Are you asking if I would have let then go "under?" IMO, that would have been a very bad mistake at a bad time. I have been a strong critic of their business practices, and their UNIONS as well, for many years. I see them paying back the help they got, and some sense coming back to wages, and profits. Walt
--- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117" <zeus32117@...> wrote:
>
> You have said that the government has enabled big business to maximize profit. Are you talking about Chrysler and General Motors?
>
> --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Walt L" muleshet@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > In 1980, I might have blamed Unions. At that
> > time they controlled a bout 40% of the work force. Today it is around
> > 15%. Since those days, Government has enabled big biz to maximize
> > profits. NAFTA, and other "free trade" agreements have been ABUSED in
> > every way possible. Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "zeus32117"
> > <zeus32117@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The greater the tax burden and the regulatory burden on companies in
> > U.S. is the more of an incentive U.S. companies have to do business in
> > another country instead of doing business here.
> > >
> > > --- In Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Sheep&Goatlady"
> > springcreek@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, Susan, recently there was a doctumentary Mardi Gai made in
> > china,, it is about those beads they give away during Mardi Gra,, rather
> > interesting to watch,, you ought to get informed,, And doctumentary
> > about clothes being made off shore, one jacket cost to make and
> > materials ,72 cents,, sold here in the US for over 30 dollars, that is a
> > example,, what kind of profit does one jacket made? well over 1000
> > percentage,
> > > > Are you serious about investing? the stock market is doing well, how
> > come there is so many folks out of work? investments are going over
> > seas, not here in the US,, the US has become a nation of consumers not a
> > nation of producers,, the US agri world is one of the few things left
> > that is made in america,,,
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Susan
> > > > To: Politics_CurrentEvents_Group@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 4:09 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] why companies go out of
> > business
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Business go out of business for a huge variety of reasons.
> > > > 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
> > can't make money. When that happens people won't invest their money in
> > the company.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to sound insulting but do you have any idea how
> > business works let alone 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, iloveubuntulinux valchaulinux@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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. • 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 — $43 billion in 2008 — 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 — 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.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> © 2010 Washington Post
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment