Michael Cohen Refuses To Disclose Identity Of His “Third Client”

Original post

Apparently, she is known for “bold and innovative” legal decisions.

She is one of those second-wave feminists who used to brag about how many hours per day they worked, rather than dominating workplaces in discriminatory, above-firing mom gangs while taking off whole days, whole weeks and whole months beyond their PTO and multiple pregnancy leaves, like the third-wave fake feminists in their “voted-best-for-moms” jobs at the top and the bottom of today’s workforce.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/1990/11/22/business/the-milken-sentence-judg…

No more “12-to-14 hour work days” for the glorified working moms of today. They are either calling for ever more pay-per-birth freebies from government for working part time to stay below the earned-income limit for their monthly welfare that covers rent and groceries and the cut off for refundable EITC child tax credits up to $6,431 or, at the top, for more mandated time off for working parents from government.

Working the full hours would not be as much of a problem for her in this era, when non-quota-meeting working moms are nearly 100% above firing despite protracted and frequent absenteeism and are even above criticism in many workplaces, but if she had hired an American citizen to raise her kids, rather than an illegal alien, perhaps, she would hold another liberal seat on the SCOTUS, rather than determining this case. 

As it is, who knows what legal “innovation” could mean in this case? On Wall Street, in the past, it meant business as usual for most of the high rollers, while they singled out one or two guys for legally innovative punishment.

That did not work.

But who cares whether the schemes of elites actually work.

Wood is said to be interested in anti-trust issues, with the NY Times gushing over her legal expertise in this complex area. But over the years in our globalist-neoliberal fake-feminist era, all of the glorified expertise of the biggest group of highly educated, dual-high earner couples in American history has not led to less concentration of personal wealth or less concentration of business capital / business enterprise, quite the contrary.

We have more monopoly capitalism and more concentration of capital. We have less start-up businesses, less business activity, less tax-revenue generation and fewer full-time jobs with breadwinner wages for citizens who lack access to unearned income for sex and reproduction from spouses or government.

American manufacturers employing US citizens cannot compete with businesses using near-slave labor in Asia, nor can smaller retailers compete with the volume discounts gotten by the big-box retailers peddling the goods made by Asian wage slaves.

Nor can those employing non-welfare-boosted US citizens compete with those employing welfare-aided illegal alien labor here in the USA. Illegal aliens in single-earner households can afford to work for rock-bottom pay due to the layers of monthly welfare and refundable child-tax-credit welfare that they get for US-born kids, enabling their employers to offer lower bids, undercutting the employers of US citizens.   

A keen interest in antitrust from celebrated, six-figure career couples has hoisted their lifestyles high above any previous generation of non-job-creating Americans, but it has not resulted in busting any trusts.

We need some anti-trust measures in the area of salaried jobs with benefits undergirded by a $260-billion employer tax exclusion in this era when childbearing-aged women—the group most likely to either have spousal income or access to child support or welfare that covers their rent, in addition to refundable child tax credits—dominate the workforce, while half of all non-womb-productive / non-welfare-eligible men — ages 18 to 34 — live with their parents in adulthood due to rent that consumes more than half of their earned-only income. Women with no womb-productivity-based income also face this issue.

Due to the concentration of salaried jobs with decent or high wages in fewer households, a byproduct of feminism, we have seen a halving of the college-educated middle class in the USA. Assortative mating has not led to more business enterprise, either—you go girl.

It has led to less business formation in the USA, likely due to the fact that more safe money can be made from concentrating two high-paying salaried jobs under one roof for years, and connected-up working parents at the top of the economic food chain trade these high-paying positions around among fellow parents who “need the jobs,” going from one non-risky, high-paying job to another.

Why take the risk to start businesses that employ American citizens when you can use the gluttonous excess of earnings from two six-figure jobs to invest in global businesses that employ low-cost Asian laborers, with the few jobs left in the USA going to low-cost illegal alien servants, often employed by the same non-enterprising elites.

Anti-trust warrior—ya right.