The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database No, mine doesn't, but many small businesses...
including mid range transcription business who operate as S corporations, the entire income from their business is in that bracket and taxed as personal income. It is going to hit small businesses extremely hard. And I don't think it is fair that they have to pick up the tab to pay for tax CUTS for people who are already in the lowest bracket. I don't think that's right, I don't think that is fair, and it will result in businesses closing or laying off workers. So tell me what pray tell does that accomplish?
Obama wants to grow small businesses
I can stick my head in the sand and pretend I don't know what this garbage is all about but anyone with half a brain would know you can't grow a business when you continue to pay pay pay through the nose AND give it to someone who has no motivation to do crap with their life.
Obama wants to give small businesses tax relief not...sm
raise their taxes. He wants taxes raised on large corporations who are making record profits, paying their executives millions in salaries and perks per year. Also you will find that most companies offshore to countries where they pay pennies on the dollar to workers rather than pay Americans a living wage. These countries are happy not to charge them high taxes because those few pennies feed their people.
With the stimulus package there are built in tax credits for small businesses and SBA...sm
I have worked in retail as an assistant buyer and see their profit margins...and I know there are many legit, honest, mom and pop stores, but they usually make up for it by hiring school kids for slave wages and also family members. I am talking about across the board, in factories, retail, hospitalitiy, techno, every sector, these workers would all be paying more EACH WEEK into the the tax stucture in this country, strengtheing our reserves, becomeing consumers themselves because they can finally afford something....I feel like I dropped from another planet here, or industry in MT is not the norm by far.
What dribble and so uninformed, he isn't taking money from small businesses, geez.
Common sense should tell you he is not saying he is taking the money from small business to give to the the middle class.
he is saying he wants to tax fairly the wealthy (businesses over 250,000) and probably take some of the loop holes away. Lower the middle class taxes (if there is one anymore) so we can breathe. Former statesmen have said it is dangerous to put all the money in so few hands, it develops corruption. Don't just read the headlines, read between, on top, in depth, etc. McCain jumped on that statement to win votes. He is wealthy, what makes you think he understands you? The reason our jobs are going overseas is the present adminstration has given all these corporations tax breaks to do so - saying it builds global democracy - it didn't work, it just made the corporations richer). i don't care who you vote for but Ms. Piggy would be better than McCain and dum, DE dum dum.
Yet we get on this board and moan and whine about not getting paid enough and companies are spening millions buying other transcription companies over our backs you think taxing them fairly is socialism.
I am through with this board, it is sad so many want 4 more years of the same. Keep working for pennies while benefits are taken from you, lines per are decreased. Do you think getting less for voice is fair when it takes almost the same amount of time to do it and make half? Do you think the company is taking that much of a hit? Yet they are forcing it so it most be a benefit to them. They are laughing all the way to the bank while you eat the feathers.
Those "small" businesses are the mom and pop...
type who don't have many employees. The small businesses who will be hurt by Obama's plan employ 25-100 people. More taxes on them, more capital gains taxes, they will downsize or close and stop investing because they can't afford it. There are thousands of those kinds of businesses across this country and they employ a significant number of people. It is not just the business owners who suffer....it is the people they employ.
We are not a nation of businesses.
nm
Obama will CAUSE more businesses to go
nm
Big businesses........well they wouldn't have to
if we'd stop taxing the crap out of them. This country taxes the crap out of businesses at an alarming rate, when they can go to places like Ireland and have an 11% tax rate. They go to other countries where they don't have to pay those ridiculous taxes. That's the entire problem here. MORE TAXES! Those companies that do stay here, in order to cover their HIGH TAXES, charge you more to cover it for them. That's the point some of us have been trying to make. Obama wants to raise their taxes and I can guarantee you those that are still here will be gone in a flash. YOu get stuck on this big business hiring cheap labor. Well, they would be hiring you if your government would stop taxing the crap out of them.
That's what McCain has said during this entire campaign. STOP TAXING THE CRAP OUT OF THEM and stop running them off and we'll have more jobs brought back here. OBama says TAX TAX TAX them some more and they'll help pay for all of us. BULL!!! Those corporations won't pay him taxes. They up the cost of products and we pay it for them. Obama knows that. This man is a crook through and through....believe what you want. You darn right businesses want huge tax breaks? Wouldn't you? Oh well, maybe not. After all, O lovers love more taxes.
If you're so worried about the little guy who pays too much for his goods, then why not ask Obama why he wants to raise taxes on those very businesses who will turn right around and put them off on you, making everything you buy even higher!
