[Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: why companies go out of business

Sunroofs that are instealled in U.S. are assembled in Michigan and in Kentucky.

--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Sheep&Goatlady" <springcreek@...> wrote:
>
> well, I guess if you look and see where those sunroofs are made, working for
> a couple of bucks a day is not my idea of making good money,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "zeus32117" <zeus32117@...>
> To: <Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 6:06 AM
> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: why companies go out of business
>
>
> I do not understand why those people who work at Chrysler and G.M. have to
> be making more money than those people who make parts for those automakers.
> People who build sunroofs make less than $15 an hour. Some of the temporary
> workers who work at Webasto make less than $9 an hour. They are glad that
> they have a job! Webasto is a sunroof manufacturer.
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern
> <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes probably still because the quality of their product would be dismal.
> >
> >
> > Â You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
> >
> > --- On Tue, 12/28/10, zeus32117 <zeus32117@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: zeus32117 <zeus32117@>
> > Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: why companies go out of
> > business
> > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 6:39 AM
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Would Chrysler, or G.M. have to ask for bankruptcy protection if each of
> > their employees was making 50% less money?
> >
> > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern
> > <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well i'm a small business owner and pay my employees considerbly more
> > > than the average wage of my competitors and of course a bit of common
> > > sense goes a long way too. If thats not good enough for you than I would
> > > suggest a internet search of looking at wage trends over the last decade
> > > among the working class of this country, lots of facts out there to back
> > > up my claims.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã,Â You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them think
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 12/27/10, zeus32117 <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: zeus32117 <zeus32117@>
> > > Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: why companies go out of
> > > business
> > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Monday, December 27, 2010, 8:25 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã,Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How can I double check that information?
> > >
> > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, patrick mc govern
> > > <mcgvrn_ptrck@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Labor costs have never once put a company out of business, that is a
> > > > lie pushed by the right wing to keep their sheep misinformed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ãfâ?sÃ,Â You can lead people to knowledge but you can't make them
> > > > think
> > > >
> > > > --- On Sun, 12/26/10, Susan <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Susan <sailorgirl43@>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] why companies go out of
> > > > business
> > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Sunday, December 26, 2010, 6:09 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ãfâ?sÃ,Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Business go out of business for a huge variety of reasons.Ãfâ?sÃ,Â
> > > > Labor costs go up too much due to unions, the product is out dated and
> > > > more. It is the employees fault if they demand so much the company
> > > > Ãfâ?sÃ,Â can't make money. When that happens people won't invest their
> > > > money in the company.Ãfâ?sÃ,Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to sound insulting but do you have any idea how business
> > > > works let aloneÃfâ?sÃ,Â capitalism? I don't have a business degree but
> > > > know enough to know how it works. I really think you need to educate
> > > > yourself about this subject.Ãfâ?sÃ,Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, iloveubuntulinux <valchaulinux@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ãfâ?sÃ,Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > most companies go out of business due to the ineptitude of those
> > > > running them or under capitalization or corruption. It isn't the fault
> > > > of employees.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117"
> > > > <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you think most companies go out of business?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "Sheep&Goatlady" springcreek@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unions allow sub standard employees to keep their jobs? how many
> > > > > > union workers do you know? Bad teachers? I guess you know nothing
> > > > > > about teaching,, teachers have a contract, and they are renew very
> > > > > > often on a yearly basis,
> > > > > > and you are very wrong about UPS,, you know nothing about them,,
> > > > > > One a driver gets one accident while working for ups , that can be
> > > > > > fired on the spot,, You still have no clue about them at all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Susan
> > > > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:50 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Re: Health reform for
> > > > > > all Americans - St Pete Times
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I find your comments interesting at best. I think you need to look
> > > > > > at all types of companies and who owns them. Not all companies are
> > > > > > run by those who work at them by far. It is ridiculous to assume
> > > > > > so and very closed minded.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unions allow sub-standard employees to keep their jobs when
> > > > > > otherwise they would be replaced. I don't know if you read the
> > > > > > news but there are huge numbers of bad teachers out there who
> > > > > > cannot be fired because of tenure and the unions. UPS for example
> > > > > > has to jump through hoops to fire employees who preform badly as
> > > > > > in sleeping in the trucks, constantly late to work or not showing
> > > > > > up at all. Unions are too big and need to go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM, iloveubuntulinux valchaulinux@
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Susan
> > > > > > <sailorgirl43@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some corporations are like that but in the past 10 years
> > > > > > > corporations have
> > > > > > > been eliminating their bloat to make money, pay people and
> > > > > > > please their
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > share holders. the people they pay are those running the company
> > > > > > > and those folks are also often very big shareholders so it is a
> > > > > > > form of self dealing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Private corporations are much more streamed lines than the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > government because they do answer to others. that is a myth. the
> > > > > > > biggest shareholders now are those running the corp. They got
> > > > > > > stock options and now run the place
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have never seen such waste as
> > > > > > > in government and especially when the workers have a union to
> > > > > > > defend their
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > bad actions. unions don't defend 'bad actions' of workers. They
> > > > > > > defend against bad actions of management and the management is
> > > > > > > all self dealing since they both run the corporation and own
> > > > > > > large chunks of its stock
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 12:42 AM, iloveubuntulinux
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > valchaulinux@:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the govt is just like the big corporations - top heavy with
> > > > > > > > those who are
> > > > > > > > fat and lazy and rake in the dough. And the actual work is
> > > > > > > > done by human
> > > > > > > > beings with families who are (in private industry) easily
> > > > > > > > discarded but in
> > > > > > > > the govt have at least some rights
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, Susan
> > > > > > > > sailorgirl43@
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are surveys done and money is counted when it comes in
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > charities,
> > > > > > > > > very simple to find out.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is huge waste in the all government. It is top heavy
> > > > > > > > > and so money
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > wasted by the thousands. Evangelical Christians don't
> > > > > > > > > restrict donations.
> > > > > > > > > Where do you get this stuff.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Sheep&Goatlady
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > springcreek@:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are they? How do you know what other folks donate? Waste
> > > > > > > > > > money in
> > > > > > > > giving a
> > > > > > > > > > decent health care to folks? Heatlh care to child? To have
> > > > > > > > > > safe food on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > table? To ensure women get decent wages? that is a waste
> > > > > > > > > > of money? Do
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > know what the nieghbor next door gives? there was a
> > > > > > > > > > gentleman on tv,,
> > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > > ID was hidden, that gave away 100 dollar bucks to needy,,
> > > > > > > > > > Do you know
> > > > > > > > who he
> > > > > > > > > > was? No,, and most evangelical christians restrict who
> > > > > > > > > > they give their
> > > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > too,, some folks give without making a big to do about it,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > *From:* Susan sailorgirl43@
> > > > > > > > > > *To:* Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > *Subject:* Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health
> > > > > > > > > > reform for all
> > > > > > > > > > Americans - St Pete Times
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The group of people who give the most money away
> > > > > > > > > > are Evangelical Christians. There are many million and
> > > > > > > > > > billionaires who
> > > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > > > > tons of money to needy people. It is not that people don't
> > > > > > > > > > want to give
> > > > > > > > > > because they do. They resent paying high taxes to people
> > > > > > > > > > who waste the
> > > > > > > > money
> > > > > > > > > > in big government machine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:51 PM, elaine mckay glyndon47@:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I don't understand why many conservatives focus on
> > > > > > > > > >> getting more money
> > > > > > > > > >> and never on giving something to humanity, even in their
> > > > > > > > > >> own country.
> > > > > > > > > >> Not everyone can afford life giving treatment and so die?
> > > > > > > > > >> thats so
> > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >> I don't have class envy because in Australia we don't
> > > > > > > > > >> have that class
> > > > > > > > > >> system.
> > > > > > > > > >> Everyone is entitled to free health care and education.
> > > > > > > > > >> If you want
> > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > >> you pay for it, and thats fine.
> > > > > > > > > >> it's called looking after you fellow man, or having a
> > > > > > > > > >> social
> > > > > > > > concience.
> > > > > > > > > >> --- On *Mon, 20/12/10, patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@*
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> From: patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health reform for
> > > > > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > > > Americans -
> > > > > > > > > >> St Pete Times
> > > > > > > > > >> To: "free" freethinkersclub@yahoogroups.com, "dea" <
> > > > > > > > > >> DuanesEverythingandAnything@yahoogroups.com, "pcc" <
> > > > > > > > > >> politics_currentevents_group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > >> Received: Monday, 20 December, 2010, 10:42 PM
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Health reform for all Americans
> > > > > > > > > >> By Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen Sebelius, Washington
> > > > > > > > > >> Post
> > > > > > > > > >> In Print: Wednesday, December 15, 2010
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien,
> > > > > > > > > >> who was unable
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> obtain health insurance through her employer, was
> > > > > > > > > >> diagnosed with an
> > > > > > > > > >> aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications
> > > > > > > > > >> for health
> > > > > > > > > >> insurance were rejected because of her condition. With
> > > > > > > > > >> each round of
> > > > > > > > > >> chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment
> > > > > > > > > >> because she knew
> > > > > > > > her
> > > > > > > > > >> savings wouldn't last. ÃfÂ¢Ã¢â?sÂ¬Ã,Â¢ Then President
> > > > > > > > > >> Barack Obama signed the
> > > > > > > > Affordable
> > > > > > > > > >> Care Act. Thanks to this law, O'Brien is getting
> > > > > > > > > >> treatment through a
> > > > > > > > > >> temporary program that provides affordable coverage to
> > > > > > > > > >> people who have
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > >> shut out of the insurance market because of a
> > > > > > > > > >> pre-existing condition.
> > > > > > > > Even
> > > > > > > > > >> better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be banned
> > > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > discriminating
> > > > > > > > > >> against any American with pre-existing conditions.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> That's what makes the recent lawsuits challenging the
> > > > > > > > > >> Affordable Care
> > > > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > > > >> so troubling. Roughly 20 cases question the new law's
> > > > > > > > > >> individual
> > > > > > > > > >> responsibility provision, which says that Americans who
> > > > > > > > > >> can afford to
> > > > > > > > must
> > > > > > > > > >> maintain basic health coverage.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have upheld the
> > > > > > > > > >> law as
> > > > > > > > > >> constitutional, but Monday, a federal court in Virginia
> > > > > > > > > >> reached the
> > > > > > > > opposite
> > > > > > > > > >> result. These and other cases will continue through our
> > > > > > > > > >> courts as
> > > > > > > > opponents
> > > > > > > > > >> try to block the law. But these attacks are wrong on the
> > > > > > > > > >> law, and if
> > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > >> to succeed, they would have devastating consequences for
> > > > > > > > > >> everyone with
> > > > > > > > > >> health insurance.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The majority of Americans who have health insurance pay a
> > > > > > > > > >> higher price
> > > > > > > > > >> because of our broken system. Every insured family pays
> > > > > > > > > >> an average of
> > > > > > > > $1,000
> > > > > > > > > >> more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who
> > > > > > > > > >> have no
> > > > > > > > insurance.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available
> > > > > > > > > >> when they
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > >> it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people
> > > > > > > > > >> who carry
> > > > > > > > insurance,
> > > > > > > > > >> and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to
> > > > > > > > > >> carry minimum
> > > > > > > > > >> health coverage starting in 2014.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to
> > > > > > > > > >> people with
> > > > > > > > > >> pre-existing conditions, it's essential that everyone
> > > > > > > > > >> have coverage.
> > > > > > > > Imagine
> > > > > > > > > >> what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance
> > > > > > > > > >> until after
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > >> got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage
> > > > > > > > > >> would be
> > > > > > > > > >> unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out
> > > > > > > > > >> of the
> > > > > > > > market.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The same is true for health insurance. Without an
> > > > > > > > > >> individual
> > > > > > > > > >> responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending
> > > > > > > > > >> discrimination
> > > > > > > > > >> against people with pre-existing conditions doesn't work.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this
> > > > > > > > > >> problem even
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> opponents have sought to invent new constitutional
> > > > > > > > > >> theories and dig up
> > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > >> ones that were rejected 80 years ago.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Opponents claim the individual responsibility provision
> > > > > > > > > >> is unlawful
> > > > > > > > > >> because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us is a
> > > > > > > > > >> bystander when
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >> comes to health care. All of us need health care
> > > > > > > > > >> eventually. Do we pay
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay later,
> > > > > > > > > >> when we need
> > > > > > > > > >> medical care?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The individual responsibility provision says that as
> > > > > > > > > >> participants in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> health care market, Americans should pay for insurance if
> > > > > > > > > >> they can
> > > > > > > > afford
> > > > > > > > > >> it. That's important because when people who don't have
> > > > > > > > > >> insurance show
> > > > > > > > up at
> > > > > > > > > >> emergency rooms, we don't deny them care. The costs of
> > > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > uncompensated
> > > > > > > > > >> care ÃfÂ¢Ã¢â?sÂ¬" $43 billion in 2008 ÃfÂ¢Ã¢â?sÂ¬" are
> > > > > > > > > >> then passed on to doctors, hospitals,
> > > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > >> businesses and Americans who have insurance.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As two federal courts have already held, this unfair
> > > > > > > > > >> cost-shifting
> > > > > > > > harms
> > > > > > > > > >> the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions
> > > > > > > > > >> have made clear
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal
> > > > > > > > > >> with such
> > > > > > > > harmful
> > > > > > > > > >> economic effects, which is what the law does ÃfÂ¢Ã¢â?sÂ¬"
> > > > > > > > > >> it regulates how we pay
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> health care by ensuring that those who have insurance
> > > > > > > > > >> don't continue
> > > > > > > > to pay
> > > > > > > > > >> for those who don't. Because of the long-held legal
> > > > > > > > > >> precedent of
> > > > > > > > upholding
> > > > > > > > > >> such provisions, even President Ronald Reagan's solicitor
> > > > > > > > > >> general,
> > > > > > > > Charles
> > > > > > > > > >> Fried, called legal objections to the law "far-fetched."
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As these lawsuits continue, Americans should be clear
> > > > > > > > > >> about what the
> > > > > > > > > >> opponents of reform are asking the courts to do. Striking
> > > > > > > > > >> down the
> > > > > > > > > >> individual responsibility provision means slamming the
> > > > > > > > > >> door on
> > > > > > > > millions of
> > > > > > > > > >> those like Gail O'Brien, who have been locked out of our
> > > > > > > > > >> health
> > > > > > > > insurance
> > > > > > > > > >> markets, and shifting more costs onto families who have
> > > > > > > > > >> acted
> > > > > > > > responsibly.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in
> > > > > > > > > >> Congress, have
> > > > > > > > taken to
> > > > > > > > > >> the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that
> > > > > > > > > >> created Social
> > > > > > > > Security
> > > > > > > > > >> and established new civil rights protections. Those
> > > > > > > > > >> challenges
> > > > > > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > > > >> failed, and so will this one.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made, and
> > > > > > > > > >> returning to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> days when one out of seven Americans was denied insurance
> > > > > > > > > >> due to their
> > > > > > > > > >> medical histories, supporters of repeal should work with
> > > > > > > > > >> us to
> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > >> this law effectively. The initial decisions about the
> > > > > > > > > >> Affordable Care
> > > > > > > > Act
> > > > > > > > > >> will be reviewed on appeal. We are confident that the law
> > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > ultimately be
> > > > > > > > > >> upheld.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Ãfâ?sÃ,Â© 2010 Washington Post
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>