|
|
Post by keithf on Mar 27, 2010 15:06:53 GMT -5
I also work on cars and if the government makes EVERYONE who works on cars pay 100 dollars more to put a clutch in,i will pass that 100 bucks on to you. good post kessenger, an honest open debate is always healthy. but as marcus points out, and i have as well. taxes on corporations are passed onto consumers. just as all costs to companies are passed onto consumers. if taxes are raised on Nike alone, they could NOT pass this down to consumers because the free market would not react favorably to their price rising while their competitors WITHOUT the tax increase did not have the burden...BUT, if the tax applied to all shoe companies then the price of shoes would increase. because at that point, the market would allow it because the costs to all manufactures would increase and they would all pass this down to consumers. these companies have to turn a profit, and keep the shareholders happy. when money comes out of one end, its gonna be made up on the other. |
|
|
|
Post by keithf on Mar 27, 2010 15:08:08 GMT -5
one more thing to add. while this discussion is enjoyable, its mainly pointless. if this does not get overturned then within a decade insurance coimpanies will be out of business and we will all be dependant on the federal gov't for our healthcare needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Mar 27, 2010 19:16:28 GMT -5
So that everyone knows. This plan of capitalism guided by goverment was based on how the French system works and I think it has been humming along for around 60 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Mar 27, 2010 19:59:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Mar 28, 2010 14:26:33 GMT -5
Great post Kieth
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Apr 5, 2010 18:24:50 GMT -5
Polar, Do you realy think that someone like me that wants to see caps on CEO pay or think that some companys will flush the good ol USA and all the people in it down the commode for money don't know the need of profits? Realy its all or nothing for you, we either understand profit your way or we are idiots?
Many companies make profits and are able to give back to the community through good paying jobs and living standards. Cosco is a perfect example. They have grown fast made lots of money yet pay their cashiers $14 + benefits. They make a profit. If they can do this as a retail chain and still make loads of money why can't others?
Using your own model for "profit". Wouldn't a company that pays people more get more back on their investment since the employee "profits" more.
The issue I have with insurance companies and capitalism is that theres no "profit" in covering people who get VERY sick. I known inur world it would be ok for a company to drop someones insurance as soon as they get cancer since its more profitable to do so. But, thank God we don't live in your world.
Heres my view. Companies depend on the Goverment to even exist. The law that we the people created gave a company that right. So, if this company is no longer provides a "profit" to we the people who allowed it to exist. Than we the people can change the rules to eliminate that comapny. Its all about who is boss in America. YOU think the companys are. I as an American still believe we the people are. They didn't make the laws for us to exist, we made the laws for them to exist. In my mind they should remember that or pay the price.
So let me ask you polar. Who do you think should run America we the people or companies? So seem to think they should have the right to make the laws. The constitution gave we the people that right. Don't you believe in the constitution?
|
|
|
|
Post by keithf on Apr 8, 2010 11:20:09 GMT -5
Heres my view. Companies depend on the Goverment to even exist. nope. people were owning businesses long before our government was formed. the government depends on the people and their businesses to exist. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 8, 2010 17:04:17 GMT -5
WOW good one keith
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Apr 8, 2010 17:40:33 GMT -5
Where Keith? Where was there a corporation before a goverment. Show me an example. Even when you had kings it was still a form of goverment. A tribal leader is a form of governance. And Tribal leader's predated Business. So if I am wrong prove that. Good try though.
Notice I said companys and you said business. You have learned well from Fox news.
company: definition: a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, esp. for business: a publishing company; a dance company *notice in the definition it says "incorporated" this is a function of the law*
Business: definition: a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern. *notice "a person" can own a business, yes business did predate our goverment but I didn't say business, you did.
For the record. My issue is with corporations. A person that owns a local business must face the people that business hurts or helps. Living with those decisions makes them own them. When an owner of some Chemical Corp dumps tons of toxic waste in a lake on the other side of the United States that CEO is removed from those decisions unless we the people make them live with them.
A corporation is an entity that was created by our laws. You don't have to like it, but its still true.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 10, 2010 19:14:56 GMT -5
Noun 1. retard - a person of subnormal intelligence
- a person lacking intelligence or common sense
Companies, are "We the People"....from the CEO to the stock holder to its employees....
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Still one thing more, fellow citizens — a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Apr 11, 2010 3:35:03 GMT -5
Companies are "We the People"? At least you can admit who you are I guess.
When you can't form a decent argument just call names.
You use companies as your example then quote Jefferson claiming government shouldn't regulate industry. Yet the very companies/corporations you use the quote to defend would not exist if government didn't create laws to form them. So if we followed Jeffersons advice as you claim we should then corporations wouldn't exist since we would have no laws allowing their charter. The chicken or the egg is your issue.
So ask yourself, are corporations formed by function of law?.....yes.
If this is true would Jefferson have wanted us to create corporation? Not by this quote he didn't.
Furthermore. If the founding fathers were pro corporation, why were they not mentioned?