And since you're so down on the big businesses, though I'm not sure what you call big business, who do you think hires everyone else? Poor people? You won't have to worry about the unemployment rate if O gets in there. He'll have taxed and mandated them right out of business and out of this country. The businesses that WILL be hurt are the very businesses you count on day to day and you don't even know who they are. I do. My husband works for one of them. They don't have a big name but they are the very reason you have your grocery store shelves with food on them and many other products. People that think like you don't have a clue all the businesses you use every day that are NOT rich, but they help sustain the very community you live in. They can employ anywhere from 10-200 people and believe me, that is NOT a RICH business but Obama will tax the businesses right out of business. They cannot afford all those mandates and garbage policies he wants to throw in there.
The florist in your town. Well, they're gonna close. They would fall into that MEAN RICH BUNCH all of you hate so much, as well as so many other companies you depend on every day. You've just got your mind so focused on the hugely large corporations, you can't see past that.
Well, when your town starts laying off hundreds at a time from all those businesses you thought you detested but then realize too late those aren't the ones you were thinking about, maybe you'll see it differently then.
Everyone is so focused on all the Wall Street crowd, they have failed to realize that crowd won't be hurting at all. You will and all those businesses that keep you and your community alive and well.
This is the fault of dems and republicans alike, not just one side.
They're middle of the road, just making it businesses. They don't employ 3000 people like big business and they will be hurt the most. Big business will pass the tax increase onto the taxpayers. They'll be able to find loopholes with their 30+ laywers (exageration) who are paid to do that.
Wake up and take the blinders off!
The big green businesses are already overseas.......
xx
American businesses and individuals should all
nm
A government that taxes businesses into the ground...
is a main cause of offshoring. It costs more in taxes to do business in America than any other country in the world save one. And Obama wants to tax them even more, even the small business owners of the S corporation type. In order to fund a cut in tax for the people already in the lowest bracket who pay the lowest amount anyway. Thereby causing more small businesses to fail or cut back on staffing...causing more job loss instead of job creation. Sorry...that makes no sense to me.
Capitalism is when private owners run businesses
xx
blame it on businesses who won't clean up their trash..................NM
x
Not in time for Chrysler, its employees, downstream businesses
x
So businesses can use foreign labor for their products and services? nm
x
oil companies
There was just a senator from North Dakota debating on the senate floor (MSN sometimes has live video feed in the net, quite interesting..they also carried the John Roberts questioning which I watched)..Anyway this senator..I didnt get his name, he and Senator Barbara Boxer from CA are introducing a bill that would give rebates back to the people because of the high gas and oil prices we are paying. He said, it would be different if the oil companies were using their profits to look and drill for oil but they are using it to buy back their stock and invest in wall street. He said last year they made over a trillion dollars! He said some of that profit should go back to the consumer who is carrying a heavy load right now and the oil companies are doing nothing but make a profit. He said it is estimated oil prices for this winter will increase by 40% and natural gas by 70%.
oil companies
if one of your most pressing concerns is that the large corporations are being abused by government, keep reading. Have you seen news reports on the executives are given huge million dollar bonuses and pensions? A lot of them "earn" them by closing facilities, firing workers, destroying unions, downsizing or removing benefits from workers. Our benefits go down; corporate execs compensation are sky-rocketing. The history-making profit of the oil companies this quarter in the billions? Do they still need more tax breaks? Sorry, my sympathy and concern for the well-being of these corporations is minimal to none.
But if you really want to protect the corporations, vote McCain!
do it again and again for the next 2 years because that is how long it is going to take car companies to make a good economy vehicle. If government bails them out, next will come airlines and so on. We do not have enough money to bail them out for the next 2 years. Those companies BURN money each month.
Do not get me wrong, I do want the American car companies bailed out. I WILL ONLY OWN AMERICAN MADE CARS. NEVER will buy a foreign made car so I can help the car companies stay in business. Geesh, I am from Michigan, born and raised there for 18 years. Most of my family is from Michigan on my mother and father's side.
If the car companies fold, we could have the Great Depression or close to it. Shoot, Toyota and Honda, etc., could buy our car companies and now will be foreing made cars only. It is a mess, chaos mess. What I do know is most of my family in Michigan blame the American car companies. My cousin just took early retirement from them 3 weeks before the US financial mess. Thank God he did. A 3 car companies had years to design and make cars better than Toyota, but did not. Some of my family members blame the gas companies for jacking up the price of oil which is what started the car companies to have problems. If only the oil companies did not raise it to 4.00, our 3 American car companies just might not be in the mess they are in. So now my family believes it should be the OIL COMPANIES to bail them out since they started the mess with high gas prices. Family actually do not want the government to bail out car companies because the costs will be from you, me, and the USA and will go on and for the next 2 years. Family wants them to stop production, think about what to build next and then start building it. The 3 car companies need to make what consumers want and need.
