Once again more lies and distortions. ACA took close to a year to develop, so saying a day or a few days is just another one of those Republican talking points.

With a minor exception, it's constitutional
Polls on specific provisions of ACA show high levels of support.
The world hasn't come to an end as a result of ACA.
The claims of higher taxes are completely misleading unless you want to consider the middle class to extend to the upper few percent of income people (no, my friend, $250,000 is hardly middle class in most people's eyes).

You lost. The majority of Americans do not support repeal. Part to the polls showing dissatisfaction with ACA include those lefties you hate and disparage who wanted even more in the bill, like a true public option.

Get over it already.

The "next day comment" was not litteral, obviously nothing in government gets done in a day, but the jamming it down your throats comment was serious, but I guess a rabid lefty cannot have a little fun with the sarcasim.

Wrong again on the facts. The entire healthcare bill was available online for days, if not weeks prior to any votes. Obviously you forgot that little detail which was highly publicized at the time. There were also many many changes made in the bill during the Senate part of the process and virtually all of them were done to include Republican ideas in an effort to gain some level of bipartisanship. What fools the Democrats were. Didn't they hear Mitch Mcconnell say that the Republican goal was to make Obama a one-term President and to do all they could to help him fail. Maybe you can explain how one goes about doing that without making America fail at the same time. Another case of politics over patriotism.

You also forget that the President of the United States is not a member of Congress. Perhaps you have a European (socialist?) view and think we have a parliamentary system here. We do not. You will note that I have not said anything positive about Nancy Pelosi. But I will remind you that since the Republicans have retaken the House, most key legislation has been presented under a closed rule. For those of you who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments can even be proposed on the floor of the House. Since Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts control all of the committees, the House has been operating on a take it or leave it basis for the past two years now. So please, Mr. Pot, stop calling the kettle black. This is also the same House that decided to hold hearings on birth control and refused to allow a single woman to testify. No wonder Republicans are so far behind when it comes to the women's vote this year.

When will you say something that can be supported with facts? Is every Republican a clone of Romney now where the truth is either verboten, or just a tool to be used selectively to gain power? Since when has political philosophy been put ahead of honesty and intellectual integrity?

To quote Joseph Welch in his lecture to another former Republican hero, Josephy McCarthy:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Oops, I think it's pittance...

"So I will make you a deal (it's behind door #1). You let me take away your car and I will replace it with something (but you have to wait to see if it is a better car, a bicycle, or a new pair of running shoes). If you accept the deal, then I will accept and trust Romney. Anyone care to take a $10,000 bet on what the response will be to this offer?"

Obama several years ago;

"I sent Pelosi and Reid to write up all the details for my health care overhaul, and I want you guys to sign it tomorrow and I don't care if you do not have enough time to read it. I promise you what is in it is better than what we have now, but I can't tell you exactly how that is because I have not read it myself. Just sign it before we ram it down your throats anyway".

Seems to me like Obama has already done this game, and with far, far greater impact to all Americans, so lets just let Mitt have this one, right Mr. Left Wing? After all, your hero owes us on the Right at least one pass because he actually did ram his Obamacare plan down our throats w/o ever reading the freeeking thing himself! Really sounds like a together President doesn't it? The jackass would probably buy a house in the Florida swamp w/o reading the purchase contract either.....after all it would only be a pettence compared to Obamacare, and he didn't read that one either.

God help us all, we are currently sooooooo f#$&'d up in this country.

Let's not forget that TARP was a Bush thing as was the initial bailout to the auto industry .... something the right now tries to pin entirely on Obama. And they keep hammering ACA by mis-stating the facts as their candidate did repeatedly last night. The have kept with the lie that that $716 B was taken from patient service when, in fact, it was taken from the excess profits of the insurance companies. NO, repeart, NO changes in patient services occurred as a result. And before you start to defend the insurance companies, would you please detail for all of us exactly what service they provide other than paperwork? What essential function do they have that, if we didn't have it, would affect healthcare in the US? What they do, however, is to put limits on various kinds of treatments, caps on payments, rejection of claims as unnecessary treatment,etc. ... and you guys talk about death panels? Give me a break!! Let's not forget the Romney promise for a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which he completely disowned last night. Now the 5 trillion gets offset by cutting preferences and, thus revenues and what we pay, remains unchanged.

All Romney keeps telling us is that he will get rid of this, that, and the other on Day 1. First of all, he won't do any of those things without the consent of Congress. He will be President, if elected, and not CEO and he doesn't appear to understand the difference. He keeps saying he will replace it with his own ideas, but won't tell us what they are.

So I will make you a deal (it's behind door #1). You let me take away your car and I will replace it with something (but you have to wait to see if it is a better car, a bicycle, or a new pair of running shoes). If you accept the deal, then I will accept and trust Romney. Anyone care to take a $10,000 bet on what the response will be to this offer?

Don't want this deal? How about the one behind door #2. I will lower your tax rate by 20 % and then remove some, unspecified tax breaks...maybe your home mortgage interest deduction, maybe your property tax deduction, maybe your charitable contribution deduction or your medical car deduction. Will you trust me on that one? The last time we tried this, it just didn't work and blew a hole in the national debt that you have spent the last 4 years trying to shift to Obama. You call him the 'food stamp' President, but you don't want to talk about who was in power and what they did to put all those people on food stamps in the first place.

Won't you take responsibility for anything bad? Are you that narrow that you can only blame one side? Do you have to resort to small-ball with the name calling and personal insults? Why are you and the Republicans and Romney so afraid to lay out your plans? The obvious answer is that they will show the American people your true colors and you will lose in a landslide as Barry Goldwater did in 1964 when he laid out in great detail what his plans were for America. Notice how silent the Republicans were during the 2010 election about their real agenda. They did not campaign on enacting voter suppression regulations or anti-abortion legislation, or forced medical procedures like ultrasound (talk about government control of medical care), or loosening child labor laws as they did in Maine, or busting unions as they tried in Ohio and Wisconsin. Hey, if you believe in this stuff, lay it out for the American people. Don't hide it during the campaign only to bring it up after you are elected.

So let me get as childish as you so maybe you can understand it:

Liar, Liar, pants on fire!!!

"Listen to the fact checkers.
romney was talking a lot of crap.
Do the math.
His math doesn't work."

And you think Obama's math works? Like how Obamacare will self fund? Or how Solyndra was a wise investment for the government?
Or how a continual $1+ trillion a year deficit is necessary?

You guys on the left are just too much. You criticize Mitt's #'s while Odumbo's #'s are off the charts. Are you guys really that dumb or is that liberal lean just so enticing?

By the way "dumb old Bush" looked at Solyndra too, but found it was too risky for the taxpayer's dollars, so he passed; and you call HIM stupid?

You don't get people to think by arguing with them, nor are you effective by doing it on this site.

You're much better addressing this in a political forum where the people looking for answers and open to change would be looking.

I think you are just blowing off steam and possibly a little lonely, for which you have my sympathy.

However this forum is for people who want to follow industry rumors, not listen to your political opinions.

If you wish to stay, it would be appropriate and considerate to start your own thread, correctly titled, and argue with each other there.

Back atcha ...

Do you really think I'm trying to fool anyone, period?

If trying to get people to think and look at facts and data is fooling people, then I plead guilty. If getting people involved in an election, rather than just going to vote using the eeny-meeny-miny-moe method, then I plead guilty again.

If you think I'm trying to fool people with facts, then it seems to me that you are the one who has been fooled.

Do you really believe you're fooling anyone with what your doing?

Is anyone holding a gun to your head and making you come here to read comments you don't think are appropriate for this thread?

What is it that qualifies you or anyone else to determine what should or should not be posted here?

Do you really believe that the election is completely irrelevant to the topic of layoffs at Siemens or the good possibility that they plan to relocate facilities to Asia as part of their long term strategy?

If the Siemens layoffs are so important, why aren't more people posting about them and just drowning out the politicos?

Finally, may I refer you to that little red box on the upper right of your screen with an 'x' in it? It's a good cure for the agita that this thread seems to be causing. Just take one click, and call me in the morning.

How do you know the previous poster buries his head in the sand regarding politics? perhaps they just choose to comment in a more appropriate forum.

Not like some people.

Sick? Inappropriate perhaps, but sick? Oh, I think not.

Sick is burying your head in the sand and closing your ears to things that will affect your life alot more than how many people get laid off (we already know the total number anyway, don't we?). Rumours or guesses as to where and when is a waste of time, generally pure speculation, and, one could even say, morbid.

So now we can debate which sickness is worse. The politicos or the vultures?

We're here to check rumors on DX layoff. It makes sense to let it tank if no news. Like LA Deuce, it's still searchable. Nobody expects this thread floating by these nonsense irrelevant posts.

Work for Siemens or not, that's just sick to write post after post about politics in Siemens DX thread on biotech forum. You guys need to find other way to lift up your egos.

I have to congratulate Mitt. He is a genius and I may have to change who I will vote for. Look at what he said last night:

He will lower tax rates from 35 to 28 % for the top marginal income. And to stay revenue neutral, he will eliminate many deductions or tax preferences. The math is just wonderful:

Let us look at $200 of marginal income today vs. under Romney and assume that there are $40 worth of deductions today that Romney will eliminate:

Today you start with $200, subtract the $40 and have $160 taxed at 28%. So you pay $56.

Under Romney, in contrast, you only pay 28%, but with no deduction. So you pay $56.

Ummmmmmmmmmm... wait a second. Am I just stupid and missing something here? What happened to all that extra money that the so-called 'job creators' (a unique species of rich human benefactors) will have to hire new workers?

Remember how much he emphasized that his tax plan would be revenue neutral (in contrast to budget neutral). So either he redistributes who pays what and lets the 'job creators' pay less and the middle class pay more, or he has massive cuts in spending. But massive spending cuts are not part of 'revenue neutral' they are only part of 'budget neutral'. And I still haven't heard what programs he will cut or by how much to make up for the revenue shortfall.

Oh, no. I'm right back to square one.

Did I miss something last night or and I just stupid or is Romney peddling economic snake oil?

Someone please help me out here. I am sooooo confused.

If it hadn't been robbed by previous congresses it would be in great shape.
Blame your elected officials.
Stay away from any voucher programs.
YOU lose in that ponzi scheme.

In fact, previous generations got a much better bargain — sometimes getting back seven times more in benefits than they paid into Social Security through their payroll taxes. That great deal is over. Now, our federal leaders must enact changes to ensure the program stays viable, especially when you consider Social Security is the main source of income for millions of retirees.

Listen to the fact checkers.
romney was talking a lot of crap.
Do the math.
His math doesn't work.

Romney mopped the floor with Obama.
Might be hope for us yet!

Obama looked tired and worn tonight. Go get him Mitt!!!

These are interesting facts, but I do question the comment about taking time away from "your busy Schedule".

Why would you bother?? Writing all that here is esentially unproductive, I hope you didn't neglect anything important to do this.

I suggest the only good reason you contribute is that you enjoy the argument and so have not sacrificed anything. That and the fact that your comment makes you feel important.

There is no need to start a new thread. First of all, the same people will go there too. The political discussion is just some filler until someone can post some real information about Siemens or at least some juicy rumours that we can all feast on. In the meantime, you can just pass by the political stuff, twiddle your thumbs, or play with yourself (which is basically the same as much of the political stuff here .... just a little more self-gratifying).

If nothing else, the political stuff keeps the thread current and easy to find if and when people have relevant stuff to post.

