Corporations

Free Online Book on Impending Financial Crisis

davidswanson — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:38:45 -0500

Labor and Paycheck Fairness

ricks_research — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:29:35 -0400

In these times of severe economic stress upon the middle class and the poor classes of our country, while the richest are becoming wildly richer, I beg of you to please support campaigns and legislation to correct the unfairness and to improve the distribution of economic wealth to those that properly deserve it.
It is the workers of America that need your help, and need it now.
We have suffered greatly for many years, it is time to turn this around in favor of the working people of America instead of the wealthy. It is time for the wealthy to payback what they owe the rest of us.

In recognition of Labor Day, here's a list of some of the current legislation in Congress affecting workers and businesses:
* H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. This act was passed by both the House and the Senate. It incrementally raises the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, with the final stage taking place in July 2009.
* S.367, the Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act. This act prohibits the "import, export, and sale of goods made with sweatshop labor"
* S.766, the Paycheck Fairness Act, "to provide more effective remedies of victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex"
* H.R. 2442, the Rural America Job Assistance and Creation Act, "To provide job creation and assistance"
* H.R. 2132, the Small Business Health Plans Act of 2007
* H.R. 1012, the Small Business Growth Act of 2007
* cap and regulate exorbitant CEO and other executive pay

Wall street needs to be cleaned up, and knocked back down into their place relative to the workers of America. The workers vastly outnumber the Wall street slick willys, why do we let them steal our wealth and power? It is time to stand up, and yell back at these narcisistic blow hards, and take back what is rightfully ours!!!

This is a small start, but it needs much more improvement.
Please help us, we are counting on you all!

What say you all?

One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.

Chris Elliott — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:00:51 -0400

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

Joseph Stalin's infamous words.

This certainly seems to reflect corporate media's attitude to the ongoing slaughter in Iraq.

It is the 4th anniversary of Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L) - the invasion was later renamed for PR reasons - and despite the US military's reluctance to 'do body counts' a number of other organizations are aware of the level of carnage. Rather than being described as an 'insurgency' it should more accurately be described as a 'holocaust'.

New estimates at the number of Iraqis killed in the conflict over the last 4 years place the death toll at a little over 1 million lives. With 3.7 million refugees and incalculable numbers of wounded, traumatized, tortured, imprisoned, raped, or contaminated with depleted Uranium. This must be some strange new version of the word 'liberation' that I was not previously aware of.

Add to this another half million infant deaths during the 10 years of ~~medieval siege~~ sanctions that Madeleine Albright assured us 'were worth it'.

If a hundred Americans or Britons were killed in a explosion it would be a media sensation for weeks. Russia announced a day of mourning after over a hundred people were killed in a mine explosion last week. In Iraq they dont have this luxury since every single day is a national day of mourning.

Yet to the corporate media these daily massacres are just statistics that may occasionally get a mention but are otherwise less newsworthy than the daily crossword puzzle. Instead they bombard us with celebrity drug scandals, runaway teenagers, confessions of stick-thin supermodels, or more sickening by far, they lambast other nations for their 'poor human rights records' and 'press censorship'. They condemn democratic countries like Iran for being undemocratic while ignoring the fact the US is spending billions on ~~bribes~~ Aid to some of the nastiest undemocratic regimes in the world (Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia to name but 3 of a long list) not to mention close military ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia whose human rights records must surely rank close to the worst of all.

The English language fails us sometimes, there should be a far bigger word than 'hypocricy'.

Privatization, Human Sacrifice And The Architects Of War

bobhiggins — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:42:12 -0400

Appeasing The Gods Of The Shareholders

There was a time when, as a matter of policy, America went to war only as a response to an attack by an aggressor. In 1962 John Kennedy had every reason to make war with Cuba and Russia when Kruschev talked Fidel into parking several dozen Soviet nuclear missiles ten minutes from Washington and 90 miles from spring break.

Most of the Joint Chiefs, especially Curtis Lemay,(General Bat Guano?) along with a sizable faction of Kennedy's closest advisers urged the President to invade. Lemay wanted to send his B52s, (presumably not to drop leaflets) while others preferred a massive land invasion, perhaps to restore the Cosa Nostra to control of Cuban Casinos, the way God intended.

There is an apocryphal story told that Marine Commandant David Shoup (under whom I served at the time) presented the assemblage of top level civilian and military advisers with an easel containing a map of Cuba, over which he had placed an acetate overlay of a tiny Pacific atoll named Tarawa. Tarawa, which the Marines had invaded early in WW2 was shown graphically as a small speck against the background of Castro's Mediterranean worker's paradise.