They existed at the time. The British East India Tea Company was the reason for the Boston Tea Party. The British government giving a tax breaks to East India Tea Company giving it an advantage over individuals selling tea that had to continue to pay the tax. THis gave the company a monopoly. In part the Boston Tea party was about government treating companies preferably to PEOPLE. If the tea party hadn't happened we may not have had the revolution. So when they wrote "We the People" you think they meant the East India Tea Company?
With the forefathers so recent off a battle with a "corporation" why didn't they speak to or advocate for their creation in the constitution? Because that wasn't the "We the People" they were writing about.
I look forward to your response. I am sure it will be "your a big dummy head" or something similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Apr 11, 2010 4:00:40 GMT -5
Here's an article on what we posted on above. The Tea party was about the oppression of the many for the gain of the few. The few being the East India Tea Company. Even if you disagree with me it is an interesting article.
About that Famous Tea Party
Becky Akers is a historian who specializes in the American Revolution.
Tea. Warm, fragrant, and comforting, especially during the bustle of Christmas. It’s hard to believe this soothing potion once enraged a whole town and pushed a country toward revolution. But it did, 233 years ago Saturday in Boston.
The legendary Tea Party strikes us as quaint, almost childish: men disguising themselves as Indians, like kids on Halloween, then stealing out one night to destroy a shipment of tea. And all over a tax so tiny we smile. (Or so we think.) Oh, for problems as simple as our forefathers'!
But we actually confront the same problem. The issue was not taxation, with or without representation. The evil that sparked the Boston Tea Party stalks us today: the alliance of money, power, and weapons that subjugates the many for the benefit of the few. We call it fair trade, protectionism, corporatism, the military-industrial complex. The colonists knew it as mercantilism and fought it in the British East India Tea Company.
East India companies of various nationalities preyed on India during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Britain's government (in 1600) and Holland's (1602) were among the first to establish cartels for plundering the subcontinent to benefit the rulers, bureaucrats, and shareholders at home. The French followed suit in 1664, and the Danes in 1729. Though Britain's version started with only 125 shareholders and pound;72,000 in capital, it metastasized into a full-fledged government within 70 years. It even boasted an army and fortresses to prevent the other companies from poaching its suppliers and employees: talk about cutting out competitors! By 1858, when this force was folded into the British Army, it numbered 24,000 troops.
The Company ruled three large Indian provinces with bribes and brutality. An American lamented, It is shocking to Humanity to relate the relentless Barbarity, practised by the Servants of that Body, on the helpless Asiatics; a Barbarity scarce equalled even by the most brutal Savages, or Cortez, the Mexican Conqueror.
Another, the pamphleteer “Rusticus,” decried the Company's crimes in 1773:
Their Conduct in Asia for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenue of Mighty Kingdoms have centered in their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduce whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them so high at a Rate that the poor could not purchase them.
Because the Company relied on coercion instead of competition, it faced bankruptcy by the early 1770s. Tons of tea piled up in its warehouses. How to dispose of it and, at the same time, make a killing for the Company's mostly royal and noble shareholders? Easy: exempt it from the three-penny-per-pound tea tax, undercutting other dealers, and dump it on the colonies. In case the lower price didn’t entice thrifty Americans, Parliament also granted the Company a monopoly on the colonial tea trade. Then they congratulated themselves on a Solomonic solution: cheap tea for cheap colonists who had groused about paying a cheap tax.
The resulting tempest shocked them. But the colonists understood the stakes. Hundreds of small, independent smugglers (and virtually all colonial businessmen smuggled in protest against customs duties) would be ruined so that the Company might flourish. Worse, Rusticus feared, Americans in like Manner [as the] Asiatics [would] be given up to the Disposal of the East India Company, who have now the Assurance, to step forth in Aid of the Minister, to execute his Plan, of enslaving America[.] . . . Thus having drained [India] of [its] immense Wealth . . . they now, it seems, cast their Eyes on America, as a new Theatre, whereon to exercise their Talents.
But the actors in that theater refused to play their roles. They threw a tea party instead.
Collaborative Tyranny
Then as now, some friends of freedom misunderstood how collaborative and cozy tyranny can be. They assumed that government alone destroys liberty. William Lee wrote to his brother, Richard Henry Lee, “The plan [to 'subvert the liberties and constitution' of England 'as well as that of America'] is deeply laid by the King, Lords Bute, Mansfield and Wedderburne; for which purpose they employ the most useful tools in the kingdom: Lord North, a tyrant from principle, . . . and his brother-in-law, Lord Dartmouth. . . .
Lee named these men because of their positions in the administration, not their ties to the British East India Company. Nor did the Company's directors make Lee's list. Yet the government and the Company were incestuous, symbiotic. They shared personnel, policies, and purpose. Each used its power and wealth to strengthen the other. Both cheated ordinary Englishmen and Indians of their freedom to choose where and what they would buy; how they would live, work, and worship; with whom they would associate; and what they would read and discuss and write.
Other colonists realized that the corporate class and government were entwined. Their response was the non-importation agreement, more familiar to us as a boycott. By refusing to buy English products they punished business's league with Leviathan. [The colonists] resent the behaviours of the merchants in London — those, I mean, who receive their bread from them — infamously deserting their cause at the time of extremity.
In the nineteenth century, Lysander Spooner noted the diabolical duet corporations often play with government: “So-called sovereigns, in these different governments, are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different bands of robbers and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are dependent upon the lenders of blood-money for the means to carry on their robberies and murders. They could not sustain themselves a moment but for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. . . . They also, by unequal taxation, exempt wholly or partially the property of these loan-mongers, and throw corresponding burdens upon those who are too poor and weak to resist.”
Whether in eighteenth-century Britain or twenty-first century America.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 11, 2010 7:42:00 GMT -5
Government don't form companies, they regulate them to collect taxes....from "We the People", remember campanies/corporations do not pay taxes, they collect them from,We the People",they just raise their products or services,lay off, "We the People", and/or move their company overseas.
NO, Once again, they are regulated not formed, from what type of campany/corporation(C-corp,S-corp,LLC,etc...) to what the minimum wage should be.....
Too much shit to answer too.... i was simply was answering your question of who should run america....and you seperated, 'We the People' from Companies. I invest in these companies, my neighbor invest in these companis, YOU(tesphe,401k,pension) invest in these BIG,EVIL.. I spit on them Companies....
Just take two steps back and relax,take a couple of breathes and you will realize that WE ARE ALL, "We the People".........from the greedy rich man who make a profits out of our sweat to the big dummy head, commitee persons who are working overtime right now instead of the people they are supposed to represent!
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Apr 11, 2010 15:57:16 GMT -5
LOL, it's too early on Sunday morning to get that worked up. polar lets start over. They are formed. I have formed one. I never said government formed them I said government made laws allowing them to be formed. Yes they are regulated but first you must form one. I will send you the form required to form one if you wish as proof. better yet here is a link if you wish to form one yourself. smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-structures/llc/forming-llc.htmlI am not anti. corp. but I am anti letting them do whatever they wish without us being able to hold them accountable. Why do people incorporate? They do it under the law because it affords them protections under the law. Different types of incorporations offer different protections. My stance is, you want the American people out of your business, fine, don't incorporate. If you do incorporate and ask the goverment to protect you in certain ways, then YOU have opened the door, so WE also get to regulate you as we see fit. The problem I have now is that people who incorporate get all the benefits of owning or running a certain business, yet almost none of the penalty or responsibility for what that company may do to make an extra buck. IE Enron execs., Citi group execs, This jackass mine owner in W.V. All these people have made decisions that had huge impact on us as a people yet the laws THAT WE CREATED protect them from the backlash of their decisions. We as taxpayers or as mine workers have to pay a big price for what these people do yet they get all the rewards. You will never convince me that is right. If this mine CEO in W.V. just owned this mine and wasn't incorporated, he would be personaly liable for any wrong doing in a court of law. But, since he is the CEO of a corporation he can't be touched. He can run that company as unsafely as possible, kill as many miners as he can and still be profitable, why does he care, he is untouchable. And we the people offer him that protection by passing laws that allow him to incorporate and protect him. I just don't see how anyone can disagree that if they do this they have to take the Good with the Bad. It shouldn't be a one way street and it currently is exactly that. During the ENRON hearings I learned that CEO has an "asleep at the wheel" clause in the laws that basicly says just because he runs the company doesn't mean he can be held accountable for what that company does. Basicly saying he can be "asleep at the wheel" WTF?  They had to prove that Ken Lay directly ordered the illegal accounting schemes to prove he did anything wrong. It didn't matter if he knew and just ignored it. If he isn't paying attention to what his company does why was he still making millions? Who are you claiming is working overtime instead of people we represent? I only get OT when there are enough people working that it requires representation per the contract. And if I do work at no time do I work as anything other than a rep. so when I do, I take no work from anyone else. We have one repairman that covers as an alternate and even he knows when he is covering I won't let him work repair OT unless his whole team works first. I am guessing that comment was meant for someone else. If it was I would prefer you point fingers instead of group us all in together. |
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Apr 12, 2010 23:23:24 GMT -5
Polar,
This comment really pisses me off:
"from the greedy rich man who make a profits out of our sweat to the big dummy head, commitee persons who are working overtime right now instead of the people they are supposed to represent! "
I feel like you posted this hoping people would think it is me you were talking about or even my plant. And if that's the case thats a shitty way to be. I hope you will make it clear who you were talking about or at least that it wasn't me. I guess we will see how much character you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 16, 2010 20:27:18 GMT -5
Wrong!, posted it because there are big dummy head, commitee persons who are working overtime! You, being part of our Union Leadership(Local 862) should know this and I'm glad you said:"And if I do work at no time do I work as anything other than a rep. so when I do, I take no work from anyone else."......
Even though I personally don't know you....I have heard many good things about you....and if I were at KTP, you would have my vote, even if we disagree on many other things.....
Having said all that, I say this.....GAME ON!
Stop Whining! ....and I hope you are letting our union know how you feel about commiteemen working OT....i know you can't stop them...but you can speak up against it....not just in here....They are making all Union Leaders look bad........
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 16, 2010 20:43:45 GMT -5
We have union reps working overtime?
|
|
