@phantom: The USA IS GREAT!

Of course it is, of course it is...

[color="#000000"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/font]



I wonder how this would be written today. Replace people with corporations perhaps? Or redefine corporations as people.. that's probably enough.

Well, no.. it doesn't. If the health care was, in general, good quality then it would rank higher... the fact it ranks lower suggest that in general the quality isn't good. The fact that "high quality" exists for the minority who can afford it doesn't change the case of the majority/general case.

Well if I were to say, "Ferrari is constantly outperformed by the Toyota Prius," I'd want that clarified also. Would you say a Ferrari is lower quality than a Toyota Prius without further clarification? Would you say that Ferrari in general is lower quality than Toyota in general?

[color="#000000"][font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/font]



I wonder how this would be written today. Replace people with corporations perhaps? Or redefine corporations as people.. that's probably enough.

From what I understand, corporations are legally people. I believe the 14th amendment is given as the basis for this.

[quote name='phantom' timestamp='1320516846' post='4880825']
Well, no.. it doesn't. If the health care was, in general, good quality then it would rank higher... the fact it ranks lower suggest that in general the quality isn't good. The fact that "high quality" exists for the minority who can afford it doesn't change the case of the majority/general case.

Well if I were to say, "Ferrari is constantly outperformed by the Toyota Prius," I'd want that clarified also. Would you say a Ferrari is lower quality than a Toyota Prius without further clarification? Would you say that Ferrari in general is lower quality than Toyota in general?
[/quote]

heh, thanks, I needed a laugh.. the lengths you will goto to try and twist things to that your great US of A can't have anything bad said about it... well.. you should probably run for the goverment...

You are two blind to apprently see the stupidness of your reasoning so I'm going to leave you to your little dream world; the rest of us understand what that study is saying even if you don't.

However, to try to get back ontopic, it seems that the OWS is asking a question (well one of many) that many corporations can't answer. "Where are the jobs?" We know that the corporations can create them. There's been several reports saying that regulations aren't affecting job growth or profit. We know that the tax cuts for businesses and the rich have had a stellar effect on their profits and overall wealth. We know that a number of corporations and financial firms would not be in business if not for the bailouts. I dare say that hiring more people now would quickly create demand and therefore more profit than businesses are getting currently.

And, IMO, if businesses were bailed out by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer has a right to say that the businesses owe them a job.

Corporations will hire when it will make them more money to do so. That's the thing about these large companies, they are predictably greedy. Why should they hire just because they can? That doesn't make financial sense.

However, to try to get back ontopic, it seems that the OWS is asking a question (well one of many) that many corporations can't answer. "Where are the jobs?" We know that the corporations can create them. There's been several reports saying that regulations aren't affecting job growth or profit. We know that the tax cuts for businesses and the rich have had a stellar effect on their profits and overall wealth. We know that a number of corporations and financial firms would not be in business if not for the bailouts. I dare say that hiring more people now would quickly create demand and therefore more profit than businesses are getting currently.

And, IMO, if businesses were bailed out by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer has a right to say that the businesses owe them a job.

Corporations will hire when it will make them more money to do so. That's the thing about these large companies, they are predictably greedy. Why should they hire just because they can? That doesn't make financial sense.

You can have the best health care system in the world but if the vast majority of the population can't get access to it then it has failed and you might as well not have it. So, yes, you get 'out ranked' for a very good reason because the rank is what the majority see.
Education system, same deal. If your whole population isn't getting access to 'the best' then it doesn't matter how much you spend.

I completely agree. The US Government is failing to deliver on both fronts. We should learn from the countries who are doing it better and follow their example where it makes sense.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1320505565' post='4880791']
However, to try to get back ontopic, it seems that the OWS is asking a question (well one of many) that many corporations can't answer. "Where are the jobs?" We know that the corporations can create them. There's been several reports saying that regulations aren't affecting job growth or profit. We know that the tax cuts for businesses and the rich have had a stellar effect on their profits and overall wealth. We know that a number of corporations and financial firms would not be in business if not for the bailouts. I dare say that hiring more people now would quickly create demand and therefore more profit than businesses are getting currently.

And, IMO, if businesses were bailed out by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer has a right to say that the businesses owe them a job.

Corporations will hire when it will make them more money to do so. That's the thing about these large companies, they are predictably greedy. Why should they hire just because they can? That doesn't make financial sense.
[/quote]
You quoted me but your response seems to completely ignore what I wrote. But anyway, corporations are saying that they are not hiring because they don't know what taxes are going to be like in the future. Also they say that regulations are also stifiling business. In summary, too much uncertainty. But we know that in Clinton's era taxes were far higher than they were now and businesses (small, large, multinational) were booming. I've mentioned that there have been reports, articles that say that regulations are not nearly as stifling if at all to corporations. And we know. That if businesses were hiring than it will create more demand and therefore raise profits across the board. If they're as greedy as you said and they want more profits then that's the surest way to do so. Even businesses acknowledge that's there is not much demand. We know it's because the people who have jobs are for the most part buying what they need not what they want. And that's because of uncertainty in the job market and stipulations such as "if you've been unemployed for X months, we won't hire you".

If your whole population isn't getting access to 'the best' then it doesn't matter how much you spend.

Or so the socialist claims.

Or actually: so the national socialist claims. An international socialist would equally downrate the UK system for not providing care to, say, the Thai.