Posted by moy23 on 10/5/2010 7:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by creilmann on 10/5/2010 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/5/2010 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 10/5/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):
If it is nothing, I'm sure you would have no objection to removing this money from play.

How could we do that?

This was a Supreme Court Decision dealing with political speech.

How would the Constitutional Amenment be written to stop this?

It is easier and makes for a better political society to let this be.

It creates a political society that says whoever has the most money will likely win.  Is that what you consider better?

I'm not concerned. Sounds like what we have now with not-for-profits campaigning for candidates.... just opens a new route for "fundraising". Why shouldn't corporations get a say on who they feel will benefit them? They pay taxes too.

No, a lot of them do not pay taxes, or if they do it is a very small percentage of income compared to what the average individual income earner pays.  As for not-for-profits, well, if they are non-profit, do they really have a chance against for-profit donors.  Most non-profits are front groups for corporations anyway.

Corporations often have very powerful shareholders that are not American citizens.  Take News Corp and it's second-leading shareholder who is a Saudi Prince.  Do you think that he has no influence as to where News Corps donations go?  Of course he does.  Do we want foreign nationals to have such great influence over our elections?  

When did we make the big jump that America is a nation of sheep and whatever we tell them the most is true? That they cannot analyze what is reality if both sides of an issue are presented to them.

That is why CU doesnt matter. It will only create more of the same message!

Posted by creilmann on 10/10/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/5/2010 7:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by creilmann on 10/5/2010 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 10/5/2010 6:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 10/5/2010 6:31:00 PM (view original):
If it is nothing, I'm sure you would have no objection to removing this money from play.

How could we do that?

This was a Supreme Court Decision dealing with political speech.

How would the Constitutional Amenment be written to stop this?

It is easier and makes for a better political society to let this be.

It creates a political society that says whoever has the most money will likely win.  Is that what you consider better?

I'm not concerned. Sounds like what we have now with not-for-profits campaigning for candidates.... just opens a new route for "fundraising". Why shouldn't corporations get a say on who they feel will benefit them? They pay taxes too.

No, a lot of them do not pay taxes, or if they do it is a very small percentage of income compared to what the average individual income earner pays.  As for not-for-profits, well, if they are non-profit, do they really have a chance against for-profit donors.  Most non-profits are front groups for corporations anyway.

Corporations often have very powerful shareholders that are not American citizens.  Take News Corp and it's second-leading shareholder who is a Saudi Prince.  Do you think that he has no influence as to where News Corps donations go?  Of course he does.  Do we want foreign nationals to have such great influence over our elections?  

Foreign citizens don't vote.... and I thought we care about what the rest of the world thinks of us. I see commercials all the time influencing me to buy a product.... doesn't mean I do. I'm still not concerned. I hope sometime soon the money is disclosed... I.e. this ad is from News corp. That would be the only thing that concerns me and once the dems quit whining about the supreme court decision and focus on fixing the loopholes for full disclosure it will be fine. Besides.... most foreign countries hate the republicans because of bush. This should help Obama and the dems, right?

Nearly all not-for-profits are in business to make a profit or they won't be in business. For instance, I don't think its a bad thing if children's memorial hospital puts up cash to promote its interest in cook county, illinois, and even presidential candidates.

Umm, moy, 'not-for-profit' means exactly that. They are legally prevented from turning a profit.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 9:44:00 AM (view original):
Umm, moy, 'not-for-profit' means exactly that. They are legally prevented from turning a profit.

it means they have to re-invest that profit with-in the organization.

For example - We've had a few not-for-profit hospitals close in Illinois because they are not turning a profit. Most hospitals are registered not-for-profit.

Other hospitals, like Children's Memorial are building a new $915 mil hospital with that money, despite Blago trying to withhold state funding if they didn't pay him money under the table (which proudly CMH told him to go **** himself - they don't want the money then). That hospital should be able to campaign against a guy that is holding them hostage.

My father-in-laws hospital is not-for-profit. He is the CEO. This means his income and others are fully disclosed and all profits again go back into the hospital. His predisessor (sp?) was terminated for not running the hospital in the black. Why - because they need to turn a profit to stay in business and employ over 11,000 people. This new legislation, and other legislation always affects the hospital both good and bad.... why shouldn't his hospital be able to put out a local ad supporting the better candidate for them. It's always interesting holding a conversation with him about this. He has the utmost integrity and he doesn't blame - he just pretty much says it is what it is, we need to figure out the impact of the legislation, and how we should proceed.

It may seem like nitpicking, but you are badly misusing the word profit. NPOs need to bring in enough revenue to cover their operating costs. Any surplus goes into a fund for future use. Their goal should not be to bring in more revenue than they require.

I'd also suggest that a mindset in which organizations like hospitals are required to "turn a profit" is a big part of the problem.

Anton - I understand what you are saying - about them not turning a profit, but at some point there has to be some fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Under our current set of systems, do you honestly think that those in the government bureaucracy would do a better job of holding down costs?  Just looking at how our local schools are run (at least in Ohio), tells me that would be a resounding "NO".

As you said abouve - the system is a mess.  And the proposal passed earlier this year is a patchwork fix that will, in the long run, not do much to solve the basic problems of the systems.  Plural.  'Cuz there are so many layers within here that I would be shocked if anyone truly understands it (kinda like our current personal income tax codes . . . . . . ).

Posted by wrmiller13 on 10/11/2010 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Anton - I understand what you are saying - about them not turning a profit, but at some point there has to be some fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Under our current set of systems, do you honestly think that those in the government bureaucracy would do a better job of holding down costs?  Just looking at how our local schools are run (at least in Ohio), tells me that would be a resounding "NO".

As you said abouve - the system is a mess.  And the proposal passed earlier this year is a patchwork fix that will, in the long run, not do much to solve the basic problems of the systems.  Plural.  'Cuz there are so many layers within here that I would be shocked if anyone truly understands it (kinda like our current personal income tax codes . . . . . . ).

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying NPOs need to be run differently than regular corporations, because they have different goals. That doesn't mean the only alternative to full-bore 'CEO culture' is government bureaucracy.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 11:23:00 AM (view original):
It may seem like nitpicking, but you are badly misusing the word profit. NPOs need to bring in enough revenue to cover their operating costs. Any surplus goes into a fund for future use. Their goal should not be to bring in more revenue than they require.

I'd also suggest that a mindset in which organizations like hospitals are required to "turn a profit" is a big part of the problem.

really then - call it what you want - "maximizing monies for future use" if you want.

when organizations stop looking to "maximize monies for future use" or "turn a profit" they become as disfunctional and wasteful as the US government. I don't think "turning a profit" is a bad thing for hospitals. It's not so much the hospitals that are fucked up as is insurance, medicare, medicaid, pharma companies, and medical equipment suppliers. Hospitals are trying to work within the environment the are in which includes slow paying insurance companies and gov't programs, providing care to the uninsured (for a loss), addressing malpractice lawsuits, etc.

If their goal is quote "not to bring in more revenue then they require" - how can they function when the economy turns, less beds fill, or new costs are placed upon them through legislation? They would have $0 in a future use fund if they only bring in enough to cover their current operating costs or "the revenue they require".

Should Unicef not collect more money than they need for operations... or the red cross? What happens when a tsunami, an earthquake, etc happens and they stopped trying to bring in more money than required before disaster struck?

I completely disagree with that. It's entirely possible to run an efficient organization without having "turning a profit" as a main goal. And I notice you have to twist my words to claim I said they should only focus on immediate short-term costs in order to make your argument work.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wrmiller13 on 10/11/2010 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Anton - I understand what you are saying - about them not turning a profit, but at some point there has to be some fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Under our current set of systems, do you honestly think that those in the government bureaucracy would do a better job of holding down costs?  Just looking at how our local schools are run (at least in Ohio), tells me that would be a resounding "NO".

As you said abouve - the system is a mess.  And the proposal passed earlier this year is a patchwork fix that will, in the long run, not do much to solve the basic problems of the systems.  Plural.  'Cuz there are so many layers within here that I would be shocked if anyone truly understands it (kinda like our current personal income tax codes . . . . . . ).

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying NPOs need to be run differently than regular corporations, because they have different goals. That doesn't mean the only alternative to full-bore 'CEO culture' is government bureaucracy.

My father-in-law runs his hospital as a businessman (with his MBA, Law Degree, etc) to maximize profit but with the community, patientcare, and employee interests at heart. I don't see why a "CEO culture" type can not do both like you suggest... as if it has to be a bad thing to be in a CEO culture based on a few bad individuals. Do you know any CEOs personally? Are they bad people running a bad business because of there "CEO culture" or are you selecting the bad apples and grouping your CEO friends with them?

I personally know many CEOs and all of them care a lot about their employees, customers, etc.

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):
I completely disagree with that. It's entirely possible to run an efficient organization without having "turning a profit" as a main goal. And I notice you have to twist my words to claim I said they should only focus on immediate short-term costs in order to make your argument work.

so then how much money would one have to "turn in profit" to be set up for the future? please quantitate.

Posted by moy23 on 10/11/2010 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 10/11/2010 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wrmiller13 on 10/11/2010 11:32:00 AM (view original):
Anton - I understand what you are saying - about them not turning a profit, but at some point there has to be some fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Under our current set of systems, do you honestly think that those in the government bureaucracy would do a better job of holding down costs?  Just looking at how our local schools are run (at least in Ohio), tells me that would be a resounding "NO".

As you said abouve - the system is a mess.  And the proposal passed earlier this year is a patchwork fix that will, in the long run, not do much to solve the basic problems of the systems.  Plural.  'Cuz there are so many layers within here that I would be shocked if anyone truly understands it (kinda like our current personal income tax codes . . . . . . ).

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying NPOs need to be run differently than regular corporations, because they have different goals. That doesn't mean the only alternative to full-bore 'CEO culture' is government bureaucracy.

My father-in-law runs his hospital as a businessman (with his MBA, Law Degree, etc) to maximize profit but with the community, patientcare, and employee interests at heart. I don't see why a "CEO culture" type can not do both like you suggest... as if it has to be a bad thing to be in a CEO culture based on a few bad individuals. Do you know any CEOs personally? Are they bad people running a bad business because of there "CEO culture" or are you selecting the bad apples and grouping your CEO friends with them?

I personally know many CEOs and all of them care a lot about their employees, customers, etc.

They can care all they want about their employees and customers on their own damn time. If they put those feelings above maximizing profits for their corporation, they are doing something not just wrong but illegal. That's what I mean by 'CEO culture'. A CEO's only job, and only concern, is required to be the maximization of shareholder value. Nothing else matters.

As for your father-in-law, again, I don't think maximizing profits should be the goal of someone running an NPO. Is a surplus a good thing, to guard against unexpected future shortfalls and expenditures, or provide for future expansion? Sure. But there should be a specific target in mind. Blindly "maximizing profits" is the wrong priority.

Okay Anton - I get it. I read an article this morning that stipulated that 6 of 10 obama dems genuinely distrust businesses. Until now - I did not even consider this in your debate. I assume this is where you fit in - correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd like to say that most execs (the vast majority) imo make their decisions based on all factors... i.e. opportunity costs, etc. The ultimate goal is to maximize profit and grow the business, yes, but I believe that many of these same people have integrity and don't sacrifice all well being based on maximizing profit. Like my father-in-laws example - he looks at the bottom-line first but before he makes a decision he considers the impact on the community, employees, and patients.

Another CEO I know runs a $6,000,000 in sales catering company. When times got tough last year and he had to fire some people. His staff suggested they would cut back their own hours to keep their co-workers on until times get better. Thats what his company did as well as work with an outside agency to provide employees discounts on things like diapers, toilet paper, basic needs, etc and help lower his employee daily household expenses outside of work

Even TK for wis said to me while golfing that the hardest part of doing what he did here was factoring in that every decison he makes has an impact on some 40 or so livlihoods of his employees and their families.