Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
0 Views
21:00:11 01/29/12
Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player
Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! >
TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least.
GINGRICH: Yep.
TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened?
GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true.
Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true.
And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order.
We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people.
TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president.
GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud?
Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it.
Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false.
TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest.
GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip...
GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification.
TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about...
GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday.
TAPPER: Oh, OK.
GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true.
TAPPER: There...
GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues.
I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform.
There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things.
And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win.
It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.
0 Views
21:00:11 01/29/12
Newt on This Week: Mitt Can't Tell The Truth, Has A 'Character' Problem
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:11 01/29/12
video platform video management video solutions video player
Now, I'm going to assume that you didn't come in during the third act of Newt's career, and therefore you can appreciate just how funny it is when, on This Week , he's whining to Jake Tapper about how hard it is to pin someone down who will just lie about anything ! >
TAPPER: In many ways, you are where you are because of your debate performances. Last week, you had a couple that were not your strongest, to say the least.
GINGRICH: Yep.
TAPPER: Why do you think that was? What happened?
GINGRICH: I was amazed. I mean, I'm standing next to a guy who is the most blatantly dishonest answers I can remember in any presidential race in -- in my lifetime. And I've seen, I think, every presidential debate -- presidential campaign debate or virtually every one. And, you know, he would say things that were just plain not true.
Look, it's a little bit like yesterday's L.A. Times report. I mean, now it found 23 foreign accounts he never reported until he released his taxes. He would say -- he would say thing after thing after thing that just plain wasn't true.
And I had -- I don't know how you debate a person with civility if they're prepared to say things that are just plain factually false. And that's going to become a key part of this. I think the Republican establishment believes it's OK to say and do virtually anything to stop a genuine insurgency from winning because they are very afraid of losing control of the old order.
We tried a moderate in 1996 for president. He lost. We tried a moderate in 2008 for president. He lost. It's very hard to take Romneycare and Obamacare and have a debate and have the Republican win that debate. You need to have a conservative who is a very big distance away from Obama, because you've got to have the space so that, in fact, you can communicate with the American people.
TAPPER: I want to follow up on some of these comments you're making about Mitt Romney. The race has taken something of a nasty turn. Here's an ad that you are currently running in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election? This man would, Mitt Romney. If we can't trust what Mitt Romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It sounds as if you're saying in that ad, and here this morning, that Mitt Romney is unfit and does not have the character to be president.
GINGRICH: I am saying that he would not be where he is today, the debates this week wouldn't have been where they were, if he had told the truth. And I think that's a very serious problem for somebody. I think that you look at -- again, he's supposedly a great manager, yet he can't explain 23 different foreign accounts that weren't reported. He's a great manager. He can't explain being on the board of directors of the company which got the largest Medicare fine in history for fraud?
Somehow, every time it's bad, he didn't know about it or he wasn't aware about it. He didn't really understand the Planned Parenthood by law, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is in Romneycare? Romneycare literally defines Planned Parenthood in a key -- in a part of the bill. He didn't seem to quite know it.
Every time you turn around, this great manager consistently doesn't understand whatever it is that would have hurt him. And you just have to look back and say, why can't you be candid with the American people? You cannot be president of the United States if you cannot be honest and candid with the American people. And that's compounded, frankly, by a number of the ads he runs, which are just plain false.
TAPPER: So you're saying that he does not have the character to be president of the United States, because he's, in your view, not honest.
GINGRICH: I'm saying it is a very -- it's a -- it is a very serious problem when you have somebody who on item after item after item -- I mean, the clip you had just now, he knows what he said in that clip is not true. I did not resign in disgrace. I did not pay a fine. And, in fact, CNN ran an entire piece recently in which they pointed out that on every single substantive count in the ethics investigation, every single one, that I was vindicated, including vindication by a federal judge, vindication by the Internal Revenue Service, vindication by the Federal Elections Commission . Now, Romney knows that.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Well, the clip -- the clip...
GINGRICH: So he's run a campaign of vilification.
TAPPER: The clip I just played was actually one of your ads, but let's get to that Romney ad that you're talking about...
GINGRICH: No, no, but I'm talking about the earlier -- I'm talking about -- I'm talking about the clip you showed of him campaigning yesterday.
TAPPER: Oh, OK.
