<use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>The fact that it was a CBS affiliate doesn't factor into my judgement.
>The story itself is not credible. I'm skeptical about the motivations
>of local stations anyway. In my experience they focus on producing
>entertainment . . . not news.
And why is it not credible? Where do you go for your news?
<use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>The fact that it was a CBS affiliate doesn't factor into my judgement.
>The story itself is not credible. I'm skeptical about the motivations
>of local stations anyway. In my experience they focus on producing
>entertainment . . . not news.
Is the below a credible?
PICKET: Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality
Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment
in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying
off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next
three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a
proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new
healthcare law.
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company
in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of
potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in
additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white
collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The
company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow,
which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce
of 25,500 worldwide.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker
will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96
jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device
tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an
estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that
proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to
significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later,
Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between
1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and
workers overseas - to China.
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare
taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan
became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer,
with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Others
A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of
Obamacare:
Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs
Covidien - 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs
Hill Rom - 200 layoffs
Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American
jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a
shift from full-time to part-time workers.
In article <7bcq98pgttig32oc7r71mdt0c8onihe...@4ax.com>, xpene...@gmail.com says...
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:47:20 -0600, Marc Dashevsky
> <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
> >The fact that it was a CBS affiliate doesn't factor into my judgement.
> >The story itself is not credible. I'm skeptical about the motivations
> >of local stations anyway. In my experience they focus on producing
> >entertainment . . . not news.
> And why is it not credible? Where do you go for your news?
I'm not interested in investing more time in this discussion.
You have won and your world view will prevail.
On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:28:12 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You seem to have trouble evaluating the usefulness of information.
> > What do you think is valuable in that story? An anonymous guy says
> > he has fired employees.
> Is it any surprise that he doesn't give his full seeing the violence,
> see Occupy Wallstreet etc, your liberal friends are capable of?
First, the Occupy movement is primarily non-violent. The one notable US incidence of violence, in Oakland, was atypical, and reportedly perpetrated by an anarchist bloc outside the mainstream of both liberal and Occupy politics.
Second, even in that case, violence was an offshoot of a broader protest and encounters with riot police, not a targeted action against one or more private business owners who laid off workers.
In other words, even if he were to give his full name, "David" would be more likely to get hit by lightning than to be physically attacked by "violent liberals."
> It really is of no consequence if the logic is sound or not because
> there will be twenty two more people out of work.
It's of consequence because it's the likely difference between whether this is a random, outlying event or a bellwether. Thus far, it appears to be the former.
A few small business owners are laying off workers to get below the 50-employee cap that requires providing health insurance for full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act. But, stories indicate that these employers misunderstand the Act. They assume their current insurance plans are ineligible and/or their costs will otherwise go up, when nonpartisan studies indicate that a broad array of existing plans will either qualify or be exempted under a "grandfather clause," and that employers' costs for providing the same benefits should typically go down.
Also, the cap doesn't kick in until 2014, which gives employers another year to better educate themselves about the Act and explore alternatives to simply reducing their workforce. "David" simply had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing his guy lose the election. (That's assuming his story wasn't a hoax; hard to tell with an anonymous radio call-in.)
> You have noticed that the market dropped 400+ points in the
> last two days haven't you?
This was due to financial reports from Europe and jitters over the looming "fiscal cliff." There's not much we can do about the former; as for the latter, all that's required is for Boehner and the House Republicans to get their heads out of their asses on a slight (and necessary) tax increase for the wealthiest Americans.
> Well I expect it will go back up I plant to get out of it before spring.
> I suspect there will be others like me. I also suspect people like you
> that are so confident in the future won't be replacing us.
So, basically, you're betting that the market will trend downward indefinitely. Good luck with that.
> > The part that baffles me is "Well unfortunately, and most of my employees > > are Hispanic--I'm not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have > > mostly Hispanic employees...."
> > What is the relevance of the employees' ethnicity?
> I don't suppose you object whenever progressive do the same.
Progressives explain layoffs by their employees' ethnicity? Can you cite examples?
> The relevance is not only are these people losing their jobs they might
> very well be the people that are going to have the hardest time to
> find another.
So, you're saying that, as a group, Latinos have the hardest time finding work? Why?
> You liberals have been exploiting races and the ethnics for years.
By appealing to their needs and interests to win their votes? How terribly exploitative it is to actually represent people.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:16:18 -0500, xpene...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:07:21 -0600, Jim Colegrove
><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>>Fishy as all get out. He was apparantly not doing very well anyway
>>and exploiting his Hispanic employees. "David" was probably
>>overstaffed. And he "warned them" didn't he? What if they all voted
>>Rebublican due to his threat? That'll teach them to vote the right way
>>next time?
>Yeah, overstaffing is what a good business owner does. Contrary to
>popular thought most employers do care about there employees. OTOH you
>see in others as you see in yourself. You liberals have been
>exploiting races and the ethnics for years.
Ok, massa, don beat me, Ise promise to vote for your assfucker necks
tine.
>>On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:07:21 -0600, Jim Colegrove
>><co...@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
>>>Fishy as all get out. He was apparantly not doing very well anyway
>>>and exploiting his Hispanic employees. "David" was probably
>>>overstaffed. And he "warned them" didn't he? What if they all voted
>>>Rebublican due to his threat? That'll teach them to vote the right way
>>>next time?
