Geithner: Push us over the economic precipice and finish us off quickly

This guy wants to destroy the US economy.

The majority of workers in this country are NOT employed by Fortune 500 / industrial / major corporations.  The majority of workers in this country are employed in SMALL businesses of around 10 or less workers.  And you want to tax these people!  These 'people' - the owners, more often than not, file their business and personal together which shows they make over $200,000 a year (their personal/business income).  And when you tax them you take away from both their personal and business income.  They do not have the capital to invest, to grow to hire to .... do anything.  They will hire fewer, fire more, close up shop ... and our economy will fail.  We won't be 3rd in economic trade we will be 23rd behind Bangladesh and this fool is pushing us toward the cliff from which he and Obama will push us over if they are given the chance.






Geithner: Taxes on ‘Small Business’ Must Rise So Government Doesn’t ‘Shrink’



Thursday, June 23, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey



(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

The administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Geithner’s explanation of the administration's small-business tax plan came in an exchange with first-term Rep. Renee Ellmers (R.-N.C.). Ellmers, a nurse, decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 after she became active in the grass-roots opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reform plan in 2009.

“Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring,” Ellmers told Geithner. “They just simply cannot.”

She then challenged Geithner on the administration’s tax plan.

“Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners,” said Ellmers.

Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration’s planned tax increase would hit “three percent of your small businesses.”

Ellmers then said: “Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.”

Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be “good for growth.”

“No, that's right. I agree with that,” said Geithner. “But just to put it in perspective, it's important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they've been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that's balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

“We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because if we don't do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don't think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

“And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you'd be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue,” said Geithner.

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs”—including federal education spending.

“We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because we see no alternative to a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits,” said Geithner.

“If you don't touch revenues and you leave in place the tax cuts for the top 2 percent that were put in place by President Bush, if you leave those in place and you're trying to bring our deficits down over time, then you have to do exceptionally deep cuts in benefits for middle-class Americans and you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country,” said Geithner.

“So to do a balanced approach to reduce our deficits you have to make modest changes in revenues,” he said. “There's no realistic opportunity to do alternatives to doing that.”

According to historical budget tables published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending has climbed from $2.89 trillion in 2008—the year President Obama took office—to $3.82 trillion this year, an increase of approximately $930 billion.

Meanwhile, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, although federal education spending in inflation-adjusted dollars has jumped from $71.64 billion in 1995—when Bill Clinton was president--to $163.07 billion in 2009—when Barack Obama was president—federal spending still accounted for only 8.2 percent of spending for public primary and secondary education in America in the 2007-2008 school year. Historically and presently in the United States, local and state governments have funded the cost of public education.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
economy

Sell your Soul for Silver: The Corporate World Deserves Scorn

There are moments when I have no words for the foolishness of the corporate world.  In the interest of making money, they will sell their soul, and once they have no soul, all they will have is their wealth, which will be tied to the back of a political system that devastates the environment and controls human beings like cattle.  When the time comes that this government cuts the wealth strings, where will you run?  And don't say that by then you will control the economy of China, for the economy of China is controlled, not by outsiders, but by the PRC - almost exclusively.

They are in so many ways, much worse than traitors.






Banks back switch to renminbi for trade


By Robert Cookson in Hong Kong



Published: August 26 2010 17:55
Last updated: August 26 2010 17:55



A number of the world’s biggest banks have launched international roadshows promoting the use of the renminbi to corporate customers instead of the dollar for trade deals with China.



HSBC, which recently moved its chief executive from London to Hong Kong, and Standard Chartered, are offering discounted transaction fees and other financial incentives to companies that choose to settle trade in the Chinese currency.


“We’re now capable of doing renminbi settlement in many parts of the world,” said Chris Lewis, HSBC’s head of trade for greater China. “All the other major international banks are frantically trying to do the same thing.”

HSBC and StanChart are among a slew of global banks – including Citigroup and JPMorgan – holding roadshows across Asia, Europe and the US to promote the renminbi to companies.




The move aligns the banks favourably with Beijing’s policy priorities and positions them to profit from what is expected to be a rapidly growing line of business in the future.



The phenomenon will accelerate Beijing’s drive to transform the renminbi from a domestic currency into a global medium of exchange like the dollar and euro.



Chinese central bank officials accompanied StanChart bankers on a roadshow to Korea and Japan in June. The bank held similar events in London, Frankfurt and Paris.



