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.
Larry Hewitt
Welcome back, stalker!!!
Nothing good to say, just subtle intinidation.
> 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
Harrison J. Bounel
Sid9
"Harrison J. Bounel" <""sc\"@mmer@invalid"> wrote in message
news:4df95168$0$90951$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se...
> they need to cut spending on everything, across the board.
Screw all Americans except the wealthiest among us.
Raise taxes on the rich...raise them back to where they were before St
Reagan fucked America
Buster Norris
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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,
Buster Norris
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:45:11 -0500, Larry Hewitt
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>On 3/9/2011 10:22 PM, Buster Norris wrote:
>>>>> Which unemployed nigger are you:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hewitt, Lawrence A
>>>>> 8031 Pemswood St
>>>>> Charlotte, NC 28277-2805
>>>>> (704) 544-2302
>>>>>
>>>>> Or......
>>>>>
>>>>> Hewitt, Lawrence W Age:65+
>>>>> 924 Trentle Ct
>>>>> Charlotte, NC 28211-5666
>>>>> (704) 362-2625
>If you checked you would find that Comporium only does business in South
>Carolina.
"Comporium, which is headquartered in Rock Hill, S.C., provides
communications services in York and Lancaster Counties in the Upstate;
as well as, in parts of six counties in the Midlands: Lexington,
Saluda, Edgefield, Orangeburg, Calhoun and Aiken. Comporium also is
the incumbent local telephone exchange company and cable TV operator
in Transylvania County, N.C. In addition, Comporium has a Competitive
Local Exchange Company (CLEC) in the Charlotte metropolitan area and
offers a comprehensive suite of business communications equipment and
service options."
http://www.comporium.com/about-about-comporium-who-we-are/
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...
Patriot Games DemocRATHallofShame.Com©
I didn't go anywhere, dumbass... It was YOU who ran away...
>Nothing good to say, just subtle intinidation.
Subtle? Hahahahahahahaha!!!
--
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
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.
DogDiesel
"Harrison J. Bounel" <""sc\"@mmer@invalid"> wrote in message
news:4df95168$0$90951$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se...
Damn right.
Or how about reverse decreases .
What ever they got every year for the last 20 years , take back. one year at
a time.
The libs should be happy with that. the military and prison system will take
huge cuts.,
DogDiesel
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:itbkk9$n1k$1...@dont-email.me...
That will be fine, When the bottom 50% of the country pays more then 4% of
the taxes.
Like 39%.
like the rich do.
We will think about it.
until then . fuck off .
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
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.......................
Larry Hewitt
read an econ text.
Larry
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
> 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.
You should be locked up in some looney bin somewhere.
Siobhan Medeiros
Liquid hydrogen is not a viable fuel source for civilian travel. Just
look at the space shuttle Challenger for what happens when something
goes wrong.
The real unsung hero in alternative fuels is natural gas. The
technology to make it work has been around for decades, the only thing
keeping us from using it is a lack of will.
Siobhan Medeiros
> 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.
>
>
> thomaswheat1975
>
You are absolutely correct. Give the upper class a tax break, inside
a few years they'll be demanding another one.
What you missed, however, was that during the 50's and 60's you had
tax levels on the upper tiers in the 80's and 90's, and the economy
did very well.
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 »
Larry Hewitt
Your family station wagon will not be equipped with a rocket engine,
there is no link.
That said, LHG has many problems that will probably prevent it from
becoming a widespread fuel.
> The real unsung hero in alternative fuels is natural gas. The
> technology to make it work has been around for decades, the only thing
> keeping us from using it is a lack of will.
>
LNG has even more problems than LHG. LNG has the same transportation,
safety, fueling, and storage problems that LHG has.
CNG, like the tank for your BBQ grill, is in use today in some
commercial apps and third world countries, but CNG needs a huge tank to
supply much range unless very high pressures, 200 atm or more, are used.
The dangers of these pressures are equivalent to those of LNG. High
pressure systems are VERY expensive for storage and fueling, as well.
The biggest problem with NG is source. While there is much ado today
about huge reserves in the US, reality is not living up to the hype.
