View Full Version : I like this approach
Team Sergeant
10-31-2008, 14:49
Dear Fellow Business Owners,
As a business owner who employs 120 people, we have resigned ourselves to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that our taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, we figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8-10%.
We will also have to lay off 25 of our employees. This really bothered us as we believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what we did.
We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
We can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.
We our sending this letter to all business owners that we know. I don't think there are any federal anti-discrimination laws that would apply here.
Sincerely,
name withheld
Red Flag 1
10-31-2008, 15:02
Dear Fellow Business Owners,
As a business owner who employs 120 people, we have resigned ourselves to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next president, and that our taxes and fees will go up in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, we figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8-10%.
We will also have to lay off 25 of our employees. This really bothered us as we believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what we did.
We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
We can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know.
We our sending this letter to all business owners that we know. I don't think there are any federal anti-discrimination laws that would apply here.
Sincerely,
name withheld
Agreed!
Saw a sticker that said, " Will Rogers Never Met Barack Obama". If you see one on an epmlpoyee's bumper....give him/her a raise.
My $.0200001
RF 1
Now that's what I call a "Fairness Doctrine"!
I saw this Anti Obama Sticker of all places IL
Ill keep my Guns, Money and Freedom. You can keep the Change
I was just lectured and told to remove my McCain sticker from my Personal truck at the embassy today by a Senior State Official. I was polite and listened and then told him to Kiss my Ass and go away.:p He sent an e-mail to my Agency Head. I told him that you could not bring politics into the office and he could not talk to me any more and walked out. Next week could be fun here.
:munchin
dividebyzero
10-31-2008, 17:06
"We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. "
Wow, being laid off for professed support for a political candidate sounds downright un-American to me, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
"We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. "
Wow, being laid off for professed support for a political candidate sounds downright un-American to me, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
Why shouldn't those who professed their support for change, and swallowed his lines hook line and sinker be the first to go?
Additionally, for somene who just "surfed in" to this website, it might behoove you to do a little reading and learning before you start spouting off about who is un-American on this site. You are a guest here, and as a fellow guest I strongly suggest you get your bearings about the type of individual you are discussing issues with on this site. This is not your normal message board.
dividebyzero
10-31-2008, 17:12
Perhaps because if there's reason to lay off any employees, criteria such as performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees should take precedence over one's personal opinion over who should lead the country?
"We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. "
Wow, being laid off for professed support for a political candidate sounds downright un-American to me, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
You better run out and take off that Obama sticker....:D
Ill keep my Guns, Money and Freedom. You can keep the Change
I'll second that motion and ammendment
Perhaps because if there's reason to lay off any employees, criteria such as performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees should take precedence over one's personal opinion over who should lead the country?
My neighbor does specialized computer programming for small businesses. He was amazed how many of them have exactly 49 employees. Care to guess why?
Pat
After due consideration, perhaps a layoff is too quick. Something slower may be in order.
Instead, let them work. However, in the interest of spreading the wealth, confiscate half their pay. After a substantial deduction for handling costs, distribute the rest to the owner's favorite cause.
But they can stay just as long as they want.... :D
JumpinJoe1010
10-31-2008, 18:43
I heard this on a local radio show. If he (Obama) believed in fairness, the $100 million dollars he pulled in for his campaign this month, should be divided in half . Then John McCain should get his portion. :D
I heard this on a local radio show. If he (Obama) believed in fairness, the $100 million dollars he pulled in for his campaign this month, should be divided in half . Then John McCain should get his portion. :D
I like it. :D
Perhaps because if there's reason to lay off any employees, criteria such as performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees should take precedence over one's personal opinion over who should lead the country?
Three quick points. First, you may be well served to take Afchic's recommendation to heart. Thoughtful disagreements are welcome here--high-horsed grandstanding not so much.
Second, sarcasm is an impoverished response to thoughtful irony. (Do you really believe that a quiet professional would be anything but thoughtful and fair in his evaluation of anyone's character or performance? While it seems that neither the Columbia University or the NYU library systems have a single copy of Chosen Soldier, the most casual reading of that work will suggest the opposite conclusion.)
Third, if Senator Obama's supporters are so intent on Americans making economic sacrifices in the years to come for the sake of "change," "hope", and getting America "back on track", what is wrong about expecting them to lead by example?
Three quick points. First, you may be well served to take Afchic's recommendation to heart. Thoughtful disagreements are welcome here--high-horsed grandstanding not so much.
Second, sarcasm is an impoverished response to thoughtful irony. (Do you really believe that a quiet professional would be anything but thoughtful and fair in his evaluation of anyone's character or performance? While it seems that neither the Columbia University or the NYU library systems have a single copy of Chosen Soldier, the most casual reading of that work will suggest the opposite conclusion.)
Third, if Senator Obama's supporters are so intent on Americans making economic sacrifices in the years to come for the sake of "change," "hope", and getting America "back on track", what is wrong about expecting them to lead by example?
That just happened.......
