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