corporate
monolithic super structure.
The problem with the republicans is they are going through a political
dealignment from the old republican party of eisenhower and reagan, to
pretty much an all out Corpratist-Oligarch party. Their priorities are
skewed towards big business and corporate welfare at the expense of
the poor and the middle class. Democrats have their problems, but at
least their fighting to keep traditional Medicare, Medicaid and WIC,
and Food Stamps for the poor, given that we are in the worst economic
reccession caused by a republican president, aka George W. Bush, since
Herbert Hoover, tanked the economy in 1929.,
AS FAR AS INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES GO: iam sure both republicans and
democrats are elitists, and the majority belong to the top 2 percent
of income earners, so iam sure they both have their private class
predjudices, that come into play when they introduce policy proposals
in congress. However, the score card is damning on republicans, when
it comes to protecting the interests of the majority of americans, who
over 50 percent of, will be dependant on Medicare and social security,
when they retire, and if the majority of repubs get their way, we want
have these programs when we reach the retirement age. These programs
are in trouble do to the Bush tax cuts, which have added over 2
trillion to the national debt, and by 2020 if they are not repealed
will add another 2.5 trillion to the national debt according to the
CBO, all the while they never led to job growth. Cutting 650 million
dollars in funding in WIC, for pregnant women and children is just
plain mean, especially since they voted to continue multi-billion
dollar oil subsidies, and 140 million dollars to brazilian cotton
farmers, because of a WTO trade dispute, of which they wouldn't have
to pay the brazilians the money if they stopped subsidizing the
american cotton industry.
This class warfare hypocrisy is astounding!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:cfc61fc5-91f0-43cd...@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
DogDiesel
welfare. I'm absolutely positive 80% of America would not have a problem
cutting a welfare whore off if she got pregnant to get more welfare.
Its sick and evil.
If your on welfare, your obviously down and out. And not susposed to breed
kids into your hard luck poverty.
Until you can show financial responsibility for your actions.
Its irresponsible. And clearly shows the pregnant bitch cant or doesnt care
for her kids financial and emotional well being.
As you arent allowed to have a family , father , education , or future for
your bastard welfare kid.
They should be cut off, or put in prison for scamming the government, or
shot.
family destroyers ,and homewreckers, and single pregnant welfare bitches are
to America,
What Aids is too Africa.
Tom Jigme Wheat
> The fact of the matter is. Women aren't supposed to get pregnant on
> welfare. I'm absolutely positive 80% of America would not have a problem
> cutting a welfare whore off if she got pregnant to get more welfare.
>
> Its sick and evil.
>
> If your on welfare, your obviously down and out. And not susposed to breed
> kids into your hard luck poverty.
poverty based welfare going to stereotypical black crack monsters
is that millions of white people will be affected by these cuts as
well. The republicans plan to cut 2.5 billion dollars in SNAP (food
Stamp) funding as well along with 650 million dollar cuts to WIC. The
fact is the economy is rigged, and the collapse was due to financial
speculation in the credit, and commodities futures markets. The
economic system is so rigged, that the top 1 percent of income earners
own 40 percent of all private wealth in America. That's hardly a free
economic system. So while they get richer with the Bush tax cuts,
which have added over 2 trillion dollars to the national debt, and are
projected to add another 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2020
according to the Congressional Budget Office, the poor have experinced
wage deflation, such that median family income has declined by 2300
dollars since Bush was in office, The dominant republican agenda,
likes to demonize the poor as being crack addicted blood sucking
coloreds, when in fact, all races, are being sacrificed on the table
of corporate oligarchy. The amount of Corporate welfare, in tax
subsidies that flows to the rich, is far more a budgetary constraint,
on the US, than the cost of poverty based welfare. Also You should
know that you can only stay on TANF for five years than your cut off.
Clinton passed the welfare reform act in 1996.
Your racial agenda, in demonizing the poor welfare recipients fails to
account for the casts offs the brutal economic system, which drove
these people into poverty, i.e., lack of access to education, health
and nutrition, like why there are clusterfucks of conveniance stores,
selling booze, and junk food in inner cities, just like gun shops also
tend to proliferate in these areas, because they feed off of the class
and racial warfare, via a divide and conquer strategy, of pitting the
races against each other, so that they can never rise and improve
their economic class position. Do you really think Walmart is a
sustainable employment strategy for the poor. Fact is everything made
by Walmart comes from sweatshop and laogai slave labor products
produced in communist china, and walmart, the Us's largest employer,
pays the lowest wages in the retail industry, and were recently fined
over 400 million dollars, by depriving workers of their lunch breaks.
Regarding corporate welfare, if we repealed the Bush tax cuts for
millionaires and Billionaires, for one week we could fund food banks,
and WIC for a whole year. If we stopped subsidizing the already
profitiable US cotton industry, we would not be compelled by the WTO
to pay 140 million dollars in subsidies to brazilian cotton farmers.
Why should we be subsidizing big oil 2 billion dollars a year, when
they earned record profits of 36 billion dollarls in the last quarter.
So if we repealed the subsidies for big oil, we could provide full
funding for food stamps. If we repealed the Bush tax cuts for
millionaires and billionaires, the top one tenth of one percent of
income earners in this country, who paid an effective income tax rate
of 16 percent, a lower rate than what the middle class pays, we could
fully fund these vital programs.
thomaswheat1975
Tom Jigme Wheat
(SNAP), but your all for your millionaire and billionaire bush tax
cuts, and now that we are still subsidizing US Cotton farmers the
World Trade Organization will impose a 800 million dollar judgement on
USA on behalf of brazil. You guys have know clue how the international
economy works!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also Brazil will now retaliate even
further by raising tariffs on american exports, making them less
competitive in the brazilian market. They have the second largest
economy in the America's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are really
stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You just supported more
corporate welfare, cut poverty welfare, and it still adds to the
deficit, there is no true fiscal conservatism among rank and file
house republicans, and tea party david koch cronies, rather ethical
relativism, and income redistrubition from the poor and middle class
to the rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
eat shit, Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
June 18, 2011, 9:50 a.m. EDT
Brazil to retaliate if U.S. ends cotton payments
By Gerald Jeffris
(Adds background information on WTO cases.)
BRASILIA (MarketWatch) -- U.S. exports to Brazil could face fresh
hurdles if Congress refuses to keep up with payments agreed under a
World Trade Organization settlement on illegal cotton subsidies, a top
Brazilian government official said Friday.
"The eventual suspension of payments to the cotton fund would
constitute a break of a bilateral agreement," Brazil Foreign Relations
Minister Antonio Patriota said. Brazil would take steps against
imports from the U.S., including against intellectual property, as has
already been authorized by the WTO, Patriota said.
The U.S. House of Representatives this week voted to suspend $147
million in annual payments to a Brazilian cotton fund, arguing the
money for Brazil was also an unproductive and costly subsidy. The U.S
has been making the payments since last year, after the WTO authorized
$829 million in annual trade retaliations to Brazil for what it
determined to be illegal U.S. government subsidies to cotton growers.
The bill must still be voted on in the U.S. Senate, and the final
outcome is uncertain.
Brazil has scored a number of trade victories against the U.S. in
recent years. Patriota said Brazil's government was encouraged by a
U.S. Senate decision to drop taxes on imports of ethanol fuel from
Brazil and said he hoped the lower house would follow.
"These aren't definitive decisions," he said. "The ethanol proposal
will still need to take a long path through the legislature, but in
any case the government appreciates the decision taken in the Senate
because it's a response to an old request that we had made."
On Thursday, the U.S Senate voted to repeal tariff of 54 cents a
gallon that made imports of Brazilian sugar cane-based ethanol less
competitive against U.S. corn-based ethanol, though, again, it must
still be passed in the other house and the final outcome is uncertain.
Regarding yet another case, Patriota said Brazil was pleased that the
U.S. government this week decided not to challenge a WTO ruling that
would help Brazil to export orange juice to the U.S.
"The decision not to appeal makes the Brazilian victory definitive and
consolidated," Patriota said. "The U.S. announced they would implement
the decision, abandoning within nine months the practice of 'zeroing'
in antidumping investigations that had been questioned by many
countries at the WTO."
In March, the WTO ruled against what is known as "zeroing," by which
the U.S. established a minimum price for orange-juice imports and
levied a surcharge for all imports made below that price.
On Jun 17, 12:11 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
DogDiesel
"Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:884fed85-d452-4a51...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
By Gerald Jeffris
So what ,white welfare whores should be cut off too.
The republicans plan to cut 2.5 billion dollars in SNAP (food
> Stamp) funding as well along with 650 million dollar cuts to WIC. The
> fact is the economy is rigged, and the collapse was due to financial
> speculation in the credit, and commodities futures markets.
It was do to government spending for votes for 100 years, and wrecking of
the dollar to be able to spend more then they take in.
The
> economic system is so rigged, that the top 1 percent of income earners
> own 40 percent of all private wealth in America.
And pay 39% of the taxes of America.
So fucking what.
That's hardly a free
> economic system. So while they get richer with the Bush tax cuts,
> which have added over 2 trillion dollars to the national debt, and are
> projected to add another 2.5 trillion to the national debt by 2020
> according to the Congressional Budget Office, the poor have experinced
> wage deflation, such that median family income has declined by 2300
> dollars since Bush was in office,
Yup , due to government created inflation .. So they can spend money for
minority votes.
You wanted thE free cash. WELL IT WASNT FREE. WAS IT.
