Concerned Canadian -
Is that the same PLO supporter that McCain gave Millions of dollars to? Yes, it is: Rashid Khalid. McCain must be senile if he can't remember as far back as 1998.
Concerned Canadian -
Is that the same PLO supporter that McCain gave Millions of dollars to? Yes, it is: Rashid Khalid. McCain must be senile if he can't remember as far back as 1998.
Get you story straight ....
IRI Statement Regarding Work with Palestinians
For Immediate Release
October 29, 2008
Washington, DC ??? ???Questions have arisen regarding the International Republican Institute???s (IRI) work with Palestinians in the 1990s.
???In the 1990s, IRI gave grants to the Center for Palestinian Research and Studies (CPRS) for polling in the West Bank/Gaza. The polls measured support for the peace process, for various Palestinian political groups, and for efforts to enhance governance in the West Bank/Gaza. At that time no other organization could credibly conduct polling in the West Bank/Gaza.
???We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some (unclear) amount of time a board member. IRI did not in the 1990s conduct background checks of grantees??? founders or board members. IRI did on a number of occasions vet CPRS as an organization, including, as was our custom, with the Israeli government, and we were given no cause for concern.
???We do not recall any contact between Mr. Khalidi and IRI, and there is no evidence that Mr. Khalidi benefitted in any way from IRI's grants.
???Other organizations that reportedly gave funding to CPRS include the National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce???s Center for International Private Enterprise, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, the Japanese Embassy, and Germany???s Friedrich Naumann Stiftung.
???IRI???s relationship with CPRS ended in 2000, and we understand that it no longer exists.???
Mr. Gross, you're such an IDIOT!!! Bill Clinton was anti-foreign trade? Gee, didn't he sign NAFTA? And you're suggestion that retailers don't need to worry about Unions because the economy is down is completely backwards. Retailers need to worry about Unions BECAUSE the economy is down. Unions mean well, but have completely driven many companies under, because they are short-sighted and don't see the big picture. You are right about one thing, when it comes to the economy the President really doesn't have that much influence. But you are WRONG to think that businesses don't need to worry about re-emerging unions, and the "Free Choice Act," which could allow pro-union employees to bully their not-so-pro-union co-workers into signing up. Oh, and sorry, but Obama does fit the "tax and spend" Democratic image when he talks about raising corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc.
Wow, that a major publication can feature an article this fundimentally wrong shows how deep the brain washing of the last 30-years goes. Supply side economics is a failure. All societies needs to grow from the base through HONEST WAGES. Which by the way most certainly can and should be promoted by our government. These overly large corporations have been sucking the life from this country economically and politically. The anti-trust laws have not been enforced in 28-years and the greedy monster corporations now have complete control. FIGHT BACK - UNIONIZE AND SUPPORT STRONG CORP OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION.
Wow, that a major publication can feature an article this fundimentally wrong shows how deep the brain washing of the last 30-years goes. Supply side economics is a failure. All societies needs to grow from the base through HONEST WAGES. Which by the way most certainly can and should be promoted by our government. These overly large corporations have been sucking the life from this country economically and politically. The anti-trust laws have not been enforced in 28-years and the greedy monster corporations now have complete control. FIGHT BACK - UNIONIZE AND SUPPORT STRONG CORP OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION.
You talk about companies trying to persuade employees to vote republican (your terminology), but unions don't hide anything, they FORCE members to contribute to the democratic party and vote democratic. Doesn't that worry anybody? How is that freedom of choice?
The Gramm-Leach-Bailey Financial Services Modernization Act was signed into law November 12, 1999 and that deregulated the financial industry. NAFTA was signed into law in December of 1993. Both of these while Bill Clinton was president. So I am trying to figure out how the Clinton administration was "pro-regulation and anti-free trade"? I guess the author Daniel Gross doesn't like to let facts get in the way of his writing.
Go back a bit in your history, doflib...to the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (Garn-St. Germain). Who was president then? Oh, yes! St Ronald of Reagan, Conservative to the Stars. The Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress at the time as well. And that's what started everything that's happened since then. It ought to be hard to blame Clinton when the Republicans controlled both houses in 1999.
To McJeff -
"Eat the rich. They are a pestilence" - Really? Bet it would be different if you were rich. Maybe you should get off your a** and work a little harder. Because somebody works hard and gets rich you think that is a substantial reason to hate them - grow up. People like Bill Gates and the Waltons deserve the money they make - they worked hard and built that. You should try it. Grow up.
Whether you are for or against unions, the EFCA's biggest flaw is the lack of private voting. Can you not see how difficult it may become for someone to vote their true feelings in a union hall with strong supporters against this person if the vote is public? I have been in union halls where strong-willed union bosses called for votes of acclamation instead of ballot and the crowd was so frenzied there was no way anyone would oppose them. It's just not a good bill.
The posts here are very articulate and cogent. Kudos.
Let me be a bit more blunt:
F*ck the US Chamber of Commerce
F*ck WalMart, Lowe's, Home Depot
F*ck all these large coporations
Shopping locally more than ever. Local hardware store. Local farmers market
Eat the rich. They are a pestilence.
Let me be blunt:
F*ck the US Chamber of Commerce
F*ck WalMart, Lowe's, Home Depot
F*ck all these large coporations
Shopping locally more than ever. Local hardware store. Local farmers market
Eat the rich. They are a pestilence.
Why is is hardly ever mentioned that when the economy started to recover before Clinton became president? The fact that a Republicans controlled the house and senate and therefore provided a balance to Clinton helped the economy as well. How about the fact that many economists believe that cutting capital gains and encouraging investment in American businesses will be almost impossible with Obama and a Democrat controlled congress. How about the fact, not mentioned here, that a costly war along with a Republican president (with Democrats & Republicans approval) over the past 8 years who spent money like a Democrat created this mess? Why not admit that any article posted by Newsweek on MSNBC will almost always be pro-Democrat and anti-Republican?
I ca not believe how these so call CEO are conducting business. The feds should do a auit of there books fast don't give them time to get there house in order . You will find a lot of errors out here that AIG have been doing something under handed if you don't know how your money spent. My mom alway told me bring me the receipt from the store. Well did AIG have any kind of receipts for the money that they spent already or paper trail. See you could not come back to me after going though 123 billion with showing some paper work and I would not take no for a answer.
AmericanPatriot92
They don't get it because the entire trickle-down philosophy tells them that THEY are the creators of wealth. They are wrong of course, they are just utilizing the most valuable economic resource on the planet - the US consumer market ( god bless your gluttonous souls).
Its a bit like a dairy farm really. Farmer John (i.e. Corporate America) has a herd of cows that he milks and make him rich. Farmer John gets a bit greedy and stops fertilizing his land or cuts back on feed, he can make more money in the short term. However, after a few years and maybe a drought or disease outbreak, he finds that the cows just don't produce as much milk as they used to and the milk-fat content is also down. He doesn't know what to do because he has pre-sold the next 15 years production on the assumption that milk output would never drop. At this point he wonders if he should give the cows some more food, but then on the barn shelf he sees his bag of melamine...
It's simple. The economy has been shrinking ever since Bush came into office despite bogus numbers based on models with as much validity as a Moody's securities rating. Those at the top however, made out like bandits. They know the economy will continue to shrink, and Republicans protect them at the expense of everything else, the domestic economy, the world economy, national security, the lower and middle class, and our children's future. It has nothing to do with economics, or our economy. It has to do with the ability of those at the top to take as much $$ as possible out of the economy and Republicans are their enablers..
Yep, no tax cuts for those low paid slackers like your Police officers, your soldiers, teachers, doctors, nurses, scientists etc etc.
Of course nobody everybody earning $249,999 will stop working. If they make it to $300,000 then they will only net an extra 27,000 instead of 28,500. That extra $1500 could have created 100's of jobs
This has always been VERY puzzling to me. It's potential sales and demand in the market palce that drive organic growth and profits - NOT TAX CUTS
So if the income inequality grows, and more and more people can not afford to buy consumer goods, that spells disaster economically for businesses.
Why is Corporate America SO myopic and so stupid to buy into the myths that Democrats are bad for the economy, when in reality the opposite is true.
The reality is that the stock market has done well under Democratic governments, and so has the defense industry. Improved international relations under Obama will also mean improved trade and business relations.
The Democrats are better for the economy and better for business. For the last 50 years, the stock market has done better under the Dems, family income at all levels including the very top has grown faster under the Dems, there has been less unemployment with Dem administrations . Check it out. Try to figure... mas,smarba@gmail.com
If consumerism drives our economy (and by some estimates it comprises 2/3 of the US GDP) than it would stand to reason that building a stronger consumer class would have long term benefit on a strong and stable economic environment. Try to put aside the almost hysterical toxicity of the statement "spreading the wealth" just long enough to consider the concept that, the more resources the lower and middle classes possess the better consumers they become ...an undeniable plus to an economy driven by consumerism. The difficulty most people seem to have with redistribution of wealth is the vehicle that is used to achieve it, namely, the Goverment. It would be nice to think that Big Business would trade long term stabilty for short term gain and actually pay their workforce better wages to enhance the prospects of our domestic consumer economy. But if the mass exportation jobs and shameless executive compensation packages of recent years are any indication of the focus of current crop of business titans, than they will definitely need some external encouragement to do the right thing. This encouragement can come in the form of Tax incentives for doing the right thing, ie provide health benefits, create new jobs and keeping executive salaries more in line with non-executive salaries. The reality is, spreading the wealth is synonymous with broadening the buying power of our society so they can better support a healthy economy. If Business doesn't voluntarily own up to their role in this process, than government must, at a minimum, provide some incentive to achieve this goal.
Any why exactly should the wealth earned by someone be given to someone else who has not worked to earn it so that person can consume? As a matter of fundamental fairness, why should something that is earned by one be taken and given to another who has not worked to earn it? I am all for expanding the wealth of everyone, but how about by making people work for it, rather than by giving it to them. Incentives to create jobs and disincentives to doing nothing are the best ways to expand the consumer base. Anyone who thinks the economy can prosper just by taking from one and giving to another is deluding themselves.
Do CEOs really work that much harder than everyone else? Did M, Eisner work as hard as his maid in one minute than she did in her entire career? Their compensation would seem to imply this. The bathroom was always clean of filth (scrubbing the toilet. ect) as he lost millions for Disney company shareholders? What exactly are you saying?
I think you have failed to discuss what is the one of major reasons why the 3 biggest car makers in the US are failing. I am not saying it is all about the Union workers. But this concept of perceived birth right benefit / entitlement mentality of union members is what is going to drive this country down the drain.
Wake up!!!! try to run a business yourself, even just for a year! any business, especially one that involves multiple employess, then let us see if you'll still think the same. Ignorance to both sides of the equation can make you write things that are so biased. Hence, you lose credibilty!!!!
And where do we go for the discussion of Rick Wagoner's and the GM executive committee's sense of entitlement for all those lovely bonusus and salaries for trashing Mr Sloan's tank factory? Have you noticed the "Tr" in front of all the "illions" all these smart *non-union* guys you respect so much are asking for? Is pay for shameless non-performance an American ethic now too?
Your argument about benefits is precisely what Gross points out, you just don't want to see it: Structural costs of health and benefits are strangling business (and people) here becuase their ideology refuses the obvious answer: it's a thing people want that has grown so large as to be equtiably serviced by a national pool of money.
Not socialism, just regulated GSE without the taint of shareholder profit-motive. (Merit pay for professionals and for results? You bet.) Why remove profit chasing profit? Because healthcare is a compassion-based profession--or used to largely be--and compassion in terms of delivery and qaulity loses against profit. Jack Welch would kick Florence Nightingale's ass every time. But Florence wasn't in the ass kicking business, was she?
It's more likely their love for producing cheap, low R+D investment, gas guzzling, unsustainable SUV than the existence of Unions. Look at the facts.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss