Lincoln ignored him and stood up, his long frock coat flapping in the breeze. After someone handed him a spyglass, he watched as Union troops drove the Confederates away from their positions in front of the forts. He heard the zing of flying bullets, one hitting the wall to his side. A cannon roared. More flying missiles. Another near miss. One soldier near the President screamed as he was shot in the leg. All of a sudden, a voice called out to him, an angry, sputtering voice: “Get down, you damn fool, before you get shot!” Lincoln got down immediately, shocked that someone had the audacity to address him in that manner. He took cover but poked his head up every so often to see more of the action. “Are you all right, sir?” one of the men asked him. Lincoln grinned. “Yes, but that man who shouted at me just then—is he a Democrat?” “I don’t know his politics, Mr. President, but that man’s name is Captain Oliver Wendell Holmes.”
Canadian security services to Canadian PM Stephen Harper if he shows his face in public after this news.
This is in my view an historic, unprecedented, astounding intrusion into American politics. We searched all the way back to the Revolution and found nothing like it in American history. And the question that I came this morning to put is, "Will the Parliament of Canada accept responsibility for possibly tipping the balance in American politics in preserving the control of Congress by the president's party?" This softwood lumber agreement is an historic moment in part because of that proposition, and it's up to this Parliament to decide whether it will accept the responsibility. That responsibility cannot be shifted and, indeed, that money inevitably will go to shore up the electoral aspirations of the Republican party through the president -- it's not going to be touched by Congress -- it's going through an escrow fund. And these are questions that could impact American politics for generations and impact relations between Canada and the United States for generations to come. And that is entirely in the hands of this Parliament.
Mr. Julian: So what you're saying is that we are not only providing money to the coalition to fight further legal victories, for further legal battles -- giving half a billion dollars to them -- but we're also providing money that may go to political purposes for the re-election of Republicans, many of whom have been the most adamant against allowing free trade in lumber. It is ridiculous.
Mr. Feldman: The provision in Article 13.A.2 of the agreement, which recites the meritorious initiatives, is language which could be defined only as a slush fund for the president.
Ladies and gentlemen, Canadians will put up with a lot from our politicians, but bribing a US administration in order to get them to give us our own money steps over the line.
The conservative government is toast. And about time too.
Actually I am a bit surprised that ++ would cite a blog as a news article. That being said, the financial arrangement made,
does not have the $1 billion or even half of the $1 billion going straight to GWB.
At issue
The dispute centred on stumpage fees – set amounts charged to companies that harvest timber on public land. Many in the U.S. see Canadian stumpage fees as being too low, making them de facto subsidies. A U.S. coalition of lumber producers wants the provincial governments to follow the American system and auction off timber rights at market prices.
The U.S. responded by levying tariffs on incoming Canadian lumber in May 2002.
Softwood deal signed
On July 1, 2006, trade ministers from Canada and the U.S. signed the final legal text of the softwood lumber deal. David Emerson, Canada's international trade minister and U.S. trade representative Susan Schwab signed the agreement in Geneva, where ministers were attending international trade talks.
The deal is based on the April 26 framework agreement. Emerson says he will introduce legislation in September 2006 to confirm the agreement and hopes to have it in place by October 1, 2006.
Parts of the deal include:
Import duties of $4 billion the U.S. charged Canadian companies since 2002 will be returned. But the U.S. keeps $1 billion.
A seven-year term, with a possible two-year extension.
A ban on the U.S. launching new trade actions.
Restrictions on Canadian exports will kick in if prices fall too far.
Neutral trade arbitrators will provide final and binding settlements of disputes.
The $450 million "meritorious initiatives" is under direct control of the Whitehouse administration with no congressional oversight (a.k.a. an election-time slush fund).
Why on Earth do you think The Tyee is a blog? Besides, if you actually read the article I linked to, you would see it was verbatim testimony at a government hearing.
TYEE is the Canadian Version of Pajamas Media. Alternative News....
No ++ it is not a slush fund for the Republicans. This is what 1 person(an attorney) said would happen with it and you ran with it.
Feldman, who is based in Washington, D.C., offered one more bit of startling analysis,
Yes his analysis,or opinion,not based on fact.
Mr. Feldman: The provision in Article 13.A.2 of the agreement, which recites the meritorious initiatives, is language which could be defined only as a slush fund for the president.
Again his opinion. Neither the POTUS, nor Republicans can just take that $450 million and do whatever they want with it. As the Toronto Star article I referenced earlier stated: If GWB decides to take that $450 million and use it to rebuild houses in NOLA, or used it to build low income housing..so be it. But he can not legally take the money and pour it into campaigns...
As a side note, I will need to look into the tariff/subsidies, but at face value, I can see where you feel that the money is rightfully(all of it) yours. It is an interesting subject.
Good job, pam. One thing of interest to add is that, according to Shelby Foote, Capt. Holmes was not initially aware in the heat of battle that it was the President himself that he was addressing.
I'd like to apologize for that crack, it was snarky and unwarranted.
TYEE is the Canadian Version of Pajamas Media. Alternative News....
No, it is not. It's an actual magazine with real journalists working on it. Pajamas Media is a collection of blogs with a few journalists thrown in.
But he can not legally take the money and pour it into campaigns...
And no-one has said he would. What the administration has is a big wad of cash they can spend in whichever districts they want to generate electorale goodwill. Without congressional of judicial oversight.
Are you guys really okay with this? You wouldn't mind if, say, Saudi Arabia did the same thing to help keep a government favourable to them in power, or if a liberal Canadian government provide $450 to a Democratic adminstration right before an election?
If the roles were reversed, people in Canada would be going to jail. We'd call it foreign interference in our political system.
but we're also providing money that may go to political purposes for the re-election of Republicans,
as well as
is language which could be defined only as a slush fund for the president.
Can you point out in an American paper where this administration (George Bush) is taking possession of the money? I am not tring to be difficult, but rather pointing out something obvious here...there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the left would sit for that! Time Mag just ran this article on the deal:
Of the remaining $1 billion, $500 million will go to the U.S. producers who originally challenged the Canadian prices, which is salt in the wounds of Canadians who say the money will help pay legal bills the Americans accumulated. The remainder is earmarked for undisclosed "meritorious" projects in the U.S. — possibly including reconstruction in New Orleans — and a fund for developing the industry on both sides of the border.
I am asking you to look at this objectively for just one moment..could it be that in your (those that are in agreement with you that this deal was not good)anger over the agreement and Harper, some things could have been misunderstood and even misconstrued to further a cause? I am not implying that you, ++, are doing this.
BTW, the funds must flow through the Treasury and/or the Congress.
Of course not, because no one is claiming that. But the Whitehouse administration is declaring where the money is spent, which is the point.
I would have no trouble with allocation of these funds (aside from the fact that this is Canadian money being spent by the US) if they were allocated by a non-partisan overseer.
But allowing the money to be spent by the US administration like this is sleazy. And it will likely kill the conservative government in Canada, unless the Bloc Quebecois is so desperate for the money that they approve this.
The remainder is earmarked for undisclosed "meritorious" projects in the U.S. — possibly including reconstruction in New Orleans — and a fund for developing the industry on both sides of the border.
I guess we'll see by tomorrow. If the money is earmarked for New Orleans, that's great. If it's earmarked for swing districts, well, then it's being used to try and win political support.
But to tell the truth, I don't think this will be approved by Parliament. It smells too much.
Since this thread is screwed anyway, I'll just post this here.
I forget who, I think it was ++, but he had said that the new jobs sucked and wages were lower. I said that wasn't true. He wanted me to disprove his assertion, something I rarely do. I feel that you are responsible for proving your points. I didn't feel like going any farther as I knew I was right and he can wallow in self-imposed ignorance as it's no skin off my back. But now I've seen something that shows I was right and he was wrong so I figured I would link it.
Here, wages are up 7% over last year. Notice that it's a story about the NY Times saying one thing and then having to correct it a few days later. With links to the NY Times, who I refuse to link.
Of course not, because no one is claiming that. But the Whitehouse administration is declaring where the money is spent, which is the point.
I would have no trouble with allocation of these funds (aside from the fact that this is Canadian money being spent by the US) if they were allocated by a non-partisan overseer.
Actually the Whitehouse hasn't declared anything. It is you and fellow Canadians guessing who is doing what. As I have tried to explain to you, these funds, even in escrow, are run through our Treasury. And GWB doesn't get to just call that extension and say cut a check for so and so. But this is the key to your arguement and where you allowed yourself to not look at the facts:
But allowing the money to be spent by the US administration like this is sleazy.
And GWB doesn't get to just call that extension and say cut a check for so and so.
And, for the third time, that isn't what I said, or what anyone else has said. Why are you so desperate for that to be the arguement?
These funds can be used as determined for various projects in whichever electoral districts this administration chooses. If you don't think that's the case then please tell me who decides on he project allocations.
++- maybe because everytime you deny it you follow up with
These funds can be used as determined for various projects in whichever electoral districts this administration chooses.
And now for the 4th time I will tell you that that isn't the case! This administration does not get to be the sole arbitor of who gets funding. It doesn't work that way.
Well, for starters, a bi-partisan committee will be formed and I would dare say that it will be going through the Congress. The language of the agreement was pretty straight forward on what it is to be used for,meritorious initiatives, with the money staying in an escrow account. Translated to mean, the POTUS and Congress don't suddenly have $450 million to blow on pet projects. The money is to be used for things such as Katrina, or public housing for the needy. It is to benefit mankind, not just republicans or just democrats, but those in need.
Nor is there anything in the agreement that says that the money goes to Republican districts. That was assumed! You asked me "who do you think decides?" and I answered based on our laws and how the agreement was earmarked.
Nor is there anything in the agreement that says that the money goes to Republican districts. That was assumed!
Where did I assume that? I said that because there was no oversight, it could be used to swing elections. We won't know until sometime today what the funds will actually be used for.
Now, I repeat, you've been pretty vocal about how the decision-making process is going to work regarding how these funds are spent. From my reading, a committee is set up by the administration to do so. There are no restrictions on who they pick to be on this committee. It is not done through Congress or any other body.
That's what's in the agreement. Now, if you have evidence that it is going to be done differently, let's see it.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Fisher: ++, it was Mark Adams. Sorry.
Oh crap, here we go. If you clear out the cobwebs, you'll remember that I was talking about income disparity. Real wages (ie. buying power vs. inflation) is down, has been down, keeps going down -- while at the same time corporations are posting record profits and corporate execs are "earning" record salaries. It didn't take a Harvard MBA to figure out what was happening. And as the article you linked to points out this is what has been reported right up until Friday.
When we had that discussion, the new Treasury Secretary was acknowledging that average Americans weren't enjoying the benefits of the recovery. I guess he was in the same self-imposed ignorance that I suffer from. Notice, however, when I saw that speech, I didn't run out to tell everyone that I was right and you were wrong. I'm not quite as needful for that kind of ego stroking as you, I guess. But now that you brought it up (and I finally looked at this thread), you asked for it...
