Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 11/22/2012 9:02:07 AM EST
My wife and sister-in-law are watching the Macy's Thanksgiving parade and I just saw some propaganda commercial about being thankful for Obamacare.

They must be desperate, because in 35 years I've never seen a commercial stumping for a law that's already been passed and upheld by the SCOTUS, and AFTER an election has already happened.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:06:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 9:08:23 AM EST by systemspeed212]
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
My wife and sister-in-law are watching the Macy's Thanksgiving parade and I just saw some propaganda commercial about being thankful for Obamacare.

They must be desperate, because in 35 years I've never seen a commercial stumping for a law that's already been passed and upheld by the SCOTUS, and AFTER an election has already happened.


I think they're saying the same about us..

***FBHO
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:06:45 AM EST
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:07:56 AM EST
Eh jokes on them they're paying for it too. The only people not paying for it are the FSA and illegals.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:12:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


You sure about that? TV time is pricey; especially on a holiday. And Obamacare isn't particularly popular.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:13:44 AM EST
Who watches the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade anymore?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:14:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


This. What can Republicans do about it now? Oh right, nothing.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:15:06 AM EST
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:15:16 AM EST
Yes, they're desperate because they won.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:16:18 AM EST
a good majority of americans still want it gone.. oddly.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:16:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


And some Republicans ARE wringing their hands about future elections and talking about abandoning their principles to attract voters.

I'm just saying that trying to trump up support for a law that's passed, upheld, and not likely to face attempts to be repealed just totally reeks of desperation. I think they know how pissed everyone will be when Obamacare drives up the prices of everything.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:17:06 AM EST
They are despairing their asses off at us.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:18:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:20:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.

Dunno if you noticed, but we lost the election while campaigning on the economy with the economy already in the crapper. The FSA don't care.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:23:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 9:24:40 AM EST by shimric]
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:24:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.

Dunno if you noticed, but we lost the election while campaigning on the economy with the economy already in the crapper. The FSA don't care.


The FSA isn't the only voting bloc out there. Obamacare is going to ruin shit for everyone, not just the FSA.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:26:14 AM EST
what do liberals have to be desperate about???
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:26:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


I don't think Democrats are desperate about everything. I DO think they're worried about fallout from Obamacare.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:28:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cypher15:
a good majority of americans still want it gone.. oddly.

BS. The election proved that wrong.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:28:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.

Dunno if you noticed, but we lost the election while campaigning on the economy with the economy already in the crapper. The FSA don't care.


The FSA isn't the only voting bloc out there. Obamacare is going to ruin shit for everyone, not just the FSA.

He's already ruined it for everybody. That's the point. Look at the minority unemployment rate and look at how they voted. It. Doesn't. Matter. They aren't desperate. Your theory is flawed.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:31:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 9:32:17 AM EST by PogueMahone]
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.

Dunno if you noticed, but we lost the election while campaigning on the economy with the economy already in the crapper. The FSA don't care.


The FSA isn't the only voting bloc out there. Obamacare is going to ruin shit for everyone, not just the FSA.

they have 100% of the blacks and 70% of the hispanic vote. he's got the libtard white male vote which is something like 30% of the white male vote and 90% of the white female vote. i don't see the stupidity ending in four years...
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:35:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


You sure about that? TV time is pricey; especially on a holiday. And Obamacare isn't particularly popular.

Boehner said it is on the table for the budget talks. Good for him.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:36:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By shimric:

Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it.


That's not how a business operates. Any and all extra costs are passed to the lowest part of the totem pole –– the consumer.


I saw a liberal dirtbag driving a Prius with a "I Love Obamacare" sticker on the back of it. At that moment I wish I could have Hulk-raged and flipped that car onto the roof of the nearest building. Instead I have them the "fuck you" stare.

Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:47:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
My wife and sister-in-law are watching the Macy's Thanksgiving parade and I just saw some propaganda commercial about being thankful for Obamacare.

They must be desperate, because in 35 years I've never seen a commercial stumping for a law that's already been passed and upheld by the SCOTUS, and AFTER an election has already happened.


