|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24699 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:47 AM
|
Don17000
> >
> > No, it isn't. A corporation is just an
> > artificially created entity. It doesn't have to
> do
> > any business, doesn't have to own anything, pay
> > anything, or have any money. It just has to be
> > registered in the records of the state wherein
> it's
> > incorporated. You can form a corporation and
> never do
> > a thing with it. The corporation still exists.
> >
> > A business can be a form of corporation, but
> doesn't
> > have to be.
> >
> > Are you kinding me? A corporation is a form of
> > business. It is a type of business. It is a
> form of
> > ownership of a business.
> >
> No, I'm not kidding you. A corporation is only a
> construct on paper. There are thousands of shell
> corporations created every year, corporations which
> are not businesses, and which do no business. Most
> of them are offshore, in places like Panama or the
> Caymans, or Netherlands Antilles.
>
> I know this, because my father had a Swiss and a
> Panamanian one when he was alive. He formed them to
> o eventually receive funds from a business deal he
> was working on, but the deal, which also involved a
> Brazilian company was never completed. The others in
> the deal had similar corporations in Bermuda and
> Curacao.
>
> These corporations' only purposes were to own shares
> of another corporation. Others are formed, whose
> only purpose is to be a barrier to taxation. It does
> no business, it owns nothing except shares of another
> corporation, it has no money or other assets; it has
> directors who do meet only once a year because the
> law requires it, and the directors meet, decide they
> have nothing to discuss, and adjourn.
How someone runs a corporation does not matter. It is still a form of business. In your example the purpose of the business was investments. It meet the legal requirements to serve as a corporation and the service it provides was investmenting. Stocks are invests in a business, buying those shares, means you are investing in that company. That corp. provides the service of investment.
Because someone misuses or abuses such thing, will not stop it from being a business or a form of business.
A car is a form of transportation. If you use your car to kill someone, the car is a weapon, but does not change the fact that it is a form of transportation. Because it was misused, won't change it's purpose, function, or form.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24698 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:36 AM
|
Don17000
They have similarities, granted. But also dissimilarities. A business produces goods or provides services, and it generates most of its revenue from the sale of those goods and services. Its customers do not have to do business, and if they can decline services don't want and not incur the expense, or if they didn't like the way the services were provided, they can refuse to pay, it's only a civil matter.
I can choose what state, city, or town to live in. Just as I can choose where I shop. A state is like Sam's club. I must pay a membership fee in order to shop their. In order for me to live in a state, it requires membership fees, which provides me with services. Part of the service that a state provides is the ability to do business, the most important of which is maintaining roads.
If I am not happy with a state I can leave.
A government may also provide goods and services, but that accounts for the bulk of its expenses, and actually very little if any, of its revenue. Its revenue comes from taxation. The taxation must be paid whether any services are used or not, and it doesn't matter if the customer is satisfied with the services or goods provided, the customer must still pay. Failure to do so is a punishable offense.
Yes, but I can lobby the state to change laws and improve service. I can also use the court system to bring a grievance against the state. Just this week seven people sued the Federal Gov't/Army Eng. for failure to properly maintain the levies in NO. I also can use my vote and voice to change things.
Take a mall for instance. There are certain rules that must be followed, failure to do so can result in a punishment or removal from the mall. Whether or not you buy something, those rules will still apply.
No, a state should not be run like a business, unless its purpose is the same. The purpose of a business is to generate profit. It cannot exist simply to serve the public. A business must serve itself first.
That is not true. A non profit serves the public. But, a state's number one priority is the state. The state is of course made up of those that choose to live or do business there. So, in order for a state to be productive, it must provide certain services and products upon which people deem appropriate to live and due business. Just as a business must provide a service and product that is deemed appropriate.
A state needs revenues in order to provider services, without these revenues, those services will not be available. If a business does the samething, it will fail, just as a state will.
The state serves itself first. A state must of course do what is in the best interest of the state.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,938
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24697 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:23 AM
|
"Honestly?"
Have you read his work? That's not possible.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24696 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:03 AM
|
Sunaz,
Let me guess. A conservative (which is to say GOP) politician and/or a conservative business shill. Tell me (honestly), do they at least PAY you (however little) to post here, or do you do it with the misguided belief that someday there'll actually be a pittance in it for you as well?
Business School shit goes cheap these days. I wouldn't hold out for much if I were you.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24695 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 12:58 AM
|
longball38884
> > Most businesses operate based on profits, a
> state, or
> > gov't operates by political profits.
> >
> > Just as a business may choose to use the most
> > profitable strategy, gov't chooses the best
> > political.
> >
> > So, yes a gov't/state is a business, whether we
> want
> > it to be or not.
>
> Contract law 101. Every business engages in commerce
> ie the buying and selling of goods or services.
> Every sale is by definition a contract.
>
> Contracts must by law contain certain elements - a
> meeting of the minds, offer and acceptance, mutual
> consideration, performance or delivery, good faith
> etc.Here's an elementary explanation.
>
> NONE of those elements are present when dealing with
> the government. You may not opt out. You are given
> no choice.
>
> The government is not a business.
I can move to another state with lower or no taxes. I can also move to another country. I choose to live somewhere, just as I choose to shop at a supermarket.
As I stated, it may not mean the definition requirements, but a state and a gov't act as businesses.
By becoming a citizen of a state, I agree, a contract is formed in which I accept their laws and regulations. In return for my paying taxes, the state provides different services, such as a pd, fd, builds and maintain roads. If I believe such services are not being provided correctly I can bring a grievance against the state.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24693 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 12:41 AM
|
Don17000
No, the cost of health care does not include insurance. If you're wondering why not...
When you look to see how much a car will cost you each month, you will include the cost of insurance. So, why not with health insurance?
Most people pay insurance, which opens the gate to healthcare. The cost of insurance is how most people will pay for their care. Whether or not you use your insurance will not change that you are paying for health insurance, or that you are incurring costs related to healthcare.
With car insurance, the less you use it, the better a driver you are, the less you will pay. With health insurance your use and health are meaningless. With the new healthcare bill, a person in bad health cannot be charged more for insurance, than someone who is healthy. Add in that people with preexisting conditions cannot be denied, no lifetime maxes, that will mean that the way in which people incurr the cost of healthcare, their insurance rate will rise.
To the car manufacturer the insurance is not included, but for the person purchasing the car, it does.
Whether or not I use the insurance will not change that my health care cost is what I pay for insurance.
I get what you are saying. You are keeping insurance costs, separate from what is paid out for healthcare. But, for most the cost of healthcare is the cost of insurance.
We have a healthcare system that is under employed.
> As we add more people to the field the demand for
> r their services will increase, meaning the costs
> will.
You keep saying this, but you don't back it up with anything. Health care is one of those fields where it just may not apply the way it does in buying other services. In fact, taking the lesser need for cost-shifting into account, the opposite effect is more likely.
At the current time, healthcare professionals are in demand. It is the one industry that continues to grow and is expected to keep growing. That is fact. I am sure you have seen the articles and surveys. Because their skill is in demand, high demand, they will get higher salaries and more benefits, meaning the cost to employee these people will be higher. That is just as of today. Now we add all these people that now have the ability to pay for services into the system. The demand for healthcare professionals will not decrease but increase. Their demand will be even higher than it is today. That will result in higher costs.
If you have a doctor's office, operated by just one doctor, it is conceivable to think his cost of business will not change. In the end it's marginal costs. If he has 100 patients and he adds 5, he probably will not incurr large expenses. But, if he adds 25 or 50 he may have to hire more nurese, another receptionist, billers, enlarge the waiting room, or need a larger office. That will increase his cost of business.
At some point the as always prices/costs will stabilize. But, over the next five to ten years, they will be rising.
As I understand it, at least from NY, is that the way in which premiums are determined is by county. So, one hospital may not experience a large increase, but if others in that area do, the premiums will rise.
--
Edited by sunaz at 11/20/2009 9:43 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24692 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:34 PM
|
S2G,
Dobbs, the new Limbaugh, the new Palin. LOL!
Check that! Palin's got LEGS! As in REAL (well, sort of) LEGS(!)
I like her in panty-hose(?) anyway.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24691 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:27 PM
|
s2g,
Agree totally with your characterization of congress persons.
As to whom the primary villains are; I'm torn.
Me thinks you are primarily a democtrat hater, which case you are wrong.
