Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 21 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Letters to the Editor

For Saturday, November 12, 2011


POSTED:



Corporations have a good side

I'm not for crony capitalism that some corporations benefit from, but I am for corporations, as I know all the good they do.

The Wall Street occupiers and protests happening around the country want to slam corporations, and many try to blame this country's problems on them.

Who's out there speaking out for the good corporations do? Not only do they hire a massive amount of people, but where is the credit for all the charity they hand out?

Look around town and any time there is an event, see whose name is on the poster that stepped forward to support the event -- mostly it's corporations.

Who is it that supports many organizations like the charitable associations and others? The poor and middle class would falter greatly without corporations' money donated to help one cause after another.

It's time to give corporations their due and thank them for all they do -- and for all the jobs they provide.

Cheryl Yale
Ewa Beach

APEC has been a losing proposition

APEC is here and we God-fearing, taxpaying and law-abiding citizens of Oahu are not able to drive where we want, take our boats out to where we want, to swim where we want, to walk where we want, or to park where we want, while these yahoos are in town.

And this from a government that will not allow its law enforcement personnel to weed out the illegal immigrants in our state and country. This picture is very fuzzy to me.

Are these people afraid of being together in paradise? Maybe it is better that they stop getting together, all in one place, and start videoconferencing.

Reports indicate we stand to see $120 million spent by these folks, surely not any out of their personal accounts. But we have already spent $137 million on improvements, so that is $17 million overspent already.

Gregory A. Poole
Mililani

Oahu fortunate to host summit

We would like all our APEC guests, from whichever country they came, to go home remembering the graciousness, beauty and spirit of aloha. Traffic congestion is a fact of life for us, as it is for most of our visitors, and in most parts of Oahu it has not been much worse than usual.

We are paying a very small price to host an event that many U.S. cities were competing for. I would like to convey aloha to President Barack Obama, Hawaii's congressional delegation and others for their strong support to have the APEC summit in Hawaii.

Toufiq Siddiqi
Honolulu

'Tutu and Me' going national

Your editorial on the importance of preschool education was enlightening ("Early education can improve test scores," Star-Advertiser, Our View, Nov. 3).

For us on the mainland, Hawaii has pioneered two very important aspects of birth-to-5 education.

First, more young children are being cared for by grandparents, even aunts and uncles. Since older caregivers have been out of school for many years, it is important that they be brought into the educational process, so that they can help the preschoolers with their work. Hawaii's "Tutu and Me" program, part of the nonprofit Partners in Development Foundation, has become a national model for how to involve kids and older caregivers in the learning process.

Second, in California, many young children in rural areas cannot easily get to preschools; I think the same is true for Hawaii. Your Tutu and Me program has started "traveling preschools" that go out to where there are clusters of kids.

The national YMCA is planning to use the Tutu and Me program as a model for a national effort to reach "left out" kids and their caregivers. If this works as well as planned, Hawaii should get credit for its pioneering program.