The dominant republican agenda,
> likes to demonize the poor as being crack addicted blood sucking
> coloreds, when in fact, all races, are being sacrificed on the table
> of corporate oligarchy.
Corporations create jobs . You dont like them dont work.
The amount of Corporate welfare, in tax
> subsidies that flows to the rich, is far more a budgetary constraint,
> on the US, than the cost of poverty based welfare.
It doesnt matter , America hates welfare more then anything. Its 100 times
worse .
Also You should
> know that you can only stay on TANF for five years than your cut off.
> Clinton passed the welfare reform act in 1996.
Lies, as long as you keep having kids you keep collecting. Right up until
you retire to Social Security.
>
> Your racial agenda,
There is no racial agenda ., Theres parsites of all races. And America
hates them all.
Let me be clear. you work, or your disabled.
Thats it.
Everyone else gets nothing. But what you earn or gor from your ONE Liberal
parent who fucked you over.
in demonizing the poor welfare recipients fails to
> account for the casts offs the brutal economic system,
You wouldnt know brutal if it hit you in the ass.
which drove
> these people into poverty, i.e., lack of access to education,
welfare doesnt allow education. You shouldnt of chose welfare and traded it
away.
health
> and nutrition,
Obese isnt nutritionally challenged.
like why there are clusterfucks of conveniance stores,
Because you let illegals in.
> selling booze, and junk food in inner cities, just like gun shops also
> tend to proliferate in these areas, because they feed off of the class
> and racial warfare, via a divide and conquer strategy, of pitting the
> races against each other, so that they can never rise and improve
> their economic class position.
No, there is no race wars. Theres no excuse for stupid. Dont participate
.
Or quit whining.
Do you really think Walmart is a
> sustainable employment strategy for the poor.
No, but you have to start somewhere, learn something so you can move on to
bigger and better job opportunities , IF you are ready, when they comes.
You cant move on to bigger and better without being employed. You have to
earn a better life .
Fact is everything made
> by Walmart comes from sweatshop and laogai slave labor products
> produced in communist china, and walmart, the Us's largest employer,
> pays the lowest wages in the retail industry, and were recently fined
> over 400 million dollars, by depriving workers of their lunch breaks.
So fucking what I havnt had a lunch break since 1996. And you are stupid
beyond belief if you want to toss thousands of paycheck dollars away. and
yoir future away. Because you want a lunch break. Ive heard the stupidest
excuses from Liberals for quitting jobs and wrecking their lives.
I didnt like the way they made the sandwiches. I heard that excuse from a
welfare whore since 1970.
I had to turn these valves and I couldnt tell which way was closed and I
kept spilling the oil. Amother Liberal who hasnt worked since 1975.
>
> Regarding corporate welfare, if we repealed the Bush tax cuts for
> millionaires and Billionaires, for one week we could fund food banks,
> and WIC for a whole year.
And 58 billion will buy healthcare for all of America for 8 years . But
Obama care cost 13 trillion.
If we stopped subsidizing the already
> profitiable US cotton industry, we would not be compelled by the WTO
> to pay 140 million dollars in subsidies to brazilian cotton farmers.
Fuck the WTO. Thats your problem liberal . WTO,UN , Nafta. Your problem.
you created.
> Why should we be subsidizing big oil 2 billion dollars a year, when
> they earned record profits of 36 billion dollarls in the last quarter.
So gas cost less for Americans you stupid fuck.
> So if we repealed the subsidies for big oil, we could provide full
> funding for food stamps.
Nope, how about you get a job at the video store or walmarts and learn a
skill so you can get a better job later.
If we repealed the Bush tax cuts for
> millionaires and billionaires, the top one tenth of one percent of
> income earners in this country, who paid an effective income tax rate
> of 16 percent,
They paid 39% of all taxes. the bottom 50% of the population pays nothing.
They arent vital.
You want welfare . you prove you deserve it by not getting pregnant.
Or using drugs,
or not atending school.
or not working because you dont like
Not getting a lunch.
Fucking retard.
Tom Jigme Wheat
they make is from Chinese communist sweatshop labor. Walmart does
nothing good for America. Also The US Supreme Court conservative
majority justices, just gave walmart the right to discriminate in
promotions of female workers, ruling that they could not file a class
action law suit, and since the average walmart employee makes any
where from 8 - 10 dollars an hour, good luck ever getting your legal
employment rights defended. Also the Walton family, that owns
Walmart, is worth 80 billlion dollars, the richest family in america,
that provides the shittiest low paying jobs in the industry. Walmart
is the evil empire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They need to form a private union, or join SEIU, which will give them
collective bargaining rights, and then the toothless walmart hags
could afford dental care, and other medical benefits!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 22, 4:27 am, "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:884fed85-d452-4a51...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> So you guys are all for decapitating the WIC and Food Stamp budget
> (SNAP), but your all for your millionaire and billionaire bush tax
> cuts, and now that we are still subsidizing US Cotton farmers the
> World Trade Organization will impose a 800 million dollar judgement on
> USA on behalf of brazil. You guys have know clue how the international
> economy works!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also Brazil will now retaliate even
> further by raising tariffs on american exports, making them less
> competitive in the brazilian market. They have the second largest
> economy in the America's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are really
> stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You just supported more
> corporate welfare, cut poverty welfare, and it still adds to the
> deficit, there is no true fiscal conservatism among rank and file
> house republicans, and tea party david koch cronies, rather ethical
> relativism, and income redistrubition from the poor and middle class
> to the rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
> eat shit, Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotto...
> If we repealed the Bush...
>
> read more »
Tom Jigme Wheat
retail sector, they also routinely discriminate against women in
promotions, and overall they have a conservative right wing lassiev
faire , libertarian socialist outlook that conforms with their
suppliers Communist China. Walmart workers need to be unionized, like
under SEIU. Did you know that the Waltons, the family that owns
walmart is worth 80 billion dollars, and that the average salary of a
walmart employee is between 8 - 10 dollars an hour without health
benefits. They were also recently fined 400 million dollars for
depriving or shorting employees on their lunch breaks. Then later to
compenbsate the corporate communist wwelfare friendly, right wing
majority on the US supreme court ruled that women passed up for
promotions in a discriminatory manner could not sue walmart in a class
action, all but making the typicaL WALMART EMPLOYEEE filing a case of
employment discrimination all but impossible. Soon we will have
LAOGAI, here in US with republicans, like they do in your country, Dog
Diesal, CCP Astroturfer!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21bizcourt.html
June 20, 2011
Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case
By ADAM LIPTAK
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an enormous
employment discrimination class-action suit against Wal-Mart that had
sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female
workers.
The suit claimed that Wal-Mart’s policies and practices had led to
countless discriminatory decisions over pay and promotions.
The court divided 5 to 4 along ideological lines on the basic question
in the case — whether the suit satisfied a requirement of the class-
action rules that “there are questions of law or fact common to the
class” of female employees. The court’s five more conservative
justices said no, shutting down the suit and limiting the ability of
other plaintiffs to band together in large class actions.
The court was unanimous, however, in saying that the plaintiffs’
lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class-action rules
that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
Business groups welcomed the decision, and labor and consumer groups
strongly criticized it. But all agreed it was momentous.
“This is without a doubt the most important class-action case in more
than a decade,” said Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the litigation
unit of the United States Chamber of Commerce, the business advocacy
group.
The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had, in fact, discriminated
against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The
court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts
of other class-action suits, including ones brought by investors and
consumers, because it tightened the definition of what constituted a
common issue for a class action and said that judges must often
consider the merits of plaintiffs’ claims in deciding whether they may
proceed as a class.
“You will have people invoking the decision in lots of different
cases,” said Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt
University specializing in class-action law. “The Supreme Court has
said that it’s O.K. to look at the merits of the lawsuit to decide
whether to allow it to go forward at the earliest possible moment.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the women suing
Wal-Mart could not show that they would receive “a common answer to
the crucial question, why was I disfavored?” He noted that the
company, the nation’s largest private employer, operated some 3,400
stores, had an expressed policy forbidding discrimination and granted
local managers substantial discretion.
“On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform
employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a
class action,” Justice Scalia wrote. “It is a policy against having
uniform employment practices.”
The case involved “literally millions of employment decisions,”
Justice Scalia wrote, and the plaintiffs were required to point to
“some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions
together.”
The plaintiffs sought to make that case with testimony from William T.
Bielby, a sociologist specializing in social framework analysis.
Professor Bielby told a lower court that he had collected general
“scientific evidence about gender bias, stereotypes and the structure
and dynamics of gender inequality in organizations.” He said he also
had reviewed extensive litigation materials gathered by the lawyers in
the case.
He concluded that Wal-Mart’s culture might foster pay and other
disparities through a centralized personnel policy that allowed for
subjective decisions by local managers. Such practices, he argued,
allowed stereotypes to sway personnel choices, making “decisions about
compensation and promotion vulnerable to gender bias.”
Justice Scalia rejected the testimony, which he called crucial to the
plaintiffs’ case.
“It is worlds away,” he wrote, “from ‘significant proof’ that Wal-Mart
‘operated under a general policy of discrimination.’ ”
Nor was Justice Scalia impressed with the anecdotal and statistical
evidence offered.
One of the plaintiffs named in the suit, Christine Kwapnoski, had
testified, for instance, that a male manager yelled at female
employees but not male ones, and had instructed her to “doll up.”
Justice Scalia said that scattered anecdotes — “about 1 for every
12,500 class members,” he wrote — were insignificant.
