U.s @ MindSay 
america
- Immigration News
Israel has far fewer restrictions
Over the last week, many are asking why India does not "do a Gaza" on Pakistan, referring, of course, to an emulation of Israel's use of force against Terrorists Hamas-run Palestine, a territory from which rockets rain down on Israeli soil with reliable frequency (if not reliable destructiveness ...).
The answer for this question comes always with a painful grip on reality, is simple: India does not because it cannot.
Here are five reasons why:
1. India is not a military goliath in relation to Pakistan in the way Israel is to the Palestinian territories. India does not have the immunity, the confidence and the military free hand that result from an overwhelming military superiority over an opponent. Israel's foe is a non-sovereign entity that enjoys the most precarious form of self-governance. Pakistan, for all its dysfunction, is a proper country with a proper army, superior by far to the tin-pot Arab forces that Israel has had to combat over time. Pakistan has nukes, to boot. Any assault on Pakistani territory carries with it an apocalyptic risk for India. This is, in fact, Pakistan's trump card. (This explains, also, why Israel is determined to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran.)
2. Even if India could attack Pakistan without fear of nuclear retaliation, the rationale for "doing a Gaza" is, arguably, not fully present: Israel had been attacked consistently by the very force--Hamas--that was in political control of the territory from which the attacks occurred. By contrast, terrorist attacks on India, while originating in Pakistan, are not authored by the Pakistani government. India can-- and does--contend that Pakistan's government should shut down the terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil. (In this insistence, India has unequivocal support from Washington.) Yet only a consistent and demonstrable pattern of dereliction by Pakistani authorities-- which would need to be dereliction verging on complicity with the terrorists--would furnish India with sufficient grounds to hold the Pakistani state culpable.
3. Israel enjoys impressive support from many countries especially from the Americans, in contrast to the Palestinians. No other state--apart, perhaps, from Britain--evokes as much favor in American public opinion as does Israel. This is not merely the result of the much-vaunted "Israel lobby" (to use a label deployed by its detractors), but also because of the very real depth of cultural interpenetration between American and Israeli society. This fraternal feeling buys Israel an enviable immunity in the conduct of its strategic defense. India, by contrast--while considerably more admired and favored in American public opinion than Pakistan--enjoys scarcely a fraction of Israel's "pull" in Washington when it comes to questions of the use of force beyond its borders.
4. Pakistan is strategically significant to the United States; the Palestinians are not. This gives Washington scant incentive to rein in the Israelis, but a major incentive to rein in any Indian impulse to strike at Pakistan. However justified the Indian anger against Pakistan over the recent invasion of Mumbai by Pakistani terrorists, the last thing that the U.S. wants right now is an attack--no matter how surgical--by India against Pakistan-based terror camps. This would almost certainly result in a wholesale shift of Pakistani troops away from their western, Afghan front toward the eastern boundary with India--and would leave the American Afghan campaign in some considerable disarray, at least in the short term. So Washington has asked for, and received, the gift of Indian patience. And although India recognizes that it is not wholly without options to mobilize quickly for punitive, surgical strikes in a "strategic space," it would--right now--settle for a trial of the accused terrorist leaders in U.S. courts. (Seven U.S Citizens were killed in Mumbai: Under U.S. law, those responsible--and this should include Pakistani intelligence masterminds--have to be brought to justice.)
5. Israel has the privilege of an international pariah to ignore international public opinion in its use of force against the Palestinians. A state with which few others have diplomatic relations can turn the tables on those that would anathematize it by saying, Hang diplomacy. India, by contrast, has no such luxury. It is a prisoner of its own global aspirations--and pretensions.
he Associated Press October 21, 2008, 10:14AM ET
Study shows gap growing between rich and poor
By EMMA VANDORE and GREG KELLER
The gap between rich and poor is getting bigger in the world's richest countries -- and particularly the United States -- as top earners' incomes soar while others' stagnate, according to a 30-nation report released Tuesday.
In a 20-year study of its member countries, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said wealthy households are not only widening the gap with the poor, but in countries such as the U.S., Canada and Germany they are also leaving middle-income earners further behind, with potentially ominous consequences if the global financial crisis sparks a long recession.
Inequality threatens the "American Dream" of social mobility -- children doing better than their parents, the poor improving their lot through hard work -- which is lower in the U.S. than countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Australia, the report found.
The two decades covered in the study -- 1985-2005 -- saw the development of global trade and the Internet, and a period of overall strong economic growth. The countries covered are mostly developed nations, especially in Europe.
The United States has the highest inequality and poverty in the OECD after Mexico and Turkey, and the gap has increased rapidly since 2000, the report said. France, meanwhile, has seen inequalities fall in the past 20 years as poorer workers are better paid.
OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said that the study, which took three years to complete, would be useful to policymakers because it is coming out just as the world is undergoing "the worst crisis in decades."
With several OECD countries already in recession, the "key question" raised by the report is whether governments can prevent a possible drop in top earners' incomes from sparking "a second wave" hit to the lowest-income households, Martin Hirsch, France's high commissioner for fighting poverty, said at a news conference.
Also speaking at the report's presentation, Oxford University economist Anthony Atkinson noted that the widening inequality gap had coincided with a period of strong economic growth.
"What will happen if the next decade is not one of world growth but of world recession? If a rising tide didn't lift all boats, how will they be affected by an ebbing tide?" Atkinson said.
With governments around the globe announcing trillions of dollars in rescue financing to shore up banks, "I think that citizens of OECD countries are going to expect that if you can find funds to rescue banks, then governments can fund an effective unemployment insurance scheme, and they can fund employment subsidies," Atkinson said.