God Mike, you're irritating.
You act like I was making this stuff up. I figured way back when that if you weren't seeing the NYT saying this, on it's front page, and all the stories like it everywhere else saying:
“[T]he current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages,” [--from your frickin' link.]
then you were the one "wallow[ing] in self-imposed ignorance" and hadn't been keeping up with what every reputable news outlet had been saying right along.
I also might point out that writing a new story, based on brand new data that contraindicates previous conclusions, and acknowledging that new info -- is simply responsible journalism -- not some kind of correction/retraction as you seem to have implied. It wasn't the Times that revised it's estimates, it was the US Commerce Dept. [a fully controlled subsidiary of the Bush/Cheney White House.]
This is the first good economic news for average wage earners since the towers fell. But we still aren't up to where we should be post recession when compared to every single recovery since the '30s.
Mike, I hope the trend continues, and is based on real info and not a fluke. It's about time. But until I see next quarter bettering this last report, I'm considering it an "outlier."
And keep this in mind. What the story is saying is that the first half of '06 was better than '05, which really blew, as did '04 and '03 when it came to purchasing power for the average wage earner.
Take a look at this link from Fox New Regular Mort Kondrake (I'll link to anyone I guess)
The highlights:
1.) [M]edian household income rose slightly in 2005 – but only because more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet.
2.) Between '03 and '05 both median hourly wages and total worker compensation fell between 2003 and 2005, despite surging productivity and corporate profits.
[Imagine what that would look like if you were looking at the mean (average) or mode (most common number) instead of the middle number (median) between the highest and lowest wage earners. Hint: we can't cuz they didn't give us those figures. All we can see is the estimated aggregate total as a portion of GDP, which is slightly better than the catastophic level it was before.]
3.) 1.3 million more Americans are without health care this year
4.) The poverty rate has not budged.
5.) The housing bubble is leaking hot air, pushing down home values and borrowing ability.
6.) I'll quote Kondrake quoting the notorious NY Times (he links to anyone too):
The New York Times reported that while average family income is up overall, the gains mainly accrue to those in the top income brackets. But even for workers in the top 10 percent bracket – those making more than $80,000 a year – inflation has outpaced pay increases over the past three years.
There, satisfied? I was right then, I'm right now. You got lucky and it took you three weeks to find something that didn't exist until Friday -- something backing up your claim that what I said about wages and jobs sucking was a lie.
None of your links worked for me, but from what you wrote none addressed this
And the jobs suck, are low wage
and that's the one I wanted you to prove. It's just not true.
It was true Mike. You just didn't want to look at the data from all the evidence available at the time, from everywhere -- just like all the available evidence convinced us all that Iraq had WMDs -- until they didn't.
The difference, of course, is that prior to the first half of this year, the jobs sucked and the wages were low -- all through the Bush tenure. Are things getting better? God I hope so.
We are told that the wages people take home are down; the wages people have in their pocketbooks are down in this recovery. Here on this chart, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is the evidence of what is happening to real hourly wage growth. We can see that, in previous recessions, every time there was a recession, real wage growth went down; recession, real wage growth went down; recession, real wage growth went down. In this recession, real wage growth did not go down as much as it historically has; real wages stayed higher than they have been in the past. During this period of recovery, it looks like--yes, that argument has merit--real wages are going down. However, one of the things we have to recognize is that this chart does not include benefits. When you add benefits to wages and get the total compensation that goes into someone's pocket, the picture changes. Consider the next chart. Again, the dark blue line on the chart is productivity, and it shows that employee compensation in total in a recession goes down as productivity goes up. It goes down as productivity goes up. It goes down as productivity goes up. It goes down as productivity goes up. And then, when the recovery takes hold, real compensation comes back up above the line.
Here are the facts. Taking this as the line between growth and shrinkage, real employee compensation, including benefits, has been in positive territory. It went below that, just as it has in every previous recession, but when the recovery took hold, employee compensation has gone into positive territory and come back up to join productivity, just as it has done historically.
Where do we get these arguments that real wages are going down? It is the difference between the two charts. The difference is that one chart looks at wages only, and ignores benefits. The other shows total worker compensation that includes wages and salaries, but also benefits workers receive. Now we can consider some statistics that I hope make the importance of the distinction between wages only and wages plus benefits very clear. The employment cost index data shown in the final chart shows that in the 1980s, real compensation growth grew at a 0.82 percent rate. In the 1990s, coming after the recession--we have taken the recession out of this--the period of growth during the Clinton administration stayed at virtually the same level. But from 2001 to the present, it is much stronger, at 1.11 percent.
How can that be, given the rhetoric we have heard? Well, if you go to the salary growth, take out the benefits, you find that portion of that wage and salary growth was 0.46 in the 1980s. It was 0.82 percent in the 1990s. It was only 0.39 since the beginning of 2001. This is the number which is being focused on as a demonstration of the fact that people's wages are not that good. But when you look at the benefits growth, you find that benefits grew in the 1980s at 1.76 percent. In the 1990s, at 0.73 percent growth, there was very anemic benefit growth. That is why this number is so close to this number, because the benefit growth actually pulled this number down. But when you get to what has happened from the beginning of 2001 to now, people are contracting for more benefits. The benefit growth is extremely strong, which is why real compensation is stronger in the post-2000 period than it was in either of the previous two decades--not a bad economic record since the year 2000 and the recession we had.
I have more to say on this, but I recognize that other Senators wish to speak, so I will conclude here. I wish to make it clear that the facts demonstrate that we have a strong economy currently going, and the facts demonstrate that real compensation is keeping up with it. Productivity is going up at an accelerated rate, and real compensation is also going up at an accelerated rate. We should be proud of what we have accomplished since coming out of the recession of 2000.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I.N.F.L.A.T.I.O.N. and I.N.S.U.R.A.N.C.E.
Sen. Bennett does not account for the fact that those benefits that he combines with wages to (artificially IMO) show a stronger wage picture is principly due to the increased cost of providing the largest component of that perk package -- which has increased well beyond inflation.
Pam, do I have to document the astronomical increase in health care and insurance costs?
Here's what happens. An HMO increases it's premiums, the company pays the fee as per it's employee contract and tells the employee that even though productivity and profit margin have increased, he won't get a raise because he already did in the form of increased benefits.
It's a net wash for the employee's pocket. He gets nothing "new" as far as his perspective is concerned.
What you present is just another argument FOR universal health care. If health care just increases at near the level of inflation, the company could afford to increase benefits AND wages at a rate comparable to the cost of living. The health care industry has sucked the life out of the economy -- and then posts it as a part of GDP growth. It's true voodoo.
Mark- The fact is that benefits are tied to wages. Health insurance is a part of the benefits package, along with 401K matching funds. Are you factoring overtime into real wages? I worked for you last year. My wage is $10/hr or $400/wk x 52= $20,800. Last year because of overtime, I took home $28,000. You cut out all overtime this year, but raised my hourly rate to $12/Hr or $24,960/yr. Are my real wages going down? The answer is no. Over-time is above and beyond your wage. Unfortunately, people bank on it as their hourly rate. It isn't. And many of the articles cited do not distinguish between hourly rate and over-time. It was a bonus for me to make all that overtime, yet it sucked to be you.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Pam, in a follow-up today in the dreaded NYTimes, they try to paint everything as the glass being half-full, but if you read to the end they admit that it's the movement at the top that is skewing the numbers -- leaving the rest of us stagnant.
But averages can be affected by big changes among a small group of people, which is exactly what seems to be happening with incomes, according to an array of government data. The census report, for instance, showed strong income growth last year only at the 95th percentile of the distribution, which covers families making $166,000 a year. Even at the 90th percentile, as well as the 50th and further down, according to the Labor Department, pay increases have trailed inflation over the last three years.
Now, because I didn't attribute this well know FACT, Mr. Fisher has accused me of dishonesty in saying "the jobs suck, are low wage."
I was called a liar Pam, by a jerk who refuses to acknowledge he is one of the most obsessive and intellectually dishonest people to comment here -- rivaling Dean Esmay himself.
Mark- I was talking to you and not addressing the other issue. Now I will address the other issue with the limited knowlege that I have of it...you don't appear to be a liar in my eyes. You are a man that is capable of honest discussion. You do not purposely skew things for the sake of an arguement. That is my opinion of you. We may go back and forth, but you provoke thought and not a knee jerk reaction.
As for the last item you cited..take a look at this article. Then I would like to discuss it with you.
Mark, what is not being said about that article is that the figures that the Census Bureau is giving are not based on an actual census taken every 10 years, but actually a compilation of 2 different surveys. They are guesstimates and not hard evidence. (Just keep that in mind when you read them)
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Okay Pam, fair warning from the get go. I hold the WSJ's editorial staff in about the same regard as Mike V. holds the NYTimes' news department. Me, I agree often with some of the folks on the Times' opinion page, and others hardly ever. I have less agreement with the Washington Post's opinion journalists, but do find some common ground.
BUT, I've almost never agree with the WSJ editorial staff, although their financial news coverage is simply the gold standard. I should read them more -- but usually their butt-awful boring or just trying to advocate against my side. They are so blatently partisan it's unseemly for such a respected newspaper. They don't try to be any more objective than Truthout, and that's just weird for an international publication.
So, with that in mind, I just added them to my RSS news reader because they are an important information source. You win on those grounds alone, Pam. I'm going to start reading the WSJ more often.
Now, on to the article....Interestingly enough, they tried to anticipate my reaction to their initial graphs when talking about "Democrats and their media pals...," that the rich were "making
making out like bandits" under Bush. They fell a bit short because all their initial data related to taxes on income and not income itself -- but then they trotted out their graph....
What I seen here is not a refutation that income disparity is growing (which was my premise in the first place) but that the disparity is a bipartisan phenomenon.
What I'd argue is that at least the Democrats will act like they might do something to address the problem -- including something that Bush has not -- fully fund education intitiatives that seems to be the excuse the right has latched on to for absolving their complicity in the divide.
I talked about health care before, but not the second out of control cost to American families -- education costs. I heard somewhere in the last two weeks that tuition costs have gone up over 500% over the last 20 years. I also remember the Pell Grant getting cut. And now, without irony, educational opportunity is blamed for income disparity.
What I can't figure out is why such a holistic approach diametrically opposed to the interest of most Americans is supported by any Americans, let alone the significant proportion who return GOPers to their jobs year after year. Gods, guns and gays is such a sickeningly powerful and well funded mantra that it actually convinces so many to vote against their own interests. It's a shame.
Tuition odd you brought that up! I was just talking to my Dad about what it cost his father to send him there in 1951 and what it will cost my neice to go there in 2007! Yikes! Granted it is a private school, but come on! I would say that 500% is a gross exaggeration in 20 years for public schools, but I would say on 150% for public and at least 300% for private!
Before you go blaming the GOP for education, do an honest study of funding.
As for :
Gods, guns and gays is such a sickeningly powerful and well funded mantra that it actually convinces so many to vote against their own interests. It's a shame.
Just who do you think pays for the public funding to schools?
We already have government run schools..I could do without them. (sarcasm obviously).
NYT v WSJ--I tend to go with WSJ over the Times if it is my only option...The Times has fallen from the standard they set in the industry and that isn't just a right winger saying it!
WSJ can be partisan, but they cite to actual documents and it enables the reader to do their own research.
Panic on 43rd Street
By attacking The New York Times for reporting secret anti-terrorism measures, the White House has evoked the government-defying glory days of the “paper of record.” But even as the Times builds a soaring $850 million headquarters, its newsroom, its leadership, and its business are in a crisis of confidence
By MICHAEL WOLFF
It's a rather long article but it does cover the problems that the NYT's faces! The Republicans are the least of their problems!
<utterly bleak and hopeless>Gee, thanks, for the educational link, Mark. I should have said "Intellectual dishonesty is a useless phrase." That's because it never said anything to me. But I see from the link that calling someone "intellectually dishonest" is merely a fancy way of calling them a liar. So now I've learned that when I see the phrase I should ignore the entire surrounding context, and possibly the speaker, as well.
Because, of course, in most cases people who call others liars are either lying themselves, or simply mistaken, usually because they don't understand or are unwilling to make the mental effort to recognize the nature of truth, what a fact is, or what an opinion is.</utterly bleak and hopeless>
Entry-level wages for college and high school graduates fell by more than 4 percent from 2001 to 2005, after factoring in inflation, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by the Economic Policy Institute. In addition, the percentage of college graduates receiving health and pension benefits in their entry-level jobs has dropped sharply.
Some labor experts say wage stagnation and the sharp increase in housing costs over the past decade have delayed workers ages 20 to 35 from buying their first homes
So, it's not just the uneducated getting the shaft. But they do address the growing inequity between high school and college grads:
The wage gap between college-educated and high-school-educated workers has widened greatly, with college graduates earning 45 percent more than high school graduates, up from 23 percent in 1979.
Professor Rouse of Princeton said a college degree added $402,000 to a graduate’s lifetime earnings.
Around Rose and my neighborhoods, Lower Michigan and Northern Ohio, the effect is accute because of the massive hit in manufacturing jobs -- which were the ticket to normal life. Those jobs are gone.
Growing up outside of Youngstown OH in the late 70's and watching the steel mills all get mothballed -- I know what this kind of thing looks like. And now it's not limited to just one industry, but making stuff across the board, making anything. They don't make steel in the Steel Valley anymore. The Rubber City, Akron, doesn't make tires anymore. My own Glass City just lost Owens-Corning, and is barely holding on to Libby Glass. We lost Dana, Champion Spark Plugs, and even General Mills. The frickin Pilsbury Dough-boy left town. And now the Blade has declared war on what few unions are left, locking them out and hiring scabs while spending enough on TV ads to have covered a raise for everyone on the print shop floor.
You don't "recover" from this. People simply leave or accept a lower standard of living.
Sheldon H. Danziger, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, sees a bifurcated labor market for young workers.
“You’re much better off as a young worker today if you’re the child of the well-to-do and you get a good education,” Professor Danziger said, “and you’re much worse off if you’re a child of a blue-collar worker and you don’t go to college. There’s increasing inequality among young people just as there is increasing inequality among their parents.”
Do you think the Times reads the comments on Rose's blog?
Mark- There has always been a gap between a college educated and non- college educated person. And of course the gap is widening. When you and I were growing up, education was stressed. You can't get ahead if you don't have an education. (take a look at some of the old TV Land shows, the references were being made in the 70's to alot of the issues we are crying about today) Those jobs that were the ticket are going. It stands to reason that manufacturing would suffer. In the past 30 years, shops have up-graded and automated. There is not as much human labor involved in the manufacturing process. The majority of the jobs are repetitive in nature and it would not disrupt a companies performance by higher employee turnover.
I hear you on the manufacturing jobs. Ohio and Indiana are kicking our ass here in MI! MI is losing new automotive jobs to it's offspring? Unbelievable! But you and Indiana earned them. We have a Governor that allowed the business to get away.(she is not responsible for the downfall of the Big 3) MI is highest in the nation on 1 way U-Haul rentals for a reason. We are losing existing businesses due to the hostile atmosphere this governor has created. Why would a person set up shop here when they can get a better deal in OH? (I am not referring to wages either) You won't get a shoulder to cry on from me on the unions. They did this to themselves. They have priced themselves out of the market. Hence you have Toyota is on the brink of surpassing GM and they have earned it.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
pam, someone's got to offset the corporate contributors buying sockpuppet legislators to destroy organized labor.
I'll note that for the record, you are one of the many who have completely internalized the anti-labor GOP meme they've been pushing most of our lifetime. It's mostly bull, but YMMV.
U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige labeled one “a terrorist organization.” Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called them “a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.” And U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., claimed they employ “tyranny that Americans are fighting and dying to defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan” and are thus “enemies of freedom and democracy,” who show “why we still need the Second Amendment” to defend ourselves with firearms.
Who are these supposed threats to America? No, not Osama bin Laden followers, but labor unions made up of millions of workers — janitors, teachers, firefighters, police officers, you name it.
