Unemployment for Those Who Earn $150,000 or More is Only 3%, While Unemployment for the Poor is 31%

Originally posted by drew hempel

This site is dedicated to informing people about the ongoing, US Alliance-imposed Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide that as of December is associated with post-2001 violent and non-violent avoidable deaths totalling 4.5 million and Afghan and Pashtun refugees totalling 5-6 million – an Afghan Holocaust and an Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Geneva Convention

afghangenocide.blogspot.com...

[edit on 25-4-2010 by drew hempel]

I'm not sure your point....

reply to post by Xtrozero


www.mail-archive.com...@kym.net/msg25941.html

Top US Lawyer And UNICEF Data Reveal Afghan Genocide By Dr Gideon Polya 08/02/08 "Countercurrents" -- - The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 with the ostensible excuse of the Afghan Government's "protection" of the asserted Al Qaeda culprits of the 9/11 atrocity that killed 3,000 people. In the light of as many as 6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan as of February 2008 (see below), it is important to consider the major problems with this Bush-ite and neo-Bush-ite version of events as summarized below:

1. The US has a long history of "questionable" excuses for war e.g. the explosion of the Maine (the Spanish-American War), the sinking of the US arms-carrying Lusitania (entry into World War 1), the Pearl Harbor attack with now recognized US foreknowledge (entry into World War 2), North Koreans provoked into invading their own country (the Korean War), the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin incident (the Vietnam War; recently similarly but unsuccessfully attempted in the Persian Gulf as an "excuse" to attack Iran) and the extraordinary 1,000 post-9/11 lies told by Bush Administration figures, most notoriously about non-existent Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (the Iraq War; post-invasion excess deaths now about 1.5-2 million).

2. The US supported and funded Al Qaeda and the Taliban from the late 1970s to the early 1990s associated with its anti-Soviet policies (see William Blum's "Rogue State").

3. Oil- and hegemony-related plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were all ready to go before 9/11.

4. No Afghans were involved in the 9/11 attack according to the "official 9/11 story" of the egregiously dishonest Bush Administration.

5. Even the right-wing, neo-Bush-ite Democrat Al Gore in his recent book "The Assault on Reason" (Chapter 6, National Insecurity, pp178-179) condemns the Bush Administration for effective passive complicity in the 9/11 atrocity i.e. they let it happen, just as a fore-warned US Administration permitted the Pearl Harbor attack to happen in 1941: "Their behaviour, in my opinion, was reckless, but the explanation for it lies in hubris, not in some bizarre conspiracy theory .These affirmative and repeated refusals to listen to clear warnings [prior to 9/11] constitute behaviour that goes beyond simple negligence. At a minimum, it represents a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people."