Well said sir!!
dividebyzero
11-01-2008, 00:53
Three quick points. First, you may be well served to take Afchic's recommendation to heart. Thoughtful disagreements are welcome here--high-horsed grandstanding not so much.
Second, sarcasm is an impoverished response to thoughtful irony. (Do you really believe that a quiet professional would be anything but thoughtful and fair in his evaluation of anyone's character or performance? While it seems that neither the Columbia University or the NYU library systems have a single copy of Chosen Soldier, the most casual reading of that work will suggest the opposite conclusion.)
Third, if Senator Obama's supporters are so intent on Americans making economic sacrifices in the years to come for the sake of "change," "hope", and getting America "back on track", what is wrong about expecting them to lead by example?
Perhaps I've been misunderstood. I didn't feel like my response was "high-horsed grandstanding" or off-the-cuff sarcasm, so please accept my apology if it was interpreted that way. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the QPs, servicemen and women (and their family members) who post here, and don't intend to convey anything otherwise in my posting.
As far as me "getting my bearings" with regards to who's posting here, I registered in August 2007 and lurked for well over a year before posting. I guess I'm the odd man out given that I'm an Obama supporter, as I've noticed there's a plurality of McCain supporters here. I respect the reasons that many of you have for wanting McCain, and I won't try to dissuade anyone from those. My point is: if this were the other way around, and this was from a small business owner who supported Obama, I'd think the objections I raised would have been resoundingly agreed with.
As far as "Chosen Soldier" goes, no, NYU doesn't have a copy. I bought my own last year, found it a fascinating read, re-read it several times and now it's resting on my bookshelf right in front of me. :)
Again, I mean no disrespect or condescension. If I'm still coming off as a jerk, I'll retreat for another year or so.
I was just lectured and told to remove my McCain sticker from my Personal truck at the embassy today by a Senior State Official. I was polite and listened and then told him to Kiss my Ass and go away.:p He sent an e-mail to my Agency Head. I told him that you could not bring politics into the office and he could not talk to me any more and walked out. Next week could be fun here.
B,
Hope you gave them, "The Look!" :eek::lifter
Holly :-)
Warrior-Mentor
11-01-2008, 07:34
"We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. "
Wow, being laid off for professed support for a political candidate sounds downright un-American to me, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
Getting laid off is certainly a "CHANGE." :p
After all, it's what they asked for...
USANick7
11-01-2008, 08:42
Perhaps because if there's reason to lay off any employees, criteria such as performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees should take precedence over one's personal opinion over who should lead the country?
First: You do realize that it was a joke correct...
Second: What exactly do you see about Obamas tax plan that takes into consideration "performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees."
It sounds to me that your own candidates method for redistributing wealth fails your own standards by which producers should be gauged...
Can you explain this contradiction?
Team Sergeant
11-01-2008, 09:53
"We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. "
Wow, being laid off for professed support for a political candidate sounds downright un-American to me, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
Is the idea un-American as promoting an individual in the military based solely on his color or ethnicity?
Or how about allowing an individual free room & board to the finest college in America based on his color?
How about free money because people really don’t like to work? That just smacks of American.
Maybe if I was a Hispanic businessman I get a contract not because of my work but because I’m Hispanic? American?
Do not profess your idea of un-American to me, ever.
Team Sergeant
The Reaper
11-01-2008, 10:25
"We strolled thru the parking lot and found twenty Obama bumper stickers on our employees’ cars. We have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. "
Wow, being laid off for professed support for a political candidate sounds downright un-American to me, regardless of what side of the aisle they're on.
I have to agree with TS.
Who decides fairness at this business, the owner, or the People's Workers Committee?
They wanted change, now they have it.
Assuming that the story was true, what criteria would you use to react to an evolving business situation that some of your employees helped create?
Is affirmative action fair? Is a wrong done to favor one group fair to the others?
Is taxing those who work harder and longer to benefit those who choose not to, or who do not work at all fair?
How about taxing those who studied to get better grades, and who spent the extra four years or more at college to benefit those who dropped out in high school to live at home and deal drugs on the side? Is that fair?
How about grades? Should those who work harder to get an A really not get a B and the balance of the grade go to those who choose not to work harder for it? Maybe the minority should automatically get one letter grade higher, and those who are not minorities be docked a letter grade to make up for past inequities?
There is no such thing as fairness. What is fair to one is perceived as not fair to another.
Life is tough. It is tougher if you are stupid. And voting for a candidate who wants to rob from those who have worked to succeed in order to support those who do not (frequently through their own sloth) is a bad idea.
The trouble is, as soon as 50% of this nation, plus one, discover that they can vote themselves money from the public till, and are willing to do so, the game is over. They will do so till the nation and the economy collapse. We are just now seeing the tip of that iceberg.
Ther money that we are spending today is our children's debt and burden to carry. When the social security and Medicare/Medicaid debt comes due, it will break them. And no on has the balls to tell Grandma and Grandpa that. Least of all the Dims who helped create this idiocy, and who refuse to address it.
In the end, someone always has to pay. Is that not fair? Look at nature.
TR
I guess I'm the odd man out given that I'm an Obama supporter, as I've noticed there's a plurality of McCain supporters here.
I believe you will find that it is not as much support for McCain as it is being very much against Obama. I learned to detest Marxism (in whatever form it might manifest itself) and was trained to fight it. I will continue both.
Perhaps I've been misunderstood. I didn't feel like my response was "high-horsed grandstanding" or off-the-cuff sarcasm, so please accept my apology if it was interpreted that way. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the QPs, servicemen and women (and their family members) who post here, and don't intend to convey anything otherwise in my posting.
As far as me "getting my bearings" with regards to who's posting here, I registered in August 2007 and lurked for well over a year before posting. I guess I'm the odd man out given that I'm an Obama supporter, as I've noticed there's a plurality of McCain supporters here. I respect the reasons that many of you have for wanting McCain, and I won't try to dissuade anyone from those. My point is: if this were the other way around, and this was from a small business owner who supported Obama, I'd think the objections I raised would have been resoundingly agreed with.
As far as "Chosen Soldier" goes, no, NYU doesn't have a copy. I bought my own last year, found it a fascinating read, re-read it several times and now it's resting on my bookshelf right in front of me. :)
Again, I mean no disrespect or condescension. If I'm still coming off as a jerk, I'll retreat for another year or so.
I support McCain because He is the lesser of the 2 evils. Neither is perfect but Obama is a closet socialist or Marxist and if you are a history buff read about Hitlers and Stalin ans Mussolini's rise in the early years. You will find some amazing similarity's in their rhetoric and social programs. That is why I can not stand him. I have fought for years to protect this country and will not vote in a socialist type of president.
This is why you see us not liking BHO
USANick7
11-01-2008, 12:02
First: You do realize that it was a joke correct...
Second: What exactly do you see about Obamas tax plan that takes into consideration "performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees."
It sounds to me that your own candidates method for redistributing wealth fails your own standards by which producers should be gauged...
Can you explain this contradiction?
Dividebyzero when you get a chance I would genuinely like an answer to my previous question posted above.
B,
Hope you gave them, "The Look!" :eek::lifter
Holly :-)
I gave them something better. I filed a complaint...... That will tie them up for weeks to resolve it.
I gave them something better. I filed a complaint...... That will tie them up for weeks to resolve it.
B,
Honestly, good for you for standing up for what is right, if only more folks would, IMVHO.
(...and the WT 101 bottle will be shipped to you in time for Christmas!)
Holly
I heard this on a local radio show. If he (Obama) believed in fairness, the $100 million dollars he pulled in for his campaign this month, should be divided in half . Then John McCain should get his portion. :D
Moreover, how about spending some of that money paying for the programs he claims to support... or the illegal aunt ;) Dems only believe in the redistribution of OTHER people's wealth.
Yesterday was our big Fall Festival party at the school where I teach. As a surprise for the kids and parents, I spent my own money to buy the materials to make festive picture frames and spent the last week of my (and my mother's) free time building them. I took my Kodak camera and photo printer to the school so I could take pictures of the kids during the costume parade and print them on the spot for the parents. One of the other teachers (an Obama supporter) said, "You should charge $5.00 a piece for those." I commented that I was just doing something nice for the parents and students. Besides some of our kids are on DSS subsidy and can't afford an extra $5.00, which I pointed out to her. She said, "You shouldn't spend your own money on this stuff." I just smiled and said, "Well, for now at least the redistribution of my wealth is my choice."
It floors me how Obama supporters are all about redistributing the wealth until it becomes a reality... which hits THEM in the pocketbook. My sister, an Obama supporter, just realized that if Obama drops the floor for the privileged upper class any more, she and her husband will be included in that group even though their income is only about par for the course in Los Angeles. When she called to bitch, I just laughed and said, "Did ya already vote??"
While actual Socialists deny Obama as being one, I think it would be interesting to do a quick review.
The top 5 percent that earn wages in America will have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent.
Part of this measure is to create social equality. In the "Communist Manifesto," Karl Marx wrote: "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Obama's tax plan has been accurately described as a form of class warfare. Punish those on the top and reward those on the bottom. I don't believe the government should force those that are financially successful to pay more. It sounds like Obama prefers a socialist-capitalist system.
We can then go further back to what Obama said in 2001: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
In "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."
Even worse, in his second memoir "The Audacity of Hope," he mentions: "The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," and "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."
It didn't just end there, he continued to embrace other people that followed this same ideology. Even the unrepented domestic terrorist William Ayers described himself by saying: "I am a Marxist." Jeremiah Wright, his reverend for 20 years, has been described by analysts with his black liberation theology as being rooted on Marxist ideas.
I could go on and on, but if looks like a duck, walks like a duck...
USANick7
11-01-2008, 15:01
Moreover, how about spending some of that money paying for the programs he claims to support... or the illegal aunt ;) Dems only believe in the redistribution of OTHER people's wealth.
Yesterday was our big Fall Festival party at the school where I teach. As a surprise for the kids and parents, I spent my own money to buy the materials to make festive picture frames and spent the last week of my (and my mother's) free time building them. I took my Kodak camera and photo printer to the school so I could take pictures of the kids during the costume parade and print them on the spot for the parents. One of the other teachers (an Obama supporter) said, "You should charge $5.00 a piece for those." I commented that I was just doing something nice for the parents and students. Besides some of our kids are on DSS subsidy and can't afford an extra $5.00, which I pointed out to her. She said, "You shouldn't spend your own money on this stuff." I just smiled and said, "Well, for now at least the redistribution of my wealth is my choice."
It floors me how Obama supporters are all about redistributing the wealth until it becomes a reality... which hits THEM in the pocketbook. My sister, an Obama supporter, just realized that if Obama drops the floor for the privileged upper class any more, she and her husband will be included in that group even though their income is only about par for the course in Los Angeles. When she called to bitch, I just laughed and said, "Did ya already vote??"
This is an excellent point. It would seem that study after study conducted on the topic of voluntary giving demonstrates that conservatives give a far larger share of their time and money to charity. And not just to religious institutions. It has also been noted that the type of institutions given to by conservatives, tend to be those that work on the behalf of the homeless, hungry, destitute etc. While liberal donations tend to favor arts.
There is one reason, and one reason alone, someone supports socialism...it is because they presume that they will personally gain through the labors of another.
This is an excellent point. It would seem that study after study conducted on the topic of voluntary giving demonstrates that conservatives give a far larger share of their time and money to charity. And not just to religious institutions. It has also been noted that the type of institutions given to by conservatives, tend to be those that work on the behalf of the homeless, hungry, destitute etc. While liberal donations tend to favor arts.
There is one reason, and one reason alone, someone supports socialism...it is because they presume that they will personally gain through the labors of another.
Conservatives = Republicans = Giving, time and assistance that they chose
Socialism = Democrats = Hollywood Donations for elections, Redistribution of wealth and gaining something from the hard work of others.
Ping the light is coming on...:D:D
Wish the rest of america realized this.
Defender968
11-01-2008, 16:43
Perhaps I've been misunderstood. I didn't feel like my response was "high-horsed grandstanding" or off-the-cuff sarcasm, so please accept my apology if it was interpreted that way. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the QPs, servicemen and women (and their family members) who post here, and don't intend to convey anything otherwise in my posting.
As far as me "getting my bearings" with regards to who's posting here, I registered in August 2007 and lurked for well over a year before posting. I guess I'm the odd man out given that I'm an Obama supporter, as I've noticed there's a plurality of McCain supporters here. I respect the reasons that many of you have for wanting McCain, and I won't try to dissuade anyone from those. My point is: if this were the other way around, and this was from a small business owner who supported Obama, I'd think the objections I raised would have been resoundingly agreed with.
As far as "Chosen Soldier" goes, no, NYU doesn't have a copy. I bought my own last year, found it a fascinating read, re-read it several times and now it's resting on my bookshelf right in front of me. :)
Again, I mean no disrespect or condescension. If I'm still coming off as a jerk, I'll retreat for another year or so.
dividebyzero, you know I can see how you would think this was un-American, I don't agree with you but I think I at least understand your view, further I have a theory that I think explains why you think this way, and I don’t think I’ve shared it before on this board so I’m going to.
I call my theory “Everyone gets a trophy”, and it’s based on my observations of sporting events for young children today and how it's effecting present day society. So when I was a kid, even in the 1st grade in both “ant ball” soccer and T-ball the team who scored more goals or runs won the game and the other team lost. Now at the end of the respective seasons the teams who had won the most games got a little trophy, the rest of the teams were told try harder next year. Now fast forward to today, at the end of those same seasons everyone gets a trophy, there is no first or second, because some of the parents of the losing kids thought that not getting a trophy makes their kids feel bad and that’s somehow not fair, so instead they collectively have taken away the accomplishment from the team who actually worked harder and or had more talent to give to those who didn't earn it, see where this is going? What we have done is created a society of people who feel entitled, and feel like if they show up they should get the same thing as those who have not only showed up, but worked hard and excelled. Another side effect of this phenomenon is that personal responsibility has been pretty well discarded in our society of loop holes in lieu of perceived fairness, this has happened to the point that everyone feels like they aren’t responsible for anything even their own actions, there’s always an excuse they want to get off on. Look at nearly any murder trial, the suspect inevitably claims to have been abused, not bee hugged enough, blah blah blah, and that because of these things they’re not responsible for their actions. It has become so pervasive today, that we are indoctrinating our youth to believe they can do anything and they’re just not responsible. In today’s world if your parents didn’t make a concerted effort to teach the dying concept of personal responsibility then you truly probably don’t understand why others on this site have criticized your “un-American” statement.
