a lot of layoffs are happening because employers don't wish to pay for Obama care for their own workers....but they don't mind putting all that extra cash in their own pockets or underpaying their workers...Nope not at all...In fact I hope that they reconsider this paying for their workers health care as at least their workers will see that they care enough to see they are cared for when sick...otherwise, it looks greedy and selfish...

I assume you're referring to this ...

http://www.washingtontime...macare-be/

Note:

"The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon" ...

"The political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative. The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post." ...

"Conservative-turned-liberal writer David Brock, who worked for the Times' sister publication Insight on the News, said in his 2002 book Blinded by the Right that the news writers at the Times were encouraged and rewarded for giving news stories a conservative slant. In his 2004 book The Republican Noise Machine, Brock wrote "the Washington Times was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias" and that its journalistic ethics were "close to nil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...gton_Times

this is what I had read


We Demand That Democrats Fight Back


?(S) Since President Obama's re-election, John Schnatter, aka Papa John, of Papa John's Pizza is whining about having to pay just a little more to ensure the health of his workers. You know, the workers who have made him filthy rich. So rich in fact that he lives in a 40,000 square foot castle with a 22 car garage, a private golf course, and a private lake featuring a draw bridge. Yes, you read that right. I said draw bridge. This is a lavish way to live yet he complains about the tiny cost of keeping his employees healthy because Obamacare requires employers to cover their employees. This is greed at the highest level.



also saw this link
http://www.huffingtonpost...04202.html

[This message has been edited by howdy (11/10/2012)]

Howdy I am not arguing or debating your point but am simply curious as to whether you have ever earned a living by being self-employed or have you ever employed others on a full-time basis?

Yes I have and successfully I might add...so don't tell me that it is better to stick huge profits into your own pocket rather than take care of your workers...

I don't think I told you anything if you will reread what I asked. I simply asked a question. You answered yes and that is fine.

It simply lends credibility to one's opinion if one has experience with their subject matter so thank you.

[This message has been edited by Tom Cat (11/10/2012)]

Welcome

The Huffington Post wrote:

Schnatter made headlines over the summer when he told shareholders that the cost of a Papa John's pizza will increase by between 11 and 14 cents due to Obamacare.

Really. And how does that compare to the cost of higher gas prices? Why not slap an extra 15 cent "Obamacare fee" on his pizza, and be done with it? Just so everyone knows why their $20 pizza is now 15 cents more. Or would this mythical 11-14 cents only affect his pizza, and no one else's pizza, thus putting him at some sort of disadvantage? I don't buy it.

I seriously doubt that even .50 increase in price would make a difference to most. I know I could care less when I'm in the mood for pizza or most anything for that matter. For the record, Miles City is fortunate to have some great local places to get pizza!

Sorry Larry just was showing the link I read...I have no idea how much Obamacare will cost per employee so not able to discuss it intelligently...

I don't understand why businesses don't support single payer? It would mean they don't have to pay employee health costs.

And remind me never to eat a Papa John's pizza, should I have the chance.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (11/10/2012)]

howdy wrote:

Sorry Larry just was showing the link I read

My comment was directed towards Mr. Pizza man.

I wonder if Papa John's big Football Contests in conjunction with their advertising wouldn't find a few intangible expenses to write off? Anyhow...I so think that the whole ACA is a terrific leadin to Medicare for All. Would love to see it transpire into that. We had to start somewhere:-)

Can't help but think that getting rid of workers may be just a bit of drama? Just sayin'.

OHHHHHHH my mistake...thanks Larry...plus like Amorette I have added Papa Johns to my boycott list in the future...

[This message has been edited by howdy (11/10/2012)]

There is very nearly no such thing as bad pizza, but his is flirting with it. You are not missing a thing by boycotting Papa Johns. Very mediocre at best. And how much money are his comments going to cost his company? I for one don't want to hear about a mega multi millionaire bitching because market forces have cut into his obviously obscene take home pay. I really have no problem with people getting filthy rich, as long as they do it honestly, but it bugs me to no end when stupid people get there. Shut up John. Then raise the price of your pizza 25 cents to pay for the healthcare. You just made another dime per pizza, and your employees have healthcare. It's really that simple. Good grief! Just don't tell us how this is gonna hurt business, when you could have prevented that by not opening your mouth. You just offended a large segment of the pizza eating population, for no reason at all other than to try to make our President look bad. And? When you have a minute, send me a very large check for that advice. I'm not doing your job for free. I'll settle for that dime per pizza for the next year. I'm that generous.

And this is the house that Mr. Papa John's Pizza lives in:



The same guy so against the thought of providing health care insurance to the employees who built him that mansion, that he'd rather fire them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._Schnatter

Henry Ford once said that it isn't the CEOs that pay the salary (they are just suppose to handle the money) but the customers that do and apparently this man didn't get the memo...

So if every business raised there prices to pay for insurance all of you would be ok with that? Where does it end? I don't know about you but my dollar doesn't go very far anymore. So lets make more taxes and take away from the workers that earned it and give to the worthless that take advantage of the system

If your "dollar doesn't go very far anymore", that was not brought about by current attempts to improve the health care system.

So you think this health care is gonna be free then?? Somebody has to pay for it and it won't be the ones using it.

You act like you have free health care now...noone does...it is just a matter of getting cheaper health care by controlling the profits of insurance companies and even later taking the insurance companies out of it entirely...

Fracn wrote:

So you think this health care is gonna be free then?? Somebody has to pay for it and it won't be the ones using it.

I really don't want to get involved in the whole debate. You're obviously biased by implying the tax system exists to take from the worthy to give to the worthless. I would simply state that if you think you are somehow being personally harmed by the weakest and least fortunate amongst us, and blame them as the problem - then you don't have your head on straight. If you want to intelligently talk about the tax system and what is wrong with it, you cannot ignore the costs of war and the fact the top 1% owns 40% of this country's wealth, while the bottom 80% owns just 7%.

Mr. Webmaster, your involved by your participation but that is fine with me. I personally could care less if the wealthiest are taxed more. It shouldn't hurt em and I'm willing to bet they are simply going to invent new ways to skirt the system. But as to the question directed to Fracn about does he feel harmed by "the weakest and least fortunate among us," I would answer yes, by some. I'm 50 and one of the unfortunate souls who will need to rely on Social Security. Every time I see someone I know has never paid into the system drawing a check, I cannot help but worry, "Are they drawing my part?" It's a very real question concerning my not very far away future. Now it was asked of me on another post earlier what would I have these people do. I don't know, but if I want to give away my future income, should it not be my choice to do so?

These problems were debated 2500 years ago, and if you had read The Republic (straight from the guys who kinda designed our civilization) you would realize how misplaced your concerns and arguments are.

Now did my response come across as being critical of you or harsh? I meant to simply respond to your response with my view.

Well, you do seem to be standing from the side of the have-nots, pointing your finger at other have-nots as the problem.

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman. . . .

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman. . . .

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied. . . . "I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die," (said the charitable gentleman).

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. . . . "

--Chuck Dickens, 1843

I love A Christmas Carol. We are fanatics about it in my family and can recite most of it at the drop of a hat. Better to die and decrease the surplus population. That pretty much sums up the Republican view of the less than wealthy.

I'm 50 and one of the unfortunate souls who will need to rely on Social Security. Every time I see someone I know has never paid into the system drawing a check, I cannot help but worry, "Are they drawing my part?" It's a very real question concerning my not very far away future.

Tom Cat,

I find this a really interesting position because I am also 50. You say you will need to rely on SS. Why? As a productive member of this society, shouldn't you have invested your income so that you wouldn't need to rely on SS? You realize that once you begin drawing a check of your own it's someone else's contributions that fund you. It's not your own contributions you are getting.

And who is it that you see that draws SS but hasn't paid into the system? I'm just wondering because generally you can't get SS unless you've paid into the system.

Better to die and decrease the surplus population. That pretty much sums up the Republican view of the less than wealthy.

I consider myself Republican...and I strongly disagree with you and resent you for this comment, Amorette. It is ironic considering that liberals are the ones who criticize those who judge and stereotype, yet here you are doing the same.

I respect you and all your family...but I disagree with you on this one.

Don't forget Papa John has to pay Peyton Manning beaucoup bucks to be their spokes man. And if Peyton gets injured, why who knows who ia going to have to pay for peyton' health care? Papa John or the Broncos. Ther's always this type of conundum to consider.

I apologize, Shu. I should have specified the rich and powerful of the Republican party feel that way. Not the rank and file.

Shu, it's time to start shopping for a new party. Your beliefs are in direct contradiction to your party's leadership.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (11/13/2012)]

As for SS, each individual has their own account set up and that information is available from Social Security. Your SS payout will be there for you when you reach the proper age.
If nothing is done with the SS fund, either raising what employers and employees pay in or some other way to increase contributions, the SS Trust fund will be insolvent by the year 2034.
That is because there are so many of us baby boomers that paid in all our working lives and did not have as many kids as our parents and grandparents had.
That is not the fault of either political party or any certain politician...It is just plain truth and math.

It won't be insolvent by 2034. It will only be able to pay about 75% of what it is obligated to.

I would be so damn old so guess for myself and hubby it doesn't matter LOL but I believe they will find a way to fund it for example having no cap on the top of the deductions...Don't have a clue what it is now but it used to be that after 100,000 or so you didn't have to pay anymore for the year...I think that cap should be removed...My brain is sorta screwed memory wise and maybe I am wrong but if I am not that is my suggestion....
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/p...index.html

[This message has been edited by howdy (11/13/2012)]

It's my understanding if we remove the "Social Security wage cap," the fund would remain solvent for many, many years.

The cap for 2012 is $110,100 - all income above $110,100 is not subject to FICA tax to either the employer or employee.

Someone I know isn't paying FICA tax and won't be for the rest of 2012.

LOL, Bob L...Good 4 u but I would like to see that cap disappear...

Howdy: So would I.

just makes for a simple solution to SS if true (as I have always heard) that it would make SS solvent indefinitely...

I FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND TOALL OF THIS: OK I AM A 20 YR U.S. NAVY VETERAN AND SERVED ALL OVER THE WORLD AND MY JOB WAS COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE. WHEN I LEFT THE MILITARY I WORKED FOR OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SUCH AS THE SECRET SERVICE, THE SBA, THE FEMA AND A FEW OTHERS. THEN I DECIDED TO GO INTO BUSINESS AFTER WORKING FOR OTHER DEALERSHIPS IN THE MANUFACTURED HOME INDUSTRY. I OPENED AND RAN FROM THE GROUND UP A HOME DEALERSHIP SELLING OVER 2 MILLION IN HOMES PER QUARTER. I HAD EMPLOYEES AND AS A SMALL BUSINESSMAN IT WAS IMPERITIVE THAT I TAKE CARE OF MY EMPLOYEES AND THEIR PAY WAS APPROPRIATE TO SAY THE LEAST. THE MORE TAXES I HAD TO PAY THE FEWER EMPLOYEES I WOULD HIRE. LESSON, LOWER THE TAXES AND OBAMA CARE IN THAT THEN I WOULD HIRE MORE PEOPLE. LATER I WENT ON TO WORK AS A NEWSPAPER DISTRICT MANAGER FOR 7 YEARS WITH A MAJOR NEWSPAPER AND THERE I LEARNED HOW THE MEDIA TEND TO HEAVLY SLANT THE NEWS ACCORDING TO THEIR PERSONAL AGENDA. SO WHEN IT COMES TO NATIONAL SECURITY, SMALL BUSINESS AND THE MEDIA I AM VERY WELL QUILIFIED TO DISCUSS. I AM ALSO A LICENSED TAX PREPARER FOR THE ENTIRE NATION AND ALL 50 STATES. SO TAX POLICY IS A VERY KNOWLEDGABLE FIELD FOR ME. I DO CORPORATE, LLC'S, PARTNERSHIPS, ETC...INCOME TAXES.

ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THIS: OBAMA CARE IS THE MOST UN-PRODUCTIVE THING THIS NATION HAS GOT IN YEARS. THE PEOPLE SPOKE BY VOTING FOR OBAMA WHEN WE HAD A GUY THAT WAS WAY MORE QUILIFIED TO DEAL WITH OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR MORE GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS AND MORE UNEMPLOYMENT SO DON'T EVEN FEEL SORRY ANYMORE FOR THOSE THAT ARE UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE OF LAYOFFS WHEN THESE WARNINGS WERE CLEARLY STATED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR ROMONEY, I DO FEEL SORRY FOR YOU AND IT IS ASHAMED THAT THE ONES THAT VOTED FOR OBAMA HAVE NO CLUE OTHER THAN THEY THINK THIS IS A HANDOUT NATION NOW. I SPEAK FROM EXPIERENCE AND HANDS ON, SO I DO KNOW FROM PAST YEARS HOW ALL THIS WORKS. IT IS VERY SIMPLE IF YOU LOOK AND STUDY THE NATIONAL MAP BY COUNTY, NOT STATE IT IS OBVIOUS WHAT WENT ON. THE BLUE PARTS OF THE MAP ARE YOU CITIES AND HIGHER POPULATION AREAS, THEY ALSO REPPRESENT THE HIGHER WELFARE AREAS, AND DRUG AND CRIME RATES ARE THE HIGHEST IN THOSE AREAS. ALSO WORTH NOTING IT IS THE UNION CONCENTRATED AREAS. THERE ARE SOME INTERESTING DATA IF YOU DO THE RESEARCH. INCIDENTLY I HAVE DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SO BOTTOM LINE I AM VERY QUILIFIED TO DISCUSS ALL OF THE ISSUES AND IT IS ASHAMED THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE SO IGNORANT AND JUST VOTE B/C SOMEONE ON TV RAN A STUPID ADD THAT LIED OR DID NOT EVEN PORTRYA THE ACTUAL TRUTH. ROMNEY WAS THE BETTER CHOICE BY A LONG SHOT, AND YET HE LOST....SO I HAVE NO CARE FOR THOSE THAT VOTED FOR HIM IF THEY LOOSE THEIR JOB/S. THEY VOTED FOR WHAT THEY GET AND ARE GETTING. A NATION WILL BE BROUGHT TO ITS KNEES WHEN THE ELECTORIATE CAN'T SEE THE LIGHT FOR THE IMMEDIATE HANDOUTS.

OH ONE LAST COMMENT, IF YOU ARE WEALTHY GOOD, THAT MEANS YOU DID SOMETHING RIGHT IN LIFE MOST LIKELY AND IF WOULD BE NICE TO PASS THAT ALONG TO OTHERS. ROMONEY WAS SUCCESSFUL AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT SO MANY DO. HE GAVE A FORTUNE TO CHARITY AND HELPED MANY. DID THE NEWS REPORT THAT HE NEVER DREW A CENT OF PAY THE ENTIRE TIME HE SERVED AS GOVERNER OF MASS? DID THE NEWS REPORT HE WORK FOR THE OLYMICS FOR 3 YEARS WITH NO PAY? OF COUSRE NOT, THAT IS A TRUE AMERICAN, SERVICE TO YOUR NATION AND NO PAY, WOW WONDER IF OBAMA IS DOING THAT? NOPE. OH HOW COME THE MEDIA DID NOT REPORT THAT ROMNEY WAS WILLING TO WORK AS PRESIDENT FOR NO PAY ALSO, THAT WAS THE PLAN FOR ANYONE THAT WOULD HAVE RESERCHED THE MAN OR THE DATA. IT IS ASHAMED THAT OUR NATION IS SO BLIND AS TO SEE THE PROBLEMS. ALL THAT CAN BE SEEN IS THE HANDOUTS AND WHAT CAN MY NATION TO FOR ME NOT WHAT CAN I DO FOR MY NATION. YOU OBAMA SUPPORTS HAVE NO CLUE AND YOUR DECISION ARE THE REASON THIS NATION IS GOING TO FAIL, HELL YOU ALREADY GOT 23 STATES NOW PETITIONING THE WHITE HOUSE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY AND FORM THEIR OWN NATION. I AM FOR THAT. LET THE LIBERAL OBAMAITES FORM A COUNTRY OF THEIR OWN AND THE REST OF US THAT WANT TO KEEP THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUR FOREFATHERS WISHED.

YEAH I WUD DO THE VERY SAME THING, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING SUCCESSFUL, IF YOU ARE JEALOUS THEN YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM NOT THE PAPA JOHNS MAN. IS IT RIGHT FOR HIM TO SELL WHAT HE WORKED TO OBTAIN B/C OBAMA DECIDES HE WANTS TO CREATE A NEW TAX THAT IS COMPLETLY USELESS AND BY THE WAY HE ALSO HAS BORROWED TRILLIONS FORM SOCIAL SECURITY.

SINCE OBAMA HAS BEEN PRESIDENT HE HAS SIGNED 932 EXEC. ORDERS.....HUMM ALL THE PRIOR PRESIDENTS IN OUR NATIONS HISTORY HAVE NOT CAPPED 300 ALL TOGETHER...SEEMS THERE IS A PATTER OF AVOIDING CONGRESS WITH THIS GUY. MARK MY WORDS HE WILL BE THE DESTROYER OF THIS NATION. GOD HELP US.

Standing on a soapbox with a bottle of Old Crow is dangerous.

I love being lectured on socialism by someone who's healthcare is provided by the government.

LOL, and seniors love their medicare...more and more docs won't take new medicare and medicaid patients as they don't get reimbursed enough to make it "worthwhile"...so hopefully seniors will be able to go to a doc near them for quite somewhile...

MOST OF MY FAMILY IS NOT GOT HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THE GOVT. MY GRANDPARENTS FOR INSTANCE ARE SENIORS ON SOCIAL SECURITY, THEY GO TO THE DR. AND ACTUALLY RECEIVE A CHECK FOR GOING. THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY MAILS THEM A CHECK..WHY...ILL TELL YOU WHY...B/C THEY HAD ENOUGH SENSE TO BUY INSURANCE WHEN THEY WERE YOUNGER AND NOW THE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYS AND THEN THEIR INSURANCE PAYS AND SO THEY END UP WITH LEFTOVER MONEY AND THEY GET CHECK BACK.... YOUR RESPONSE IS WELL EVERYONE IS NOT ABLE TO DO THAT....ANSWER YES...LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES, YOU MAKE CHOICES THAT DIRECT YOUR LIFE, SOME PEOPLE LIVE TO HANG OUT AT THE BAR AND THEN COMPLAIN LATER B/C THEY CHOSE THAT LIFESTYLE AND NOW CAN'T AFORD TO LIVE BETTER. CHOICE MY FRIEND CHOICES.

No insurance company will insure a senior without the senior having medicare first (if of eligible age)so your grandparents probably get medicare which is insurance supplied by the government...the only thing a senior has to get is a supplemental insurance which is also expensive...so your entire diatribe doesn't make sense...

THEY GO TO THE DR. AND ACTUALLY RECEIVE A CHECK FOR GOING. THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY MAILS THEM A CHECK..WHY...ILL TELL YOU WHY...B/C THEY HAD ENOUGH SENSE TO BUY INSURANCE WHEN THEY WERE YOUNGER AND NOW THE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYS AND THEN THEIR INSURANCE PAYS AND SO THEY END UP WITH LEFTOVER MONEY AND THEY GET CHECK BACK

Please explain further.

Jon Stewart nailed it.....again.

http://www.thedailyshow.c...share_copy

[hulu]t4nof8_xxpgbfwuvn-aeqq[/hulu]

A few rebuttal points to Mr. Herring:

First, most states do not require any kind of licensing to prepare tax returns so saying you are licensed in all 50 states makes no sense. Perhaps you are talking about the IRS requirement to get licensed with them. That license has nothing to do with the states.

Second, it is fairly well known that lowering income taxes only spur job creation when the reduction is very large. This happened in the mid 20th century because the maximum tax rates went from very high (75-90%) to pretty reasonable (35%). Changing from 35% to 28% is not going to do much.

Third, Romney didn't sacrifice anything by not taking a salary as Governor or for the Olympics. HE'S STINKIN' RICH, DUDE! Yes, the President is also rich but nowhere close to Romney and he donated 15% of his income to charity too.


On another note, I agree the FICA income limit should go away. I think it's ridiculous.

In responce to Mr.Herring. Your grandparents may very well recieve a check from their insurance company. This is to pay the difference between what Medicare pays and what their supplement pays. When my mother went to an out of state hospital, her Medicare supplement insurance sent the checks to her to be forwarded. If they are on SS then Medicare is required. Most insurances will not pay what has already been paid for by another provider. That is whay when one partner in a marriage has insurance the other may be allowed to opt out at their employment. My dad, using VA, still has to pay for Medicare.

A lot of people seem to think Obamacare will be paid 'by companies.' Well companies don't have any money. It has to come from somewhere. I can tell you right now that the CEOs of companies are NOT going to take a pay cut to pay for Obamacare. And the boards of directors of these companies don't want to devalue their stock by decreasing their profits due to absorbing a huge new expense either.

The money will have to come from somewhere else. That means they will either lay employees off (to avoid paying for Obamacare) or raise prices (to pay for Obamacare). It's not rocket science. You and me will be paying for it. Not the rich people.

The 2016 campaign will be interesting. Hillary will probably start off by promising to "fix Obamacare."

So here are the 50 most profitable companies in the Fortune 500 for 2010. The numbers are in millions.


1 Exxon Mobil 30,460.0
2 AT&T 19,864.0
3 Chevron 19,024.0
4 Microsoft 18,760.0
5 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. 17,370.0
6 Wal-Mart Stores 16,389.0
7 International Business Machines 14,833.0
8 Apple 14,013.0
9 Johnson & Johnson 13,334.0
10 Berkshire Hathaway 12,967.0
11 Procter & Gamble 12,736.0
12 Wells Fargo 12,362.0
13 Coca-Cola 11,809.0
14 General Electric 11,644.0
15 Intel 11,464.0
16 ConocoPhillips 11,358.0
17 Citigroup 10,602.0
18 Hewlett-Packard 8,761.0
19 Google 8,505.0
20 Goldman Sachs Group 8,354.0
21 Pfizer 8,257.0
22 American International Group 7,786.0
23 Cisco Systems 7,767.0
24 Philip Morris International 7,259.0
25 Ford Motor 6,561.0
26 PepsiCo 6,320.0
27 General Motors 6,172.0
28 Oracle 6,135.0
29 Eli Lilly 5,069.5
30 McDonald's 4,946.3
31 Morgan Stanley 4,703.0
32 UnitedHealth Group 4,634.0
33 Amgen 4,627.0
34 Abbott Laboratories 4,626.2
35 Devon Energy 4,550.0
36 Occidental Petroleum 4,530.0
37 United Technologies 4,373.0
38 Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold 4,336.0
39 Kraft Foods 4,114.0
40 3M 4,085.0
41 American Express 4,057.0
42 Walt Disney 3,963.0
43 Altria Group 3,905.0
44 Comcast 3,635.0
45 Corning 3,558.0
46 United Parcel Service 3,488.0
47 CVS Caremark 3,427.0
48 PNC Financial Services Group 3,412.0
49 Home Depot 3,338.0
50 U.S. Bancorp 3,317.0

http://money.cnn.com/maga...s/profits/

These guys don't look poor to me.

To Dave Herring - If your posts are any indication . . . maybe the people voted for President Obama because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET PREACHED AT.

98% of large companies (200 or more) already offer health care benefits to their employees.

61% of small businesses (3-199) already offer health care benefits to their employees.

The ones who have not been providing health care benefits (2% of large companies and 39% of small companies) have essentially been receiving an unfair competitive advantage over those who do.

Companies that whine and pout about having to play by the rules, and are willing to layoff their employees so they won't have to, will just be putting themselves in position for competition to step in and take over their little ideological problem.