Law enforcement agencies across the nation are joining forces to crack down on drunk driving this Labor Day weekend, typically the time of year with highest number of alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities.
It is important to note that interdiction and enforcement can achieve positive results. For example, year to date over 2,000 people have already been arrested for DUI’s in King County alone, and according to police reports and local news accounts, so far not a single incident has involved Mike McGavick. Keep up the good work Mike!™
UPDATE:
Michael at blatherWatch has 20 questions for Mike?™ McGavick.
Drinking and driving? This is where us Kennedys step up!!!
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION, SOCIALIST…
Time to Celebrate Man’s Mind
By Fredric Hamber
On Labor Day, we should honor man’s mind, not men’s muscles, as the real source of wealth and progress.
It is fitting that the most productive nation on earth should have a holiday to honor its work. The high standard of living that Americans enjoy is hard-earned and well-deserved. But the term “Labor Day” is a misnomer. What we should celebrate is not sweat and toil, but the power of man’s mind to reason, invent and create.
Several centuries ago, providing the basic necessities for one’s survival was a matter of daily drudgery for most people. But Americans today enjoy conveniences undreamed of by medieval kings. Every day brings some new useful household gadget, or a new software system to increase our productivity, or a breakthrough in biotechnology.
So, it is worth asking: Why do Americans have no unique holiday to celebrate the creators, inventors, and entrepreneurs who have made all of this wealth possible — the men of the mind?
The answer lies in the dominant intellectual view of the nature of work. Most of today’s intellectuals, influenced by several generations of Marxist political philosophy, still believe that wealth is created by sheer physical toil. But the high standard of living we enjoy today is not due to our musculature and physical stamina. Many animals have been much stronger. We owe our relative affluence not to muscle power, but to brain power.
Brain power is given a left-handed acknowledgement in today’s fashionable aphorism that we are living in an “information age” in which education and knowledge are the keys to economic success. The implication of this idea, however, is that prior to the invention of the silicon chip, humans were able to flourish as brainless automatons.
The importance of knowledge to progress is not some recent trend, but a metaphysical fact of human nature. Man’s mind is his tool of survival and the source of every advance in material well-being throughout history, from the harnessing of fire, to the invention of the plough, to the discovery of electricity, to the invention of the latest anti-cancer drug.
Contrary to the Marxist premise that wealth is created by laborers and “exploited” by those at the top of the pyramid of ability, it is those at the top, the best and the brightest, who increase the value of the labor of those at the bottom. Under capitalism, even a man who has nothing to trade but physical labor gains a huge advantage by leveraging the fruits of minds more creative than his. The labor of a construction worker, for example, is made more productive and valuable by the inventors of the jackhammer and the steam shovel, and by the farsighted entrepreneurs who market and sell such tools to his employer. The work of an office clerk, as another example, is made more efficient by the men who invented copiers and fax machines. By applying human ingenuity to serve men’s needs, the result is that physical labor is made less laborious and more productive.
An apt symbol of the theory that sweat and muscle are the creators of economic value can be seen in those Soviet-era propaganda posters depicting man as a mindless muscular robot with an expressionless, cookie-cutter face. In practice, that theory led to chronic famines in a society unable to produce even the most basic necessities.
A culture thrives to the extent that it is governed by reason and science, and stagnates to the extent that it is governed by brute force. But the importance of the mind in human progress has been evaded by most of this century’s intellectuals. Observe, for example, George Orwell’s novel 1984, which depicts a totalitarian state that still, somehow, is a fully advanced technological society. Orwell projects the impossible: technology without the minds to produce it.
The best and brightest minds are always the first to either flee a dictatorship in a “brain drain” or to cease their creative efforts. A totalitarian regime can force some men to perform muscular labor; it cannot force a genius to create, nor force a businessman to make rational decisions. A slave owner can force a man to pick peanuts; only under freedom would a George Washington Carver discover ways to increase crop yields.
What Americans should celebrate is the spark of genius in the scientist who first identifies a law of physics, in the inventor who uses that knowledge to create a new engine or telephonic device, and in the businessmen who daily translate their ideas into tangible wealth.
On Labor Day, let us honor the true root of production and wealth: the human mind.
Islamofacists and the Koolaid Drinkers
2, Outstanding post. Well over the head of any “progressive” posting here. JCH
The “%” of Americans in unions is dropping each year, EXCEPT for “guvment” hack parasite. Gee, I wonder fucking why??? hehe, JCH
Actually, the article in today’s Seattle Times about DUI is pretty informative:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ui04m.html
Looks like statewide there were “220,640 people since 2000” charged with DUI — which would work out pro rata to more than 2,000 people in King County alone in an 8 month period (i.e. January 2006 to August 2006).
Nearly half of all DUI cases either get dismissed (17%) or reduced to reckless driving or some other lesser offense (27%).
Only 43% of DUI arrests result in a conviction as charged and actual criminal punishment for a DUI offense. The other 12% elect to have alcohol treatment, instead of prosecution — deferred prosecution — which can only be chosen once in a person’s lifetime under current law, and requires basically an admission of guilt (stipulation to being tried on the police report and BAC results) that will be used if the treatment program and probation conditions are not followed.
I meant to use my name on that last post!
“Law enforcement agencies across the nation are joining forces to crack down on drunk driving this Labor Day weekend”
All the GOP candidates are gonna have reunions in their local jails?
8, Er, “Teddy, Robert, Jr, and Pat Kennedy”…….hehe, JCH
Day 14 September 4, 2006 Where’s Goldy?
Mayor Nickels’
unprecedented tax increase proposal and
Tim Eyman’s opposition campaign not only screws the taxpayers into paying extra for basic services, but it also really puts Goldy and the rest of you seattle moonbats in a helluva predicament. I’ve been taunting Goldy for some time now with my “Where’s Goldy” series, and he still won’t tell us where he stands. No doubt, he’s between a rock and a hard place trying to figure out what to do. So as a true compassionate conservative, I’ll lay out the options here for ya Goldy:
1) Open up your wallet and pay more and more property tax every year until you are forced out of your home. Even if you can do it, do you want to make seattle a place where only the rich can live? Or do you not give a fuck about anybody else?
2) Join Eyman’s campaign to fight defeat the tax increase, and expose yourself to be the fucking hypocrite that you are. Admit that you are wrong about taxpayer rights, and thank Tim in pubic for giving you the right to vote on major policy issues.
3) Support the tax hike and agree that the tax money has to be raised, but make somebody other than you pay. You could take the tried and true class envy approach and make those “rich people” in Magnolia and Queen Ann pick up the tab. Remember, a “fair tax” in moonbat parlance is a tax that the other guy has to pay.
4) Or just keep quiet and hope I go away. That’s not gonna happen.
Republican secret weapons for 2006 election:
http://www.moonbattery.com/arc.....pelosi.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shar...../img/8.jpg
I suppose if Mike McGavick had killed a girl and left her for dead in a car he’d be given a pass like Ted Kennedy. Or perhaps if he had side swiped a few cars like Democrat Washington Supreme Court Justice Bobbie Bridge, he’d get a pass as well as a ride home from WSP.
pbj shill – take your beef with Kennedy up with the voters of MA who’ve seen fit to send him back to the Senate over and over – not necessarily what I would do.
No way will I participate in letting that drunk insurance industry shill go the Senate to be yet another rubberstamp for the Bush crime family.
Is anything more irrelevant than the bet-welsher’s lame vigil?
No way will the voters of Seattle support anything spewed out by that lying, pockets-lining, confidence man Eyman.
Nickels over-reached on this road-maintenance thing. It will be rejected by the voters of Seattle without any of that lying showboater’s help.
Pay your debt to Goldy, bet-welsher.
Oh before I forget:
Exclusive.
Was the Jew killer a conservative or liberal. In the Seattle Times we have the following quote:
Haq’s friend said he couldn’t believe the timid, “geeky” man he knew from the tutoring center was capable of such violence.
“Are you sure we’re talking about the same person?” he said Sunday………….
He said Haq was not a devout Muslim and often complained that the Tri-Cities were too politically conservative.
“I’m beginning to think I was his only friend in the Tri-Cities. I don’t recall him hanging out with anybody else.”
Now for the other side we turn to Darryl’s story on HA July 30, 2006:
Psssssssssstttttttt…….
Ah it looks like the story was all a bunch of hot air. Well there you have it. Enjoy you Nazi libs.
Haq was a mentally-ill baptized Christian – like DOOFUS!!!
This is a test:
<a href=”URL goes here”>Link text</a>
Hah! It worked!!! Eat your hearts out wingnut liars…
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
ProudtoBe copied a rather well-written, thoughtful article that does speak from the other side of the political spectrum, but makes some good points. Of course, he had to follow up with a racist, homophobic, obnoxious link that makes a point that could easily be debated (until President Bush, the terrorists had been pretty well frustrated here, mostly by the limited number of people that hated us so much that they were willing to die just to kill a bunch of us. President Bush seems to have helped them solve that little problem.)
But I digress. The article makes some interesting points, but the basic premise of the article has an inherent falsehood, which is that we on the left do not consider mental effort to be as valuable a form of “labor” as physical labor.
Today, the labor movement (that would be unions) includes many professions that are primarily thoughtful, highly educated and highly trained.
While the unions still contain farm workers doing stoop labor, the also include teachers (much to the displeasure of the right), medical personnel, writers, reporters, airline pilots, workers in nuclear power facilities and many others. Even research workers are unionized.
Liberals consider their labor to be every bit as important and honorable as any physical labor. The point is that labor (of whatever variety) is honorable and should be honored. Additionally, we are not honoring only those people currently in labor unions. While originally promoted by unions, Labor Day honors all those that produce goods and services with their own effort.
