Rep. Westmoreland: Healthcare vote fundamentally alters nation

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland

The Democrat victory on healthcare Sunday night “will fundamentally alter the nature of our nation by implementing a government takeover of healthcare that Americans don’t want and can’t afford,” said U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville).

The Democratic healthcare plan passed 219-212.

“This vote creates an expensive new entitlement that implements a government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy,” the Third District congressman said. “This law will raise taxes on all Americans, it will kill jobs in a lagging economy, it will put mandates on Americans and on businesses, it will put government in between doctors and their patients, it will raise the premiums of people who currently have insurance.

“The Democratic healthcare bill will add $2.6 trillion in new spending. There’s no free lunch,” Westmoreland said. “We’ll either tax ourselves to the point we’re not competitive internationally or we’ll simply add on more and more debt. Regardless, the bottom line is we cannot afford this new entitlement.

“We have bills that as a nation we can’t pay as it is. Now we’re adding on more stress to an overburdened system. Our debt obligations threaten to put our economy in critical care, and we’re crippling the ability of innovative Americans to create new jobs,” the former Fayette County resident said.

“There’s no doubt that there are many Americans facing tragic situations because they lack health insurance. Many more are underinsured and millions live in fear of losing their coverage. By opposing this legislation, we are not belittling or ignoring the real crisis in our nation’s health care system. Republicans have put forth responsible reforms that have fallen on deaf ears with this Democratic Congress and administration. No matter how great our desire to cover each and every American who lacks coverage, we do not serve the greater good if our actions bankrupt our nation,” Westmoreland said.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Union RWM?

What union is a teacher 'forced' to join in Georgia?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
NEA and GAE

2 unions - about $400 per year in union dues deducted from a salary far too low for dedicated teachers taken by a union dedicated to defeating vouchers and other programs that woud help improve educational opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged.

As Casey Stengel said, You can look it up.
No wonder the Dems are making a play to control the internet - they don't want you to be able to "look it up"

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
I looked it up, Morgan
Robert W. Morgan wrote:

2 unions - about $400 per year in union dues deducted from a salary far too low for dedicated teachers taken by a union dedicated to defeating vouchers and other programs that woud help improve educational opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged.

As Casey Stengel said, You can look it up.
No wonder the Dems are making a play to control the internet - they don't want you to be able to "look it up"

Membership in both the GAE and NEA is voluntary in Georgia.

They are not "unions", either. They have no collective bargaining power.

You are a liar.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
GAE Membership

When Frau Gym was a Teacher, she joined GAE for one simple reason: They provide legal representation in case of lawsuit!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Misinformed Morgan

What district in Georgia has a CONTRACT with GAE as does Los Angeles Unified School District has with UTLA?

What school district has a contract with the NEA? There is a difference between UNIONS and organizations that lobby on the behalf of their members.

http://www.utla.net

http://www.pageinc.org//

So much for your credibility. Why didn't you look this up yourself?

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Obama, Heathcare reform, and the economy

Healthcare reform will survive the court challenges and 30 million more Americans will have health care than if the Republicans had their way.

Under President Obama, the stock market has reached a two-year high (Tea Baggers should check their IRA and 401k statements), interest rates are at record lows, inflation in non-existent, and corporate profits are high.

Unemployment is too high and must come down. Business and corporations must use their profits to hire more Americans.

But as the New Year comes, all Americans should give thanks to President Obama for bringing positive change in a difficult time in the face of conservative opposition.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Voters just loud and clear gave their "thanks"

and cannot wait to get rid of Obama and the rest of the progressives.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - giving thanks

I give thanks that we are through with the first two years of a one term President.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja & Chrispy

I see you postings on the front page but for some reason I can't link to them or see them on this page.

So, I don't know what's up with the site.

Suggestions?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Petey: website hide and seek

Petey, this website is a Drupal implementation. Drupal is a freeware project, and ideal for news sites and news aggregators. Unfortunately, it's not the best software for discussion threads.

There's a bug in the system when the number of comments exceeds one page. You see the headline for the comment I just added, but the software dumps you to the first page of the thread, not the page that the actual comment is located on (in this case, the second page).

If this happens to you, what you have to do is scroll all the way down to the bottom and click the next page (2....3....4) over and over until you find the comment you're looking for. Note that you'll have to do a find on the comment title on each page, the software is not smart enough to look for it.

It's a clumsy workaround, but hey, you get what you pay for! *grin*

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Strange Bacon

Your current post is right at the top of the page.

I am on my IPhone picking this up, but your earlier post and that of Ninja's is just not there.

Can't respond, perhaps we should start a different string?

lookout2011
lookout2011's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
Just as the 2007-2008....

....bank manipulations has practically ruined our country's economic situation, I am told by the same people who predicted the current failure, before it happened, are now saying there is another terrible shoe to fall within one year!

It is not the huge bills that the states owe the American taxpayer for the unemployment payments---that will be mostly fore-given.
It is the horrible amounts of under-funded government employee pensions that are soon coming due to be funded and if not they will fail.

Neither the state or federal government now has the resources to stop it!

As to the new health plan bankrupting the USA it won't be allowed to happen. Anyway there is no way to spend as much as has been spent by the health care industry lately (it is running currently about 20% of our total economy) and is increasing at 10-15% per year!

That is why the new plan was needed desperately.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - You listed

a whole lot of hypothetical situations, so you should pick one and we can discuss it.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Free Immigration/Emigration

Let's implement the principles of libertarianism for all and get rid of all those pesky international borders. Free immigration/emigration is the way to go!

Oops, on second thought, we don't actually want 100 million Chinese and 100 million Indians piling into the US and Canada creating a bunch of jobs and wealth and good stuff like that. Let's just bring in the smart ones and leave the poor ones where they are to churn out cheap clothes and Happy Meal toys for us.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy wrote:

Oops, on second thought, we don't actually want 100 million Chinese and 100 million Indians piling into the US and Canada creating a bunch of jobs and wealth and good stuff like that. Let's just bring in the smart ones and leave the poor ones where they are to churn out cheap clothes and Happy Meal toys for us.

Ninja, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Hutch

Good for us, bad for them.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
.

.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Well Ninja

This depends on if you believe that nation states are outmoded. I personally don't believe this, the Constitution protects those states that have signed up for it. It is a compact of independent states, not countries.

On immigration and economics, I believe that our borders should be protected and that a logical organized and U.S.A. beneficial process should exist to allow people to legally immigrate to the US.

Our borders should be secured.

On emigration, I don't believe there is any restriction on emigration of which I am aware.

Questions on this?

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
How Do Nation States

fit in with your philosophy of individual liberty. Again, if we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, why support a system that dooms some to Hayekian serfdom just because of where they were born? Seems you support individual liberty only as long as it is your own personal best interest. Are nation states outmoded? Sure, under the ideals of libertarianism for everyone and not just for the elite, they are. As I said, read David Friedman. He has written the most and most coherent analysis of total libertarianism around, and he is one your side, so you don't have to worry about socialist contamination.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - They fit perfectly well

with how I think, each nation is formed for their own purposes and ideals. No nation that is formed to suppress individual freedom has prospered and thrived. It is true that we are endowed with inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and property, and it is also true that as individuals we act in our own self-interest. There is no contradiction in that.

I certainly don't believe in manifest destiny but I do believe that we should hold ourselves up as a nation of certain principles. Among these principles is the idea of individual liberty. Notwithstanding that we seem to be eager to give up our freedom to the central government, we were founded on the notion of individual liberty and a minimalist government.

I will read David Friedman at some point, but the essential issue here is not what David believes, it is what I believe.

You need to go back and re-read "The Road to Serfdom". Hayek was an economist not a politician, the premise is that dependency on the state leads to serfdom, the more dependency the more enslavement. We are not condemning anyone if they choose to depend on the state, they are condemning themselves. He was warning us of this fact before the National Socialist took power in Germany. This is what Hayek was saying nothing more, a pretty simple message. It is a message that we should heed today.

Now, what do you believe in? It seems you don't believe in individual freedom, so what exactly do you believe in, Newspeak stuff like "reality"? Shared wealth, equalitarianism and legal taking of other people's property in the name of the common good?

Let's hear something of substance this time.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Anarcho-Capitalism 101

Here is where libertarianism leads. I had forgotten that Murray Rothbard was a forerunner to David Friedman. As I have said, its been a while since I threw all my libertarian/anarcho-capitalism books in the books for charity bin, so I have forgotten a lot. It's pretty pointless for me to rehash all of this with PTC O and others in this forum, as much has been written on the subject and better than I could ever do. So, here is a starting point for all your Austrian/classic liberals/libertarians to explore the logical conclusions of your views. Happy reading!! I'll be watching football the next several weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Murray Rothbard

His book "For a New Liberty" is a real manifesto for libertarian philosophy and greatly articulated the path away from the BS of the times decades ago and today and still stands the test of time.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Watch Football Ninja?