He then proceeded to inform the gathering that the insignificant speck had not been at all pacific, having cost the lives of over 1000 Marines and the wounding of 2200 others, creating a great storm of protest at home over what was seen as a needless squandering of lives to gain a tiny piece of real estate. Tarawa, he is reported to have explained, was defended by 4500 Japanese while Castro would field 150,000, and perhaps as many more.

The zeal for a land invasion was somewhat diminished by General Shoup's presentation. Cooler heads prevailed, the young president proceeded to threaten Kruschev with massive nuclear retaliation, Niki packed up his nukes and went home, diplomacy or a good bluff, worked, the republic was saved, 250,000 young troops did not have to wade ashore and spill their guts on Fidel's beautiful but hostile beaches and I pull shore leave in San Juan and discovered how to drink Cuba Libras past the point of absurdity.

Those were still the good old days in the world of war making, when Presidents, Congress, large segments of the press and a sizable portion of the body politic banded together with the men and women who were to be slaughtered, made whatever sacrifices necessary to get through the horrible, bloody task and achieve victory.

Businesses as well, were asked to make sacrifices, to retool from the making the products of peacetime, the creation of tractors or Packards or hula hoops to building tanks, rifles and ships, and asked to bid competitively for the right to participate in the glorious business of waging war.

It worked well, victories were had, foes were vanquished, medals were awarded to the mothers of the dead, the prosthetics business flourished and everyone was happy.

Then came Vietnam.

No one attacked us in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin was as phony as Saddam's WMDs

We became embroiled in a war with another sovereign nation in order to prevent the spread of an ideology with which we disagreed, in a region in which we saw resources and markets that we wished to exploit and to beat our major competitors to the loot that we perceived was laying in wait off the coast and beneath the earth of Indochina. Interestingly the cast of characters was similar to today's tragic frolic in Iraq, Humble Oil (now Exxon) was there, Brown and Root (before Kellogg) was there, General Dynamics, General Electric, Bell, Dow Chemical, all the big players came to the game. I think these guys get lifetime season tickets to these things.

We encountered fierce resistance from a people who had suffered long on the pulling end of history's colonial yoke. We were quickly mired embroiled in a civil war, quagmire they called it, between those who nominally supported us and the majority of Vietnamese (both North and South) who had equally as much love for us as they had for the Chinese and the French; with whom they had ample previous colonial experience. We spent ten frustrating years trying new strategies before the ferocious stubbornness of the enemy and the return to sanity of the American people and some of our leadership forced us to withdraw from the massive bloodletting.

We left the souls of nearly 60,000 of our sons and brothers and sisters in those fetid jungles. Another 300,000 of those still living may be seen from time to time in various VA hospitals. I have lunch twice a week with some of them, they seem distressed.

No one from Iraq attacked us in Manhattan either, nor in Virginia nor the wilds of Pennsylvania. No one from Iraq attacked us in our War on Terror. If memory serves 15 of the terrorists who attacked us were Saudis, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. They were working under the direction of a son of one of the most important families in Saudia Arabia, a follower of Wahabi Islam, whose name is still praised in many of that country's madrasahs and to whom influential Saudis still send cards, letters and financial support

But we invaded Iraq, declaring it to be a hotbed of international terror when the evidence against Paraguay or Lichtenstein was just as damning, as that against any number of other places that had nothing to do with the 9/11 horrors.

But Iraq was a centerpiece in the textbook which had been provided by the Project for the New American Century.

The neocons needed access to Iraqi oil, natural gas, pipeline routes from the Caspian, a litany of colonial wants needs and desires. At the minimum they had to prevent the Russians and the Chinese from exercising their influence on this vital area and it's riches and there was talk among the Iranians and others of moving to trade oil in Euros rather than dollars.

In the past, before the defense industry, Big Oil, the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century invented the concept of preemptive war and presented it to the band of criminal sociopaths now posing as our government, war was seen as a serious and ugly business. A terrible thing involving death, destruction, anguish, pain and widespread human misery, something to be scrupulously avoided.

Now it was just business. There would be cruise missiles to sell, airplanes, helicopters, all the hardware and modern software of war. There would be bases to build, tents to pitch, meals to overcharge, there would be an enormous sales volume and concomitant profits, great steaming piles of tax payer provided cash to roll in. This would be the ultimate entrepreneurial experience, free enterprise on steroids and speed and unlimited greed.