I am not a union member, nor have I ever been. That does not mean that I do not understand the contributions that organized labor has brought. Safer working conditions, shorter work shifts, modern child labor laws, wages that can support a family, etc…
While many of their detractors seem to be motivated by a desire to go back to those “good old days” where workers were a disposable commodity, some abuses have certainly occurred. There are situations where a reasonable person could feel that the balance has shifted too far in favor of the workers. (This is an area where we could have an interesting debate, if we could find someone more interested in reasoned discussion than in simply following the talking points.)
But today is a day to honor all those people that produce value in our society by their personal efforts. That is what we call “labor”.
Happy Labor Day.
Barelli – But you on the left have such hate and contempt for the people who are do the inventive work and are so richly rewarded. As Hamber’s article points out, “…even a man who has nothing to trade but physical labor gains a huge advantage by leveraging the fruits of minds more creative than his.”…/i>
The person with the inventive mind is worth more than the person who merely offers physical labor because the fruits of the inventor’s work is used by so many people. Since the inventor helps the lives of so many people, isn’t it fair that he get at least some small share of the cumulative benefit of that invention? Of course it is… and that’s where moonbat/marxist economic theory totally collapses.
Aptly named fucking clueless @ 16. Go
here and practice. Dumass….
For examples, see above thread.
—————
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a psychological personality variable or “ideological attitude”.
It is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:
1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. “It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader.”
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. “It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules.”
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. “Traditional ways are best.”
High scorers on the RWA scale (High RWAs) tend to have a rigid, often fundamentally religious, view of morality tending toward homophobic, racist and patriarchal beliefs. High RWA scorers tend to support authority figures, such as the government, taking action to censor certain social groups — often those they view as physically or morally threatening. It is not an ideological measure, but a social psychological one. High RWAs in the Soviet Union were supporters of the Communist Party, because it represented the established authority. (The Authoritarian Specter)
The RWA construct was developed by Robert Altemeyer, drawing on Adorno’s post-WWII research on the concept of an authoritarian personality — based on Freudian theory — which contained conservative, pro-fascist, prejudiced and ethnocentric beliefs. Taking an empirical approach based on statistical analysis and disregarding the theoretical construct, Altemeyer found that just three facets of this authoritarian personality were statistically significant and cross-correlated: conventionalism, authoritarian aggression and authoritarian submission. Conventionalism is the tendency to accept and obey social conventions and the rules of authority figures. Authoritarian aggression is characterised by an aggressive attitude towards individuals or groups disliked by authorities, and authoritarian submission is submission to authorities and authority figures. (The Authoritarian Specter)
Altemeyer developed the RWA scale to measure this cluster of beliefs, asking subjects to rate their agreement (or disagreement) with statements such as “Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the ‘rotten apples’ who are ruining everything.” This example contains all three facets of RWA:
“honor the ways of our forefathers” — conventionalism/traditional values
“do what the authorities tell us to do” — authoritarian submission
“get rid of the ‘rotten apples’ who are ruining everything” — authoritarian aggression
That Altemeyer’s approach is a rather idiosyncratic one, however, may perhaps be gleaned from the fact that Altemeyer also did a study of Left Wing Authoritarians (LWA) and could find no Left Wing Authoritarians in Canada! Canadians who have suffered pernicious effects of Canada’s ban on private medicine would be surprised, though it is minutely possible that other mechanisms are at work. Certainly research should never be allowed to contradict anecdote.
[edit]
Significant Correlations
Altemeyer discovered a wide range of correlations over the years, which can be organized into four general categories. (The Authoritarian Specter)
1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:
Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’
Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.
2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:
Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
Be hostile toward homosexuals.
Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.
3: Profound Character Flaws — RWAs are more likely to:
Be dogmatic.
Be zealots.
Be hypocrites.
Be bullies when they have power over others.
Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:
Believe they have no personal failings.
Avoid learning about their personal failings.
Be highly self-righteous.
Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
RWA is also correlated with political conservatism — not so much at the level of ordinary voters, but with increasing strength as one moves from voters to activists to office holders, and then from lower to higher-level officeholders. (The Authoritarian Specter)
In one part of his summation, Altemeyer wrote that RWAs are more likely to: “Be conservative/Reform party (Canada) or Republican Party (United States) lawmakers who (1) have a conservative economic philosophy; (2) believe in social dominance; (3) are ethnocentric; (4) are highly nationalistic; (5) oppose abortion; (6) support capital punishment; (7) oppose gun-control legislation; (8) say they value freedom but actually want to undermine the Bill of Rights; (9) do not value equality very highly and oppose measures to increase it; (10) are not likely to rise in the Democratic party, but do so among Republicans.” (The Authoritarian Specter)
Altemeyer’s own statement about this may be worth noting (From p. 239 of “Enemies of Freedom”): “right-wing authoritarians show little preference in general for any political party” and their prevalence in the Republican party reflects the long term effects of point (10) above.
Early Development of RWA
Duckitt has suggested a model of attitude development for RWA in which punitive socialisation causes social conformity. This leads to a view of the world as a dangerous, dog-eat-dog place. This fits with RWA beliefs, which influence ingroup and outgroup attitudes.
[edit]
Connection with Social Dominance Orientation
RWA has been found to correlate moderately with Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Together they are strong predictors of a variety of prejudiced beliefs such as sexism, racism and anti-homosexual attitudes. The two measures can be thought of as two sides of the same coin: RWA provides submissive followers, and SDO provides power-seeking leaders. (“The other ‘authoritarian personality.’”)
The congruence between the SDO and RWA scale is however hardly surprising. Both scales are primarily catalogues of old-fashioned conservative attitudes that very few conservatives today would assent to, though many continue to display (e.g. George Felix Allen, David Duke, Tramm Hudson, Trent Lott’s Council of Conservative Citizens, support for racial profiling, etc.).
A catalogue of what Leftists believed in the 1930s (eugenics etc.) would sound equally peculiar today, however during the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) President Lyndon Baines Johnson purged the high-RWA components from the Democratic Party creating the RWA disparity still discernable today.
Ken, as you may know, John Dean participated in the FDL Book Salon yesterday. He came back today and answered even more questions. The man’s a machine. Here’s the link to today’s thread, which includes a link to yesterday’s thread (in Jane’s intro):
http://www.firedoglake.com/200.....continued/
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
MTR stated: “But you on the left have such hate and contempt for the people who are do the inventive work and are so richly rewarded.”
Funny, I can’t remember many posts here stating a hatred for those who do inventive work. I certainly don’t hate anyone for being clever, smart or inventive.
I may dislike what someone does with that ingenuity. Getting rich by coming up with a new way to cheat at elections, getting rich by manipulating energy sources to create artificial shortages, getting rich by preventing alternative energy sources from being marketed, these things are inventive, but I still disapprove.
Perhaps my definition of “inventive work” is different from yours. I (and almost all liberals) have no problem with the inventor of a useful device getting wealthy through the fruits of his/her effort. I’m really happy that Steve Jobs managed to get rich. (He also tends to be a bit of a liberal.)
I do have a problem with the CEO of a multinational coming in, tieing up that inventor in court with dubious patent lawsuits until he runs out of capital, buying the invention for a pittance and then getting even richer by outsourcing the manufacturing of that device overseas.
Yes, there are a few pure Marxists left in the world, but very few of them. Pure Marxism just simply does not work, and liberals know this as well as conservatives do. Trying to paint everyone to the left of Vice President Cheney as a “Marxist” is a deliberate, willful lie.
Just because economic theories can go too far in one direction (Karl Marx) does not mean that they cannot go too far in the other direction (Adam Smith). Lassez-faire capitalism was the predominant economic system here in this country until the Great Depression. It had its share of problems.
Today, most economists and most politicians try to steer a course somewhere between the two extremes. We tend to debate where, in that large, middle channel, we should steer, and there are those on each side of the debate that insist that anyone who disagrees with them must be on the extreme other side of the debate.
It almost makes me wish we had a good descriptive name for those that would take us back to pure, lassez-faire capitalism. Somehow “Smithian” just doesn’t cut it.
C. S. Lewis wrote a wonderful bit about this in “Mere Christianity”: “The devil . . . always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse.”
No, the vast majority of liberals have no problem with someone that gets rich by invention or ingenuity. We do have a problem with those that get rich through manipulation of the marketplace, through trickery and through injustice.
Immigration protests that drew hundreds of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators to the nation’s streets last spring promised a potent political legacy–a surge of new Hispanic voters. “Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote,” they proclaimed. But an Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major urban areas that had large rallies found no sign of a new voter boom that could sway elections. [……..The illegals will vote Democrat in NOV, and ANY questions about this will be considered “Racist” and “hateful”. 20% of Democrat votes are illegal.]
No, the vast majority of liberals have no problem with someone that gets rich by invention or ingenuity.
Commentby John Barelli [……..Then you tax them unless they are poor so you can buy votes and “redistribute” other’s wealth. . The average American family pays 30-40% of their income in taxes. Think about that.]
Across the eastern United States, a gruesome ritual is in full swing. The praying mantis and its relative, the Chinese mantis, are in their courtship season. A male mantis approaches a female, flapping his wings and swaying his abdomen. Leaping on her back, he begins to mate. And quite often, she tears off his head. The female mantis devours the head of the still-mating male and then moves on to the rest of his body… …………………………Mrs. Grossman, can you relate to this? Can you “finish off” Carl?
Recruit, be quiet. Grown ups are speaking.
Goldy, you rock! Tell everyone that The Tahoma Activist will be hosting an Open Thread on elections and voting systems (including IRV) every Tuesday from noon to midnight from now until November!
28, Drink you coffee, and count the days until you can retire with a monthly check that just might pay your rent.
I see that my friend JCH is at it again in posts 25 and 26:
I would like to see proof of the 20% figure he spouts as though it is gospel. I rather suspect that this has been pulled out of his considerable ass.