Fact is there has never been an Anarcho-Capitalist state, you know this. One individual's idea only wins in the arena of ideas when people adopt it. As I said there is no "pure" libertarian philosophy. I am beginning to believe Ninja that you really haven't read much of this material.

You seem to be wrapped up in sticking up for the poor and disadvantaged of the world. So, why don't you turn off your TV, sell everything you own, move to a deprived country and help those poor people? You can make a positive difference in both countries by doing this.

Now if you want to carry on an intelligent dialog about your philosophy and a cogent defense of it, I am willing to join, but this blurting out of hysterical conclusions without basis is getting us nowhere.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO, Yes There Has

been an anarcho-capitalist state. David Friedman discusses at least one at length in the Machinery of Freedom. The wiki entry touches on it briefly. I told you, I read all this stuff many years ago so I have forgotten a lot of it. The Citizen blog is the last place I thought I would run into mises.orgians. Forgive my rusty memory. I am merely pointing out that your brand of libertarianism is merely a cover for elitism and that true libertarianism leads to anarcho-capitalism. Don't blame me for where the logical conclusions take you. As for me, I told you--I am a realist. I like things the way things are. I think the US government is functioning fine, the Fed is doing its job, the military is doing its best to keep the terrorists at bay, and that we are on the right track as a nation. As for selling all my stuff and moving to a deprived country, well, I'm not that nice of a person. Go Falcons!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO, Gosh Man

I can't keep spoon feeding you. Just read the Wiki entry linked in my previous post. It is a good starting point for all things anarcho-cap. It's an interesting journey if you want to venture down that path. Lots to think about. Okay, country hint: It was a long time ago and its name suggests somewhere very cold.

David Friedman discusses some others too in the Machinery of Freedom. I forgot Rothbard was into that line of libertarianism, too, so you might want to delve into him more. He is less dry than Mises. Hannah Arendt also writes some interesting stuff on liberty/totalitarianism. Just read a paper contrasting her definition of human action with that of von Mises. Kind of interesting. She separates action into three types. I think von Mises' explanation is the better one.

With this, I am ending my blog time on libertarianism/anarcho-cap stuff. It was fun to revisit this subject from way back in my past, but now on to more important topics.

I am turning my attention to the Falcons and their potential Super Bowl run now. Have fun in anarcho-land! Tell Murray and David I said hello!

Go Falcons!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Enjoy your football

I am happy you are entertained with something other than ideas.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
And the anarcho-capitalist state

was/is?

OK, now that we know what you believe, I think that your judgment speaks for itself.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
You can leave, but

you can't come here. So, those trapped in poverty, illiteracy, or in totalitarian states are free to leave those nation states, if they can escape, just as long as they don't come here and bug you. Is that it? Most nation states were formed long before the people living in them now were even born. How are the purposes and ideals of the current citizens being served by archaic systems that they had no hand in creating, including government systems, caste systems, and other systems that restrict personal liberty? It seems that your concept of libertarianism is fine as long as it is not practiced by those in true need of it, or those you consider undeserving. Elitism at its best, or worst, depending on what side of the line you happen to be on.

You said let's take one point at a time, so I am sticking to unrestricted travel among land masses and on the seas.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - so is this what you believe?

"... so I am sticking to unrestricted travel among land masses and on the seas."

You think this is the right way to go? Unrestricted travel among nations?

Seems a bit naive.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO, Yes

libertarianism and Austrian economics is naive. That is the whole point of my blogging here. Glad you finally caught on.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
OK so Ninja,

where are we, what do you believe?

What's your philosophy?

Doug
Doug's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/07/2006
Westmoreland and "responsible reforms"

How many responsible reforms did Westmoreland offer when they had control of the both houses of Congress and the White House? In all honesty, Rep. Westmoreland is more of the problem and not the answer.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Right on Doug

You are right on with this, they are all corrupted by the Washington mob.

snapdragon
snapdragon's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
Congress missed the real point.

The problem is that the Insurance companies are getting richer by the second. First of all the Insurance Companies sell malpractice insurance to the doctors. The Doctors have to raise their rates to the general public because they have to cover their new higher priced malpractice insurance. So now our medical bills go up and the same insurance companies tell us our rates must go up to help them cover the costs of the higher doctor bills. Then the Insurance Companies go back and raise their rates on the doctor's insurance, claiming higher costs. The vicious circle starts all over again. Where does all of the money go to? It goes to the insurance companies and their stock holders oh, and for the CEO bonuses. The Medical Insurance Industry will pay out close to $500 million dollars in bonuses to their corporate CEO's for this year alone.
The Congress and Senate have been bought by some of this money also. Overall the real criminals in America are in Washington DC and on the top floors of the Insurance Companies.

I think Everyone in America, should stop paying for their insurance today. Put the Insurance companies out of business and the rates would get down to reasonable levels. Bur Wait.... Since Obama is in bed with the insurance companies He would just give a bailout to all of his buddies in the insurance companies.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
snapdragon

I agree with you. The insurance industry is out of control.

"Overall the real criminals in America are in Washington DC and on the top floors of the Insurance Companies." How true.

People don't realize how bad this is and how much it is taking out of their pockets.

Stepping away from health care insurance, to car insurance, the round robin exploitation that you described above, goes on there as well.

Lets take a kid driving, the rates should be higher, but for how long?
I did one of my favorite things last week, called the insurance companies and quizzed (needeled) about rates and the reasoning behind them.

They tell you that kids rates go down at 21. That is only partially true. They really don't go down till they hit 25.

Also if you are young and have no credit, or bad credit, they can up your car insurance by another 27%! Yep, straight from the horses mouth.

Never in my life have I seen how safely someone drives affected by their credit score!!!!! I mean, if I get in the car with a drunk driver, am I going to be safer because his credit is good?

My thoughts are with the economy being bad, more and more people's credit is ruined. It seems so unfair that they get to add on 27% for bad credit to your car, home, or life insurance premium. The insurance companies got that passed within the past 10 years.

When you quiz them they say it is needed because people with bad credit are more likely to get the insurance, then quit paying. Ok? If you let your premium lag or cancel, correct me if I'm wrong, there is already a higher rate, or penalty for that. So again, double dipping, or round robin. (or should I say robbing?)

They are even funnier when you question life insurance. It also, carries a much higher premium if you have bad credit. The reason I was given on that one is that "you are more likely to commit suicide if your credit is bad".

As more people are losing their jobs, this sort of thing is adding to their misery, but at the same time, giving the insurance companies a right to exploit them.

And who gave them the right? Who sat around and thought this BS up? The people we elected to represent us and look out for 'we the people's' best interest!

The corruption is so obvious, the politicans and the lobbyist should hide their heads in shame!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC Observer

As always, you are right. You just can't reason with those that ramble on in their posts. You know are very own "dollaradayandfound" did a blog back in July 2007 titled "Dumbing down". Perhaps he was right.

lookout2011
lookout2011's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
cyclist: "Dumbing Down:

I would like to read that blog, "dumbing down," and who is a "very own, dollaradayandfound?"
Was he blocked from here for writing it, or something?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Yes lookout2011$....

our very own "dollaradayandfound" or simply "$". I'm curious, by any chance, do you know d.smith, bonkers or, more recently, Courthouserule$?

Was he blocked from here for writing it, or something?

Some on this board believe that the gate at the hospital was opened one night and he simply wondered off. Others say they have spotted him near a lake house in PTC. Shocking, isn't it? ☺

lookout2011
lookout2011's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
cycle

What!!
Now you have really interested my curiosity!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist

You going on the 30 mile ride today for the humain society?

Starts at Trek today at 2PM, twenty bucks.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Hey PTC Observer

Nah could not ride today. I had to spend some "quality" time with my two little trucks. Soon though.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist

I couldn't go either, next time.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
the only thing wrong with health care reform is

they didn't put a government option in there. By not having it, it gutted the health care reform. Don't kid yourselves, insurance companies are having a field day and making money hand over fist. Much more so than before because now everyone will be insured, so they have more customers. But the sad thing is, you have no option to see what the real cost are. Just buy the over inflated pollicies of the insurance companies.

The reason the gov option would have been so good is that if you see the gov can offer you SAME thing for 10 dollars a month, while the bid name insurance companies are offering it for 364.00 a month. You know something is really wrong. That is what the insurance companies didn't want you to know. That would have been your gage to see what an honest company could charge. The lobbyist hired by the billion dollar health care industry worked overtime to get that out. Reason? They don't won't you to see just how inflated the cost is. If you did, you would probably question the 100 million dollar salaries of the industries VIPs.

The little guy always gets screwed.

If this last at least 5 years, they will put that option in, and you will see how bad you are screwed.

The insurance industry, health, car, home, etc. OWN the politicians. Make no mistake about it. They are not voting for your best interest, don't be fooled.