Of course there would be casualties, but in all great human endeavors there are costs, sacrifices to be borne by someone else's children or grandchildren. Besides, the losses were manageable, with our power to bring shock and awe, to bring a level of violence and destruction unknown in human history, a talent that had come to define us as a people in the eyes of the world, victory would be swiftly achieved, we would be welcomed in the Iraqi streets with garlands of roses and anointed with fragrant oils.

At any event we had a volunteer military, they knew the risks. This was simply a matter of throwing the occasional virgin into the volcanic caldera for the appeasement of the gods and the good of the established order.

For the good of all the major players.

Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust

The Creeping Right Wing Radio PUTSCH

thepen — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:48:24 -0500

First they tried to con everybody into thinking that nobody would listen to progressive talk radio. Then when it became apparent that there was in fact an robust audience they tried to con us into thinking that nobody would support it. Of course we later found out they were working behind the scenes at the same time to get advertisers to blacklist our favorite shows. And now that progressive talk is having real political impact they are desperately looking for a way to slow it down, corrupt it, chip away at it, anything.

ACTION PAGE:
http://www.peaceteam.net/goharrison.php (Los Angeles area residents only)

All over the country they are making deliberately bad business decisions by using ownership prerogatives to shut down outlets entirely, as in Madison, WI, where people rose up in revolt enough to beat them back, or in Boston where they got away with it. But they are not just attacking entire stations, they are working to replace individual personalities where they can with weaker voices.

That's what's going on in Los Angeles right now where the Harrison on the Edge show was canned with absolutely no advance warning yesterday. Harrison has been one of the most dynamic and effective activists in the country, generating thousands and thousands of citizen messages to the California legislature and our U.S. Congress with his nightly "Activism A-Go-Go" segment. This last October he was also instrumental in organizing a massive peace parade led by Arun Gandhi. If and only if you are within the signal range of KTLK in Los Angeles, please submit the action page above to complain to the station management.

Sure they are shuffling some other things around in the schedule, but the net result is they are bringing in 6 hours a day of Alan Colmes and some lukewarm moderate, Mr. KABC, who was barely being tolerated on the most conservative talk outlet in town, while they kick Harrison, a real progressive, out the door. That in and of itself is another story, in that what forced Mr. KABC out of where he had been was a push to give some of HIS air time to a full hard righty. So the net effect is an across the board shift to the right, and it is no accident.

Does it surprise you that Alan Colmes is being syndicated by Fox News?!? Are we to let Fox News tell us who our progressive talk personalities should be?! That Colmes is even a party to, that he would even sit in the same studio with the kind of sick-minded smears that Hannity traffics in on their joint cable show every day, makes him nothing but a right wing enabler, to give his weak excuse of a token protest as if that were some kind of fair balance.

So where they can't shut down an outlet entirely they are working to dilute it, to neuter it time slot by time slot, to pick us off one by one, as if we were too stupid to notice the difference. It's the Jerry Springer effect, and then when something like the Air America Radio bankruptcy takes place they jump up and say, "See, it doesn't work."

It's a right wing squeeze play, folks. It's nothing but a move to squeeze out one of our best progressive voices and see if we are chumps enough not to do anything about it. We need stronger voices not weaker ones. Well, KTLK has already had 500 emails of protest from L.A. locals just in the last 24 hours through the action page above. And if we the people will have anything to do about it there will be lots more, lots and lots more.

So if you do live in Los Angeles, and you do know what real activist radio is supposed to sound like, please submit the action page above, and let the people speak with the voice of thunder. We have just begun to speak out.

Form a for-profit Corp. to run govt. with people as equal stockholders

ezeflyer — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:36:14 -0500

For-profit corporations work better than government bureaucracy. Why not form a for-profit corporation to run our government in which the people are equal stockholders of non-negotiable stock? The people could have online referendums to do the hiring and firing of corporate employees and so on.

Wealth of the few elite

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:16:57 -0500

RE: The wealth of the few elite.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070216
/ts_nm/usa_philanthropy_dc;_ylt=
As0Hji_0qovCCbNDb7H67v9g.3QA

Warren Buffet has just given lots of money away to charities. Bill Gates gives lots away also. I don't know about Steve Jobs or any charity he supports. To me this just shows how too few have too much.

Ever since President Reagan there has been an attack on the middle class and democracy. President W.J. Clinton increased taxes on the rich to pay down the other Bush/Reagan's arms race/weapons debt. This Bush president has added more than any with his "unending treasury plunder for his illegal wars".