His second post is a rambling, incoherent missive about being taxed into poverty. Huh? Perhaps our friend has had a few too many Blue Hawaii’s.
Barelli – Bullshit… the very foundation of librul doctrine is to penalize success. Look at the words your side uses “…tax cuts for the rich”. The whole notion of progressive taxation is designed to punish The Producers.
You’ve been duped the librul media. The fact that you say “We do have a problem with those that get rich through manipulation of the marketplace, through trickery and through injustice….” proves illustrates how easily you are manipulated. Cases like Enron and Global Crossing are the exceptions… the reality is that the overwheliming majority of business executives are smart people who work their asses off.
And what the hell are you talking about with “preventing alternative energy sources from being marketed… and manipulating energy sources”. Are you talking about the water burning engine that comes up every time gas prices go up? Name even one invention that was suppressed? BTW, do you know about thermodynamics? Be careful…
@10 Day 214 – where’s the $100 you owe Goldy, welsher?
Bet-Welsher – F*CK YOU!
Let’s see you put open and close angle brackets in these comment threads!
Pay Goldy the C note you owe him for losing – DUMMMASS!
Let’s recap: Mark the Redneck bet Goldy (in writing, on this board) $100.00 that I-912 (the gas tax repeal initiative) would win by 15 points. Instead, it lost by nearly 10 points. Redneck was off by 25 points! AND HE STILL HASN’T PAID THE $100.00 BET HE LOST TO GOLDY!! That shows you what Redneck’s word is worth — nothinnnnnng!!!
2
How about a holiday called Inheritance Day or Trust Fund Day? There’s no surer way of achieving financial success in America than having rich parents! Inheriting a shitload of money beats working for it any day!!! Especially if you can inherit it TAX FREE!!! Hey — I know — we could call it Blethen Tax Relief Day!!!
Looks like we can add the troops in Afghanistan to the list of people who hate America:
http://cocula.com/files/images/bagramimplm0.jpg
2
“it is those at the top, the best and the brightest, who increase the value of the labor of those at the bottom”
You mean these folks? http://tinyurl.com/mxpqz or this guy? http://tinyurl.com/ezjgo or how about this business tycoon? http://tinyurl.com/ltmd6
Yup, there’s nothing like HARD WORK to keep you poor, and kill you at an early age! Winning, stealing, or inheriting money is a lot more fun than working for it — and pays a hell of a lot better, too!
4
Well over your head, too.
5
union busting
I wonder how popular laissez-faire, free-booting capitalism will be, when 100 million employees find out the boss stole their pension money.
14
Yeah, I’m not gonna vote for it! I don’t see why Nickels needs a $1.8 billion tax for a $500 million road and bridge maintenance backlog.
15
“Was the Jew killer a conservative or liberal.”
He was a fundie wingnut.
18
Manual labor will come back in vogue after the oil runs out.
20
Invent? Who invents? Not you. Redneck, you don’t even invent your bullshit. You just copy and paste it.
Redneck’s ass is still raw from my shoving his tax revenue bullshit up it.
22
That’s way too much work! Just shoot ’em and be done with it. Hey –just kidding! hahaha If Coulter can kid around about stuff like that, why can’t I?
26
“The average American family pays 30-40% of their income in taxes. Think about that.” Commentby Doctor JCH Kennedy— 9/4/06@ 6:48 pm
We’re well aware that GOP wars and corruption are expensive. Please don’t remind us.
31
He isn’t being taxed into poverty nearly fast enough.
37
Well, there goes their ammo and food resupply …
Literally thousands of American soldiers are voting on Bush’s war policies — with their feet! They, um, resign, you see. As long as they don’t publicly criticize the war or chief chimp the Pentagon quietly discharges them. But when they call a press conference and call the Iraq fiasco “immoral” or “illegal” or a “quagmire,” the gummint throws the book at them. Bottom line: desertion is a misdemeanor, but criticizing the boss is a hanging offense.
PUBLICK NOTICE – Roger Rabbit is going on vacation tomorrow for two weeks.
Bet-Welsher:
Sorry:
<b>F*CK YOU! DUMMMASS!!</b>
How about a holiday called Inheritance Day or Trust Fund Day? There’s no surer way of achieving financial success in America than having rich parents! Inheriting a shitload of money beats working for it any day!!! Especially if you can inherit it TAX FREE!!! Hey – I know – we could call it Blethen Tax Relief Day!!!
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/4/06@ 7:27 pm
Or we can let the government tax income twice and call it blood sucking leech day.
Unions are the last outpost of communism. They are antithetical to the values of America. Fortunately, the free market usually overcomes such movements, which is observed by the decline in numbers of union members. Now they only get members by forcing people to join, or risk losing their jobs.
The unions have ruined the American car industry, and handed it over to the foreign makers. The foreign companies make great cars in this country with non-union labor.
Now the left is out to unionize Walmart. Why? No one is forced to work there, and no one is forced to shop there. If you aren’t paid enough, go somewhere else.
My child worked as a grocery store bagger this summer, and was forced to join the union in order to work there. The job paid minimum wage and was part time. Good for a teenager’s first job. But the union? They extorted her earnings with dues that are not adjusted for the fact that she is minimum wage and part time. They want their blood money, even from a youngster. She was smart enough that she will never work there again. So much for protecting the little guy.
Unions are corrupt and pile money on politicians to such an extent that the dems don’t dare cross them. The dems have sold their souls.
Hey DOOFUS:
Here’s a <a href=”http://www.doofuswingnutloonyland.org”>nice link for you</a>
“I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” – Will Rogers.
Commentby Mark The Redneck KENNEDY— 9/4/06@ 7:09 pm
“Cases like Enron and Global Crossing are the exceptions… “
Agreed, thank God. But those exceptions are so huge, and hurt so many people. And while most companies at least try to act in an ethical and legal manner, Enron and Global Crossing are not the only major companies with issues.
“the overwheliming majority of business executives are smart people who work their asses off.”
No serious disagreement here either, although I have a difficult time believing that they are so much more diligent than they were sixteen years ago that CEO compensation has risen 315% since 1990, while corporate profits have only risen 144% and worker pay has gone up 48%. These figures have not been adjusted for inflation (41%).
(Sources: CEO Compensation: Business Week annual executive pay surveys. Corporate Profits: Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Disposition of Personal Income Data. Average Worker Pay: Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Average Weekly Earnings of Production Workers, Total Private Sector.”)
I’m not sure where that “water burning engine” thing comes in, as my comment about the prevention of alternative energy sources being marketed said nothing about that, nor about perpetual motion machines, energy from crystals, or any of the other crackpot inventions that we’ve all read about on the covers of various tabloids while waiting for our groceries to be rung up.
After many years of trying, we are just now beginning to see biodiesel becoming available, even though that technology has been around for decades.
While I didn’t mention anything about inventions being suppressed, I will note that General Motors took an electric car with huge, unfilled demand off the market. Rather than let people buy the used EV-1s that had been taken back off lease, GM chose to destroy those vehicles, even though there were written offers to buy each and every one of them. People that were able to lease them when they were available still tend to wax poetic about their EV-1s.
“The rich” are not, in many (most?) cases those folks that came up with that “better mousetrap” that we all hear about. The exceptions to that (folks like Steve Jobs, and even Bill Gates) are celebrated. Oddly enough, I seem to recall some of those “self-made” millionaires publicly stating that the Bush tax cuts were not a good idea. Warren Buffett had this to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ge=printer
“The rich” does include Mr. McGavick, who managed to get paid millions of dollars above and beyond what was promised him in his employment contract, not to mention the bonuses he received after misleading Safeco employees. (It may be good business to keep your employees in the dark about upcoming layoffs, but it’s still unethical to directly lie to them about it.)
When we complain about “tax cuts for the rich”, we are complaining that the majority of tax relief goes to those that need it least. Considering that the government is currently spending far more than it brings in, this is an even more pressing problem. Please also remember that it is a “conservative” Administration and Congress that have been overseeing this outrageous deficit.
By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers. (Source – Citizens for Tax Fairness)
Oh, and Mike. I enjoy a good debate. There are often two or more sides to every issue, and discussion is a wonderful way for people to begin to understand the other sides priorities. Perhaps you might find that we know what our intentions are just a bit more than the folks writing the Republican talking points do.
But somehow, starting your argument with “Bullshit” and then showing that you had not even really read the post, but just looked it over quickly for quickie “gotcha” points (that had little to do with the post) does not really help to convince anyone. You might be impressed with how clever you are, but nobody else is.
As to my being “duped”, well, with Warren Buffett on my side, I’d say I’m in pretty good company.
For everyone here, once again, a very happy Labor Day. I’ve spent way too much time here today, and am now going to spend the rest of the evening with my family. G’night, all!
What’s (Not) the Matter With the Middle Class?
Why a Democratic message of misery is wrong for middle-income voters
For more than a decade, the Democratic Party — the self-proclaimed party of the middle class — has consistently lost the middle class at election time.
In 2004, voters with family incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 went for Bush by 6 percentage points, while Congressional Democrats lost this group by 4 points. Among white middle-class voters (one-third of the electorate), Bush won by 22 points and Congressional Republicans by 19 points.
What’s the matter with the middle class? Democrats like to pin their defeats on national security and culture issues alone, but the progressive economic message is also to blame. What progressives generally say about the economy is unrelentingly pessimistic — stagnant wages, rising costs, overwhelming burdens of debt. It’s a message that doesn’t resonate with the middle class — not only because it’s overly negative (by itself political poison), but because it’s simply flat out wrong.
Don’t believe me? Believe the numbers:
$63,300. That’s the 2004 median household income of people in their prime working years, ages 25-59 (it’s $70,000 for married households and nearly $80,000 for two-earner households).