Does anyone recall where Oxidine was when is kid filled someone's butt full of buckshot? He was hunting on an insurance excutives plantation. Quite a conflict of interest don't you think? But did one of your elected politicans make a comment on it? Hell no! Doesn't that tell you something? People wake up. You have been sold to the hightest bidder on so many fronts by your elected politicans, you are now broke. And the worst part is, there is very little to protect you. Certainly not at local levels.

This speach by Westmoreland should have been given on April fool's day.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
People like you own the politicians, sugarfoot

Insurance companies do not own the politicians. It is people like you who "own" the politicians and control their thought process. You and others in the anti-business, anti-achievement, wealth-envy crowd embolden politicians to do idiotic things to please you. Democrats especially love to pander to your base by saying things like rich people have enough or rich people won life's lottery. Then they go on to pass counter-productive laws like Obamacare which is guaranteed to make things harder on everyone. If you and the rest of the wealth-envy crowd would just shut up, get a job - or a second job if you have one now - and go produce something for yourself and family and stop whining about what others have accomplished, you would be a lot happier.

The one thing these hard-core career politicians are right about is how the numbers of achievers compare to the whiners, layabouts and habitually poor. The achievers (evil rich, if you prefer that label) will never be more than 25% and they will pay 90% of the taxes and most of the large campaign contributions. The other 75% work for a small business, the government or a large coporation or don't work at all, vote out of self interest and some of you (and you know who you are) have a terminal case of wealth-envy and have to show your ignorance and lack of ambition by whining about it or blindly voting for the Democrat who promises redistribution of wealth - which is usually accomplished by excessive taxation on the achievers and regressive social welfare programs that make more non-achievers dependent upon government.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
People like me don't own the politicians, that's the point!

If 'the people' owned the government as you say, we wouldn't have such assinine things going on!

The whole point is that we have been sold to the hightest bidder!

And I strongly resent a couple of your wild strokes with your paint brush!

I've had health insurance my entire life. My family carried in on me and when I was 21 and out of college and working, I started paying for it and have done so for the rest of my 60 plus years! No one has given me anything!

That however, unlike you, does not keep me from feeling empathy for those who don't have health care, or have to pay 10 times more than they should to cover someone who is sick.

"wealth-envy...politicans pandering to me? please...dont you DARE go there with me!

What was being talked about was how it was made. You guys want even talk about the ethics of it. You just rather sit there and 'cat call' and say people are jealous of 'your?' wealth because ...? Because why? you don't think others can make it? You are so wrong!!!

We are talking about how it is made! You know that..you just won't address it.

loanarranger707
loanarranger707's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/14/2006
Achievers my eye!

A guy (or gal) who's just won the lottery is not an achiever.

A guy (or gal) who inherits millions from a dying parent or relative is not an achiever.

A guy (or gal) who makes it to the top of a high-paying corporation because of family or political connections is not an achiever.

A guy who happens to be extremely tall and makes it as a highly paid professional basketball player may or may not be an achiever, but any achievement is not solely a reflection of his character.

A low-paid teacher who succeeds in encouraging a kid to achieve is himself (or herself) an achiever, but you couldn't tell it by the money he (or she) makes.

Robert W. Morgan, you and your ilk (like Neal Boortz) have a materialistic and corrupt concept of what achievement is all about. But some of us will take you on. Wash that Republican propaganda out of your head.

jevank
jevank's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Where would you classify a

Where would you classify a low-paid teacher who has just won the lottery? How about an unemployed CEO who inherits family money? A tall guy playing basketball is really no different than a natural-born leader becoming a CEO. Both use their God-given gifts to achieve a financial goal.

What exactly do you think we should do with the people, who in your eyes, are undeserving of the money? Should all inheritances automatically go to the government?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
you just described one of my heroes

"A low-paid teacher who succeeds in encouraging a kid to achieve is himself (or herself) an achiever, but you couldn't tell it by the money he (or she) makes"

People don't realize how much love is put into that job by a lot of unsung heroes that care deeply for our children.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
See

what
I
mean
?

And do you know that there are 2 jobs that pay about $24,000 for a young girl? Yep. One is for a recent college graduate who plans to devote her life to teaching (agree these are good, but underpaid people) It is a shame she is forced to join a union and pay union dues from the $24,000, but I digress. The second $24,000 job is for a young lady about the same age is to be a welfare Mom with 4 kids and no other means of support. Yep, $500 per kid per month. You can look it up.

Tell me how that makes any sense?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
RWM-Wealth envy is ingrained in the progressive movement

It's their socialist background.
People like bacon, sugarfoot and others can't stand it that someone else has done more with their life then they have, thus equal misery is a mandate.

Social Justice is their mantra. They always seem to forget every time they allow the "less fortunate" to pick the pocket of those in front there is always someone waiting behind them as well.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
laughing at NotLindsey

Once again, NotLindsey regales us with "what these people believe", and throws in a dollop of Neal Boortz's trademark "wealth envy" blather to boot.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - regale??

Regale –verb (used with object)
1. to entertain lavishly or agreeably; delight.

This is certainly is a turn of events, you like what "NotLindsey" is saying?

Are you laughing because you are delighted?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
My apologies, Petey

I forgot to add the usual disclaimer

My apologies.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon - You?

You sarcastic? I thought you were always serious.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

NOT sarcastic

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
robert morgan your logic is twisted

Your tirade about 'wealth envy' and your comparison of a welfare mom and a school teach don't cut it.

A school teachers union compared to an insurance company's power and lobbyist don't equate either.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Logic, sugar?

My locic is perfectly clear.
But you are right, insurance companies and teacher's unions are not comparable. The teacher's union is more powerful, better funded, has more members and is the reason we have so many stupid people walking around. Many individual teachers are great and perform wonders with limted resourses. But the union itself has too much power over the poor defenseless children. They should be regulated and the fat cats who pull down huge salaries running the union should be required to give some back.

Like that logic?

And the welfare mom/teacher comparison is real. They both make the same amount of money for doing entirely different things. I don't think it makes sense. Do you?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Morgan contrasting a teachers union to something like an

army of lobbyist is a total joke..

"U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobbying group in the United States that "has become a fully functional part of the partisan Republican machine" since CEO and president Thomas J. Donohue took office in 1997. Prior to Donohue's tenure, the Chamber "used to be a trade association that advocated in a bipartisan manner for narrowly tailored policies to benefit its members." [1] The Chamber's 2010 budget is approximately $200 million, but as a trade organization, its donors can remain anonymous.

The Chamber claims on its website that its mission is to "advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility."[3] It describes itself as "the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region."[4]

Despite these claims, the New York Times reported in October 2010 that half of the Chamber's $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 big-money donors, many of whom enlisted the Chamber's help to fight political and public opinion battles on their behalf (such as opposing financial or healthcare reforms, or other regulations). [2] The Chamber is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries," according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce.[5

Accusations of tax fraud and money laundering

2010 Complaint
In September, 2010, two national watchdog groups, U.S. Chamber Watch and StopTheChamber.com, filed complaints with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service asking the agency to investigate the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for criminal fraud and money laundering. The groups allege that the Chamber illegally funneled donations from a wealthy charitable foundation into its political battles. Chamber Watch said that $12 million of an $18 million donation that the wealthy Starr Foundation gave (pdf) gave to the National Chamber Foundation was in the form of loans that have never been repaid. Chamber Watch says the money was diverted to finance political causes, including tort reform, to shield companies like AIG from liability lawsuits. The Starr Foundation was founded by Cornelius Vander Starr, the insurance entrepreneur who also founded AIG. The Foundation's Chairman of the Board of Directors is Maurice R. Greenberg, former President and CEO of AIG. The Foundation's Director (and Treasurer) is Howard I. Smith, AIG's former Chief Financial Officer. StopTheChamber.com says it was contacted by a Chamber whistleblower who described (pdf) how Chamber CEO Tom Donohue is "scamming [business] clients to serve his own interests rather than the interests of the business community." The insider compared Donohue to Jack Abramoff and Bernie Madoff. He also alleged that Donohue does not fear the Federal Elections Commission or Congress, and has a plan set up to attack the U.S. Department of Justice if the agency ever tries to investigate him.[6]

The September charge echoed similar charges made earlier in the year, in January, 2010, that six of the largest health insurance companies in the U.S. had been secretly funneling millions of dollars to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose health reform. The total amount in this instance was estimated at between $10 million and $20 million. According to a report in the National Journal online, the money was used "to help underwrite tens of millions of dollars of television ads by two business coalitions set up and subsidized by the chamber."[7][8]

2006 Public Citizen Complaint
On October 31, 2006, Public Citizen filed a complaint[9] with the IRS asking it to investigate whether the Chamber and "its affiliated Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) failed to report millions in taxable spending from 2000 to 2004 intended to influence state-level attorney general and supreme court races and federal races around the country."[10]

It also asked the IRS to investigate whether Chamber and the ILR, "which are two separate legal entities, combined funds in a shared bank account to hide accurate reporting of investment or interest income for tax avoidance. ... Court records, internal corporate documents and media reports indicate that the Chamber and the ILR engaged in a massive campaign to affect the outcome of state and federal races through direct expenditures and grants made to organizations that carried out the Chamber’s wishes."[10]

Public Citizen reported that[10]

"In 2000, the Chamber claimed it spent $6 million on judicial races and took credit for winning 15 out of 17 state supreme court contests. In 2002, the Chamber said it planned to spend $40 million on political campaigns, divided equally between congressional and state-level attorneys general and judicial races. None of these activities were reported on their tax returns from 2000 to 2003.
"In 2004, the first year since at least 2000 that the Chamber and the ILR reported political expenditures, both organizations appear to have underreported their spending. They reported a combined $18 million, but in a 'President's Update' memo released the day after the November elections, Chamber President Thomas Donohue claimed the group had spent up to $30 million in races around the country.
"The Chamber and ILR also failed to report grants and allocations to outside groups as required by Line 22 of IRS Form 990. Both organizations reported no grants to outside groups from 2000 to 2004. But in a 2005 deposition, a Chamber official acknowledged that the Chamber had partnered with at least six outside groups to advance its agenda to avoid garnering unwanted critical attention. At least two 501(c) organizations, the Washington-based American Taxpayers Alliance and the Columbus-based Citizens for a Strong Ohio, reported receipt of contributions from the U.S. Chamber."

