Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 Next »
From	Message
softaire 15-Nov-12, 07:47	SURPRISE! JOBLESS CLAIMS UP 78,000 WEEK AFTER ELECTION These are a few of the headlines and stories in the news just today. They show that companies are laying off people in droves because of the cost of Obamacare and other economic concerns. I have been saying this will happen. You have been denying it, but here it is. This is just the start. Read this and weep... I am. ********************************************************************** The Department of Labor has announced that new jobless claims rose by a staggering 78,000 in the first week after the election, reaching a seasonally-adjusted total of 439,000. Over the past year, and in the weeks leading up to the election, jobless claims were said to be declining, dipping as low as 339,000, with the media proclaiming that they had reached the "lowest level in more than four years." Now, suddenly, the news seems far less rosy. From the Department of Labor press release this morning: In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 361,000. The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week's revised average of 372,000. Some of the new claims, especially in New Jersey, were due to Hurricane Sandy--but these were offset by a decline in claims filed in New York. The highest numbers of new filings came from Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there were thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries. Both states had been targeted by the presidential campaigns. President Obama highlighted his record of job creation in Ohio in particular, focusing on the automobile industry. The state reported 6,450 new jobless claims in the week after the election--second-highest after Pennsylvania, which recorded 7,766 new claims. *********************************************************** Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation *************************************************************** After President Barack Obama won re-election, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter did something the left hates. He told the truth. In this case, it was the truth about the impact of ObamaCare. Schnatter said part time employees working in Papa John's franchises across America would probably see their hours cut to keep them under the 30 hour ObamaCare threshold. ****************************************************************** Top 5 Obama Donor Cuts 1,000 Jobs over ObamaCare on Stryker is heir to the Stryker Corporation, one of the largest medical device and equipment manufacturers in the world. Stryker’s grandfather was the surgeon who invented the mobile hospital bed. The company now sells $8.3 billion worth of hospital beds, artificial joints, medical cameras, and medical software every year. Stryker, a member of the Forbes 400 list, was one of the top five donors to the Obama campaign. Having donated $2 million to the Priorities USA Action super PAC, Stryker also gave $66,000 in contributions to Obama and the Democrat Party. Stryker Corporation has announced that it will close its facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs next month. It will also counter the medical device tax in Obamacare by eliminating 5% of their global workforce, an estimated 1,170 positions. Last June, while the nation awaited the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, Stryker Corp. announced that it was tying plans to slash 5% of its global workforce to the tax if the law was upheld. The company would do this as part of an effort to realize $100 million in annual productivity gains to offset the blow when the excise tax went into effect in 2013.
chaz5 15-Nov-12, 08:16	... and this was predicted to occur too. Do you have a salient point? ... or are you just ranting again?
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 08:36	Get a clue softaire. There is a world wide recession. Under your economic plan it would have been a great depression. Healthcare coverage has been shrinking for a long time. Tell us something actually significant.
softaire 15-Nov-12, 10:41	"Do you have a salient point?" The salient point is that everybody opposed to Obamacare was opposed because it would cost jobs and raise the cost of things. We have been saying that for some time now. And here it is. Am I correct that both you and dm are saying that you expected this? Are you saying this this is "no big deal"? Are you saying that BO and the Dems lied when they said this would create jobs and bend the cost curve downward? Is that what you are saying now?
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 11:11	You never inderstood the cost curve. Costs were not going to go down and enployers were going to continue to lower coverage. it is a about the costs of providing care for all. Sorry you misunderstood. I have never said costs would go down. The purpose is to cover those who were being denied coverage. If everyone is covered, you have the largest risk pool and you don't have to pay for the underinsured anyway in your bills. The biggest cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.
chaz5 15-Nov-12, 11:20	Softy ... ... sorry you disagree with the solution that most people seem to want. ... sorry you cannot fathom how the risk pool must be large. ... sorry you cannot grasp how the number of insureds has been shrinking. ... sorry you cannot see how the cost of medical care is out of control and rising. ... sorry you choose a free market solution that excludes so many people.
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 11:44	The Conservatives have offered no solution for providing affordable health care to the masses. They can only complain they have to pay for it. Well yes. A civilized society considers health care a right. Not a privilege limited to those who can afford it.
softaire 15-Nov-12, 12:25	Conservatives have been offering a range of solutions for four years now. The range of ideas has been quite large about what could/should be done. There is not ONE solution but a series of many different things that can/should be done. You simply fail to acknowledge them. Chaz... you still fail to even recognize a direct question when you see it. I asked you 3 of them. Maybe you are being rude and not answering them on purpose or maybe you're just trying to throw darts at me. In any event, once again I see you as getting rude and angry in your answer to me. Telling me I am dumb is not the way to have a discussion. You both are now trying to pass off the economic consequences of Obamacare as "expected" and no big deal. It was expected alright, just not by you. We have been saying that Obamacare would have a devastating impact on the loss of jobs, the loss of hours, and increased costs manifested in all sorts of different ways. Now, because of the election, it is clear that this will indeed be true. See the results.