GINGRICH: What he said yesterday, this wasn't true.
TAPPER: There...
GINGRICH: And so at some point, I don't quite -- I don't quite -- to be honest, Jake, I don't quite know how you deal with an opponent, because you want to deal with them with civility, you want to deal with them in a positive way. I want to talk about big issues.
I talked about space this week, which I think is important for the country's future. I talked about housing. I talked about creating jobs. I talked about the record I had working with Ronald Reagan to create jobs and the record I had working with Bill Clinton to create jobs. We talked about welfare reform as the first great entitlement reform.
There are all sorts of positive things. We have a proposal on Social Security which would allow every young American the option of having a personal Social Security account on the model of Galveston, Texas, and the country of Chile. So there are a lot of positive things.
And if you'll notice, when you get outside the zone where Romney carpet-bombs with Wall Street money, and you look at what's happening in the rest of the country, I'm ahead in all three national polls that were released this week. I'm ahead by a big margin, because when you come to positive ideas, I represent real change in Washington, I represent unleashing the spirit of the American people to get us back as a country, rebuilding the country we love. And when we get to a positive idea campaign, I consistently win.
It's only when he can mass money to focus on carpet-bombing with negative ads that he gains any traction at all.
0 Views
04:51:26 01/26/12
Bibb Says Netflix's Business Model Is Not Sustainable
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 04:51:26 01/26/12
Bibb Says Netflix's Business Model Is Not Sustainable
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC, and Kevin Landis, chief investment officer at First Hand Capital Management, talk about Netflix Inc.'s fourth-quarter results and outlook. The online and mail-order video-rental service says it contained a subscriber revolt in the quarter and forecast improving margins for its streaming business. Bibb and Landis speak with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West." (Source: Bloomberg) From: Bloomberg Views: 37 0 ratings Time: 05:36 More in Entertainment
0 Views
12:46:36 01/05/12
Widows Exiled From Society
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 12:46:36 01/05/12
In Kochila district, Odisha, widows are ostracized by their communities. Sarita Biswal, a young community leader from Kochila district in Odisha was attending a family wedding in her village when she noticed a group of women gathered in the quietest corner of the marriage hall. In the midst of the colour and rhythm, these women were plainly dressed and almost never stepped out of the corner to participate in the festivities. They stood like mute witnesses to the rituals. When Sarita implored them to join the celebrations, the women replied that were too afraid to step out of the invisible boundaries. “We’re widows,” they said. “We’re not allowed to.” When Sarita returned this incident kept playing in her mind. She asked her parents and her neighbours about the treatment meted out to these women and the answers she received ranged from the superstitious like branding the women an ‘ill omen’ to just plain apathetic and ill-informed like terming it ‘tradition.’ It was then that Sarita decided to initiate the campaign to change this situation. She would begin by making a video on the miserable lives led by the widows in her village and also document the insensitivity with which the rest of community treated them. As she was making her video Sarita discovered many shocking incidents. No shop or bus would allow a widow as their first customer. They believe that it brings them bad luck. In some cases, people refused to look them directly in the eye. They are ostracized by their own families. They are not allowed to participate in any religious celebration, neither are they allowed to enter religious spaces. Remarriage is taboo and the only livelihood available to them is that of a labourer. Existence is always hand to mouth. It is like they were serving a punishment. Sarita realized that these women were among the marginalized and oppressed groups in contemporary Indian society. Says Sarita,” It is society that brings bad luck to widows not the other way around.” There are over 40 million widows in India which is approximately 10% of all Indian women. Most are living life in the most miserable of conditions. The social reformation movements in India began with emphasis on the condition ofwidows but Sarita witnessed that very little had changed on the ground. “It was very difficult to make the video,” she says. “The women were refusing to speak to me. It was only gradually and with persistence that I managed to convince them to speak out. Speaking out is the first step towards change. The struggle is yet to come but we’re all together on this one.”
5 Views
21:00:06 12/29/11
There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:06 12/29/11
Why is Mitt Romney alone among the Republican presidential candidates in refusing to release his tax returns ? And why is the former Massachusetts Governor also the only major GOP contender not calling for the complete elimination of the capital gains tax ? As it turns out, the answer - horrible political optics - is the same to both questions. Because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . And if he called for changing the capital gains rate to zero, Mitt Romney would have to explain to voters why the $250 million man should pay virtually no tax bill at all .
Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney last week reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Truer words were never spoken.
In October, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the Romneys paid only 14 percent of their income in taxes . (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the " Buffett Rule .") As Time reported: >
Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%.
Two weeks ago, the New York Times shed light on that "$5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains" that represents most of Romney's income. Though Mitt left Bain Capital in 1999, 13 years later his windfall continues uninterrupted: >
In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations... >
In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality.
And that creates what Steve Benen aptly called "Romney's 'carried interest' problem." >
In case anyone needs a refresher, there's a tax loophole on "carried interest" -- sometimes called "the carry" -- that taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the Wall Street have fought tooth and nail to protect this loophole -- even after the Obama White House tried to eliminate it -- and so far, they've been successful.
Which is why Mitt Romney has thus far refused to join his fellow GOP White House hopefuls in proposing the elimination of the 15 percent capital gains tax. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain all called for zeroing out the capital gains levy, which is one reason why their tax plans represent such a huge windfall for the wealthy . (Their support for a flat-tax is another.) The Washington Post explained why for the rich that would be "better than any Christmas gift": >
While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.
For his part, Romney has proposed reducing the capital gains tax rate only for the first $200,000 in income. But as ThinkProgress pointed out, Romney's claim that "The people in the middle...I focused my tax cut right there" is preposterous: >
Romney may think he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Tax Policy Center data*, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income.
But while Mitt Romney didn't want to create the appearance of slashing most of his own tax bill, that doesn't mean his proposals wouldn't produce a massive payday for his own and other rich families while piling up yet more debt. Romney's 59-point economic plan calls for extending the Bush tax cuts, ending the estate tax and reducing corporate taxes. The result, as ThinkProgress explained: >
Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan. Both of their plans end also end Medicare, naturally.
Still, in an interview last weekend the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal wondered why Romney had been so "timid" compared to his rivals. In a rare moment of candor, Mitt revealed that his real preferences would make for very bad politics: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
"The president," Romney complained, "will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent." Perhaps, but that's the inevitable impact. As John McCain learned in 2008 , refusing the release the details of his beer heiress wife Cindy's fortune while calling for tax policies delivering his family lottery-sized winning courtesy of the U.S. Treasury is not going to endear you to working Americans. (In Mitt Romney's case, revealing the 10 percent tithe he dutifully pays to his Mormon church probably won't endear him to the GOP's evangelical primary voters, either.)
All of which explains why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns or call for abolishing the capital gains tax, the love which dares not speak its name. Besides, Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe he's just part of the "80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class.
And, no doubt, Mitt's willing to bet you $10,000 to prove it.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
4 Views
21:00:06 12/29/11
There's No Mystery About Romney's Taxes and Tax Plan
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 21:00:06 12/29/11
Why is Mitt Romney alone among the Republican presidential candidates in refusing to release his tax returns ? And why is the former Massachusetts Governor also the only major GOP contender not calling for the complete elimination of the capital gains tax ? As it turns out, the answer - horrible political optics - is the same to both questions. Because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families . And if he called for changing the capital gains rate to zero, Mitt Romney would have to explain to voters why the $250 million man should pay virtually no tax bill at all .
Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney last week reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Truer words were never spoken.
In October, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the Romneys paid only 14 percent of their income in taxes . (It's no wonder Mitt opposes the " Buffett Rule .") As Time reported: >
Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%.
Two weeks ago, the New York Times shed light on that "$5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains" that represents most of Romney's income. Though Mitt left Bain Capital in 1999, 13 years later his windfall continues uninterrupted: >
In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain's profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney's political aspirations... >
In the process, Bain continued to buy and restructure companies, potentially leaving Mr. Romney exposed to further criticism that he has grown wealthier over the last decade partly as a result of layoffs. Moreover, much of his income from the arrangement has probably qualified for a lower tax rate than ordinary income under a tax provision favorable to hedge fund and private equity managers, which has become a point of contention in the battle over economic inequality.
And that creates what Steve Benen aptly called "Romney's 'carried interest' problem." >
In case anyone needs a refresher, there's a tax loophole on "carried interest" -- sometimes called "the carry" -- that taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the Wall Street have fought tooth and nail to protect this loophole -- even after the Obama White House tried to eliminate it -- and so far, they've been successful.
Which is why Mitt Romney has thus far refused to join his fellow GOP White House hopefuls in proposing the elimination of the 15 percent capital gains tax. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain all called for zeroing out the capital gains levy, which is one reason why their tax plans represent such a huge windfall for the wealthy . (Their support for a flat-tax is another.) The Washington Post explained why for the rich that would be "better than any Christmas gift": >
While it's true that many middle-class Americans own stocks or bonds, they tend to stash them in tax-sheltered retirement accounts, where the capital gains rate does not apply. By contrast, the richest Americans reap huge benefits. Over the past 20 years, more than 80 percent of the capital gains income realized in the United States has gone to 5 percent of the people; about half of all the capital gains have gone to the wealthiest 0.1 percent.
For his part, Romney has proposed reducing the capital gains tax rate only for the first $200,000 in income. But as ThinkProgress pointed out, Romney's claim that "The people in the middle...I focused my tax cut right there" is preposterous: >
Romney may think he focused his tax cut on the middle-class, but according to a ThinkProgress analysis of Tax Policy Center data*, nearly three-fourths of households that make $200,000 or less annually would get literally nothing from Romney's tax cut, due to the simple fact that most of those households have no capital gains income.
But while Mitt Romney didn't want to create the appearance of slashing most of his own tax bill, that doesn't mean his proposals wouldn't produce a massive payday for his own and other rich families while piling up yet more debt. Romney's 59-point economic plan calls for extending the Bush tax cuts, ending the estate tax and reducing corporate taxes. The result, as ThinkProgress explained: >
Romney's tax plan includes a $6.6 TRILLION giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, Romney's Medicaid cuts are even more draconian than the ones in Paul Ryan plan. Both of their plans end also end Medicare, naturally.
Still, in an interview last weekend the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal wondered why Romney had been so "timid" compared to his rivals. In a rare moment of candor, Mitt revealed that his real preferences would make for very bad politics: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
"The president," Romney complained, "will characterize anyone running for office, and me in particular, as just in there to lower taxes for rich people, and that is not my intent." Perhaps, but that's the inevitable impact. As John McCain learned in 2008 , refusing the release the details of his beer heiress wife Cindy's fortune while calling for tax policies delivering his family lottery-sized winning courtesy of the U.S. Treasury is not going to endear you to working Americans. (In Mitt Romney's case, revealing the 10 percent tithe he dutifully pays to his Mormon church probably won't endear him to the GOP's evangelical primary voters, either.)
All of which explains why Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns or call for abolishing the capital gains tax, the love which dares not speak its name. Besides, Mitt Romney wants Americans to believe he's just part of the "80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class.
And, no doubt, Mitt's willing to bet you $10,000 to prove it.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
1 Views
03:03:27 12/13/11
Corpuz Voted In As Salinas City Manager By Slim Margin
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 03:03:27 12/13/11
Corpuz Voted In As Salinas City Manager By Slim Margin
Seaside City Manager Ray Corpuz was chosen to take the same post in Salinas by the city council in a 4-3 vote. From: ksbwtv Views: 0 0 ratings Time: 02:08 More in News & Politics
1 Views
22:00:00 12/11/11
Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working?
As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: >
AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us.
And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night.
AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance.
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home.
I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end.
AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating.
HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working.
People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th.
I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position.
AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race?
HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations.
AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be?
HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now.
AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust.
Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane.
AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement?
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that.
AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.
7 Views
22:00:00 12/11/11
Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working?
As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: >
AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us.
And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night.
AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance.
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home.
I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end.
AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating.
HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working.
People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th.
I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position.
AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race?
HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations.
AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be?
HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now.
AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust.
Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane.
AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement?
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that.
AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.
0 Views
23:00:00 11/22/11
How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention Video 6 S
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 11/22/11
http://www.theprofitexperts.co.uk, http://www.losspreventionvideos.com, http://www.thebusinesseducationcenter.com, Romeo Richards,
Do you want to know how Wal-Mart became the biggest and most profitable
retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how Tesco transformed from a struggling retailer to
become a global brand and the second most profitable retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how UK supermarkets Morrison's and Sainsbury's almost
doubled their profit margin during the worst financial crisis since the
great Depression?
Do you want to know the "Critical Non-Essentials" that are required to
succeed as a retailer in the current retail environment?
The retail landscape is changing rapidly with the constant increase in
internet shopping. From 2005 to 2009, the online shopping population grew to
1.6 billion. It is predicted to rise to 2.3 billion by 2014 with gross
revenue totalling $778.6 billion. This is bad news for traditional brick and
mortal retail businesses.
With the continued dominance of Amazon, eBay, Google or iTunes, does WH
Smith, Waterstones or HMV even stand a chance?
The answer to these and many other questions are in this e-book. This e-book
is for the retailer who wants to learn how to run a successful and
profitable retail operation in the 21st century retail environment.
The question is not if change will come because it will come whether
retailers like it or not.
The question is: are you prepared? You will find your answer in this book.
What you will learn:
⢠The Conventional Approach to Loss prevention
⢠Why Loss Prevention is Critical to Retail
⢠Loss Prevention Spending vs Return on Investment
⢠What You Are Losing
⢠Profit vs Sales Calculation
⢠How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention
⢠Effective Shrinkage Management Strategies
⢠The Ultimate Profit Protection Formula
0 Views
23:00:00 11/22/11
How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention Video 5 S
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 11/22/11
http://www.theprofitexperts.co.uk, http://www.losspreventionvideos.com, http://www.thebusinesseducationcenter.com, Romeo Richards,
Do you want to know how Wal-Mart became the biggest and most profitable
retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how Tesco transformed from a struggling retailer to
become a global brand and the second most profitable retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how UK supermarkets Morrison's and Sainsbury's almost
doubled their profit margin during the worst financial crisis since the
great Depression?
Do you want to know the "Critical Non-Essentials" that are required to
succeed as a retailer in the current retail environment?
The retail landscape is changing rapidly with the constant increase in
internet shopping. From 2005 to 2009, the online shopping population grew to
1.6 billion. It is predicted to rise to 2.3 billion by 2014 with gross
revenue totalling $778.6 billion. This is bad news for traditional brick and
mortal retail businesses.
With the continued dominance of Amazon, eBay, Google or iTunes, does WH
Smith, Waterstones or HMV even stand a chance?
The answer to these and many other questions are in this e-book. This e-book
is for the retailer who wants to learn how to run a successful and
profitable retail operation in the 21st century retail environment.
The question is not if change will come because it will come whether
retailers like it or not.
The question is: are you prepared? You will find your answer in this book.
What you will learn:
⢠The Conventional Approach to Loss prevention
⢠Why Loss Prevention is Critical to Retail
⢠Loss Prevention Spending vs Return on Investment
⢠What You Are Losing
⢠Profit vs Sales Calculation
⢠How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention
⢠Effective Shrinkage Management Strategies
⢠The Ultimate Profit Protection Formula
0 Views
23:00:00 11/22/11
How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention Video 4 S
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 11/22/11
http://www.theprofitexperts.co.uk, http://www.losspreventionvideos.com, http://www.thebusinesseducationcenter.com, Romeo Richards,
Do you want to know how Wal-Mart became the biggest and most profitable
retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how Tesco transformed from a struggling retailer to
become a global brand and the second most profitable retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how UK supermarkets Morrison's and Sainsbury's almost
doubled their profit margin during the worst financial crisis since the
great Depression?
Do you want to know the "Critical Non-Essentials" that are required to
succeed as a retailer in the current retail environment?
The retail landscape is changing rapidly with the constant increase in
internet shopping. From 2005 to 2009, the online shopping population grew to
1.6 billion. It is predicted to rise to 2.3 billion by 2014 with gross
revenue totalling $778.6 billion. This is bad news for traditional brick and
mortal retail businesses.
With the continued dominance of Amazon, eBay, Google or iTunes, does WH
Smith, Waterstones or HMV even stand a chance?
The answer to these and many other questions are in this e-book. This e-book
is for the retailer who wants to learn how to run a successful and
profitable retail operation in the 21st century retail environment.
The question is not if change will come because it will come whether
retailers like it or not.
The question is: are you prepared? You will find your answer in this book.
What you will learn:
⢠The Conventional Approach to Loss prevention
⢠Why Loss Prevention is Critical to Retail
⢠Loss Prevention Spending vs Return on Investment
⢠What You Are Losing
⢠Profit vs Sales Calculation
⢠How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention
⢠Effective Shrinkage Management Strategies
⢠The Ultimate Profit Protection Formula
0 Views
23:00:00 11/22/11
How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention Video 3 S
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 11/22/11
http://www.theprofitexperts.co.uk, http://www.losspreventionvideos.com, http://www.thebusinesseducationcenter.com, Romeo Richards,
Do you want to know how Wal-Mart became the biggest and most profitable
retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how Tesco transformed from a struggling retailer to
become a global brand and the second most profitable retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how UK supermarkets Morrison's and Sainsbury's almost
doubled their profit margin during the worst financial crisis since the
great Depression?
Do you want to know the "Critical Non-Essentials" that are required to
succeed as a retailer in the current retail environment?
The retail landscape is changing rapidly with the constant increase in
internet shopping. From 2005 to 2009, the online shopping population grew to
1.6 billion. It is predicted to rise to 2.3 billion by 2014 with gross
revenue totalling $778.6 billion. This is bad news for traditional brick and
mortal retail businesses.
With the continued dominance of Amazon, eBay, Google or iTunes, does WH
Smith, Waterstones or HMV even stand a chance?
The answer to these and many other questions are in this e-book. This e-book
is for the retailer who wants to learn how to run a successful and
profitable retail operation in the 21st century retail environment.
The question is not if change will come because it will come whether
retailers like it or not.
The question is: are you prepared? You will find your answer in this book.
What you will learn:
⢠The Conventional Approach to Loss prevention
⢠Why Loss Prevention is Critical to Retail
⢠Loss Prevention Spending vs Return on Investment
⢠What You Are Losing
⢠Profit vs Sales Calculation
⢠How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention
⢠Effective Shrinkage Management Strategies
⢠The Ultimate Profit Protection Formula
0 Views
23:00:00 11/22/11
How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention Video 2 S
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 11/22/11
http://www.theprofitexperts.co.uk, http://www.losspreventionvideos.com, http://www.thebusinesseducationcenter.com, Romeo Richards,
Do you want to know how Wal-Mart became the biggest and most profitable
retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how Tesco transformed from a struggling retailer to
become a global brand and the second most profitable retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how UK supermarkets Morrison's and Sainsbury's almost
doubled their profit margin during the worst financial crisis since the
great Depression?
Do you want to know the "Critical Non-Essentials" that are required to
succeed as a retailer in the current retail environment?
The retail landscape is changing rapidly with the constant increase in
internet shopping. From 2005 to 2009, the online shopping population grew to
1.6 billion. It is predicted to rise to 2.3 billion by 2014 with gross
revenue totalling $778.6 billion. This is bad news for traditional brick and
mortal retail businesses.
With the continued dominance of Amazon, eBay, Google or iTunes, does WH
Smith, Waterstones or HMV even stand a chance?
The answer to these and many other questions are in this e-book. This e-book
is for the retailer who wants to learn how to run a successful and
profitable retail operation in the 21st century retail environment.
The question is not if change will come because it will come whether
retailers like it or not.
The question is: are you prepared? You will find your answer in this book.
What you will learn:
⢠The Conventional Approach to Loss prevention
⢠Why Loss Prevention is Critical to Retail
⢠Loss Prevention Spending vs Return on Investment
⢠What You Are Losing
⢠Profit vs Sales Calculation
⢠How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention
⢠Effective Shrinkage Management Strategies
⢠The Ultimate Profit Protection Formula
0 Views
23:00:00 11/22/11
How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention Video 1 S
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:00 11/22/11
http://www.theprofitexperts.co.uk, http://www.losspreventionvideos.com, http://www.thebusinesseducationcenter.com, Romeo Richards,
Do you want to know how Wal-Mart became the biggest and most profitable
retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how Tesco transformed from a struggling retailer to
become a global brand and the second most profitable retailer in the world?
Do you want to know how UK supermarkets Morrison's and Sainsbury's almost
doubled their profit margin during the worst financial crisis since the
great Depression?
Do you want to know the "Critical Non-Essentials" that are required to
succeed as a retailer in the current retail environment?
The retail landscape is changing rapidly with the constant increase in
internet shopping. From 2005 to 2009, the online shopping population grew to
1.6 billion. It is predicted to rise to 2.3 billion by 2014 with gross
revenue totalling $778.6 billion. This is bad news for traditional brick and
mortal retail businesses.
With the continued dominance of Amazon, eBay, Google or iTunes, does WH
Smith, Waterstones or HMV even stand a chance?
The answer to these and many other questions are in this e-book. This e-book
is for the retailer who wants to learn how to run a successful and
profitable retail operation in the 21st century retail environment.
The question is not if change will come because it will come whether
retailers like it or not.
The question is: are you prepared? You will find your answer in this book.
What you will learn:
⢠The Conventional Approach to Loss prevention
⢠Why Loss Prevention is Critical to Retail
⢠Loss Prevention Spending vs Return on Investment
⢠What You Are Losing
⢠Profit vs Sales Calculation
⢠How to Create a Culture of Loss Prevention
⢠Effective Shrinkage Management Strategies
⢠The Ultimate Profit Protection Formula
0 Views
04:24:09 10/01/11
Lloyd 32 Brossart 25
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 04:24:09 10/01/11
From big leads to big plays, this game was not a big disappointment. The biggest thing of all was the upset the Juggernauts put on the Mustangs.Bishop Brossart (3-2) looked to rebound from the Newport Catholic (5-0) whipping of 62-0 last week. The Mustangs will hosted Lloyd Memorial (2-4) at Scott High School with game time temperatures in the mid to upper 50's.Lloyd Memorial's opponents have averaged nearly 10 (9.8) points more per game and have been shut out once this season. The Mustangs has been outscored by about a third as much (3.4 points) and most of those came during last week's shutout.When the Juggernauts win, the team averages three more touchdowns per gamete the opponents. During the team's two losses, it has given up 80 points and scored merely two touchdowns.Instead, KHSAA Class 2A football is not about the law of averages, it is about playing four 12 minute quarters and watching what happens.The homecoming game temperature hovered in the mid to upper 50's, with a slight breeze and some drizzle.The cold and dampness of the night did not stop either team from heating up late in the first quarter. Brossart's Jesse Orth capped off a drive by calling his own number and the quarterback went straight up the middle, and plowed through two defender to dive into the end zone, to give the Mustangs a 7-0 lead.But the Juggernauts had and answer. After the kickoff, on the first play from scrimmage, Lloyd's quarterback, Dexter Smith went deep to find Tyler York running in stride to catch a 70 yard pass to get the game within in one point. (The PAT failed.)In the second quarter, the home team spread the margin out to eight points after running back Jacob Elbert burst around the end and down the sidelines for a 59 yard score that put gave the Mustangs some breathing room. Later in the half, Jesse Orth found Spencer Brown open on a post pattern for a 31 yard pitch and catch. That gave the Mustangs a 21-6 lead and breathing room that would prove to be needed.Lloyd came back and sustained a healthy looking drive that started on their 42. The drive started on the Juggernauts 48. On the first play of the drive, Dakota Kidd, chomped of a 27 yard run and the visiting team was in business on the 25 yard line. It took the team all four downs to convert, but the drive continued from the 14. With a fresh set of downs, QB Dexter Smith keeps it for a run of 11 yards. From the Three yard line, Kidd plows his way in off the right tackle to keep the score manageable at 21-12.Lloyd came out int he second half swinging like they had a point to prove. The team drove straight down the field and took the lead away from the host team on a two yard run from Kidd. 25-21 Juggernauts.The Mustangs would not score until midway through the fourth quarter on a 41 yard pass play from Orth to Brown. The PAT failed and the score was 27-25 Mustangs.With 16 seconds left in the game, the Juggernauts pulled it through scoring a touchdown fora 32-27 victory. Brossart falls to 3-3 and Lloyd improves to 3-4.Next week, Brossart will show its other colors against the Newport Wildcats at 7:00 p.m. The Green and black will wear pink jerseys with green numbers to raise money for Chicks N Chucks" for breast cancer awareness. Three cheerleaders are still in need of $100 sponsorships for their uniforms. You can support their cause by purchasing a t-shirt for $10 and wearing it to the game to receive free admission. You can contact bkramer@bishopbrossart.org to order or reserve yours today.