David Sirota currently works for the Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate campaign. He is a writer political strategist, and author of the upcoming book Hostile Takeover,
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
25 years? That's just donkey stubborn. ;-)
I know exactly who Sirota is, read his blog almost daily. You didn't expect a compilation of such ridiculously embarassing GOP talking points to be advertised by Ken Mehlman, did you?
He acquitted himself well against Ayatollah Ann Coultergeist while in hostile territory in this clip, even though the host was against him and managed to give Ann the first and last word as well as most of the air-time. He's good.
A millionare like Lamont should get along fabulously with David. Yes, there are pro-business liberals. WE are just drowned out in the turf wars between the extremes on both sides and have watched a 30 year war on the working guy reach a dangerous point of diminished returns. Sirota's energy has consistenly been a study of the problem of the grossly unfair economic system we have.
Look, I'm a capitalist, own and run a couple of businesses, but there's got to be some reasonable check on corporate excess profit uber alles. And when the labor department is actively anti-labor, unions are the only thing keeping us from feudalism.
Sirota often butts heads with what you would consider the far left of the party. But he makes damn good sense. For a relatively young guy, he's more of a beltway guy than blogger, which is why KOS, Bowers and Greenwald don't always see eye to eye with him.
Mr. Feldman: The provision in Article 13.A.2 of the agreement, which recites the meritorious initiatives, is language which could be defined only as a slush fund for the president.
And in reading the provision, Mr. Feldman can not be farther than the truth. No where does it say that George W Bush or the Republicans will control it. The conditions are very straight forward.
Source
"Get down, you damn fool, before you get shot!"
Canadian security services to Canadian PM Stephen Harper if he shows his face in public after this news.
Ladies and gentlemen, Canadians will put up with a lot from our politicians, but bribing a US administration in order to get them to give us our own money steps over the line.
The conservative government is toast. And about time too.
does not have the $1 billion or even half of the $1 billion going straight to GWB.
Of the $1 billion that will remain in the U.S., $500 million is going to the U.S. lumber industry, $50 million to joint endeavours to support the industry on both sides of the border, and $450 million to "meritorious initiatives" in the United States.
And The Tyee isn't a blog. Sheesh.
On the ball as usual.
TYEE is the Canadian Version of Pajamas Media. Alternative News....
No ++ it is not a slush fund for the Republicans. This is what 1 person(an attorney) said would happen with it and you ran with it.
Yes his analysis,or opinion,not based on fact.
Again his opinion. Neither the POTUS, nor Republicans can just take that $450 million and do whatever they want with it. As the Toronto Star article I referenced earlier stated: If GWB decides to take that $450 million and use it to rebuild houses in NOLA, or used it to build low income housing..so be it. But he can not legally take the money and pour it into campaigns...
As a side note, I will need to look into the tariff/subsidies, but at face value, I can see where you feel that the money is rightfully(all of it) yours. It is an interesting subject.
I'd like to apologize for that crack, it was snarky and unwarranted.
TYEE is the Canadian Version of Pajamas Media. Alternative News....
No, it is not. It's an actual magazine with real journalists working on it. Pajamas Media is a collection of blogs with a few journalists thrown in.
But he can not legally take the money and pour it into campaigns...
And no-one has said he would. What the administration has is a big wad of cash they can spend in whichever districts they want to generate electorale goodwill. Without congressional of judicial oversight.
Are you guys really okay with this? You wouldn't mind if, say, Saudi Arabia did the same thing to help keep a government favourable to them in power, or if a liberal Canadian government provide $450 to a Democratic adminstration right before an election?
If the roles were reversed, people in Canada would be going to jail. We'd call it foreign interference in our political system.
as well as
Can you point out in an American paper where this administration (George Bush) is taking possession of the money? I am not tring to be difficult, but rather pointing out something obvious here...there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the left would sit for that! Time Mag just ran this article on the deal:
I am asking you to look at this objectively for just one moment..could it be that in your (those that are in agreement with you that this deal was not good)anger over the agreement and Harper, some things could have been misunderstood and even misconstrued to further a cause? I am not implying that you, ++, are doing this.
BTW, the funds must flow through the Treasury and/or the Congress.
Of course not, because no one is claiming that. But the Whitehouse administration is declaring where the money is spent, which is the point.
I would have no trouble with allocation of these funds (aside from the fact that this is Canadian money being spent by the US) if they were allocated by a non-partisan overseer.
But allowing the money to be spent by the US administration like this is sleazy. And it will likely kill the conservative government in Canada, unless the Bloc Quebecois is so desperate for the money that they approve this.
The remainder is earmarked for undisclosed "meritorious" projects in the U.S. — possibly including reconstruction in New Orleans — and a fund for developing the industry on both sides of the border.
I guess we'll see by tomorrow. If the money is earmarked for New Orleans, that's great. If it's earmarked for swing districts, well, then it's being used to try and win political support.
But to tell the truth, I don't think this will be approved by Parliament. It smells too much.
I forget who, I think it was ++, but he had said that the new jobs sucked and wages were lower. I said that wasn't true. He wanted me to disprove his assertion, something I rarely do. I feel that you are responsible for proving your points. I didn't feel like going any farther as I knew I was right and he can wallow in self-imposed ignorance as it's no skin off my back. But now I've seen something that shows I was right and he was wrong so I figured I would link it.
Here, wages are up 7% over last year. Notice that it's a story about the NY Times saying one thing and then having to correct it a few days later. With links to the NY Times, who I refuse to link.
Thanks for playing.
Plastic turkey anyone?
That would be incorrect.