>>Yeah, overstaffing is what a good business owner does. Contrary to
>>popular thought most employers do care about there employees. OTOH you
>>see in others as you see in yourself. You liberals have been
>>exploiting races and the ethnics for years.
>Ok, massa, don beat me, Ise promise to vote for your assfucker necks
>tine.
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:47:20 -0600, Marc Dashevsky
>> <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>> >The fact that it was a CBS affiliate doesn't factor into my judgement.
>> >The story itself is not credible. I'm skeptical about the motivations
>> >of local stations anyway. In my experience they focus on producing
>> >entertainment . . . not news.
>> And why is it not credible? Where do you go for your news?
>I'm not interested in investing more time in this discussion.
>You have won and your world view will prevail.
I'm not interested in winning or losing. I'd assume that most people
get their local new from local television or local paper. I've let
everyone know where I get mine.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:03:32 -0800 (PST), PStoller <afcpet...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:28:12 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > You seem to have trouble evaluating the usefulness of information.
>> > What do you think is valuable in that story? An anonymous guy says
>> > he has fired employees.
>> Is it any surprise that he doesn't give his full seeing the violence,
>> see Occupy Wallstreet etc, your liberal friends are capable of?
>First, the Occupy movement is primarily non-violent. The one notable US incidence of violence, in Oakland, was atypical, and reportedly perpetrated by an anarchist bloc outside the mainstream of both liberal and Occupy politics. >Second, even in that case, violence was an offshoot of a broader protest and encounters with riot police, not a targeted action against one or more private business owners who laid off workers.
>In other words, even if he were to give his full name, "David" would be more likely to get hit by lightning than to be physically attacked by "violent liberals."
That is probably true but IMO I doubt that it would hold true that
they wouldn't show up at home or disrupt his business. They certainly
did so to a number of Wall Street executives.
>> It really is of no consequence if the logic is sound or not because
>> there will be twenty two more people out of work.
>It's of consequence because it's the likely difference between whether this is a random, outlying event or a bellwether. Thus far, it appears to be the former.
>A few small business owners are laying off workers to get below the 50-employee cap that requires providing health insurance for full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act. But, stories indicate that these employers misunderstand the Act. They assume their current insurance plans are ineligible and/or their costs will otherwise go up, when nonpartisan studies indicate that a broad array of existing plans will either qualify or be exempted under a "grandfather clause," and that employers' costs for providing the same benefits should typically go down.
I guess you missed the list I've posted that are anything but small
>Also, the cap doesn't kick in until 2014, which gives employers another year to better educate themselves about the Act and explore alternatives to simply reducing their workforce. "David" simply had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing his guy lose the election. (That's assuming his story wasn't a hoax; hard to tell with an anonymous radio call-in.)
They've already had two years but another year is all that is needed.
>> You have noticed that the market dropped 400+ points in the
>> last two days haven't you?
>This was due to financial reports from Europe and jitters over the looming "fiscal cliff." There's not much we can do about the former; as for the latter, all that's required is for Boehner and the House Republicans to get their heads out of their asses on a slight (and necessary) tax increase for the wealthiest Americans.
As if both of the above weren't already know. In the weeks leading up
to the election the market was up and down but was on the upswing in
the days before.
>> Well I expect it will go back up I plant to get out of it before spring.
>> I suspect there will be others like me. I also suspect people like you
>> that are so confident in the future won't be replacing us.
>So, basically, you're betting that the market will trend downward indefinitely. Good luck with that.
I suppose your answer would have been the same if I had said I'm
getting out in the spring before that the last presidential election
too. IIRC the Dow was 12000+ and preceded to drop 6800.
>> > The part that baffles me is "Well unfortunately, and most of my employees >> > are Hispanic--I'm not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have >> > mostly Hispanic employees...."
>> > What is the relevance of the employees' ethnicity?
See the unemployment for Hispanics.
>> I don't suppose you object whenever progressive do the same.
>Progressives explain layoffs by their employees' ethnicity? Can you cite examples?
>> The relevance is not only are these people losing their jobs they might
>> very well be the people that are going to have the hardest time to
>> find another.
>So, you're saying that, as a group, Latinos have the hardest time finding work? Why?
See the unemployment rate for Hispanics.
>> You liberals have been exploiting races and the ethnics for years.
>By appealing to their needs and interests to win their votes? How terribly exploitative it is to actually represent people.
I suppose Congressman John Conyers (Detroit) who has served 48 years
would say the say same. Look at his district and see how well he
served his constituents needs and interest. His wife a former Detroit
councilwoman served the needs of Detroiters, many of them in her
husband's district, is serving three years prison sentence. The City
of Detroit has had Democrat mayors who served the citizen's needs and
interests so well that the City is bankrupt. The most the
liberal/progressive was race baiter Coleman Young. Though spending
most of his life as a State Senator and Detroit Mayor Young managed to
become quite wealthy. Sadly to say I worked, yes i did more than vote,
for CY election when the City would have been better served by the
election of Mel Ravitz.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:03:32 -0800 (PST), PStoller <afcpet...@aol.com>
wrote:
>So, basically, you're betting that the market will trend downward indefinitely. Good luck with that.
I'm sure I haven't done as well as you but I'm alright. The two times
I've could have collect unemployment I haven't. I'm 65+ and haven't
bothered filling for SS and probably won't. I might talk the talk but
I also walk the walk. There was also a time in the late 70s when I
qualified for food stamps and other government goodies but didn't when
the government literally put me out of business. It was in 76 when my
family bought two transmission franchises that were located on the
other side of the state. When the building was completed for the first
one I quit my job and moved across the state. I was doing real well
setting records for the chain. It was about four months after I opened
that the Attorney General charges me with five counts of fraud among
other things. BTW the AG was Frank Kelley a long serving Democrat hack
that like to portray himself as the people's AG. Ironically I had been
considered for a paid position on his campaign staff when he ran for
the senate in 1972. To make a long story short they were trumped up
charges that were dropped but not after costing me a ton of money. I then went back to building my business back up. I had a number of
commercial accounts Michigan Bell now ATT&T, Detroit Edison that not
only stuck with me but sent me more business. I'm doing okay again and
decided to throw the Franchiser out and go independent. At that time
all repair shops in MI had to be registered with the state so I call
the state and tell them I tell them I'm no longer X transmission but Y
transmission . What do I need to do? They tell me I'm fine. Wrong
because it seems th AG didn't get the word because the day before
THanksgiving I've got in front of my shop television crews with an
Assistant AG babbling that my shop isn't registered and I have give
everyone there money. I'm in my office with my father I get handed the
paper work. I take it ,tell him to get out of my office and when he
wouldn't pushed him out. I found out later that he whined to the AG
that "I put hands on him." I forget if I called the SOS (Secretary of
States) office in Lansing, told what happened and I was on my way.
When I got there I was told they were waiting me at the AG's office.
To make a long story short when got there I was told oops we made a
mistake and we got to get you back. They had proceeded to ruin my
business a second time and I didn't even get an apology. This time my
business drop and wasn't recovering. I had give up my apartment and
moved into the shop. Several weeks later I went back to Detroit (
maybe for New Years). On my way back I stopped to call my father who
told me that my manager had called and there were television crews
there again. I turned back to Detroit and never went back to the shop.
My father and myself basically lost all of our money because of
government abuse. I recovered, he didn't, literally three years later
keeled over, died in a small coffee shop we had opened. He was 61.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:11:06 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In other words, even if he were to give his full name, "David"
> > would be more likely to get hit by lightning than to be
> > physically attacked by "violent liberals."
> That is probably true but IMO I doubt that it would hold true that
> they wouldn't show up at home or disrupt his business. They certainly
> did so to a number of Wall Street executives.
The movement was called "Occupy Wall Street." The whole point was to protest what irresponsible Wall St. guys did to Main St. guys like "David." I suppose some sort of peaceful local protest might have occurred, like a boycott, but that's a long way from the alleged "violence, see Occupy Wallstreet etc, your liberal friends are capable of."
> > A few small business owners are laying off workers to get below
> > the 50-employee cap that requires providing health insurance for
> > full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act. ...
> I guess you missed the list I've posted that are anything but small
When I started writing, you hadn't posted that list. But, more to the point, that list was made up exclusively of healthcare industry companies with an entirely different concern from "David," et al.: that the Affordable Care Act will lower profits for their industry. Whether that's true--and, if so, whether it's a good or bad thing for the nation as a whole--has yet to be determined.
> > Also, the cap doesn't kick in until 2014, which gives employers
> > another year to better educate themselves about the Act and
> > explore alternatives to simply reducing their workforce. ...
> They've already had two years but another year is all that is needed.
As I said before, only a few small businesses are laying off workers because of concerns over health care costs. Another year ought to be enough for them, *if* they spend it doing their homework.
> > > You have noticed that the market dropped 400+ points in the
> > > last two days haven't you?
> > This was due to financial reports from Europe and jitters over the
> > looming "fiscal cliff." There's not much we can do about the former;
> > as for the latter, all that's required is for Boehner and the House
> > Republicans to get their heads out of their asses on a slight (and
> > necessary) tax increase for the wealthiest Americans.
> As if both of the above weren't already know. In the weeks leading up
> to the election the market was up and down but was on the upswing in
> the days before.
The market changes all the time on the basis of reports with information that shouldn't really be news to anyone paying attention. Too many people approach the stock market with a day trader mentality, even though their basic investment strategy is for the long haul. Likewise, too many pundits read volumes of long-term analysis into spates of short-term market volatility.
The bottom line is that a few bad days on Wall St. don't tell us anything about what's to come over the next four years, or even the next four weeks.
> > So, basically, you're betting that the market will trend downward
> > indefinitely. Good luck with that.
> I suppose your answer would have been the same if I had said I'm
> getting out in the spring before that the last presidential election
> too. IIRC the Dow was 12000+ and preceded to drop 6800.
Which tell you what, exactly: that the Dow drops 5000 points after every election? After every election that a Democrat wins? After every election that Obama wins?
Look back at *why* the Dow dropped to below 6800 in early 2009. The nation was reeling from massive errors and outright malfeasance by the largest companies in the financial and business sectors, along with the recklessness of Obama's predecessor. The Dow started dropping in late 2007, when bubbles started bursting and rot started surfacing. It had already shed 2000 points by the time Obama took office, and continued to deflate as the extent of the problems he inherited came to light.
Yes, a year later, the market had lost nearly half its value; Obama's stimulus plan hadn't yet begun to work, and there was a lot of doubt whether it ever would. But, the doubters were wrong, and after a steady (as Wall St. goes) climb over four years, the market in Oct. 2012 went back above 13.6K. We're 1000 points below that now, but in market terms, this month is a blip. The big picture is that Obama's economic policy has, in fact, been working; that's part of why he's back in office for a second term.
> > So, you're saying that, as a group, Latinos have the
> > hardest time finding work? Why?
> See the unemployment rate for Hispanics.
I've seen it. It's @10%, which is worse than for whites (@7%) and Asian Americans (@5%), but better than for African Americans (@14%). So, as a group, they don't have the hardest time.
> > > You liberals have been exploiting races and the ethnics for years.
> > By appealing to their needs and interests to win their votes? How
> > terribly exploitative it is to actually represent people.
> I suppose Congressman John Conyers (Detroit) who has served 48 years
> would say the say same. Look at his district and see how well he
> served his constituents needs and interest.
First, one Representative makes a poor case for what "you liberals" have done. Second, I hardly see how a black Congressman representing his district for nearly 50 years is "exploiting races and ethnics." Third, Conyers has been one of the most productive members of Congress in terms of successfully introducing and sponsoring legislation. And, while you would no doubt disagree, I would say his voting record has been exemplary.
How you think he should have been able to fix Detroit's economic woes is beyond me: Conyers can hardly be held accountable for the failings of the US auto industry. The fact that his constituents keep sending him back to Washington indicates that most of them believe he's been serving them just fine.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:20:26 -0800 (PST), PStoller <afcpet...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Sunday, November 11, 2012 7:11:06 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > In other words, even if he were to give his full name, "David"
>> > would be more likely to get hit by lightning than to be
>> > physically attacked by "violent liberals."
>> That is probably true but IMO I doubt that it would hold true that
>> they wouldn't show up at home or disrupt his business. They certainly
>> did so to a number of Wall Street executives.
>The movement was called "Occupy Wall Street." The whole point was to protest what irresponsible Wall St. guys did to Main St. guys like "David." I suppose some sort of peaceful local protest might have occurred, like a boycott, but that's a long way from the alleged "violence, see Occupy Wallstreet etc, your liberal friends are capable of."
You're the only one whose posts string out in which makes them
extremely hard to read.
>> > A few small business owners are laying off workers to get below
>> > the 50-employee cap that requires providing health insurance for
>> > full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act. ...
>> I guess you missed the list I've posted that are anything but small
>When I started writing, you hadn't posted that list. But, more to the point, that list was made up exclusively of healthcare industry companies with an entirely different concern from "David," et al.: that the Affordable Care Act will lower profits for their industry. Whether that's true--and, if so, whether it's a good or bad thing for the nation as a whole--has yet to be determined.
So healthcare industry doesn't count? For whatever reason(s) there
are going to be lots of companies that are going to layoff and/cut
back employee hours period. The end result will be the government
will be picking up the cost. Which is fine as long as they have other
people's money to spend. The problem is when they run ut of OPM.
Ultimately all these government sponsored social programs fail because
they are based on flawed assumptions.
>> > Also, the cap doesn't kick in until 2014, which gives employers
>> > another year to better educate themselves about the Act and
>> > explore alternatives to simply reducing their workforce. ...
>> They've already had two years but another year is all that is needed.
>As I said before, only a few small businesses are laying off workers because of concerns over health care costs. Another year ought to be enough for them, *if* they spend it doing their homework.
If the plan is so good why is the government handing out waivers to a
number of companies. Are those employees deserving of the benefits of
the AHA?
>> > > You have noticed that the market dropped 400+ points in the
>> > > last two days haven't you?
>> > This was due to financial reports from Europe and jitters over the
>> > looming "fiscal cliff." There's not much we can do about the former;
>> > as for the latter, all that's required is for Boehner and the House
>> > Republicans to get their heads out of their asses on a slight (and
>> > necessary) tax increase for the wealthiest Americans.
>> As if both of the above weren't already know. In the weeks leading up
>> to the election the market was up and down but was on the upswing in
>> the days before.
>The market changes all the time on the basis of reports with information that shouldn't really be news to anyone paying attention. Too many people approach the stock market with a day trader mentality, even though their basic investment strategy is for the long haul. Likewise, too many pundits read volumes of long-term analysis into spates of short-term market volatility.
Most of the market volume is composed of institution sal traders.
>The bottom line is that a few bad days on Wall St. don't tell us anything about what's to come over the next four years, or even the next four weeks.
The market has dropped 1000 points since shortly before the election
which isn't a particularly good sign. I believe most if not all the
gains for the year have been wiped out in a two week time span.
>> > So, basically, you're betting that the market will trend downward
>> > indefinitely. Good luck with that.
>> I suppose your answer would have been the same if I had said I'm
>> getting out in the spring before that the last presidential election
>> too. IIRC the Dow was 12000+ and preceded to drop 6800.
>Which tell you what, exactly: that the Dow drops 5000 points after every election? After every election that a Democrat wins? After every election that Obama wins?
The Dow drops based on what the market perceives the future climate is
to be. Yes the market the does drop after every Presidential election
Obama wins. Since the Republicans took control of the House the Dow
until just before the election had move up 3000 points.
>Look back at *why* the Dow dropped to below 6800 in early 2009. The nation was reeling from massive errors and outright malfeasance by the largest companies in the financial and business sectors, along with the recklessness of Obama's predecessor. The Dow started dropping in late 2007, when bubbles started bursting and rot started surfacing. It had already shed 2000 points by the time Obama took office, and continued to deflate as the extent of the problems he inherited came to light.
The Dow moved up because American business's resiliency, ability to
adapt et al. The shenanigans that went on the financial industry were
all part and parcel of the Democrat's notion that everyone should be
able to own a house even of they couldn't afford it. It was/is
impossible to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as long as you have
the Barney Franks, Nancy Pelosis's of the world in government. BF
claimed right up to the crash that Fannie and Freddie were just fine.
>Yes, a year later, the market had lost nearly half its value; Obama's stimulus plan hadn't yet begun to work, and there was a lot of doubt whether it ever would. But, the doubters were wrong, and after a steady (as Wall St. goes) climb over four years, the market in Oct. 2012 went back above 13.6K. We're 1000 points below that now, but in market terms, this month is a blip. The big picture is that Obama's economic policy has, in fact, been working; that's part of why he's back in office for a second term.
The Obama's stimulus was nothing but give aways at the most. The
market came back because of american business ingenuity etc. His "
auto rescue" screwed the shareholders, the bond holders, franchisees
etc. In other words everyone but the UAW. I personally know a
Cadillac, Pontiac and Chevrolet that were forced to close all had been
in business 40 years or more and were profitable. The average
franchise has 75 employees and after the government was done 150,000
were out of a job. It is said that the Government will need to sell
its shares at $53+ to get all the taxpayers money back. That last
time I looked GM was trading in the neighborhood of $23/share or $10
below the INP price.
>> > So, you're saying that, as a group, Latinos have the
>> > hardest time finding work? Why?
>> See the unemployment rate for Hispanics.
>I've seen it. It's @10%, which is worse than for whites (@7%) and Asian Americans (@5%), but better than for African Americans (@14%). So, as a group, they don't have the hardest time.
IOW 2% higher than the national average. I believe that it is in fact
much higher because the way the Government computes unemployment
doesn't include those who have stopped looking. Nor do they speak of
the under employed. 50 years later with all the Government social
programs for the poor ( Black and White) Blacks are still the at the
very bottom. Your favorite government social programs have literally
decimated the community. That's what being on the Government
plantation has got them
>> > > You liberals have been exploiting races and the ethnics for years.
>> > By appealing to their needs and interests to win their votes? How
>> > terribly exploitative it is to actually represent people.
>> I suppose Congressman John Conyers (Detroit) who has served 48 years
>> would say the say same. Look at his district and see how well he
>> served his constituents needs and interest.
>First, one Representative makes a poor case for what "you liberals" have done. Second, I hardly see how a black Congressman representing his district for nearly 50 years is "exploiting races and ethnics." Third, Conyers has been one of the most productive members of Congress in terms of successfully introducing and sponsoring legislation. And, while you would no doubt disagree, I would say his voting record has been exemplary.
Blacks have been solidly voting for Democrats or 50 years of which the
first 30 Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. Need I
say again what the state of the Black community is today is? Biden has
it wrong it's not conservatives that will put "y'all in chains"
because they are already in them working on the Democrat plantation.
As far as how good Conyers is for his past and present district the
next time your in Detroit give me a call and we'll go for a ride
around his past and present district(s). Conyers was/is so good that
Blacks by thousands have fled his district. The only way Conyers has
stayed in Congress is cause the law says minority districts have be
drawn to protect minority representative. Despite the built in
advantage the other Black Congressman lost his seat to a White
Democrat.
>How you think he should have been able to fix Detroit's economic woes is beyond me: Conyers can hardly be held accountable for the failings of the US auto industry. The fact that his constituents keep sending him back to Washington indicates that most of them believe he's been serving them just
On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:05:30 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
> You're the only one whose posts string out in which makes them > extremely hard to read.
Blame Google.
> > But, more to the point, that list was made up exclusively of
> > healthcare industry companies with an entirely different
> > concern from "David," et al.: that the Affordable Care Act will
> > lower profits for their industry...
> So healthcare industry doesn't count?
That's not what I said. I said your list has nothing to do with "Dave" and small business owners in general.
The healthcare industry is uniquely and directly impacted by healthcare legislation. Similarly, the insurance industry. They are also uniquely and directly (though not solely) responsible for America's out-of-control healthcare costs. The market has failed--catastrophically--to find a way to offer better care to more people at lower cost. This dire situation mandates a response from the federal government. (I think the response should be single-payer system like every other industrialized nation has, but the free-market hawks would never let that through Congress, and the healthcare and insurance lobbies would hate that a lot more than they hate the ACA.)
> For whatever reason(s) there are going to be lots of companies that
> are going to layoff and/cut back employee hours period.
Outside the healthcare industry, there is as yet no indication that this is true. Even within the healthcare industry, I'd venture to guess that this is more momentary panic than long-term trend.
The fact is, the need for healthcare will keep growing along with the size and age of our population. If current companies can't figure out how to profit in that environment even under stricter regulations, then newer, smarter companies will arise to replace them (and the jobs they've cut).
> Ultimately all these government sponsored social programs fail because > they are based on flawed assumptions.
And yet all governments have them, because they would fail more quickly and dramatically without them. The fact that social programs need to be adjusted in response to incorrect assumptions and/or changing conditions is not a valid argument against having social programs.
> If the plan is so good why is the government handing out waivers to a > number of companies. Are those employees deserving of the benefits of
> the AHA?
The waivers are part of the ACA, for companies with "mini-med" plans designed to provide health coverage to low-wage employees. Without the waivers, there would be no way to provide these workers with any insurance under the system currently in place. As other parts of the ACA are phased in, the waivers will be phased out; the plan is to eliminate them in 2014. Of course, if there's nothing ready by then to replace them (which might happen with a habitually obstructive House), the waivers may be extended.
> > Too many people approach the stock market with a
> > day trader mentality, even though their basic investment strategy
> > is for the long haul. Likewise, too many pundits read volumes of
> > long-term analysis into spates of short-term market volatility.
> Most of the market volume is composed of institution sal traders.
What does the dominance of institutional traders have to do with whether individual investors are going to enter, leave, or remain in the market? Or whether they should?
> The market has dropped 1000 points since shortly before the election > which isn't a particularly good sign. I believe most if not all the
> gains for the year have been wiped out in a two week time span.
It's never a good sign when the market drops, but it's not necessarily a very bad sign, and it doesn't answer the question, "a sign of what?" So, the market is roughly even with a year ago. Disappointing? Yes. Disastrous? No. Would a Romney victory have led to a better market today? Possibly. What about four years from now? Or forty? Nobody knows. What we do know is that you can't fairly judge an administration--or a policy--on short-term market activity.
Since the low in Feb. 2009, the market has shown a pattern of long, substantial gains punctuated by relatively short and shallow declines. That we are apparently in one of those short declines now is no reason to fear for the next four years. But, if you can't weather market fluctuations, you shouldn't be in the market.
> > > IIRC the Dow was 12000+ and preceded to drop 6800.
> > Which tell you what, exactly: that the Dow drops 5000
> > points after every election? After every election that a
> > Democrat wins? After every election that Obama wins?
> The Dow drops based on what the market perceives the future climate is
> to be. Yes the market the does drop after every Presidential election
> Obama wins. Since the Republicans took control of the House the Dow
> until just before the election had move up 3000 points.
That's a pretty selective reading of history to arrive at the desired cause and effect. A whole lot happened in that period beyond the GOP taking the House. Conversely, the Dow dropped after the GOP retained control of the House in this year's election: so, should we blame them instead of Obama for the 1000 pt. decline? It would be no more or less rational.
> The Dow moved up because American business's resiliency, ability to > adapt et al. The shenanigans that went on the financial industry were
> all part and parcel of the Democrat's notion that everyone should be
> able to own a house even of they couldn't afford it.
The notion that the financial crisis was entirely a product of Democratic policies is pure partisan fiction. Yes, the Dems played a role. So did the GOP, specifically in the form of promoting dangerous deregulation for decades. Likewise fictional is the idea that the market recovered purely on the strength of "American business' resiliency," as if the massive stimulus and bailouts had nothing to do with it.
> The Obama's stimulus was nothing but give aways at the most. The
> market came back because of american business ingenuity etc. His > "auto rescue" screwed the shareholders, the bond holders, franchisees
> etc. In other words everyone but the UAW. I personally know a
> Cadillac, Pontiac and Chevrolet that were forced to close all had been
> in business 40 years or more and were profitable. The average
> franchise has 75 employees and after the government was done 150,000
> were out of a job.
If "American business ingenuity" were enough, there never would have been a fiscal crisis, and the recovery would have been swift and easy. Without the auto bailout, ALL the franchises would have been out of a job, along with all the auto workers; and the shareholders, bond holders, etc., would have been far worse off than they are today. Yes, the bailouts were extremely expensive, but they were still less costly than the alternative.
> It is said that the Government will need to sell its shares at $53+ to
> get all the taxpayers money back. That last time I looked GM was
> trading in the neighborhood of $23/share or $10 below the INP price
What's missing from this picture? Oh, yeah: the auto industry is paying back its loans ahead of schedule. The sector has added over a quarter of a million jobs; that's on top of the million-plus jobs saved by the bailout. GM still has a ways to go before it's out of the woods, but each car sold in North America is now about five times as profitable as those sold pre-restructuring. Oh, and the bailout also saved @$30B in tax revenue.
The government certainly could sell its GM stock now at a big loss, but it doesn't have to. If the global economy recovers, so will GM, and the taxpayers can get more--maybe even all--of their money back. (That's in terms of direct investment: indirectly, the taxpayers have already gotten their money back in the form of jobs and tax revenues.) If the global economy doesn't recover, GM's debt will be the least of our problems.
> > > > So, you're saying that, as a group, Latinos have the > > > > hardest time finding work? Why?
> > > See the unemployment rate for Hispanics.
> > I've seen it. It's @10%, which is worse than for whites
> > (@7%) and Asian Americans (@5%), but better than for
> > African Americans (@14%). So, as a group, they don't
> > have the hardest time.
> IOW 2% higher than the national average. I believe that it is in fact
> much higher because the way the Government computes unemployment
> doesn't include those who have stopped looking. Nor do they speak of
> the under employed.
First, you're the one who said, "see the unemployment rate." I did, and it doesn't say what you claimed it did. Second, the BLS has stats on those who've stopped looking ("discouraged workers") and the underemployed ("involuntary part-time workers") as well, although I don't know whether it has demographic breakdowns. If you can show that these figures prove Latinos "have the hardest time finding work," go right ahead. But, we both know they'll have a harder time than whites; perhaps that was your real point.
> 50 years later with all the Government social programs for the poor
> (Black and White) Blacks are still the at the very bottom. Your favorite
> government social programs have literally decimated the community.
> That's what being on the Government plantation has got them.
No question that government programs haven't achieved socio-economic equality for minorities. The BLS didn't start reporting non-white employment statistics until 1972, after which the comparative rates of unemployment have been pretty stable, with unemployment for blacks running about double that of whites, and Latinos falling about halfway between. Numbers for comparative income are less encouraging encouraging; worse still, figures for comparative wealth.