It is a mess and horrible. I personally do not want so many jobs to be lost. It is such mixed feelings. I just want new jobs created NOW. Drill, drill, drill, and create new technology and start building and working by all of us coming together and creating new jobs and what we really need for these new jobs. Hope this all makes sense, I am really tired from a long night of working.
So do we let the car companies die for now?
Make them think about what to build next? Or they will just fold up and we end up having to buy foreign made cars on US soil.
Drug companies
Why is it that other countries have American made medications so much cheaper than America. The argument has been well we pay the extra amount so drug companies can do research. Why us? We are expected to pay more for medications and also health benefits when other countries have universal healthcare and lower drug costs. It isnt right that Americans foot the bill for the world to enjoy the medications we produce at less cost than us. It isnt right that Americans have to go bankrupt when faced with a major illness because either their healthcare is inadequate or they dont have healthcare. If this administration really cared about what Americans need most, they wouldnt be talking about Social Security, they would be devising a universal health plan for all Americans. Some say that would be socialized medicine. Heck, when you dont have any health coverage, socialized medicine is better than nothing.
Maybe the tobacco companies have
I suppose that is another reasonable explanation as to why he would veto a bill that only promised to raise the cigarette tax. Too bad so many of the politicians that are supposed to work for us work for big business. I'm so disapointed in our government today.
Insurance companies.
I agree the insurance companies need a very, very major overhaul, but do you think the insurance companies are going to do that??? If they would there would be no need for a government run system, but the insurance companies will do absolutely zilch, and things cannot contine the way that they have been going.
I'd like to see the insurance companies You've got to think of all the other companies
that would go out of business if the auto industry tanks, not to mention the auto workers themselves (what's left of them).
I don't think it would be a good idea. They stated 3 million people would lose their jobs if they let the industry tank. That would really throw us into a depression.
all 3 didn't just hit bankruptcy level at the same time. As a matter-of-fact I seriouisly doubt they are even in a financial crisis. I think they've been working up to this panic for the past 6-8 years. Unfortunately your husband and other companies that have supplied the big 3 are going to suffer. I think this is all a smoke screen and what they REALLY want is to get out from under their union contract. Do you really think if that happens they are going to lower the costs of their cars? Nope. They'll take as many billion as they can wanagle out of Bush and then file BK which will let them out from under their union contract. Then miracously they'll recover.
As for people and their big Hummers, SUVs, etc. That is a bit on the "look what I've got" front. I think those Hummers are undoubtedly the UGLIEST things I've every seen. I know a couple of people who bought them with payments approaching $1000 a month and they worry how they're going to pay their gass bill. BOOHOO!!!
Things are going to get rough for all of us. Even if Obama does what he promised, it probably won't be in his first term. It will take him that long to undo 8 years of Bush....not to mention Clinton before him and Big Daddy before him.
I took it for what it IS -- companies getting TAX BREAKS
Although English grammar & keyboarding can be taught to just about anyone, the deep-down knowledge of language, word & phrase patterns, ability to spell and acute hearing are things you're either born with, or your're not.
Bottom line: American work should be done in AMERICA. Let India and Pakistan support their growing middle class some OTHER way, because the United States is losing their middle class. If something doesn't change, there will only be 2 classes in this country - the very rich, and the very poor. The middle class, which USED to support both of them, will be nonexistent.
I feel bad for the companies that are being
taken down with them, though. They don't deserve it.
GE stock on Friday was only $.10 a share. So sad. Other stocks are just as bad and some of them were good ones before all this started.
What's the difference who says no? Some insurance companies pretty much say no to everything but wellness visits - and that's simply so they can find out if you develop a condition, so they can drop your coverage on a threabare excuse, or jack your rates to the moon so you'll have to drop it. Then no other company has to cover you due to it being preexisting. I don't want to pay for insurance that only covers me if I'm not sick!
At least if there was universal healthcare, even with a wait, they'd have to treat you eventually instead of NEVER. And do it for free.
Doesn't anybody in DC have a conscience? The system as it stands now is disgusting. They are literally making billions by killing of thousands upon thousands (maybe millions?) of Americans. Anyone with half a brain should recognize profit-driven health insurance only serves the best interest of the CEOs of the insurance companies - not healthcare recipients! This needs to change NOW!
I saw my first AMA commercial last night urging people to vote with the millions of uninsured Americans in mind. I loved it! It is at least a step in the right direction. Vote with the healthcare crisis in mind people!
Insurance companies cont...sm
You made reference to the fact that you already are paying through the nose for insurance premiums and don't want to end up paying even more to cover the uninsured.
I think the general gist of reform is to guarantee access to all, and at the same time, lower the costs for people such as yourself.
Whatever direction health care reform takes it will take government intervention, either in terms of mandating what insurance companies can charge for policies for all people, likely putting caps on prohibitive prescription drugs and windfall profits made by health care providers and hospitals, etc.
What the US spends on health care is far, far above what every other country pays for health care, and that is not because the US has superior care in many cases. It's a profit driven business that has become extremely out of control. It cannot continue in its current business as usual form, as it is no longer working to the benefit of most.
Oil companies employ people too...
thousands upon thousands of them. Just throw them under the bus?
The economy was fine until the last year...and who has been in control of Congress for the last year?
Our sons and daughters are in Iraq, not Iran. Obama has said that an immediate withdrawal is not a viable solution, that troops would remain there for at least a year, which is what the Bush administration is also saying. We just handed back to them the 11th of 18 provinces. The surge worked. Most of the combat troops will be coming home within a year. Obama and the Republicans agree on that issue.
How can Obama give tax breaks to companies to keep jobs here and then turn around and raise taxes on companies that make more than $250,000? Don't hardly see how he can do both.
Lobbying for big drug companies....oh my!
What will happen if the car companies bankrupt.
Duh, I know there will be job loss along with lawyers, computer companies who do business with auto dealers, human resources and so on. Job loss will not just be car company manufactures. Motorola supplies car companies with their technology and so many other companies. Would it be the Great Depression? What about all the people who lease cars with these companies or who make payments to these companies? What if you own American made cars and where do you get the parts to repair your american made cars? Geesh I could go on and on. Sounds like a horror flick.
Better pray car companies are not next in line.
x
If by draining and destroying companies you mean
advocating for fair wages, good benefits, pensions, job security, PTO, reasonable schedules, OT policies and safe working conditions, please explain to me why companies should not be providing a forum for workers' input on these issues? Why are these things too much to expect?
Are these not the same things you look for in an MT job? If a company is "destroyed" by providing them, maybe it's time for them to go down. Had unions not done their thing, we would still have child labor, lax, noncompliant or nonexistent safety standards in factories and various other industries, exclusionary hiring practices, substandard wages, no benefits, be fired without redress and basically would not have much of a middle class to speak of, not to mention a much wider disparity of wealth distribution. It might be a good idea to sit and reflect for a moment or two exactly how much unions have contributed to our economic culture and what things would be like had they not. There is still a place for them in terms of preserving the advances that have been made. No doubt, these things would be disappearing right and left, slowly but surely, in their absence. Just look at what's happened in our own MT sector.
If by draining and destroying companies you mean
advocating for fair wages, good benefits, pensions, job security, PTO, reasonable schedules, OT policies and safe working conditions, please explain to me why companies should not be providing a forum for workers' input on these issues? Why are these things too much to expect?
Are these not the same things you look for in an MT job? If a company is "destroyed" by providing them, maybe it's time for them to go down. Had unions not done their thing, we would still have child labor, lax, noncompliant or nonexistent safety standards in factories and various other industries, exclusionary hiring practices, substandard wages, no benefits, be fired without redress and basically would not have much of a middle class to speak of, not to mention a much wider disparity of wealth distribution. It might be a good idea to sit and reflect for a moment or two exactly how much unions have contributed to our economic culture and what things would be like had they not. There is still a place for them in terms of preserving the advances that have been made. No doubt, these things would be disappearing right and left, slowly but surely, in their absence. Just look at what's happened in our own MT sector.
If by draining and destroying companies you mean
advocating for fair wages, good benefits, pensions, job security, PTO, reasonable schedules, OT policies and safe working conditions, please explain to me why companies should not be providing a forum for workers' input on these issues? Why are these things too much to expect?
Are these not the same things you look for in an MT job? If a company is "destroyed" by providing them, maybe it's time for them to go down. Had unions not done their thing, we would still have child labor, lax, noncompliant or nonexistent safety standards in factories and various other industries, exclusionary hiring practices, substandard wages, no benefits, be fired without redress and basically would not have much of a middle class to speak of, not to mention a much wider disparity of wealth distribution. It might be a good idea to sit and reflect for a moment or two exactly how much unions have contributed to our economic culture and what things would be like had they not. There is still a place for them in terms of preserving the advances that have been made. No doubt, these things would be disappearing right and left, slowly but surely, in their absence. Just look at what's happened in our own MT sector...or the example of WalMart, the most notorious union busters around.
The unions are killing companies, though. That is
nm
15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009
Who's next?
With consumers shutting their wallets and corporate revenues plunging, the business landscape may start to resemble a graveyard in 2009. Household names like Circuit City and Linens 'n Things have already perished. And chances are, those bankruptcies were just an early warning sign of a much broader epidemic.
Moody's Investors Service, for instance, predicts that the default rate on corporate bonds - which foretells bankruptcies - will be three times higher in 2009 than in 2008, and 15 times higher than in 2007. That could equate to 25 significant bankruptcies per month.
