Suit against AZ, Amazing!!

[68Charger]

I was taught at a high-school level that if you want to encourage a behavior, then relax the tax on it- you want to curtail it, then increase the taxes on it..

yes, corporations decided to do this on their own, under the environment created by the government... this isn't entirely the fault of the current administration, but the government encouraged the behavior..

corporations don't make decisions in a vacuum.. like the corporations that have already decided that paying the fines is cheaper than continuing to pay for health care for employees.. why should, they, since employees will get public health care?

[theGinsue]

Its almost as if some polititians (in both parties) are actively trying to destroy our country, with the massive overspending, uncontrolled illegal immigration, exportation of our manufacturing base, etc...I'm not a conspiracy nut but sometimes I wonder. Politians can't be that stupid to do all this shit without realizing the consequences.

There is something MUCH bigger going on and these dumb-assed puppets are playing the roles laid out for them. Not only will our problems not get any better, they will get progressively worse. Expect to see that happen at an exponentially faster rate. (Okay, you can remove your tin-foil hat now, but I'll just leave mine on for a bit longer.)

Or are you just suggesting that certain laws have created a toxic environment state side?

Yes, and when you tax your own producers and businesses at a ridiculously high rate (amongst the highest of any nation), those same businesses will find cheaper places to manufacture their products. Couple that with the fact that our import tarriffs for every other nation are especially low to enourage "free trade" (via the "Most Favored Nation" trading status). All you have to do to get this prestigious status is commit numerous atrocities and have the worst record on human rights. Then, start "trading" toxic products (lead is a favorite additive).

I was taught at a high-school level that if you want to encourage a behavior, then relax the tax on it- you want to curtail it, then increase the taxes on it..

yes, corporations decided to do this on their own, under the environment created by the government... this isn't entirely the fault of the current administration, but the government encouraged the behavior..

corporations don't make decisions in a vacuum.. like the corporations that have already decided that paying the fines is cheaper than continuing to pay for health care for employees.. why should, they, since employees will get public health care?

Of course, those of us using the military TriCare health system won't get any of the advantages of the new health reform. Our children won't get to enjoy the benefits to age 26 [regardless of marriage, "student" status, etc] like those covered by commercial health insurance. Their coverage will expire at the absolutely latest at 23 years old.

The governments reasoning is that TriCare benefits (even for retirees and their families) are officially considered an "entitlement", not an insurance program. Funny, those of us who were surprised to have to pay to continue our coverage after our retirement were told that it ISN'T an entitlement.

Interesting how the story changes when it's "for the convenience of the government".

[Irving]

Polititians push the free-trade BS on us which allows corporations to move manufacturing to third world countries where they can hire people for ten cents a week. Tarrifs and import controls apparantly are evil and the transition to a minimum-wage service economy is apparantly great for all of us. I'm not so sure.

yes, corporations decided to do this on their own, under the environment created by the government... this isn't entirely the fault of the current administration, but the government encouraged the behavior..

corporations don't make decisions in a vacuum.. like the corporations that have already decided that paying the fines is cheaper than continuing to pay for health care for employees.. why should, they, since employees will get public health care?

Yes, and when you tax your own producers and businesses at a ridiculously high rate (amongst the highest of any nation), those same businesses will find cheaper places to manufacture their products. Couple that with the fact that our import tarriffs for every other nation are especially low to enourage "free trade" (via the "Most Favored Nation" trading status). All you have to do to get this prestigious status is commit numerous atrocities and have the worst record on human rights. Then, start "trading" toxic products (lead is a favorite additive).

For the record I'm not trying to argue a point here, just want to measure feelings on this issue.

I completely understand and expected these answers, but how much of the blame are you willing to put onto the government? How many degrees of separation will you allow before you consider government too far removed for a place in the equation?

For example................Well, I had a few examples, but I didn't feel they were strong enough after thinking about them a little. I was shooting for an example of the government putting into place some law, standard, etc, that requires a company to spend more money to meet the "standard," that in turn encourage companies to cut corners to save money. I was going to use an automotive recall, or the British Petroleum oil spill as a case of cutting corners to save on cost, but neither of those are fitting examples.

[theGinsue]

For the record I'm not trying to argue a point here, just want to measure feelings on this issue.

I didn't take your comments as argumentative.

I do believe that corporate greed bears some of the responsibility, but I think the rules and activities of the federal government are responsible to a greater degree.

Now, something along the lines of what you were hinting at might be OSHA workcenter safety requirements. These often cost companies a considerable amount of money for establishing, documenting, training, and equiping. Most foreign nations aren't encumbered by these restrictions. Of course, I think they are "necessary evils", but I think they fall in line with the type of thing you were looking for Stu.

[Pistol Packing Preacher]

Mexico's immigration law states:
1) Immigrants can't be an economic burden.
2) Immigrants must be healthy.
3) Immigrants must have no criminal record.
4) Immigrants must show a birth certificate.
5) Immigrants must provide their own health care.
6) Government can ban foreigners due to race.
7) Illegal entry is a felony (resulting in jail time).
8) Illegal immigrants can receive no government assistance of any kind.
9) Illegal immigrants' children may not attend public schools.
10) Document fraud is subject to fine/jail.
11) Incarceration and deportation of illegals occurs without due process or a trial.
12) A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the goal of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
13) Federal, local and municipal police must enforce immigration laws, including checking "papers" of suspected illegals.

The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are "required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

[ToliXD]

Mexico's immigration law states:
1) Immigrants can't be an economic burden.
2) Immigrants must be healthy.
3) Immigrants must have no criminal record.
4) Immigrants must show a birth certificate.
5) Immigrants must provide their own health care.
6) Government can ban foreigners due to race.
7) Illegal entry is a felony (resulting in jail time).
8) Illegal immigrants can receive no government assistance of any kind.
9) Illegal immigrants' children may not attend public schools.
10) Document fraud is subject to fine/jail.
11) Incarceration and deportation of illegals occurs without due process or a trial.
12) A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the goal of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
13) Federal, local and municipal police must enforce immigration laws, including checking "papers" of suspected illegals.

The Mexican law also states that law enforcement officials are "required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

Well, ain't that some shit.

[Byte Stryke]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."


Draw your own conclusions.
just saying'

[68Charger]

I completely understand and expected these answers, but how much of the blame are you willing to put onto the government? How many degrees of separation will you allow before you consider government too far removed for a place in the equation?

As someone who works for a global corporation, I have no delusions that they have my best interests in mind- upper management makes decisions based on how they will affect the companies stock price...

I wouldn't call it blame- corporations are what they are... to the point where they stay within the law... BP, for example, does what they can to avoid spending money, even if they have to break safety regulations...

the short answer- when they don't regulate an activity or tax it- then the government is not involved.

[Anton]

For the record I'm not trying to argue a point here, just want to measure feelings on this issue.

I completely understand and expected these answers, but how much of the blame are you willing to put onto the government? How many degrees of separation will you allow before you consider government too far removed for a place in the equation?

For example................Well, I had a few examples, but I didn't feel they were strong enough after thinking about them a little. I was shooting for an example of the government putting into place some law, standard, etc, that requires a company to spend more money to meet the "standard," that in turn encourage companies to cut corners to save money. I was going to use an automotive recall, or the British Petroleum oil spill as a case of cutting corners to save on cost, but neither of those are fitting examples.

I don't put much blame on corporations because, as I understand it, their number one goal is profit, while our government's should be the American people and the future of our nation. Corporations, to me, are like a lion. You can't blame them for doing what they do as its in their very nature. Its the government's job to shape what they do to benefit our nation (in this case, via tarrifs and other trade controls).

Obviously I'm not exactly a Libertarian (Although I believe with all my heart in personal liberty) and my political-economic ideas aren't fully shaped yet. But its pretty clear to me that Free Trade isn't beneficial in the long run to the American people.

Also, I realize you're not trying to be argumentative. I actually really appreciate the questions as it forces me to put some thought into the issue.

[Mista Bukit]

Here is a case study on how liberals operate;
They have to agree there is a problem because it is obvious
But when it comes to actions their real agenda shows, their targets are their “own” countrymen trying to do something positive about the problem and their tool of choice is LEAGLEMAN. Obama promised 1200 National Guard troops to the border but only in an administrative or support capacity – which is an insult by itself, to show he is doing something.
I will bet a beer that we will see the lawsuit filed before we will see any troops arrive.

It’s the same M.O. for the “Man caused destruction” – They won’t dare insult or otherwise discomfort the maniacs around the world that are sworn to destroy us but they will demonize and bring the full weight & power of the federal government down on the Patriots in the military and the intelligence services trying to protect our country.