Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance, cant happen. Most Archetects and Engineers and even Physicists say it cant happen...its a physical impossibility...yet NIST is trying to sell this whopper to the American Public
to all my loyal readers, especially the Boeing shills, you keep losing money compared to Airbus what happened ?Last year you lost 5% on Boeing stock, compared to the average Dow 30 stock up 8% what happened? is that drop of 92% in cash flow and the euro being stronger , just like I said it would , causing the winner of shareholder value , airbus up 40% year to date , and the Boeing never make a dime on the backbone of Boeings future the 787 which is now over 27 Billion over cost doing exactly what I said it would hurt Boeing investors forever
Obamas REAL Fatehr is Frank Marshall Davis...looks just like him....Pics of his Mother making Betty Paige nudie photos in Franks apartment in the early 60s prove it ...look you cant make this stuff up man.
This isnt bait and switch again Hooz, somthing for which you are renowned...Answer the question...and oh by the way this is easily found on the internet and is curent...Obamas Half Brother says he is ticked off at Obama and now DOUBTS they shared a common parent from Kenya..why do you suppose that is ? You figure he is lying ?
thanks for the update
If you were the CEO of a Company like I am, why would you pay a man more if a woman could create more value for your company?
Labor and its compensation, be it executive or manual, is still subject to the law of supply and demand. When government do-gooders try to circumvent that law, they reduce one or the other and that always ends up hurting all stake holders no matter what side of the equation they're on. Sometimes the hurt is clearly visible and sometimes it's hidden by time but it's still there.
Democrats plan to demagogue income inequality and the wealth gap for political gain in this year's elections. Most of what’s said about income inequality is stupid or, at best, ill-informed. Much to their disgrace, economists focusing on measures of income inequality bring little light to the issue. Let’s look at it.
Income is a result of something. As such, results alone cannot establish whether there is fairness or justice. Take a simple example to make the point. Suppose Tom, Dick and Harry play a weekly game of poker. The result is: Tom wins 75 percent of the time. Dick and Harry, respectively, win 15 percent and 10 percent of the time. Knowing only the game's result permits us to say absolutely nothing as to whether there has been poker fairness or justice. Tom's disproportionate winnings are consistent with his being either an astute player or a clever cheater.
To determine whether there has been poker justice, the game's process must be examined. Process questions we might ask are: Were Hoyle's rules obeyed; were the cards unmarked; were the cards dealt from the top of the deck; and did the players play voluntarily? If these questions yield affirmative answers, there was poker fairness and justice, regardless of the game's result, even with Tom's winning 75 percent of the time.
Similarly, income is a result of something. In a free society, for the most part, income is a result of one's capacity to serve his fellow man and the value his fellow man places on that service. Say I mow your lawn and you pay me $50. That $50 might be seen as a certificate of performance. Why? It serves as evidence that I served my fellow man and enables me to make a claim on what he produces when I visit the grocer. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are multibillionaires. Just as in the case of my serving my fellow man by mowing his lawn, they served their fellow man. The difference is they served many more of their fellow men and did so far more effectively than I and hence have received many more "certificates of performance," which enables them to make greater claims on what their fellow man produces, such as big houses, cars and jets.
Brin and Page and people like them created wealth by producing services that improve the lives of millions upon millions of people all around the globe. Should people who have improved our lives be held up to ridicule and scorn because they have higher income than most of us? Should Congress confiscate part of their wealth in the name of fairness and income redistribution?
Except in many instances when government rigs the game with crony capitalism, income is mostly a result of one's productivity and the value that people place on that productivity. Far more important than income inequality is productivity inequality. That suggests that if there's anything to be done about income inequality, we should focus on how to give people greater capacity to serve their fellow man, namely raise their productivity.
To accomplish that goal, let’s look at a few things that we shouldn’t do. Becoming a taxicab owner-operator lies within the grasp of many, but in New York City, one must be able to get a license (medallion), which costs $700,000. There are hundreds of examples of government restrictions that reduce opportunity. What about the grossly fraudulent education received by so many minority youngsters? And then we handicap them further with laws that mandate that businesses pay them wages that exceed their productivity, which denies them on-the-job training.