We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics, and
we've decided we're leaving.
We in the Blue States intend to form our own country.
In case you aren't aware, that includes New York, California, Hawaii,
Oregon,Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the
rest of the Northeast.
We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially
to the people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America(E.S.A).
To sum up briefly:
You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Cory Booker, Tim Kaine and Elizabeth Warren. You get Bobby
Jindal and Todd Akin.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Princeton. You get Ol' Miss.
We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepre-neurs. You get
Texas.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states
pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian
Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of
single moms.
With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the
country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce,
92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can
serve French wines at state dinners), 90% of all cheese, 90% of the
high tech industry, most of the US low sulphur coal, all living
redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools
plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech, The University of California,
and MIT.
With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese
Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US
mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99%
of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush
Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson, and the University of
Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Thirty-eight percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale; 62% believe life is sacred unless
we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws; 44% say that evolution is
only a theory;, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11; and 61% of you
crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we
leftists.
We're taking the good weed, too. You can have that crap they grow in
Mexico.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:28:28 -0800 (PST), PStoller <afcpet...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, November 16, 2012 9:05:30 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You're the only one whose posts string out in which makes them >> extremely hard to read.
>Blame Google.
I would think a man of your means would be able to afford a stand
alone news service and a newsreader.
>> > But, more to the point, that list was made up exclusively of
>> > healthcare industry companies with an entirely different
>> > concern from "David," et al.: that the Affordable Care Act will
>> > lower profits for their industry...
>> So healthcare industry doesn't count?
>That's not what I said. I said your list has nothing to do with "Dave" and small business owners in general.
If I had a nickel for every business owner that said their business
aren't going to be able to afford the mandate I'd have a lot of
nickels.
>The healthcare industry is uniquely and directly impacted by healthcare legislation. Similarly, the insurance industry. They are also uniquely and directly (though not solely) responsible for America's out-of-control healthcare costs. The market has failed--catastrophically--to find a way to offer better care to more people at lower cost. This dire situation mandates a response from the federal government. (I think the response should be single-payer system like every other industrialized nation has, but the free-market hawks would never let that through Congress, and the healthcare and insurance lobbies would hate that a lot more than they hate the ACA.)
What is responsible for out of control costs is that we have generally
unhealthy population. I had lunch with a couple guys that I went to
HS the other day. Both in their mid-60s and both on medication.
>> For whatever reason(s) there are going to be lots of companies that
>> are going to layoff and/cut back employee hours period.
>Outside the healthcare industry, there is as yet no indication that this is true. Even within the healthcare industry, I'd venture to guess that this is more momentary panic than long-term trend.
I venture to guess that you are wrong.
>The fact is, the need for healthcare will keep growing along with the size and age of our population. If current companies can't figure out how to profit in that environment even under stricter regulations, then newer, smarter companies will arise to replace them (and the jobs they've cut).
IMO you are dreaming.
>> Ultimately all these government sponsored social programs fail because >> they are based on flawed assumptions.
>And yet all governments have them, because they would fail more quickly and dramatically without them. The fact that social programs need to be adjusted in response to incorrect assumptions and/or changing conditions is not a valid argument against having social programs.
No matter what the Government does these programs will fail because
there in the end will never be enough money to support them.
>> If the plan is so good why is the government handing out waivers to a >> number of companies. Are those employees deserving of the benefits of
>> the AHA?
>The waivers are part of the ACA, for companies with "mini-med" plans designed to provide health coverage to low-wage employees. Without the waivers, there would be no way to provide these workers with any insurance under the system currently in place. As other parts of the ACA are phased in, the waivers will be phased out; the plan is to eliminate them in 2014. Of course, if there's nothing ready by then to replace them (which might happen with a habitually obstructive House), the waivers may be extended.
Wishful thinking.
>> > Too many people approach the stock market with a
>> > day trader mentality, even though their basic investment strategy
>> > is for the long haul. Likewise, too many pundits read volumes of
>> > long-term analysis into spates of short-term market volatility.
>> Most of the market volume is composed of institution sal traders.
>What does the dominance of institutional traders have to do with whether individual investors are going to enter, leave, or remain in the market? Or whether they should?
It means that the small investor doesn't really have much influence as
to how the market moves. If at the start of the housing crash the
institutional investors decided to stand pat then certainly wouldn't
have dropped as sharply as it did.
>> The market has dropped 1000 points since shortly before the election >> which isn't a particularly good sign. I believe most if not all the
>> gains for the year have been wiped out in a two week time span.
>It's never a good sign when the market drops, but it's not necessarily a very bad sign, and it doesn't answer the question, "a sign of what?" So, the market is roughly even with a year ago. Disappointing? Yes. Disastrous? No. Would a Romney victory have led to a better market today? Possibly. What about four years from now? Or forty? Nobody knows. What we do know is that you can't fairly judge an administration--or a policy--on short-term market activity.
>Since the low in Feb. 2009, the market has shown a pattern of long, substantial gains punctuated by relatively short and shallow declines. That we are apparently in one of those short declines now is no reason to fear for the next four years. But, if you can't weather market fluctuations, you shouldn't be in the market.
The same can be said about the period between the prior crash and the
October 2007 high. After that time it was up and down for a short
period but ultimately dropping 2000 points by the election.
>> > > IIRC the Dow was 12000+ and preceded to drop 6800.