He added that statistics showing pay and promotion gaps between male
and female workers were insufficient to show common issues among the
plaintiffs, because discrimination was not the only possible
explanation. “Some managers will claim that the availability of women,
or qualified women, or interested women, in their stores’ area does
not mirror the national or regional statistics,” Justice Scalia wrote.
“And almost all of them will claim to have been applying some sex-
neutral, performance-based criteria — whose nature and effects will
differ from store to store.” Joseph M. Sellers, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, said the majority had “reversed about 40 years of
jurisprudence that has in the past allowed for companywide cases to be
brought challenging common practices that have a disparate effect,
that have adversely affected women and other workers.”
A lawyer for Wal-Mart, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., said the decision was
“an extremely important victory not just for Wal-Mart but for all
companies who do business in the United States, large and small, and
their employees, too.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Scalia’s
majority opinion on the broader point. But the court unanimously
rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to proceed under a part of the class-
action rules concerned mainly with court declarations and orders as
opposed to money, one that did not require notice to the class or
provide the ability to opt out of it.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg
said the court had gone too far in its broader ruling in the case, Wal-
Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277.
She would have allowed the plaintiffs to try to make their case under
another part of the class-action rules. “The court, however,
disqualifies the class at the starting gate” by ruling that there are
no common issues, she wrote.
She added that both the statistics presented by the plaintiffs and
their individual accounts were evidence that “gender bias suffused Wal-
Mart’s corporate culture.” She said, for instance, that women filled
70 percent of the hourly jobs but only 33 percent of management
positions and that “senior management often refer to female associates
as ‘little Janie Qs.’ ”
“The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make
personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been
known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,” she wrote.
“Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are
unaware.”
Stephanie Clifford contributed reporting.
On Jun 21, 11:47 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So you guys are all for decapitating the WIC and Food Stamp budget
> (SNAP), but your all for your millionaire and billionaire bush tax
> cuts, and now that we are still subsidizing US Cotton farmers the
> World Trade Organization will impose a 800 million dollar judgement on
> USA on behalf of brazil. You guys have know clue how the international
> economy works!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also Brazil will now retaliate even
> further by raising tariffs on american exports, making them less
> competitive in the brazilian market. They have the second largest
> economy in the America's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are really
> stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You just supported more
> corporate welfare, cut poverty welfare, and it still adds to the
> deficit, there is no true fiscal conservatism among rank and file
> house republicans, and tea party david koch cronies, rather ethical
> relativism, and income redistrubition from the poor and middle class
> to the rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
> eat shit, Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotto...
DogDiesel
Dog Diesal you just dont get it. Walmart pays the lowest wages in the
retail sector, they also routinely discriminate against women in
promotions,
Minimum wage and women cost more isnt discrimination. Its business.
and overall they have a conservative right wing lassiev
faire , libertarian socialist outlook that conforms with their
suppliers Communist China.
Agreed , mostly.
Walmart workers need to be unionized, like
under SEIU. Did you know that the Waltons, the family that owns
walmart is worth 80 billion dollars, and that the average salary of a
walmart employee is between 8 - 10 dollars an hour without health
benefits.
Yup. minimum wage jobs generally dont have benefits. And i worked minimum
wage jobs for 13 years . Everyone has to pay their dues.
They were also recently fined 400 million dollars for
depriving or shorting employees on their lunch breaks. Then later to
compenbsate the corporate communist wwelfare friendly, right wing
majority on the US supreme court ruled that women passed up for
promotions in a discriminatory manner could not sue walmart in a class
action, all but making the typicaL WALMART EMPLOYEEE filing a case of
employment discrimination all but impossible.
So what. money talks bullshit walks.
Tom Jigme Wheat
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:82afeca2-4a5a-4f14...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> Dog Diesal you just dont get it. Walmart pays the lowest wages in the
> retail sector, they also routinely discriminate against women in
> promotions,
>
> Minimum wage and women cost more isnt discrimination. Its business.
spoken like a true corporate communist sweatshop owner. There is no
proof that women are less productive than men except for in the fields
of manual construction type labor. Your view is not based in science
rather reflects long standing predjudices, not science.
>
> and overall they have a conservative right wing lassiev
> faire , libertarian socialist outlook that conforms with their
> suppliers Communist China.
>
> Agreed , mostly.
>
> Walmart workers need to be unionized, like
> under SEIU. Did you know that the Waltons, the family that owns
> walmart is worth 80 billion dollars, and that the average salary of a
> walmart employee is between 8 - 10 dollars an hour without health
> benefits.
>
>> Yup. minimum wage jobs generally dont have benefits. And i worked minimum
> >wage jobs for 13 years . Everyone has to pay their dues.
No that's a crock of shit, non unionized jobs are plain and simply
economic exploitation, and the worker has no leverage with management
regarding wages.
>
> They were also recently fined 400 million dollars for
> depriving or shorting employees on their lunch breaks. Then later to
> compenbsate the corporate communist wwelfare friendly, right wing
> majority on the US supreme court ruled that women passed up for
> promotions in a discriminatory manner could not sue walmart in a class
> action, all but making the typicaL WALMART EMPLOYEEE filing a case of
> employment discrimination all but impossible.
>
> So what. money talks bullshit walks.
>
> Soon we will have
> LAOGAI, here in US with republicans, like they do in your country, Dog
> Diesal, CCP Astroturfer!!!!!!!!!!!
> thomaswheat1975
>
> Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21bizcourt.html
>
> June 20, 2011
> Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case
> By ADAM LIPTAK
>
> WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court on Monday threw out an enormous
> employment discrimination class-action suit against Wal-Mart that had
> sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female
> workers.
>
> The suit claimed that Wal-Mart�s policies and practices had led to
> countless discriminatory decisions over pay and promotions.
>
> The court divided 5 to 4 along ideological lines on the basic question
> in the case � whether the suit satisfied a requirement of the class-
> action rules that �there are questions of law or fact common to the
> class� of female employees. The court�s five more conservative
> justices said no, shutting down the suit and limiting the ability of
> other plaintiffs to band together in large class actions.
>
> The court was unanimous, however, in saying that the plaintiffs�
> lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class-action rules
> that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
>
> Business groups welcomed the decision, and labor and consumer groups
> strongly criticized it. But all agreed it was momentous.
>
> �This is without a doubt the most important class-action case in more
> than a decade,� said Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the litigation
> unit of the United States Chamber of Commerce, the business advocacy
> group.
>
> The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had, in fact, discriminated
> against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The
> court�s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts
> of other class-action suits, including ones brought by investors and
> consumers, because it tightened the definition of what constituted a
> common issue for a class action and said that judges must often
> consider the merits of plaintiffs� claims in deciding whether they may
> proceed as a class.
>
> �You will have people invoking the decision in lots of different
> cases,� said Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt
> University specializing in class-action law. �The Supreme Court has
> said that it�s O.K. to look at the merits of the lawsuit to decide
> whether to allow it to go forward at the earliest possible moment.�
>
> Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the women suing
> Wal-Mart could not show that they would receive �a common answer to
> the crucial question, why was I disfavored?� He noted that the
> company, the nation�s largest private employer, operated some 3,400
> stores, had an expressed policy forbidding discrimination and granted
> local managers substantial discretion.
>
> �On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform
> employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a
> class action,� Justice Scalia wrote. �It is a policy against having
> uniform employment practices.�
>
> The case involved �literally millions of employment decisions,�
> Justice Scalia wrote, and the plaintiffs were required to point to
> �some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions
> together.�
>
> The plaintiffs sought to make that case with testimony from William T.
> Bielby, a sociologist specializing in social framework analysis.
>
> Professor Bielby told a lower court that he had collected general
> �scientific evidence about gender bias, stereotypes and the structure
> and dynamics of gender inequality in organizations.� He said he also
> had reviewed extensive litigation materials gathered by the lawyers in
> the case.
>
> He concluded that Wal-Mart�s culture might foster pay and other
> disparities through a centralized personnel policy that allowed for
> subjective decisions by local managers. Such practices, he argued,
> allowed stereotypes to sway personnel choices, making �decisions about
> compensation and promotion vulnerable to gender bias.�
>
> Justice Scalia rejected the testimony, which he called crucial to the
> plaintiffs� case.
>
> �It is worlds away,� he wrote, �from �significant proof� that Wal-Mart
> �operated under a general policy of discrimination.� �
>
> Nor was Justice Scalia impressed with the anecdotal and statistical
> evidence offered.
>
> One of the plaintiffs named in the suit, Christine Kwapnoski, had
> testified, for instance, that a male manager yelled at female
> employees but not male ones, and had instructed her to �doll up.�
> Justice Scalia said that scattered anecdotes � �about 1 for every
> 12,500 class members,� he wrote � were insignificant.
>
> He added that statistics showing pay and promotion gaps between male
> and female workers were insufficient to show common issues among the
> plaintiffs, because discrimination was not the only possible
> explanation. �Some managers will claim that the availability of women,
> or qualified women, or interested women, in their stores� area does
> not mirror the national or regional statistics,� Justice Scalia wrote.
> �And almost all of them will claim to have been applying some sex-
> neutral, performance-based criteria � whose nature and effects will
> differ from store to store.� Joseph M. Sellers, a lawyer for the
> plaintiffs, said the majority had �reversed about 40 years of
> jurisprudence that has in the past allowed for companywide cases to be
> brought challenging common practices that have a disparate effect,
> that have adversely affected women and other workers.�
>
> A lawyer for Wal-Mart, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., said the decision was
> �an extremely important victory not just for Wal-Mart but for all
> companies who do business in the United States, large and small, and
> their employees, too.�
>
> Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,
> Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Justice Scalia�s
> majority opinion on the broader point. But the court unanimously
> rejected the plaintiffs� effort to proceed under a part of the class-
> action rules concerned mainly with court declarations and orders as
> opposed to money, one that did not require notice to the class or
> provide the ability to opt out of it.
