ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Obamacare Send Jobs Overseas

Will Obamacare just cause businesses to send more jobs overseas?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Leadership Bible Quiz
 ---John on 3/31/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



atheist, Jesus is much more than you can even amagine. But, to know Him, one must know Him for themselves. Some times ones calling will depend on what side God wants to reveal the most of. I have been called to preach hell and judgments. Yet, God, is also teaching me compassion. God is making me so different, just like He promised ME. Good day.
---catherine on 4/20/10


Jerry, Larry, and Trav, ... Now each of you are adding a little bit to my story. Pretty soon you will have a complete character. ---atheist on 4/20/10

Made up? You provided brick and mortar. We've never met you...but, your inner man is who we are dealing with...the spirit of you.

2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Psalm 34:18
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit
---Trav on 4/20/10


Jerry, Larry, and Trav, it is amazing how much stuff you make up about me. Now each of you are adding a little bit to my story. Pretty soon you will have a complete character. But get a few more people to participate so the stories get longer and more mixed up. Then I can be just like 'god' a confused, indecisive, certain, mean and loving, creator and destroyer and trajically jealous type character. Seems you still have a lot to add...Better get to work!
---atheist on 4/20/10


I agree with Catherine about atheist - with one more comment [atheist, you seem reasonable WITH your intial point of view that God does not exist - OK, we disagree, but people with different intial points of view can still discuss things!]. We must be able to discuss God with people of different intial beleifs

If you remember, Paul in two cases [the 'unknown God' in Athens and where he asked the leader 'King Agrippa, do you beleive in the prophets'] went over to his listeners point of view to debate.

In that, atheist is useful to us

Larry - thanks for your nice comment!
---peter3594 on 4/20/10


My last comment seems to have been lost.... I agree with Catherine, atheist actually seems logical, it's just he/she starts from a different point. But he/she carries his initial point [that there is no God] in a logical way.

Anyway, we have had Christians we still remember who begun as atheists or at least agnostics [John Newton (Amazing Grace), C.S.Lewis, St.Augistine, all begun outside Christianity]. Maybe atheist will one day be one more of those?
---peter3594 on 4/20/10




Stop picking on atheist. He is a human-being. And, he is also made in God's image. The Bible tells me to treat everyone with proper respect, because we are all made in God's image. If you have escaped hell, it's only by the skin of your teeth.
---catherine on 4/19/10


Go on somemore...

Unveiling your psychic abilities seems to really excite you. Say more about me, a person you never meet...

And then judge me...
---atheist on 4/19/10


Donna, you are completely right - communal societies are fine in very small groups (like families) but it becomes impossible in larger groups, because of our sinful nature. - Peter

Ah Peter and Donna, brothers and sister of spiritual reason and discernment. How refreshing.

Jerry, Atheist needs prayer not condemnation. He's running and is scared to seek the God you mention for fear that he will find him and then must worship him. If he was really interesting in proving whether God exists he would earnestly seek him, but the results would be too terrifying.
His other arguments are just a facade for fear, real fear.
---larry on 4/19/10


Trav,

Please go on. It's so exciting when you say bad things about me...
---atheist on 4/18/10

You're just getting a little sonburned. Truth is never "bad". It always helps, even if painful. You can't hang around here without some light getting on you. You already believe/fear GOD....you justifibly wall against believing what a lot of other believe here or in the churches. Saul did too.
It doesn't make sense,they don't make sense it never will by our logic. You're blogging with the pots for justification of your logic...instead of blogging with the potter.
---trav on 4/19/10


Donna66: It is evident that our friend 'atheist' is a product of communist indoctrination in our government school system. He adheres to the official communist religion - atheism, and loves socialism but hates capitalism. Like most brain-washed, left-wing radical liberals, he thinks that we could have a utopia on earth if we could only eliminate those pesky, right-wing conservative Christians. Little does he realize that it's already been tried, and he can emigrate to one at any time - say Cuba, China, N. Korea, etc. Too bad that he doesn't realize that it was good ol' American capitalism that gave him the priveleged lifestyle that he now enjoys.
---jerry6593 on 4/19/10




'atheist': "You seem to be saying that without your belief in 'god' you would have no sense of morality whatsoever. Sad."

Absolutely! And there's nothing sad about it. God is indeed the one and only true standard of morality. It is His Holy Spirit that speaks to you through your conscience. Although you may believe that your morality somehow magically created itself in one of your animal ancestors, it is not true, and you are unable to even postulate how such a creation might have occurred.

God gives you life, love and the presence of His Holy Spirit - and even calls you son. He even left His glorious throne in heaven to suffer and die on your behalf, yet you refuse to acknowlege Him. How truly sad!
---jerry6593 on 4/19/10


Atheist---Taxes are the basis for capitalism? where did you learn that! Taxes may be necessary, but they have nothing to do with CAPITALISM. We had capitalism long before we had taxes.

Yes, taxes result in re-distribution.
But where did you get the idea that the purpose of government is to regulate capitalism? The government my find it necessary to impose regulations on business and commerce, but it does not exist for the purpose of regulating Capitalism.
---Donna66 on 4/18/10


Trav,

Please go on. It's so exciting when you say bad things about me...
---atheist on 4/18/10


Jerry,

You seem to be saying that without your belief in 'god' you would have no sense of morality whatsoever. Sad.
---atheist on 4/17/10

You should be thankful ole anti-christ for Christian patience/morality. We've figured out by what you don't say....who you are really.
You're afraid of GOD or you wouldn't hang around. You realize you've bailed on GOD and would like some company to die with you or a way out of your quandry. Your fear reared it's little head when I asked you to challenge the GOD you don't believe exists. You couldn't out of fear. Goliath did, but you can't. You know what happened to Go-liath. Basically your a hypocrite to your Atheism. Ha. Be fully one or the other,free yourself.
---Trav on 4/18/10


Donna, you are right in most cases - the people who don't want to work, and expect to get money from others. The problems is the people who cannot get a job, or have a medical problem that prevents them from working - what can we do for them?
---peter3594 on 4/18/10


Jerry,

You seem to be saying that without your belief in 'god' you would have no sense of morality whatsoever. Sad.
---atheist on 4/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Wealth is constantly being redistributed with or without taxes. It's the basis of capitalism, duh...

Capitalism works because of greed. The purpose of government is to attempt to regulate capitalism so that there is opportunity for competition and it works for the overall good. Unfortunately, because of greed, insufficient regulation, unfair and/or illegal practices some people end up with most of money from time to time.

When that happens the economy becomes like a poker game with only a handful able to sit down and put up an ante, leaving only a lucky few to serve drinks and shine shoes.
---atheist on 4/17/10


atheist -- how do you consider money earned at a job or earned from investment "RE-distribution"? It's redistribution ONLY when honestly earned money is taken to give to someoene who did not earn it.
---Donna66 on 4/17/10


'atheist' You have no idea how entertaining it is to be lectured on morality and righteousness by someone who not only does not know God, but refuses to accept His existence, and bases his own morality on his emotions at the moment or the instincts of his animal ancestors. LOL!
---jerry6593 on 4/17/10


Jerry,

BIG DIFFERENCE!

No doubt. As in I doubt that the Apostles with the approval of Christ would engage in 'work' that involve making missiles that can fly into subspace and delivery multiple nuclear warheads to up to ten cities, killing millions of people. That is the original subtect and purpose of NASA'a effort to fly to the moon, is it not?

And: it seems to me that the message of Christ and the Apostles has been lost on such Christians as yourself. For if you were as generous as the Christians described in the Bible there might not be any need for taxes...
---atheist on 4/17/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


Donna, you are completely right - communal societies are fine in very small groups (like families) but it becomes impossible in larger groups, because of our sinful nature. Even in church, I think we do not offer as much as we could, or should offer. I just do not know how much better it is when we look out too much for ourself? I think both systems have their problems
---peter3594 on 4/17/10


athiest, so you've read Leviticus? Why if you're an athiest? That is one of the hardest books for me to get through, but once I came to KNOW God and His LOVE, it was easy to understand at that point in my walk with the Lord.

P.S. Calling God a tool isn't a good thing. He is Sovereign, omni-present, omni-potent, Allmighty, He is the Lord God of Israel.
---Donna5535 on 4/17/10


Jerry,

You are right. People who lose their jobs in a recession or depression and then lose their health insurance should just die if they don't have the money to pay for health insurance. It's a Darwin thing, right?