6. However, further to point #5, the extremely eminent former 7-year President of Italy, law professor, senator for life and long-term Western intelligence intimate Francesco Cossiga recently (November 2007) told one of Italy's top newspapers that (a) the US CIA and Israeli Mossad committed the 9/11 outrage in order to further US and Zionist aims and that (b) major Western intelligence agencies are well aware of this (for details and documentation see: mwcnews.net... ). As of February 2008, analysis of UNICEF data (see UNICEF statistics on Occupied Afghanistan: www.unicef.org... ) allows the following estimate of 3.3-6.6 million post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that should not have happened) in Occupied Afghanistan: 1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000. 2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable). 3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million. 4. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths 3.2 million (2.3 million /0.7 = 3.3 million; for impoverished, worst case Third world countries the under-5 infant deaths are about 0.7 of total non-violent excess deaths (see A Layperson's Guide to counting Iraq deaths: mwcnews.net... ). 5. post-invasion violent deaths about 3.3 million (assuming roughly 1 violent death for every non-violent avoidable death i.e. roughly as in US-occupied Occupied Iraq where the ratio of violent deaths to non-violent excess deaths is 0.8-1.2 million to 0.7-0.8 million; see Continued Australian and US Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq: ruddaustraliareportcard.blogspot.com... ). 6. upper estimate of non-violent plus violent post-invasion excess deaths 3.3 million + 3.3 million = 6.6 million excess deaths. For detailed documentation of the above see "Australian complicity in continuing Afghan genocide": ruddaustraliareportcard.blogspot.com... . A major cause of the carnage is revealed by WHO (see: www.who.int... ) - the "total annual per capita medical expenditure" permitted by the Occupiers in Occupied Afghanistan is a mere $19 - as compared to as compared to $2,560 (the UK), $3,123 (Australia) and $6,096 (the US). This is in gross contravention of Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (see: www.unhchr.ch... ) which unequivocally demands that the Occupier must provide life-sustaining food and medical requisites to its Conquered Subjects "to the fullest extent of the means available to it". Compounding this is the appalling reality of 4 million Afghan refugees. What is happening in Afghanistan is an Afghan Holocaust. One sees that post-invasion under-5 infant deaths in Occupied Afghanistan (2.3 million) vastly exceeds the number of Jewish children murdered by the Nazis in World War 2 (1.5 million). The upper estimate of post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan (6.6 million out of an average 2001-2008 Afghan population of about 25 million) exceeds the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis in World War 2 ( 5.6 million out of 8.2 million Jews in German-occupied Europe in the period 1941-1945) (see: Gilbert, M. (1969), Jewish History Atlas (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London) and Gilbert, M. (1982), Atlas of the Holocaust (Michael Joseph, London)). Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (see: www.edwebproject.org... ) states "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." From the data summarized above, it is apparent that the Afghan Holocaust is also an Afghan Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention. Outstanding US Law academic Professor Ali Khan of the Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas has also described what is going on in Afghanistan as genocide i.e. an Afghan Genocide (see "NATO Genocide in Afghanistan": mwcnews.net... ). The key legal verdict of Professor Khan is as follows: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entered into force, 1951) is binding on all states including the 26 member states of NATO. The Genocide Convention is jus cogens, the law from which no derogation is allowed. It provides no exceptions for any nation or any organization of nations, such as the United Nations or NATO, to commit genocide. Nor does the Convention allow any exceptions to genocide "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war." Even traditional self-defense - let alone preemptive self-defense, a deceptive name for aggression - cannot be invoked to justify or excuse the crime of genocide." Professor Khan proceeds to analyse the campaign of extermination of the Indigenous Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan in relation to International law. He states that in relation to Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention "In murdering the Taliban, NATO armed forces systematically practice on a continual basis the crime of genocide that consists of three constituent elements - act, intent to destroy, and religious group." His detailed analysis can be succinctly summarized as follows: 1. "The Genocidal Act" is prohibited as defined in the Genocide Convention as "a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" - but is is clearly occurring on a huge scale as indicated by the above data. 2. "The Genocidal Intent" is expressed in the Genocide Convention as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"- but is clearly present in the statements of the NATO leaders. The "Intent" is also apparent from the sustained, resolute conduct of this horrendously bloody war for over 6 years. 3. "The Genocidal targeting of a Religious Group" is clearly prohibited by the Genocide Convention by "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group" - but is clearly being carried out with the accompaniment of immense Islamophobic propaganda in the West. Professor Khan concludes: "It may, therefore, be safely concluded that NATO combat troops and NATO commanders are engaged in murdering the Taliban, a protected group under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to physically and mentally destroy the group in whole or in part. This is the crime of genocide."

[edit on 26-4-2010 by drew hempel]

Not only would someone making such a high salary not file for unemployment, but they are also a much smaller pool of people, with jobs that still have demand for them. It's supply and demand, common sense. ATS has been posting some anti-business anti-rich articles lately...yet most people here are against Obama's "wealth redistribution." Yeah, that makes sense, have a consistent view for crying out loud.

I'd say if you have ever been in the position of making $150 a year or more then you have a pretty good idea how not to be unemployed. You've probably been unemployed before as a result of taking a risk to improve your lot and you didn't like it and did something about it. Those in that bracket who were taking a risk at that time will have lost out but they will get back in the saddle quickly because poverty is a state of mind. Money is less real than your state of mind.

We "losers" of the planet have been trained for centuries to "admire" and "respect" the wealthy. Why?

Does a wealthy man show me respect? Nope. The wealthy man expects me to smile and bow and grovel and prostrate myself before him before crawling into the grave and dying so he can have a little more.

I am going to need a little more evidence before they wealthy get my respect. They have destroyed the planet, killed millions, sequestered the wealth of the citizens, and still expect the "useless eaters" to continue their thankless toil. As far as I am concerned, they can all eff themselves.

All the tired arguments of the wealthy being the "engines of creation", "the job creators", "the drivers of the economy" are being shown to be nothing more than lies used to perpetuate their criminal fleecing of the citizens.

Sorry but the "respect the wealthy" is just another scam used to squeeze the poor for more profit.

reply to post by msthurnell


I'd still file if I made that much. I don't know about other states but it took me 10 minutes to file mine online in Florida and I didn't have to do anything but go on the internet and click a couple buttons.

I didn't even have to prove I was looking for other work. No one called me out on it the whole time I was collecting. This was back in 2007 as I was one of the first casualties of this recession. And no, I made about $120,000 less than $150,000 hahaha.