I thought I heard that! Thank you I thought I lost it.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:47:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 9:52:52 AM EST by shimric]
Originally Posted By LostX:
Originally Posted By shimric:

Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it.


That's not how a business operates. Any and all extra costs are passed to the lowest part of the totem pole –– the consumer.


I saw a liberal dirtbag driving a Prius with a "I Love Obamacare" sticker on the back of it. At that moment I wish I could have Hulk-raged and flipped that car onto the roof of the nearest building. Instead I have them the "fuck you" stare.



And in my opinion that is a big problem in this country. If the top execs didn't make the tens of millions they do and put a little more in employees pockets you wouldn't have the govt. having to hand out free shit. At least in my opinion, if wages were higher less would qualify for the free shit. Like wally world, almost 50% of the workers qualify for welfare and food stamps? WTF?

At least that's my logic. Little less top exec pay put it towards higher hourly wages = less need for free shit = less taxes imposed on those making 250k+ to cover the free shit
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:53:43 AM EST
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


Shimric!
Hey genius, when the .gov raises taxes on an evil corporation, or even a hot dog vendor, the costs get passed on to the consumers of their products.
Why would anyone take a pay cut because the .gov forced a raise in the cost of doing business?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 9:56:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 9:57:20 AM EST by shimric]
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


Shimric!
Hey genius, when the .gov raises taxes on an evil corporation, or even a hot dog vendor, the costs get passed on to the consumers of their products.
Why would anyone take a pay cut because the .gov forced a raise in the cost of doing business?


Why are they raising taxes? Just for no fucking reason to be huge assholes? Or are they doing it to cover the costs of running that big bloated bitch(aka the US Government)? A BIG problem with Govt. spending is all the programs they offer to the less fortunate(FSA as it is called here). If the less fortunate made more they couldn't qualify for that shit. What would that mean? Less taxes needed to cover it in the first place.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:05:11 AM EST
Your logic is flawed. You cannot pay people more and expect less people to be apart of the FSA. It might actually be counter intuitive...

An increase in the average pay will make it costs more to the company to produce. And as I said, any increase in costs of doing business would be passed down the line to the consumer. Thus creating higher priced items across the board. Now since things are higher priced, more people can't afford such items. Now you have more people on the government cheese.

But as far as the FSA is concerned, it doesn't matter how much things cost or how much they can be paid, they're nothing but leaches.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:08:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


Exactly.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:14:33 AM EST
You gotta keep telling a lie if you expect people to keep believing it.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:21:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster

+1
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:21:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:27:37 AM EST by shimric]
Originally Posted By LostX:
Your logic is flawed. You cannot pay people more and expect less people to be apart of the FSA. It might actually be counter intuitive...

An increase in the average pay will make it costs more to the company to produce. And as I said, any increase in costs of doing business would be passed down the line to the consumer. Thus creating higher priced items across the board. Now since things are higher priced, more people can't afford such items. Now you have more people on the government cheese.

But as far as the FSA is concerned, it doesn't matter how much things cost or how much they can be paid, they're nothing but leaches.


You're right, increasing employee pay would make the cost to run the company more so the end result would be more expensive consumer goods. But that's not my point. My point was less exec pay to cover the costs of higher employee wages. Something like a 2% cut in the CEO of walmart's salary could could raise the every employees pay by 3 or 4 bucks an hour. Don't quote me on that, I'd have to dig it up the documentary to find out for sure. Whatever it was it was a small decrease in CEO salary to a relatively decent increase in employee pay WITHOUT raising the costs of consumer goods.

You're right, the leeches on the Govt. that do not work and refuse to work, this solution wouldn't help. That would require stricter regulations on welfare, food stamps, section 8 ect ect. I don't think anyone should be allowed to be on Govt. programs without a job for more than 6-8 months.

I'm honestly trying to figure out a solution that would help everyone. Of course the top execs wouldn't he happy, but honestly I'd much rather see them willingly take a small hit than have the Govt. make the company pay higher taxes and force higher prices on goods.That's not the solution, that just creates another problem.

Basically what I'm saying is top execs take a small hit, put that towards higher wages for employees. That would keep prices on goods the same. Employees making more can't qualify for Govt. assistance or need to. That would lead to the Govt. not needing to raise taxes on business to cover the Got. assistance programs. Stricter regulations on the free shit.

Maybe I'm delusional but that's honestly the only real solution to the problem I see.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:31:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:36:35 AM EST by shimric]
One more thing. I know the solution is not to raise taxes on those making 250k or more a year. That is a stupid low number. Should be 3-5 million a year. 250k is not a lot and would put a lot off small businesses under. I'm not even sure who thought that up and thought it was a good idea, but I think they should receive a swift kick to the crotch followed by a fist to the face.

I'll put what I'm saying as simple as possible. Would you rather work for a corporation who pays it's employees 60k a year and the execs makes ~300k-500k a year or would you want to work for a corp. who pays it's employees 20k a year while the execs make 3+ million a year? I don't think that's communistic view. That would impose less taxes because the govt wouldn't be handing out billions in food stamps, welfare, section 8 ect ect. Because people working make enough to buy that shit themselves.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:33:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:34:50 AM EST by chunli]
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By LostX:
Originally Posted By shimric:

Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it.


That's not how a business operates. Any and all extra costs are passed to the lowest part of the totem pole –– the consumer.


I saw a liberal dirtbag driving a Prius with a "I Love Obamacare" sticker on the back of it. At that moment I wish I could have Hulk-raged and flipped that car onto the roof of the nearest building. Instead I have them the "fuck you" stare.



And in my opinion that is a big problem in this country. If the top execs didn't make the tens of millions they do and put a little more in employees pockets you wouldn't have the govt. having to hand out free shit. At least in my opinion, if wages were higher less would qualify for the free shit. Like wally world, almost 50% of the workers qualify for welfare and food stamps? WTF?

At least that's my logic. Little less top exec pay put it towards higher hourly wages = less need for free shit = less taxes imposed on those making 250k+ to cover the free shit


Prove it. Show me all the top execs pay. Show me that if they all took 1 dollar as their yearly pay that all their employees health care insurance would be covered. The average individual health insurance cost will go up $600.00 per person and $2400.00 per family of 4 in 2013.

Tell me why the hell I should invest in US companies if they lose money and cannot pay a dividend. I would be better off investing in evil chinese companies. Are you going to make the chicoms pay tax?
Same argument that money is leaving the "hood" in this case to Asia. FSA needs their stuff.

The wally world claim of 50% on welfare or food stamp is suspect. My buddy is a grad student earning 1K a month and he tried to get food stamps and welfare. Got rejected. I'll bet those Wally world employees that are getting welfare and food stamps are because they are single mom and baby's daddy is in jail or skipped out on support. It has nothing to do with Walmart wages.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:33:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


You sure about that? TV time is pricey; especially on a holiday. And Obamacare isn't particularly popular.


Who cares about price. We can just tax more!


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:36:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


I don't think Democrats are desperate about everything. I DO think they're worried about fallout from Obamacare.


Good.

Obama has made sure that his name is associated with it.

As it tanks, watch for a deliberate effort to only address it as the "Affordable Care Act" (its real name) instead of Obamacare just like the weirdos did trying to reframe "global warming" as "climate change".
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:38:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By LostX:
Your logic is flawed. You cannot pay people more and expect less people to be apart of the FSA. It might actually be counter intuitive...

An increase in the average pay will make it costs more to the company to produce. And as I said, any increase in costs of doing business would be passed down the line to the consumer. Thus creating higher priced items across the board. Now since things are higher priced, more people can't afford such items. Now you have more people on the government cheese.

But as far as the FSA is concerned, it doesn't matter how much things cost or how much they can be paid, they're nothing but leaches.