U.S. elections
2010 Midterm Elections
The U.S. Chamber played a major role in the Republican victories in the 2010 midterm Congressional elections, promising to spend $75 million (and reporting only $32 million), and helping to organize and coordinate spending by other "outside interest groups" like American Crossroads and American Action Network [11] In a blog post the night before the election, the Chamber stated it “had been a game-changing political force in these midterms. We’ve engaged in tight, competitive races; and we’ve altered them.”[12]

The Chamber claimed it offered support to all pro-business candidates, regardless of party affiliation. However, according to a report from the union-backed Chamber Watch, "[i]t worked almost exclusively to elect Republicans in the powerful Senate, giving one lone endorsement to a Democrat, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, on whom it made no expenditures. On the House side, the Chamber created an appearance of bipartisanship by spending on behalf of eleven Democrats. But the Chamber’s support for Democratic members was razor-thin, and sometimes, the Chamber withheld support altogether, even where Democratic members worked hard to earn the Chamber’s approval." [13]

Whats more, while 93% of reported expenditures went to support Republicans, the 6% spent to support Democrats were spent on generic, non-candidate-specific ads, rather than more effective ads attacking opponents. The ads tended not to identify candidate-specific positive qualities, instead relying on a template with the same title for several different candidates, only changing the candidate’s name, picture and office number. The ads were also run later than ads supporting their Republican counterparts.[13]

Link to American Crossroads
American Crossroads and the Chamber are closely tied, and closely coordinated their efforts in the 2010 midterm elections.

2008, Chamber President Tom Donahue told the Los Angeles Times that he wanted to get very involved with elections. 'Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business. "We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.' [14]

According to the U.S. Chamber Watch report:

"The U.S. Chamber first began to coordinate massive Republican resources when its general counsel, Steven Law, met with Ed Gillespie, Republican political strategist and former Counselor to President George W. Bush. According to the Associated Press, Law met with Gillespie in October of 2009, “calculating how to exploit the voter anger they had seen erupt at Democratic town hall meetings that summer.” [15]
It was at this meeting that they conceived of American Crossroads an organization, that according to its website, is dedicated to “renewing America’s commitment to individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense.” Law left the U.S. Chamber to serve as the group’s CEO.
According to Think Progress:

“At every turn, from the operatives running the two organizations to their targeted races to their media firms, American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are bound to one another…the two groups have exhibited uncanny coordination in their election targeting. In a number of Senate races, the Chamber and American :Crossroads coordinated their advertisements – one group put up ads in a race as the other group pulled its own down – in :order to ensure attack ads were always running against the Democratic candidate.” [16]

Post-Election Backlash
The U.S. Chamber's partisan, corporate-funded (and often untrue) campaign attacks have compelled many local Chambers of Commerce to disassociate from the U.S. Chamber. [17] Despite the U.S. Chamber's attempts to portray itself as a community of small businesses and local Chambers of Commerce, the interests the U.S. Chamber served in the 2010 elections were those of its large corporate donors. More than 40 local chambers issued statements during the campaign distancing themselves from the U.S. Chamber, including chambers in the "battleground states" of Iowa and New Hampshire. Some chambers are considering what Politico calls the "extraordinary" step of ending their affiliation with the U.S. Chamber and quitting in protest. [18]

U.S. Politics

Climate Change Legislation
In 2009, the Chamber of Commerce lobbyied against climate change legislation introduced by Congress. In describing its strategy, the Chamber says it will "resist ill-conceived legislation that is economically disruptive of business and industry activities, that creates regulatory and legislative obstacles to development and deployment of affordable, innovative energy technologies, and that could severely damage the security and economy of the United States."[19] The chamber said it supports "mainstream, common sense views" on climate change, but that it opposes the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009.[20]

The group's opposition to the legislation has caused a rift among its corporate members. A number of companies have announced they are leaving the organization as a result of its stance on climate change regulations. Energy companies Exelon, PG&E, and PNM Resources all announced in September 2009 that they were quitting the Chamber. [21] Apple Inc also resigned from the Chamber, saying in a statement, "We would prefer that the chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate crisis"[22] Sportswear company Nike also criticized the Chamber's challenge of the U.S. EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as air pollution.[20] Nike said it would resign from the Chambers's board of directors, but that it would retain its membership to the organization in order to work for climate change legislation from inside the organization.[23]

Citizen action against the Chamber of Commerce's stance on climate change

Yes Men stage fake Chamber of Commerce press conference
On October 19, 2009, anti-corporate performance artists the Yes Men issued a fake press release on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, claiming that the Chamber had reversed its position on climate change would no longer lobby against the legislation. The activists managed to secure a room at the National Press Club to stage a press conference announcing the policy shift to reporters. The real Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Eric Wohlschlegel interrupted the event and declared the event a fraud. Afterwards, the Chamber threatened to push for a criminal investigation over the prank.[24]

Grassroots campaigns against the Chamber
CREDO Action, part of the Working Assets company, launched a campaign against the Chamber's stance on climate change legislation. The group is organizing an effort to urge members of the lobbying group to resign, calling on them to "denounce the Chamber's extremist position on global warming and revoke your membership effective immediately."[25]

Velvet Revolution has also organized a campaign against the Chamber of Commerce, citing its stance on climate change among other reasons to call for a reform of the corporate lobbying group.[26]

Employee Free Choice Act
In the 2009 debate over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bill that would make it easier for workers to join a union, "both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO are focusing on grassroots outreach," reported PR Week. Before the bill was introduced, "the Chamber launched the Workforce Freedom Airlift program, a series of events that fly in local small business owners to Washington," to lobby against the bill. The first "airlift," on March 10, 2009, "brought in small business owners from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nebraska, and Louisiana." Since July 2008, the Chamber has worked with Adfero Group on an anti-EFCA "social media effort," expanding "a virtual march on Washington that was created the last time the bill went to Congress in 2007." It "allows users to register for the march as avatars and send an automatic letter to their elected officials through a Facebook application." [27]

In April 2009, the Chamber launched a "$1 million television advertising campaign that takes a new line of attack against the Employee Free Choice Act, highlighting a provision that would allow federal arbitrators to set the rules for unionization if management and employees fail to negotiate their own deal." The ads "will hit the airwaves in Nebraska, Virginia, Louisiana, North Dakota and Colorado -- states whose senators could be swing votes." Previous attacks on the bill, from the Chamber and corporate front groups like the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and Employee Freedom Action Committee, claimed it would get rid of secret ballot elections. The bill would actually allow employees to form unions either by holding elections or signing cards. Although the "no secret ballot" claims are inaccurate, they've been effective, accorting to the Wall Street Journal. The "more than $30 million on TV ads [spent by business groups] in the past few years portraying the secret-ballot provision as antidemocratic ... pressured several key senators to reverse their prior support, leaving the bill several senators short of 60 votes." [28]

Political action committee
The Chamber sponsored The November Fund, a 527 committee that opposes what it describes as frivolous lawsuits and trial lawyers and ran negative campaign advertisements against trial lawyer John Edwards, John Kerry's running mate during the 2004 presidential race.

VoteForBusiness
"Under Donohue’s leadership, the Chamber has also emerged as a major player in election politics, helping elect congressional pro-business candidates through financial support and voter activism and turnout generated through the Chamber’s grassroots organization," VoteForBusiness,[29] billed as "Your One-Stop Political Action, Education, and Involvement Tool".

