(Tuesday, December 1, 2009)
talking about Dubai in the context of "commercial real estate failure".
This talk is also in the sense of whether Dubai's financial failures will or will not effect our commercial real estate here in the United States.
Those in the know are already aware that commercial real estate, like residential real estate, is practically a catastrophe here already. But not much talk about their policy that supports slavery:
Dubai is finally financially bankrupt – but it has been morally bankrupt all along. The idea that Dubai is an oasis of freedom on the Arabian peninsular is one of the great lies of our time.(Independent, emphasis added). There is a rush to feed the public as much pabulum as possible so as to hide the realities which are unfitting for a denial society. Sorry folks, if you blog here you have to take your medicine, because that is what the doctor ordered.
Yes, it has Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts and the Gucci styles, but beneath these accoutrements, there is a dictatorship built by slaves.
Dubai practices slavery, Cheney's Haliburton moved there, it gets TARP bailout money, and the treasury will not tell us how much other money went there or to other foreign nations.
I mean "the most expensive public works legislation in US history" never found its way to Republican districts in the U.S., so how many "world's tallest building", "world's largest airport", etc. for Dubai, has to be built first before they spend some of the American taxpayer's money on Americans?
I guess, then, that "we" will have to wait for the final report as to how much "we" support slavery with our hard earned tax dollars.
(Wednesday, December 1, 2010)
At first blush in a time of discontent concerning government in general, it may seem like a win win to stop raising the salaries of federal government civil servants, who earn more than their counter parts in the private sector.
But it becomes clear that more is needed than angry bias when it comes to messing with anyone's livelihood, including federal employees, when we consider that the average of $61,051 and $123,049 is $92,050.
So if we spout off about $92,050 it makes folks getting $61,051 look a bit more well oiled than they are, and it makes those getting $123,049 less well off than they actually are.
So, why not just do a pro rata freeze on the pay increases of those taking home more than the national median income, and leave those below the national median alone?
They are members of the middle class after all:
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.(USA Today). Those collecting Social Security Insurance, who are primarily those below the median income level, have already had their benefits frozen.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The corporations and the banksters are raking it in like the bandits they are.
Meanwhile, today unemployment benefits for a couple of million Americans out of work stop, yes they lose all unemployment benefits just before the holidays.
This as the republicans cry out for tax cuts for the 2% million-dollar-a-year income folks who Bush II called "my base".