If you have something to say about Siemens DX and its layoff, I suggest you open up another post. This one has been occupied by political trolls for a while.

And again, LA 2013! (I feel like a troll too)

If they expected to completely fail, then they did quite well vs. plan.

So how did Siemens do for their just ended fiscal year? As good as expected? Did everyone hit their goals?

There's another thread about Siemens divesting itself of its versant line, is this what was being moved/ consolidated in Berkley? can anyone confirm or deny?

"As I recall, taxes went up during the Clinton administration and the budget was actually balanced."

As I recall Clinton gutted the military, Remember; he was the guy who loathed the military ...

You Liberals need to stop worrying about how mitt spends his money and worry about how OBama is spending OUR taxes

I read the Huffington Post & Daily KOS for my political fix. Others choose Drudge or Roll Call for theirs. Fivethirtyeight for polling data.
I come here for biotech news and only that - I really don't feel like wading through all this irrelevancy.

How about a truce today while they hold the master-debate in Denver?

Obama supporters should promise to hug Romney's elephant if ...

Romney supporters promise to kiss Obama's (jack)a$$.

A little political humor never hurts. Don't blame me. I didn't pick the symbols.

I think we should put the blame all the way back to our founding fathers. Without them, William and Kate will be our king and queen, the Indians are still roaming around grand west, and people will have thanksgiving everyday. No America, no mess, the world will thank us.

That is the BRIC and the Asian third world developing economies.

Please, for God's sake, stop all this political discussion. It only affects our lives.

The American aversion to discussing politics and the crude manner in which they do is the major reason our political leaders are so poor and why most of them have been bought by lobbyists on both sides of the aisle. Give up the discussion, stay home and don't even vote and you get the garbage we have now and deserve.

So go ahead and boycott this thread. Stick your heads in the sand until November 7th. Then wake up and throw up when you see what you have as a government and run around blaming everyone else for your own indifference.

fING WINDBAGS!

As long as all this political blah blah continues let's boycott this thread until we get back to Siemens DX.

I forgot to make another point. Because the game has changed so much, lowering taxes may indeed not actually create a significant growth in jobs, but an increase in taxes definitely will lower the available job market and slow growth. We are currently not in a job growth pattern and may not be for quite awhile. One of the biggest reasons is that overall US productivity has gone upwards despite the moribound economy, and businesses have become much leaner and more efficient because of all the job cuts, while productivity continued to go up. Why would they hire a lot more? They are getting more production from employees than ever before and they will want to keep it that way. This will put us in a slow emploment growth pattern for the near future, and those employed will be very busy bees.

Let me see. You need proof of identity to get on a plane -- but not to vote ---

Social Security is a far bigger Ponzi scheme then Madoff's . In the 1920 most of the men on death row were ---- Italians I believe.

Left wing Republicans now that is a true oxymoron.

Yes -- wonderful FDR ,,, imprisoned American citizens because they were Japanese, let our defenses go down, and started the biggest Ponzi scheme the world has ever known.

Republicans hate a clean environment -- but the EPA was started under the Nixon administration. Oh yes, wasn't it LBJ who increased the troops in Viet-Nam from 10-20,000 to 500,000+

Only left wing Republicans want to take the country back 30 years.

The rest of them want to take us back to before the New Deal and that would be more like 80 years. Even during the Bush administration there was an attempt to kill social security or to privatize it. The Republicans went through several iterations of what they called their plan, but Americans were not stupid enough to fall for the name game thing. There have been proposals to soften child labor laws (already done by Republicans in Maine in the past two years), eliminate the minimum wage, and even repeal the civil rights legislation of the 60s (Rand Paul is on record favoring this in part). Even now, there has been a clear attempt to restrict voting rights of Americans which hits the old, the poor, and the minorities the hardest. Alot of talk about voter fraud, but, once again, no data to support the claim.

The Republican Party is no longer a party of conservatives. A political conservative is one who wants to move ahead, but very slowly and cautiously. The word to describe one who wants to move backwards is not conservative; such people are called reactionaries and that is what the Republican Party is nowadays. They even say they want to take the country back (it's a great double entendre), but they won't tell us how far back in time they want to go.

For anyone who can operate a motor vehicle American politics is very simple to remember:

When you want to go forward, you move the gear shift to D.
When you want to go in reverse, you move the gear shift to R.

The above message has been brought to you by Democrats: cleaning up Republican messes since 1933.

Over 50% of black fathers leave their children. Almost half of the U.S prison population is black...and they only comprise some 13% of America. I must be racist because I know that right? You religious nutters always want to go backwards. America cannot go backwards and must remain competitive in education, technology, science and remaining progressive. Take America back 30 years and the world will control us.

"If products are imported by an American firm from China and sold here NAFTA agreements passed by Clinton aloows for no special tariffs so the profits would be taxed much like if it was made in the USA. But the full manufacturing penalty must be considered for manufacturing in the USA (OSHA, EPA, FDA, FICA, unions,etc.....and yes taxes) as these things add up to far more impact than any one tax. Ask any manufactuer what they have to put up with and they will roll their eyes. And this is not even considering the much higher pay rate that American workers arrogantly expect. Then you have the fear of law suits especially if you are in the health care field. We are literally pricing ourselves out of the international marketplace so its not just taxes, thats just the subject that was brought up here, it is far more complicated than that. So when people say a small tax increse has no real affect on jobs it is like saying increasing my bath water temperature 20 degrees won't matter much; unless the temperature is already at 140 degrees."

Very interesting. So product profitability is taxed the same whether a product is made in China or the US. Since you raised the issue of corporate taxes when I was trying to talk about personal taxes, I will attempt to work on that level as well. So, let me see how this would work in reality:

I make a widget that I sell for $10.00

To make it in the US will cost me $5.00 in labor and $1.00 in materials and other fixed costs.

To make the product in China, labor costs me $1.00, extra transportation is also $1.00 plus materials and other fixed costs of $1.00

When I make the product in the US, I have a profit of $4.00 per widget. Made in China, my profit is $7.00 per widget. In reality, I pay more total tax per widget when I make it in China, but I also make more profit. If the tax rate is 10%, my overall profit is $3.60 in the US and $6.30 in China. If taxes change to 25%, my overall profit in the US is $3.00 and in China it's $5.25. Either way, it is still alot cheaper to make the product in China and the higher tax rate would not change my decision to outsource to China one bit. In fact, in this specific case, the ratio of profit between China and the US remains the same at 1.75.

Now either I am totally screwed up with my calculations and approach, or the tax rate on corporations has little to do with a decision to outsource.

It kinda sucks when you actually look at real numbers that are completely contrary to your claim. But, once again, since I am not an accountant or a business major, I may have missed something here in my calculations. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but without changing the subject or obfuscating any more. Just look at this as a single variable experiment first; other interactions with other factors will only serve to confuse the facts.

Yeah, I heard of 9/11. Care to relate 9/11 to the housing bubble that, like many ideas, started off well-intentioned in the 1970s and got completely out of hand during the 2000s when we had a President who had his head buried in the sand.

If you want to blame 9/11 on the lack of any job growth during the 2000's you will have to do better than a simple assertion. How about some real facts and data. Isn't there anyone on the conservative side nowadays who can provide more that platitudes, vauge generalities, and simple non-supported assertions? There must be some data and facts to back up what you say, but for some reason they are never provided. Romney won't give us any details on what tax preferences he will close to make his tax cuts revenue neutral; Ryan says the math would take too long to explain (almost every independent analysis says the plan simply cannot work without violating the laws of mathematics). The same goes for foreign policy about which neither Romney nor Ryan have any real experience, nor have they displayed anything other than a shoot-from-the-hip approach. Once again, they claim to have a plan, but no details behind it.

The approach of generalities and assetions is consistent with one of two models. The first is that rich elite concept of paternalism that once existed in the 19th century. We are rich; we are successful; we are superior; so just trust us. The other is more cynical: these people are just Manchurian candidates. They are really agents of Josef Stalin who learned from him that a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

I don't know about you, but I want a bit more than just 'trust me -- I have a plan' from a candidate. Can you do any better on your 9/11 excuse than you did by making it appear that NAFTA applied to China or that it was a Clinton idea? You may think I'm wrong on everything; you probably think I'm a commie dupe; but don't make the mistake of assuming I'm stupid. You still have the outstanding request to explain how lowering PERSONAL taxes will create jobs. Please do not continue to obfuscate by changing the subject to corporate taxes because that is not what my question is about. Just for once, try to stick to the subject and deal with facts that can be tied to the issue by some form of logic.

Since you brought up 9/11 and I brought up diverting attention from issues, let me also ask you who diverted our anti-terrorist war to Iraq and who got the guys who were responsible for 9/11?

I have also noticed that whenever I present facts here, you conveniently seem to hybernate and not ever deal with them. It sounds like you might be a member of the Siemens DX management team. (Just to bring a bit of relevance back to the thread).
__________________________

[And since this is supposed to be a rumour mill, the latest rumor is that Romney will have two extra debates: Romney then vs. Romney now. Will the REAL Willard Romney please stand up? Can anyone really be sure where he really stands on anything or is he just an opportunist who drifts with whichever way the wind seems to be blowing?]

"And all the noise for a test that can only be a small percentage of most companies' total DX revenues." END QUOTE

I agree the rock star effect on Vitamin D. It may be more of a breakthrough on scientific side, but definitely not on sales. What if Siemens passes all the R&D resources from Vitamin D to the upgrades of other popular assays with mass market? Whoever did the cost/benefits analysis and greenlight this project should let go in the very next layoff (or maybe he/she already realized it and jumped the ship).

Opps, you caught me alright, writing off the top of my head w/o using Google like you are. I didn't even take a clue from the "North American" part! But at any rate there is no significant tax structure difference in manufacturing country except for local governments giving special tax breaks/ bonds etc. to lure companies to build facilities in American states ( much like the Honda, Volkswagon factories). Yes NAFTA was a basically Republican focus that took years to get signed, but it was Clinton who actually penned it and remember Ross Pero's quote about "that giant sucking sound you will hear when NAFTA is signed". THat was in my head when you referenced China. It was not a good deal for American workers for the "short" run, but in actuality it jump started what was going to happen regardless; the slow drop in American salaries and the movement of jobs overseas. Perot was correct about jobs leaving but even he missed the bigger point; protecting USA jobs by not signing such an agreement only would artificially keep jobs here temporarily, because cheaper labor overseas would eventually bring cheaper goods here, putting US companies out of business anyway. Tariffs? that only is a temp. fix that any smart economist will tell you does not work in the long run. It just insures that your tariff protected country becomes less an less competitive over time, with the bottom eventually falling out. Guy's you have to focus on what is out there, not what American workers deserve for all the hard work, because many others are doing the same ork for far less wages. It cannot be this way forever with a constantly bolstered artificial economy protecting the "Ameriac way of life". The competition IS GOING TO CHANGE things one way or the other.

"By the way ... what ever did happen to all of those jobs and prosperity that the Bush taxes were supposed to bring us?"

Ever hear of 9-11 ? Without those tax cuts our economy would have really tanked.

Once upon a time, in a decade long, long ago, there was a shortage of qualified workers to fill all of the jobs in America. In order to make themselves more attractive to potential employees, some companies thought it would be a good idea to offer fringe benefits in addition to wages or salaries. As with many new ideas, this one gained momentum and, ultimately got out of hand. Now we have benefits like health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, AD&D benefits, etc. Once these benefits started to become common, many unions climbed on board and demanded that they be added to the package.

