From an article in Breaking Business News out of Chicago:
"In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.
The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.
Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation"
I do agree that there needs to be provisions made in any health care bill that does not punish the companies that already provide care for their employees, BUT these mega-companies go about their complaining by saying that they are opposed to a bill that would provide health care coverage for all Americans.
So congrats all you corporations, along with Reps and Dems, give yourselves a big pat on the back (or a slap in the face rather) for being so unequivocally unyielding.
"Quote of the Day"
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
See what a little lobbying can do...
One more vote for the Health Care Bill....
March 17, 2010
Key liberal congressman flips to 'yes' on health care vote
Posted: March 17th, 2010 10:33 AM ET
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced Wednesday that he would vote to support Democratic health care legislation.
Washington (CNN) - Health care reform advocates inched closer to victory Wednesday morning as a high-profile liberal Democrat switched his position and announced his intention to vote for a sweeping $875 billion plan under consideration in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said he believes "health care is a civil right." He had previously characterized the bill, which passed the Senate in December, as little more than a boondoggle for private insurers.
Kucinich was publicly lobbied for his vote by President Barack Obama during the president's visit this week to Kucinich's congressional district in Ohio. He told reporters he's had four meetings with Obama to discuss the bill.
"The president's visit to my district ... underscored the urgency of this vote," Kucinich said. "I have doubts about the bill ... [but] I've decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."
He said he ultimately had "to make a decision on the bill as it is, not on the bill as I'd like to see it."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.
A number of House Democrats have refused to state their voting intentions publicly. Twenty-six House Democrats, however, have indicated they will join Republicans in opposing the Senate plan. Included in that total are five House Democrats who said Tuesday that they will vote against the Senate legislation.
That puts opponents of reform 12 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority.
March 17, 2010
Key liberal congressman flips to 'yes' on health care vote
Posted: March 17th, 2010 10:33 AM ET
Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced Wednesday that he would vote to support Democratic health care legislation.
Washington (CNN) - Health care reform advocates inched closer to victory Wednesday morning as a high-profile liberal Democrat switched his position and announced his intention to vote for a sweeping $875 billion plan under consideration in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said he believes "health care is a civil right." He had previously characterized the bill, which passed the Senate in December, as little more than a boondoggle for private insurers.
Kucinich was publicly lobbied for his vote by President Barack Obama during the president's visit this week to Kucinich's congressional district in Ohio. He told reporters he's had four meetings with Obama to discuss the bill.
"The president's visit to my district ... underscored the urgency of this vote," Kucinich said. "I have doubts about the bill ... [but] I've decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."
He said he ultimately had "to make a decision on the bill as it is, not on the bill as I'd like to see it."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.
A number of House Democrats have refused to state their voting intentions publicly. Twenty-six House Democrats, however, have indicated they will join Republicans in opposing the Senate plan. Included in that total are five House Democrats who said Tuesday that they will vote against the Senate legislation.
That puts opponents of reform 12 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Two-faced Times
October 2009 was a rough month for journalists, especially at the NY Times, as a headline read boldly, "Times says it will cut 100 newsroom jobs"
Even a round of journalists were fired -- GASP!
It has been intense for writers and reporters recently, adjusting to life as seen in one of those commercials where officemates fend for themselves in a jungle of ugly competition, low blows, and trap doors. With "Citizen Journalism" on the rise, it's become increasing frustrating to be a voice in society.
Especially when the so-called safe-haven for writers (i.e. the NY Times) is making their first round of cuts.
We shook our heads in disgust, and chalked it up to the drying times. But as time has revealed, NY Times CEO Janet Robinson received "roughly $4.9 million in compensation in 2009."
In an article by Breitbart, "Robinson's base salary fell 4 percent to $962,500. But she got a bonus of about $2.3 million, four times the size of her 2008 bonus.
Robinson also received stock options that were worth $1.6 million when they were granted. About $560,000 of that was meant to replace options that had been given in 2008 and were later voided because they exceeded a limit set by company bylaws."
So is the big-headed news outlet (too big to fail?) bringing in enough money to satisfy the appetite of one of the farthest reaching newspapers in the United States or aren't they???
Or is it the high-end fat cats that aren't through licking their paws?
What will be the change...
Even a round of journalists were fired -- GASP!
It has been intense for writers and reporters recently, adjusting to life as seen in one of those commercials where officemates fend for themselves in a jungle of ugly competition, low blows, and trap doors. With "Citizen Journalism" on the rise, it's become increasing frustrating to be a voice in society.
Especially when the so-called safe-haven for writers (i.e. the NY Times) is making their first round of cuts.