I thought you worked for NASA, so don't you get government funded health insurance?
---atheist on 4/17/10


Donna,

You'll notice that I didn't comment, just offered up a couple of Bible verses that support Peter's observations.

But, as I have said before, anyone can cherry pick the Bible to find verses to prove any viewpoint they hold personally, and then claiming that the Bible is the word of 'God', state and believe that 'God' supports and guides them in their belief.

Peter has chosen to focus on some friendlier and daresay humanistic verses, and I find that refreshing, possible typical of past Christians, but currently now rare.

'God' and the Bible become tools used to only justify already self-decided beliefs.

After reading Leviticus anyone would have to conclude that everyone must get stoned...
---atheist on 4/17/10


Send a Free Musical Ecards Ecard


'atheist': "So I take it that when Republicans are in office that people who make weapons get wealth redeistributed to them by getting jobs."

BIG DIFFERENCE! We work for the money we get, unlike the redistributees (is that a word?) in Obama's Communist Utopia.

Also note that those who laid money, etc. at the apostles feet did it VOLUNTARILY. It was not taken from them by force under penalty of law.

I know it may be difficult for you to see the moral difference, since you claim to be descended from animals, but try.
---jerry6593 on 4/17/10


atheist-- This communal style of living always sounds good, but it never works for long. It didn't for the church, and hasn't elsewhere either.
The Colonists (Plymouth Colony) in America tried it too... and practically starved. There was constant bickering about who was doing their fair share. Conflicts were continuous.
The settlers did not flourish until each family was given a parcel of land for which they alone were held responsible. They had no problem helping each other when the help was voluntary.

Any system that overlooks human nature is bound to fail.
---Donna66 on 4/16/10


Peter,

You mean like this:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common, And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means son of encouragement). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)
---atheist on 4/16/10


John, I do not consider myself a socialist, but I feel that the way the Christian community was in Acts (with all bringing their goods for the good of all) is similar to some version of socialism. I do not like to be TOLD to give my goods to others, but I feel that in some cases fallen men MAY have to be pushed to give money. But it is a solution to the problem of men being greedy - it is not, in itself good that the government taxes one so the other can have enough to eat.
Also - Christian families are also (in one way) socialist - the money may be earned by one, and shared by all. Is that 'socialist' or just 'social'. Maybe we use the word differently?
---peter3594 on 4/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Jerry:"I also have a BS degree and have worked in Defense engineering for 40 years. Whenever the Democrats take over, Defense spending is cut and people get layed off."

So I take it that when Republicans are in office that people who make weapons get wealth redeistributed to them by getting jobs. Further, people who own 'defense' businesses and own stock in such businesses get wealth redistributed to them also.

Are you against this type of wealth redistribution? Or only that redistribution that goes to pay for people who have no or inadequate health care?
---atheist on 4/16/10


Excellent point, John.
Jesus taught individual responsibiliy to the poor.
---Donna66 on 4/16/10


I am capitalis in money and socialist in helping those in need).
Peter

Peter I dont think you are a socialist.

You believe in the voluntary giving of money to help those in need.

Socialists believe in the involuntary extraction (i.e.Taxes) of money from citizens and send it to the government who will decide who needs it and who doesnt.

It would be as if Jesus told you to give your money to Ceasar and he will decide who needs help.

Am I right?
---JOhn on 4/16/10


obewan: I'm sorry that you're out of a job, but to believe that the greed of companies caused it is to believe a lie. ---jerry6593 on 4/15/10

When I say greed I mean people not corporations. Greed on Wall Street and greed by real estate speculators caused the train wreck that killed my last job. Don't blame the Dems. Both parties caused it.

The banks crashed and there is not enough credit for people to buy new jet engines. The new jet engine business crashed, and 25% of our engineering staff was cut. The root cause was not Obama, or healthcare. My company health insurance would not effect jobs. If the cost goes up a little they will just pass a small increase on to the employees.
---obewan on 4/16/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Peter: It would be helpful if you would spell-check your posts. God Himself commanded us not to covet, want, desire, envy, wish for, etc. that which rightfully belongs to another. Class envy - the basis of socialism-communism - is in direct violation of this commandment, and thus is a sin.
---jerry6593 on 4/16/10


Jerry, I am not able [at least not yet] to accept your argument.... If it is just the peopel who voted for Obama, why were the problems that cause the job loss present before he came to power? I am neither capotalis not socalist (I am capitalis in money and socialist in helping those in need). The basids behind you beloved 'though shall not covet' is that what is the other person's was obtained by honest work, not because he/she invested in a company that allows its workers to die when they get ill.... many of our products are produced by much worse than that, I know that because I've visited the factories, not, of course, in in the US
---peter on 4/15/10


obewan: I'm sorry that you're out of a job, but to believe that the greed of companies caused it is to believe a lie. Put the blame where it belongs - on those greedy and ignorant people who voted for Obama.

I also have a BS degree and have worked in Defense engineering for 40 years. Whenever the Democrats take over, Defense spending is cut and people get layed off.

As a Christian, how do you reconcile class envy and forced "redistribution of wealth" with "thou shalt not covet?"
---jerry6593 on 4/15/10


Can you work at some job that has benefits even if the pay is low, meanwhile updating or increasing your skills (maybe work to finish your MSCS) so you will be ready for a better job when the economy improves?
---Donna66 on 4/14/10

Yes, that is my plan and that is why I lift up UPS as the "liberal" example of a successful company that offers a reasonable wage, tuition reimbursement, and healthcare for only 15 hours a week. The problem is there are 5000 homeless in Jacksonville that want those same jobs. And school is an endless treadmill for me. I have already gone back 6 times in 28 years!

If UPS can do it why can't others?
---obewan on 4/14/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Obewan--- It's not "greed" on the other side. Businesses WISH they could expand and hire new workers! But the political climate in this country now punishes business at every turn... many companies can barely make it. And they fear what lies ahead for them. With unemployment so high and businesses struggling, most available jobs don't pay much. Makes many people feel like an underclass. With your background you for sure aren't that.

Can you work at some job that has benefits even if the pay is low, meanwhile updating or increasing your skills (maybe work to finish your MSCS) so you will be ready for a better job when the economy improves?
---Donna66 on 4/14/10


I agree with Obewan. Yes, capitalism was made so that people [yes, fallen men] could use their desire of a better result to work harder [that's the idea]. But sometime even that gets out of hand, and leads to destruction. Both sides [communism and capitalism] have their faults - I was forced out of the US due to 'pre-existing medical conditions'
---peter3594 on 4/14/10


...is nothing but class envy/class warfare.
---jerry6593 on 4/14/10

That should tell you something should it not? People in the "underclass" are getting desperate.

I have an engineering BS, a Computer BS, and 1/2 a MSCS and am desperate for a job. I am competing for factory jobs that pay an unlivable wage of $8.50 with no benefits and I have significant medical expenses. Up to 200 people apply for each of those jobs. I know what it means to struggle.

If people on the other side do not contain their greed, capitalism is doomed to fail from greed and debt just like communism failed from lack of motivation.
---obewan on 4/14/10


Donna66: What B.O. and his hired thugs spout is nothing but class envy/class warfare straight out of Uncle Karl's "Communist Manifesto." Other communist doctrines being fulfilled before our very eyes are school indoctrination, conversion of the press into a propaganda arm, and the official elimination of God from the public forum.
---jerry6593 on 4/14/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Obewan -- Yes. I've said it several times.
If a stockholder is not happy with the company in which he holds stock, he should sell that stock and invest elsewhere.
Donna66 on 4/10

If a stockholder is not satisfied with the dividends or anything else,, he sells that stock and invests his money elsewhere. If he loses money in the process, it's nobody's fault but his own.
Donna66 on 4/4

Stockholders have a vote on some decisions, but if not satisfied, they can sell their stock in that company and buy somebody else's.
---Donna66 on 4/3/10

There are "socially responsible funds", "green funds" "no alcohol no tobacco funds" ....
Always research any stock you buy.
---Donna66 on 4/13/10


Peter-- Stockholders have nothing to say about a company's policies regarding it's employees...nothing about employee health insurance, hours, wages etc. Nada. The latter two are governed by law. And now so is choice of insurance.
---Donna66 on 4/13/10

Maybe, but why can't they cast their vote with their checkbooks?

Some people with moral convictions choose only to invest in socially responsible corporations. There are even "socially responsible" mutual funds run by Christians and Catholics to find these investments.

Then there are corporations like UPS that seek "good press" by providing full medical benefits to even part time employees working 15 hrs a week or more.
---obewan on 4/13/10


Peter-- Stockholders have nothing to say about a company's policies regarding it's employees...nothing about employee health insurance, hours, wages etc. Nada. The latter two are governed by law. And now so is choice of insurance.
---Donna66 on 4/13/10


AP newswire...

Kenyan MP (Senator) James Orengo asked the nation's parliament only last month, "How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?"

Identifying Kenya as Obama's birthplace, the declarations nonetheless claimed the president-elect as a Kenyan.


END:
---John on 4/13/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


StrongAxe, yes, indeed stockholders can sue the company, but can they force it is supply health insurance to the workers [perhaps they can]? The point here is, are we willing to help the workers to get some insurance [when I was in the US, if I had not been working, there was no way I could get insurance, only when I worked, as I am diabetic], even if it sends some jobs abroad. Having lived in China and Europe, the first gives no insurance [though it claims to, I've checked it, its like Orwell's 'ministry of truth'], gets jobs, and the people die, while the other gives insurance to everyone, jobs leave, but ther people survive. Which do you prefer?
---peter on 4/13/10


jerry6593-- What has happened to people that they know so little about free market Capitalism? They've been convinced that it's "evil" but they understand nothing about it! not even the basic principles!

I first learned about the free market at the kitchen table when I was a child talking to my father. It's a simple concept. And it improves life for everybody! Have they taught anything in the schools but propoganda?
---Donna66 on 4/12/10


Of course it will! Companies exist to make profits - not to serve some idealistic egalatarianism. The Democrat tax increases and intrusive over-regulation force companies to look elsewhere for profitable venues. It also forces doctors to either leave the country or leave their practice in order to make a decent living.
---jerry6593 on 4/12/10


Strongaxe--
stockholders can easily vote out a board that doesn't manage a company's finances...
Not EASILY unless you are a major stockholder. The average shareholder may have a vote, but has little influence (unless you can organize a block of similarly inclined shareholders.) But few go to that much trouble. They usually sell the stock and buy some other stock they like better.

You are right that the company has no obligation to it's customers. But customers have more power than anybody. They can take their business to a competitor
---Donna66 on 4/10/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Strongaxe-- Malfeasance is intentionally doing something either legally or morally wrong which one had no right to do. It always involves dishonesty, illegality, or knowingly exceeding authority for improper reasons.

The situation you mention is not malfeasance. Companies have a right to hire whom they want and pay what they want (within the law). If stockholders don't approve they best invest elsewhere.

If it was actually financial malfeasance, stock holders could sue. But that would have to involve an illegal withholding of money owed.
---Donna66 on 4/10/10


Obama has created millions of jobs and has boosted the economy. OH? WAIT... THAT WAS CHINA!!!
---John on 4/8/10


No, Romneycare II will not cause business to go overseas. Ask Google and Apple.

Cheap labor in 3rd world countries is sufficiently alluring for old rust belt companies but high tech needs the brains and efficiency of American workers.

Besides government health care lowers the burden on private industry and spreads it on the backs of taxpayers. That is why Toyota, according to Toyota, chose to build its second plant in Woodstock, Ontario instead of the U.S.

Sorry. Research and study a little more.
---larry on 4/4/10


Donna66:

Stockholders DO have a right to sue a company and/or its board members for financial malfeasance. Whether or not they can convince a jury that spending twice as much as they ought for workers (or for anything else) qualifies as that, would likely be something a jury would have to decide.

However, even without the legal sanctions, stockholders can easily vote out a board that doesn't manage a company's finances, so the board has a strong incentive to spend money efficiently. They are beholden to the shareholders, but NOT to their customers, employees, and other taxpayers (except as required by law, i.e. minimum wage laws, consumer protection laws, tax laws, etc.)
---StrongAxe on 4/5/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


StrongAxe --As an investor in stock for many years, I can tell you that stockholders have NO right to sue on the basis of what the company pays it's workers, or over the fact that dividends may decrease or that the value of the stock may decrease! (Companies advise stockholders quarterly what dividend they will pay).