$248,700. That’s the median net worth of pre-retirement Americans, ages 55-64.
Zero. That’s the median credit card debt for all American households.
Drowning in debt? Squeezed to the gills? Living paycheck to paycheck? I don’t think so.
These numbers all add up to this one: $23,700, the household income at which a white voter was more likely to vote Republican than Democratic in the 2004 congressional races.
No question, the middle class faces challenges, such as rising costs for health care and college tuition and the declining real earnings for non-college-educated men. There’s also no question that the wealthy have received the lion’s share of economic growth over the past 25 years. Nevertheless, absolute living standards for the middle class have only improved, even if relative increases in income don’t match the gains at the top.
Let me take on the three most repeated overstatements about the middle-class “squeeze:” first, that middle-class incomes and standard of living are slipping backward; second, that middle-class families are “drowning in debt;” and third, that employers are abandoning their obligations to provide health and retirement benefits to their workers.
The myth of the stagnating middle class:
It’s true that the middle class is shrinking — but that’s because more families are better off. The share of prime-age adults in households with real incomes above $100,000 rose by 13.1 percentage points from 1979 to 2004. The share of households making less than $75,000 dropped by 14 percent. Fully 41 percent of prime-age American adults are in households with incomes above $75,000.
(nice little illustrative graph goes here: Shrinking Middle Class; Growing Affluence!)
Among married-couple households the picture is even brighter. In 2004, the median income for these households was $70,000, and $78,000 for couples with two earners.
I focus on prime-age households (age 25-59), which are 68 percent of the population, because including the very young and the very old distorts the picture of what’s really happening with the middle class. Many young workers get paid very little, but few will keep their low salaries as they move up in their careers. Older Americans distort the wage and income picture because they’re no longer working. Their incomes may shrink, but their standard of living may not diminish. Indeed, Americans age 55-64 have greater net wealth than any other group.
Two final points: even assuming household incomes have risen, isn’t it just because wives are working longer and harder? And aren’t higher prices eroding the middle-class standard of living? No and no.
Wives certainly contribute more to household incomes — their earnings now make up 30 percent of total earnings for middle-income families. But incomes for everyone except the very poor would have risen even absent longer hours on the job by wives. Holding wives’ working hours to their 1979 levels, incomes for married couples have still increased by 4 percent for the 30th income percentile; 9 percent for the 50th; and 22 percent for the 70th.
On the question of living standards, the cost of some items, such as housing and health care, have risen much faster than inflation. But other equally important items have not. For example, in 1960, the average family spent 24 percent of its income on food. Today, that percentage is 13 percent, and half of that is on meals eaten out. Finally, despite rising housing prices, homeownership is at record highs even for young adults.
Drowning in debt — or investment?
Another major source of angst is the rise in consumer debt, which is at historically high levels. But in focusing exclusively on debt, progressives ignore the other side of the ledger — assets. Consider:
A majority of Americans have no credit card debt. And of the 46 percent of Americans who do, the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances says the median balance is $2,100. Moreover, Pew surveys from 2004 through 2006 found that only 9 percent of Americans said that they “owed a lot more [in credit card and installment debt] than they could afford.”
Middle class assets are up. Real median net worth for all households rose from $69,000 in 1989 to $93,000 in 2004 — an increase of 35 percent.
Most household debt is mortgage debt. Mortgage debt as a share of total debt has increased from 71 percent in 1989 to 79 percent in 2004. For the vast majority of people, their major source of wealth is equity in their home.
Bankruptcies are rare. Only 1.5 percent of households declare bankruptcy in any given year.
The number of people who can’t manage their debts is somewhat higher. Since 1989, the percentage of people more than 60 days late on a debt payment has risen from 7.3 percent to 8.9 percent, and the share of people whose debt payments take up more than 40 percent of their income is up by 2 percentage points. But no evidence suggests that large numbers of middle-class families are maxing out their credit cards to pay the rent or buy groceries.
The overstated pension and insurance crisis:
The third major worry is the purported decline in employer-provided benefits. One oft-cited analysis says the percentage of workers with employer-provided health insurance dropped from a peak of 71 percent in 1981 to 56 percent in 2003. But that analysis counts workers who are on their spouse’s health insurance as uninsured. The Census shows that coverage varied between 72 percent and 76 percent of the workforce from 1987 through 2004. And in 2005, 98 percent of large employers (200+ workers) offered health insurance to their workers. In the last four years, the percentage of workers with employer-sponsored insurance fell from 74.4 percent to 70.7 percent, but it’s too early to know if this is part of a trend or a blip caused by the Bush recession.
Sharply rising insurance costs have meant that both employers and employees are paying more. However, the share of premiums paid by employers has remained constant for the past 20 years.
Finally, the percentage of companies offering retirement benefits has scarcely budged since 1987. The big shift has been from defined benefit to defined contribution, but again, this is a mixed picture. While some workers could see lower benefits, other workers, such as women and younger workers, could get a better deal. Traditional pensions are ideal for workers who stick with one company for a very long time. Women tend to cycle in and out of the workforce and younger workers tend to switch jobs with some frequency. For them, a portable 401(k) is a better long-run bet.
—
The middle-class story of the last 60 years is largely one of success. The wealthy have done better than everyone else, and the bottom 25 percent (75 million people) often face tough times. But repeatedly highlighting the troubles of this bottom group is not likely to resonate with the rest of the population. And the Democratic Party can only continue to advance its proud tradition of expanding economic opportunity for everyone in society if it does better among middle-class voters.
Rather than documenting how the middle class is falling behind (it isn’t), progressives might do better finding ways to help more middle-class families succeed. In its recent report, Politics of Opportunity, the group Third Way counsels progressives to adopt a message and policy agenda that looks to middle-class aspirations and seeks to create middle-class opportunity. One way to do this, for example, is to look at the characteristics of the top income quintile and use public policy to replicate that success.
Two things set the top quintile apart: people in the top quintile are much more likely to have finished college, and they are much more likely to be in married, two-earner families. We can move more people up the ladder by doing two things: one, by helping more students graduate from college, and two, by supporting two-earner families in balancing work and family. This means such things as broad-based tuition tax relief, paid family leave, and more tax breaks for child care costs.
Solutions such as these can help progressives go a long way toward winning back the middle class.
54
Yeah I agree, Doofus, the gummit is a bloodsucking leech. Trouble is, somebody’s gotta pay for Bush’s wars, spending, and corruption. The question is — who?
Now let’s consider two potential taxpayers.
Citizen A wakes up at 5:30 am, showers, throws down a cuppa joe, arrives at work at 6:30 am, and works ’til 3:30 pm (with a 1-hour lunch break) — 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year — he gets a $3,300 personal exemption and $5,150 standard deduction.
Citizen B wakes up whenever he feels like it, because he doesn’t do shit, and has never done shit, since the day he was born. In fact, being born is the only thing he’s ever done in his life besides eat, sleep, shit, and fuck! But being born — to the right parents, that is — was enough. He gets a $2.5 million exemption, and bitches because it isn’t more.
Now, here’s the Roger Rabbit quiz: Whose taxes should be raised to pay for Bush’s wars, spending, and corruption?
C
(oops, sorry. Mark, not Mike. It would be really nice to have a “preview” function here.)
ASS thinks inherited money isn’t “income.” Maybe he has a point — maybe we should call it “manna from heaven” or “free money” or “windfall.” It has something in common with drug money and bank robbery loot — it isn’t taxed … and you sure as hell didn’t WORK for it.
Hey Janet S:
Here’s a <a href=”http://www.janetslies.org”>nice link for you.</a>
Whatsamatter ASS, wage-earners not paying enough taxes yet to make ya happy?
I have an idea! How about if wage earners get the same tax exemption as trust fund babies?
Notice how Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy the incentive to work. First, pay low wages — like $2.15 an hour. Then, tax the shit out of wages to relieve the tax burden on people who own stocks, win lotteries, or inherit a trainload of money. Finally, treat wage earners as social inferiors. This simple, three-step Republican program virtually assures that nobody will be motivated to work. Why should they? Work doesn’t pay. Sitting on your ass clipping interest coupons pays!! Pretty soon nobody will work, and we will become a nation of real estate flippers selling the same houses to each other over and over.
Here’s a little humor that hilariously and scarily fits the thinking of our unique crowd of unhinged wingnuts here at HA.org.
Did anyone catch this. Clinton wanted to expand “legal” wiretapping to help fight terror, and was blocked by REPUBLICANS. Reading this article could send a chill down any Red Blooded American’s spine.
Why shold Republicans fight terror, when they can play politics with every issue, and make Americans less safe every day.
Better read this.
Be sitting down.
http://americablog.blogspot.co.....h-for.html
Anyone that thinks Republicans would be better at fighting terror should be locked in a rubber room. For life!
Roger, you are really a bitter old man. I picture you sitting in a trailer with the TV blaring in the background. Your resentment has clouded your reasoning.
If restaurants decided to pay waitresses $2.15 an hour, and the waitress stayed being a waitress, then she is the fool. The restuarants won’t do that, because they need to compete for labor.
Last time I looked we didn’t have indentured servitude in this country. Too bad your lifetime employment in the government led you to believe we do.
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
83.88% of ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are paid by the TOP 25% of income earners.
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
Last time I looked we didn’t have indentured servitude in this country. Too bad your lifetime employment in the government led you to believe we do.
Commentby Janet S [Well put. Roger was a “guvment” Democrat hack. He HATES capitalism and the free market. He advocates “central control”. [Socialism]
what the hell is an Islamofascist other than another scare tactic buzzword from the Bush administration
68 – Janet you’re a sad sack. I picture you sitting at the computer all day hanging on endless e-mails with endless lists of talking points and instructions on where to paste them.