Websites: http://www.voteforbusiness.net/ and http://www.voteforbusiness.com

National Chamber Foundation
"The revitalized National Chamber Foundation, the Chamber’s public policy think tank, is shaping the policy debate on cutting-edge business issues, with major new initiatives on intellectual property theft and counterfeiting, capital markets and accounting rules, and travel and tourism."[29]

Law

Law firm
"The National Chamber Litigation Center, the Chamber’s law firm, has become more aggressive in challenging anti-business measures in court, setting a new record for cases entered in each of the last six years and securing 48 court victories in 2006."[29]

Legal reform
The Chamber has taken a lead role in the tort reform movement. It sponsors the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), a 501(c)6 organization, and Legal Reform Now, a coalition of business associations, think tanks, and legal reform groups. Website: http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/

On its website, the ILR posted a "State Liability Systems Ranking" which it calls "Lawsuit Climate 2007".[30]

Opposing "activist judges"
In late May 2005, the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform President Lisa Rickard announced it was going to "reign in activist attorneys general."[31] At a Chamber-sponsored conference examining the "appropriate role" of a state attorney general, several speakers "complained that 'Spitzerism' has become a dangerous model for ambitious regulators," refering to New York AG Eliot Spitzer.[32]

Madison County Record (Illinois)
The Madison County Record, "an Illinois weekly newspaper launched in September [2004] that bills itself as the county's legal journal, reports on one subject: the state courts in southern Illinois," Jeffrey H. Birnbaum reported in the Washington Post.[33]

Birnbuam pointed to a "recent front page[that] carried an assortment of stories about lawsuits against businesses. In one, a woman sought $15,000 in damages for breaking her nose at a haunted house. In another, a woman sued a restaurant for $50,000 after she hurt her teeth on a chicken breast. ... Nowhere was it reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce created the Record as a weapon in its multimillion-dollar campaign against lawyers who file those kinds of suits," Birnbaum wrote.[33]

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
In October 2007, the Chamber filed a friend-of-the court filing in a class action lawsuit under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court which originated with a California RICO lawsuit involving Microsoft and Best Buy. The Chamber stated that "RICO is getting out of control as a device against business. It has been used in more than 4,500 cases since 2001, with only 35 of those cases filed by the government."[34] The Supreme Court overturned the appeal and ruled that Microsoft and Best Buy are subject to RICO laws.[35]

Trade

TradeRoots
The Chamber's TradeRoots website is billed as "the nation's leading sustained grassroots education program dedicated to raising public awareness of international trade on a local level."[36]

The Trade Toolbox, a "resource to help in the trade export process, ... includes trade statistics, country and market reports, best market reports, frequently asked questions and trade contacts." The Toolbox was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce.[37]

Website: http://www.traderoots.org/

TheTrueCosts.org
TheTrueCosts.org is a website sponsored by the Chamber. In conjunction with the Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP), it has produced the No Trade in Fakes Supply Chain Tool Kit, which provides "proven strategies" for companies "to use to protect their supply chains from counterfeiters and modern-day pirates."[38]

Website: http://www.thetruecosts.org

Coal and Energy

Chamber distributes books on energy to children
In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined with Scholastic Books to distribute roughly 100,000 books about the potential perils of government fossil fuel regulation to classrooms across the country, as part of its “Shedding Light on Energy" campaign. The book asks, “What do you think could happen if one of our energy sources was suddenly unavailable (e.g., power plant maintenance, government curb on production, etc.)?” Chamber officials maintain that there is no “hidden agenda” behind the question or the educational outreach effort in general, although the book is notably being distributed at a time when the Environmental Protection Agency is set to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.[39]

The energy industry has a long history of working to get its perspective into classrooms. In the 1970s, for example, nuclear power officials distributed comic books in schools as it dealt with the PR fallout from the near meltdown at Three Mile Island. And BP helped develop environmental lesson plans in California, the Sacramento Bee reported last month. The posters and worksheets that the Chamber will be sending out to schools aross the country is based on statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and the assignments are mostly aimed at teaching students how to use charts and graphs to convey where U.S. energy comes from and how it is used.[39]

Chamber's Institute for Energy
In March 2007, O'Dwyer's PR Daily reported that General James L. Jones, formerly the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe, had joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a lobbyist.[40]

"Jones will head the Institute for Energy, which is to present itself as a grassroots organization. The Chamber went a similar path with the creation of the Institute for Legal Reform." Jones will focus on global warming and seek "to 'unify energy stakeholders behind a common strategy' to produce affordable and secure supplies while protecting the environment," reported O'Dwyer's, quoting Chamber president Tom Donohue.[40]

National gas tax
"After a Minneapolis bridge collapsed on Aug. 1, [2007,] killing 13 people, members of Congress have sought to increase the gas tax to fix 'structurally deficient' bridges and make other infrastructure repairs. ... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, groups that don’t normally agree with tax increases, support a national gas tax increase to pay for infrastructure improvements."[41]

Other issues

Opposing national health care reform
The U.S. Chamber sponsors the Campaign for Responsible Health Reform, a program created to convince people to preserve employer-sponsored health insurance and oppose a public insurance option in health care reform in the U.S. The Campaign aims to convince people that a government-sponsored plan is "fiscally reckless," will "lead us down the road to total government control of our health," and that it will make those with private insurance pay even more.[42]

The Campaign says that "a government-run plan that would have broad and unrivaled power to negotiate for low-cost services of doctors and other health care providers could put private insurers out of business."[43]

The group's Web site has a "Take Action" page that says "We can’t afford to let a government-run plan raise our taxes and create long waits for treatment." It urges people to write their Congress members to oppose "government-run health care."[44]

SCHIP veto
The Chamber is among a number of organizations which supported President George W. Bush's October 2007 veto of the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007) bill.[45] Republicans and "some business groups" such as the Chamber contended SCHIP "should focus on poor children and the expansion [would be] a move towards government-run health care. They also worr[ied] identification rules in the Democratic SCHIP bill might allow illegal immigrants to obtain government coverage."[46]

Immigration amnesty and reform
The Chamber, "among others, has pushed for immigration reforms that would allow a path to citizenship for undocumented workers."[47]

In January 2004, speaking in support of amnesty for illegal aliens, Randel Y. Johnson, Chamber vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits, said: "We need a system of 'earned targeted adjustment' for undocumented workers that fill vital roles in our economy, which would enable them to achieve legal status. We also need to expand permanent and temporary visas for workers to enter the United States legally to meet future workforce requirements."[48]

Social Security
The Chamber also has a role in promoting President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.

Lobbying spending
The Chamber ranks first in lobbying spending in the past decade, with General Electric ranking second at $161 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[49]

Political Money Line[50] highlighted in February 2005 that the Chamber and its Institute for Legal Reform reported combined spending of $53.38 million for lobbying the Executive and Legislative branches during 2004. According to the watchdog website, "This is the largest twelve-month amount reported spent by any group."

The Chamber reported spending $20,060,000 in the first six months of 2004 and $8,780,000 in the last six months of 2004. They paid forty-five lobbyists in the last six months of 2004 to lobby on thirty-two issue areas, including "Trade, Small Business, Labor, Healthcare, Defense, Appropriations, Tort Reform and other areas."[51]

The Institute for Legal Reform reported spending $10,000,000 in the first six months of 2004 and $14,540,000 in the last six months. They had five lobbyists on the payroll for the last six months of 2004, working on the tort reform issue including "Class Action Fairness, Asbestos Injury Resolution, Legal Reform, and Lawsuit Abuse Reduction."[52]

Election cycle spending
Other spending reported by Political Money Line or Open Secrets:

In 2007, $21.2 million total was spent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its subsidiary the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR); $11.78 million for the Chamber and $9.4 million by ILR.[53]
In 2006, $72.7 million total was spent by the Chamber and ILR; $45.7 million for the Chamber and $27 million for the ILR.[54]
In 2005, $39.8 million total was spent by the Chamber and ILR; $20 million for the Chamber and $19.8 million for ILR.[55]
In 2004, $53.4 million total was spent by the Chamber and ILR; $28.8 million for the Chamber and $24.5 million for ILR.[56]
In 2003, $34.6 million total was spent by the Chamber and ILR. For the period 7/1/03 to 6/30/04 they spent $47.8 million.
In 2002, $41.56 million total was spent by the Chamber and ILR. For the period 7/1/02 to 6/30/03 they spent $45.6 million.
In 2001, $20.6 million total was spent by the Chamber and ILR. For the period 7/1/01 to 6/30/02 they spent $25.9 million.