But if you are making $150,000 the extra $300/mo unemployment is just paying the taxes on your house and that's about it really.

reply to post by TheCoffinman


You should thank those that still make make from 100 to 250 thousand dollars a year, because they are there to pay for the taxes, SS, entitlement programs and social services of those that have lost their jobs and those that never had held a job in their lives.

Making 150, thousand a year doesn't make you rich in this time and age.

And look at the tax bracket to see how much the 100 thousand up to 250 thousand income pay in taxes a year.

People should just pay more attention at who are the ones been gouged in this nation for the benefit of others.

This is the same group that the governemnt is been target with their HCR.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by marg6043]

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
But if you are making $150,000 the extra $300/mo unemployment is just paying the taxes on your house and that's about it really.

For someone who made $150000 a year, making the max on unemployment of about 300 a week is something but it is highly doubtful it makes a dent in that person's expenses. The state expects you to have about 40 dollars a day in expenses. Most of these people are spending $5000 a month in loans and spend another $2000 a month in other expenses. $1200 a month is nothing in comparison.

reply to post by ararisq


Most of the time when people in this income bracket lose their jobs their net savings is almost gone or none existant.

Most of the value they hold is in their homes, once that home is missing payment bankruptcy usually follow.

Right now with the depreciation of housing due to the mortgage bubble crash no even the homes hold the value they once have.

People making 100 thousand to 250 thousand are the new middle class in this day and time.

And they are targeted the most.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Carseller4
If you are accustomed to making over $150,000 a year, what are the chances you even file for unemployment in the first place?

From experience, quite a lot. Especially when you were employed for more than 15 years. When you build a life based around your income, and you make decent money, losing your job becomes an even bigger ordeal.

Even if you follow the recommended balance -- carrying no more than 30% of your income as debt including mortgage -- going on unemployment doesn't allow you to still make your payments since the maxed out weekly amount is so little comparatively. So, each week that you remain unemployed, you are pulling from any savings you have.

People act like $150K per year makes you Donald Trump or something. Living the high-life, tons of money in the bank, etc. Trust me, it doesn't.

It also depends greatly on where one lives. Making $150K and living in Manhattan is not equal to making a $150K and living in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. People hear a salary figure and never take into account cost of living.

reply to post by drew hempel


I'm still not sure what direction you are going with this that deals with the OP's post by only cut and paste from a bias site.

non-violent plus violent post-invasion excess deaths 3.3 million + 3.3 million = 6.6 million excess deaths

So who the hell is killing these people and where are the bodies hidden? I don’t think people really understand just what 1 million people really represents, and to what extent it would take to kill them much less 6.6 million or even 100,000….

We throw around a number like million as some eye catching trigger used for propaganda and that is about all it is. So in seven years the US led to the deaths of 6.6 million out of a population of 25 million….ok

Lets look at some numbers….. 1994

Population: 16,903,400 (July 1994 est.)
Population growth rate: 2.45% (1994 est.)
Birth rate: 43.46 births/1,000 population (1994 est.)
Death rate: 18.94 deaths/1,000 population (1994 est.)
Net migration rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (1994 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 155.8 deaths/1,000 live births (1994 est.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 44.89 years
male: 45.53 years
female: 44.21 years (1994 est.)

I can’t say things were very good in 1994 for this country is not even 3rd world….

Now lets look at 2009....

Population:
28,395,716 (July 2009 est.)
Population growth rate:
2.576% (2009 est.)
Birth rate:
38.37 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Death rate:
17.83 deaths/1,000 population (July 2009 est.)
Net migration rate:
5.22 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Infant mortality rate:
total: 153.14 deaths/1,000 live births
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 44.4 years
male: 44.19 years
female: 44.61 years (2009 est.)

Wow, not much different is it (well except population is almost double from 1994).....that is because the place has been the same for the last 1000 years hehe.

Hmm how about 2002 for birth/death life expectancy

Birth rate: 41.03 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Death rate: 17.43 deaths/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 144.76 deaths/1,000 live births (2002 est.)
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 46.6 years
female: 45.85 years (2002 est.)
male: 47.32 years

Once again about the same....

1989 doesn't look very good either...and once again the place is extremely primitive, and not much has changed since then or long before.

Population: 14,825,013 (July 1989), growth rate 2.3% (1989)
Birth rate: 44 births/1,000 population (1989)
Death rate: 21 deaths/1,000 population (1989)
Net migration rate: 0 migrants/1,000 population (1989)
Infant mortality rate: 173 deaths/1,000 live births (1989)
Life expectancy at birth: 43 years male, 42 years female (1989)








[edit on 26-4-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
We "losers" of the planet have been trained for centuries to "admire" and "respect" the wealthy. Why?

Does a wealthy man show me respect? Nope. The wealthy man expects me to smile and bow and grovel and prostrate myself before him before crawling into the grave and dying so he can have a little more.

Your problem lies in the fact that apparently you don't know that respect is earned and not given. No matter how much money one has or doesn't have.

Sorry but the "respect the wealthy" is just another scam used to squeeze the poor for more profit.

If there were no wealthy people in this country, there would be no entitlement programs for the poor. That's how it all started: the theory that if one man can afford several homes not one person should have to go without one.

Everybody likes to villify the wealthy just so they can justify taking even more of their money.

Here's something people making $25K and $250K have in common:

They both earned it.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I forgot to add my friend that this the same 3% percent of the population that pay the most taxes in the nation.

If we are losing taxable income right now within the 31% of the population, can you imagine what will happen if the rest of the 3% starts losing their jobs?

Who will pay for the 31% of those without jobs welfare, plus the rest that doesn't even held a job.

reply to post by marg6043


The richest .00001% with taxes over 60%.

No worries for them though, they are hedged and really don't even care because they could live 1000000 lifetimes off the dividends alone from their holdings in the SP500.

Originally posted by marg6043

Making 150, thousand a year doesn't make you rich in this time and age.

And look at the tax bracket to see how much the 100 thousand up to 250 thousand income pay in taxes a year.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by marg6043]

If we look at it....

150k equals to about 120k taxable income so 30% of this for state fed leaves 110k in the bank so to speak.

110k - 25k for morgage (medium size house at best)

85k - 10k for 1 or 2 car payments (in the 20k range)

75k -12k IRA (need to plan for the future even if it is a little....)

63k is about what is left to pay for everything else...not poor but damn well not rich. You throw in college for a few kids, some further savings and it goes down rather fast.

I understand that many need to live on a lot less and they don't have saving, or money for college, or a house etc, but really the difference is someone just wanting to make a decent life for their family compared to a family just surviving, but not rich or even close to it by any measurement...

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
We "losers" of the planet have been trained for centuries to "admire" and "respect" the wealthy. Why?

Does a wealthy man show me respect? Nope. The wealthy man expects me to smile and bow and grovel and prostrate myself before him before crawling into the grave and dying so he can have a little more.

I am going to need a little more evidence before they wealthy get my respect. They have destroyed the planet, killed millions, sequestered the wealth of the citizens, and still expect the "useless eaters" to continue their thankless toil. As far as I am concerned, they can all eff themselves.

All the tired arguments of the wealthy being the "engines of creation", "the job creators", "the drivers of the economy" are being shown to be nothing more than lies used to perpetuate their criminal fleecing of the citizens.

Sorry but the "respect the wealthy" is just another scam used to squeeze the poor for more profit.

So who are you talking about here the ultra rich? Those that make millions per year are such an extremly small percentage of the population, but they get all our focus...hehe. What do they owe you or you owe them? Even when a rich person sneaks by on lets say 10% taxes it is still more than what millions (10s of millions) of poor people combined would pay...lol

Or are you talking about the guy with a dream and spends 80 hours per week to develop a small business that he ends up providing jobs for a few hundred families? Even though you could say he is most likely a millionaire by that time he is doing a hell of a lot more for the country than a 100 million others.

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Couldn't have said it better myself. While you and I disagree often, we both work and hold out hope for our futures because of that work. No fate but what you make.

Your problem lies in the fact that apparently you don't know that respect is earned and not given. No matter how much money one has or doesn't have.

In what way have the wealthy earned respect? They are sure good at stealing wealth and scamming the poor, living fancy lifestyles, and prancing about the planet like they are better than the rest. That is not worthy of respect.

They are no better than the criminal wealthy men in government.

Scammers and parasites who care not for their country.

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Exactly!!!!!! that is why I don't even mention the "filthy rich" because to then it doesn't matter they live on their interest from their money.

But the littler ones in the 3% are working people, professionals, business owners they earn a living.

They are not rich by any means, regardless of those that make much less think.

And they are the target group when it comes to taxes.

reply to post by marg6043


Well yeah, totally.

You gotta have at least assets of over $10,000,000 - $25,000,000 and be single with no kids or wife to really be "rich" IMO anymore.

A regular family of 4 with a household income of $250,000 isn't cutting it anymore if you like to have a late model vehicle and a golf membership for your weekend activities.

I'm really still not sure how most families make due year after year. I guess that is why there is not a lot of wealth passed down generationally in this country anymore with debts accounting for the greater percentage.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by GreenBicMan]