New secret trade deal in the works. They hope to sell us more poisonous toothpaste and dangerous toys!
New secret trade deal in the works. They hope to sell us more poisonous toothpaste and dangerous toys!





talk about non-objective news sources ! And this guy's salary is (again) being paid by US taxpayers.





PS I loved the weekly 'cartoon' too ...
![]()





During Moyer's video segment, Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI) (Driving While Intoxicated?) holds forth on the NAFTA issue while standing next to a poster which reads in part:
FIX UNFAIR TRADE
Export Fair Trade Deals
Export Our Values - Not Our Jobs
IF WE DONT MAKE ANYTHING,
WE WON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
Ahhh, yes, "the rich get richer"--and so does the irony.![]()
According to economist Lori Wallach, trade doesn't affect the total number of jobs in the economy as much as it forces down wages and limits the kinds of jobs available. Higher paying jobs are being "outsourced", while an increasing number of "Service Sector" jobs with lower wages and no benefits remain on U.S. soil. The end result? Despite U.S. worker productivity doubling since NAFTA's inception in 1992, U.S. median rates (in real terms, what you can buy adjusted for inflation) have now reached 1974 levels...I sometimes miss the Seventies--but not that fuckin' much!!!![]()
IMHO, the new trade agreement and the manner in which it was quietly signed by Republicans AND some Democrats behind closed doors underscores the bipartisan nature of wealth and political power. Candidates for office in 2008 face the daunting prospect of projecting hope over what is perceived as a bleak economic landscape by most of their constituents...![]()





Hey, Melonie!![]()
Kenneth Tomlinson is indubitably a priggish toad, at least as portrayed by Bill Moyers and Terry Gross. However, what's up with blogger Tim Graham? Throughout his blog, he repeatedly imbues the term "liberal" with a level of vitriol typically reserved for serial pedophiles and grave robbers.
Were Graham and Moyers possibly sandpit adversaries during preschool? Or is Graham--like many of us--merely embracing the polarity of ideologies that gives him the latitude to scorn any and all holding contrary views?
I love my soapbox...![]()
Only about 17% of the corporation's funding comes from the government. Most of that goes to Sesame Street and the like.
The hard hitting stuff comes from local tv stations and foundations.
You understand, over the last ten years, the right has already sacked most of the funding used for "liberal" propaganda. Of course, that doesn't stop them from using Sesame Street funding to wail about the indignation of using tax payer money to proclaim inconvenient facts about their actions.
![]()





^^^ unfortunately, IMHO this is a damned if we do and damned if we don't situation of the politicians' own making. Over the past 40 years, laws of all sorts have been enacted which have raised the cost of 'making things' in the USA to levels that the vast majority of average Americans could never afford. Thus there are two possibilities.
#1 - go offshore to 'make things' at a much lower cost that average Americans CAN afford, which maintains some semblance of the US standard of living that Americans had enjoyed in the past.
#2 - lock down the borders in terms of imports, 'make things' in the US again at whatever cost is required by the various laws and mandates, raise prices accordingly, and cut the US standard of living in half.
There was once a third option i.e. bomb the production facilities of international competitors into oblivion such that US industry was essentially the only nation which still had the capacity to 'make things' ... which in turn provides good paying jobs AND a high standard of living for all Americans for the next 10-20 years while the decimated international competitors rebuild. This was the result of every war prior to Korea. However this third option is no longer an option - international competitors have rebuilt and are able to produce at significantly lower costs since they don't have to deal with gov't mandates re minimum wage, minimum employee benefits, workplace safety compliance, environmental compliance etc.
Thus with this third option off the table, Americans need to face the fact that the standard of living that their parents and grandparents enjoyed through their own efforts, and the standard of living that many currently enjoy via gov't subsidies i.e. transfer of wealth, is far above that which either a free trade 'world economy' or a protectionist 'closed economy' would sustain. In the meantime America continues to seek an unsustainable standard of living by liquidating the assets built by previous generations, and by transferring wealth away from those who still ARE productive in order to subsidize those who are not. Arguably, America has already spent all of the money it once had, America has borrowed and spent almost all of the money that foreigners are willing to lend to us, and soon will face a 'day of reckoning' in regard to a widespread reduction in the American standard of living when there is no more money available for borrowing.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 07-01-2007 at 02:32 PM.





in reality, this is still gov't subsidized to the tune of 30-50% of the donationThe hard hitting stuff comes from local tv stations and foundations.
(snip)"The best reason for giving is that it's the right thing to do, but the tax incentives are also worth considering. As the U.S. government has cut back on social services, it has encouraged charitable giving by easing regulations and tax structure. Charitable donations of cash let you deduct up to 50 percent of gross income for tax purposes; gifts of stock or other securities cover up to a 30 percent deduction -- those securities are valued at market and you don't have to pay any capital gains tax on the donated appreciation.
There are other reasons to give besides than an income tax break. Structured philanthropy can reduce estate taxes and avoid onerous generational transfer taxes. If you have a fund or foundation, you can name successors to direct or advise. "(snip)





^^^ oh really re right to choose ... then where can I get a similar tax deduction by contributing to a 'conservative' television or radio network rather than a liberal one ? The answer of course is that I can't, because no such tax deductible 'non-commercial' 'conservative' networks exist. IMHO that still amounts to a targeted subsidy for liberal media PBS on the part of the US gov't rather than any 'right to choose'.
Bookmarks