chaz5 15-Nov-12, 14:23	Softy ... ... it seems an honest discussion isn't something you're seeking. It's just easier to call me rude ... that's so endearing. You seem so bitter, Softy. Have it your way. Maybe you could try smiling, sitting down and sipping some coffee and being less combative. If you think my comments are rude, please examine your own comments that produce them. Do you really want honest dialogue? Otherwise, we just keep fencing like this over and over. If you do want to discuss something, pick one point and state your view (not your long list of rants) ... just one point ... and I will give you my singular and short opinion either in agreement or in opposition to yours.
astinkyfart 15-Nov-12, 14:41	Are you just ranting again? Very center of you Chaz, you become more rude every day. You will be a great addition to the lefties. Softy, you post how chaz directs you to post, you dont make several points at once, this will not be tolerated.
chaz5 15-Nov-12, 15:58	... what are you now talking about? Exactly what will not be tolerated?
softaire 15-Nov-12, 16:06	chaz When I make a list of items, it is to make "A" point. They are all part of collaborating evidence to the point I am trying to make. It's just like when you made you list of "sorry that..." statements. They all made the point that you are being rude and were not interested in discussion of the argument. I didn't see any argument in there. But, I did see your point. For you, I will keep it simple and oonly make one statement at a time, looking for your honest view about it. Like: Do you agree that Obamacare is causing a lot of layoffs, loss of jobs, and turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs?
chaz5 15-Nov-12, 16:20	Softy ... ... at the front end as we transition into universal health care, companies who wish to increase their profitability and in an 'easy' labor market can reduce internal labor costs, and will reduce benefits. We all know this has been going on for years. As part of this process, more and more jobs can be filled with part time labor (WalMart has been an example in the media). Plus, in a market of uncertainly like we now have, corporations are taking fewer risks ... and as I know you know, their cash assets are huge. If they were interested to expand, they have the cash to do so. It isn't that universal health care is causing the layoffs (that's only what some say ... certainly not all), it's that we're in the transition period. Ultimately, the cost of health care for the average person could become more manageable since the risk pool will be greater with a lot more contributions to the pool. Furthermore, many more folks will have access to less expensive health care thus avoiding expensive health care that manifests itself from health neglect. So, no, I do not agree that universal health care causes layoffs or loss of jobs that wouldn't occur anyway.
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 16:22	Stinky, and you sir are showing your right wing biases again. Chaz makes sense, something in short supply on the right. The endless posting of right wing talking points and strawman arguments is not presenting fact. There was NO practical conservative plan presented that would ensure coverage for the uninsured, only complaints about socialism and costs. Obamacare was based on Romneycare and conservative mandate ideas. The right rants on spewing nonsense out of sheer hatred for Obama. Those of us who actually know fact realize that the existing employer funded health insurance system was unsustainable and employers were going to bail. To blame Obama is simply ranting. And the rants ARE tiring if you understand the issue. It's easy to rant when you have no solution.
astinkyfart 15-Nov-12, 16:45	DM I never claimed to be center, I am an honest person.
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 16:50	Well Chaz is centrist. As proven by the election results and polls.
astinkyfart 15-Nov-12, 17:16	DM There were polls about chaz's political stance? That seems like a lot of money spent on one voter.
changeling 15-Nov-12, 17:36	"...Denny's to charge 5% 'Obamacare surcharge' and cut employee hours to deal with cost of legislation..." The same company that is attempting inroads into India where the estimated market for them is worth something like $3.3 billion? (Not forgetting all that cheap labour! "...In this case, it was the truth about the impact of ObamaCare. Schnatter said part time employees working in Papa John's franchises across America would probably see their hours cut to keep them under the 30 hour ObamaCare threshold..." Looking after his employees well there. Of course he has to maintain his 12 car garage at his mansion, poor fellow. "...Last June, while the nation awaited the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, Stryker Corp. announced that it was tying plans to slash 5% of its global workforce to the tax if the law was upheld. The company would do this as part of an effort to realize $100 million in annual productivity gains to offset the blow when the excise tax went into effect in 2013..." Gee, the owners really need the extra money.
softaire 15-Nov-12, 18:34	Change... Your lack of business experience, knowledge, and understanding is as stunningly enormous as that of DM. His only experience seems to be book reading and the far left liberal websites. Is that yours' too? You seem to continue to attribute the greed motive to everything any business man does without seemingly any comprehension about what goes on to make a business successful and a "going enterprise". Why don't you watch the Milton Friedman video in the other thread. Chaz... you did read the post about what those three different companies said about jobs, hours, costs and Obamacare, right? I am assuming you did. And, you still stand behind what you just posted?
chaz5 15-Nov-12, 18:41	Softy ... ... we will have to agree that we disagree on some of these conclusions.