Actually the Whitehouse hasn't declared anything. It is you and fellow Canadians guessing who is doing what. As I have tried to explain to you, these funds, even in escrow, are run through our Treasury. And GWB doesn't get to just call that extension and say cut a check for so and so. But this is the key to your arguement and where you allowed yourself to not look at the facts:
And, for the third time, that isn't what I said, or what anyone else has said. Why are you so desperate for that to be the arguement?
These funds can be used as determined for various projects in whichever electoral districts this administration chooses. If you don't think that's the case then please tell me who decides on he project allocations.
And now for the 4th time I will tell you that that isn't the case! This administration does not get to be the sole arbitor of who gets funding. It doesn't work that way.
I can nothing in the agreement that says that.
Where did I assume that? I said that because there was no oversight, it could be used to swing elections. We won't know until sometime today what the funds will actually be used for.
Now, I repeat, you've been pretty vocal about how the decision-making process is going to work regarding how these funds are spent. From my reading, a committee is set up by the administration to do so. There are no restrictions on who they pick to be on this committee. It is not done through Congress or any other body.
That's what's in the agreement. Now, if you have evidence that it is going to be done differently, let's see it.
Oh crap, here we go. If you clear out the cobwebs, you'll remember that I was talking about income disparity. Real wages (ie. buying power vs. inflation) is down, has been down, keeps going down -- while at the same time corporations are posting record profits and corporate execs are "earning" record salaries. It didn't take a Harvard MBA to figure out what was happening. And as the article you linked to points out this is what has been reported right up until Friday.
When we had that discussion, the new Treasury Secretary was acknowledging that average Americans weren't enjoying the benefits of the recovery. I guess he was in the same self-imposed ignorance that I suffer from. Notice, however, when I saw that speech, I didn't run out to tell everyone that I was right and you were wrong. I'm not quite as needful for that kind of ego stroking as you, I guess. But now that you brought it up (and I finally looked at this thread), you asked for it...
God Mike, you're irritating.
You act like I was making this stuff up. I figured way back when that if you weren't seeing the NYT saying this, on it's front page, and all the stories like it everywhere else saying: then you were the one "wallow[ing] in self-imposed ignorance" and hadn't been keeping up with what every reputable news outlet had been saying right along.
I also might point out that writing a new story, based on brand new data that contraindicates previous conclusions, and acknowledging that new info -- is simply responsible journalism -- not some kind of correction/retraction as you seem to have implied. It wasn't the Times that revised it's estimates, it was the US Commerce Dept. [a fully controlled subsidiary of the Bush/Cheney White House.]
This is the first good economic news for average wage earners since the towers fell. But we still aren't up to where we should be post recession when compared to every single recovery since the '30s.
Mike, I hope the trend continues, and is based on real info and not a fluke. It's about time. But until I see next quarter bettering this last report, I'm considering it an "outlier."
And keep this in mind. What the story is saying is that the first half of '06 was better than '05, which really blew, as did '04 and '03 when it came to purchasing power for the average wage earner.
Take a look at this link from Fox New Regular Mort Kondrake (I'll link to anyone I guess)
The highlights:
1.) [M]edian household income rose slightly in 2005 – but only because more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet.
2.) Between '03 and '05 both median hourly wages and total worker compensation fell between 2003 and 2005, despite surging productivity and corporate profits.
[Imagine what that would look like if you were looking at the mean (average) or mode (most common number) instead of the middle number (median) between the highest and lowest wage earners. Hint: we can't cuz they didn't give us those figures. All we can see is the estimated aggregate total as a portion of GDP, which is slightly better than the catastophic level it was before.]
3.) 1.3 million more Americans are without health care this year
4.) The poverty rate has not budged.
5.) The housing bubble is leaking hot air, pushing down home values and borrowing ability.
6.) I'll quote Kondrake quoting the notorious NY Times (he links to anyone too):
There, satisfied? I was right then, I'm right now. You got lucky and it took you three weeks to find something that didn't exist until Friday -- something backing up your claim that what I said about wages and jobs sucking was a lie.
All you've done is remind everyone who reads this what a hard case you can be.
Mike Veeshir, 8/10/06:It was true Mike. You just didn't want to look at the data from all the evidence available at the time, from everywhere -- just like all the available evidence convinced us all that Iraq had WMDs -- until they didn't.
The difference, of course, is that prior to the first half of this year, the jobs sucked and the wages were low -- all through the Bush tenure. Are things getting better? God I hope so.
Sen. Bennett does not account for the fact that those benefits that he combines with wages to (artificially IMO) show a stronger wage picture is principly due to the increased cost of providing the largest component of that perk package -- which has increased well beyond inflation.
Pam, do I have to document the astronomical increase in health care and insurance costs?
Here's what happens. An HMO increases it's premiums, the company pays the fee as per it's employee contract and tells the employee that even though productivity and profit margin have increased, he won't get a raise because he already did in the form of increased benefits.
It's a net wash for the employee's pocket. He gets nothing "new" as far as his perspective is concerned.
What you present is just another argument FOR universal health care. If health care just increases at near the level of inflation, the company could afford to increase benefits AND wages at a rate comparable to the cost of living. The health care industry has sucked the life out of the economy -- and then posts it as a part of GDP growth. It's true voodoo.
I was called a liar Pam, by a jerk who refuses to acknowledge he is one of the most obsessive and intellectually dishonest people to comment here -- rivaling Dean Esmay himself.
As for the last item you cited..take a look at this article. Then I would like to discuss it with you.
