Actually, the message was that all factories pollute and all CEO's investors whatever are out to destroy the planet if they can make a dollar.
You may not see it as out to serve anyone but it was. Just read a few comment from slashdot about how those kids are indoctrinated into believing all corporations are evil intent on destroying the environment. There are quite a few of those idiots around here and that sort of proves his point.
Well, the Sierra club was thought to have been started by a bunch of lawyers and land barons who wanted to lock everyone's land out but their through conservation efforts and lawsuits so when a city went to expand, it created an artificial shortage of land that they benefited from. The conspiracy goes that this is the reason why the Sierra club's member ship and leaders are all closely kept secrets.
As for the World Widlife federation, the most notable thing I can remember from them is getting the WWF wrestling to change it's name.
No, it doesn't conflict with anything. You see, there is now and then there is the now if those changes are made. Right now, life is what you make of it, if those changes are made and all the decent jobs leave the country-(which they will faster then then they are now because of the anti business enviroment) then it is a college degree to flip whoppers at the royal butger hut because that is the best job availible without leaving the country.
And what make you think I care about what Jesus thinks?
You know, if half the shit in your mind was real, you would still be a clueless paranoid loser who was still not right. Perhaps you should stick with Fiction writing.
And your wrong about other counties as well as needing unions. That is unless you consider leaving the old to die and encouraging euthanasia to be legitimate treatments.
Apparently you are either (1) incredibly thickheaded and with no reading comprehension skills whatsoever or (2) being intentionally obtuse. Both GP and I have no problem at all with his name. GP made it about as blatantly clear as possible that he has no problem with his name. The problem is this childish right-wing idiocy "Oh look! He has a funny foreign-sounding name! *chortle* *chortle* And it's Hussein! That must mean he is just like Saddam Hussein! And a muslim! And a fascist! And a dictator! And a Communist! Ahhh! Run for your lives!"
So far it only been you and the GP who seem concerned about his foreign sounding name. At least you are the only one to bring it up. Your actions speak louder then words and no, reading comprehension is not at play here.
eriously, why do you brain-dead morons keep making such a big deal about his name? Are you all still in grade school or something?
From what I can tell, it's you that are making the big deal about his name. I mean most presidents are refered to with their full name from time to time. It's sort of like with serial killers, you use the middle name to keep mistaken identity down. It's a perfectly legit thing to do and you seem to be the one with the problem of it.
Oh, and he is a natural born citizen. He was born in Hawaii, which, despite how much you right-wingers hate the entire state (you know, too many of *those* people there), is actually a part of the US and was when Obama was born there.
And you were there I suppose. I know, you saw the birth certificate that no one else has seen. Anyways, I didn't make the comment that he wasn't. Why do you seem to be so scared about this too?
Sigh... claiming someone is a troll when obviously they are not is the last refuge of someone who has no arguments left... you keep saying that I'm a troll yet here I am asking cogent questions and making cogent and on point statements relevant to the topic at hand. None of this is intended to inflame you. Obviously I didn't know that you had killed two people in self defense until you said so (assuming your story is factual). So enough of the troll silliness... at best it's lame that's why I never use it first and then only use it to point out that from my point of view the other party could be said to be one too. So whatever, it's meaningless to me anyhow.
It's clear that you are a troll. You are not adding anything to the conversation and we both expressed the desire to end it and yet here you are again. You are asking inane question and refusing to answer when they are asked of you. You keep repeating yourself without ever considering anything brought up. You are a troll plain and simple.
You really do need to get some history into you sumdumass. While I don't support either Bin Laden's and his group(s) actions nor those of Bush/Cheney/Blair/Obama/Biden/... I can read the history and comprehend it. You know people can have more than one reason for doing a thing? You do know that don't you?
All the history in the world would be wrong if the people who did the act claimed it was for another reason. Bin Laden and the guy who developed the plan claimed it was for our support for Israel and you adding things is just revising history. You can make shit up all you want but that will not make you right. Until Bin laden or anyone involve with 9/11 says it was for different reasons, you are just making it up.
Osama bin Laden, In Nida'ul Islam magazine October-November 1996"
It sounds like he can speak for himself so why are you attempting to put words in his mouth. Osama bun Laden specifically said it was for our support of Israel. You are not going to be able to piece anything together the refutes his own words. What you think and what he thinks are two entirely different things and what he thinks is more valid because he was behind the fucking attacks.