You're right, increasing employee pay would make the cost to run the company more so the end result would be more expensive consumer goods. But that's not my point. My point was less exec pay to cover the costs of higher employee wages. Something like a 2% cut in the CEO of walmart's salary could could raise the every employees pay by 3 or 4 bucks an hour. Don't quote me on that, I'd have to dig it up the documentary to find out for sure. Whatever it was it was a small decrease in CEO salary to a relatively decent increase in employee pay WITHOUT raising the costs of consumer goods.

You're right, the leeches on the Govt. that do not work and refuse to work, this solution wouldn't help. That would require stricter regulations on welfare, food stamps, section 8 ect ect. I don't think anyone should be allowed to be on Govt. programs without a job for more than 6-8 months.

I'm honestly trying to figure out a solution that would help everyone. Of course the top execs wouldn't he happy, but honestly I'd much rather see them willingly take a small hit than have the Govt. make the company pay higher taxes and force higher prices on goods.That's not the solution, that just creates another problem.

Basically what I'm saying is top execs take a small hit, put that towards higher wages for employees. That would keep prices on goods the same. Employees making more can't qualify for Govt. assistance or need to. That would lead to the Govt. not needing to raise taxes on business to cover the Got. assistance programs. Stricter regulations on the free shit.

Maybe I'm delusional but that's honestly the only real solution to the problem I see.


No, it Can't.

Wal Mart has 2,000,000 full time employees. The CEO of Wal Mart, Michael Duke, made 4.52 million dollars last year.
If we took every single penny he was paid and split it amongst the employees, those employees would see a $2.26 per YEAR... pay raise.

That is 0.001 (one thousandth) of a cent per hour if we took every penny from the CEO and gave it directly to the workers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:41:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By chunli:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By LostX:
Originally Posted By shimric:

Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it.


That's not how a business operates. Any and all extra costs are passed to the lowest part of the totem pole –– the consumer.


I saw a liberal dirtbag driving a Prius with a "I Love Obamacare" sticker on the back of it. At that moment I wish I could have Hulk-raged and flipped that car onto the roof of the nearest building. Instead I have them the "fuck you" stare.



And in my opinion that is a big problem in this country. If the top execs didn't make the tens of millions they do and put a little more in employees pockets you wouldn't have the govt. having to hand out free shit. At least in my opinion, if wages were higher less would qualify for the free shit. Like wally world, almost 50% of the workers qualify for welfare and food stamps? WTF?

At least that's my logic. Little less top exec pay put it towards higher hourly wages = less need for free shit = less taxes imposed on those making 250k+ to cover the free shit


Prove it. Show me all the top execs pay. Show me that if they all took 1 dollar as their yearly pay that all their employees health care insurance would be covered. The average individual health insurance cost will go up $600.00 per person and $2400.00 per family of 4 in 2013.

Tell me why the hell I should invest in US companies if they lose money and cannot pay a dividend. I would be better off investing in evil chinese companies. Are you going to make the chicoms pay tax?
Same argument that money is leaving the "hood" in this case to Asia. FSA needs their stuff.

The wally world claim of 50% on welfare or food stamp is suspect. My buddy is a grad student earning 1K a month and he tried to get food stamps and welfare. Got rejected. I'll bet those Wally world employees that are getting welfare and food stamps are because they are single mom and baby's daddy is in jail or skipped out on support. It has nothing to do with Walmart wages.


Most Wal-mart employees make minimum wage or really close to it. Half of them don't work full time. Wally World hires tons of people per store so they don't have to pay for the benefits that come with it. I actually don't think you quite understood what I'm saying. May I suggest you re-read with a little less anger. If you think the only people on welfare or food stamps are single women with kids. You are seriously misinformed.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:41:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


Shimric!
Hey genius, when the .gov raises taxes on an evil corporation, or even a hot dog vendor, the costs get passed on to the consumers of their products.
Why would anyone take a pay cut because the .gov forced a raise in the cost of doing business?


Why are they raising taxes? Just for no fucking reason to be huge assholes? Or are they doing it to cover the costs of running that big bloated bitch(aka the US Government)? A BIG problem with Govt. spending is all the programs they offer to the less fortunate(FSA as it is called here). If the less fortunate made more they couldn't qualify for that shit. What would that mean? Less taxes needed to cover it in the first place.


Shimric?
Oh so maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour, and that'll solve everything, Shimric!
Or maybe it'll raise the cost of doing business again because it costs employers $25 dollars an hour to hire a mop boy, Shimric.
Shimric, do you think those extra costs would be passed to the consumer again and lower the value of the dollar further?

Tell me how that would work, Shimric!

And Shimric, do you think the Free Shit Army are hard-working people who are being held down by THE MAN?

Shimric, I'm waiting for your wisdom!



Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:42:55 AM EST
My guess is that they were just burning through excess funds from the election.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:44:05 AM EST
I wouldn't say you're delusional, just see things through rose colored glasses. You won't see too many, if any, office dwellers take a pay hit so the people who sweat can make more.

The best option is not to pay people more so they cant' qualify for free money. Because, as we both agree on, FSA will be FSA no matter what –– it's not like they're working anyway.

Ideally you make those on the FSA actually have to show substance to get their federal help. You reform the entitlement program. You put a max amount of months one can draw on welfare or SNAP unless they can prove, without unequivocal doubt, that they need assistance. And no, some silly disorder does not count. All sorts of common sense measures. If you cannot prove your worth, you do not get money.

Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:44:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:45:23 AM EST by shimric]
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:

Shimric?
Oh so maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour, and that'll solve everything, Shimric!
Or maybe it'll raise the cost of doing business again because it costs employers $25 dollars an hour to hire a mop boy, Shimric.
Shimric, do you think those extra costs would be passed to the consumer again and lower the value of the dollar further?

Tell me how that would work, Shimric!

And Shimric, do you think the Free Shit Army are hard-working people who are being held down by THE MAN?

Shimric, I'm waiting for your wisdom!

http://youtu.be/sZ5Tj_7AkbI



Angry much?
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:49:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:51:37 AM EST by shimric]
Originally Posted By LostX:
I wouldn't say you're delusional, just see things through rose colored glasses. You won't see too many, if any, office dwellers take a pay hit so the people who sweat can make more.

The best option is not to pay people more so they cant' qualify for free money. Because, as we both agree on, FSA will be FSA no matter what –– it's not like they're working anyway.

Ideally you make those on the FSA actually have to show substance to get their federal help. You reform the entitlement program. You put a max amount of months one can draw on welfare or SNAP unless they can prove, without unequivocal doubt, that they need assistance. And no, some silly disorder does not count. All sorts of common sense measures. If you cannot prove your worth, you do not get money.



You make good points. The entire govt assistance program ideology needs to be re-worked. More clear cut, less ways to abuse the system. Sadly, I haven't seen one politician want to take a stance like that. They either want to add all kinds of shit to it or completely do away with it. Neither of the two are a viable solution.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:57:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By bilster:
They are not desperate, they're gloating.

Bilster


Agreed. Did anyone hear BO pardoning the turkeys yesterday and inserting the word "forward" in the pardon?

I saw some ass hat yesterday with many BO bumper stickers. One was "I Love (heart) Obamacare." It should say "I Love Legal Theft" or "I Love Interfering in Voluntary Acts Btwn Individuals" (but that one would be too long).
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:58:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:59:27 AM EST by DigDug]
Why do people/private industry have to cut back, but the fedgov can just keep growing?

Lets cut the federal government back to the size when Clinton left office. Lets do it January 1st.

shimric, you smell of Moby.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 10:58:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 10:59:02 AM EST by Vault_Boy]
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:

Shimric?
Oh so maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour, and that'll solve everything, Shimric!
Or maybe it'll raise the cost of doing business again because it costs employers $25 dollars an hour to hire a mop boy, Shimric.
Shimric, do you think those extra costs would be passed to the consumer again and lower the value of the dollar further?

Tell me how that would work, Shimric!