We examined ratings from Moody's and data from other sources to develop a short list of potential victims that ought to be familiar to most consumers. Many of these firms are in industries directly hit by the slowdown in consumer spending, such as retail, automotive, housing and entertainment.
But there are other common threads. Most of these firms have limited cash for a rainy day, and a lot of debt, with large interest payments due over the next year. In ordinary times, it might not be so hard to refinance loans, or get new ones, to help keep the cash flowing. But in an acute credit crunch it's a different story, and at companies where sales are down and going lower, skittish lenders may refuse to grant any more credit. It's a terrible time to be cash-poor.
That's why Moody's assigns most of these firms its lowest rating for short-term liquidity. And all the firms on this list have long-term debt that Moody's rates Caa or lower, which means the borrower is considered at least a "very high" credit risk.
Once a company defaults on its debt, or fails to make a payment, the next step is usually a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Some firms continue to operate while in Chapter 11, retaining many of their employees. Those firms often shed debt, restructure, and emerge from bankruptcy as healthier companies.
But it takes fresh financing to do that, and with money scarce, more bankrupt firms than usual are likely to liquidate - like Circuit City. That's why corporate failures are likely to be a major drag on the economy in 2009: In a liquidation, the entire workforce often gets axed, with little or no severance. That will only add to unemployment, which could hit 9 or even 10 percent by the end of the year.
It's possible that none of the firms on this list will liquidate, or even declare Chapter 11. Some may come up with unexpected revenue or creative financing that helps avert bankruptcy, while others could be purchased in whole or in part by creditors or other investors. But one way or another, the following 15 firms will probably look a lot different a year from now than they do today:
Rite Aid. (Ticker symbol: RAD; about 100,000 employees; 1-year stock-price decline: 92%). This drugstore chain tried to boost its performance by acquiring competitors Brooks and Eckerd in 2007. But there have been some nasty side effects, like a huge debt load that makes it the most leveraged drugstore chain in the U.S., according to Zacks Equity Research. That big retail investment came just as megadiscounter Wal-Mart was starting to sell prescription drugs, and consumers were starting to cut bank on spending. Management has twice lowered its outlook for 2009. Prognosis: Mounting losses, with no turnaround in sight.
Claire's Stores. (Privately owned; about 18,000 employees.) Leon Black's once-renowned private-equity firm, the Apollo Group, paid $3.1 billion for this trendy teen-focused accessory store in 2007, when buyout funds were bulging. But cash flow has been negative for much of the past year and analysts believe Claire's is close to defaulting on its debt. A horrible retail outlook for 2009 offers no relief, suggesting Claire's could follow Linens 'n Things - another Apollo purchase - and declare Chapter 11, possibly shuttering all of its 3,000-plus stores.
Chrysler. (Privately owned; about 55,000 employees). It's never a good sign when management insists the company is not going out of business, which is what CEO Bob Nardelli has been doing lately. Of the three Detroit automakers, Chrysler is the most endangered, with a product portfolio that's overreliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs and almost totally devoid of compelling small cars. A recent deal with Fiat seems dubious, since the Italian automaker doesn't have to pony up any money, and Chrysler desperately needs cash. The company is quickly burning through $4 billion in government bailout money, and with car sales down 40 percent from recent peaks, Chrysler may be the weakling that can't cut it in tough times.
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group. (DTG; about 7,000 employees; stock down 95%). This car-rental company is a small player compared to Enterprise, Hertz, and Avis Budget. It's also more reliant on leisure travelers, and therefore more susceptible to a downturn as consumers cut spending. Dollar Thrifty is also closely tied to Chrysler, which supplies 80 percent of its fleet. Moody's predicts that if Chrysler declares Chapter 11, Dollar Thrifty would suffer deeply as well.
Realogy Corp. (Privately owned; about 13,000 employees). It's the biggest real-estate brokerage firm in the country, but that's a bad thing when there are double-digit declines in both sales and prices, as there were in 2009. Realogy, which includes the Coldwell Banker, ERA, and Sotheby's franchises, also carries a high debt load, dating to its purchase by the Apollo Group in 2007 - the very moment when the housing market was starting to invert from a soaring ride into a sickening nosedive. Realogy has been trying to refinance much of its debt, prompting lawsuits. One deal was denied by a judge in December, reducing the firm's already tight wiggle room.
Station Casinos. (Privately owned, about 14,000 employees). Las Vegas has already been creamed by a biblical real-estate bust, and now it may face the loss of its home-grown gambling joints, too. Station - which runs 15 casinos off the strip that cater to locals - recently failed to make a key interest payment, which is often one of the last steps before a Chapter 11 filing. For once, the house seems likely to lose.
Loehmann's Capital Corp. (Privately owned; about 1,500 employees). This clothing chain has the right formula for lean times, offering women's clothing at discount prices. But the consumer pullback is hitting just about every retailer, and Loehmann's has a lot less cash to ride out a drought than competitors like Nordstrom Rack and TJ Maxx. If Loehmann's doesn't get additional financing in 2009 - a dicey proposition, given skyrocketing unemployment and plunging spending - the chain could run out of cash.
Sbarro. (Privately owned; about 5,500 employees). It's not the pizza that's the problem. Many of this chain's 1,100 storefronts are in malls, which is a double whammy: Traffic is down, since consumers have put away their wallets. Sbarro can't really boost revenue by adding a breakfast or late-night menu, like other chains have done. And competitors like Domino's and Pizza Hut have less debt and stronger cash flow, which could intensify pressure on Sbarro as key debt payments come due in 2009.
Six Flags. (SIX; about 30,000 employees; stock down 84%). This theme-park operator has been losing money for several years, and selling off properties to try to pay down debt and get back into the black. But the ride may end prematurely. Moody's expects cash flow to be negative in 2009, and if consumers aren't spending during the peak summer season, that could imperil the company's ability to pay debts coming due later this year and in 2010.
Blockbuster. (BBI; about 60,000 employees; stock down 57%). The video-rental chain has burned cash while trying to figure out how to maximize fees without alienating customers. Its operating income has started to improve just as consumers are cutting back, even on movies. Video stores in general are under pressure as they compete with cable and Internet operators offering the same titles. A key test of Blockbuster's viability will come when two credit lines expire in August. One possible outcome, according to Valueline, is that investors take the company private and then go public again when market conditions are better.
Krispy Kreme. (KKD; about 4,000 employees; stock down 50%). The donuts might be good, but Krispy Kreme overestimated Americans' appetite - and that's saying something. This chain overexpanded during the donut heyday of the 1990s - taking on a lot of debt - and now requires high volumes to meet expenses and interest payments. The company has cut costs and closed underperforming stores, but still hasn't earned an operating profit in three years. And now that consumers are cutting back on everything, such improvements may fail to offset top-line declines, leading Krispy Kreme to seek some kind of relief from lenders over the next year.
Landry's Restaurants. (LNY; about 17,000 employees; stock down 66%). This restaurant chain, which operates Chart House, Rainforest Café, and other eateries, needs $400 million in new financing to finalize a buyout deal dating to last June. If lenders come through, the company should have enough cash to ride out the recession. But at least two banks have already balked, leading to downgrades of the company's debt and the prospect of a cash-flow crunch.
Sirius Satellite Radio. (SIRI - parent company; about 1,000 employees; stock down 96%). The music rocks, but satellite radio has yet to be profitable, and huge contracts for performers like Howard Stern are looking unsustainable. Sirius is one of two satellite-radio services owned by parent company Sirius XM, which was formed when Sirius and XM merged last year. So far, the merger hasn't generated the savings needed to make the company profitable, and Moody's thinks there's a "high likelihood" that Sirius will fail to repay or refinance its debt in 2009. One outcome could be a takeover, at distressed prices, by other firms active in the satellite business.
Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings. (TRMP; about 9,500 employees; stock down 94%). The casino company made famous by The Donald has received several extensions on interest payments, while it tries to sell at least one of its Atlantic City properties and pay down a stack of debt. But with casino buyers scarce, competition circling, and gamblers nursing their losses from the recession, Trump Entertainment may face long odds of skirting bankruptcy.
BearingPoint. (BGPT; about 16,000 employees; stock down 21%). This Virginia-based consulting firm, spun out of KPMG in 2001, is struggling to solve its own operating problems. The firm has consistently lost money, revenue has been falling, and management stopped issuing earnings guidance in 2008. Stable government contracts generate about 30 percent of the firm's business, but the firm may sell other divisions to help pay off debt. With a key interest payment due in April, management needs to hustle - or devise its own exit strategy.
Article from Juan Gonzalez, a NY Daily News columnist, RE: Hugo Chavez and his oil versus American oil companies:
Oil fat cats vs. Hugo Chavez
I pulled into the Mobil gas station on 11th Ave. in Manhattan yesterday for my weekly stickup from the oil companies.
Their take this time was an astonishing $3.05 per gallon for premium unleaded.
"Every three or four days the price goes up," said Patel, the man in charge of the station. "Lots of complaints from my customers."
Complaints from everyone except oil executives.
Last year, Exxon/Mobil, the world's largest corporation, posted the highest profits of any company in history - more than $25 billion. The oil giant, based in Irving, Tex., is on track to shatter that mark this year, with revenues that now approach $1 billion per day.
Which brings me to Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez.