Now, after an half a century, all of these added benefits have gotten out of hand and cost companies millions/billions of dollars each year. It doens't matter today who started it or who piled on afterwards. What matters is that many companies are saddled with all of these costs, many of which are not part of the balance sheet in foreign countries. The situation now begs two questions:

By what logic is there a necessary connection between health care or other insurance and employment? On what basis, other than tradition, should they be tied together?

What would be the impact on American business competitiveness if companies were no longer responsible for all of these benefits? What, for instance, if we had a national health care system? Oh wait, wouldn't that be socialism? If only we could call it something else so that word would't scare people off.

Yes, Virginia, there are alternatives to just lowering taxes more in order to help American business become more competitive. What we are witnessing now is a last ditch attempt on the part of the rich to preserve their Bush tax cuts that were going to open up millions of new jobs for Americans. By the way ... what ever did happen to all of those jobs and prosperity that the Bush taxes were supposed to bring us?

"
Good statement. If you put tariffs on cars for example, GM, Ford,,,, would not have to work to keep their costs in line, unions could demand higher pay, which would result in higher prices for cars. Consumer loses: The imported car prices would go up because of the tariff , and the domestic ones because of higher labor costs."

More scare tactics from the rich elite. Notice that the option for the rich to take a little less is never considered. They always have to come first. They are rich already. They are the elite. They are ENTITLED to more riches and the power to rule us all.

How about the other scenario. Cut back on salaries and benefits for American workers. Eliminate all unions and collective bargaining. Re-institute the 12 hour day and 6 day working week. Bring back child labor. Bring back the company towns and company stores. Remove all regulations that inhibit business; it's ok to keep the ones that promote businesses or give them preferential tax treatment. Imagine how competitive we will be then. Then sit back and wait for the 'workers of the world (to) unite ... (they'd) have nothing to lose but their chains'.

And that, boys and girls, is the threat from the other side.

Anyone up for joining forces in the middle?

"Go ahead set up tariffs to protect American firms, increase taxes on the business controllers and you will have a completely uncompetitive country in a few years if maybe a decade or so, America will be toast at that point with little to export and no money to buy imports."
]
Good statement. If you put tariffs on cars for example, GM, Ford,,,, would not have to work to keep their costs in line, unions could demand higher pay, which would result in higher prices for cars. Consumer loses: The imported car prices would go up because of the tariff , and the domestic ones because of higher labor costs.

It isn't so much that Vitamin D is so important. It is just the latest and greatest new analyte on the block; the diagnostic fad-du-jour. There are also a few contraversies about vitamin D testing and the various tests on the market which adds to the noise. And all the noise for a test that can only be a small percentage of most companies' total DX revenues.

Just got the results back from Labcorp for my annual physical check. My Vitamin D is close to the low end and the doc told me to take some supplement, which I could care less about.

I wonder why everyone here felt DX Vitamin D assay is a big deal? As an average consumer, I felt all other stuff on my testing results are far more important than the "D".

I wish Siemens could invest money elsewhere.

"NAFTA agreements passed by Clinton"

I was not aware that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) affected our trade relationship with China. Thank you for setting me straight on this point. (From Wikipedia: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994). I guess they don't know about the China connection either.

Now it's my turn. Presidents do NOT pass legislation. They simply sign or veto legislation passed by Congress. Moveover, this was not a Clinto thing. (From Wikipedia again: Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.) NAFTA was primarily a Republican idea that was negotiated during the Reagan and Bush administratios. In fact, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise Clinton worked with Republicans to find ways to make it somewhat acceptable to both sides: ("Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required US partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.)

I am always willing to learn new things. However, I have no need to learn from those who would re-write history to support their own agenda. As you can see, I prefer facts and data to assertions and endless repetition of half truths or outright lies.