The Chamber and large corporations
The Chamber claims to represent 3 million businesses, 96 percent of which are small, defined as having fewer than 100 employees. But the Chamber arrives at this figure by counting all businesses that are members of state and local chambers, which are independent organizations that pay a few hundreds dollars a year to affiliate with the U.S. Chamber for discounts and other programs and have no say over the national group's political activities, its lobbying, or endorsements. The U.S. Chamber's membership is actually about 300,000 businesses, and the Chamber's boardroom is mostly representatives of large corporations. Its 125-member board includes representatives of just two local chambers and a handful of small businesses. The rest are primarily from large corporations, like Pfizer, Alcoa, and JP Morgan Chase. In 2008, one-third of the $147 million the group raised came from just 19 companies. (Exactly which companies is unknown. U. S. law requires the Chamber to list amounts given on its annual tax return, but it is not obligated to disclose names.)[57]

In 2010, chambers in San Antonio, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut began publicly moving away from the U.S. Chamber, disavowing the 2010 political attack ads that the U.S. Chamber had been broadcasting in their communities. Newer chambers, like the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, have declined to affiliate with the national group and have been among its most vocal critics: "They get the majority of their funding from big businesses. That's who drives their decisions," explains Executive Director Frank Knapp, noting that, unlike the U. S. Chamber, his group supported the health care bill and financial reform, and favors legislation to curb global warming.[57]

Affiliated centers / organizations
Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth
Business Civic Leadership Center (BCLC)
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) member[58]
Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC), Caroline Joiner, executive director[4]
Global Regulatory Cooperation Project[59]
Institute for a Competitive Workforce (ICW), Jan Magill, director of strategic partnerships[60]
Institute for Energy
Institute for Organizational Management (IOM), Athens, Georgia
The Energy Initiative
Particulate Matter Coalition
Yucca Energy Solutions

Senior management
The following are listed as members of the Chamber's senior management.[61]

Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO
David C. Chavern, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs
LTG (Ret.) Daniel W. Christman, Senior Vice President, International Affairs
Thomas Collamore, Senior Vice President Communications & Strategy and Counselor to the President
Shannon DiBari, Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Carl Grant, Chairman of the President's Advisory Group
Stan Harrell, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer
David Hirschmann, Senior Vice President and Executive Vice President, National Chamber Foundation (NCF)
General James L. Jones USMC (ret.), President and CEO, Institute for Energy
Steven J. Law, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel
Rolf Lundberg, Senior Vice President, Congressional and Public Affairs
William C. Miller, Jr., Senior Vice President, Political Affairs & Federation Relations and National Political Director
Lisa Rickard, President, Institute for Legal Reform
James Robinson, Senior Vice President and Counselor to the President
Arthur J. Rothkopf, Senior Vice President and Counselor to the President
Agnes Warfield, Senior Vice President, Development

Board members
The following are listed as members of the Chamber's board of directors.[62]

Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO
Paul S. Speranza, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors
Donald J. Shepard, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
Gerald L. Shaheen, Immediate Past Chair and Chair of the Executive Committee
Also see the lists of regional vice chairmen;[63] the senior council;[64] and all members of the board of directors.[65]

Contact information
United States Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Telephone: 202 659-6000
Fax: 202 463-5836
Website: http://www.uschamber.com/"

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Thanks for the information dump

now what was the relevance?

And how is that investigation of Obama against the Chamber doing? Oh it died a quick death didn't it?

Another progressive attack against business and the anti-business philosophy of the left that didn't make it past the election.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Really SF?

Which entity is controlling the Whitehouse?

Andy Stern and Richard Trumpka or the CEO of United?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
suggarfoot and those evil insurance

industry profits. This nations spends about $2.472 trillion a year for healthcare which comes to about $282 million an hour. If you apply the profits that those "evil" insurance companies make - $12.2 billion - it would provide only 43 hours of healthcare. So what about the other 8,717 hours of the year? The insurance industry and its profits are not the problem. I think Nuk best described problem as an issue of not enough of a "free" market.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
you deserve this...

Executives at health insurance giants cash in as firms plan fee hikes
Leaders of Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna received nearly $200 million in compensation in 2009, according to a report, while the companies sought rate increases as high as 39%.
August 11, 2010|By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington — The top executives at the nation's five largest for-profit health insurance companies pulled in nearly $200 million in compensation last year — while their businesses prepared to hit ratepayers with double-digit premium increases, according to a new analysis conducted by healthcare activists.

The leaders of Cigna Corp., Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint Inc. each in effect received raises in 2009, the report concluded, based on an analysis of company reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission
H. Edward Hanway, former chief executive of Philadelphia-based Cigna, topped the list of high-paid executives, thanks to a retirement package worth $110.9 million. Cigna paid Hanway and his successor, David Cordani, a total of $136.3 million last year.

Only one executive in the list actually saw his paycheck shrink last year: Ron Williams, the CEO of Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna Inc., earned nearly $18.2 million in total compensation, down from $24.4 million in 2008.

"Most families are struggling to hang on. Employers are struggling to stay in business. And these guys were giving themselves huge raises," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of advocacy groups that prepared the report.

A spokeswoman for WellPoint said executives' compensation reflects their effort to improve care and hit corporate goals. Representatives of the other four insurers either declined to comment Tuesday on the report or did not respond to questions.

The executive packages were calculated by adding base salaries, bonuses, stock awards and other compensation reported on company financial statements. It did not include the value of exercised stock options.

Last year was highly profitable for most of the country's big publicly traded insurers. In the first two quarters of this year, profits for many insurers have continued to soar more than 20%.

Aetna's net income jumped more than 40% in the second quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier. Indianapolis-based WellPoint recorded a 51% increase in its profit in the first quarter compared with the same period in 2009.

At the same time, the companies have sought major premium hikes. In Rhode Island, UnitedHealth of Minnetonka, Minn., this spring sought increases of up to 15.5%. In Utah, some customers of Humana of Louisville, Ky., reported increases of 29%.

In California, WellPoint subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross planned increases as high as 39% earlier this year. (The company later scaled them back, acknowledging errors in its rate-setting).

Industry officials have said the rate hikes are necessary because of rising medical costs, but insurance companies have faced added scrutiny as executive pay grows. After UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley cashed in nearly $99 million worth of stock options last year, a group of shareholders launched a bid to expand shareholder input on executive pay.

"It creates a culture of over-compensation," said Lance E. Lindblom, president of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which led the ultimately unsuccessful effort to increase oversight at UnitedHealth. "That takes eyes off the ball of performance."

noam.levey@latimes.com

so much for your struggling 'free market' guys just trying to make ends meet...you support the feeding off the poor and the helpless. There is a glaring difference in good business and ethics, and paid lobbist and unquenchable money whoring excs.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
I can pull stories far worse stories like this all day long

and print them here. There are about 3 of you that have caused comments to dry up over the past year or two, till you just simply sit here day after day and talk to yourselves.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Cyclist and Sugar

See Cyclist, SF just ingores the high level math and keeps right on going.

Way too fast.

SF, If you think insurance companies are screwing us with all their evil profits and executives, then put your money where your mouth is, stop supporting them, pull your insurance payments. Get all your friends and family to pull theirs too, boycott them. Pull your insurance payments and self fund it. Start your own insurance company, if you can get through all the state and federal regulations. You show those guys that they can't push you around. Come on get out there!

SF, "comments dry up" when there is no basis in fact, aka truth, to support them. It's not evil corporations that are the problem it's disfunctional government that's the problem. And yes Virgina, "there is no free lunch". Thanks Milton. Have the percentage profit of insurance companies gone up dramatically over the last decade?

Read this: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insu...

And this: http://seekingalpha.com/article/155858-health-insurance-industry-s-profi...

and this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33470129/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

If you're upset about healthcare, then look no further than your government for the reasons. Insurance companies are in business to make money and the moment they don't they won't provide a service. Economics 101. A concept that we will likely see as Mr. O's healthcare bill takes full effect.

SF, you worry too much about what other people make and not enough about where the real problems are, hint, you're looking at the wrong place.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
PTC Observer

There are some on here that, despite logic, will refuse to part with their notions. There's no doubt that we all can agree that insurance companies make a profit. But for supparfoot, the talk of millions here and millions there of profit has, for some reason, caught the focus of her attention. Perhaps it would help if one had a better understood of the difference between millions, billions, and finally trillions.

sugarfoot,

I respect what you're saying and it's not my point to belittle you but again the problem is not the insurance companies and their profits. Perhaps if I explained it this way; US healthcare cost annually $2,472,000,000,000: Healthcare insurance annual profits $12,200,000,000. By the math, those profits amount to only 4.94% of the total annual spent on healthcare.

Tell you what, take insurance companies completely out of the picture. Now, how can anyone afford even a basic simple surgery that comes to $10,000? So is it insurance profits or something else?

BTW, it's because of Bacon we are all responding to a thread that's almost nine months old. Thanks Bacon for taking us back in time.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Some did try to take

Some did try to take insurance companies out of the equation and found they paid less. Unfortunaly, the insurance companies got that stopped real quick. You see your politicans and lobbyist put an end to that.

This is a gross simplification but this is what happened. Doctors and patients got together in the NW and did this. An MD agreed to see a family for 1,000 a year. If they were sick or not. At the end of the day, everyone was pleased. This idea took off and the MD and the families came out way ahead.

Third party payors (insurance companies) are the biggest expense. Doctors spend up to 70% of their total operating costs filling out paperwork to get compensated for the 30% the spend providing medical care. Whether those collections come from the government or private insurance they have to submit forms, file appeals, make phone calls and hire staff to keep hounding those agencies(insurance companies) to pay what they have promised to pay. It becomes less about what care you need and more about what they can get payed for. The solution was to take all the third parties out of the equation and get back to the straight customer, vendor relationship between doctors and patients.