Why shouldn’t the service industry lower wages for tipped workers by 5 dollars an hour if the industry paid their lobbyists a fortune to get the stupid law in the first place?
Real smart for the R’s to cave to service industry lobbyists right before they ask tipped workers in the seven affected states for their vote. Real smart. Don’t be surprised if stupid stunts like this are what “tip” some voters over to the D’s in November.
We have to give Roger Rabbit credit for smart vacation planning. There are benefits to being retired — simply wait until the day AFTER Labor Day to avoid the crowds, and get cheaper airline tickets and hotel rooms. And of course, get back by September 19 in order to be sure and vote in the primary.
Because, clueless, no one would work for them. Even you can’t be that stupid.
BTW, the tribes (a major source of dem money) is suing to keep federal labor laws out of their casinos. The unions (a major source of dem money) want to organize the tribes workers. Who to back? Which source of money gets sacrficed? It is enough to make the left’s heads explode.
“what the hell is an Islamofascist other than another scare tactic buzzword from the Bush administration?”
Commentby rwb […….Why not ask the families of those who died in 9/11? Or the servicemen overseas? They might be able to educate a dumb ass liberal “progressive” parasite Democrat like you.]
“The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes”……….Roger, should they pay more??? hehe, JCH
“The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%” [Roger, How much is enough?]
“83.88% of ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are paid by the TOP 25% of income earners.” Bottom line: Democrats who pay little or nothing in income taxes believe others should pay more. Gee, what a fucking surprise!!!!
Yeah I agree, Doofus, the gummit is a bloodsucking leech. Trouble is, somebody’s gotta pay for Bush’s wars, spending, and corruption. The question is – who?
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/4/06@ 8:09 pm
Stop right there. The republicans already pay most of the taxes and 80% of the active military is republican. The question is not who but how much. I am sure if we eliminated a couple needless social programs we can reduce the deficit to zero. The problem is there are too many dems in congress. Typical liberal, complaining about not enough bread to those who butter it.
Janet you ignorant slut. (Just want to get that out of the way)
I have heard this BS about your daughter before.
Oh she had to pay union dues, poor thing. Let’s see what it would have been like if there were no unions.
She would have been 8 years old instead of 16 when she started. She would be working 12 hours a day 6 days a week. She wouldn’t be eligible for anything that resembled overtime, sick pay, Holiday pay, Medical benefits, A retirement plan, Maternity leave (related to you, I am sure she’s easy). Plus she would probably be working on machines that she would get injured on.
You seem to think that all corporations would never be like they were before Unions.
Well You have been getting you wish with these fucking Robber barrons trying to get back to those ” Good ole days”. Send her ass to Wal-Mart,( You’re the one who says those are great jobs) so she can learn how to live off state funded insurance that I pay for instead of the company, While they lock her into the store at night.
Keep her Slutty Ass from getting pregnant and me having to pick up the Tab for another Trailer Trash redneck child ( who should have had an abortion) being born. Or are you worried there are just too many brown skinned people working there, and your Lilly white tramp Daughter just might go for some Dark meat)
You have always been a stupid cunt. Please get those tubes tied, I still believe in Darwinism. But it’s effects of eliminating stupid people like just aren’t quick enough for me.
#69 “The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
83.88% of ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are paid by the TOP 25% of income earners.”
Looks good. Let’s see…. What percentage of their net worth does the top 1% pay in income taxes, compared to a middle class worker? Taxes overall?
A person making minimum wage pays a higher percentage of their net worth in taxes than a billionare. Who do you thing deserves the breaks?
We should be taxing wealth, and not work.
The more you have, the easier it is to make money. This ease of compounding capitol should be taxed, not just the “income” after all the 500,000 pages of loopholes are adjusted….
Tax net worth, not wages.
Flat tax would be fine….
82
I agree with the flat tax. Tax comsumption not net worth. That way everyone pays a little. Dont tax food staples and tax everything else at a two teir rate. That sounds fair.
Oh and of course tax all capital gains when liquidated.
“what the hell is an Islamofascist other than another scare tactic buzzword from the Bush administration?”
Commentby rwb […….Why not ask the families of those who died in 9/11? Or the servicemen overseas? They might be able to educate a dumb ass liberal “progressive” parasite Democrat like you.]
—-
I don’t know exactly what they are…. but one thing is for sure. Under Bush there are more, and more, and more of them…..
Just think. If we took 10% of the money we spent in Iraq rebuilding Afghanistan, the Taliban would be working, not shooting at our allies…. We could have turned Afghanistan into a paradise, and instead screwed em once again…… They are used to being screwed. No wonder the Taliban is getting stronger. Broken Bush promises, and lies always helps our enemies.
Wow, danw, feel better? Thanks for proving that the left is a bunch of angry hatemongers.
Costco is non-union. It seems to be able to attract good workers, and it actually pays more than minimum wage. Why? Because they are so kind hearted? No, because they want the best workers.
Same with the tech business. No calls for unionizing because their wages and benefits are already high. Why? Because they want the best workers.
Unions are corrupt. I love it when they call for their members to go on strike, and go without pay, while the leaders sit in their comfortable offices at full (much higher than union) pay. The airline unions would rather see their companies go into bankruptcy than to preserve their jobs. Great.
Unions might have had a place 100 years ago. Now they are just a plague on business. But they are a huge source of money for the dems, as well as free labor for campaigning. How ironic.
Of course if you had a flat tax where everyone paid something the only place you would find a democrat would be a museum.
Your envy is palpable libs… get off your ASSes and go produce something of worth… give up your worthless wienie college majors of “womens studies”, “political science” and my favorite wienie major “communications” and EARN your way to the top.
You like to tout “trust fund” babies but who are they exactly?
Teddy the drunk and his familial spawn: INHERITED MILLIONS
J D Rockefeller: INHERITED MILLIONS
Nutroots Ned Lamont: INHERITED MILLIONS
Fifi LaKerry MARRIED INHERITED MILLIONS…TWICE
You never seem to want to wag your penis envy against the LIBERAL hypocrite millionaires, but let a conservative EARN his/her millions and you whine like stuck little pigs. You seem to have no concept of how wealth is generated; you despise and resent those that not only EARN their wealth, but protect and keep it. You seem to think that because you whine about your need the rest of us need to bow to it.
You pigs at the trough are wrong. You are entitled to NOTHING. If you choose to continue to sit and whine instead of produce, you get exactly what you deserve.
No Janet we are not Hate mongers, We are just tired of stupid self absorbed people who can’t see past they’re own back door.
We all live on this planet, and you and your ilk act like I better get all mine before some else gets theirs. The basic Grasshopper vs the Ant. You republicans are a fucking bunch of LOCUSTS. I belive that’s what the Movie Independence Day showed us. You would love to suck out all the resources and leave.
PS don’t let your daughter go to work for Costco, the are owned by progressives and support democrats. Please really, send her to Wal-Mart.
fuck you jch. Doesn’t fascism need a State/country to be fascist? So which Islamic state are the Islamofacists controlling?
I thought the whole problem with fighting Islamic terrorists was that they aren’t a country ( a fascist country?) they aren’t a government, they are a movement, a group held together by religion and hatred. They are not fascists in the Hitler/Mussoline sense of the word.
Islamofascist is just a word the Authoritarian Conservatives are using to connect America’s worst enemies of the past to the “enemies” of today.
If you look up the definition of Fascism, you’ll see that it has more in common with the current administration and the direction in which it’s taking this country than with the Islamic terrorists.
so once again JCH: Fuck you
Unions are about as useful to workers as leeches and ether masks are to medicine.
They were the greatest in their day, but society has advanced far beyond them now.
By the way, it’s September, public school starts for most tomorrow, which union thug public school will be the designated strikers this year?
Because, clueless, no one would work for them. Even you can’t be that stupid.
They’re working for them now! In the 43 states where it’s legal to pay $2.13 an hour to tipped workers.
Yes, Janet, you are that stupid!!
Union membership has declined from 33 percent of all U.S. workers in 1960 to 12.5 percent today. And among non-governmental employees, the rate is less than 8 percent. But while membership rolls may be dwindling, union officials control billions of dollars in dues money — providing a case study in the maxim that power tends to corrupt.
Spain on Monday demanded that African countries do more to stem a rising tide of illegal migrants after close to 2,000 more people landed in the Canary Islands this past weekend. At least 12 boats reached the islands in the span of 36 hours, Spanish Civil Guard officials said. […………………………………………Those Spanish…….”RACISTS!” they need to take another 10 million black muslims to show they are “Diverse”!!!! hehe, JCH]
93, True, but “guvment” unions are locked in and sucking taxpayers like parasites.
NEWS FLASH libs… the union thug bosses don’t give a fat rats ass about YOU… they care about all those “dues” they force you pay. They are worse than the old mafia protection racket because at least they were up front about their extortion.
“Please take care of me Mr Unionthug Bossman, I’m so small, so insignificant, so nothing I can’t manage myself. Please Mr Unionthug Bossman, I’ll pay you MY MONEY to take care of me…”
P A T H E T I C
If you wingnuts are tired of individuals shouldering so much of the burden of the federal government then why don’t you get on the case of the corporations. They benefit from defense and the courts and other goverment services just as much if not more.
After WWII they shouldered over 40 percent of the the burden. Now it’s around 10 percent.
90. Kill all the muuuuuuuuslims, and let God worry about the dead civilians. Nuke Mecca, and the ragheads will quit fucking with Americans. Oh, fuck you, too, Democrat whining pussy!!!
88.
The difference Ass about those Democrats that you always list about either having money or having a skeleton of some sort, is that they don’t try to write new laws to protect their wealth and don’t bitch about the taxes they have to pay. They understand that the redistribution of wealth (including their own) is important to keep this place from turning into Mexico. Where there is no such thing as a middle class.
You black and white thinking bozo’s, disgust me, espescialy Janet the Slut. I normally just watch your bullshit, but I just quit smoking and I am feeling a bit testy.
Unfair Labor Practices
When most people think of violations of labor law, they think first of “Big Business.” But employees, employers, and labor organizations file thousands of charges each year—called “Unfair Labor Practices”—alleging violations of labor law by union officials.
The National Labor Relations Board’s annual report for fiscal year 2005 included the number of Unfair Labor Practices alleged against employers and unions. Once again, union officials faced a disproportionately high number of allegations of wrongdoing, when compared to employers. The worst part: The vast majority of allegations said that members were the ones hurt by the union officials that are supposed to protect them.
The NLRB reported in 2005 that:
Unions faced a total of 6,381 allegations
82% of charges against unions alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees (by comparison, the leading allegation against employers — at 53% — was for refusal to bargain)
594 charges were for illegal union discrimination against employees
The NLRB reported in 2004 that:
Unions faced a total of 6,917 allegations of wrongdoing
80% of those charges were filed by individuals
Unions filed more than 100 charges against other unions
81% of charges alleged illegal restraint and coercion of employees
More than 600 charges alleged illegal discrimination against employees, an increase of about 6 percent from 2003.
A History Of Violations
Virtually every U.S. labor union faces allegations of violating labor law. Consider the number of charges filed against these unions between 1998 and 2004:
United Food and Commercial Workers 2,161
Teamsters 6,909
Service Employees International Union 3,910
Steelworkers 1,912
Source: data supplied by the Bureau of National Affairs
****
What absolutely amazes me about the union thugs is the dishonesty in their protesting. For example, they regularly protest and picket in front of WINCO, an employee owned totally non-union grocery. But the picketers are not disgruntled union grocery workers protesting not being hired, THEY ARE PAID PICKETERS HIRED BY THE UNION.
That’s dishonest and the entire point of their picket is simply to disrupt Winco’s business…. too bad and thankfully they failed miserably with the courageous Winco.
rwb, whatever………Nothing that B-52 ArcLight strikes can’t solve. BTW, the terrorists love it that you are soooooo fucking scared of fighting back.
But the picketers are not disgruntled union grocery workers protesting not being hired, THEY ARE PAID PICKETERS HIRED BY THE UNION.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS [And the picketers are paid minimum wage with NO benefits!!! Classically Democrat funny!!!!]
The difference Ass about those Democrats that you always list about either having money or having a skeleton of some sort, is that they don’t try to write new laws to protect their wealth and don’t bitch about the taxes they have to pay. They understand that the redistribution of wealth (including their own) is important to keep this place from turning into Mexico.
Commentby danw [10% of “Mexico” [Mexicans] are in the USA illegally already with another 25 million on their way!!!! California : A Hillary Democrat “Baja Norte”
DR JCH
Why do you hate the Muslims? they are Just like you righty christian Wackos. They worry and kill over other peoples morality, they want the end of days, and they abuse women and don’t believe in science or progress. They’re stuck in the 12th century, and your stuck at the Salem witch trials.
Can’t you all just get along.
PS Janet needs to end her family line, send your daughter to Walmart.
ASS – let that hate out!!! Don’t keep it in ASS!!!
Nothing is more laughable than an old fashioned ASS hate seizure.
The difference Ass about those Democrats that you always list about either having money or having a skeleton of some sort, is that they don’t try to write new laws to protect their wealth and don’t bitch about the taxes they have to pay. They understand that the redistribution of wealth (including their own) is important to keep this place from turning into Mexico. -Commentby danw— 9/4/06@ 10:21 pm
OH REALLY?
Senator Kennedy’s concern for the “average citizen” – typified by his “tax the rich” voting record – is contradicted by the Kennedy clan’s extraordinary efforts to protect their fortune from the exorbitant federal taxes he supports. The Kennedy family’s wealth, investment decisions, and lifelong efforts to shelter their inheritances from the Internal Revenue Service are not as well known as their public pronouncements on behalf of the “downtrodden” and the average person. The Kennedy clan has never paid the confiscatory federal tax rates often advocated by Senator Kennedy and his liberal allies. Indeed, Senator Kennedy’s empathy for the “average citizen” is a faux pose intended for maximum public effect while he and his family’s private investment decisions are about maximizing personal wealth and protecting that wealth.
Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (New York: Doubleday, 2005 — ISBN: 0-385-51349-6), devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 4: Ted Kennedy: Environmental Rapist, Tax Cheat, and Oil Profiteer) to the shenanigans of the Kennedy clan, with specific attention paid to the Senatorial windbag of the sanctimonious American Left. Since there are so many examples from which to select, it is difficult to choose the most galling case of Kennedy-like arrogance. However, among the more egregious is the Kennedy clan’s successful evasion of inheritance taxes, an evasion that contradicts the Senator’s political posturing and rhetoric.
The Senior Senator from Massachusetts belongs to a family clan blessed with a net worth of nearly $500 million. Back in 1935, Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr., purchased Merchandise Mart, a Chicago real estate company, and according to Schweizer
“…in 1947, he divided its ownership among family members and put it in the form of a trust. … [it] was not set up in their home state of Massachusetts, New York, Florida, or even California. This trust wasn’t even domiciled in the United States. Instead the Kennedy trust was set up in …Fiji.” (Schweizer, pp. 80-81)
Now why establish a trust on an island best known for headhunters? The Fiji-based trust allowed the Kennedy’s to avoid “…the possibility of scrutiny by the IRS and federal authorities,” according to Schweizer. Worse, the sanctimonious Kennedy clan that demands the rich pay their fair share has “an intricate web of trusts and private foundations” that helps the family avoid the IRS. (Schweizer, p. 81) For example, the family paid only $134,330.90 in estate taxes despite a family fortune thought to be between $300 and $500 million at the time of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.’s death in 1969. (Schweizer, p. 81) That was a tax bill of .04 percent, and Schweizer informs us that the figure is based on the lower end of the estimated family fortune.
According to Peter Schweizer,
“…the current (2005) inheritance tax rate is 49 percent on any money passed to your children after the first $2 million … a farmer or small businessman worth $2.26 million who didn’t have the benefit of Kennedy tax shelters and foreign-based trusts would pay the same amount in estate taxes as the Kennedys did on their entire half-billion-dollar fortune.” (Schweizer, p. 81)
Amazing hypocrisy abounds. Imagine, a farmer or small businessman, with a net worth of $2 million, paying the same amount of taxes as a family clan worth a half-billion-dollars. This is not the stuff of liberal “economic fairness.” It most certainly is not the kind of outcome Senator Kennedy would boast about to his so-called “progressive” liberal supporters. The Kennedy clan maintains most of their fortune “in trusts today which are structured to keep the family from paying higher taxes… [Senator] Kennedy receives nice checks every year from trusts set up in 1926, 1936, 1978, 1987, and 1997. (Schweizer, p. 82)
However, Senator Kennedy and his family have adopted other means besides trusts to avoid paying higher taxes. In one particularly sordid case in 1980, Senator Kennedy benefited from a political connection to Cook County, Chicago’s Democratic tax assessor, Thomas Tully. Mr. Tully had assessed the Kennedy-owned Merchandise Mart’s property value at $22.8 million when in fact its true value was $35 million. The discrepancy meant the Kennedys saved an estimated $8 million over a two year period. It also meant that Cook County’s public schools were short-changed a few million dollars in property-tax revenues. (Schweizer, p. 82-83) Given Senator Kennedy’s long-standing support for public education, one would expect this example of hypocrisy to have a sobering impact on his supporters.
Ironically, it is the conservative ethos of protecting accumulated familial wealth that the liberal Kennedy clan adopted decades ago. Senator Kennedy and his family espouse economic justice; promote tax and spend policies and entitlement liberalism, but practice the time-honored and perfectly legitimate game of defending both self-interest and lineal-inheritance. The only part of this fact that we must vigorously criticize is Senator Kennedy’s hypocritical posture as champion of the little guy juxtaposed next to the reality of his and his family’s tax-evading trusts and other tax shelter schemes. His conduct here truly is a case of “do as I say, not as I do” liberal hypocrisy.
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a psychological personality variable or “ideological attitude”.
It is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:
1. Authoritarian submission —— a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. “It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader.””
2. Authoritarian aggression —— a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. ““It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules.”
3. Conventionalism —— a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. “Traditional ways are best.”
Commentby Ken In Seattle—— 9/4/06@ 6:21 pm
==================================================================
Left Wing Liberalism (LWL) is a psychological personality variable or “ideological attitude”.
It is defined as the convergence of four attitudinal clusters in an individual:
1. Politically Correct submission —— a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be Politically Correct and legitimate in the society in which one lives. “It is good to have a Politically Correct leader.”
2. Authoritarian aggression —— a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, especially white males, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established Politically Correct authorities. “It is acceptable to be cruel to those who are not Politically Correct.”
3. Conventionalism —— a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be Politically Correct, even if they are self-destructive.
4. Self-hatred——a high degree of self-destructiveness which is projected upon one’s country, leading to the advocacy of an ideology designed to weaken or disrupt society and/or aid and abet enemy causes and countries.
Note from the Author: Whereas readers of The Prospect found the top public intellectual in Chomsky, I found a poster child for modern-day capitalism and, because of his anti-capitalist views, a complete hypocrite.
One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest one percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor — like eighty percent of the population — pay off the rich.”
But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution — just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one email. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are “trying to help suffering people.”
Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite the anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist he has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd puts it, writing critically in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those “open to being ‘commodified’ — that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be.”
Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.