Robertson, the right-wing evangelist and friend of the Bush family, publicly called this week for the U.S. government to kill - or at least kidnap - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
"This is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us badly," Robertson said. His less-than-Christian remarks ignited an outcry and forced him to issue an apology of sorts, though he still insisted that he had at least "focused our government's attention on a growing problem."
That "problem," quite simply, is that Chavez, a radical populist who has been voted into office repeatedly by huge majorities in his own country, controls the largest reserve of petroleum outside the Middle East.
Neither Robertson, nor former oil executives George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, nor their buddies at Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, etc., are happy about all this.
Even more scandalous for Big Oil, Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries.
Yesterday, while Robertson was issuing his half-baked Chavez clarification, the Venezuelan president was in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where he announced a new oil agreement with that country's prime minister, P.J. Patterson.
Under the agreement, Venezuela will supply 22,000 barrels of oil a day to Jamaica for a mere $40 a barrel. That's far lower than the current world price of about $65 a barrel. With the price of gasoline in that destitute nation already more than $3.50 a gallon, the Chavez plan means more than half a million dollars a day in savings for Jamaica on oil imports.
Chavez also announced his government will provide $60 million in foreign aid to Jamaica and finance the upgrading of that country's oil refineries.
The agreement is part of a broader Chavez plan called Petrocaribe, which he unveiled at a Caribbean summit in Venezuela last June.
At that conference, Chavez offered the same kind of deal to the leaders of more than a dozen other neighboring nations, including Dominican Republic President Leonel Fernandez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Fernandez jumped at the offer because his government is nearly bankrupt from oil prices. Last year, the Dominican Republic spent $1.2 billion on oil imports; this year, it expects to fork out more than $3 billion. The price of gasoline in Santo Domingo has zoomed past $4 a gallon in recent days.
Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different.
But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years.
Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.
All Things Considered, September 29, 2005 · Strong global demand for energy combined with tight supplies has resulted in record oil company profits. Some politicians are crying foul, especially after Katrina. But most analysts say it's the market at work.
Note these were 2005 figures....no telling what they are raking in now. It is not about choice for Planned Parenthood. It is about MONEY.
Planned Parenthood Reports Record Profits, Abortions Performed
Received largest amount of taxpayer funding to date, nearly $273 million.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America released its 2004-2005 Annual Report on June 1, revealing a record income of $882 million and Planned Parenthood’s second-highest profit of $63 million. The organization also set a record number of abortions performed in one year¯255,015¯ and an all-time low in adoption referrals: 180 abortions were performed for every one woman referred to an adoption agency.
The organization is using these alarming numbers to promote their services and gain customers.
“Planned Parenthood will use any means or any claim to lure more customers and money,” said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA). “It insists that the morning-after pill will reduce abortions. Yet Planned Parenthood posts its highest number of abortions committed at the same time as its aggressive campaign promoting and selling the morning-after pill.”
On top of its $63 million profit, Planned Parenthood last year received its largest sum of state and federal taxpayer funding ever: $272.7 million, making Planned Parenthood the recipient of $3.9 billion of taxpayer money since 1987.
"During that time [Planned Parenthood] has surgically aborted more than 3.8 million babies in the womb. Just think of all the positive programs that could have benefited from our tax dollars had they not been wasted on such destructive efforts," said Jim Sedlak, the director of STOPP International, an organization specifically created to counter or “stop” Planned Parenthood, in a statement.
These funds, however, have not impeded any efforts for further government funding from the government.
“Planned Parenthood must assume that elected officials can't read a simple annual report,” said Sedlak in LifeNews.com, criticizing the organization for its perpetual “begging” for government funding despite its large profits. The organization’s greed may be because without the federal government to give them taxpayer dollars, the overall general public would not support them.
President Ronald Reagan in 1983, on the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, wrote:
Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators-- not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973.
Planned Parenthood’s desperation is currently seen in South Dakota, where it is seeking support from Washington, D.C., to counter the abortion ban signed into law by Gov. Mike Rounds (R) on March 6. The law makes it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion, except in order to save the life of the mother, and it is the most extensive abortion ban since Roe v. Wade.
The Planned Parenthood Web site that serves Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota denounces the abortion ban, stating, “This unconstitutional law is too restrictive and does not reflect the values of most South Dakotans nor most Americans.”
Wendy Wright disagrees. “If the South Dakota ban did not reflect the views of South Dakotans, then Planned Parenthood could rely on those citizens to fund its attempt to overturn the law passed by the majority of its representatives and signed by the governor,” she said. “But never shy to demand money from taxpayers, corporations, customers or donors, its affiliate director crossed the country to pass the hat among Washington, D.C., elites.”
South Dakota has paved the way for other states to create similar measures. Operation Rescue reports that five other states, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky, have introduced similar bans in their legislatures.