Gary A. Glenn
Albany, Calif.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 21 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(21)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
serious wrote:
In my age group we started school at 6 years old. We played until then, had fun, just the way kids should, not sit at a desk and start the "fat" process. We can all spell, complete sentences, and add and subtract without a calculator--and not hold a pen or pencil in a fist-like grip.
on November 12,2011 | 03:26AM
wiliki wrote:
Didn't keep us from getting fat in our old age. We all need more things to keep us busy and active in our old age.
on November 12,2011 | 04:31AM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
I agree with you serious. How many presidents of corporations, researchers, physicans, Nobel Prize winners had a pre-school education and the kindergarden experience, yet they succeeded in life and their profession. I started 1st grade at 6 years of age, became an aviator, successful business owner, and hold a Masters Degree, all without pre-school or kindergarden. How'd we do it?
on November 12,2011 | 05:54AM
toomuchpilikia wrote:
You must be referring to the time period when school was 61/2 to 7 hours long. Students during this time period sat in there chairs and listened, studied, read, and did not talk back or talk out of turn. We were actually assigned real text books to take home. Lunch was affordable and parents were responsible for getting there children to school. In Hawaii today, the taxpayer has allowed the square building occupiers to do what ever they please. Never held responsible for the bottom line!
on November 12,2011 | 04:07PM
goinglobal wrote:
I agree but you are missing the point. They did this to spend tax payer money on free day care...
on November 12,2011 | 08:56AM
soundofreason wrote:
This "daycare" program actually has SOME education substance - still don't agree with it. If you want to make your literal point, I might refer you to the 100+MILLION per year Hawaii is paying Arbor Day Care Hawaii to pay ACTUAL babysitters - many of whom are the relatives of the children they are watching/babysitting. 100+MILLION per year!!!
on November 12,2011 | 12:30PM
wiliki wrote:
Cheryl Yale has a point. But I would prefer that individuals have that kind of tax advantage. Yes tax capital gains of the rich as regular income but offer better tax deductions for charitable giving. And stop the corporate income tax. Having corporations trying to take tax deductions like charitable giving just makes them more inefficient and doesn't skew the charitable giving to glitzy non-profits to better get their products into the public eye. I'd rather see less waste in over-paying their executives and more spending to improve their service and efficiency.
on November 12,2011 | 04:27AM
OldDiver wrote:
Actually Cheryl Yale has no point. Those corporate donations being made to charitable associations are paid for by the hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer subsidies we give them. Not to mention the tax breaks they bribed our politicians to get. Only the brain washed believe multinational corporation make charitable donations out of their own pockets.
on November 12,2011 | 09:40AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Corporations are not real people. IBM is not a person. Apple is not a person. A corporation is a non-person, meaning they all have names but they are not real people. A corporation is a business owned by thousands upon thousands of real people. A corporation may have started as a business by a single person such as Bill Gates but later expanded his business to get more capital by creating a corporation allowing people to invest and own part of that business. Millions of Americans have part ownership of businesses called Corporations. One who is working today with a 401K literally owns part of many businesses called Corporations. Multi-national corporations are a different breed. But they too are not real persons.
on November 12,2011 | 09:59AM
DowntownGreen wrote:
On this one we agree. Thank you for making the argument against the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision that granted corporations the status of "personhood" in free speech matters. With that decision, money speaks even louder than it did before in our political system
on November 12,2011 | 11:32AM
Kuniarr wrote:
Indeed, "personhood" is an absurdity that dehumanizes our Bill of Rights simply because it undermines our freedom and authority by granting powers and privileges to something that does not actually exist. A corporation such as IBM exists in name only.
on November 12,2011 | 03:07PM
aiea7 wrote:
What is the relavency of whether corporations are real people or not? What is your point? Either one is trying to make a profit, hire people, pay taxes, be a good citizen so that people will look favorably upon them as a business. The BOD and officers of the corporation function as the owner of a small business. Just because they have several people working in different capacities do not make them different. Sure the officers are compensated well if the business is very succesful, but is that not the way a democratic economy works - people are rewarded for their contribution to the success of the entity? Really, a business might start out as an individual proprietorship, as it becomes more and more successful, it cannot remain as such - the organization becomes too big, requiring more capital, more workers and executives, etc. Charitable giving by corporations is a method employed to give back to the community. Hence, there is no real difference, it is a matter of scale. The only time corporations were deemed a person is in the Citizens United case, US Supreme court, allowing other legal entities, such as corpoations to engage in political speech. But I fail to see what this has to do with Ms. Yale's commentary.
on November 12,2011 | 02:55PM
Kuniarr wrote:
You are correct. My comments really has nothing to do with MS Yale's commentary. But if you will check where my comments are located my comments are not in reply to MS Yates but to OldDiver.
on November 12,2011 | 03:21PM
wiliki wrote:
That's my point. I'd rather have taxpayers directly giving because of generous tax deductions rather than businesses. Either way the taxpayers losses out. There are a lot of deserving non-profits that would stand to gain from direct giving. I think that corporations tend to give to attention grabbing non-profits like symphony orchestras that may not perform as great a social service as a battered woman's shelter.
on November 12,2011 | 03:18PM
stanislous wrote:
Why does Hawaii need pre-school and kindergarden? Because both parents work and we need the state to raise our kids for us. Silly rabbit, play time is for home schoolers. LOL LOL LOL
on November 12,2011 | 06:17AM
DonGa-me wrote:
Pre-school and kindergarden are a way young children learn to socialize. Gets them ready to learn as a group and not an individual.
on November 12,2011 | 09:21AM
KeithHaugen wrote:
IRT Greg Poole... I understand the income from the APEC folks may fall way short of the projected $120 million. Maybe the same people made that projection as made the guesses on how many Kapolei folks will ride the Mayor's Choo-choo train to Ala Moana Shopping Center -- IF it is built.
on November 12,2011 | 09:26AM
Ronin006 wrote:
Greg Poole, $17 million has not been overspent for APEC. the actual amount may never be know, but is closer to $110 million. Here is why: 1. Political leaders and tourism officials claimed APEC would generate $120 million in "economic activity." 2. The state take (GET & TAT) on $120 million would be about $12 million if all was spent on hotel rooms. Since the expenditures will be for rooms, food, beverages, site seeing and souvenirs, the actual take would be closer to $7 million. 3. Applying a multiplier effect of 3, the state could take in about $21 million. 4. The city announced it would spend close to $30 million to train police and first responders to prepare for and to support APEC. The state spent $100 million plus to spruce up the airport, roads and the like, much of it for overtime to complete the projects in time for APEC. 5. Spending $130 million to take in $21 million is just plain dumb and stupid.
on November 12,2011 | 02:09PM
goinglobal wrote:
I think your math is off I thought the APEC members were being excluded from taxes during their stay.
on November 12,2011 | 04:24PM
Ronin006 wrote:
goingglobal, my numbers are approximates only. You are not entirely correct about APEC members being excluded from taxes during their stay. The exemption applies to attendees who are officially designated by the State Department as being members of a diplomatic mission. Some APEC members meet the criteria while many do not. We probably will never know the number of APEC attendees that were exempt and those that were not.
on November 12,2011 | 09:32PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates