30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010

• Comments 180
• Print This Article
• Send This Aricle
• Share This Aricle

Text Size + -

By Ashley Portero: Subscribe to Ashley's RSS feed

December 9, 2011 6:24 AM EST

By employing a plethora of tax-dodging techniques, 30 multi-million dollar American corporations expended more money lobbying Congress than they paid in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, ultimately spending approximately $400,000 every day -- including weekends -- during that three-year period to lobby lawmakers and influence political elections, according to a new report from the non-partisan Public Campaign.

Enlarge

(Photo: Public Campaign)
The Public Campaign, a non-partisan research and advocacy organization, reports 30 major U.S. corporations spent more money lobbying Congress than they

• 
  

did on federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010.

Share This Story

• 34
  inShare
• 
  
• 
  

Related Articles

• Payroll Tax Cut: House Republicans Present Counter Legislation
• U.S. Consumers Spend $6 Billion Online the Week After Thanksgiving
• U.S October Factory Orders Fall 0.4 Percent, Down for Two Straight Months

Despite a growing federal deficit and the widespread economic stability that has swept the U.S since 2008, the companies in question managed to accumulate profits of $164 billion between 2008 and 2010, while receiving combined tax rebates totaling almost $11 billion. Moreover, Public Campaign reports these companies spent about $476 million during the same period to lobby the U.S. Congress, as well as another $22 million on federal campaigns, while in some instances laying off employees and increasing executive compensation.
29 Major Corporations Paid No Federal Taxes, 2008-2010
Of the 30 companies analyzed in the report, which include corporate giants such as General Electric, Verizon Communications, Wells Fargo (WFC), Mattel (MAT) and Boeing (BA), 29 of them managed to pay no federal taxes from 2008 to 2010. Only FedEx, which raked in about $4.2 billion in profits during that period, paid a three-year tax rate of 1 percent -- totaling $37 million -- far less than the statutory federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

Must Read

• Ron Paul Vaults Into Virtual Iowa Tie With Newt Gingrich: Poll
• NTSB Recommends Cell Phone Ban for All Drivers

Like us on Facebook

The Public Campaign report expanded on a newly released analysis on corporate tax dodging by the liberal-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-profit research and advocacy group, as well as lobbying expenditure data provided by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Citizens for Tax Justice, the sister organization to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reports that 68 of the 265 most consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies did not pay a state corporate income tax during at least one year between 2008 and 2010, while 20 of them paid no taxes at all during that period.
"Our report shows these corporations raked in a combined $1.33 trillion in profits in the last three years, and far too many have managed to shelter half or more of their profits from state taxes," Matthew Gardner, Executive Director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the report's co-author, said in a statement. "They're so busy avoiding taxes, it's no wonder they're not creating any new jobs."
According to the report, titled "Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010," state corporate tax revenues have been declining for 20 years, due to the passage of multiple state tax subsidies, as well federal tax breaks that further reduce state corporate income tax revenues since states usually accept corporations' federal tax. Moreover, Gardner said multi-state corporations are constantly "devoting their money and legal firepower to coming up with tax avoidance schemes."
Between 2008 and 2010, the 265 companies analyzed paid state income taxes equal to only 3 percent of their U.S. profits, half of the statutory 6.2 percent state corporate tax rate. As a result, these companies avoided a total of $42.7 billion in state corporate taxes over three years.
"As recently as 1986, state corporate income taxes equaled 0.5 percent of nationwide Gross State Product (a measure of nationwide economic activity)," states the report. "But in fiscal year 2010, state and local corporate income taxes were just 0.28 percent of nationwide GSP, equaling the low-water mark set in 2002."
Companies' Laying Off Workers While Receiving Tax Rebates, Raising Executive Pay
Among the 20 companies who paid zero or less in state corporate taxes are utility provider Pepco Holdings, the pharmaceutical company Baxter International, and Intel Corporation (INTC).
Baxter International (BAX) and Intel are among the corporations that Public Campaign reports did not did not pay federal incomes during the same three-year period.
Of those companies, General Electric (GE) spent the most on lobbying, expending about $84 million on lobbying while paying a federal income tax rate of negative 45 percent on more than $10 billion in U.S. profits. PG&E Corp. followed General Electric, spending almost $79 million on lobbying, while paying a negative 21 percent tax rate on $4.8 billion of U.S profits, and Verizon Communications, which spent $52 million on lobbying while paying a negative 3 percent tax rate on $32.5 billion of profits.
A negative effective tax rate means that a company enjoyed a tax rebate, usually obtained by carrying back excess tax deductions and credits to an earlier year, thereby allowing the company to receive a tax rebate check, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
U.S. House Deputy Whip Kevin Brady, R-Tex., is currently making a last-ditch effort to include a corporate tax repatriation holiday on legislation to extend a payroll tax cut, an extension that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said could put an extra $1,500 into the pockets of middle class families each year. While those in favor of the corporate tax repatriation provision -- which would give U.S. businesses a temporary tax break on as much as $1 trillion in overseas income -- insist it would boost the nation's sluggish economy and make it easier for corporations to create jobs, the Congressional Budget Office reports tax repatriation holidays ranks dead last among 13 policy options for creating jobs. The CBO estimates that over the 2012-2013 period, a repatriation holiday would, at best, create the equivalent of one-full time job for every $1 million in federal costs.
Even while dodging most of their state and federal taxes between 2008 and 2010, Verizon (VZ) laid off more than 21,000 U.S. employees, while Boeing, Wells Fargo, General Electric, American Electric Power, and FedEx also let go of thousands of workers. Because companies can be reluctant to make data changes in U.S. employment available, Public Campaign reports it was not able to find up-to-date employment statistics for many of the companies evaluated in the report.
Moreover, as it was laying off employees, General Electric gave their top executives a 27 percent pay raise between 2008 and 2010 -- executives received more than $75 million in compensation in 2010. Wells Fargo increased executive pay by a whopping 180 percent, upping executive compensation from $17.8 million in 2008 to almost $50 million in 2010, while Boeing,  FedEx and American Electric Power also instituted lavish executive pay raises while laying off thousands of lower-level workers.
In fact, 2010 year was a record year for executive compensation. The CEO's of some of the largest U.S. corporations made, on average, $11.4 million in 2010, about 343 times more than workers' median pay, according to an analysis by the American Federation of Labor, the widest gap between executive and employee pay in the world. CEO pay has skyrocketed since 1980, when chief executives were only paid about 42 times more than the average blue collar worker.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the median household income fell $3,719 between 2000 and 2010, when measured in 2010 dollars.
Public Campaign released its report on Wednesday, just as thousands of unemployed Americans from across the nation swarmed K Street in Washington, D.C., the lobbying center for some of the world's most profitable corporations. The march was part of "Take Back the Capitol," a four-day series of events aimed at persuading Congress to pass comprehensive job creation measures that will benefit their constituents, rather than special interest groups.
To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail: a.portero@ibtimes.com
To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com

Uselessness of school tests

 A successful adult failed high school standardised test. It shows that these tests don't really measure the abilities that are required to make yourself a success.

This is the problem when pure academicians, who are not exposed to industrial and commercial lives are asked to evaluate students.

I used to work in industry for more than 25 years. The skills that are required for survivals are not advanced maths but basic fundamentals. I notice that students are very weak in basic fundamentals. They can only aswer questions that appear to be tough but have actually been trained before, making them more tests of memory instaed of understanding of the fundamentals.

The best way to find out is just to sample a few tests, and give them to successful real people in various fields. Let us find out which aspects of the questions are important for them. I want to see the results for myself.

For now, I am simplifying tests so that I can test for fundamentals instead of pure memory. But I notice that short term memory is vital towards surviving in the real world because you need to understand what you read. If you cannot follow instructions, then you cannot do things required by your customers. You also cannot read instruction manuals.

We need  a new set of students who can understand what they read, instead of being able to memorise standardised sets of questions. Based on my experience for the past two years, those students who are good at understanding and short term memory, are also good at University Level examinations. Funnily they are not so good at current STPM or SPM examinations. However I have not met any of Malaysia's top students in my class.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/when-an-adult-took-standardized-tests-forced-on-kids/2011/12/05/gIQApTDuUO_blog.html

 

Posted at 04:00 AM ET, 12/05/2011

When an adult took standardized tests forced on kids

By Valerie Strauss

Update, 4:40 p.m. Tuesday:
Revealed: The school board member who took standardized test
Original post:
This was written by Marion Brady, veteran teacher, administrator, curriculum designer and author.
By Marion Brady
A longtime friend on the school board of one of the largest school systems in America did something that few public servants are willing to do. He took versions of his state’s high-stakes standardized math and reading tests for 10th graders, and said he’d make his scores public.
By any reasonable measure, my friend is a success. His now-grown kids are well-educated. He has a big house in a good part of town. Paid-for condo in the Caribbean. Influential friends. Lots of frequent flyer miles. Enough time of his own to give serious attention to his school board responsibilities. The margins of his electoral wins and his good relationships with administrators and teachers testify to his openness to dialogue and willingness to listen.
He called me the morning he took the test to say he was sure he hadn’t done well, but had to wait for the results. A couple of days ago, realizing that local school board members don’t seem to be playing much of a role in the current “reform” brouhaha, I asked him what he now thought about the tests he’d taken.
“I won’t beat around the bush,” he wrote in an email. “The math section had 60 questions. I knew the answers to none of them, but managed to guess ten out of the 60 correctly. On the reading test, I got 62% . In our system, that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block of reading instruction.
He continued, “It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate.
“I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities.
“I have a wide circle of friends in various professions. Since taking the test, I’ve detailed its contents as best I can to many of them, particularly the math section, which does more than its share of shoving students in our system out of school and on to the street. Not a single one of them said that the math I described was necessary in their profession.
“It might be argued that I’ve been out of school too long, that if I’d actually been in the 10th grade prior to taking the test, the material would have been fresh. But doesn’t that miss the point? A test that can determine a student’s future life chances should surely relate in some practical way to the requirements of life. I can’t see how that could possibly be true of the test I took.”
Here’s the clincher in what he wrote:
“If I’d been required to take those two tests when I was a 10th grader, my life would almost certainly have been very different. I’d have been told I wasn’t ‘college material,’ would probably have believed it, and looked for work appropriate for the level of ability that the test said I had.
“It makes no sense to me that a test with the potential for shaping a student’s entire future has so little apparent relevance to adult, real-world functioning. Who decided the kind of questions and their level of difficulty? Using what criteria? To whom did they have to defend their decisions? As subject-matter specialists, how qualified were they to make general judgments about the needs of this state’s children in a future they can’t possibly predict? Who set the pass-fail “cut score”? How?”
“I can’t escape the conclusion that decisions about the [state test] in particular and standardized tests in general are being made by individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.”
There you have it. A concise summary of what’s wrong with present corporately driven education change: Decisions are being made by individuals who lack perspective and aren’t really accountable.
Those decisions are shaped not by knowledge or understanding of educating, but by ideology, politics, hubris, greed, ignorance, the conventional wisdom, and various combinations thereof. And then they’re sold to the public by the rich and powerful.
All that without so much as a pilot program to see if their simplistic, worn-out ideas work, and without a single procedure in place that imposes on them what they demand of teachers: accountability.
But maybe there’s hope. As I write, a New York Times story by Michael Winerip makes my day. The stupidity of the current test-based thrust of reform has triggered the first revolt of school principals.
Winerip writes: “As of last night, 658 principals around the state (New York) had signed a letter — 488 of them from Long Island, where the insurrection began — protesting the use of students’ test scores to evaluate teachers’ and principals’ performance.”
One of those school principals, Winerip says, is Bernard Kaplan. Kaplan runs one of the highest-achieving schools in the state, but is required to attend 10 training sessions.
“It’s education by humiliation,” Kaplan said. “I’ve never seen teachers and principals so degraded.”
Carol Burris, named the 2010 Educator of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York State, has to attend those 10 training sessions.
Katie Zahedi, another principal, said the session she attended was “two days of total nonsense. I have a Ph.D., I’m in a school every day, and some consultant is supposed to be teaching me to do evaluations.”
A fourth principal, Mario Fernandez, called the evaluation process a product of “ludicrous, shallow thinking. They’re expecting a tornado to go through a junkyard and have a brand new Mercedes pop up.”
My school board member-friend concluded his email with this: “I can’t escape the conclusion that those of us who are expected to follow through on decisions that have been made for us are doing something ethically questionable.”
He’s wrong. What they’re being made to do isn’t ethically questionable. It’s ethically unacceptable. Ethically reprehensible. Ethically indefensible.
How many of the approximately 100,000 school principals in the U.S. would join the revolt if their ethical principles trumped their fears of retribution? Why haven’t they been asked?

One condition where Eistein's Laws are violated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

Theabove link is for the inflation theory which is part of the Bing Bang theory. I found out about it from the discovery channel, called Beyond the Big Bang.

It is derived from the fact that the universe are all of about the same temperature despite being thousands of light years away.

The inflation theory assumes that matter can travel much faster than light during the initial big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvx2sVa6Uzw

Election Commission obvious criminal violations

 

 

 

 http://malaysiakini.com/news/182546

 

A retiree exposes gerrymandering in Sabah

Nigel Aw 11:53AM Nov 27, 2011

A retiree arrested the attention of opposition members at the public hearing by the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform, when he told them to forget about marching to Putrajaya under the current electoral system.

Armed with printouts of his presentation slides, Ng Chak Ngoon (right) who described himself as a retiree, presented the panel with a graph that showed 222 lines with every one being taller than the other as it progressed.

The graph, said Ng at the hearing in Kota Kinabalu yesterday, which saw several others testifying, was plotted against the population size of all the constituencies in ascending order for the 2008 general election.

"All on the left (in blue) are won by BN, on the right (in red) are all won by the opposition. The BN constituencies are very small and the opposition constituencies are very big. So what is happening here?

"It's not by chance that all the people in big constituencies like the opposition and all those people in the small constituencies like BN. I would think there is a design here for the Election Commission (EC) to sub-divide all the BN areas into smaller areas to increase their number of MPs," he said.

Ng added that the smallest constituency, BN-held Putrajaya only had 6,008 voters but Opposition-held Kapar had a staggering 112,224 voters, 17 times more than Putrajaya.

‘Kapar can have 17 MPs'

"If we break down Kapar to the size of Putrajaya, you would have 17 MPs from Kapar instead of just one."

If all the seats are made into equal size, Ng added, the last general election would yield a result where BN and Pakatan Rakyat would only have a difference of seven seats in Parliament as opposed to the actual results of 140 to 82 seats.

He further estimated that if a party relied on all the small seats to win power, it would only require 15.4 percent of the total votes to form a majority in Parliament.

"If the opposition thinks they can march to Putrajaya, forget about it."

At this point, PSC member Anthony Loke who is DAP's Rasah MP quipped: "Very demoralising."

Explaining further, Ng said the smallest constituency in Malaysia was 13 percent of the national average while the largest was 288 percent, in contrast to the UK's which smallest and largest constituency are 77 percent and 153 percent of the national average respectively.

"If the EC is sincere, it should redraw all the constituencies, this is not gerrymandering, this is outright cheating."

PSC member Dr Hatta Ramli later concurred, pointing out that the Baling parliamentary constituency, supposedly a rural seat, had an unusually large number of constituents at around 70,000.

"This was because PAS has won the seat before," said Hatta, who then asked if Ng thought this was ethical.

"Unethical is a mild word, Can I answer outside?" replied Ng in reference to parliamentary rules that require members in the hearing to abide by appropriate language.

State by state breakdown
Ng later proceeded to present similar graphs with a state by state breakdown at which PSC member Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said: "Can you rate Kangar?", in reference to his own constituency.

"If you have Negeri Sembilan's, I would like to see my chances of winning," added Loke.

At this, Ng quipped: "I'll have to charge you for consultancy."

When asked by PSC member Fong Chan Onn (right) on how the panel can accommodate the increase of seats for Sabah and Sarawak to meet the Malaysian Federation agreement of 34 percent into his recommendations, Eng replied: "What is your objective?

"To win the election or to have an equitable dispersion of votes? If these are conflicting desires, obviously we cannot come to a compromise. BN has to answer that question, not me, I'm a retired man."

View comments (68)

Another advantage of NO SUBSIDY

Sabah water supply polluted, says academician

by Jenne Lajiun. Posted on December 5, 2011, Monday

KOTA KINABALU: Malaysians are very lucky to be blessed with the abundance of water within their midst.
They are lucky because water comes from within the country’s border, hence no one can control its supply, said academician Mark K. Brindal during his visit to the Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) to give a talk on the Australian experience on water issues recently.
Brindal, who is attached to the Environment Institute for the University of Adelaide and is also South Australia’s ex-minister of water resources, said however that having an abundance of water flowing along our rivers does not necessarily translate to having enough water to cater for the nation.
There are two reasons why water scarcity occurs. One is due to the lack of it, and the other is due to having low and even bad quality water supply due to pollution. And what is happening in Malaysia, and in Sabah, generally, is the latter.
“The problem with most Asian region and also in Malaysia, I think, is the quality problem. You put sewerage in your water.”
The direct dumping of sewerage, toxic and other waste direct into water bodies must be stopped. Such actions will cause further contamination of its rivers, he said.
“(And) If we destroy the river, we destroy ourselves,” he said.
He cited that India is facing a similar problem with its Ganges River.
The Ganges, he said, is a sacred river, but the way it has been managed is killing the river.
“The Ganges river is one of the world’s most polluted rivers.”
Brindal went further to explain the results of drinking water from apolluted source: “Half the people in the world’s hospital beds today are occupied by people suffering from water borne diseases. Water borne diseases are the biggest common diseases of humans today and the single biggest cause of child mortality.”
“A lot of people have that problem in Asia. It is not because there is not enough water. It is a problem of not having clean water. It is not a problem of water quantity but of water quality.”
He added that in more developed countries like Australia, water borne diseases are not a problem.
“Our problem is different: Ours is a dry country, and in summer, our rivers are dry. Our government controls the water. You cannot take water unless you have permission and have the license to do so. You can take for human and animal consumption, but not for crops. In Australia, you can own water the same way you can own land, so what we have is the private ownership for water,” he said.
The practice, he said, has made some people very wealthy. Yet the biggest lesson from the whole experience would be this: “Before, you didn’t care whether you use water efficiently or not. Now, water is an input. By selling water, you can maximise profit. Because water having value, you get people to utilize it better and this was very important during the drought. In the drought, our rice farm cannot grow rice
because there is not enough water, so what the rice planters did was to sell the water they had to those planting grapevines and fruit trees and got loads of money from it. And they were able to survive the drought. That was what’s right about the system.”
In the context of Malaysia, where the issue relevant to water supply is connected to issues of water contamination, the underlying solution might be for the Malaysian policy maker to create property rights, not with water, but with land.
“The thing about rights issue is that you can put property
responsibility with the land.”
He explained that in this case, farmers who own lands, could be given, either through legislation or incentives to actually deal with the pollution on their own farm and not allow their ‘pollutants’ to leak into rivers and other water body during heavy rainfall and so on.
“That way, the nation can get clean rivers without any cost to the government.”
Nevertheless, he cited that it would still be difficult (for government) to deal with non-point source like farms that can stretch for hundreds of miles.
On the Kinabatangan River pollution issue, what Brindal suggested was for the Sabah government to work with UMS and to use the unversity’s resources.
UMS has just established its own water research unit and according to Brindal, the unit is well positioned to address water pollution in Sabah as the people heading it are those who understand the chemistry of water and have the expertise.
“Even though it’s just starting, they got the right people to start fixing the biggest problem straight away.”
He also suggested for the government to use the service of the
university to approach those involved in farming oil palms, in
particular the smallholders, to find and adopt better farming methods and education.
“They may not be formally educated, but most of them are clever and have great wisdom in their land and in the way they use their land. They are not unintelligent … so I am advocating that the government use the service of university, which is a community resource, and reach out to the people. The government would need to fund these activities.”
With education and better awareness, changes in attitude will usually occur within five years, he said.
“In 10 years, you will start seeing measureable result, and within 20 years, you will be able to transform a river,” he said.
He added that some people might think the 20 years period is too long.
He argues, “Twenty years is less than one generation. We have taken maybe 60 years to wreck a river, and if we take 20 years to fix it, I think that is reasonable. Unfortunately, everyone in this modern world wants everything fixed within two minutes. The problem with environment is you can’t fix it in two minutes. It took us years to muck it up, and if we take 20 years to fix it, we probably have done it very quickly.”

Read more: http://www.theborneopost.com/2011/12/05/sabah-water-supply-polluted-says-academician/#ixzz1fcZvS0uD

US spent Trillion US $ just to overthrow Saddam

Now Iraq is free to join with Iran. Already proven by Iraq's refusal
to sanction Syria for its crimes against humanity.

Theories that US invaded Iraq just to steal its petroleum resources is
therefore completely false.

By insisting on a democracy instead of dictatorships unlike other
regions in the gulf states, US is playing with fire with its selfish
interests, but has managed to hold a high ground on morality and
justice for humanity.

Unfortunately US has not shown a good example for Iraqi administrators
to follow by ignoring human rights issues. Democracy and justice
cannot survive when human rights are ignored. It has been proven in
many nations but unfortunately US is abandoning human rights even for
its own citizens. Sooner or later, US will no longer be democratic and
respectful of justice, and it will also end the economic might of the
most wealthy nation on earth and subsequently its military might.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-03/iraq-troop-withdrawal-maliki/51620706/1

Iraq's PM says country ready for U.S. troops to leave
Updated 2h 25m ago

Comments 4

BAGHDAD (AP) – Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that his security
forces are ready to protect the country once the American military
withdraws by the end of this year, and played down any suggestion that
Iraq would become a follower of Iran.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speaks November 26, 2011, at a
conference in Baghdad.

By Sabah Arar, AFP/Getty Images

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speaks November 26, 2011, at a
conference in Baghdad.

Enlarge

By Sabah Arar, AFP/Getty Images

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki speaks November 26, 2011, at a
conference in Baghdad.
Ads by Google
Instantly Thicker HairDermMatch looks better, stays on
better and costs you less to use.www.dermmatch.com
Business Hub of AsiaExpand your sight and explore Seoul
for new business opportunities!Seoul.go.kr
Millennium & CopthorneSpecial Seasonal Rates! 25% Off,
with B/fast. Valid till 12-Feb-12.www.millenniumhotels.com.sg

Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview
Saturday that he has "no concerns whatsoever" about security after all
American troops withdraw by Jan. 1. Iraqi security forces have proven
themselves capable and able to protect their own country, he said.

"Nothing has changed with the withdrawal of the American forces from
Iraq on the security level because basically it has been in our
hands," he said.

The prime minister said Iraq has been largely responsible for security
ever since the American military pulled out of the cities in 2008 and
withdrew to bases outside the cities, leaving the Iraqi military
largely responsible for their own internal security.

He said he was not worried about the type of sectarian warfare that
almost destroyed Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led
invasion.

"I assure the world that the Iraqi forces and the general situation in
the country hasn't changed and will not change," the prime minister
said.

The prime minister also dismissed fears that Iraq would fall under
neighboring Iran's sphere of influence, once the American military
leaves Iraq. Some U.S. officials have suggested that Iranian influence
in Iraq would inevitably grow once American troops depart.

Both countries have Shiite majorities and are dominated by Shiite
political groups. Many Iraqi politicians spent time in exile in Iran
under Saddam Hussein's repressive regime.

Al-Maliki vowed that Iraq will chart its own policies in the future
that conform to Iraqi national interests.

"Iraq is not a follower of any country," al-Maliki said. He pointed
out several areas in which Iraq had acted against Iran's desires,
including the signing of the security agreement in 2008 that required
all U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year. Iran had been
pushing for all American troops to be out of the country even sooner.

"Through our policies, Iraq was not and will not be a follower of
another country's policies," he said.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To
report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent
Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments
to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state
for verification. To view our corrections, go to
corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted 2h 26m ago | Updated 2h 25m ago
More from USATODAY

George McGovern falls, hits head before C-SPAN appearance
USATODAY.com in News
Report: Undercover cops infiltrated Occupy LA USATODAY.com in News
Obama's payroll tax cut won't favor swing states USATODAY.com in
The Oval
Obama warns Congress they could spend Christmas in D.C.
USATODAY.com in The Oval
Wife of megachurch pastor Eddie Long files for divorce
USATODAY.com in On Deadline

More from the web

7 Questions to Ask About HSAs and Other Ways to Pay for Medical
Expenses Moneyning.com
Turkish, Bulgarian ministers trade barbs over Israel Hurriyet
Dailynews
Banks in Trouble - What Will Happen to your Money? BBC Business
Video
Famous Men and Celebrities with Prostate Cancer CooperativeHealth
U.S. Kills 70 Taliban, Loses No One In Huge Outpost Battle Wired

[?]
USA TODAY is now using Facebook Comments on our stories and blog posts
to provide an enhanced user experience. To post a comment, log into
Facebook and then "Add" your comment. To report spam or abuse, click
the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find out
more, read the FAQ and Conversation Guidelines.

Chitrita Aichbhaumik Dumire
Can their be no peace between Iraq and Iran?

Videos you may be interested in
Ginger White: I'd be 'surprised' if Cain's wife didn'…
Britney Spears Performing Free Concert in Mexico
Couple held without bond in bloody saw slay…
byTaboola
More videos
Most Popular
Stories

Cain suspends presidential campaign
Report: Undercover cops infiltrated Occupy...
Column: The anti-Tebow bias isn't about...
Ky. church revisits ban on interracial...
George McGovern hospitalized in S.D. after...

Videos

Cain making announcement about bid today
Herman Cain suspends presidential bid
Evictions, Arrests at

Photos
The week in pictures
Protests against Wall Street
Santa Ana winds whip Southwest
Most Popular E-mail Newsletter
Sign up to get:
Top viewed stories, photo galleries and community posts of the day

Most popular right now:
Cain suspends presidential campaign

Steve Jobs died from side effects of Modern Medicine, not Cancer

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/10/31/why-steve-jobs-magic-doesnt-work-in-medicine/

The above article seemed to imply that modern medicine could help cure Steve Jobs, but the real reason for the death of Steve Jobs is not due to the cancer but to the infection caused by Chemotheraphy. Chemotheraphy destroys white blood cells. You need to have a bone marrow graft in order to recover your immune system.


Read the comments by his sister just before Steve Jobs died. It was difficulty in breathing. In fact respiratory disease seems to be the most common cause of deaths to Cancer patients that undergo Chemotheraphy. I just found out about this from our colleague here.

Of course, after one year of conventional cancer treatment, Steve Jobs failed, but going into modern treatment does not guarantee that he will survive. No matter how big the tumour is, there is still risk that you may die of respiratory diseases such as H1N1, TB or Pneumonia. There are success stories such as Lee Hsien Lung, Dick Chenney and Hugo Chavez, but these people can recuperate well by isolating themselves. Early treatment also means that the dose may be so low that immune system damage is not that extensive.

Can we avoid chemotheraphy? Unlikely. Once you cut your tumour, in order to avoid the spread of cancer cells, you must take chemotheraphy. Early treatment improves your chances but not so much. Most are in the 90% chance, which is considered very good in modern cancer treatments, based on my experienced doctor's comment.

Even after you finished a successful but painful chemotheraphy, you still cannot guarantee that you are fully recovered. Modern medicine does not seem to suggest diet as an important ingredient towards controlling cancer because modern medicine requires exhaustive tests that require decades and billions of dollars to prove. It is too late for many cancer patients to wait. We can rely on some fragmented and inconclusive research results of the various cancer treatment alternatives, before you go for the currently known and proven cancer treatments that are well known to be not so effective still.