As soon as the other GW Bush came to power, the tax rate changed to an even lower rate for the top rich (even international corporations) in our society. Money flows like water to off-shore banks so they don't pay taxes here at home. It's more than a tax rate to the top American elite. It is to destroy us and our democracy.

The division of rich and poor is evident in my area. There are huge castle like homes while people struggle with two low paying jobs just miles from one another. Four homes on 1/4th acre pay more taxes combined than the big home on an acre.

I see no problem with a person becoming rich on their own creativity or hard work. I believe in Capitalism but not huge international monopolies who fix prices, refuse to pay and give benefits to slave labor, and are ruining competition in a "free market". New technology/patents/markets are distroyed and stolen by hostile takeovers.

Hostile takeovers should be illegal...because they are well...hostile. The company and employees don't want to be bought up and destroyed by merger lawyers and greedy CEOs. Years of hard work, markets, etc. and support to the community down the tubes...gone. Sometimes the product/service disappears for a lower quality one. Hostile takeovers are not good economics or democratic.

But do they, the few elite, really need multi-billions? Some of the top rich have more money than small 3rd world countries.

Our tax codes and corporate regulation need addressing once again like at the turn of the century with the Morgans, Rockefellers, etc. Republicans want to bring back the royals with their "death tax" repeal.

Many of the wealthy give back to society but is that good? Wouldn't it be better if the poor didn't exist just waiting for a rich person to come along to rescue/help them with their problems?

What about paying their employees better benefits and salaries, working conditions safer, charging less for their product, and sharing the wealth at the source? How about putting some of the profit in pension funds for their old age or disability if that happens?

The greed and disproportion of wealth at the turn of the last century saw sewage run down the streets and our workers living in filth.

A Progressive movement is needed to fight off the royals/Conservatives who have no clue that their riches/power are off the backs of other people. The rich are not chosen by God to be leaders. Nor are they more intelligent, hard working, or clever.

The rich, elite are given political power over the people just from their wealth alone (not that their judgement or policy is good for our country). Our middle class is disappearing along with the "American Dream".

Even Warren Buffet admitted he did not get rich on his own. He said, the rich should pay taxes to support our government and society since they did not get rich on their own. They had help.

How about it Warren can you share the wealth at the source? How about paying those insurance refunds, costs, charging less? Not putting people out of work by mergers, etc.?

How about it Democrats? Are we going to allow our party to push globalization and privitization by international corporations and the elite agenda down our throats? Regulation and accountability must be part of the discussion at the conventions.

SPP----security and prosperity partnership of north america

trampmax — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:54:23 -0500

In the last three years the Bush admininstration has been working with the president of mexico and prime minister of canada for a pact of SPP. this was signed in 2005 in Waco, Texas.

In 2006 after the creation of SPP-security and prosperity partnership of american community. the Bush administration in Cancun, Mexico met again with 2 leaders for the creation of the North American Union, NAU.

this is a push by the corporate elites to form a NAU much like the european union. this administration has yet to address the american public as to this union. This union is being pushed into reality by the end of 2007.

the house of representatives has in sept.2006 pushed a bill

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 487

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 28, 2006
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TANCREDO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

This creation of a union will lead to an north american currency. In which this SPP.gov denies that this will ever come. In europe the european union began as a trade pact as the administration states that this is only a neutral pact of diplomatic relations securtiy and trade, a follow up from NAFTA.

It is time the democratic party as with the canadian action party under Connie fogel, join hands in opposition to this administration's action as a driver for the Trilateral Commission Group of 300 elite members. Bush senior is a member of this corporate elite group for corporation interest.

Should this go into reality as a union, Americans will pay a large price for the ruling elites drive for empire and greed. this has never been opened for debate the american public.

The european union was at least opened to the countries for debate, the Bush administration has pushed this through stealth. It is very important that americans become informed about this creation of a union. Lets join Connie Fogel with canadian action party to preserve our sovereignty and what is left of this republic that this administration has a unitary executive power as say pushing as law of the land, this matter is very important to the country and American people.

The ruling elite as well as his driver through the neo cons are driving for power, and empire at the expense of the country, this will only ruin this country at the expense of corporation greed pushing for one world order. it is very important that we as americans voice up and stand up against a push for corporate state rule of North america.

Economy booming for billionaires

davidswanson — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:51:02 -0400

By Holly Sklar
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service, September 27, 2006
Copyright (c) 2006 Holly Sklar

Millionaires are so last millennium. The new Forbes 400 list of richest Americans is billionaires only.