Lisa Robins, JPMorgan’s head of treasury and securities services for China, said there had been a “spike in interest” from international clients.



An increasing number of Chinese companies have been asking foreign trading partners to accept renminbi as payment, said Carmen Ling, Hong Kong head of global transaction services at Citi.



BBVA, Spain’s second-biggest bank, is also drawing up plans for a global marketing campaign that will focus on Latin American companies that export to China.



Banks started establishing renminbi trade settlement operations in mid-2009, when Beijing introduced a pilot scheme allowing companies to use the renminbi for trade outside China.



The scramble has intensified in recent months as Beijing has substantially expanded the scheme – from a handful of Asian countries to the whole world – and introduced other liberalisations to its currency regime.



Cross-border trade in renminbi totalled Rmb70.6bn ($10bn) in the first half of the year – about 20 times the Rmb3.6bn recorded in the second half of 2009.



But those figures remain tiny compared to the $2,800bn worth of goods and services that were traded across China’s borders last year, most of which was settled in dollars or euros.



With renminbi trade settlement volumes expected to increase rapidly, banks are under pressure to establish a foothold in the nascent market and demonstrate to Chinese officials that they are committed to the scheme.



China has taken several steps in recent months to boost the international use of its currency and to establish Hong Kong, the special administrative region, as the global centre for offshore renminbi business.



McDonald’s, the US burger chain and icon of globalisation, took advantage of the new rules this month when it became the first foreign multinational to issue renminbi-denominated bonds in Hong Kong.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
china

A Second American Revolution?

IBD Editorials











Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?




By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
07/30/2010
Investors.com


The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.

The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."

A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama to the hilt

Middle Class: Shrinking, and you wonder why.

Majority of Small Business Sector Facing Higher Taxes Under Obama Plan




From Ryan Ellis
Monday, July 26, 2010




•The Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have said that they want to raise taxes in the top two income tax rates in January 2011. Under their plan, the 33 percent rate will rise to 36 percent, and the 35 percent rate will rise to 39.6 percent automatically in January. These rates affect families and small business owners earning at least $200,000 per year

•Unlike corporations, small businesses usually don’t pay their own taxes. Rather, business profits flow through to the business owner. The business owner pays taxes on her small business by adding the profits to her income tax form. Therefore, personal income taxes are the same thing as small business taxes.

•According to the IRS, most small business profits pay taxes in households making more than $200,000 per year. The IRS keeps track of two types of small business income: sole proprietors, and “pass-through” entities like partnerships and S-corporations.

•All small businesses. There were 30 million tax returns reporting small business income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $981 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$488 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. A majority of small business profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.

•Sole proprietors. There were 22 million tax returns reporting sole proprietor income in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $264 billion. A large chunk of this net profit--$90 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 34 percent of sole proprietor profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.

•S-corporations and partnerships. There were 8 million partners and S-corporation shareholders in 2008. On net (profits reduced by losses), these owners reported business profits of $717 billion. A majority of this profit--$398 billion—faced taxation in households making more than $200,000 per year. 55 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face a tax rate hike under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax hike plan.
















taxes

Obama's Helath care costs keep rolling in

The cost of an action is never, NEVER just the cost for the immediate action - it is all the peripherally related, unintended costs also.



Verizon Joins AT&T, Deere in Booking Costs From Health-Care Law


By Amy Thomson and Olga Kharif

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, became the latest company to record a cost related to the U.S. health-care overhaul, saying it will incur a $970 million expense.

The one-time, non-cash cost will be taken in the first quarter, New York-based Verizon said yesterday in a regulatory filing.

Verizon follows AT&T Inc., the biggest U.S. carrier, Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and other companies in disclosing similar expenses after losing a tax benefit for retiree plans. The costs may reduce corporate profits by as much as $14 billion as companies account for the impact of the health-care reforms, according to benefits consulting firm Towers Watson.

“While it is a non-cash charge, it does reflect real value destruction, based on expected cash flows over the life of the company,” said Jonathan Schildkraut, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York. Schildkraut, who anticipated Verizon would book an expense of about $750 million, advises investors to buy the company’s shares and doesn’t own any himself.

AT&T said March 26 it would record $1 billion in costs in the first quarter related to the changes.

The almost $1 trillion program is meant to provide medical coverage to uninsured Americans and force insurance companies to lift restrictions, such as denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The federal government pays a subsidy to companies that provide retiree prescription drug coverage. Under prior law, those subsidies were tax-exempt. The new law eliminates the tax break starting in 2013.