>
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer,
> Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg
> said the court had gone too far in its broader ruling in the case, Wal-
> Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277.
>
> She would have allowed the plaintiffs to try to make their case under
> another part of the class-action rules. �The court, however,
> disqualifies the class at the starting gate� by ruling that there are
> no common issues, she wrote.
>
> She added that both the statistics presented by the plaintiffs and
> their individual accounts were evidence that �gender bias suffused Wal-
> Mart�s corporate culture.� She said, for instance, that women filled
> 70 percent of the hourly jobs but only 33 percent of management
> positions and that �senior management often refer to female associates
> as �little Janie Qs.� �
>
> �The practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make
> personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been
> known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,� she wrote.
> �Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are
> unaware.�
>
> Stephanie Clifford contributed reporting.
>
> On Jun 21, 11:47 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So you guys are all for decapitating the WIC and Food Stamp budget
> > (SNAP), but your all for your millionaire and billionaire bush tax
> > cuts, and now that we are still subsidizing US Cotton farmers the
> > World Trade Organization will impose a 800 million dollar judgement on
> > USA on behalf of brazil. You guys have know clue how the international
> > economy works!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also Brazil will now retaliate even
> > further by raising tariffs on american exports, making them less
> > competitive in the brazilian market. They have the second largest
> > economy in the America's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are really
> > stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You just supported more
> > corporate welfare, cut poverty welfare, and it still adds to the
> > deficit, there is no true fiscal conservatism among rank and file
> > house
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
activist majority, court, means employee class action discrimination
suits against walmart will be impossible, since the plantiffs will
have to file seperately!!! They wont be able to afford lawyer fees.
This precedent kills class action law suits in the work place, and the
only reason walmart got away with it, is because faggot john roberts,
house negro clarence thomas, pedophile samuel alito, and one other
running dog bitch, probably kennedy, are on the tea party, David Koch
band wagon, anti labor regulation bandwagon. Its a known fact that
Clarence Thomas's wife is a fundraiser for the tea party. Who knew
that their jungle fever, would contribute to an attempted resurrection
of the confederate slavocracy
Fuckin scumbags!!!!!!!!
http://www.startribune.com/nation/124228013.html
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a partial dissent: "Managers, like all
humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk
of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly
of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates
gender stereotypes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/opinion/22Lichtenstein.html
Op-Ed Contributor
Wal-Mart’s Authoritarian Culture
By NELSON LICHTENSTEIN
Published: June 21, 2011
Wal-Mart Case Is a Blow for Big Cases and Their Lawyers (June 21,
2011)
Related in Opinion
Editorial: Wal-Mart Wins. Workers Lose. (June 21, 2011)
Room for Debate: A Death Blow to Class Action? MONDAY’S Supreme Court
decision to block a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit against
Wal-Mart was a huge setback for as many as 1.6 million current and
former female employees of the world’s largest retailer. But the
decision has consequences that range far beyond sex discrimination or
the viability of class-action suits.
The underlying issue, which the Supreme Court has now ratified, is Wal-
Mart’s authoritarian style, by which executives pressure store-level
management to squeeze more and more from millions of clerks, stockers
and lower-tier managers.
Indeed, the sex discrimination at Wal-Mart that drove the recent suit
is the product not merely of managerial bias and prejudice, but also
of a corporate culture and business model that sustains it, rooted in
the company’s very beginnings.
In the 1950s and ’60s, northwest Arkansas, where Wal-Mart got its
start, was poor, white and rural, in the midst of a wave of
agricultural mechanization that generated a huge surplus of unskilled
workers. To these men and women, the burgeoning chain of discount
stores founded by Sam Walton was a godsend. The men might find dignity
managing a store instead of a hardscrabble farm, while their wives and
daughters could earn pin money clerking for Mr. Sam, as he was known.
“The enthusiasm of Wal-Mart associates toward their jobs is one of the
company’s greatest assets,” declared the firm’s 1973 annual report.
A patriarchal ethos was written into the Wal-Mart DNA. “Welcome
Assistant Managers and Wives” read a banner at a 1975 meeting for
executive trainees. And that corporate culture — “the single most
important element in the continued, remarkable success of Wal-Mart,”
asserted Don Soderquist, the company’s chief operating officer in the
1990s — was sustained not only by the hypercentralized managerial
control that flowed from the Bentonville, Ark., home office but by the
evangelical Protestantism that Mr. Soderquist and other executives
encouraged.
Wal-Mart attorneys have argued, and the Supreme Court agreed this
week, that even if sex discrimination was once part of the company’s
culture, it is now ancient history: if any store managers are guilty
of bias when it comes to promoting women, they are at odds with
corporate policy. Wal-Mart is no longer an Ozark company; it is a
cosmopolitan, multinational operation.
But that avoids the more essential point, namely that Wal-Mart views
low labor costs and a high degree of workplace flexibility as a signal
competitive advantage. It is a militantly anti-union company that has
been forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to current and
former employees for violations of state wage and hour laws.
In other words, the patriarchy of old has been reconfigured into a
more systematically authoritarian structure, one that deploys a
communitarian ethos to sustain a high degree of corporate loyalty even
as wages and working conditions are put under continual downward
pressure — especially in recent years, as Wal-Mart’s same-store sales
have declined. Workers of both sexes pay the price, but women, who
constitute more than 70 percent of hourly employees, pay more.
There are tens of thousands of experienced Wal-Mart women who would
like to be promoted to the first managerial rung, salaried assistant
store manager. But Wal-Mart makes it impossible for many of them to
take that post, because its ruthless management style structures the
job itself as one that most women, and especially those with young
children or a relative to care for, would find difficult to accept.
Why? Because, for all the change that has swept over the company, at
the store level there is still a fair amount of the old communal
sociability. Recognizing that workers steeped in that culture make
poor candidates for assistant managers, who are the front lines in
enforcing labor discipline, Wal-Mart insists that almost all workers
promoted to the managerial ranks move to a new store, often hundreds
of miles away.
For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged
women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts
to sex discrimination. True, Wal-Mart is hardly alone in demanding
that rising managers sacrifice family life, but few companies make
relocation such a fixed policy, and few have employment rolls even a
third the size.
The obstacles to women’s advancement do not stop there. The workweek
for salaried managers is around 50 hours or more, which can surge to
80 or 90 hours a week during holiday seasons. Not unexpectedly, some
managers think women with family responsibilities would balk at such
demands, and it is hardly to the discredit of thousands of Wal-Mart
women that they may be right.
There used to be a remedy for this sort of managerial
authoritarianism: it was called a union, which bargained over not only
wages and pensions but also the kind of qualitative issues, including
promotion and transfer policies, that have proved so vexing for non-
unionized employees at Wal-Mart and other big retailers.
For a time it seemed as if the class-action lawsuit might be a partial
substitute. By drastically limiting how a class-action suit can be
brought, the Supreme Court leaves millions of service-sector workers
with few avenues to escape the grinding work life and limited
opportunities that so many now face.
Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor of history at the University of
California, Santa Barbara, is the author of “The Retail Revolution:
How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business.”
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 22, 10:49 am, David Hatunen <dhatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:55:50 -0400, DogDiesel wrote:
> > "Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3bdb738d-f8de-4445-af74-
>
> ddb42769e...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...> On Jun 22, 7:56 am, "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
> >> "Tom Jigme Wheat" <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:82afeca2-4a5a-4f14-
>
> bab5-1ccc0b8f4...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Dog Diesal you just dont get it. Walmart pays the lowest wages in the
> >> retail sector, they also routinely discriminate against women in
> >> promotions,
>
> >> Minimum wage and women cost more isnt discrimination. Its business.
>
> > spoken like a true corporate communist sweatshop owner. There is no
> > proof that women are less productive than men except for in the fields
> > of manual construction type labor. Your view is not based in science
> > rather reflects long standing predjudices, not science.
>
> Actually, the Supreme Court decision didn't deal with the merits of the
> case. It dealt with the appropriateness of the class description in the
> class-action suit. As coxnews.com put it:
>
> "The court agreed unanimously that the litigation could not proceed as a
> class action in *its current form*, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S.
> Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco." [emphasis added]
>
> But don't let a few facts interfere with a good harangue.
>
> --
> Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona, out where the cacti grow
David Hatunen
> It's a fact that the precedent set by this conservative koch funded
> activist majority, court, means employee class action discrimination
> suits against walmart will be impossible, since the plantiffs will have
> to file seperately!!! They wont be able to afford lawyer fees. This
> precedent kills class action law suits in the work place,
Nonsense. It doesn't mean that at all. It does mean that several separate
class action suits might have to filed with more appropriate membership
in each class.
Tom Jigme Wheat
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:14:57 -0700, Tom Jigme Wheat wrote:
> > It's a fact that the precedent set by this conservative koch funded
> > activist majority, court, means employee class action discrimination
> > suits against walmart will be impossible, since the plantiffs will have
> > to file seperately!!! They wont be able to afford lawyer fees. This
> > precedent kills class action law suits in the work place,
>
> Nonsense. It doesn't mean that at all. It does mean that several separate
> class action suits might have to filed with more appropriate membership
> in each class.