Atkinson said governments need to act to support employment as a response to widening inequality and faltering economies.
"If the government can take on the role of lender of last resort, then we should think about the government taking on the role of employer of last resort. Put bluntly, governments have to step up. Step up to the plate as Roosevelt did in the Great Depression," Atkinson said.
The OECD's Gurria urged governments to address the "divisive" issue of growing inequality. He said they should do more to educate the whole work force -- and not just the elite -- while helping people get jobs and increasing incomes for working families, rather than relying on social benefits.
"Greater income inequality stifles upward mobility between generations, making it harder for talented and hardworking people to get the rewards they deserve," he said in a statement. "It polarizes societies, it divides regions within countries, and it carves up the world between rich and poor."
In the United States, the richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 -- the highest level in the OECD. The poorest 10 percent earn an average of $5,800 -- about 20 percent lower than the OECD average.
Social mobility is lowest in countries with high inequality such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Italy, the report said.
$700B is almost the size of the Pentagon's budget.
Conspiracy theories aside, I really think Osama Bin Laden has won.
USA is falling apart along with it's economy. Just as Osama told you in 2004
The Arabic-language network Al-Jazeera released a full transcript Monday (2004)
of the most recent videotape from Osama bin Laden in which the head of
al Qaeda said his group's goal is to force America into bankruptcy.
"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point
east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order
to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human,
economic and political losses without their achieving anything of
note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.
"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said.
"It is the American people and their economy."
Defazio "We shouldn't be rushed into this!"
Let's Play "WALLSTREET BAILOUT" The Rules Are... Rep Kapture
But that all aside whats been happening with Paris Hilton & Britney Spears lately ?
Nick Anderson cartoon 1/25/2008
By BASIL C. ADAMS
March 16, 2008
People want to blame corporate executives and the government and subprime borrowers and everyone except the real culprit. You see, unless you're saving money every month and are constantly paying off your debt without adding any new debt, you are the malefactor.
True, you've been enticed by advertising and admittedly the temptation is powerful to accumulate more stuff, but you are the problem nonetheless. Here's how it works:
People buy things on credit and defer payment to a later date. When the day comes to make a payment, they have less of their income for things they want and need so they borrow more. Then more still. And the cycle of adding to consumer debt becomes a lifestyle.
You'll pay for it some day. You will. You know you will. But right now it would be nice to have another iPod to leave in the third car . . . and let's not forget that the Xbox in the family room is almost a year old, and the Wii at your buddy's house is mighty cool.
Well, every time you buy something you really can't afford to pay for, you make it look like the economy is growing. But all you've really done is dedicate some future income to today's economy. That's not growth, that's as close to a time warp as we'll see in our lifetimes.
There comes a point when you can't afford any more debt, and you have to make some difficult decisions. You can file bankruptcy (which is a polite way of saying that you decide to steal all the stuff you bought on credit) or you decide to change your lifestyle and start paying off your debt. And just before you make that fateful decision, the government lowers interest rates, and you can now afford another $50 a month on your credit card to go buy more stuff. Life is good, all is well, let's all sing "Hallelujah!"
Then the government sends you $600. Rather than paying down your debt, you do what you're told and spend it on more stuff. And you add a few more dollars of debt so that you can buy what you really want. Well, that $2,500 big screen is now really only costing you $1,900 (what a bargain!) If you had used the $600 to pay down debt, it only would have saved you $10 a month in interest -- forever.
But the day is still coming when the bill will come due. And the whole world knows it. They know that when the bill comes due that the U.S. economy is going to suffer mightily.
So the rest of the world stops wanting U.S. dollars -- right now. At one time, a few years ago, you could buy a euro (that's money in most of Europe) for 85 cents. Today, a Euro will cost you over a buck and a half. If a gallon of gas used to cost $2.25 and now it's $4, it would have cost about 2.65 euros at both times. The price of gas hasn't really gone up, the value of your dollar has gone down.
And why has it gone down? Because so much of our future individual income is already committed to paying off debt for stuff we've already forgotten.
You hear the pundits talking about wanting to avoid inflation? Well, inflation is defined as having to pay more for the same good or service than you did last year. Congratulations to the government on keeping inflation low. What they've done is to allow the dollar to get weak instead. It really still is inflation -- it's just not included in the way the government calculates the statistics. I'm so giddy with joy that I think I'll whip out the plastic and go buy some lawn furniture and a gas barbecue.
There's only one formula to fix things, and it's impolitic in this election year but the sooner we start, the better. Raise interest rates. Stop buying stuff. Let the economy take the hit. Reduce your debt load. Save money every month.
If enough people start living within their means and reducing their debt, the dollar will get stronger. The more money people save, the more is available to lend and interest rates will go down all by themselves. It'll be painful, but the time has come to stop subsidizing destructive behavior.
Don't let the advertisers or the government or the lenders cajole you into making the problem worse. Don't let them bribe you with your own money. Take control of the future by being responsible today. (Yeah, that'll happen.)
If government wants to get involved, let it pass legislation that every unsecured consumer debt must be paid off in five years -- that would only make the minimum payment on a credit card equal to all of that month's interest and fees and one-sixtieth of the balance. Let them pass legislation limiting unsecured consumer debt to a reasonable amount.
So the next time you see someone reaching for their plastic, clear your throat, make them feel like a smoker in a restaurant. Let everyone know that you want our economy to become stable. Let the people that are stealing your future know that you're not happy about it.
Make sure lawmakers know that you don't want bailouts and incentives. Do everything you can to live debt-free (except for your first mortgage) and to save money every month. You're going to need it when you retire -- but that's another mess for another time.
Basil C. Adams, a Petaluma resident, is a business professor at Golden Gate University.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