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 18:57	Yes a successful, growing capitalist business has to cut workers so they don't have to pay for their healthcare. No choice. And it is all obama's fault. Yes capitalism leads to prosperity...for the capitalists, not the workers. Welcome to the guilded age of plutocracy and rush to the bottom. Good thing you guys lost the election. May you never win another.
changeling 15-Nov-12, 18:58	softy Don't be so condescending, you have no idea what my background or level of understanding is. The three companies you listed in your post are making a fortune (literally) annually. Taking the measures you have posted will make their fortunes even larger. Do you think these companies will re invest into more jobs? Perhaps for jobs that are part-time (under 30 hrs per week). I guess Denny's will anyway, in India! I wonder how much they will pay their staff there?
dmaestro 15-Nov-12, 19:26	Chaz is correct.
softaire 15-Nov-12, 21:39	change Sorry. I don't always mean to be condescending. Same for Chaz. And, even same for DM. I just lose my patience when people continually say things so disparaging of businessmen, conservatives etc. Things that are patently untrue. I understand that you aren't "bad" people, but you are terribly naive and ignorant in these things (business, management, operations, economics, psychology). If you are experienced in any of those areas, you just don't show it. To you three musketeers, businessmen are out to screw the worker and the public in order to get rich. Conservatives want to throw grandma over the cliff, children to starve, and we want dirty air and polluted water. The frustrating part is that you have NO bend, NO accommodation, NO meeting halfway to allow that you might even be somewhat misinformed in your ideas (exactly counter to what Chaz is always saying he wants to do)... nope it is always the capitalist that is completely greedy and only thinking about his profits. The intransigence is illustrated nicely in your last post change. And, chaz, after I post information from what major companies has said (not me, but a major BO donor) about what Obamacare is causing them to do (not what Bush caused them to do... what Obamacare is causing them to do), you still want to say it is not Obamacare.
softaire 16-Nov-12, 06:55	Unions Force Hostess to Go Out of Business Here is another "expected" result from government and union control. This is simply a result of the unions being "greedy" and not allowing a company to make enough profit to stay in business. It's unfortunate that a bad business climate can cause a loss of profits so that everyone must share in the pain, but that's what happens in a down economy, just like in an up economy profits and salaries rise. The sad thing here is that the unions decided not to share in the pain... so now there will be 18,500 lost jobs. ********************************************************************** Hostess Brands — the maker of such iconic baked goods as Twinkies, Devil Dogs and Wonder Bread — announced Friday that it is asking a federal bankruptcy court for permission to close its operations, blaming a strike by bakers protesting a new contract imposed on them. The closing will result in Hostess’ nearly 18,500 workers losing their jobs as the company shuts 33 bakeries and 565 distribution centers nationwide. The bakers’ union represents around 5,000. Hostess will move to sell its assets to the highest bidder. That could mean new life for some of its most popular products, which could be scooped up at auction and attached to products from other companies. “We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” said CEO Gregory Rayburn in a statement. visiontoamerica.com
chaz5 16-Nov-12, 07:38	... of course, we know you're anti-union. In your business models, who takes care of the worker? And, who elects the corporate management teams and boards of directors to their positions of authority? It ain't no democracy.
softaire 16-Nov-12, 08:44	chaz So, rather than address the statement that unions drove another company out of business and cost the country 18,500 jobs, you would rather attack me (for bringing it up?) and ask a completely unrelated question about management. I don't understand your question. What do you really mean and how does it apply? (sorry... not being contentious here)
chaz5 16-Nov-12, 10:00	Softy ... ... the company chose to go that route; unions did not drive them out of business. If the business was that fragile, perhaps it was time ... after all Twinkies have been under fire for quite a while. Because unions try to negotiate, even strike, does not mean what happens is inappropriate ... unless you're an anti-union person, of course; then, you can see only one side of the issue. Do you know any of the negotiation details?
dmaestro 16-Nov-12, 10:27	Of course management is going to blame the unions rather than accept any shared responsibility. The problem is that more extreme anti union folks can only see one side. That leads to gullibility and premature conclusions. I doubt unions were the root cause.
softaire 16-Nov-12, 13:14	Frick & Frack I guess you guys have collaborated on your talking points, so this is probably wasted thought. Even if management screw-ups or outside, external forces, or if unions created the economic climate where the company could not earn enough revenue to pay the bills, that does not matter. It matters as to who was at fault and why, but matters not as to what the company (meaning the entire company and all concerned) must do in order to keep it in business. Stock holders will not get their dividends. Management (better not) will not get their bonuses. ALL Employees will take a cut in salary, wages, and/or benefits. Declaring bankruptcy will mean creditors and vendors will not get paid. But, if everybody shares in the pain, then the company can continue and hopefully work it's way out of this bad situation. But, if any one group who has the power says "NO, I won't share any pain", then the company liquidates and 18,500 people ALL feel the pain plus everyone else. See... THAT (to me) seems greedy and selfish. For me personally, I'd rather be working with some income and then be looking for another job than not working and no income at all. How about you? Would you rather work and get income while looking for another job or be out of work without any income what-so-ever?
Pages:  1 2 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.