The cost of stock and the dividends (if there are to be any) are variables that come with doing business. That's why you research stocks before you buy them.

If a stockholder is not satisfied with the dividends or anything else,, he sells that stock and invests his money elsewhere. If he loses money in the process, it's nobody's fault but his own.
---Donna66 on 4/4/10


Donna66:

Of course, it's right to pay one's debts. I was merely not choosing to comment on whether it is right to hire foreign workers over local ones (many people would give good reasons for both sides of this argument). I was merely commenting on the legal ramifications for the corporations themselves. (Then again, I am not a lawyer, so these are merely opinions and not legal advice).

If the shareholders dividends are substantially lower because the company wasted millions more on hiring expensive workers than cheaper ones, they would have a cause to sue. Basically, in order to sue, you need to show actual damages, measurable financial losses qualify.
---StrongAxe on 4/4/10


Strongaxe:
It is always "right" to pay ones debts.
Shouldn't we be able to count on that as a matter of law?.

A business HAS to be fiscally responsible to it's stockholders (IF they want to sell stock... many smaller companies don't). But stockholders can't dictate how a company does business. They CANNOT sue because the company hires cheap help.

And most wouldn't anyway, because it makes the company more profitable and allows them to sell to buyers (you and me) at a more reasonable price.

Some people may even like providing a living to the poor of 3rd world nations!
Stockholders have a vote on some decisions, but if not satisfied, they can sell their stock in that company and buy somebody else's.
---Donna66 on 4/3/10


NEITHER can stockholders sue if the company hires more expensive help.! They can only sue if the company has violated something it "contracted" with them to do.
---Donna66 on 4/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Donna66:

Whether or not it's "right" that corporations are beholden to their stockholders, the fact remains that if they are required to be fiscally responsible to them, and they are given a choice between hiring an American worker for $12/hour or an overseas worker for $3/hour they MUST do the latter, or be sued by their shareholders for financial irresponsibility. We have created a society with many safeguards (minimum wage, unions, overtime pay, health insurance, social security, occupational safety, etc.) which is more expensive than that in many other countries - but as a result, we end up reaping BOTH the good and bad consequences of that.
---StrongAxe on 4/3/10


StrongAxe -- If Corporations did not OWE their stockholders, who would buy stock?
Where would the comapny get money to operate or expand? Owning stock is the same as lending money to a corporation. Would you lend to a stranger who had no obligation to pay you back?

This doesn't LOWER profits, it INCREASES them.
Do you think companies could expand their product line or services without borrowing? Do you think they are all run by some "Daddy Warbucks" with an inexhaustible source of money... or maybe they should't bother developing new and better products at all. Who would THAT benfit? How many jobs would THAT create?
---Donna66 on 4/3/10


"No. Healthcare will be sent to Planet X where advances in technology can cure all disease and prevent death. The only problem is that the inhabitants of Planet X eat humans and so a percentage of those cured will have to be eaten for the good of the many. This is where the death panels come in..."
---atheist on 4/1/10

HILARIOUS!
---Tommy55 on 4/2/10


---atheist on 4/2/10

Well then that takes care of the abortion issues, and the death panel issues, and the pull the plog on grandma issues
---francis on 4/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Francis,

Same solar system. Planet X is inhabited by what we would call males, and Planet Y females. They are celebates and procreate by technological means only on a third planet, XY. (Obama was created by this technology and is programmed to do their bidding, and can be remotely controlled when necessary.)Of course these are not the names they use for their planets, and in fact they do not speak at all, communicating by mindwaves.
---atheist on 4/2/10


No. Healthcare will be sent to Planet X where advances in technology can cure all disease and prevent death. The only problem is that the inhabitants of Planet X eat humans and so a percentage of those cured will have to be eaten for the good of the many. This is where the death panels come in...
---atheist on 4/1/10

Are you sure it is planet X. My sources say planet Y.
---francis on 4/2/10


Strongeaxe,

Incisive and well said.
---atheist on 4/2/10


Providing jobs locally is good for the economy, while outsourcing them to cheaper countries just selfishly increases the bottom line.

But guess what? Under the law, public corporations are REQUIRED to be fiscally responsible to their shareholders. Thus, lowering profits in the name of merely "noble" ideas such as "decreasing unemployment" is financially IRRESPONSIBLE and could get a corporation sued by its shareholders. Corporations are REQUIRED to look primarly after their own interests. Humans with such focuses are called sociopathics.

When our laws require corporations to be sociopathic, we can't really complain when they turn out that way.
---StrongAxe on 4/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


"Obamacare" is not a word.
---Eloy on 4/2/10


Both, plus the occasional FoxNews and Christianet Blogs.
---atheist on 4/2/10


Healthcare has nothing to do with jobs going overseas...yet. But it may. Time will tell. Anything that makes it harder or more expensive to do business may cause companies to move or outsourse some jobs.

There is nothing to defend.
If the government demonizes and penalizes the people who provide the jobs...guess what, the jobs go elsewhere.
---Donna66 on 4/1/10


I will add a couple of other comments for obewan and Darlene.... when I was working in China (where we get so many of our things from now), the idea (which I was directly dold by an employer) was 'pay them little, don't bother with any safety requirements (he was sending people up 20 floors to build houses, if one died, he had to just pay the equivalent of $130 to the family, which was cheaper then a safety harness - so he just did not but harnesses, and yes, he did have regular flow of dead bodies out of his building site. Darlene-s idea of a trade embargo is good, BUT - how many people would be willing to pay $100 for a coat (made by workers who don't die) when they could pay $50 if it was made in a dangerous factory? What do you think?
---peter3594 on 4/2/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Don't blame healthcare. It is all about wages. Mexico works for $4 an hour - skilled trades - welding. My former employer used to pay $23 an hour for the same job - aerospace welder/fabricator. Minimum wage with zero benefits can not even compete. I spent most of 2009 outsourcing work to Mexico and trained their manufacturing engineers to do my job - right before I got my layoff notice in November. I know there are many on this board that will staunchly defend this practice saying there should be no minimum wage and unhindered free markets! LOL It is NAFTA or that "great sucking sound" at work!
---obewan on 4/1/10


atheist:

Were you watching CSPAN? or V? :)
---StrongAxe on 4/1/10


Darlene 1 -- You raise some very good questions. It's never been good policy to punish companies that are providing jobs for people in the US. Invariably it ends with high unemployment as we have now. But I have the feeling not too many in government care.
---Donna66 on 4/1/10


No. Healthcare will be sent to Planet X where advances in technology can cure all disease and prevent death. The only problem is that the inhabitants of Planet X eat humans and so a percentage of those cured will have to be eaten for the good of the many. This is where the death panels come in...
---atheist on 4/1/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Donna66 you are so right companies leaving began long before Bush and Obama also with the reasons industry leaves the USA and goes where they can get workers for less wages. I have often wondered why the USA has never put a Trade Embargo on the products of those industries who have done that,forbidding the products to be sold in the USA. Seems to me that would be at least some attempt to have a deterrent to keep the companies from leaving. It is very disconcerting to know the government doesn't even try to work with the companies with breaks on taxes and other means to keep the companies in the USA. I also question the wisdom of Foreign Aid when USA has to borrow the money to keep it up.
---Darlene_1 on 4/1/10


Quite likely. Bush (himself) did not send jobs overseas, nor will Obama directly.
But any time businesses are overburdened with governmental and environmental regulations, fees and penalties, plus union demands, their productivity sufferes and the prices they must charge naturally increase.

Under these conditions, which have been building since long before Bush or Obama,
Companies will look for a location more hospitible to their business. Foreign countries (esp. underdeveloped ones) have cheaper labor, fewer governmental restrictions, and they usually encourage American companies to relocate there. (it's a boon to their economies). The companies can thus sell their product at a lower price in the American market.
---Donna66 on 4/1/10


Outsourcing American jobs to overseas suppliers seems to be something that started under Bush fils--if not earlier.
---Cluny on 4/1/10


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.