Now I don’t mean to be harsh to you, but here is how I view the topic of this thread, if the business is hurt by Obama’s tax raises and must lay off workers, that is an effect of an action, the action is the tax raise that Obama levied on these businesses and HE WILL RAISE taxes that’s a fact, he can’t pay for all his socialist policies without doing so, further he has told you and everyone else he’s going to do so. The new taxes are a secondary effect of voting for a left wing uberliberal tax and spend socialist who has already SAID he WILL raise taxes, it's not like he's fooling ya if you're paying attention.
Now while no one can tell you what to think or who to support that does not mean that you do not have to accept the responsibility and repercussions for the actions that come of that support. You say it’s un-American to punish the BHO supporters for their beliefs, is it somehow more American or fair to punish those who voted against BHO and his new taxes? They didn’t want what he was selling, why should they have to pay for it? How is that fair? I would argue it’s very fair to lay off the BHO supporters first, they wanted this “change”, and voted for higher taxes and the hand outs, those votes in this scenario caused the harm that forced the businesses to have to lay people off, the responsible parties i.e. BHO voters should stand at the front of the line to pay for it, that's called personal responsibility and I hope it happens that way because that actually would be fair.
The truth is that no matter how many teachers, politicians, parents of looser kids, or Dims say it should be LIFE IS NOT FAIR , and it never will be, but taking from those who have to give to those who don’t is not only not accomplishing the fairness the above want, hell it isn't even American, it’s Socialism, and it’s one of the things we in the military have fought against since this countries inception, so if you come in here as a proponent of it, guess what you've just painted a target on yourself. That's a choice you made either intentionally or unintentionally, if it was unintentional you might want to keep lurking until you understand those here a little better.
Now your take is exactly what I expect from a Democrat, they want everyone to get everything as long as they don’t actually have to pay for it, look at BHO’s family, he wants to spread the wealth around in the rest of America, yet I haven't seen him spreading his own wealth around to the members of his family living illegally and in poverty in this country, I call that hypocrisy, but I digress. At the end of the day I think this business owners theory is a great lesson on responsibility.
My last point, your above statement is if the shoe were on the other foot we would be the ones bitching, well if the business owner was going after the McCain supporters he’d be punishing them for his own choices not punishing them for theirs, how is that the same? Apples to oranges IMO.
You know, we might want to rethink this.
If the B-Ho supporters get laid off, they’ll just sit at home with their X-Boxes and collect government checks that we fund.
How about they can have the jobs, we get the checks that they fund, and we go fishing? :D
Just a thought.
Pat
You know, we might want to rethink this.
If the B-Ho supporters get laid off, they’ll just sit at home with their X-Boxes and collect government checks that we fund.
How about they can have the jobs, we get the checks that they fund, and we go fishing? :D
Just a thought.
Pat
Pat
That will not work because we have too much Pride to do that.
My initial thoughts haven't been written since I first saw this thread, so I'll briefly provide. It is fair for a business to hire based on characteristics, and if political affiliation is important, that is fine. Affirmative action programs are different, as they are offered by the public sector for a specific public purpose.
While the business owner has the right to enact such policies, I personally would find it repugnant, and would choose not to engage in any transaction with the business - regardless of political affiliation. I also would be concerned about the good or service provided, as the quality may be impacted by this emphasis on this non-core aspect of the business. I believe our country's competitive advantage in business has been the variety of backgrounds we come from, which allows us to provide the most competitive good, and innovate. I come from a family of business owners, and I'd be highly concerned for the future profits of the businesses if they engaged in such practices.
stu
Here's something that bothers me about Senator Obama's identity issues.
In "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully."
Senator Obama's "logic" is the same as a person who befriends an African American so he can say "I'm not a racist---I have a black friend." How many people will vote for Senator Obama based upon the same twisted logic?
What I find especially egregious about Senator Obama's approach to friendship and to politics is that there is a place for radicalism (both left and right) in American society and politics. In my own experience, some of the best lessons in life come from people with whom I may not see eye to eye on many political and cultural issues.
Rather than engaging the radical left or the radical right, he has pandered to one and demonized the other. I remain at a loss to understand how this pattern of behavior constitutes "change" or "hope."
My initial thoughts haven't been written since I first saw this thread, so I'll briefly provide. It is fair for a business to hire based on characteristics, and if political affiliation is important, that is fine. Affirmative action programs are different, as they are offered by the public sector for a specific public purpose.
While the business owner has the right to enact such policies, I personally would find it repugnant, and would choose not to engage in any transaction with the business - regardless of political affiliation. I also would be concerned about the good or service provided, as the quality may be impacted by this emphasis on this non-core aspect of the business. I believe our country's competitive advantage in business has been the variety of backgrounds we come from, which allows us to provide the most competitive good, and innovate. I come from a family of business owners, and I'd be highly concerned for the future profits of the businesses if they engaged in such practices.
stu
Well Stu I find it Repugnant that BHO and the Dem party wants to spread the wealth as they call it. Socialism is Socialism and the United States Of American was not founded on these values. Mater of fact we went to war to protect people from these type of practices. Laying off of employees is the decision of the Owner and how he does it is his decision. You know he does not have to state that he let go off X amount of employees because they were behind BHO he only has to say business is bad and you are not employed any more. This thread was opened in a hypothetical situation and it is funny how some people have responded. It was started to make people think... and think we are doing.
I for one am ashamed to be a registered Democrat right now. I have never voted party lines as that is for an ignorant person. You vote for the individual for each position. I have only remained a Democrat due to laziness due to me being deployed and my time home is precious. I know I have always been a Republican at heart since I registered at 18. Mom and Dam were Dems and I followed suit but they have changed also. Well I can tell you I will change party's as soon as I get back to the US.
dividebyzero, you know I can see how you would think this was un-American, I don't agree with you but I think I at least understand your view, further I have a theory that I think explains why you think this way, and I don’t think I’ve shared it before on this board so I’m going to.
My last point, your above statement is if the shoe were on the other foot we would be the ones bitching, well if the business owner was going after the McCain supporters he’d be punishing them for his own choices not punishing them for theirs, how is that the same? Apples to oranges IMO.
Could you erase your double Long Post.... Please
Pat
That will not work because we have too much Pride to do that.
You just had to bring up the P word! :D Spoil sport.
Pat
I believe our country's competitive advantage in business has been the variety of backgrounds we come from, which allows us to provide the most competitive good, and innovate.
stu
Now there's a line I've heard preached and regurgitated a number of times by those with their own social agenda.
If I have a company of twenty welders who communicate well, having a common language, bond well having common backgrounds, have few disputes because the feelings of acceptable/not acceptable are pretty well shared, then my business will fail because........ ??
You just had to bring up the P word! :D Spoil sport.
Pat
Yeah I came from a dysfunctional family.....
They taught me family values, Pride in doing a job the best you can, a proper work ethic and to not be afraid to get durty doing it, Patriotic values, a Moral code and how to treat a woman right. (Mom drummed that into me).
For all of that you get a Hard worker that loves his Family and Country and that person gets flaming mad when people Domestic and Foreign threaten our Family and our way of life. I have Pride in my Kids, Country and my job. YOu also get a person that Speaks my mind and is willing to listen to all viewpoints. They may differ from mine but I will listen and all I expect is that they listen to mine ans have an intelligent discussion. Morons just piss me off.
dividebyzero
11-01-2008, 20:17
Originally Posted by USANick7
Second: What exactly do you see about Obamas tax plan that takes into consideration "performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees."
It sounds to me that your own candidates method for redistributing wealth fails your own standards by which producers should be gauged..."
I should preface my remarks by admitting that I'm not an economist. It's my understanding that taxation and exemptions are arrived upon by an number of quantitive factors like earned income, number of dependents, etc. In that case, I don't see how any metric for taxation can look at qualitative factors like "performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees." The argument posted in the OP was about a business owner choosing to lay off workers based on a political choice, which I personally didn't see as linked to the aforementioned performance measurements. Guess I didn't get the joke like everyone else did, but given the amount of stuff thrown at either candidate during "silly season" I think my standard for humor's probably pretty out of whack.
With regards to "socialism" and this election- I don't see anything in Obama's economic policies that reflect that. Take a look at the table found here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Obama proposed a top income tax rate of 36.9%- that's the same as Clinton's, and if you look at the data here, lower than all but 2 years of the administration of the central figure of modern American conservatism- Ronald Reagan.
His proposed health care plan still plays off the principle of the free market by allowing individuals to pick their providers, plans, and doctors. It doesn't call for a truly socialized health care system where the government creates an overarching bureaucracy or nationalizes existing health care providers.
With regards to regulating the market, even Greenspan admitted that deregulation and the free market had failed the American economy. History has demonstrated that free markets work best with the boundaries clearly delineated- I don't want to see government regulating every facet of American business, but I'm not in favor seeing the mistakes of the past repeated. I freely admit that Clinton's economic policies in the later 1990s (starting the ball rolling on deregulation) bear as much of the blame for our current predicament as do Bush's.
I support McCain because He is the lesser of the 2 evils. Neither is perfect but Obama is a closet socialist or Marxist and if you are a history buff read about Hitlers and Stalin ans Mussolini's rise in the early years. You will find some amazing similarity's in their rhetoric and social programs. That is why I can not stand him. I have fought for years to protect this country and will not vote in a socialist type of president.
Those dictators rose to power because they made populist appeals to economic and social ills and promised quick fixes to complicated issues. However, you'd be hard pressed to find an office seeker who DIDN'T do that. The way the middle class has surged to the forefront of every recent political speech by EITHER candidate exemplifies this. I think applying Godwin's Law to Obama is just as absurd as it is to apply it to McCain or Bush. This is just electoral politics at its ugly and perverse conclusion. I wish that the American public had more of an attention span for substantial discussion of the issues, but that's a topic for another thread.
Do I think Obama represents some sort of grand shift towards an American-style socialism, or despotism? No. When faced with our mounting deficit, I'd rather see us looking inward to refunding social programs rather than having Chinese bankers buy up our debt. I wholeheartedly agree that American businesses and workers are among the most hard-working and innovative in the world, and I want to see it stay that way. I'm hoping that an Obama administration will lead the way in stimulating green business and development practices, so we can again make American technical ingenuity indispensable to our allies and aspiring nations alike.
One thing I'll give you all is that I'm not a big fan of the kind of messianism many associate with Obama. I personally like the guy, but the way some people act you'd think he'd solve every problem in the world in his first five minutes in office. I just happen to like him because most of what he's proposing makes sense to me.
Blitzzz (RIP)
11-01-2008, 21:41
Several things.
We can not always vote for who we would like and this has lead to my philosophy of voting to continue my pledge to "up hold and defend the constitution." So I vote on the most likely candidate to up hold the constitution. Usually that means voting against someone. In this case BHO.
Really foolish people believe in the BHO tax plan. By not taxing 95% of citizens and raising the taxes of the remaining 5%, he has created a "Back Door" tax. Yep, The 95% will be paying for that tax increase in the form of increased costs to the businesses supplying the goods and services. Fools all.
As to the Health care issues too many of the sheep are looking at the pretty paint and not the primer. Yes sure you make the choices he's promising But he's crew will be hands on dictating what insurance companies will be allowed the charge and cover.
In the end he's a liar. has not released his birth certificate. Had his cousin running Kenya put his Grandmother, who said she was at his birth IN KENA, put in "Protective custody".
BLITZ
Several things.
We can not always vote for who we would like and this has lead to my philosophy of voting to continue my pledge to "up hold and defend the constitution." So I vote on the most likely candidate to up hold the constitution. Usually that means voting against someone. In this case BHO.
Really foolish people believe in the BHO tax plan. By not taxing 95% of citizens and raising the taxes of the remaining 5%, he has created a "Back Door" tax. Yep, The 95% will be paying for that tax increase in the form of increased costs to the businesses supplying the goods and services. Fools all.
As to the Health care issues too many of the sheep are looking at the pretty paint and not the primer. Yes sure you make the choices he's promising But he's crew will be hands on dictating what insurance companies will be allowed the charge and cover.
In the end he's a liar. has not released his birth certificate. Had his cousin running Kenya put his Grandmother, who said she was at his birth IN KENA, put in "Protective custody".
BLITZ
Blitz
Do not forget the 1/2 Auntie that is illegal in Boston that he threw under the bus and said she should get what is coming to her.:eek:
Most people would at least try to help or defend a family member no matter what they had done but he is such a politician he is worried about the next job above family.....
My neighbor does specialized computer programming for small businesses. He was amazed how many of them have exactly 49 employees. Care to guess why?
Pat
dividebyzero,
You've done well explaining what you have been taught. But, what do you know?
You didn't answer my simple question from the first page that I've quoted above.
Pat
dividebyzero
11-01-2008, 22:40
dividebyzero,
You've done well explaining what you have been taught. But, what do you know?
You didn't answer my simple question from the first page that I've quoted above.
Pat
Sorry, I meant to address it earlier but got sidetracked by other replies.
I'd assume that it's because a small business is classified as less than 50 employees, and that the owners want to take advantage of tax breaks available to small business owners?
Sorry, I meant to address it earlier but got sidetracked by other replies.
I'd assume that it's because a small business is classified as less than 50 employees, and that the owners want to take advantage of tax breaks available to small business owners?
You assume? Get back to me when you know!
Pat
USANick7
11-02-2008, 09:16
I should preface my remarks by admitting that I'm not an economist. It's my understanding that taxation and exemptions are arrived upon by an number of quantitive factors like earned income, number of dependents, etc. In that case, I don't see how any metric for taxation can look at qualitative factors like "performance standards, reliability, and how they interact with other employees."
If you believe that a Business owner firing people based off their political affiliation is "Un-American", how do you justify a tax system which punishes people for no greater sin than greater productivity? How is it that in one case you seek to encourage productivity, but in the other you purposefully impose restrictions upon it?
The argument posted in the OP was about a business owner choosing to lay off workers based on a political choice, which I personally didn't see as linked to the aforementioned performance measurements. Guess I didn't get the joke like everyone else did, but given the amount of stuff thrown at either candidate during "silly season" I think my standard for humor's probably pretty out of whack.
maybe so...
With regards to "socialism" and this election- I don't see anything in Obama's economic policies that reflect that. Take a look at the table found here: [url]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?
Then I would encourage you to read more Engels and Marx. redistribution of wealth is a socialist principle. Simply being adopted by a major political party, or even major figures on each side of the political perspective does not change this reality.
Obama proposed a top income tax rate of 36.9%- that's the same as Clinton's, and if you look at the data here, lower than all but 2 years of the administration of the central figure of modern American conservatism- Ronald Reagan.
This is misleading for a couple of reasons...
1. Clinton also had very socialist leanings
2. Reagan did not set the budget. he was forced to work with a democratically controlled congress for most of his presidency. He advocated conservative fiscal policy throughout with great success. Yet somehow people are still unable to put his achievements in context.
Not to mention the fact that you are completely ignoring additional tax increases on capitol gains, inheritance, dividends, minimum wage increases, etc. This is all doubly taxed money for the most part.
Furthermore these "tax cuts" Obama refers to bear little resemblance to the name. "Cutting" someones taxes implies that they are paying them in the first place. By Obama giving a tax cut larger than the taxes paid, he is merely redistributing wealth (a socialist policy).
His proposed health care plan still plays off the principle of the free market by allowing individuals to pick their providers, plans, and doctors. It doesn't call for a truly socialized health care system where the government creates an overarching bureaucracy or nationalizes existing health care providers.
Actually it doesn't...
This is government regulation. And when you implement a policy such as the one he would like to, what you are really doing is inevitably enforcing direct nationalization. Essentially you are now going to have to pay more for health care if you don't want to use a government approved insurer, the end result being that you are paying twice for health care much like you pay twice for education if you choose to send your kids to a private school. The end result being that private companies are forced into competition with the government, which is really no competition at all.
Politicians love to bring up that they simply want to grant the same health insurance that politicians get through their federal system. The problem with this is that currently we have over 190 million Americans financing health care for a much smaller number of government employees. What happens when that pool increases exponentially, but the people paying for it does not? I highly suggest reading economist Thomas Sowell on this issue.
With regards to regulating the market, even Greenspan admitted that deregulation and the free market had failed the American economy. History has demonstrated that free markets work best with the boundaries clearly delineated- I don't want to see government regulating every facet of American business, but I'm not in favor seeing the mistakes of the past repeated. I freely admit that Clinton's economic policies in the later 1990s (starting the ball rolling on deregulation) bear as much of the blame for our current predicament as do Bush's.
No one is suggesting that there should be zero regulation of the market. There of course needs to be laws governing fraud, pollution, etc. But this absurd notion that deregulation of the free market is what led to our current economic crisis is so painfully, and obviously wrong that it frustrates the living hell out of me to have to explain it.
What led to the current problems was not a failure to regulate "free markets", what happened was government intervention INTO the free market. had the government never attempted to apply an "affirmative action" program on lenders, this never would have happened.
The government stepped in and directed lending agencies to deliver high risk loans that they wouldn't have normally issued. This resulted in the creation of government backed institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) which specialized in bundling and selling such loans. The failure of regulation came when democrats refused to put the breaks on a monster they helped create. But everyone seems to miss the foundational problem...THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
TAKE THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE EQUATION, AND YOU NO LONGER NEED THE REGULATION THAT THEY FAILED TO IMPLEMENT.
Bottom line...
Wealth redistribution programs are socialist in nature. Simply because we have become used to a progressive tax system does not in any way, shape or form prevent it from being socialist. I am thrilled that we are finally calling such programs by their true names, instead of making up more politically correct monikers.
Obama, has stated before that he thinks "fairness" should be a factor in considering tax policy regardless of teh tax revenue it actually generates. Did you get that! Even if it generates LESS revenue there is a "fairness" taht must be achieved...very well
Explain to me what is fair about making someone pay more, because they make more?
In no other enterprise that I can think of do we require something so unfair as to demand that he/she who has more MUST pay more or face criminal charges and incarceration.
When I go to dinner with a wealthy friend, I don't demand that they pay a portion of my share. Further more, if they DID pay a part of my share, and then received a small refund; I wouldn't think of demanding that they give me some of the refund as well!
One more point, I think its sweet that Alan Greenspan's comments have been interpreted as a condemnation of the free market; but the facts remain. Banks behaved the way they did because of GOVERNMENT, not free market pressure. they begrudgingly took on high risk loans due to thinly veiled threats form the government at first, and then because a government bailout was expected if these highly risky, yet potentially profitable loans should fail.
And why shouldnt they have felt that way...it happened didn't it?
Whats amazing, is the lefts complete unwillingness to recognize this for what it was...a failure of government intervention.
Being a liberal politician must be great...when any or all of your political or economic policies fail, you simply blame the rich (producers) and ask for more power and money, and your base comes out of the woodwork for you. Class warfare works like a charm.
We are still paying for the sins of Wilson and FDR.
Thanks USANick7, I was hoping someone would reply in this manner. You read my mind and put this in words I could not. Don't be frustrated with having to repeat it. It bears repeating until everyone understands the reality of what we are facing.:munchin
Surgicalcric
11-02-2008, 12:08
...I highly suggest reading economist Thomas Sowell...
Speaking of Thomas Sowell, I found this read interesting. He hits on BHO's socialist/marxist views a bit...
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/30/a_perfect_storm?page=full&comments=true
Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.
Defender968
11-02-2008, 13:43
Speaking of Thomas Sowell, I found this read interesting. He hits on BHO's socialist/marxist views a bit...
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/30/a_perfect_storm?page=full&comments=true
Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.
+1 Muy Bueno, I'm going to have some of my Dim friends read that, I'm debating hard trying to enlighten them.