Can’t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches-for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about “Property Rights”; it will cost you seventy-nine cents. You can also by a CD with clips from previous speeches for $12.99.
But books are Chomsky’s mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales.
As publicist Dana O’Hare of Pluto Press explains: “All we have to do is put Chomsky’s name on a book and it sells out immediately!”
Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book, because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: “If you look at the things I write — articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever — they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I’m kind of a parasite. I mean, I’m living off the activism of others. I’m happy to do it.”
Chomsky’s marketing efforts shortly after September 11 give new meaning to the term “war profiteer.” In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from $9,000 to $12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand. He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via email that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press. His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, they had sold the foreign rights in nineteen different languages. The book made the bestseller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone.
Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. “When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most,” Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn’t have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, “have to do with protectionism.”
Protectionism is a bad thing — especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky’s own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish. It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?) And when it comes to his articles, you’d better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky website and the warning is clear: “Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission.” However, the website does give you the opportunity to “sublicense” the material if you are interested.
Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.
Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children’s lower rate. He also extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.
In October 2002, radicals gathered in Philadelphia for a benefit entitled “Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy.” Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left, for a fee of $15 you could attend the speech and hear the great man ruminate on the evils of capitalism. For another $35, you could attend a post-talk reception and he would speak directly with you.
During the speech, Chomsky told the assembled crowd, “A democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media.” After the speech, Deborah Bolling, a writer for the lefty Philadelphia City Paper, tried to get an interview with Chomsky. She was turned away. To talk to Chomsky, she was told, this “free, independent, and inquiring” reporter needed to pay $35 to get into the private reception.
Corporate America is one of Chomsky’s demons. It’s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the “unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.” He has called corporations “private tyrannies” and declared that they are “just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.” Capitalism, in his words, is a “grotesque catastrophe.”
But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.
Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund, or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio he reverted to a “what else can I do” defense: “Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in “green” or “socially responsible” enterprises. They just don’t yield the maximum available return.
DO YOU LIBERAL MORONS EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THE HERO’S YOU WORSHIP ARE JUST MOCKING YOU? YOU SALIVATE AT THEIR FEET AND THEY LAUGH AT YOU ALL THEY WAY TO **THEIR** PROTECTED, SHELTERED BANKS.
But I’m kind of a parasite. I mean, I’m living off the activism of others. I’m happy to do it.” -Chomsky, hero to the moron left.
Corporate America is one of Chomsky’s demons. It’s hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the “unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations.” He has called corporations “private tyrannies” and declared that they are “just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism.” Capitalism, in his words, is a “grotesque catastrophe.”
But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.
Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund, or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.
The LIBERAL “ class-warfare approach to the economy seems to assume that by hurting the rich, they will somehow help the non-rich. This is the classic fallacy of the so-called populist approach of liberal Democrats in recent years. It is completely at odds with President John F. Kennedy’s vision of rewarding everyone in society with lower tax rates, which are designed to produce a larger economic pie. “
“ A winning tax program is never about those who are already rich. They can shelter and hide their money from the IRS ten different ways. But a truly growth-oriented approach to tax policy provides fresh rewards for those attempting to climb the ladder of success. However, barricading the doorway to opportunity is no way to make the non-rich rich. “
“ Countries all over the world have been reducing high marginal tax rates in order to spur more work and investment. JFK understood this forty years ago. “
“ The oddest paradigm of all comes from Sen. Edwards. He talks about creating a “movement” that will somehow bring down rich America in order to boost “ordinary” America. This class-warfare speak is circa. 1920, and it makes no sense in a United States where 55 percent of families — over 90 million people — own stock. These are the folks who supply savings to new business ventures that create new jobs. “
Wives certainly contribute more to household incomes – their earnings now make up 30 percent of total earnings for middle-income families. But incomes for everyone except the very poor would have risen even absent longer hours on the job by wives. Holding wives’ working hours to their 1979 levels, incomes for married couples have still increased by 4 percent for the 30th income percentile; 9 percent for the 50th; and 22 percent for the 70th.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS— 9/4/06@ 8:08 pm
============================================================
I suspect that you underestimate the impact of two-earner families. I’ll bet one-income households have lost ground over the past several decades.
There’s goes ASS in a cut and paste frenzy!!!
Fascistfirst and ASS – match made in wingnut hell!!!
Keep it up ASS!! LMAOAY!!!!
106
Blah, Blah, Blah. I said they “don’t WRITE” the legislation that punishes the middle class. You boneheads think that they shouldn’t be able to play in the same fixedgame that the GOP Base plays, just because they have money and are democrats is as ludicrous as that we are not just as big as capitalists as your are. The difference is we respect the Commons. And you are just a fat stupid fuck who would rape anything you could to make a buck.
Speaking of Rape, Janet your daughter got that Wal-mart Job yet? Getting locked in at night could give you a definete quandry when her manager gives her a raise, better hope they supply Plan B. (sorry she is only 16, guess she’ll have to have that Illegal immigrants baby)
Was the Jew killer a conservative or liberal.”
He was a fundie wingnut.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/4/06@ 7:43 pm
==========================================
Rodent is a moonbat who posts as “The Socialist.”
Spain on Monday demanded that African countries do more to stem a rising tide of illegal migrants after close to 2,000 more people landed in the Canary Islands this past weekend. At least 12 boats reached the islands in the span of 36 hours, Spanish Civil Guard officials said. […………………………………………Those Spanish…….”RACISTS!” they need to take another 10 million black muslims to show they are “Diverse”!!!! hehe, JCH]
Commentby Doctor JCH Kennedy— 9/4/06@ 10:17 pm
=======================================================
Spain went lib in the last election. They will be swamped with illegals.
Palpable envy.
WE, the producers, got a 19.05% raise in June… how much did you get?
WE, the producers, are getting another 7% “cost of living” increase this month… are you?
68
Janet Whore is a shameless apologist for CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES. Let’s recap: The GOP minimum wage bill would let employers count tips toward the minimum wage, effectively reducing tipped employees’ earnings. How can anyone with a conscience support that — picking on the lowest paid workers in the economy?
I must be getting to the CHEAP LABOR wingfucks, because they’re coming back with a full-court press. Sorry, liars, but all those think tanks, academics, economists, and reporters know what they’re talking about: Average Americans are worse off as the rich line their pockets at our expense — thanks to cruel GOP economic policies that discriminate against wage earners and coddle the wealthy.
“Workers lose traction over past 10 years
“Despite strong productivity growth, wages don’t keep pace and fewer workers receive health and pension coverage.
“By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
“September 2 2006: 8:56 AM EDT
“NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Working for The Man may never have been an overpaid joy, but it has offered a decent way to make a living. Yet it’s become less decent, especially considering how strong productivity growth has been, according to findings from the 2006 edition of The State of Working America from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal nonprofit research group.
” … Since 1979, productivity rose 67 percent, while wages rose only 8.9 percent. ‘The economic expansion continues to bypass most working families,’ said EPI economist Jared Bernstein, a coauthor of the report. …
“Since 2001 … the median wage for both genders with college educations remained essentially flat. And among young college graduates … entry-level wages have fallen since 2000 — 79 cents per hour for men and 33 cents per hour for women. …
“When it comes to benefits, pension and health coverage has fallen in the past five years. The percentage of full-time private-sector workers whose employer sponsors a retirement plan fell from 66.3 percent in 2000 to 59.7 percent in 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Among part-time private-sector workers, the percentage covered fell from 45.3 percent to 39.9 percent during the same period.
“In terms of health insurance, coverage for all private-sector workers fell from 58.9 percent in 2000 to 55.9 percent in 2004, according to EPI’s report. In 1979, by contrast, 69 percent of workers had health coverage from their employers … workers … are shelling out more since premium costs have risen … by 73 percent since 2000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
http://tinyurl.com/z4xhk
Roger Rabbit comment: Janet Whore would rather call me names than deal with the reality of declining worker income.
119,There you are, Rodent. You do seem to know something about economics, for a moonbat. Why do you swallow the shit Cantwell(D-Mexico) feeds you on NAFTA and CAFTA?
“Wealth gap widens
“Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.
“By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
“August 29 2006: 1:29 PM EDT
“NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Over the past 40 years, those at the top … have seen their wealth grow at a rate far outpacing everyone else, according to a new analysis released by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group.
“In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.
“The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.
“‘In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach,’ the report’s authors write.
“The EPI analysis also found that stock ownership is not widely spread across wealth groups. In 2004, 48.6 percent of households owned some stock, including equity mutual funds in 401(k) accounts. But only 35 percent of stock-owning households had more than $5,000 in stock. The average value of stock holdings was just $7,500 among the middle 20 percent of households and just $1,400 for the bottom 40 percent. By contrast, the wealthiest 1 percent of households owned an average of $3.3 million.
“Non-stock assets – the biggest of which is housing – rose for all wealth groups since 2001 thanks to a strong housing boom. But … home equity was most concentrated in higher net worth households. The top 20 percent held 65.4 percent of total housing equity.
“The one area where middle and lower net worth households trumped the wealthiest was debt. Debt … for the top 1 percent only rose 10.6 percent compared to a 19.5 percent increase among the middle 20 percent of households and a 28.2 percent jump for the next 20 percent. …
“Moreover, the EPI analysis counts 401(k) assets in net worth calculations but not the value of defined benefit pensions, since workers don’t legally own them as assets. Given the decline in pension benefits in the past 15 years, if pensions were included there may have been a widening of the wealth gap, said New York University economist Edward N. Wolff, who analyzed data for the EPI report.
“Is the wealth gap a problem?
“That a wealth gap exists isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If there were no gap at all there would be no incentive to work, said Cornell University economist Robert Frank. And that there is growth in the wealth gap isn’t necessarily a concern if wage growth at the middle and bottom is high enough to match productivity gains because workers feel they are getting back what they put into the economy.