We shook our heads in disgust, and chalked it up to the drying times. But as time has revealed, NY Times CEO Janet Robinson received "roughly $4.9 million in compensation in 2009."
In an article by Breitbart, "Robinson's base salary fell 4 percent to $962,500. But she got a bonus of about $2.3 million, four times the size of her 2008 bonus.
Robinson also received stock options that were worth $1.6 million when they were granted. About $560,000 of that was meant to replace options that had been given in 2008 and were later voided because they exceeded a limit set by company bylaws."
So is the big-headed news outlet (too big to fail?) bringing in enough money to satisfy the appetite of one of the farthest reaching newspapers in the United States or aren't they???
Or is it the high-end fat cats that aren't through licking their paws?
What will be the change...
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"In inflation, everything gets more valuable except money"
A good definition of INFLATION from YourDictionary.com:
We define inflation as an increase in the amount of money and credit in relation to the supply of goods and services. Often, inflation is erroneously defined by the effect that it has on the economy. When people notice that gas, food, and lodging is getting more expensive, they often label that phenomenon inflation. Rising prices, however, are really just the result of inflation.
When money enters circulation at a rate that is higher than the supply of goods available, inflation is occurring. There is typically a correlation between the quantity of goods available and the amount of money in circulation. If more goods become available, more money must be put into circulation or prices will actually drop.
In theory, the free enterprise system operates on the basis of competition. Those who produce the highest goods at the most affordable prices succeed. If a company was artificially inflating its prices, theoretically, its customers would eventually take their business elsewhere. However, when seeking to define inflation, the dollar itself is worth less because the supply of dollars has increased. Businesses must then raise prices to recover their losses in an attempt to get the same value for their goods and services.
We define inflation as an increase in the amount of money and credit in relation to the supply of goods and services. Often, inflation is erroneously defined by the effect that it has on the economy. When people notice that gas, food, and lodging is getting more expensive, they often label that phenomenon inflation. Rising prices, however, are really just the result of inflation.
When money enters circulation at a rate that is higher than the supply of goods available, inflation is occurring. There is typically a correlation between the quantity of goods available and the amount of money in circulation. If more goods become available, more money must be put into circulation or prices will actually drop.
In theory, the free enterprise system operates on the basis of competition. Those who produce the highest goods at the most affordable prices succeed. If a company was artificially inflating its prices, theoretically, its customers would eventually take their business elsewhere. However, when seeking to define inflation, the dollar itself is worth less because the supply of dollars has increased. Businesses must then raise prices to recover their losses in an attempt to get the same value for their goods and services.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Jobs bill set to give tax cuts to businesses to hire more people
Even the Obama Administration acknowledges that this aspect of the legislation will only marginalize unemployment slightly. A few workers will added to the workforce, but many - most- will remain bitterly out of work.
But an the article PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs cites the likelihood of businesses hiring people to get a tax break is very low. Businesses need to "re-up" their demand for their products (which won't happen until people start buying again) before they start hiring more people.
"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."
So what kind of a "break" are we looking at? Businesses would be exempt from paying a 6.2% Social Security tax on wages of workers who have been employed for at least 60 days (When we're all old with no SS, we will know that it went to the business tax-breaks!)
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that reducing Social Security taxes for companies that add workers would be among the most efficient ways for the government to create jobs. However, in showing how difficult it is to create jobs through tax policy, CBO estimates that such a tax break would generate only eight to 18 full-time jobs per $1 million in tax breaks."
Looks like this one is not the answer. The Big Package Bill gives other things to the unemployed, like subsidies to help the jobless pay for health care coverage, but this bill seems to be more of a "cherry on top" after job growth has already been spurred, not the lone answer to millions of Americans problems. So keep on being Agnostic, President Obama...
But an the article PROMISES, PROMISES: Jobs bill won't add many jobs cites the likelihood of businesses hiring people to get a tax break is very low. Businesses need to "re-up" their demand for their products (which won't happen until people start buying again) before they start hiring more people.
"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."
So what kind of a "break" are we looking at? Businesses would be exempt from paying a 6.2% Social Security tax on wages of workers who have been employed for at least 60 days (When we're all old with no SS, we will know that it went to the business tax-breaks!)
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that reducing Social Security taxes for companies that add workers would be among the most efficient ways for the government to create jobs. However, in showing how difficult it is to create jobs through tax policy, CBO estimates that such a tax break would generate only eight to 18 full-time jobs per $1 million in tax breaks."
Looks like this one is not the answer. The Big Package Bill gives other things to the unemployed, like subsidies to help the jobless pay for health care coverage, but this bill seems to be more of a "cherry on top" after job growth has already been spurred, not the lone answer to millions of Americans problems. So keep on being Agnostic, President Obama...