If you're net worth is a mere $999 million, forget it. A billion means a thousand million, and that's the Forbes 400 minimum -- up from $900 million in 2005.

Donald Trump and two of his kids grace the Forbes 400 cover, but ranked No. 94 with $2.9 billion, Trump's a long way from No. 1 Bill Gates with $53 billion.

The combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans is a record-breaking $1.25 trillion. That's about the same amount of combined wealth held by the 57 million households who make up half the U.S. population.

The economy is booming for billionaires. It's a bust for many other Americans.

A record 400 Americans are billionaires -- and a record 47 million Americans have no health insurance.

America has 400 billionaires -- and 37 million people below the official poverty line.

The official poverty line for one person was just $9,973 in 2005 (latest data). That wouldn't cover the custom-made men's shoes ($4,128) and Hermes purse ($6,250) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The official poverty line of $15,577 for a three-person family is lower than the cost of the Patek Philippe men's gold watch ($17,600).

The Forbes 400 minimum is up $100 million since 2005, but the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour -- just $10,712 a year -- since 1997. GOP leaders in Congress have been holding a raise for minimum wage workers hostage to more giant tax cuts for wealthy inheritors.

Wealth isn't trickling down. It's flooding up -- from workers to bosses, small investors to big, poorer to richer.

The heirs to Wal-Mart founders Sam and Bud Walton have a combined $82.5 billion -- while the children of Wal-Mart workers swell the ranks of state health insurance programs for the neediest.

In today's corporate America, workers see gutted paychecks and pensions despite rising worker productivity, while CEOs get golden pay, perks, pensions and parachutes. The pay gap between average workers and CEOs has grown nine times wider since the 1970s.

The number of billionaires is a record high, but the share of national income going to wages and salaries is at a record low.

U.S. corporate profits increased 21 percent in the past year, Market Watch reported in March. "Profits have been so high because almost all of the benefits from productivity improvements are flowing to the owners of capital rather than to the workers," said Market Watch.

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (minimum net worth $6 million) owned 62 percent of the nation's business assets, 51 percent of stocks and 70 percent of bonds as of 2004, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances -- which excludes the Forbes 400. That's way up from 1989, when the wealthiest 1 percent owned 54 percent of business assets, 41 percent of stocks and 52 percent of bonds.

Our growing economy is not producing a growing middle class, but a richer aristocracy.

The high point for median household income -- the income of the household in the middle -- was $47,671 in 1999, adjusted for inflation. In 2005, median household income was $1,345 less at $46,326. In the same period, the Forbes 400 gained more than 100 billionaires.

Government policies are fueling rising inequality. Taxpayers with incomes above $1 million will see their after-tax income grow by about 6 percent this year thanks to tax cuts the nation can't afford.

In an economy where money is flowing up to the very top, even college-educated workers are going backward. Inflation-adjusted median household income was lower in 2005 than 1999 even when the householder had a bachelor's degree, master's degree, professional degree or doctorate.

The problem is much bigger than the rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer. The really rich are getting richer at the expense of most everyone else.

Solutions include restoring the link between rising worker productivity and pay, raising the miserly minimum wage, narrowing the obscene pay gap between workers and CEOs, rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy -- and stop taxing income from work more than income from capital gains.

Holly Sklar is co-author of "A Just Minimum Wage: Good for Workers, Business and Our Future" (www.letjusticeroll.org) and "Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies That Work for All of Us." She can be reached at hsklar@aol.com.

Private tax collection costs more

Sun, 27 Aug 2006 09:03:46 -0400

The IRS is privatizing tax collection, handing over our most personal information to private companies. And Congress wants us to think we’re saving money by doing it. From the New York Times :

Private tax collection costs more than it would cost to give the I.R.S. the resources to pursue the debts. Federal budgeting oddities only make it seem less costly. Private collection also raises serious concerns about fraud and privacy. Mark Everson, the I.R.S. commissioner, should fight hard for the resources the agency needs to do the job it clearly does best. Instead, he supports private collection, allowing the administration and Congress to indulge the fiction that they are saving money.

I have said this over and over again.

MORE MORE MORE

Privatization of government functions ends up costing us taxpayers MORE, not less. Private companies have to make a profit, and government agencies do not. I contribute to companies’ profit when I buy their products and services, but that’s voluntary. I can’t not pay my taxes, no matter what the email spammers try to tell me. I don’t want my taxes to contribute to the profits of companies who get their fat government contracts due to legal bribery through campaign donations.

When that happens, I'm actually paying these crooks to fleece me.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com