“That occurred in the late 1990s – but not during the past several years, according EPI economist Jared Bernstein. That puts more of a squeeze on middle- and lower-income workers, who will have a harder time accumulating assets. Factors such as technology are likely to keep the gap wide going forward, says Frank, coauthor of the book ‘Winner Take All Society.’ In today’s mass markets, even small innovations can reward the talented few much more greatly than the majority. …
“One of the ways to narrow the gap a bit, Bernstein and Frank suggest, is to raise tax rates on upper-income tax payers. That, they argue, would raise more tax revenue and help to stem budget cuts to programs that benefit middle and low income groups as well as public services. …
“Edward Lorenzen, policy director at the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog that advocates deficit reduction, said that in the short term faster growth at the top can boost tax revenues since more income is created for taxpayers subject to the highest tax rates.
“But long-term if more people in the middle and low-income groups have insufficient income and savings to keep pace with costs and emergencies that can bring more pressure to bear on programs like Social Security and Medicaid, which can make deficit reduction that much more painful in the future.”
http://tinyurl.com/hs7u9
If Republican CHEAP LABOR policies benefited average Americans, then why do Republicans work so hard to distract people from economic issues by exploiting and promoting divisive “wedge” issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, and flag burning?
How many protesters have actually burned a flag in the U.S. in the last 10 years? Three? One? None?
121,“One of the ways to narrow the gap a bit, Bernstein and Frank suggest, is to raise tax rates on upper-income tax payers. That, they argue, would raise more tax revenue and help to stem budget cuts to programs that benefit middle and low income groups as well as public services.” Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/4/06@ 11:57 pm
======================================================
This is bullshit. Better to lower tax rates on the middle class.
123
“This is bullshit. Better to lower tax rates on the middle class.” Commentby americafirst— 9/5/06@ 12:12 am
And you will replace the revenue how? You will cut which spending? Bush is spending like a drunken sailor; he has turned surpluses into gargantuan deficits; and you want to cut taxes even more?
When Reagan went too far in cutting taxes, he and his successor were forced to raise taxes 5 times. They proved “supply side” doesn’t work and is, indeed, “voodoo economics.”
ROGER RABBIT ON VACATION
Time for me to head for the truck stop to hitch a ride to Vegas! http://tinyurl.com/q368g I sure as hell don’t plan to HOP all the way there! Roger Rabbit is going to personally check out the salad bars in the Vegas casinos for two weeks. I’ll get back to you with a report! Meanwhile, I hope all you unpatriotic America-hating trollfuck fascists choke! You probably will because you have somebody’s dick in your mouth all the time. Hey trollfuck traitors — I’ll see ya when I see ya — unless they hang you first.
McGavick’s just lucky he didn’t blow that red light drunk in a school zone at 3 PM.
howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS @ 69
I guess when you have most of the money, you pay most of the taxes. This may amaze you, and I’m sorry I have to be the one to break it to you, but you can’t collect a fuck of a lot of taxes from poor people. That’s going to be true under any system. However, I don’t feel a need to make life easier for the people for whom lfe is already extrememly easy, and I won’t agree to plunge into deeper national debt just to spare Bill Gates’ and Paris Hilton’s sensitive feelings. We need to restrain spending AND raise revenue to get out of the economic hole that the Republicans have (AGAIN!) put us in, and the big money is in our useless unwinnable war in Iraq and in the pockets of the people whose income is skyrocketing while median income and real wages drop for that bulk of the people.
I highly recommend voting Democratic. Vote FOR common sense, and AGAINST ideology.
125
Really, I’m going do Las Vegas to check out the drag queen shows, off the strip. It’s my secret desire to actually join their ranks some day.
“We need to restrain spending”…………..
I highly recommend voting Democratic [“Democrat”].
Commentby Daddy Love [……..Now that’s rich!!! Democrats, the Party of cutting spending!! hehe, JCH]
The liberal news service “Al Reuters” sides with the Islamo-Fascists………again.
They cannot find it within themselves to focus any blame on the radical elements inside the Muslim religion or the abject surrender by moderate muslims to their radical counterparts.
IT’S ALL AMERICA’S FAULT!
Political Islam takes center stage since 9-11 By Andrew Hammond
58 minutes ago
RIYADH (Reuters) – In the five years since the September 11 attacks, U.S. intervention abroad has fed the extremism it seeks to destroy and cemented the rise of political Islam as the ideology of choice for millions in the Middle East, experts say.
Today, political Islam — a diverse movement with moderate as well as hard-line elements — has been widely embraced in the Arab world, where many feel alienated by corrupt rule and foreign policies seen as serving the interests of the United States and its ally Israel.
“Since September 11, I have worked on massive public opinion polls in the Muslim and Arab world. You can see the animosity between September 11 and now. It’s growing and it is worrying,” said Jihad Fakhreddine, a Lebanese analyst based in Dubai.
“The line between religiosity and extremism has become thinner. In the time of colonialism, the antagonism was not perceived in terms of the West and Islam. Independence movements in the Arab world were driven by nationalist feelings.”
Radicals hitching themselves to the al Qaeda banner are now fighting U.S.-allied governments in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and have staged attacks in Morocco, Egypt, Yemen and Jordan.
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a moderate Islamist group which espouses non-violence, made a strong showing in elections last year, while Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, born in 1988 during the first Intifada against Israeli occupation, won polls in January.
Islamist discourse dominates in the pan-Arab media, where both nationalists and Islamists revere Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader seen as the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, as “Sheikh Osama.”
Nationalist politicians, who on the face of it have no reason to support Islamist movements, cheer their ability to challenge the West on popular channels like Al Jazeera.
WAR ON ISLAM?
The U.S. response to 9-11, when 19 Arabs struck a deadly blow to the heart of the world’s only superpower, has driven more people toward Islamist politics, analysts say.
“American actions against political Islam after September 11 have ironically contributed to its further rise and emergence, even in its most fanatical, extremist forms,” said Lebanese-born academic As’ad AbuKhalil, who teaches in California.
The United States has invaded Iraq and backed Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, presenting both policies as part of a plan to spread democracy in a dysfunctional Arab world.
Public opinion in the region has traditionally seen a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the key to solving the region’s problems of democracy and religious extremism.
“Moderate Muslims are having a difficult time. They are not at peace with the radicals, but they cannot somehow make their point heard convincingly in the West,” said Jawad al-Anani, a former Jordanian government minister of Palestinian origin.
President George W. Bush’s recent comment that the United States is battling “Islamic fascists” has crystallized a widespread sense that the “war on terror” is a war on Islam, Anani said.
“The Islamists have some … valid arguments. They say ‘we are fighting your enemies, who don’t do anything to solve your problems, who take Israel’s side blindly, who don’t show any sympathy for Muslims being killed in Palestine or Iraq’.”
ARAB NATIONALISM REDUX?
Political Islam began its ascent long before 9-11.
Analysts say its roots largely lie in the failure of secular Arab nationalism to challenge Western hegemony and return land to dispossessed Palestinians.
Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven from their homes when Israel was created in 1948. Israel won control of the remaining 22 percent of historical Palestine in 1967, though its native Palestinians remained in place.
(Notice how Al Reuters never mentions that the land Israel occupies is really their birthright?)
“The rise of political Islam in the Middle East, to which the United States and Western governments contributed, only became noticed after September 11 with those attacks,” AbuKhalil said.
“The underlying causes for the rise of Islamist movements are non-religious in nature. It’s about foreign policy and the stand against corruption and tyranny,” he said.
Fred Halliday, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, also pointed to nationalism and the discrediting of past ideologies that have failed in the domestic and foreign arena.
“9-11 was a very important event, but I don’t actually think in terms of Islamism in the Middle East it is the main event,” he said.
“Political Islam uses a lot of nationalist ideas and themes. Bin Laden says countries are occupied by foreigners and have the right to fight. With him, Hamas or Hizbollah, 80 percent of the rhetoric is secular nationalism reconfigured,” Halliday said, adding that Shi’ite Hizbollah also borrows from communism.
Islamist movements today offer empowerment in the face of U.S.-allied governments who argue that fighting the America-imposed order is futile and that Palestinians should make do with what they can get through talks alone.
Islamists, with their slogan “Islam is the solution,” say it doesn’t have to be that way.
Saudi cleric Saleh bin Humaid captured the zeitgeist during Friday prayers in Mecca this month.
“We are now, with God’s will, witnessing a new dawn that implants self-confidence in the (Muslim) nation … so that it relies on its unity, its people and wise policies rather than on international organizations and resolutions,” he said.
WASHINGTON- Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies announced Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50 percent. *SNIP* The Journal said Chevron and Devon officials estimate that recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico’s lower-tertiary formations hold up to 15 billion barrels of oil and gas… [NO DRILLING for oil or gas in the Gulf, but…………………..if the Chicomms and Cubans drill and take the oil and gas, that’s OK because they are communist and “progressive”!!!! Oh……….Gasoline is expensive because of BUSH!!!! hehe, JCH]
DR JCH
Why do you hate the Muslims?
Commentby danw [ER, danw……….BECAUSE THEY ARE KILLING AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Roger Rodent:
What’s the matter Rog? Jealous you can’t buy drinks at the bar with your food stamps?
“Sit down, everyone! The muslims promised us they will land the plane safely. We need to trust them!” [Carl Grossman]
ROGER RABBIT ON VACATION
Time for me to head for the truck stop to hitch a ride to Vegas! http://tinyurl.com/q368g I sure as hell don’t plan to HOP all the way there! Roger Rabbit is going to personally check out the salad bars in the Vegas casinos for two weeks.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 9/5/06@ 12:32 am
2 weeks in Vegas… how tacky is THAT (and unimaginative) for a vacation?