The President is AGNOSTIC?
Definition of Agnostic: A person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something. Agnostic.
This disturbs me because I think this is where the Dems are lacking in leadership. They are all Agnostics. Unwilling. Opinion-less. Lacking "balls."
Today Obama said he was unwilling to commit to an opinion about raising taxes on middle class incomes of less than $250,000.
Pieces from an article in Business Week:
"Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare."
“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.” (BTW Prez, not the thing to say to an American People who are dying for belief in something)
"Many economists, including conservatives such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that tax increases will be necessary as part of a broad package to control the deficit, which the White House projects will hit a record $1.6 trillion in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30."
“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”
"Analysts say that middle-class taxes will need to be increased because the government can’t raise enough money from the wealthy alone to close the budget gap."
"Going back on his campaign pledge would be fraught with risks for Obama. Former President George H.W. Bush paid a steep political price when he abandoned his 1988 campaign promise not to raise taxes, losing out in his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton."
This disturbs me because I think this is where the Dems are lacking in leadership. They are all Agnostics. Unwilling. Opinion-less. Lacking "balls."
Today Obama said he was unwilling to commit to an opinion about raising taxes on middle class incomes of less than $250,000.
Pieces from an article in Business Week:
"Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare."
“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.” (BTW Prez, not the thing to say to an American People who are dying for belief in something)
"Many economists, including conservatives such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that tax increases will be necessary as part of a broad package to control the deficit, which the White House projects will hit a record $1.6 trillion in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30."
“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”
"Analysts say that middle-class taxes will need to be increased because the government can’t raise enough money from the wealthy alone to close the budget gap."
"Going back on his campaign pledge would be fraught with risks for Obama. Former President George H.W. Bush paid a steep political price when he abandoned his 1988 campaign promise not to raise taxes, losing out in his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton."
Job growth UP. Unemployment still UP.
A White House report said that job growth will increase in the following months - alas- but also that unployment will be slow to decline and may even rise because of labor market growth and the return of more discouraged workers to the labor force.
Okay, now I'm a little confused. How does labor market growth affect the rise of unployment???
The following is a tid-bit from Job growth may not curb unemployment rate: WHouse
"The White House forecast, most of which was previously released with budget documents, calls for growth in gross domestic product of around 3.0 percent in 2010 and an average unemployment rate of 10.0 percent.
Because projected GDP growth is only slightly stronger than potential growth, relatively little decline is projected in the unemployment rate during 2010," the report prepared by the president's Council of Economic Advisors said.
Indeed, it is possible that the rate will rise for a while as some discouraged workers return to the labor force, before starting to generally decline. Consistent with this, employment growth is projected to be roughly equal to normal trend growth of about 100,000 per month.
The report projects more robust job growth by 2011, averaging a gain of 190,000 per month, to bring the average unemployment rate down to 9.2 percent for the year.
The report said that because of a huge economic stimulus and other measures, the economy is on a growth track again.
Our economy is growing again, and the growth over the last three months was the strongest in six years. But while economic growth is important, it means nothing to somebody who has lost a job and can't find another. For Americans looking for work, a good job is the only good news that matters."
"In other words, in order to create jobs and raise incomes for the middle class over the long run, we need to export more and borrow less from around the world, and we need to save more money and take on less debt here at home."
-- President Obama
Okay, now I'm a little confused. How does labor market growth affect the rise of unployment???
The following is a tid-bit from Job growth may not curb unemployment rate: WHouse
"The White House forecast, most of which was previously released with budget documents, calls for growth in gross domestic product of around 3.0 percent in 2010 and an average unemployment rate of 10.0 percent.
Because projected GDP growth is only slightly stronger than potential growth, relatively little decline is projected in the unemployment rate during 2010," the report prepared by the president's Council of Economic Advisors said.
Indeed, it is possible that the rate will rise for a while as some discouraged workers return to the labor force, before starting to generally decline. Consistent with this, employment growth is projected to be roughly equal to normal trend growth of about 100,000 per month.
The report projects more robust job growth by 2011, averaging a gain of 190,000 per month, to bring the average unemployment rate down to 9.2 percent for the year.
The report said that because of a huge economic stimulus and other measures, the economy is on a growth track again.
Our economy is growing again, and the growth over the last three months was the strongest in six years. But while economic growth is important, it means nothing to somebody who has lost a job and can't find another. For Americans looking for work, a good job is the only good news that matters."
"In other words, in order to create jobs and raise incomes for the middle class over the long run, we need to export more and borrow less from around the world, and we need to save more money and take on less debt here at home."
-- President Obama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