Get over it if that's the case; there's MUCH more productive things to do.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
5,001
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24690 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:25 PM
|
> Here's a funny!
>
> Racist nut-job and former CNN talking head, Lou
> Dobbs, has announced that he may run against
> President Obama in 2012- and wait for it.... as a
> third party candidate!!!!!!!!!!  Har har har!
> What a fucking genius!
Cyn,
At least my guess that Dobbs would run for Texas Senator made some sense.
I guess Dobbs'll be the Freddie Thompson of 2012. What big egos these guys have!
|
|
|
Posts:
5,001
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24689 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:17 PM
|
> > I did not compare them to a bakery
>
> Oh really?
>
> > So, have you ever gone to a supermarket? They have
> a bakery department and a deli department. Are they a
> business? No, they are part of the whole store, just
> part of a service they provide.
>
> > So, a state has PD and FD, they are not businesses,
> they are part of the service provided by the state to
> its citizens. Paid for, through taxes.
>
> What kind of moron lies like that when we can just
> scroll down?
JaredP,
The paid troll kind of moron.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,001
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24688 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:16 PM
|
> > Whatever the outcomes are, will not change what
> they are. If the deli provides bad service the store
> is responsible, if the police provide bad service the
> state is responsible.
>
> And if I do something, I'm responsible. Only a moron
> would conclude that because three dissimilar things
> (government, store, and me) take money, perform
> activities, and are responsible for our actions, they
> are stores.
>
> Your analogy is nonsense.
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 11/19/2009 1:44 PM PST
JaredP,
A prostitute takes money, provides services & activities I guess is responsible for her/his actions.
Oh wait, that's also the definition of a Congressman/woman.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,001
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24687 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:08 PM
|
Don17000,
Best of luck in cracking the rock.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,149
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24686 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 9:14 PM
|
Why I hate the >>quote format.
It promotes a "mindless in your face refutation" format, which further promotes a "mindless in your face refutation" mindset.
I don't like it, I've NEVER liked it, and I don't EVER ANTICIPATE LIKING IT IN THE FUTURE!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
3,050
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24685 of 25119)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 9:06 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> Except that the post office has to deliver to
> every address in the country (they can't just skip
> areas, such as rural locations they would lose money
> on serving), and they don't get to set their own
> rates. They have to ask Congress for permission if
> they think they need to charge an extra penny. You
> think FedEx and UPS have to go through that? If a
> postal employee knowingly misdirects mail, it's a
> federal crime. Can't say the same for the others.
>
> You are seeing the difference, I hope, between doing
> business, and being a business.
>
> Yes they have to deliver to every address. Put,
> since they have a monopoly on first class and third
> class mail, any piece of mail sent, has to be sent by
> them. FedEx and UPS deliver to every address. Due
> to the Post office's monopoly allows them to provide
> cheaper service for priority and express mail, since
> they go to those addresses already.
>
Big difference, though. UPS and FedEx only have to go to out of the way places when they're called. USPS goes there every day, because they may have mail to pick up, and the customers there don't have to call.
> The post office is owned by the federal gov't, and is
> basically operated by it. If I pay more for the
> service or our tax dollars go toward it, would not
> change how much it costs per person to operate.
They get no tax dollars, and the Federal government doesn't own them. They are independent, since 1971. The only real connection is that the President appoints 9 of the 11 governors, with Senate consent. Of the other two, the chairman is selected by the 9, and deputy chair is selected by the other 10.
And I was wrong about Congress setting the rates. The governors now do that.
It
> creates an artificially cheaper service. The problem
> with any gov't run business, especially when
> politicians won't give up control, is they act
> politically, not what is in the best interest of the
> business or those who it serves.
>
No, not with any government-run business. Consider another type of government-run business. Consider emergency medicine. Or mass transit. Or a county run transit terminal, whether an airport, train station, seaport or bus terminal.
> Most businesses operate based on profits, a state, or
> gov't operates by political profits.
>
> Just as a business may choose to use the most
> profitable strategy, gov't chooses the best
> political.
>
No, a lot of the time, they just don't. If they did, they would not raise taxes as often as they do. And they would have passed a health care bill a long time ago. Lobbyists would have no clout at all unless they could deliver votes.
|
|
|
|
|