"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women. Osama bin Laden, Admitting responsibility for attacks on US on September 11, 2001, on videotape shown on Al Jazeera, October 29, 2004"
And there it is, Bin laden saying it was because of our support of Israel and you still missed it.
So the revenge cycle is perpetuated by Osama Bin Laden and the United States of America doling out destruction and death and murder and killing on a mass scale across the globe. They are both killing machines with little or no regard for human life, that is why they and those that support their mass murderous policies are vile evil monsters. When you get that that is why you are one of these monsters you'll get what I'm saying. Until then you're a lost cause and are a member of the dark side of the forces of good and evil.
And Israel struck because we were attacked and they blew up out marine barracks and embassy building. It's not like we hold their leash or anything and can stop them from acting on their own. Anyways, your missing the e
That was interesting. According to the NPR report, the average GM hourly cost was 31.35/hour while Toyota's was 27/hour (not surprising, GM's is older and more experienced). So, now we look at what the report shows as high; Health care costs. GM's is 1500 while Toyota's is 200 (both per car). So, is that REALLY, the health care costs of JUST THE UNION WORKERS?
You should learn about the costs of employment verses the average salary. They are not the same and yes, there is a hell of a lot more costs to employment then healthcare. There are pension programs, employment taxes, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and tons of other costs.
You ignorance of the subject is past amusing at this point. Like I said, maybe you should start watching Fox News instead of relying on your incorrect understandings reports on NPR. Fox News attempts to dumb it down for people just like you.
The answer is NO. That is the TOTAL HEALTH CARE OF THE COMPANY (the executives, management, retires, and of course, the union workers), being divided up amongst JUST THE UNION WORKERS.
See above and take some business classes. This is pretty elementary stuff we are talking about here.
Now look. I realize that ppl like you LOVE to read and follow Faux news and almost certainly you just HATED thinking for yourself. It is hard for neo-cons to think intelligently (I love the part where you neo-cons bitch about the monster obama defict, but ignore the fact that 10 TRILLION DOLLARS of 12 TRILLION DEBT is owned by republicans). But the simply fact is, if you USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN FOR JUST 30 SECONDS, you will realize that 1500/car did not even make sense. The average time to put together a small car at GM was 17 hours (and 19.5 at toyota for same class of car; Toyota is not as efficient). So, you were thinking that a person who put together about 2 cars / week was really paying 3000 PER WEEK for health care or 12,000 PER MONTH? SERIOUSLY? YOU REALLY HONESTLY THOUGHT THAT? COULD YOU NOT DO SOME SIMPLE FUCKING MATH? You just accepted FAUX NEWS' and rush's garbage?
Your just stepping in it deeper. IF you paid attention to the links I provided, you would have seen that both you were completely wrong as well as neither was from Fox News. BTW, you don't even have a valid reason to put Fox News down and if you cite what I think you are going to, you will be schooled on how wrong you are there too.
Now I'm going to ask you to use your fucking brain for at least once in your life. Learn about employment costs.
BTW, the 10 trillion of debt owned by republicans happened over 28 years with two wars in the last 7 years contributing to quite a bit of it. That's roughly 350 billon per year, Obama on the other hand has sank over a trillion in less then one year. Which do you think is worse, 2 trillion per year over 28 years or 250 billion a year over 28 years? Oh, and yes, here is your change to use that fucking brain of yours.
BTW, I'm not sure how you missed it, but I specifically told you that the extra costs were not just with health care in the last post. Why you are concentrating on it while ignoring every fucking thing else is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can explain why you are ignoring most of the information in order to press a point that is so fucking easily refuted? You must be some special kind of retard or something.
There is nothing magical about it. You make yourself employable through training, conditioning, creating job experience and a good work record. Yes, that might take some will power but it isn't magic.
And if you are not a total buffoon, you can also do the entrepreneurial thing and start your own business to make your own employment. Again, nothing magical going on there except cognitive reasoning skills. Most people can perform those types of magic though.
What did you have in mind? That you should be able to sit there and expect some company to pick you up in a limo and take you to the job interview? Do you think you are somehow owed a job? Life is what you make of it, not what the government gives you.