Think back to my poker example. If one is concerned about the game's result, which is more just, taking some of Tom's winnings and redistributing them to Dick and Harry or teaching Dick and Harry how to play better? If left to politicians, they’d prefer redistribution. That way, they could get their hands on some of Tom’s winnings. That’s far more rewarding to them than raising Dick's and Harry’s productivity.
I agree with that, but that and would like to see more activism on the part of shareholders of most companies. But that is just one facet of this discussion.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
One thing I have noticed is that 'relatives' in 3rd world countries can and will say just about anything for a buck. In this case, how much can they know about how he has changed? They barely knew him.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
" It involves the ability of boards of public companies to direct more money to themselves than ever."
If you don't like what a board of directors pays themselves. Don't buy their stock. Ain't freedom great!
"Oh man, how much right-wing radio do you listen to?!?"
Apparently talk back radio is his whole life.
The discussion about income inequality is less about star power and more about the general population. It involves the difference in pay for men and women doing the same job. It involves the widening gap between what executives earn and what manual labor earns. It involves the ability of boards of public companies to direct more money to themselves than ever. Granted, even among stars there is some animosity for male stars generally earning more than female stars.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"As so often is case, those outside forces probably come from George Soros funded organizations"
I love the words chosen there. u use a man's name, George Soros, speak of him funding a demonstration, coupled with the word 'probably.' Nice smear tactic.
So, PDB.......what's the problem? The top 1% income earners pay more than 38% of all federal income taxes paid. The bottom 50% only pay 2.78%.
Among the documents turned over to Judicial Watch were records detailing former President Clinton’s dealings with Saudi Arabia, China and Iran. Emails that included the State Department’s Legal Adviser Office showed the department raised concerns in January 2011 about the former president’s dealings related to Saudi Arabia. The emails were heavily redacted, Fitton said, meaning the specific concerns remain unclear.
Judicial Watch is not declaring a hard-fought victory. In addition to the redactions, the nonprofit claims the State Department allowed Clinton to review what documents were turned over. Some 1,000 records Judicial Watch sought were turned over to the Clinton Foundation more than a year ago by the State Department, for the foundation to review before making public. The documents have not been released.
“There was no lawful reason to turn anything over to the Clinton Foundation for review,” Chris Farrell, spokesperson for Judicial Watch, said. “It was an administrative ‘stall tactic’ consistent with the Clintons' cover-up strategy and facilitated by a complicit State Department. This is a shameful manipulation of the FOIA process to hide information from the public.”
So.....if you want equality of taxation....either promote a flat tax with no deductions or the FAIR TAX which has no deductions.
here is question asked
Boeing Shareholder Meeting Question
David Almasi, Executive Director
The National Center for Public Policy Research
April 27, 2015
I’m David Almasi, a shareholder, representing the National Center for Public Policy
Research, a free-market think-tank.
Mr. McNerney, at last year’s shareholder meeting, I raised concerns that the
company could face potential prosecution for honest services fraud due to the
company’s donations to the Clinton Foundation and other projects important to
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that occurred during the same time frame
that she was making what she called a “shameless pitch” to Russia’s state-owned
airline to buy Boeing planes. Instead of addressing the actual issues raised in my
question, you deflected and said my comments were “beyond the pale.”
As a Boeing investor, I was so concerned by your refusal to address the legal
concerns and business risks of the company’s dealings with the Clinton Foundation
that I filed a shareholder resolution asking the company to issue a report on its
charitable giving policies. Such a report would have identified the company’s
standards for making charitable donations and shown whether such transactions
were indeed ethical and legal. I was very disappointed when Boeing spent
shareholder resources to have its lawyers petition the SEC to block its shareholders
from voting on this non-binding recommendation to management. It gives the
appearance that Boeing has something to hide.
Although you have succeeded in blocking this shareholder’s request for a report on
charitable giving policies, you still have the opportunity to set the record straight
that every communication between Boeing and the State Department was above
board. Will you release every email and communication that Boeing officials had
relating to donations to the Clinton Foundation, and with the State Department?