The Louisiana Senate just passed a conditional ban on abortion that would automatically be effective upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade or enactment of a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. The law makes exceptions to save the life of the mother or to prevent any permanent or critical injuries. Once the law is effective, those who perform abortions could be subject to up to 10 years in prison and be fined as much as $100,000.
Planned Parenthood is misguided to think that most people are ready and willing to combat current trends by states to ban abortion. Its eagerness in appealing to elected officials in Washington for continued taxpayer funding reveals Planned Parenthood’s inability to appeal to the American people for direct support.
“With Planned Parenthood’s record profits, it is funding a campaign to drum up opposition to abstinence programs and demand more government money,” said Wright. “Americans should use Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report to show government officials that as tax dollars given to Planned Parenthood have increased, so has its number of abortions.”
And here is something I did not know...check the quote below by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood....red font. I was appalled.
EDITORIAL: Planned Parenthood targets blacks
Monday, August 25, 2008
Abortion protesters call on politicians to reject donations from Planned Parenthood and other such groups.
Planned Parenthood, a self-styled "health care provider" and "informed educator" on women's sexual health, has been promoting abortion since its inception in 1916. This has had a devastating affect on America.
Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which overturned most state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion, an estimated 48,6 million babies have been aborted, according to the National Right to Life Committee. In particular, blacks are disproportionately impacted by abortion. Is Planned Parenthood deliberately acting to reduce the black population? Is it practicing a form of eugenics?
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, but 37 percent of all abortions are performed on black women. More than 10 million black babies have been aborted since 1973. Black women are 4.8 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also indicates that one out of every five white pregnancies ends in abortion, whereas one out of every two black pregnancies ends in abortion.
In a July op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, former Bush speechwriter and current Journal columnist William McGurn, rightly called upon the NAACP to be more active in providing alternative organizations for pregnant black women - institutions that will support them rather than speedily eliminate the unborn. He cites the moving words of Alveda King, a niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King, who had two abortions and subsequently changed her perspective: "I remember when I was pregnant and considering a third abortion. I went to Daddy King [her grandfather]. He told me, 'that's a baby, not a blob of tissue.' Unfortunately, 14 million African-Americans are not here today because of legalized abortion. It's as if a plague swept through America's cities and towns and took one of every four of us."
Fortunately, Miss King and others - such as the Rev. Clenard Childress, founder of Black Genocide.org, Day Garner of the National Black Pro-Life Union and Levon Yuille of the National Black Pro-Life Caucus - are bringing attention to Planned Parenthood's deliberate focus on minority neighborhoods. One-third of all abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in 2007 were on blacks, and a majority of Planned Parenthood's clinics are in minority neighborhoods.
A recent video on YouTube showed a Planned Parenthood development director eagerly taking money specifically to be earmarked for the elimination of black children. One caller said he wanted to do this because there are "definitely too many black people in Ohio." And the receptionist simply said, "O.K." Similar incidents in seven other states have sparked a call for a congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood - and we concur.
Congress must also put an end to the $300 million in tax dollars given last year to Planned Parenthood - the nation's leading abortion provider. The phone calls were made by California pro-life advocates in order to test the theory that Planned Parenthood deliberately targets the black population.
Margaret Sanger, who founded what is now Planned Parenthood, wrote a letter in 1939 to Clarence Gamble, with whom she was partnering to promote birth control and abortions in the black community: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
In a protest outside a Planned Parenthood office in April, the Rev. Jesse Peterson, a conservative black minister from Los Angeles, told the crowd "before you go to bed tonight, more than 1,500 babies will be killed in a black woman's womb."
Planned Parenthood has also been accused of targeting other minority groups, including Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. Approximately 30 percent of American women are nonwhite. However, acccording to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 60 percent of all abortions performed annually are on African American, Hispanic and Asian women. A Hispanic baby, for example, is three times more likely to be aborted than a white baby. Abortion rates among Asian women are twice that of white women. Planned Parenthood insists it does not target nonwhites. Defenders of Planned Parenthood argue that the disproportionate rate of abortions among nonwhite women is due to the fact that white women have less "unintended pregnancies."
Abortion is a tragedy regardless of the ethnic or racial composition of the victim. But when a specific population is targeted for elimination, it is an abomination. Congress should stiffen its moral spine.
Verryyy interesting.
OK, I'll bite. What insurance companies and when?
Insurance companies have ALWAYS been a for profit idea. So they need to collect premiums from people who ARE NOT sick to cover the thousands they pay out for someone else who IS sick. So how is this going to work? Like I said, if this becomes a reality, I for one am going to immediately drop my coverage until such time as I need it. Unless their other healthy customers are stupid, they are going to do the same. So then the only people who will be paying insurance premiums are the ones who are also using their policies to fund their heart transplants, chemotherapy, whatever. Take a guess what their premiums are going to be.