Current fracking methods are extracting less than half of the NG in a
field, sometimes less, and leave the field unusable for further
extraction using current technology.
It is not as clean as advertised, either. The fractures are not
constrained to underground rock, but break the surface allowing large
amounts of NG and its accompanying sulfur and chlorine compounds to
escape into the atmosphere.
Ground water contamination is starting to become an issue. And NG still
adds CO2 and NOx into the atmosphere.
OTOH, current technology can cut gasoline usage in half in a few years.
Raising CAFE standards to 35 MPG, then 40 MPG is possible using current
technology at little cost, and will cut oil consumption by more than we
import from the Middle East and Africa.
Improved mass transit can save another 20% of consumption. Once demand
get down to a third or less of current levels renewables like algal
diesel, non-food based ethanol, electric, and such can replace gasoline
to a large degree, if not completely.
Larry
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 �
Tom Jigme Wheat
boosters. Regarding hydrogen fuel, have you evere heard of solid
hydrogen fuel, it propels our ICBM's for a range of 6500 miles at 6500
mph!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You are absolutely correct. Give the upperclassa tax break, inside
Buster Norris
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>On 6/23/2011 9:38 PM, Buster Norris wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:33:47 -0400, Larry Hewitt
>> <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.......................
>>
>
>read an econ text.
I knew you lied............
You have nothing......................
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buster Norris
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:45:11 -0500, Larry Hewitt
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>On 3/9/2011 10:22 PM, Buster Norris wrote:
>>>>> Which unemployed nigger are you:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hewitt, Lawrence A
>>>>> 8031 Pemswood St
>>>>> Charlotte, NC 28277-2805
>>>>> (704) 544-2302
>>>>>
>>>>> Or......
>>>>>
>>>>> Hewitt, Lawrence W Age:65+
>>>>> 924 Trentle Ct
>>>>> Charlotte, NC 28211-5666
>>>>> (704) 362-2625
>If you checked you would find that Comporium only does business in South
>Carolina.
"Comporium, which is headquartered in Rock Hill, S.C., provides
communications services in York and Lancaster Counties in the Upstate;
as well as, in parts of six counties in the Midlands: Lexington,
Saluda, Edgefield, Orangeburg, Calhoun and Aiken. Comporium also is
the incumbent local telephone exchange company and cable TV operator
in Transylvania County, N.C. In addition, Comporium has a Competitive
Local Exchange Company (CLEC) in the Charlotte metropolitan area and
offers a comprehensive suite of business communications equipment and
service options."
http://www.comporium.com/about-about-comporium-who-we-are/
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 (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA 95405, 707-542-2288
<thomasji...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are you so fucking stupid???????????
Buster Norris
<shanb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The real unsung hero in alternative fuels is natural gas. The
>technology to make it work has been around for decades, the only thing
>keeping us from using it is a lack of will.
"Us?" HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're a Canadian BigHead Faggot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Canada DOES NOT HAVE A SPACE SHUTTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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...
Larry Hewitt
"Note: This table contains a number of simplifications and ignores a
number of
factors, such as a maximum tax on earned income of 50 percent when the
top rate
was 70 percent and the current increase in rates due to income-related
reductions in
value of itemized deductions. Perhaps most importantly, it ignores the
large increase
in percentage of returns that were subject to this top rate.
IOW, they cooked the books.
Larry
DogDiesel
"Siobhan Medeiros" <shanb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:643cb025-6d6d-4023...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
What you refuse to state is the Federal government was 10% of its current
size.
\
And the dollar was worth 50 times its current value.
And welfare didn't exist.
Of course it did well.
people had money and the government wasn't stealing for welfare yet.
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
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>On 6/25/2011 12:14 AM, Buster Norris wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:10:32 -0700 (PDT), thomas wheat
>> <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???????????????
>>
>>
>>
>Read your.............
Go fuck yourself, libfag..............
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...
Thomas Wheat (35), 1131 Evans Dr., Santa Rosa, CA 95405, 707-542-2288
"Why do you always LIE?"
[Courtesy of Buster Norris]