The point, which you're clearly missing (or dodging, I suspect) is that a hell of a lot of Americans can't get any job better than burger-flipping -- or even that -- because of the supposed expertise of these executives of giant corporations who supposedly possess some expertise in running businesses. All this "top talent" rhetoric has been clearly exposed as the bullshit it is. The C*O's don't have any more idea than the rest of us how to fix this mess, and they bear the responsibility for getting us into it in the first place. We owe them no consideration whatsoever going forward.
I'm not missing or dodging anything. Life is what you make of it, not what the government hands you. As for your rant on C*O's, who cares, that has nothing to do with anything I said.
As to your second point, the government can sue like anyone else. I'm not suggesting criminal prosecutions or suspensions of the Bill of Rights. Just go after these bastards in the one place they really care about. Once you go into bankruptcy, you make yourself pretty vulnerable, you know.
And in order to do it, they will have to change the laws and include people who were operating under a different and legal set of rules at the time. This is called an Ex post facto and is forbidden by the constitution. Also, when you remove the veil that shields non-acting owners of corporations, you will effectivly drive all business out of the US that isn't specifically needed like whopper floppers.
You cannot just sue for anything. You need a basis in law in order to do so. Things are the way they are now because the law is the way it is now. Changing the law will not go back on anyone and it will make things worse. You can't retroactively punish people and it's not a good idea to be using the government as a whipping post for people you don't agree with. Sooner or later, it will be you who is getting whipped.
It appears that you do have a problem with the name "Barack Hussein Obama". The elections are over and regardless of how many wack-jobs pointed out his middle name was the same a Saddom's last name or that he wasn't a natural born citizen or whatever- they lost so it just doesn't matter any more.
As for John Sidney McCain III, no that doesn't offend me, I'm not going apeshit on the interweb attempting to get people to stop using it either. However, you are. As for right wingers needing to explain why his full name wasn't used more, you have to be really mental to expect an answer for something that just happened. There was no conspiracy to hide his name, there was nothing stoping the left, right, or whoever from using it. He was introduced at the convention using his full name. You act like there is some governing board somewhere that says used this person's full name or not.
I can understand your anger at seeing "Barack Hussein Obama" now. however, your disgust is completely misguided and you just need to chill out or take a pill or something.
No, there is no advantage to either. Corporations are subject to the same auditing and all. They are subject to the same restrictions on deductions and such. Of course there is a disadvantage where collateral and inventory is considered income for the purpose of taxes.
The difference is you have been exposed to one and only imagine the other.
Really? Please show those numbers BACKED UP by real accountants and real numbers (not something pulled out of the air on Faux News).
I'm not sure what is wrong with your Google finger but this information is nothing new and has been a topic of discusion around the entire ordeal since well before the bailouts.
Perhaps the problem is that you are not watching Fox news because you shouldn't be that clueless over something that fucking well known. My guess is your probably not paying attention at all and only like bashing Fox news because you are an idiot who thinks it's fashionable when others do it. That's fine and all but your being pointed out.
Just a bit ago, It was argued by the federal gov. that GM and Chrysler unions had to lower their average pay from 36 to 34 which is the same pay as Toyota, Honda, etc had (IIRC, the average length of time by the employees was disregarded; GM and Chrysler had on average a much higher cumulative time).
Yep, I was right, you are not paying attention at all. Total costs of employmment is not average wages. You are arguing the shirt is green instead of red when your not even looking at the same shirt. By the way, how long ago is a bit? Is it a pinch ago, is it 01 ago, a teaspoon ago, Oh well, it's a mystery I guess.
As to the 78/hour figure, I believe that includes such things as retirement and medical health pay for retirees. OTH, other nations such as Germany and France have socialized medicine where a tax is placed on the good, but it does not count against the employee.
No, it didn't include already retired people. That's a separate fund and part of another accounting snafu. But it does cover wages, insurance, retirement contributions and so on for the current employees. So yes, while it is more then an average wage (which I never said differently), it is not counting people who no longer work with GM. And yes, Toyota or any other car company can be put in the exact same situation if their unions get the kind of control they had over GM.
that's not true. the leglislative branch can dole out money for anything it likes. It can't make laws that give it sweeping new powers, but it does have power of the pursestrings, so if it gives you money it certainly has the right to tell you to give it back and under what conditions.
No it can not. It is bound by restrictions in the constitution and the only thing that gives the government power is the constitution. You need to retake your government and civics class.
If they don't take any money from you, THEN the us gov has no power to garnish wages or the like, except perhaps if a previous arrangement had been broken and that was a term of that arrangement (I don't know what the pollution cleanup agreement was, but knowing about the superfund I imagine that the feds gave GM some money to help with it).
What the fuck are you talking about? They can tax you, it's specifically allowed int he constitution. What they can't do is tax you more then anyone else because of some hidden agenda or past action that was legal. They also cannot create a post facto law which would punish actions that were legal when it happened.
man, every time you turn around these days you hear about constitutional stuff totally misapplied. funny no one really cared when real consitutional issues like honoring treaties, habeas corpus or domestic spying were the norm. Now that it's not even a constitutional question it's all over the place. Funny stuff.
First of all, the domestic spying was not a constitutional issue. It was a legal issue. Second of all, what fucking rock have you been hiding under? All of those receive outcry with court cases challenging the habeas corpus. It seems that misapplied isn't the word your looking for, it would be selectively applied and your comment is a great insight into your own thinking.
When is using a man's full name some negative when he is the President of the United States?
I mean seriously, if you think there is something wrong about his name, please inform us. I'm sorry you don't like it or fear something from it, but it is the reality we have.
You will be saying "Oh noes" when the best job you can get is flipping burgers at some drive through joint.
And yes, it's worse then becoming a socialist country. The Constitution give the US government no powers to do what you have described. If they attempted to do it, then you can expect them to ignore the constitution in matters that you find important too. Matters like searches, habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial and so on. Perhaps they will ignore the first amendment while they are at it.
Actually, you can deduct all of those things if they are part of your income generation and not incidental private expenses.
I don't think you realize that a corporation is nothing more then an income generator. You can write the same shit off without a corporation being present as long as it follows the same guidelines of income creation.
Actually, as it was pointed out with the differences between the foreign car makers and GM, the total cost of employing someone at the imports were roughly $38 an hour compared to $78 am hour at GM.
The only difference in management is how strong the Unions are. IF they are strong and demand more money, any of the import manufacturers can become the equivalent of GM tomorrow. This is because the laws protect the union to the companies Expense.
But that is just a risk. There is nothing saying if you smoke you will get cancer. In fact. you are 4 times more likely to not get cancer from smoking then you are likely to get it.
Now, as for your cancer, how did you determine is was caused by your smoking? I'm interesting to see how that point was made or if your just guessing like most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the message was that all factories pollute and all CEO's investors whatever are out to destroy the planet if they can make a dollar.
You may not see it as out to serve anyone but it was. Just read a few comment from slashdot about how those kids are indoctrinated into believing all corporations are evil intent on destroying the environment. There are quite a few of those idiots around here and that sort of proves his point.
Well, the Sierra club was thought to have been started by a bunch of lawyers and land barons who wanted to lock everyone's land out but their through conservation efforts and lawsuits so when a city went to expand, it created an artificial shortage of land that they benefited from. The conspiracy goes that this is the reason why the Sierra club's member ship and leaders are all closely kept secrets.
As for the World Widlife federation, the most notable thing I can remember from them is getting the WWF wrestling to change it's name.
What if the answer is an overly active sex life and a lack of commitment to one particular women?
No, it doesn't conflict with anything. You see, there is now and then there is the now if those changes are made. Right now, life is what you make of it, if those changes are made and all the decent jobs leave the country-(which they will faster then then they are now because of the anti business enviroment) then it is a college degree to flip whoppers at the royal butger hut because that is the best job availible without leaving the country.
And what make you think I care about what Jesus thinks?
You know, if half the shit in your mind was real, you would still be a clueless paranoid loser who was still not right. Perhaps you should stick with Fiction writing.
So Toyota only has plants in other countries?
And your wrong about other counties as well as needing unions. That is unless you consider leaving the old to die and encouraging euthanasia to be legitimate treatments.
So driving the rest of the jobs out of the country is a good thing?
Very irrelevant. I am legally disabled too and you can make life what you want it to be. It seems to me that you are having coping problems.
So far it only been you and the GP who seem concerned about his foreign sounding name. At least you are the only one to bring it up. Your actions speak louder then words and no, reading comprehension is not at play here.
From what I can tell, it's you that are making the big deal about his name. I mean most presidents are refered to with their full name from time to time. It's sort of like with serial killers, you use the middle name to keep mistaken identity down. It's a perfectly legit thing to do and you seem to be the one with the problem of it.
And you were there I suppose. I know, you saw the birth certificate that no one else has seen. Anyways, I didn't make the comment that he wasn't. Why do you seem to be so scared about this too?
It's clear that you are a troll. You are not adding anything to the conversation and we both expressed the desire to end it and yet here you are again. You are asking inane question and refusing to answer when they are asked of you. You keep repeating yourself without ever considering anything brought up. You are a troll plain and simple.
All the history in the world would be wrong if the people who did the act claimed it was for another reason. Bin Laden and the guy who developed the plan claimed it was for our support for Israel and you adding things is just revising history. You can make shit up all you want but that will not make you right. Until Bin laden or anyone involve with 9/11 says it was for different reasons, you are just making it up.
It sounds like he can speak for himself so why are you attempting to put words in his mouth. Osama bun Laden specifically said it was for our support of Israel. You are not going to be able to piece anything together the refutes his own words. What you think and what he thinks are two entirely different things and what he thinks is more valid because he was behind the fucking attacks.
And there it is, Bin laden saying it was because of our support of Israel and you still missed it.
And Israel struck because we were attacked and they blew up out marine barracks and embassy building. It's not like we hold their leash or anything and can stop them from acting on their own. Anyways, your missing the e
You should learn about the costs of employment verses the average salary. They are not the same and yes, there is a hell of a lot more costs to employment then healthcare. There are pension programs, employment taxes, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and tons of other costs.
You ignorance of the subject is past amusing at this point. Like I said, maybe you should start watching Fox News instead of relying on your incorrect understandings reports on NPR. Fox News attempts to dumb it down for people just like you.
See above and take some business classes. This is pretty elementary stuff we are talking about here.
Your just stepping in it deeper. IF you paid attention to the links I provided, you would have seen that both you were completely wrong as well as neither was from Fox News. BTW, you don't even have a valid reason to put Fox News down and if you cite what I think you are going to, you will be schooled on how wrong you are there too.
Now I'm going to ask you to use your fucking brain for at least once in your life. Learn about employment costs.
BTW, the 10 trillion of debt owned by republicans happened over 28 years with two wars in the last 7 years contributing to quite a bit of it. That's roughly 350 billon per year, Obama on the other hand has sank over a trillion in less then one year. Which do you think is worse, 2 trillion per year over 28 years or 250 billion a year over 28 years? Oh, and yes, here is your change to use that fucking brain of yours.
BTW, I'm not sure how you missed it, but I specifically told you that the extra costs were not just with health care in the last post. Why you are concentrating on it while ignoring every fucking thing else is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can explain why you are ignoring most of the information in order to press a point that is so fucking easily refuted? You must be some special kind of retard or something.
There is nothing magical about it. You make yourself employable through training, conditioning, creating job experience and a good work record. Yes, that might take some will power but it isn't magic.
And if you are not a total buffoon, you can also do the entrepreneurial thing and start your own business to make your own employment. Again, nothing magical going on there except cognitive reasoning skills. Most people can perform those types of magic though.
What did you have in mind? That you should be able to sit there and expect some company to pick you up in a limo and take you to the job interview? Do you think you are somehow owed a job? Life is what you make of it, not what the government gives you.
I'm not missing or dodging anything. Life is what you make of it, not what the government hands you. As for your rant on C*O's, who cares, that has nothing to do with anything I said.
And in order to do it, they will have to change the laws and include people who were operating under a different and legal set of rules at the time. This is called an Ex post facto and is forbidden by the constitution. Also, when you remove the veil that shields non-acting owners of corporations, you will effectivly drive all business out of the US that isn't specifically needed like whopper floppers.
You cannot just sue for anything. You need a basis in law in order to do so. Things are the way they are now because the law is the way it is now. Changing the law will not go back on anyone and it will make things worse. You can't retroactively punish people and it's not a good idea to be using the government as a whipping post for people you don't agree with. Sooner or later, it will be you who is getting whipped.
I guess the truth is a troll.
Oh yea, one link didn't show up (should have previewed)
http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2008/11/24/more-on-total-hourly-labor-costs-gm-vs-toyota/
Wow.. Just wow.
It appears that you do have a problem with the name "Barack Hussein Obama". The elections are over and regardless of how many wack-jobs pointed out his middle name was the same a Saddom's last name or that he wasn't a natural born citizen or whatever- they lost so it just doesn't matter any more.
As for John Sidney McCain III, no that doesn't offend me, I'm not going apeshit on the interweb attempting to get people to stop using it either. However, you are. As for right wingers needing to explain why his full name wasn't used more, you have to be really mental to expect an answer for something that just happened. There was no conspiracy to hide his name, there was nothing stoping the left, right, or whoever from using it. He was introduced at the convention using his full name. You act like there is some governing board somewhere that says used this person's full name or not.
I can understand your anger at seeing "Barack Hussein Obama" now. however, your disgust is completely misguided and you just need to chill out or take a pill or something.
No, there is no advantage to either. Corporations are subject to the same auditing and all. They are subject to the same restrictions on deductions and such. Of course there is a disadvantage where collateral and inventory is considered income for the purpose of taxes.
The difference is you have been exposed to one and only imagine the other.
I'm not sure what is wrong with your Google finger but this information is nothing new and has been a topic of discusion around the entire ordeal since well before the bailouts.
Perhaps the problem is that you are not watching Fox news because you shouldn't be that clueless over something that fucking well known. My guess is your probably not paying attention at all and only like bashing Fox news because you are an idiot who thinks it's fashionable when others do it. That's fine and all but your being pointed out.
Yep, I was right, you are not paying attention at all. Total costs of employmment is not average wages. You are arguing the shirt is green instead of red when your not even looking at the same shirt. By the way, how long ago is a bit? Is it a pinch ago, is it 01 ago, a teaspoon ago, Oh well, it's a mystery I guess.
No, it didn't include already retired people. That's a separate fund and part of another accounting snafu. But it does cover wages, insurance, retirement contributions and so on for the current employees. So yes, while it is more then an average wage (which I never said differently), it is not counting people who no longer work with GM. And yes, Toyota or any other car company can be put in the exact same situation if their unions get the kind of control they had over GM.
No it can not. It is bound by restrictions in the constitution and the only thing that gives the government power is the constitution. You need to retake your government and civics class.
What the fuck are you talking about? They can tax you, it's specifically allowed int he constitution. What they can't do is tax you more then anyone else because of some hidden agenda or past action that was legal. They also cannot create a post facto law which would punish actions that were legal when it happened.
First of all, the domestic spying was not a constitutional issue. It was a legal issue. Second of all, what fucking rock have you been hiding under? All of those receive outcry with court cases challenging the habeas corpus. It seems that misapplied isn't the word your looking for, it would be selectively applied and your comment is a great insight into your own thinking.
What is obvious? Does the name offend you? Does it make you uncomfortable? If so, then why?
When is using a man's full name some negative when he is the President of the United States?
I mean seriously, if you think there is something wrong about his name, please inform us. I'm sorry you don't like it or fear something from it, but it is the reality we have.
Are you speaking of the failure of a presidency Jimmy Carter?
You will be saying "Oh noes" when the best job you can get is flipping burgers at some drive through joint.
And yes, it's worse then becoming a socialist country. The Constitution give the US government no powers to do what you have described. If they attempted to do it, then you can expect them to ignore the constitution in matters that you find important too. Matters like searches, habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial and so on. Perhaps they will ignore the first amendment while they are at it.
Actually, you can deduct all of those things if they are part of your income generation and not incidental private expenses.
I don't think you realize that a corporation is nothing more then an income generator. You can write the same shit off without a corporation being present as long as it follows the same guidelines of income creation.
Actually, as it was pointed out with the differences between the foreign car makers and GM, the total cost of employing someone at the imports were roughly $38 an hour compared to $78 am hour at GM.
The only difference in management is how strong the Unions are. IF they are strong and demand more money, any of the import manufacturers can become the equivalent of GM tomorrow. This is because the laws protect the union to the companies Expense.
But that is just a risk. There is nothing saying if you smoke you will get cancer. In fact. you are 4 times more likely to not get cancer from smoking then you are likely to get it.
Now, as for your cancer, how did you determine is was caused by your smoking? I'm interesting to see how that point was made or if your just guessing like most people.