Not the ‘Final Story’

“This is having an impact on the bottom line and that can cut jobs,” said Chetan Sharma, an independent wireless analyst in Issaquah, Washington. “I am not sure the final story has been told on this” because most companies still don’t know exactly how the new law will affect them, he said.

Verizon had about 223,000 workers at the end of last year, with about 35 percent represented by labor unions including the Communication Workers of America. About 58 percent of Dallas- based AT&T’s workforce has union representation.

In a note to employees after the law was passed, Verizon said that the law would make the federal subsidy to provide retiree benefits less valuable to employers and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”

Prior to the announcement, analysts had projected Verizon would report first-quarter profit excluding some items of 56 cents a share, the average of estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Consumer Prices

While the costs erode profit, the new law won’t hurt the company’s ability to compete against its rivals, Schildkraut said.

“This bill doesn’t make Verizon any less well positioned vis-à-vis cable competitors or AT&T,” he said. “It doesn’t make AT&T any less well positioned.”

Verizon rose 26 cents to $31.28 yesterday in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The stock has dropped 5.6 percent this year.

Craig Mathias, founder of wireless consultant Farpoint Group, said consumer prices for communications services may climb in about a year as the economy recovers.

“The money is going to come from somewhere,” Mathias said. “Guess where it’s going to come from? Us customers.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Industry Costs Would rise under Obamacare - passed on to you.

The issue is not Caterpillar - the issue is industry.  As the costs increase and nearly every corporation and business in America would experience dramatic increases in their costs - the result will be?



Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M



Published on March 19, 2010 7:10 AM
Dow Jones Newswires


Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."

Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Obama: Take Control and Dictate Wages and if they disagree, yank their funding

The government provided funds to these companies to bail them out ... the government then has a legitimate cause to intervene and control the pay and wages of people within that company.

So if the government takes control of AIG, Ford, GM ... or Bank of America, Amtrak, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, ... then the government has some control over the selection of the chief executive officers of those companies ... and one might assume, individuals who will or do agree with the governments policies.  In essence, the government will control private industry - which is, very clearly - socialism.  I understand that many liberals start choking and remind us that in the 1970s we had ... and when the government broke up industry giants in the 1980s it was ... and whenever the FCC approves mergers the government is holding some degree of control.  I grant that to the liberal.  Except trying to educate me on the fact we have been moving steadily toward this end is not reassuring nor is it going to resolve the issues.

The people do not want this control.

When you inform them, educate them, and tell them what it really means - they oppose it, regardless of whether Obama has the best teleprompter to assist him with damage control.






U.S. Said to Order Deep Pay Cuts at Bailed-Out Companies


21 Oct 2009
Stephen Labaton
CNBC

The New York Times

Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in the government’s financial rescue, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.

Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. Their total compensation — including bonuses and retirement contributions — will drop, on average, by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup [C 4.42 -0.01 (-0.23%) ], Bank of America [BAC 16.51 -0.50 (-2.94%) ], American International Group [AIG 38.96 -1.47 (-3.64%) ], General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.


At the financial products division of the insurance giant, A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.

In contrast to previous years, an official said, executives in the financial products division will receive no other compensation, such as stocks or stock options.


And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks — such as country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars — will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.

The pay restrictions illustrate the humbling downfall of the once proud giants, now wards of the state whose leaders’ compensation is being set by a Washington paymaster.


They also show how Washington in the last year has become increasingly powerful in setting corporate policies as more companies turned to the government for money to survive

The compensation schedules set by Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master at Treasury handling compensation issues, comes as many other banks that received smaller but significant taxpayer assistance in the last year have been reporting huge year-end bonuses, setting off a new round of recrimination in Washington about bailout of Wall Street.


Since his appointment last June by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Mr. Feinberg has spent months in negotiations with the companies as he seeks to balance compensation concerns against fears at the companies that any huge restrictions in pay could prompt an exodus of executives. Under a law adopted earlier this year, the Treasury Department was instructed to examine the salaries and bonuses for the five most senior executives and their 20 most highly paid employees at companies that have received extraordinary assistance.