Translation: Yes if you are a Goldman Sachs, or a JP Morgan Chase
executive class you can file a claim against your employer, if you
work at Walmart, no such luck, because you wont even be able to afford
an attorney, since the average salary is 8 - 10 dollars an hour. No
lawyer will be willing to represent them, individually, and also
Walmart didn't keep Promotion review records, and the absence of these
records, is what Judge Roberts and Judge Scalia, based their opinion
that there was no pattern of discrimination going on at Walmart. Why
dont you read Justice Ginsburg's dissent, of which I provided an
excerpt of which I provided in a previous post in this thread, and
then see this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21class.html
June 20, 2011
Wal-Mart Case Is a Blow for Big Cases and Their Lawyers
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
With the dismissal of a sex-discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf
of 1.5 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court on
Monday significantly tightened the rules for how a large group of
individuals can join together to sue a company for alleged harm done
to them.
The court’s decision will not just make it harder to bring big,
ambitious employment class-action cases asserting discrimination based
on sex, race or other factors, legal experts said. In the majority
opinion, the court set higher barriers for bringing several types of
nationwide class actions against a large company with many branches.
In its majority opinion, the court essentially said that if lawyers
brought a nationwide class action against an employer, they would have
to offer strong evidence of a nationwide practice or policy that hurt
the class. In the Wal-Mart case, the court wrote that the plaintiffs
had not demonstrated that Wal-Mart had any nationwide policies or
practices that discriminated against women. The opinion, written by
Justice Antonin Scalia, noted that Wal-Mart’s official corporate
policy opposed discrimination, while the company gave the managers at
its more than 3,400 stores considerable discretion over pay and
promotions.
“In a company of Wal-Mart’s size and geographical scope, it is quite
unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a
common way without some common direction,” Justice Scalia wrote.
Heidi Li Feldman, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, said similar
reasoning might make it tougher for plaintiffs to bring a class action
against a mortgage lender accusing it of having a nationwide policy of
defrauding borrowers. “A big mortgage broker might say, ‘At the
national level, we have policies to abide by all of the rules and
regulations that are applicable, and we delegate a lot of discretion
to our branches,’ ” she said.
The ruling was widely hailed by business groups, some of which filed
amicus briefs urging the court to limit class actions.
“We applaud the Supreme Court for affirming that mega-class actions
such as this one are completely inconsistent with federal law,” said
Robin S. Conrad, executive vice president of the United States Chamber
of Commerce’s National Chamber Litigation Center. “Too often the class-
action device is twisted and abused to force businesses to choose
between settling meritless lawsuits or potentially facing financial
ruin.”
The ruling will push plaintiffs’ lawyers into filing fewer huge class
actions and more cases on behalf of individuals or smaller groups,
lawyers said. That will raise costs and give lawyers less incentive to
take on class actions and other complex litigation. The Wal-Mart case,
for example, has stretched for a decade, with lawyers and the legal
foundation that brought the case expecting to receive some portion of
the back pay for 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart employees if
they eventually won the case in court or reached a settlement.
The Supreme Court decision “strikes a blow to those who face
discrimination in the workplace to be able to join together and hold
companies, especially large companies, accountable for the full range
of discrimination they may be responsible for,” said Marcia D.
Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center.
In his opinion, Justice Scalia said it was unacceptable to allow
employment discrimination lawsuits to proceed as huge class actions
when monetary awards would be based on a broad formula per plaintiff,
without having an individual assessment of how much each plaintiff had
suffered.
He wrote that to allow that to happen in the Wal-Mart case, the
largest employment class action in American history, would have been
hugely unfair to Wal-Mart because it might have had to pay out damages
without many of the plaintiffs demonstrating how much they were
injured.
Paul Grossman, a lawyer in Los Angeles for the Paul Hastings firm who
represents many employers, including Wal-Mart, in employment lawsuits,
said employers were seeing many unmeritorious class-action cases. “Now
you need a real class action with similarly situated people where
common issues predominate,” he said.
Joseph Sellers, one of the top lawyers for the women in the Wal-Mart
case, said that as a result of the ruling, there would be more class
actions at the store or regional level, where it might not be hard to
show that local managers had engaged in sex or age discrimination.
He said the court’s ruling would hurt not just the plaintiffs, but
also Wal-Mart, because “this case will be splintered into many cases
that may take longer and be harder to resolve.”
Moreover, he said, Wal-Mart and other companies facing these more
localized class actions might face “checkered” legal standards “where
in one jurisdiction the conduct may be ruled lawful, and in another
jurisdiction it may be ruled unlawful.”
Several experts said the ruling would have little effect on securities
fraud cases because a misrepresentation by a corporate executive is
commonly seen as injuring a company’s whole class of shareholders.
Nonetheless, the ruling could make it somewhat harder to bring such
securities cases and other class actions by tightening the definition
of when there is a common question of law or fact.
John C. Coffee Jr., a professor at the Columbia University School of
Law, said one far-reaching aspect of the ruling was that it would
greatly discourage lawyers from filing class actions because the court
essentially prevented lawyers from adding a claim for back pay or
other financial compensation onto a class claim seeking an injunction
against conduct, like a company’s discriminating against women in
promotions. Under federal law, the standards to gain class-action
status when seeking injunctive relief are considerably lower than for
back-pay claims.
The Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal had long allowed
plaintiffs to do such “bootstrapping” in injunction cases to achieve
class-action status for their claims for back pay. Class actions for
injunctive relief are less lucrative to plaintiffs and their lawyers
than class actions that also seek back pay.
thomaswheat1975
Tom Jigme Wheat
Republicans voted to cut 600 million from WIC (Women and Infants, and
Children Nutrition Program), cut billions from the SNAP (Food Stamps)
program, and yet continue to subsidize already profitable US Cotton
farmers. The House Republicans did manage to cut off the over 140
million annual subsidy payment to the Brazilian cotton institute, but
since they are still subsidizing profitable US Cotton farmers, it
opens up the US to sanctions from the World Trade Organization, that
will cost the United States, over 800 million dollars in penalties,
paid to brazil. Fact if the republicans were not so intent in
preserving Corporate Welfare for US Cotton farmers, they wouldn't have
to pay the 800 million dollar fine!!!!
Also Brazil will now raise tariffs on US exports into Brazil making
American products less competitive. So as usual House Republicans,
show what heartless bastards they are, and their ignorance of
international trade laws, and the fact that their corporate welfare
subsidy to US Cotton, is costing more, 200 million dollars more to the
treasury, than their 600 million dollar cut to the WIC program. So
where are the savings in that. Also it should be noted that 3 House of
representatives, tea party freshman, on the Agriculture committee that
voted to cut WIC Funding, and continue US Cotton subsidies, all
received million dollar subsidies for their family farms in the past
from the US Federal government. Talk about an entitlement complex with
these bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
Agriculture spending bill narrowly passes House after GOP whipping
By Molly K. Hooper and Pete Kasperowicz - 06/16/11 08:30 PM E
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167009-ag-spending-bill-narrowly-passes-after-gop-whipping
"One of the biggest concerns Democrats had with the bill was the more
than $600 million offered in cuts to the Women, Infants and Children
(WIC) nutrition program. These cuts largely remained intact, despite
Democratic attempts on Tuesday to argue the funding should be
restored."
June 18, 2011, 9:50 a.m. EDT
Brazil to retaliate if U.S. ends cotton payments
"The U.S. House of Representatives this week voted to suspend $147
million in annual payments to a Brazilian cotton fund, arguing the
money for Brazil was also an unproductive and costly subsidy. The U.S
has been making the payments since last year, after the WTO authorized
$829 million in annual trade retaliations to Brazil for what it
determined to be illegal U.S. government subsidies to cotton growers.
The bill must still be voted on in the U.S. Senate, and the final
outcome is uncertain. "
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 17, 12:11 am, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:5cc6b8fd-1235-4cf1...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Thomas Jigme Wheat
> If you don't like what they cut, what would you cut instead?
that reported 36 billion in profits last quarter!!!!!!!
Then Force the CFTC to to impose a speculation tax on the derivatives
futures trading, on the new york mercantile exchange, since we know
the price of oil / per barrel is inflated by over 25 percent, due to
speculation. If there wasnt so much rampant speculation, the price of
oil would be around 60 - 70 dollars a barrel. Even the CEO of
ExxonMobil, and Goldman Sachs agree this is where the price should be
in the US regards to demand. However, we need to transition to an
alternative fuel source like Hydrogen Fuel cell, Biomass, etc., since
by 2100 with global population at 10 billion, we will be devolving
into canibalism, since we will have run out of oil, and the fact
remains, there is no real contingency plan for when oil reserves will
be exhausted!!!!!!!!!!! I recommend this program, for starters:
check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel. But even this is
minimalist, since Solid Hydrogen fuel used in our ICBMS can travel
6000 miles in a matter of hours, with one fuel
source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
thomaswheat1975
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:5cc6b8fd-1235-4cf1...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167009-ag-spending-bill-narrowly-pa...
>
> "One of the biggest concerns Democrats had with the bill was the more
> than $600 million offered in cuts to the Women, Infants and Children
> (WIC) nutrition program. These cuts largely remained intact, despite
> Democratic attempts on Tuesday to argue the funding should be
> restored."
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotto...
> > > What Aids is too Africa.- Hide quoted text -
Tom Jigme Wheat
that reported 36 billion in profits last quarter!!!!!!!
