Re: Class warfare. Re: House Republicans voting to cut Funding for WIC, while continuing subsidies for the Rich, Big Oil , and US Cotton, and now face 800 million in sanctions from WTO.org
Thomas Jigme Wheat
> 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!!!!!!!
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...
>
> As usual Rightards dont know what they are talking about. The House
> 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-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...
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:54 am, "DogDiesel" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:> 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.
>
> > What you fail to realize with your racialized agenda that views all
> > 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
>
> > > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
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
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
<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
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.