When the insurance companies where out of the equation lower prices for care was what the patience were getting and doctors were saving tons of work and money, filing for compensation they might never get. It cut the process of treatment down to just what is necessary. Third party payors set needless procedures, tests, referrals, and often refuse to pay for things that will work until other options have been tried and failed. Having a group of bean counters deciding what medical practices are most cost-effective interferes with doctors treating their patients.

Don't forget, when insurance companies don't pay for services. It is they who get to keep the money. It is never refunded to the comsumer. If they consumer feel they need the services, they wind up paying out of pocket.

That isn't fair. Years ago, I can remember 60 mins did and exposay on Cigna. There were children born without an ear and couldn't hear. Any kind of reconstruction was considered 'cosmetic' by the insurance company. They showed other babies with different problems.

In my own family when I was a child. I had a brother that was born with birth defects. Our insurance covered nothing and my little brother had his 1st brain operation at 2 months old. Many more to follow.

It almost ruined us. We did without many things to take care of my little brother. And the insurance companies? Not a penny in premiums back. Since that time, they have only gotten richer and more indignat to the sick and poor.

I'm not a leftist, I'm for honest, good people getting what they are entitled to.

Insurance excs? Why do they need the big VULGAR bucks? I have a theory. I'm convinced their "appendage" is lacking, or inferior and they feel money will make it more presentable! Otherwise, why would you take from the helpless and sick? They must surely feel their need greater.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Key statement
suggarfoot wrote:

I'm not a leftist, I'm for honest, good people getting what they are entitled to.

What are people in your opinion "entitled" to?

btw-The problem with Analogous stories are in the details. SF your truly heartfelt story is shared by many, however, that being said the details matter. Many of the stories that 60 minutes aired were found to be well not false Per se but where short on details.

Many had opted out of coverage and took the less expensive route and when the uncovered events occurred cried foul at the Insurance Companies. They failed to fully cover themselves. Much like taking only liability insurance on your car then blaming State Farm for not fixing that car after an accident.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Making stuff up again, oberserveroFU?
Observerofu wrote:

btw-The problem with Analogous stories are in the details. SF your truly heartfelt story is shared by many, however, that being said the details matter. Many of the stories that 60 minutes aired were found to be well not false Per se but where short on details.

Many had opted out of coverage and took the less expensive route and when the uncovered events occurred cried foul at the Insurance Companies. They failed to fully cover themselves. Much like taking only liability insurance on your car then blaming State Farm for not fixing that car after an accident.

I invite you to back up your rhetoric with verifiable factual sources.

Since you have a documented history of fabrication and falsifying facts, we'll presume you are once again lying through your teeth until you can show us otherwise.

If you cannot document your claims, why not give us all an early Christmas present and admit you lied.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bacon be that as it may

your relevance is non-existent.

You can keep on saying it but few believe it. I have asked you before to show those "lies" but yet you have failed to do so.

You are simply a contrairian. You contribute nothing to the conversation. You cannot argue cogently. You fail to even argue the point being made. You simply take some innocuous point and argue that to death.

Bacon I am sure you are intelligent, however you fail to show it here most of the time. Your insults and continued baseless attacks are funny to say the least.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Thank you Chris

You confirmed what I thought. I should have never responded to them when they made such a comment. I feel like I crawled into the sewer with them.

Merry Christmas Chris!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
May I ask a question?

Do people actually still watch 60 minutes?

What could anyone possibly learn from watching this type of "journalism"?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Of course people watch 60 Minutes, PTC Observer

I do. And I watch Ricky and Lucy and Bob Newhart and M.A.S.H. and I learn nothing, but am reminded how wonderful and easy it used to be living in this country without all the PC crap and the stupid debates about abortion and gay rights.

I know I sound defensive but I have an excuse. I just read a fairly new book that I got for an early Christmas present called The Race by one of the Pattersons and I just don't understand why we think politicians have to solve social problems. The founders certainly did not think that was an area they needed to be in - nor do I.

Read the book and then (and only then) give me a good reason the Repubs don't dump the extreme right wing and get on with getting the country back from the socialists.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Brought to you be the network that aired the fake Bush documents

60 Minutes knew the documents were forged their own experts told them they where. But did facts get in the way of a good old fashioned Bush bashing? Uh, NO.

Just how wrong 60 Minutes can be:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
RWM - Don't

misunderstand me, I haven't watched 60 minutes since the 1970's. It was just a question, I guess some people are entertained by it. I agree with you, I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

I'll try to get to the book, but I have another question. When the Republicans get the country back from the socialists, who will get the country back from the Republicans? You see, I don't think there is much difference between professional politicans, they all talk a good game but no one wants to give up power. No one it seems wants to reduce the size and scope of governmment, everyone wants to "solve problems" build their power base and get re-elected.

Sounds hard I know, but the reality is what it is. While Rome burns, our representatives in Congress continue to throw gasoline on the fire.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
That is exactly the right question, PTC Observer

Republicans don't deserve all the power any more than the Dems do. The extreme religious right who wants government to control morality is just as silly as the extreme left who want to create a European welfare state. The big tent Dems can't afford to dump any of their widely divergent groups, but the Republicans can. Dump the bible-thumping moralists, forget about how offensive a few think gay marraige and abortion is because after all, those are things that should be decided by churches or possibly states. Then the Republicans can be a relatively pure conservative party without the millstone of social conservatism around their neck. Without that impediment, Democrats and independents who are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal or agnostic can feel at home in the Republican party. By the same token, the Dems will have to move toward the center and dump the radical left wing to remain relevant. Then and only then can both parties govern effectively like they did back in the good old days.

That process will cleanse the sewer of the vermin on both sides and we can dust off another good book by Alan Drury - "Advise and Consent" and read that as something relevant to our government. Reading that book today with our current leadership in Washington makes it seem as science fiction.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
RWM - Yes, Yes, Yes

indeed, couldn't agree with this more than if I wrote it myself. Your observation on "Adise and Consent" is dead on.

Now, it is the "how to" that we need to figure out. The tea party is being taken over by the likes of S. Palin. She certainly doesn't represent my way of thinking, and I could stand to listen to her from more that about two or three minutes. Kind of like Mr. O.

Sign me up pal.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Agree Sarah is not the answer, but the Tea Party may be

So far the Tea Parties have mostly avoided the social issues and are focused on government spending. If they were more organized and had a funding mechanism - that would be the Republican Party I envision. Sarah is certainly serving her purpose in getting many women and others fired up. And the Dems can't stand her - a big plus. But she's not electable as President. America is done experimenting with minorities for President for a while.

I think the "how to" is for the Republicans to govern responsibly, gut and defund Obamacare the best they can and to avoid the silly confrontations that come when government tries to solve social problems. Focus on security and fiscal responsibility. Let me decide for myself whether or not I want an abortion or a same sex life partner. For the record, I want neither, but if I did, I don't need others telling me no I can't.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
RWM - So

I guess we just have to see if the current Republicans are willing to break with business as usual. If they don't care about the risk of not getting re-elected or get the idea that they can get re-elected by reducing the size and scope of the government, it could work.

Time will tell I guess, but we will have to watch these guys like a hawk or they will simply revert to their same spending habits.

I sent a note to Senator Chambliss this week about the earmark moratorium bill that died in committee. I told him that I wanted him to support the bill if it came to the floor. His message back was "I reserve the right to vote for special funding for Georgia." So, I wrote him back and told him the following: "If he voted for one more earmark for Georgia, and someone runs against him in the next election that promises not to support earmarks, I will vote for his opponent." I told him I would be watching how he votes to reduce the size and scope of government. He didn't respond to this last message. I sent the same message to Johnny, but he didn't bother to answer, he was just elected as you know, so he's safe for another 6 years.

We need to get rid of these people if they can't control themselves.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
The old school pols won't get it done

The changes I (and many others) envision won't be solved by anyone with grey hair and sights set on a federal pension. Instead the freshman class of the 2011 House and hopefully many more freshman (House and Senate) in 2013 will be the ones to change the tide. The President is totally irrelevant to all this, although Prezbo has been a very helpful ally to true conservatives but demonstrating how silly the idealogues appear to the average citizen.

Another 100 or so Tea Party type freshman in the House and 10 new Senators like Rubio and we are good to go. Might even get the Fair Tax and open and honest debate. I would give anything to see the 2012 campaigns based upon the Fair tax and border protection only and a complete ban on debates about gay unions, unions in general or abortion.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
let me go r.e.a.l...s.l.o.w..for you

"SF your truly heartfelt story is shared by many, however, that being said the details matter. Many of the stories that 60 minutes aired were found to be well not false Per se but where short on details.