Then Force the CFTC to to impose a speculation tax on the derivatives
futures trading, on the new york mercantile exchange, since we know
the price of oil / per barrel is inflated by over 25 percent, due to
speculation. If there wasnt so much rampant speculation, the price of
oil would be around 60 - 70 dollars a barrel. Even the CEO of
ExxonMobil, and Goldman Sachs agree this is where the price should be
in the US regards to demand. However, we need to transition to an
alternative fuel source like Hydrogen Fuel cell, Biomass, etc., since
by 2100 with global population at 10 billion, we will be devolving
into canibalism, since we will have run out of oil, and the fact
remains, there is no real contingency plan for when oil reserves will
be exhausted!!!!!!!!!!! I recommend this program, for starters:
check out this link: Regarding Hydrogen fuel powered cars that can
travel 500 miles with 10 kilograms of hydrogen fuel. But even this is
minimalist, since Solid Hydrogen fuel used in our ICBMS can travel
6000 miles in a matter of hours, with one fuel
source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://energy.llnl.gov/hydrogen.php
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 23, 9:48 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> If you don't like what they cut, what would you cut instead?
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:5cc6b8fd-1235-4cf1...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> http://thehill.com/homenews/house/167009-ag-spending-bill-narrowly-pa...
>
> "One of the biggest concerns Democrats had with the bill was the more
> than $600 million offered in cuts to the Women, Infants and Children
> (WIC) nutrition program. These cuts largely remained intact, despite
> Democratic attempts on Tuesday to argue the funding should be
> restored."
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/brazil-to-retaliate-if-us-ends-cotto...
Jerry Okamura
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:feb2ce84-a051-40c5...@r21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
"Thomas Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:44496c8e-f8d2-4489...@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 9:48 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> If you don't like what they cut, what would you cut instead?
I would cut, oil subsidies for the extremley profitable oil companies,
that reported 36 billion in profits last quarter!!!!!!!
How about cutting ALL subsidies to ALL companies, rather than pick only one
type of company? Wouldn't that be a whole lot better?
Then Force the CFTC to to impose a speculation tax on the derivatives
futures trading, on the new york mercantile exchange, since we know
the price of oil / per barrel is inflated by over 25 percent, due to
speculation. If there wasnt so much rampant speculation, the price of
oil would be around 60 - 70 dollars a barrel.
Which would mean that those speculators in another country would benefit,
and won't affect them at all?
Even the CEO of
ExxonMobil, and Goldman Sachs agree this is where the price should be
in the US regards to demand. However, we need to transition to an
alternative fuel source like Hydrogen Fuel cell, Biomass, etc., since
by 2100 with global population at 10 billion, we will be devolving
into canibalism, since we will have run out of oil, and the fact
remains, there is no real contingency plan for when oil reserves will
be exhausted!!!!!!!!!!! I recommend this program, for starters:
Should we trust the "people" or should we trust the "government" to
ultimately do the right thing? If the "people" make the wrong decisions,
then don't they deserve what happens to them?
Tom Jigme Wheat
referring too. I think you forget we live in a class society. One way
to classify class is by income. So the people you are referring to,
i.e., the corporate executives, only represent 2 percent of the
population. Furthermore the top 1 percent of the USA population owns
40 percent of the national wealth, more than the bottom 1 percent.
Since these people have a strangle hold on the economy, a short term
economic outlook, and a class bias, towards the remainder, 99 percent
of income earners, they are in fact a tiny minority speck of the
population, excercising to much control over ordinary americans.
Furthermore under Eisenhower, when the top marginal income tax was
higher, along with corporate taxes these people were forced to invest
in the economy and we prospered. Now that their tax rates are soo low,
back to Herbert Hoover levels, we are enduring more prolonged bust
cycles, as the rich spurry their wealth to overseas tax shelters, due
to the legislatively flawed loop holes in the income tax code. We must
begin to seal these loopholes and tax US Multi-National Corporations
overseas profits, since by not doing so we encourage them to further
outsource (offshore) american jobs!!!!!!!!!!How can we trust these
people to have the best interests of the american people, when 1 they
make up a tiny fraction of the population, and two, they've exported
almost half of our manufacturing base abroad, since 1979!!!!!!
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%
Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 23, 11:13 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "Thomas Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:44496c8e-f8d2-4489...@l14g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
When you say people, what percentage of the US population are you
referring too. I think you forget we live in a class society. One way
to classify class is by income. So the people you are referring to,
i.e., the corporate executives, only represent 2 percent of the
population. Furthermore the top 1 percent of the USA population owns
40 percent of the national wealth, more than the bottom 1 percent.
Since these people have a strangle hold on the economy, a short term
economic outlook, and a class bias, towards the remainder, 99 percent
of income earners, they are in fact a tiny minority speck of the
population, excercising to much control over ordinary americans.
Furthermore under Eisenhower, when the top marginal income tax was
higher, along with corporate taxes these people were forced to invest
in the economy and we prospered. Now that their tax rates are soo low,
back to Herbert Hoover levels, we are enduring more prolonged bust
cycles, as the rich spurry their wealth to overseas tax shelters, due
to the legislatively flawed loop holes in the income tax code. We must
begin to seal these loopholes and tax US Multi-National Corporations
overseas profits, since by not doing so we encourage them to further
outsource (offshore) american jobs!!!!!!!!!!How can we trust these
people to have the best interests of the american people, when 1 they
make up a tiny fraction of the population, and two, they've exported
almost half of our manufacturing base abroad, since 1979!!!!!!
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%
Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%
thomaswheat1975
Tom Jigme Wheat
national wealth, more than the bottom 50 percent!!!!!!!!!!Sorry for
the typo in last post!!!!
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 23, 12:12 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Okamura
percentage of the nations wealth....
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:74b60a9c-29ae-4527...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Jerry Okamura
invested, or are we better off, if the "government" confiscated the peoples
money, and spent the "peoples" money?
"Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
news:c0c1929b-e5bb-409b...@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Tom Jigme Wheat
> Simple math.... Those with the most money will always represent a bigger
> percentage of the nations wealth....
The fact is the top 1 percent of income earners doubled their money
under George Bush while middle class income declined by 2300 dollars
over the same period. This all occured as a result of the Bush Tax
cuts, where Billionaires where getting multi million dollar tax cuts,
millionaires getting 100000 dollar tax cuts, while the middle class
only got a couple of thousand dollars of tax cuts. We've had these
bush tax cuts since 2001, and during that period we lost over 5
million manufacturing jobs outsourced, to china. So there is no proof
that low tax rates on ther rich stimulate the job growth. They just
hoard their money, spirit away to overseas tax shelters, since its
their nature to practice tax avoidance, and the speculative bubble
burst because they were engaged in risky speculative derivatives
trading, that artificially shot up home prices, and then reduced their
values by almost one half, due not to just loan defaults, which the
majority, were due to predatory surging interest ARM mortgages,
predatory lending practices, fradulent underwriting standards, and
credit rating agencies, like Fitch investments, and Standard and
Poors, giving false ratings since their commissions were tied to
profitability of the mortgage security industry.
The crisis could possibly have been avoided if Glass Steagall banking
act had not been repealed in 1999, which would not have allowed
investment banks too merge with commercial banks, which by the way was
passed in the republican controlled Congress, and foolishly signed by
Bill Clinton..Why dont you read the Book, "Reckless Endangerment," by
Gretchen Morgenson, a pulitzer prize winning new york times
journalist. Currently Iam researching the international effects on on
the US credit markets as it pertains to the Basel Accord, pgs. 112,
133, and Basel committee, pgs. 112, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133 -137, 147,
156, 160.
Why dont you buy the book??
thomaswheat1975
>
> "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in messagenews:74b60a9c-29ae-4527...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Larry Hewitt
> Simple math.... Those with the most money will always represent a bigger
> percentage of the nations wealth....
simple economics --- concentration of that welth in a smaller percentage
of the population leads to lower wages, lowered output, lowered gdp
growth, vastly increased poverty.
Laryy
Larry Hewitt
> Are we better off, if the "people" get to keep the money they earned or
> invested, or are we better off, if the "government" confiscated the
> peoples money, and spent the "peoples" money?
unanswerable question, along the lines of "have you stopped beating
your wife?
When, as in the current case, wealth is gained by manipulation of
markets, illegal activities (how many benefited from, for ex, the THREE
BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD that Lee Farkas was just convicted of, or bank
fraud like regions financial just admitted to) they should not keep the
money.
When the companies have to get bailed out by taxpayer money, like major
banks, aig, etc. were, They ABSOLUTELY should not be getting taxpayer
paid bonuses --- for FAILING ---, but should pay for the largess.
When fraud, like the investigations into oil pricing, mortgages,
lending, investments, metals, ... that ARE ONGOING NOW is the source of
that wealth, then maybe that wealth is not deserved.
When so many o0f the filthy rich lech class make their fortunes by
screwing the other 99% of the country, screw then back.
Larry
Buster Norris
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>simple economics --- concentration of that welth in a smaller percentage
>of the population leads to lower wages, lowered output, lowered gdp
>growth, vastly increased poverty.