And Shimric, do you think the Free Shit Army are hard-working people who are being held down by THE MAN?

Shimric, I'm waiting for your wisdom!

http://youtu.be/sZ5Tj_7AkbI



Angry much?


Shimric? I LOVE YOU <3, Shimric!
But Shimric, I need to know what you think so I can know how to think, Shimric!
Please answer me, Shimric!
Shimric, don't dodge my questions!

Link Posted: 11/22/2012 11:00:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


Why should they take pay cuts? I agree with some of the rest of your post. BC coverage should be btwn the insurance company and their client.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 11:01:00 AM EST
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:

Shimric?
Oh so maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour, and that'll solve everything, Shimric!
Or maybe it'll raise the cost of doing business again because it costs employers $25 dollars an hour to hire a mop boy, Shimric.
Shimric, do you think those extra costs would be passed to the consumer again and lower the value of the dollar further?

Tell me how that would work, Shimric!

And Shimric, do you think the Free Shit Army are hard-working people who are being held down by THE MAN?

Shimric, I'm waiting for your wisdom!

http://youtu.be/sZ5Tj_7AkbI



Angry much?


Shimric? I LOVE YOU <3, Shimric!
But Shimric, I need to know what you think so I can know how to think, Shimric!
Please answer me, Shimric!
Shimric, don't dodge my questions!



IF you actually read my posts and didn't respond like some close minded keyboard warrior you'd have the answers you are looking for... Mostly because I answered them in other posts in THIS thread.

The power of receptive reading.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 11:02:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By uncle_big_green:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By DriveNASCAR:
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Desperate about what? It's the law now. It's not like anyone can do anything about it.


They can lose future elections over it when people's hours get cut at work, costs for healthcare go up, it costs more to eat at Denny's, etc.


Because the top Execs. decided to raise the costs instead of taking pay cuts. They could have just as easily done that, but they chose to raise costs to cover it. BTW, have you seen the Republican party? Going on about gay rights, abortion, rape and taking away women's healthcare for BC. I think they are digging their own grave. Throw in the idiots who vote democrat for free shit. I don't think the democratic party is the least bit desperate.


Why should they take pay cuts? I agree with some of the rest of your post. BC coverage should be btwn the insurance company and their client.


I don't necessarily think they should take pay cuts just for the sake of being less rich. I should have just said, minimum wage should rise with inflation.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 11:03:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Thrasymachus:
My guess is that they were just burning through excess funds from the election.

sounds pretty reasonable actually.
Link Posted: 11/22/2012 11:07:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2012 11:08:04 AM EST by Vault_Boy]
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:
Originally Posted By shimric:
Originally Posted By Vault_Boy:

Shimric?
Oh so maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $25 an hour, and that'll solve everything, Shimric!
Or maybe it'll raise the cost of doing business again because it costs employers $25 dollars an hour to hire a mop boy, Shimric.
Shimric, do you think those extra costs would be passed to the consumer again and lower the value of the dollar further?

Tell me how that would work, Shimric!

And Shimric, do you think the Free Shit Army are hard-working people who are being held down by THE MAN?

Shimric, I'm waiting for your wisdom!

http://youtu.be/sZ5Tj_7AkbI



Angry much?


Shimric? I LOVE YOU <3, Shimric!
But Shimric, I need to know what you think so I can know how to think, Shimric!
Please answer me, Shimric!
Shimric, don't dodge my questions!



IF you actually read my posts and didn't respond like some close minded keyboard warrior you'd have the answers you are looking for... Mostly because I answered them in other posts in THIS thread.

The power of receptive reading.


Shimric, I think you meant reading comprehension. I know it must have been a terrible mistake, transcribed wrong by your secretary, Shimric!
Shimric, why would I take a pay cut because Democrats raised my cost of doing business instead of passing those costs on to the consumer, or massively slashing the fat in my business?

Please Shimric, I need to know?
Did you buy a gun yet, Shimric? Shimric, have you made a lot of friends here?

Shimric.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top