Mr. Feinberg has already achieved significant results at several companies. As a result of his discussions, Kenneth D. Lewis, the head of Bank of America who recently was ousted, agreed to forego his salary and bonus for 2009. (He will still receive a pension of $53.2 million, although Mr. Feinberg can issue an advisory opinion challenging it that would carry political weight.) And fearful of a political backlash over the pay of Andrew J. Hall, a successful energy trader who received nearly $100 million last year, Citigroup agreed two weeks ago to sell its Phibro unit that Mr. Hall heads to Occidental Petroleum.








socialism

Germany: Lower Tax Rates and Terrorism

From Sweden to France, Germany to Austria, Switzerland to Italy, and even Spain ... European countries are moving away from heavy taxation and toward a more business friendly environment. And then there is the US, where Obama has declared war on wealth ... whether it is taxing, raising taxes, or demanding banks open their books to inspection so as to allow taxation ...




Merkel Wins Majority for Tax-Cut Coalition in German Election


By Tony Czuczka and Brian Parkin

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she’ll press ahead with tax cuts and labor-market deregulation after winning re-election with enough support to govern with the pro-business Free Democrats.

With Germany struggling to recover from the deepest economic slump since World War II, voters spurned plans by Merkel’s Social Democratic challenger to raise taxes on top earners. Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s SPD had its worst postwar result in what he called a “bitter day” after sharing power with Merkel for four years and governing for the previous seven.

“There’s a clear sentiment in favor of economic changes, especially on income taxes,” Tilman Mayer, head of the Bonn- based Institute for Political Science, said in an interview. “Voters have turned their back on grand coalition-style compromise politics.”

Merkel, 55, said on ARD television that talks on forming a coalition with the Free Democrats will proceed quickly, and her focus will be on creating jobs in Europe’s biggest economy. She dismissed the FDP’s call for a complete overhaul of the tax system, saying she wanted to be seen as the “chancellor of all Germans” and won’t let her new junior partner dictate policy.

During the campaign, she pledged to pursue deregulation, extend the life of nuclear-power plants and introduce across- the-board tax cuts of 15 billion euros ($22 billion).


[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]


There was no mention of the fact three warnings were given to Germany by al qaida - if Merkel was re-elected ... al qiada would attack. Merkel has been re-elected and she will govern with a comfortable margin.

We will now watch as Germany is attacked by the same blood-thirsty murderers that attacked the United States ... and Obama will arbor and demand, be repulsed by, and angry ... and will send the FBI and police and inspectors and ... but he will not do what he should do, because he does not understand the nature of our enemy.













taxation

Obama: Don't Buy American - It makes The Euros Feel Good

The inclusion of the phrase - Buy American, was so offensive to the Canadians and the Euros they demanded Obama pull it. And he did. Who is supposed to be responsible for ensuring our economy does well, that we prosper, if not the dear leader. Who? And he caved in faster than your prom date. Isn't it evil to suggest Americans BUY AMERICAN. We should have - Buy World, if they have their way.

4 Feb 2009
National Post
Canwest News Service




Urges Congress to change provision


WASHINGTON • U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday said he wanted Congress to make changes to the controversial “Buy American” provision in the nearly US$900-billion economic stimulus legislation in a bid to avert a trade war.


Mr. Obama warned it would be a “mistake” for the United States to put up new barriers when global trade is already suffering.


“I agree that we can’t send a protectionist message,” Mr. Obama said in a televised interview with Fox News.


“I want to see what kind of language we can ... work on this issue. I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”


In an interview with ABC television he added, “I think we need to make sure that any provisions that are in there are not going to trigger a trade war.”


The comments marked Mr. Obama’s first public statements on a controversy that erupted with the passage in the House of Representatives last week of a stimulus bill that bans the use of foreignmade iron or steel in projects launched to jump-start the ailing U.S. economy.


Canada has warned the United States would “lose its moral authority” to stave off protectionism if the final bill adopted by Congress includes the Buy American measure. Mr. Obama has asked lawmakers to pass a final bill for his signature as early as next week.


In Ottawa yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the Buy American provision a threat to all industrialized countries. “These are not measures targeted at Canada, they are measures that are of concern to all trading partners of the United States,” Mr. Harper said.


Mr. Obama’s remarks, however, have given the Harper government a ray of hope in what has become a mad scramble among Canadian diplomats — and high-powered U.S. business lobbyists — to win amendments to the massive stimulus bill now working its way through Congress.



“I think [the] concerns are justified,” Representative Steny Hoyer, the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives, said after speaking with Canadian ambassador Michael Wilson.


The US$819-billion House of Representatives version of the stimulus bill mandates that only U.S.-produced steel and iron be used in stimulus projects.


However, the US$888-billion Senate version includes language requiring all stimulus-related projects to use only American-made goods.