Yours,
Wince
Wince: Intellectual dishonesty is a meaningless phrase.
You're so funny. Either that or that was the most intellectually dishonest [link] thing you've ever written. ;-)
BUT, I've almost never agree with the WSJ editorial staff, although their financial news coverage is simply the gold standard. I should read them more -- but usually their butt-awful boring or just trying to advocate against my side. They are so blatently partisan it's unseemly for such a respected newspaper. They don't try to be any more objective than Truthout, and that's just weird for an international publication.
So, with that in mind, I just added them to my RSS news reader because they are an important information source. You win on those grounds alone, Pam. I'm going to start reading the WSJ more often.
Now, on to the article....Interestingly enough, they tried to anticipate my reaction to their initial graphs when talking about "Democrats and their media pals...," that the rich were "making
making out like bandits" under Bush. They fell a bit short because all their initial data related to taxes on income and not income itself -- but then they trotted out their graph....
What I seen here is not a refutation that income disparity is growing (which was my premise in the first place) but that the disparity is a bipartisan phenomenon.
What I'd argue is that at least the Democrats will act like they might do something to address the problem -- including something that Bush has not -- fully fund education intitiatives that seems to be the excuse the right has latched on to for absolving their complicity in the divide.
I talked about health care before, but not the second out of control cost to American families -- education costs. I heard somewhere in the last two weeks that tuition costs have gone up over 500% over the last 20 years. I also remember the Pell Grant getting cut. And now, without irony, educational opportunity is blamed for income disparity.
What I can't figure out is why such a holistic approach diametrically opposed to the interest of most Americans is supported by any Americans, let alone the significant proportion who return GOPers to their jobs year after year. Gods, guns and gays is such a sickeningly powerful and well funded mantra that it actually convinces so many to vote against their own interests. It's a shame.
Before you go blaming the GOP for education, do an honest study of funding.
As for :
Just who do you think pays for the public funding to schools?
We already have government run schools..I could do without them. (sarcasm obviously).
NYT v WSJ--I tend to go with WSJ over the Times if it is my only option...The Times has fallen from the standard they set in the industry and that isn't just a right winger saying it!
WSJ can be partisan, but they cite to actual documents and it enables the reader to do their own research.
Panic on 43rd Street
It's a rather long article but it does cover the problems that the NYT's faces! The Republicans are the least of their problems!
Because, of course, in most cases people who call others liars are either lying themselves, or simply mistaken, usually because they don't understand or are unwilling to make the mental effort to recognize the nature of truth, what a fact is, or what an opinion is.</utterly bleak and hopeless>
Yours,
Wince
Growing up outside of Youngstown OH in the late 70's and watching the steel mills all get mothballed -- I know what this kind of thing looks like. And now it's not limited to just one industry, but making stuff across the board, making anything. They don't make steel in the Steel Valley anymore. The Rubber City, Akron, doesn't make tires anymore. My own Glass City just lost Owens-Corning, and is barely holding on to Libby Glass. We lost Dana, Champion Spark Plugs, and even General Mills. The frickin Pilsbury Dough-boy left town. And now the Blade has declared war on what few unions are left, locking them out and hiring scabs while spending enough on TV ads to have covered a raise for everyone on the print shop floor.
You don't "recover" from this. People simply leave or accept a lower standard of living. Do you think the Times reads the comments on Rose's blog?
I hear you on the manufacturing jobs. Ohio and Indiana are kicking our ass here in MI! MI is losing new automotive jobs to it's offspring? Unbelievable! But you and Indiana earned them. We have a Governor that allowed the business to get away.(she is not responsible for the downfall of the Big 3) MI is highest in the nation on 1 way U-Haul rentals for a reason. We are losing existing businesses due to the hostile atmosphere this governor has created. Why would a person set up shop here when they can get a better deal in OH? (I am not referring to wages either) You won't get a shoulder to cry on from me on the unions. They did this to themselves. They have priced themselves out of the market. Hence you have Toyota is on the brink of surpassing GM and they have earned it.
I'll note that for the record, you are one of the many who have completely internalized the anti-labor GOP meme they've been pushing most of our lifetime. It's mostly bull, but YMMV.
To wit [link]:to which I say...baloney!
Thanks for that op-ed from David Sirota
I know exactly who Sirota is, read his blog almost daily. You didn't expect a compilation of such ridiculously embarassing GOP talking points to be advertised by Ken Mehlman, did you?
He acquitted himself well against Ayatollah Ann Coultergeist while in hostile territory in this clip, even though the host was against him and managed to give Ann the first and last word as well as most of the air-time. He's good.
A millionare like Lamont should get along fabulously with David. Yes, there are pro-business liberals. WE are just drowned out in the turf wars between the extremes on both sides and have watched a 30 year war on the working guy reach a dangerous point of diminished returns. Sirota's energy has consistenly been a study of the problem of the grossly unfair economic system we have.
Look, I'm a capitalist, own and run a couple of businesses, but there's got to be some reasonable check on corporate excess profit uber alles. And when the labor department is actively anti-labor, unions are the only thing keeping us from feudalism.
Sirota often butts heads with what you would consider the far left of the party. But he makes damn good sense. For a relatively young guy, he's more of a beltway guy than blogger, which is why KOS, Bowers and Greenwald don't always see eye to eye with him.
David's got his own mind and isn't afraid to lose it. That's why I like him.
And in reading the provision, Mr. Feldman can not be farther than the truth. No where does it say that George W Bush or the Republicans will control it. The conditions are very straight forward.
Much ado about nothing!