>> > Which tell you what, exactly: that the Dow drops 5000
>> > points after every election? After every election that a
>> > Democrat wins? After every election that Obama wins?
>> The Dow drops based on what the market perceives the future climate is
>> to be. Yes the market the does drop after every Presidential election
>> Obama wins. Since the Republicans took control of the House the Dow
>> until just before the election had move up 3000 points.
>That's a pretty selective reading of history to arrive at the desired cause and effect. A whole lot happened in that period beyond the GOP taking the House. Conversely, the Dow dropped after the GOP retained control of the House in this year's election: so, should we blame them instead of Obama for the 1000 pt. decline? It would be no more or less rational.
No it isn't. The whole year the Dow was on the upswing. Unless you
were living in the Pelosi type dream world you knew the Republicans
would retain the House. Since the polls, which obviously right, Obama
was going to be re-elected. So the only variable was the Senate which
appeared to Republicans had a good chance of taking. Losing the Senate
changed the game because there is no way to keep the DEmocrats in
check. Though he railed against executive orders when running in 2007
he uses it quite freely to get around Congress.
>> The Dow moved up because American business's resiliency, ability to >> adapt et al. The shenanigans that went on the financial industry were
>> all part and parcel of the Democrat's notion that everyone should be
>> able to own a house even of they couldn't afford it.
>The notion that the financial crisis was entirely a product of Democratic policies is pure partisan fiction. Yes, the Dems played a role. So did the GOP, specifically in the form of promoting dangerous deregulation for decades. Likewise fictional is the idea that the market recovered purely on the strength of "American business' resiliency," as if the massive stimulus and bailouts had nothing to do with it.
The roots of the financial crisis were entirely Democrat. You can't
have a plant without a root and in the same vein there would have been
no financial crisis. If the stimulus was so effective why the need for
QE1, QE2 and now a talk of QE3?
>> The Obama's stimulus was nothing but give aways at the most. The
>> market came back because of american business ingenuity etc. His >> "auto rescue" screwed the shareholders, the bond holders, franchisees
>> etc. In other words everyone but the UAW. I personally know a
>> Cadillac, Pontiac and Chevrolet that were forced to close all had been
>> in business 40 years or more and were profitable. The average
>> franchise has 75 employees and after the government was done 150,000
>> were out of a job.
>If "American business ingenuity" were enough, there never would have been a fiscal crisis, and the recovery would have been swift and easy. Without the auto bailout, ALL the franchises would have been out of a job, along with all the auto workers; and the shareholders, bond holders, etc., would have been far worse off than they are today. Yes, the bailouts were extremely expensive, but they were still less costly than the alternative.
>> It is said that the Government will need to sell its shares at $53+ to
>> get all the taxpayers money back. That last time I looked GM was
>> trading in the neighborhood of $23/share or $10 below the INP price
>What's missing from this picture? Oh, yeah: the auto industry is paying back its loans ahead of schedule. The sector has added over a quarter of a million jobs; that's on top of the million-plus jobs saved by the bailout. GM still has a ways to go before it's out of the woods, but each car sold in North America is now about five times as profitable as those sold pre-restructuring. Oh, and the bailout also saved @$30B in tax revenue.
IIRC not only did they get loans but stimulus money too. Claimed to
be paying the Government back early by using the SM to do so.
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:15:54 -0600, Marc Dashevsky
<use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>In article <1ccbd7cc-6b37-4629-96a7-b7a1b7191fa5@googlegroups.com>, afcpet...@aol.com says...
>> The fact is, the need for healthcare will keep growing along with the size and age of our population.
>and with the decrease in median income.
So you think the solution is for the Government to step in? For those
that can't afford it to subsidize partially or entirely? Where does
the money come from? You got a population from the youngest to the
oldest. that continues to engage in behaviors that are bad for their
health and ultimately puts a tremendous strain on the system,
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:15:54 -0600, Marc Dashevsky
> <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>>In article <1ccbd7cc-6b37-4629-96a7-b7a1b7191fa5@googlegroups.com>, >>afcpet...@aol.com says...
>>> The fact is, the need for healthcare will keep growing along with the >>> size and age of our population.
>>and with the decrease in median income.
> So you think the solution is for the Government to step in? For those
> that can't afford it to subsidize partially or entirely? Where does
> the money come from? You got a population from the youngest to the
> oldest. that continues to engage in behaviors that are bad for their
> health and ultimately puts a tremendous strain on the system,
---------------
I wouldn't object to outlawing tobacco, but you'd scream "nanny state!"
>>>In article <1ccbd7cc-6b37-4629-96a7-b7a1b7191fa5@googlegroups.com>, >>>afcpet...@aol.com says...
>>>> The fact is, the need for healthcare will keep growing along with the >>>> size and age of our population.
>>>and with the decrease in median income.
>> So you think the solution is for the Government to step in? For those
>> that can't afford it to subsidize partially or entirely? Where does
>> the money come from? You got a population from the youngest to the
>> oldest. that continues to engage in behaviors that are bad for their
>> health and ultimately puts a tremendous strain on the system,
>---------------
>I wouldn't object to outlawing tobacco, but you'd scream "nanny state!"
The Government isn't going to outlaw tobacco because they make too
much money from it. I suggest that you spend less time worrying about
what I would scream about. I'm older than you yet other than not
much more than a handful of colds I've never been sick. Though I'm
eligible to collect SS and for MC I haven't bothered to sign up.