“As you know, the Senate bill goes much further than the House bill, but I am sure that will be a matter for discussion after the Senate passes its bill,” Mr. Hoyer said, referring to future negotiations to reconcile the two pieces of legislation.


Opponents of the Buy American measure — including Canada and the European Union — acknowledge it will be difficult to convince lawmakers to completely strip the provision from the final version of the bill.


Instead, critics are focusing their efforts at convincing the Senate to pass amendments allowing for broad exceptions to the Buy American rule.


Failing that, Buy American opponents hope the Senate will adopt the more restrictive language approved by the House, which includes some caveats to waive the U.S.-only rule on steel and iron if it is deemed too costly or not in the public interest.


“You are seeing a lot of moving parts, a lot of negotiation behind the scenes,” said Maryscott Greenwood, executive director of the Canadian-American Business Council, a lobby group for companies with interests in both countries.


Working in Canada’s favour is strong opposition to the Buy American provisions among pro-free trade Republicans in the Senate.


Mr. Obama is eager to win bipartisan support for the stimulus package, and a compromise by Democrats on the Buy American clause might help the President’s cause.


The main obstacles for Ottawa, however, is the popularity of Buy American among labour groups and free trade critics who carry significant influence with Democrats.


The Canadian government’s efforts to fight the Buy American provisions have been boosted by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


Yesterday, the National Association of Manufacturers said the measure would “backfire” on American workers and goes against America’s international trade obligations.


“Even though this section [of the stimulus bill] may be well intended, NAM members are very concerned that the new ‘Buy-American’ provisions in the bill will potentially backfire on the United States and end up harming American workers and companies across the entire U.S. economy,” wrote John Engler, the group’s president and a former Republican governor of Michigan.

















Obama

Oil down, Banking down - They're losing trillions!

Couldn't happen to a nicer group! I don't expect many tears.




Arabs lost 2.5 trillion dollars from credit crunch: Kuwait

Jan 16, 2009

Arab investors have lost 2.5 trillion dollars from the credit crunch, Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammad al-Sabah, whose country hosts an Arab economic summit next week, said on Friday.

"The Arab world has lost 2.5 trillion dollars in the past four months" as a result of the global financial crisis, Sheikh Mohammad told a press conference following a joint meeting of Arab foreign and finance ministers in Kuwait.

He also said that about 60 percent of development projects "have either been postponed or cancelled" by the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states because of the global meltdown.

Arab leaders who hold their first ever economic summit on January 19-20 will discuss the impact of the worldwide economic meltdown on the 22 Arab countries.

The biggest loss was an estimated 40 percent drop in the value of Arab investments abroad, which previously totalled around 2.5 trillion dollars.

Falls on stock markets contributed more than 600 billion dollars to the losses, while Arab investors were further affected by a sharp decline in oil revenues, the declining value of property investments and other repercussions of the global downturn.

Next week's summit will also discuss the Gaza war but leaders are still intent on agreeing a joint response to the financial crisis.






Arabs

Greed and Sales

Worker dies at Long Island Wal-Mart after being trampled in Black Friday stampede

BY JOE GOULD, CLARE TRAPASSO and RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Updated Friday, November 28th 2008, 10:46 PM


A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an "out-of-control" mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store's front doors and trampled him, police said.

The Black Friday stampede plunged the Valley Stream outlet into chaos, knocking several employees to the ground and sending others scurrying atop vending machines to avoid the horde.

When the madness ended, 34-year-old Jdimytai Damour was dead and four shoppers, including a woman eight months pregnant, were injured.

"He was bum-rushed by 200 people," said Wal-Mart worker Jimmy Overby, 43.

"They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me.

"They took me down, too ... I didn't know if I was going to live through it. I literally had to fight people off my back," Overby said.

Damour, a temporary maintenance worker from Jamaica, Queens, was gasping for air as shoppers continued to surge into the store after its 5 a.m. opening, witnesses said.

Even officers who arrived to perform CPR on the trampled worker were stepped on by wild-eyed shoppers streaming inside, a cop at the scene said.

"They pushed him down and walked all over him," Damour's sobbing sister, Danielle, 41, said. "How could these people do that?

"He was such a young man with a good heart, full of life. He didn't deserve that."

Damour's sister said doctors told the family he died of a heart attack.

His cousin, Ernst Damour, called the circumstances "completely unacceptable."

"His body was a stepping bag with so much disregard for human life," Ernst Damour, 37, said. "There has to be some accountability."

Roughly 2,000 people gathered outside the Wal-Mart's doors in the predawn darkness.

Chanting "push the doors in," the crowd pressed against the glass as the clock ticked down to the 5 a.m. opening.

Sensing catastrophe, nervous employees formed a human chain inside the entrance to slow down the mass of shoppers.

It didn't work.

The mob barreled in and overwhelmed workers.

"They were jumping over the barricades and breaking down the door," said Pat Alexander, 53, of Crown Heights, Brooklyn. "Everyone was screaming. You just had to keep walking on your toes to keep from falling over."

After the throng toppled Damour, his fellow employees had to fight through the crowd to help him, police said.

Witness Kimberly Cribbs said shoppers acted like "savages."

"When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, 'I've been on line since Friday morning!'" Cribbs said. "They kept shopping."

When paramedics arrived, Damour's condition was grave.

"They were pumping his chest, trying to bring him back, and there was nothing," said Dennis Smokes, 36, a Wal-Mart worker.

Damour was taken to Franklin Hospital and pronounced dead at 6:03 a.m.
Hank Mullany, president of Wal-Mart's northeast division, said the company took extraordinary safety precautions.

"We expected a large crowd this morning and added additional internal security, additional third-party security, additional store associates and we worked closely with the Nassau County police," he said in a statement.

"We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred."
The 28-year-old pregnant woman and three other shoppers were taken to area hospitals with minor injuries, police said.

In a news conference after the incident, Nassau County police spokesman Lt. Michael Fleming described the crowd as "out of control" and the scene as "utter chaos." He said Wal-Mart did not have enough security onhand.

Fleming said criminal charges were possible but that it would be difficult to identify individual shoppers in surveillance videos.

Items on sale at the Wal-Mart store included a $798 Samsung 50-inch Plasma HDTV, a Bissel Compact Upright Vacuum for $28 and Men's Wrangler Tough Jeans for $8.

The Long Island store reopened at 1 p.m. and was packed within minutes.

"I look at these people's faces and I keep thinking one of them could have stepped on him," said one employee. "How could you take a man's life to save $20 on a TV?"

****************************

Here is one answer - close the store, and close Wal-Mart within 20 miles of the place, for that matter - close Target as well. To save some money, acting like barbarians and animals is ok. I would play that video everywhere - on screens across the city, at schools, everywhere - that these animals would kill someone to save some money. We have enemies who wake up and go to bed dreaming of killing Americans, and these pathetic animals do it for them - to save money. Disgusting. I hope their conscience works, and everyone responsible lives a very long, long life.










Walmart

Blue Cross

Ever think about why you get charged the little fees on the phone bill or insurance bill or any of the many bills we receive each month. It's like gas prices. Twice a year gas prices go up in California - well, we all know it goes up 360 days and comes down five days, but twice a year our gas changes content and the price change is a few pennies for each change. To change it to the cleaner gas +2 cents. To change it back +2 cents. The exact increase is a little less but just a little.

So here is my thought on this. Assume they started this in 1990, who knows when and that isn't the point. 1990 gas went up 4 cents (2 up the first time and 2 up the second time). In 1991 it went up 4 cents. In 1992 it went up 4 cents. We have 50+ cents built in (we'll go for 10 years or so with this line of argument) for these increases BUT they never reduce the cost even when they change it back. So we pay to change it to A and then we pay to change it to B and then we pay to change it to A, but we already paid that amount once, why do we have to pay for something we already paid for?

I just received my Blue Cross medical/dental bill. I have paid, for example, $350 for two months. I have paid this minus increases in rates, forever. For this amount of money I get insurance. Now Blue Cross is charging me $2 administration fee to handle the check I send. They will waive the fee if I pay online. We can't pay by check unless we want to be dinged. Why? I paid for their insurance and exorbitant as it is, I paid it. They were making due before. Now they want fees. You go for coffee at Starbucks - pay $3.50 for the coffee and then an additional $1.00 for employee costs to make the coffee. Doesn't that seem a little ... much.

I seem to offer my suggestions on many topics from music and film to health care - here is a really good suggestion Mr. Blue Cross et al ... you will be taken over by the government and no one will care while you are being strangled because you have followed a path that leads us right to socialized medicine. STOP now, stop alienating every subscriber, stop alienating every human being in America, stop making it impossible to defend you against the take-over mentality. When it happens, you will be indirectly responsible for the failure of health care that results.