On 10/24/11 7:47 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 10/23/11 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Corporations not only "did it first," they are still doing it and to a
greater degree than all the unions have since the beginning of time.
Of course, you boys don't know what the word "thug" means. The word
derives from Hindi, and it includes "cheats" and "swindlers" in its
first definitions.

Halliburton - thugs.

---------------------------------------------------------

Gee. Just think of a world without big, bad corporations.
There would be no need for unions .....
because there would be no jobs.

No jobs .... no taxes ....
no taxes .... no entitlements ...
no Social Security ..... no Health Insurance .... no health care ....
no anything.

Big, bad corporations.

The origins of the union movement date back to the Middle Ages and the
craft guilds, which were mostly based in small towns and were unrelated
to the guilds in nearby or faraway towns. The predecessors of the guilds
go back a thousand years before that.

We let the cows out of the barn when we sort of gave up on anti-trust
regulations and allowed big corporations/banks, et cetera, to become
what many of them are today, consciousless entities that suck up and
discard all manner of resources, human and material, no matter the
social consequences.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We don't live in the Middle Ages. We don't even live in the 1950's -
1960's ages.

My only objection to your endless bashing of business is the broad brush
with which you paint.
There are 1000's of businesses , big and small, that respect and value
their employees and treat
them fairly. Many wish they could offer more.

The challenge in most today is the rising costs of doing business led by
health insurance
premiums and benefit packages that are no longer financially supported
in shrinking markets due to overseas
competition. The biggest challenge many have is the ability to *stay* in
business.

I'll get clobbered for saying this in this newsgroup, but I understand
what Mitt Romney means when he
says that a Corporation is a "person". I always subscribed to that when
I owned a serious business.
A Corporation is the personification of the whole group who benefit by
it's existence. This includes
employees, management and stockholders, private or public. As a manager
of a business it behooves
you to protect it, nurture it and grow it in a healthy way because it
benefits all involved. If the business
succeeds, so do all that are involved, including it's customer base.

Yes, there are some that are abusing management power for personal gain.
But to include all businesses
as the "enemy" that your posts tend to imply is simply not accurate.





I'll get clobbered for saying this by the few other moderate to liberals
in here, but I think Mitt Romney, based upon his term as governor of
Massachusetts, is a perfectly reasonable and rational Republican
candidate. I don't agree with a number of his positions, especially the
ones he is espousing these days, but I think many of them are aimed at
the crackpot hardcore GOP base that wants doctrinaire candidates.

I won't vote for Romney, but I don't think he is a crackpot or an
embarrassment. I actually liked his father a lot more.

As for the two other GOP probables, the moron from Texas and the pizza
king guy, I don't see either as qualified to pick up trash.

I also support your position on health care and benefits as paid by the
corporations still offering them. The cost of providing these does work
against our competitiveness in a world market fighting for the lowest
possible labor costs, everything else be damned. Unfortunately, we've
never developed an alternative in this country, other than offering no
benefits. We're not paying the average worker in this country enough to
be able to afford health insurance *and* food and shelter for his or her
family. The same is true of retirement. How is the average wage worker
supposed to accumulate enough to put together a decent retirement plan?
And depend upon Wall Street and shares in corporate America to provide
dependable growth?

There's no question we need a national program of health care and
retirement assurance for all. There's also no question that so long as
the current crop of Republicans is in office, we'll have neither.

I've stated several times here I like the Swiss system of providing
health care coverage.