Many had opted out of coverage and took the less expensive route and when the uncovered events occurred cried foul at the Insurance Companies. They failed to fully cover themselves. Much like taking only liability insurance on your car then blaming State Farm for not fixing that car after an accident."

That is PURE HORSE SHYTE! The reason each and every one was on there was they were denied insurance COVERAGE THEIR PARENTS HAD PAID FOR!!!

It is illogical to even go there that they were denied because they didn't have coverage! They were denied ..BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS HAD INSURANCE..dah..and 2nd because the insurance companies called it cosmetic. I will never forget watching that if I live to be a thousand.

Next, something I was TRYING to make you understand is my family dealt with it 1st hand. Insurance companies called what my little brother had a..pre existing.. condition. It has NOTHING todo with having full or partial coverage. Pre existing, as well as cosmetic, is a loophole that insurance companies use with children born with birth defects. The parents are left totaly on their own.

I'm not talking to you anymore, you make me sick with your stupidity.

You guys can sit on this board all you want with your twisted stories but until there are enough lobbisty to completly void the common person's vote, people will still have a right to vote their opion at the polls.

What has happened is in the past years, all the laws that were there to protect the average citizen have been either taken off the books or watered down by lobbyist, greedy excs, and corrupt politicians.

You are almost where you were pre depression era as for as rights.

Let me refresh your memory. People at that time who worked for corporations like the coal minds and steel mills had to strike to get wages. Their children were going hungry. Meanwhile, people who owned those companies were building things like Biltmore estate. If you have ever done a tour of Biltmore,among other things, they show you a little sand trough, and tell you the story of dinner guest. It seems that everyone was given a little spade to dig in the sand in front of their plate and get their gem, ruby, diamond, emerald, whatever out of the sand. It was their treat for coming to dinner.

Meanwhile, to get to the dinner party, they drove past tar paper shacks where children were hungry.

It seems that the banks were playing the stock market also at that time. Does that sound familiar? They lost a lot of depositors's money and Roosevelt passed a law they couldn't play it in anymore. It was called the Glass-Steagall act. That law stayed in effect til it was repealed in 1999. If I remember, we just had to bail the banks out didn't we?

I've never been in a Union, but I certainly understand how they came about.

I don't know if you have read any of the studies, or the flimsy rebuttal written when it was uncovered. but current business climate and what is now head of some of these corps has pulled the sociopaths out of the woodwork. They are a very sought after group now by the same, to run corporations. I'll save you a lot of reading, the end of the story, and justification goes like this. Birds of a feather, of course. But the real deal is the justification. That is that to make money making decisions, they are the only ones who will make decisions without the human element involved. I'm sure that doesn't bother you, but it makes my skin crawl.

I don't think I'm talking to any captains of industry here. And as far as envy, I do think I am possibly talking to some not so smart sociopaths that didn't make the cut.

As for me, I wouldn't sell my soul. At the end of the day, I do have one and when I look back on my life, I like to think of the things that I've done to help people. That for me, makes it worth while.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Wow - SF

That was really something, I don't know where to begin, very emotional.

Going back to those questions I asked in an earlier post, you can just ignore them.

Thanks

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
what they pay for

an excs SHOULD be entitled to pay for the work they do...

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
OK then if people are entitled to only what they pay for

then that being said your logic escapes me. If people did not pay for Insurance then Insurance companies would not make the profit you rail against.

Do you expect Insurance to be free?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
It's wealth envy pure and simple cyclist

SF laid out a convincing argument for it. They forget that the pay structure is set by a board that answers to the shareholders. A CEO salary is one form of payment and it is usually commiserate with pay schedules across the board.

Now comes the bonuses. Here is where SF and other wealth envites have cognitive disconnect.

The bonuses are based on performance. They get a percentage of the stock offering as a package deal and if they get and maintain profitability they get paid in bonuses. These usually do result in Millions in compensation.

The company, employees, shareholders and the thousands of insured all profit from their work.

People like SF think the rich are simply paid too much, however I find it funny that these same people NEVER rail against Hollywood actors and Professional athletes that make Millions for relatively few months worth of work and produces a far less important product then any in business.

Want to compare Michael Jordon's wealth to any in business SF?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
you are so unbelievably stupid!

"SF laid out a convincing argument for it. They forget that the pay structure is set by a board that answers to the shareholders. A CEO salary is one form of payment and it is usually commiserate with pay schedules across the board."

I will use Delta as an example. Years ago when they hired their 'dream team' that put the final nails in the coffin for Delta at that time. MANY shareholders (if you read the paper at the time) got up at the shareholders meeting and complained bitterly!!!!!! It seems that a lot on the 'board' had Delta members on their 'board', you know one hand washes the other? or tokens, etc. The shareholders and the employees were the big loosers. The dream team walked away with millions! Where did a failing company get millions to pay off the 'dream team'? If I remember correctly, the lions share came from the 'widows and oprhans' pension fund. They left enough in it to function for about 2 years. (That was front page news too) So bright child, the board hardly answered to the shareholders!

"Now comes the bonuses. Here is where SF and other wealth envites have cognitive disconnect.

The bonuses are based on performance. They get a percentage of the stock offering as a package deal and if they get and maintain profitability they get paid in bonuses. These usually do result in Millions in compensation. "

Again you are wrong. That is part of the problem. Every little group of managers wants his 'bonus'. The reason this DOESN'T work is that the manger sweeps all the problems and complaints under the rug...

I've seen it a million times. Then the whole company winds up disfuctional because no one will admit there is a problem, much less FIX it!

A counter argument might be made...if you have no problems... you don't need managers.

"The company, employees, shareholders and the thousands of insured all profit from their work."

Not in what I just described!

"People like SF think the rich are simply paid too much" Well, still using Delta as an example, I can remember a very bad CEO that got the job by being married to the right daughter!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
SF - Stupid?

Come on you can do better than that.

No one on this board that supports capitalism as the solution to our standard of living issues has ever said that it's perfect. As long as we have imperfect people, we will have imperfect capitalism. There are scoundrels in business and government. The difference is that we throw lots of and lots of corrupt business people in jail, but it is an exception when you see a government official going to jail. In fact, government is a master at deflection, when they screw something up, they are very agile and we end up going after their business cronies but not them.

The question is this SF, you seem to give much more credit to those that run government as a having some higher moral authority, why do you believe this?

Secondly, do you believe that government “creates” jobs?

Let me define jobs, jobs are work that is performed to create value for consumers by addressing consumer needs and by providing a product or service to address these needs an exchange occurs that creates satisfaction by both a buyer and a seller. Hope that’s not too long for you, but I want to define Jobs correctly.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Not Just a Job, Its Not a Job at All

From PTCO,

"Secondly, do you believe that government “creates” jobs?

Let me define jobs, jobs are work that is performed to create value for consumers by addressing consumer needs and by providing a product or service to address these needs an exchange occurs that creates satisfaction by both a buyer and a seller. Hope that’s not too long for you, but I want to define Jobs correctly."

Surely you are not saying that our service men and service women are not working in government created jobs? Please lay out your logic on this one.

Remember the old Army advertisement, Not Just a Job, It's an Adventure. I guess your slogan is, Not Just a Job, It's not a Job at All!

I guess all those police officers, firemen, DEA agents, and air marshalls, don't have real jobs either, since their positions were created by the government.

I'd like to hear you give that speech at the next VFW meeting.

lookout2011
lookout2011's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2010
Ninja, I am confused!

I heard numerous conservatives say recently that if the government gave corporations and very rich people tax breaks that would create millions of jobs!
Put us furhter in debt, but create millions of jobs!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lookout - that's

the problem with conservatives, they're confusing.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - Jobs

Nice try on this, emotional tripe and splitting hairs.

The function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. To the extent that service jobs are needed to do this, then government can and should provide jobs. The context of this post was the creation of jobs and providing wealth, you can't do this through government created jobs.

Of course our service members provide a service to our country, it’s part of the Constitution that they swear allegiance to, you know the part about "preserve, protect, and defend"?

They perform a service in this regard, however I don’t believe that these should be sustainable jobs, do you? Of course we could always go out and start a really big war and draft people. Is this a government idea for creating “jobs”?

As to the other professions you mention, those jobs could be handled by private enterprise more effectively and at lower cost than government managed jobs. These services have been co-opted by government for the “general welfare”. With the possible exception of the police which is an extension of the legislature and judiciary every one of these jobs could be handled by private enterprise. Who knows if we took this approach we actually may build some degree of personal responsibility for people who don’t seem to have any.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Function of Gov't is to Run the Post Office

Doesn't the Constitution say something about the function of government being to run the post office? I guess all those postal workers don't have real jobs either, despite that Constitutional mandate.

Did you serve in the US warfare job corp (army), or was that ObserverofU? I get you guys confused. If you advocate turning the post office over to private enterprise, doesn't that go against your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? Hmm.....

Also, are you saying all those FBI, CIA, and DEA agents are overpaid and inefficient and that we should just outsource that work to Blackwater?

I would think Athomegym might have some different views on that.

Recent Comments