Prove it.......................
thomas wheat
President Herbert Hoover was in office. The tax rate we have now is 35
percent, the last time taxes were close to that level, was in 1931,
during the Great Depression, when the tax rate was at 25 percent. Also
this tax rate is directly tied to the fact that our manufacturing
labor force is only 8.9 percent of the labor force, which is the
lowest level its been since before World War 2!!!!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Incidentely unregulated speculation, also tanked the economy back then
as well, as it did in 2008, under the Bush unregulated neo-liberal
Milton Friedman, Supply side economic system. The George Bush tax cuts
failed to stimulate growth, and just insured that the wealthy would
continue to hoard cash, and spirit their wealth to overseas tax
shelters, since the corporate tax structure, is so dysfunctional, that
the territorial tax system doesn't tax overseas profits, which acts as
a further incentive, to outsource American manufacturing overseas. The
fact is only 8.9 percent of the American labor force is currently
engaged in manufacturing. That is the lowest level it has been since
incidenteley before World War 2.
http://jec.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e922d094-bf87-47f2-9f5d-834adcf16f7f
Testimony of Mark Zandi Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics
Before the Joint Economic Committee
"Manufacturing in the USA: Why We Need a National Manufacturing
Strategy?"
June 22, 2011
"The slide in manufacturing employment was even more severe, with 5
million manufacturing jobs lost during the 2000s (see Chart 3). Even
during the debilitating recessions of the early 1980s, the decline in
manufacturing employment was less than half that. After the loss of
these jobs, fewer than 12 million workers are now employed in
manufacturing, the lowest number since just before World War II.
Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10% of total payroll
employment, compared with more than a third of the workforce just
after World War II." (pg. 4)
"Manufacturing plays an outsize role in shaping the U.S. business
cycle. Manufacturing activity declines sharply in recessions and
rebounds strongly in recoveries. Considering business cycles since
World War II, over half the decline in GDP during recessions is due to
falling manufacturing production. In several recessions, the decline
in manufacturing was even greater than the decline in real GDP, as
growth in other sectors offset some of the drag from manufacturing.
Manufacturing is also vital to powering the U.S. economy out of
recession into recovery. In the first two years of recoveries since
World War II, manufacturing has been responsible for nearly 40% of the
growth in GDP. iii" (pg. 5)
The main problem why we have been losing so many manufacturing jobs,
is the quasi-territorial tax system that USA Multinational
corporations use that sheilds their overseas profits from being taxed.
This acts as an incentive for these corporations to outsource
(offshore) american jobs overseas, to repressive unregulated labor
markets, like China, and this causes overall wage deflation here in
the USA, as these corporations use their overseas leverage, to further
exploit the American worker, by arguing for more tax breaks, Orwellian
doublespeak about less regulation regarding worker safety,
environmental standards, and salary arbitration.
US policymakers and American business complain that China should allow
its currency to appreciate and that is artificially undervalued,
thereby giving them an unfavorable advantage, in their manufacturing
exports to the USA, and that our exports to China, are not competitive
in Price. Well the fact is these corporations and policymakers were
responsible for our increasing 450 billion dollar trade deficit by
outsourcing American jobs overseas, to china, despite decrying China's
currency manipulations.
With our depleted manufacturing base we have imposed a bloated retail
service sector economy, that fuels this outsourcing boom, as evinced
by Walmart, the nations largest employer, of which incidentley
everything sold at Walmart comes from Communist china, and the Walton
family that owns Walmart is the richest family in America, valued at
over 80 billion dollars. Its a known fact that they practice sex
discrimination, in the workplace, and their wages are the lowest in
the retail sector. Walmart's authoritarian corporate culture is very
much tied economically tied to the sweatshops and the prison labor
Laogai's in China, since that labor output supply, stocks Walmart's
store inventory. So obviously we must reorient towards more
manufacturing in the USA, and less reliance on adding retail sector
jobs, since productivity output is so low, in regards to stimulating
GDP, which is tied to Domestic manufacturing growth.
Isolationist "Corporatist" Rank and file republicans, argue that the
regulatory structure is the cause of the decline of manufacturing and
the overall high unemployment rate. The fact is their main
constituents, the US MNC's were responsible for the majority of all of
the offshoring (outsourcing) of jobs to chinaduring the Bush
administration, some 5 million, and this was precisely when the
regulatory structure was most lax. The fact is the anti-regulatory
argument these guys use, especially in the House of Representives, is
just a red herring, to take away more worker rights, like salary
arbitration, collective bargaining, and worker safety and anti
discriminatory legislation, advanced by the department of Industrial
Relations. As we export more jobs to communist China, we are becoming
more like them here in a america, as the Retail sector corporations
have imposed a second tier, quasi corporatist government entity, and
authoritarian corporate culture, that is hostile to american ideals
such as individuality, and encourages unproductive groupthink, which
is why productivity in this sector is only at the top, and labor at
the bottom is the most exploited and non productive as a result.
This outsourcing has caused wage deflation in America. We must restore
our manufacturing base to 1979 levels, if we are going to stimulate
long term GDP growth.
To do this We must impose the Bill Clinton Tax structure. Under
Clinton the US added over 10 million jobs, and with increased tax
revenue, the government was able to stimulate private sector growth.
discussion archived here:
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 23, 3:33 pm, Larry Hewitt <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 5:38 PM, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> > Simple math.... Those with the most money will always represent a bigger
> > percentage of the nations wealth....
>
> simple economics --- concentration of that welth in a smaller percentage
> of the population leads to lower wages, lowered output, lowered gdp
> growth, vastly increased poverty.
>
> Laryy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tom Jigme Wheat" wrote in message
> >news:74b60a9c-29ae-4527...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Correction: the top 1 percent of income earners own 40 percent of the
> > national wealth, more than the bottom 50 percent!!!!!!!!!!Sorry for
> > the typo in last post!!!!
> >thomaswheat1975
>
> > On Jun 23, 12:12 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> When you say people, what percentage of the US population are you
> >> referring too. I think you forget we live in aclasssociety. One way
> >> to classifyclassis by income. So the people you are referring to,
> >> i.e., the corporate executives, only represent 2 percent of the
> >> population. Furthermore the top 1 percent of the USA population owns
> >> 40 percent of the national wealth, more than the bottom 1 percent.
> >> Since these people have a strangle hold on the economy, a short term
> >> economic outlook, and aclassbias, towards the remainder, 99 percent
> >> to classifyclassis by income. So the people you are referring to,
> >> i.e., the corporate executives, only represent 2 percent of the
> >> population. Furthermore the top 1 percent of the USA population owns
> >> 40 percent of the national wealth, more than the bottom 1 percent.
> >> Since these people have a strangle hold on the economy, a short term
> >> economic outlook, and aclassbias, towards the remainder, 99 percent
Siobhan Medeiros
> The fact of the matter is. Women aren't supposed to get pregnant on
> welfare. I'm absolutely positive 80% of America would not have a problem
> cutting a welfare whore off if she got pregnant to get more welfare.
>
> Its sick and evil.
>
> If your on welfare, your obviously down and out. And not susposed to breed
> kids into your hard luck poverty.
> Its irresponsible. And clearly shows the pregnant bitch cant or doesnt care
> for her kids financial and emotional well being.
>
> As you arent allowed to have a family , father , education , or future for
> your bastard welfare kid.
>
> They should be cut off, or put in prison for scamming the government, or
> shot.
You should be locked up in some looney bin somewhere.
thomas wheat
lowest percentage of its labor force, engaged in manufacturing since
before World war 2.
You are the one who argues that it is Okay for Walmart to discriminate
against women because their menstrual cycles and child bearing
abilities make them unproductive. You certainly have the mentality of
the Communist chinese sweatshop slave driver.
This policy of outsourcing, has stunted US economic development, and
is one of the main reasons why we are in a major recession, and have
such a high unemployment rate. Did you really think that the George
bush tax cuts, and his outsourcing of over 5 million manufacturing
jobs to china would have no effect on the US economy. Also what you
fail to realize, is that the isolationist House of representatives
republicans want to restore the tax rate back to 1931 levels, at 25
percent, when Herbert Hoover was in office, and we all know how
disasterous this was on the economy, under this failed economic
theory. Fact is from 2001 to 2008 median family income declined by
2300 dollars according to the US census bureau. While the wealthy top
one tenth of 1 percent, doubled their money. The lax market regulation
encouraged risky speculative derivatives trading, that tanked the
economy. More tax cuts for the rich do not trickle down to the
american worker, and in fact it exacerbates the problem. An example of
this is that the effective income tax rate of the top one tenth of 1
percent is 16 percent, much lower than the effective income tax rate
payed by the middle class under the current bush tax structure.
Lowering the rate even further, will be disasterous for the economy,
and further increase the tax burden on the poor and middle class since
state's and local government's will raise sales taxes to compensate
for loss of federal revenue, which is in fact what they are doing
now.
Your all for social darwinism for the middle class and the poor, but
you refuse to apply the same standard for the top 2 percent of income
earners who are sheilded from this Hobbesian reality, by the
unproductive Corporate welfare entitlement complex!!!!!!!!!!!
Fact is supply side trickle down economics never worked, and it is
the reason why we are mired in the worse economic recession since
1929.
So eat Shit Chinese communist party, Astroturfer!!!!!!!!!!
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 24, 9:35 am, thomas wheat <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fact we have the lowest individual tax rates since Republican
> President Herbert Hoover was in office. The tax rate we have now is 35
> percent, the last time taxes were close to that level, was in 1931,
> during the Great Depression, when the tax rate was at 25 percent. Also
> this tax rate is directly tied to the fact that our manufacturing
> labor force is only 8.9 percent of the labor force, which is the
> lowest level its been since before World War 2!!!!
>
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
>
> Incidentely unregulated speculation, also tanked the economy back then
> as well, as it did in 2008, under the Bush unregulated neo-liberal
> Milton Friedman, Supply side economic system. The George Bush tax cuts
> failed to stimulate growth, and just insured that the wealthy would
> continue to hoard cash, and spirit their wealth to overseas tax
> shelters, since the corporate tax structure, is so dysfunctional, that
> the territorial tax system doesn't tax overseas profits, which acts as
> a further incentive, to outsource American manufacturing overseas. The
> fact is only 8.9 percent of the American labor force is currently
> engaged in manufacturing. That is the lowest level it has been since
> incidenteley before World War 2.
>
> http://jec.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e922d09...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/browse_thread/thread/71d4...
> > >> only > one...
>
> read more »
Tom Jigme Wheat
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
fact we are at Herbert hoover tax rates, that's why we are fucked.
http://jec.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e922d094-bf87-47f2-9f5d-
thomaswheat1975834adcf16f7f
Mark Zandi of Moodys Analytics in Senate Testimony says:
Our manufacturing labor force is at its lowest level since before
World War 2, so the Bush tax cuts did nothing for the economy because
they were not revenue neutral, and in fact benefitted the rich, while
middle class income declined by 2300 dollars from 2001 2007, according
to the USA census bureau. Furthermore in the same pierod the top 1
percent of income earners doubled their wealth. Wealth concentration
in America has returned to Herbert Hoover era levels, and that's why
the poor and middle class are suffering, do to the stifling corporate
tax regime. The Bush tax cuts must be repealed , we must restore the
clinton rates. Bush tax cuts alone have contributed over 2 trillion to
the national debt, the Bush started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have
contributed another 2 trillion dollars, than there was his unfunded
borrowed liability, Medicare Part D partial privitization of Medicare
plan, that added another 500 million or billion to the debt. Now the
repyublicans are trying to cover their tracks, and retreat to silent
majority, zombie mode, of false peacenik ism, it wont work!!!!!!!
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Jerry Okamura
"thomas wheat" wrote in message
news:5fdec7a1-2fc1-47e7...@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Fact we have the lowest individual tax rates since Republican
President Herbert Hoover was in office. The tax rate we have now is 35
percent, the last time taxes were close to that level, was in 1931,
during the Great Depression, when the tax rate was at 25 percent. Also
this tax rate is directly tied to the fact that our manufacturing
labor force is only 8.9 percent of the labor force, which is the
lowest level its been since before World War 2!!!!
Has the percentage of revenue that the government gets, when compared to
GDP, changed?
Jerry Okamura
countries, are able to produce the same goods far cheaper, than in the
United States?
"thomas wheat" wrote in message
news:551f65f4-75e5-4161...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Testimony of Mark Zandi Chief Economist, Moody�s Analytics
> read more �
Buster Norris
<thomasji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fact we have the lowest individual tax rates since Republican
>President Herbert Hoover was in office. The tax rate we have now is 35
>percent, the last time taxes were close to that level, was in 1931,
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Historical Top Tax Rate
1987 38.50%
1988 28.00%
1989 28.00%
1990 31.00%
1991 31.00%
1992 31.00%
1993 39.60%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
thomas wheat
Your a stupid FUCKWAD, that's the tax rate the middle class paid, if
you make over a million or so dollars you pay something called the
Marginal income tax rate, which is a far lower rate of taxable income
historically, compared to what the middle class and the working poor
pay in payroll taxes, and regressive sales taxes!!!!!!!!!!here's the
actual historic tax rate the rich pay!!!!!!!!!!!
The Fleecing of America. The marginal income tax rate was 25 percent
in 1931, and coincidently coked out of his mind GOP House Representive
Paul Ryan wants to restore that rate, and lower even further the
capital gains taxes, which is how the rich earn the majority of their
income. The top 1/10 of one perce3nt, those earning average incomes of
400 million dollars a year had an effective income tax of less than 17
percent, and that was under the bush tax cut system. imagine what
Faggot bitch Paul Ryan wants to do with your money, institute
regressive consumption based flat taxes. If you want to look at an
example where that policy is a failure, look no further than
Japan!!!!!!!!!!!!
Top marginal income tax rates for the rich going back to 1913 -
2011 !!!!!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
I reiterate taxes are at there lowest levels on the rich since faggot
republican President, Herbert Hoover was in office and that's when we
had the stock market crash of year 1929. Bush was worse than Hoover,
at least hoover, turned down his pension, and attempted measly
philanthropy, probably "sexual terrorism" in China Are you playing the
fag card now instead of the herman cain, house negro race card with me
now, Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love debunking hypocrisy and lies
thomaswheat1975
what we need is Bretton Woods agreements of 1944, again
Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad047.asp
thomaswheat1975
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 24, 6:34 pm, Buster Norris <bustyourf...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:35:04 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
>
Buster Norris
<thomasji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your a stupid FUCKWAD, that's the tax rate the middle class paid
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its the highest top tax rate..............
>if
>you make over a million or so dollars you pay something called the
>Marginal income tax rate
You originally said LOWEST INDIVIDUAL tax rate................
>I reiterate taxes are at there lowest levels on the rich since faggot
>republican President, Herbert Hoover was in office
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1988 28.00%
1989 28.00%
1990 31.00%
1991 31.00%
1992 31.00%
.
.
.
2011 35.00%
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/toprate_historical.pdf
>I love debunking hypocrisy and lies
When are you going to start????????
When are you going to stop LYING???????????????
Tom Jigme Wheat
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Year:
1913 7%
1929 24% (Herbert Hoover)
1930 25% Hoover
1931 25% Hoover
1932 63% Franklin D. Roosevelt
1952 92% Dwight D. Eisenhower
1953 92% Eisenhower
1954 91% Eisenhower
1960 91% Eisenhower/ Kennedy
1980 70% Ronald Reagan
1986 50% Reagan
1988 28% " "
1992 31% GHWB / Bill Clinton
1993 39.6% William J. Clinton
2000 39.6% William "Bill" Clinton
2001 38.6% George W. Bush
2003 35% Bush again
2008 35% Bush
2011 35% Bush tax cuts extended by Obama and Congress
Analysis, when the Highest marginal income tax rates were raised on
the rich the economy prospered. Just look at the years when President
Eisenhower was in office. The Top Marginal Income tax rate was 92
percent in 1953. Almost half of the workforce was also unionized and
America prospered.
Then Look at the GHWB / Clinton example: Both George H. W. Bush and
Clinton raised taxes on the rich, albeit GHWB's raising of rates was
meager. In 1993 Clinton's first year in office the top marginal income
tax rate was raised 39.6% where it stayed at that level until the end
of year 2000. The economy prospered and we added over a 11 million
jobs. The last three years of his administration, he ran budget
surpluses totally over 200 billion dollars total, and the budget was
balanced!!!!!! Enter Fuck nut Gerorge W. Bush 2001 tax cut package 1,
the rate on the super rich was lowered to 38.6 %. 2003, Bush tax cut
plan part 2, the rate on millionaires and billionaires was lowered to
35 percent, were it has remained to this day, in year 2011. Obviously
Bush tax cuts only stimulated the wealth of the top 1 percent of
income earner, including those of the top 1/10 of 1% who doubled their
money under Bush, while under Bush median family income declined by
2300 dollars. So therefore all the Bush tax cuts did was stimulate
rampant derivatives speculation and unemployment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EAT SHIT Bitch!!!!!!!!!!!
Get an education and get off the METH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
discussion archived here:
On Jun 24, 8:10 pm, thomas wheat <thomasjigmewh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> WRONG AGAIN GENDER BENDER RACE BAITER,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...
RichTravsky
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm
...
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in
2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.
...
On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans rich and poor,
combined has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007.
Buster Norris
<thomasw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Top Marginal Income tax rate was 92
>percent in 1953. Almost half of the workforce was also unionized and
>America prospered.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
US Private Sector Trade Union Membership
Percentage of Private Sector Employees
1950 34.60%
1955 35.10%
http://www.publicpurpose.com/lm-unn2003.htm
thomas wheat
high of 39% of the private sector workforce in 1958, to its lowest
reportable decline of 7% in 2006, means that workers are suffering
wage deflation, while executive and CEO pay and compensation packages
have skyrocketed. The decline of unions, has resulted in decline of
worker productivity, the decline of the public's awareness and
participation in the civil society, and less leverage by the worker to
secure a fair wage indexed for inflation and that offers health
benefits. You fuckin usenet jucknies live in an ivory tower that is
about to come crashing down. Already more IT oompanies are outsourcing
their programming and IT support jobs abroad. The fact that there is
no union in the IT sector means you are expendable and exploitable. So
keep sucking up to the man, while chinese and indian, programmers/
software developers take your jobs too. The decline in union
membership is directly related to the decline of USA manufacturing,
which is at its lowest level since before World War 2, according to
Moodys analytics, Chief Economist Mark Zandi, in testimony before the
Senate Joint Economic Committee, last month. http://jec.senate.gov
http://jec.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e922d094-bf87-47f2-9f5d-834adcf16f7f
"The slide in manufacturing employment was even more severe, with 5
million manufacturing jobs lost during the 2000s (see Chart 3). Even
during the debilitating recessions of the early 1980s, the decline in
manufacturing employment was less than half that. After the loss of
these jobs, fewer than 12 million workers are now employed in
manufacturing, the lowest number since just before World War II.
Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10% of total payroll
employment, compared with more than a third of the workforce just
after World War II."
thomaswheat1975
On Jun 24, 10:49 pm, Tom Jigme Wheat <thomaswheat1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/browse_thread...