Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts? - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Saturday, September 11, 2010 12:01 PM on j-body.org
Sndsgood, I was openly playing devil's advocate.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Saturday, September 11, 2010 2:09 PM on j-body.org
spoiler wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:




How?


what's in that budget that is sinking the US boat? Perhaps if government wasn't so HUGE they would not need so much taxes

How?
The tax cuts does not pay off National Debt and/or deficit.
You know some time in life we will have to be responsible and pay off the crap that our lovely politicians have spent on. From wars, to infrastructure, to education, social programs, to aiding our so called "Allies" around the world, to investment in business, etc.
The way how it is done today:
Dem: Tax and spend.
Rep: Borrow and spend.
Personally, I don't like the idea of China having us by the balls (creditors) as we borrow to satisfy our "National Interest." But that's just me.

"As for government wasn't huge." In a Utopia we wouldn't need a government, but we live in the US and it is not perfect, therefore we need government, and I, for one, do not take what they do for granted. Don't want to pay taxes, or have a government to pay to, move to Somalia? You'll have your dirt roads, schools non existent, defense... carry your machete/ machine gun, want health service... order you First-Aid kit, clean water... better dig, clean air... buy that gas mask, electricity... get your hamster and that wheel generator. Best of all, you could live in a tribe and not pay 1 cent in taxes.
---
I get a kick reading Scott's or Kevin's or what ever you want to be for the month... as the poor schmuck defends the rich. What's even more hilarious is that he criticizes the people who receives some sort of social help too.
So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?" Why the one way street Scotty? Also nobody is "envious" (BTW, lamest excuse on Earth) of the rich that earn/steal/ W-E a large sum of money. This is America, and if you want to earn that kind of money, you gotta get your ass up and move. Not sit on you f-ing laurels and hope and pray Mr.Moneybags hires your lazy ass, no brains, that will never amount to being your very own boss of something.
The majority of the ones planing to be taxed higher are rightfully so. How? Blame our Foreign Policy for one. You want to your expand a certain industry and corporation in a not so neutral territory around the world? Create wars, Coup d'état, lay out security all in the name of "National Interest." Now: PAY FOR YOUR SH!T. The people getting taxed higher can afford to pay the higher taxes that Corporate/Industry lobbyist and politicians spend on. You make $X millions/billions amount, after taxes you could still afford your yacht, plane, Rolls Royce, while still be able to expand your business via our Military. No?
I love reading "jobs will be cut." But no CEO talks about adjustment from the top in terms of salary to accommodate for the extra tax, but the easy way out is to just fire the employees make up lost revenue. And yet here we are; defending them like we owe them something and if they're saints. You look like a "yes-man" for the group that does not pertain to you. Tell me Scotty, when someone stabs you on your back, do you say thank-you and give them $10... "here, lunch is on me," all with a smile?
Since the 80's, the upper class (1% ) have been spoiled in low taxes and any mention of higher taxes turns into a outrage... mainly from the poor, driven from the top through the media; and you all don't see this!
With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit from.
Lastly, here's an idea... instead of waiting on Mr. Moneybags to put out a "Help Wanted Ad," why don't you get off your ass and become an entrepreneur of something, anything? Be your own boss, don't rely on anyone, you set your salary, hours, etc. "Gasp! That involves work and investment... . You know what... I rather criticize the other guy for not working and getting social help." Right Scotty?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Saturday, September 11, 2010 6:00 PM on j-body.org
Write a friggin book with no paragraph spacing whydontcha? It sure makes for a nice cluttered read.

Quote:

So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"

Wrong- I posted on the mosque debacle in new york, saying they had the right to put it there, despite that I thought it was offensive. I may not like the muzzies, but I recognize their right to the same rights I enjoy under our laws.

The rest of your post was a quasi-coherent rant against rich people and I believe, a perception that I am unemployed and waiting for a handout. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

Quote:

With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit from
So, since 2001, we have seen decades of drop-off in world education rankings? Could it possibly be that other countries are just getting better and better, while we are stagnant? Could it also be related to crack-mammas, inbred bubbas, and a general breakdown of the traditional home? Nah....its cuz we aren't gathering enough taxes right?

.




“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Sunday, September 12, 2010 6:06 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

spoiler wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:




How?


what's in that budget that is sinking the US boat? Perhaps if government wasn't so HUGE they would not need so much taxes

How?
The tax cuts does not pay off National Debt and/or deficit.
Way to not answer the question. You have never, ever, provided any evidence which supports your theory that raising tax rates pays off debt and lowering them causes it.

You and the artist of the ridiculous cartoon would do well to study the patterns of rates and revenue over the decades, but particularly since the Bush tax cuts you criticize.


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit from
Show us all how it's low taxes, and not the ever-expanding entitlement mentality which causes these things.

I say we are falling behind because it's too easy to get a hand out, so there is less and less motivation to better oneself. Do you blame low taxes for every lazy piece of sh!t on welfare, food stamps, and section 8 housing, that has a 60" TV, 3 game consoles, a 500 watt sound system, and leather couches in their living room?

It's high time this foolishness about how low taxes is our problem is put away. Our country has developed into a society where expecting someone to get off their lazy ass and better themselves is considered cruel. I find the real cruelty in letting someone waste their potential because we've made it too easy to stay where they are.







Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Sunday, September 12, 2010 8:32 PM on j-body.org
My God, GT is a fu-king soscolist!

And Mr White, SHHH, you cant talk bad about social welfare programs, there GREAT for the nation.

It breeds lots and lots of good democrats!
(fact.)


Chris


"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:37 PM on j-body.org
Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Write a friggin book with no paragraph spacing whydontcha? It sure makes for a nice cluttered read.
You're welcome. It's mostly for the dyslexic F-ers here.

Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:

So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"
Wrong- I posted on the mosque debacle in new york, saying they had the right to put it there, despite that I thought it was offensive. I may not like the muzzies, but I recognize their right to the same rights I enjoy under our laws.

To bad your history here proves otherwise.

Quote:

The rest of your post was a quasi-coherent rant against rich people and I believe, a perception that I am unemployed and waiting for a handout. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

I will reiterate... . More like, being that you're sitting on your lazy ass and wait for a job from Mr.Moneybags, you're no different then the next guy out there sitting to get a paycheck from the Government. Both on the same boat. One sits on the ass and hopes for a job, the other sits on the ass and hopes for a check. Get it? Or is it to close to home that you don't want to admit it?

Quote:

So, since 2001, we have seen decades of drop-off in world education rankings? Could it possibly be that other countries are just getting better and better, while we are stagnant?

That could may be, lately education has been taking a back seat to importance, besides why keep your population educated when they can serve a purpose in the military... Case in point, Chris (Infidel). If we want brains in America we have to import them from Japan, India, some Mid-East country, etc. But the lack of funding was apparent in a age where technology will be needed as much as we need oxygen. Computers, programs, equipment, up to date history books all need thorough revamp... religiously. Just last Monday there was a report of a local HS sports teams using 10 year old jersey in a area that housing that district does not go under $250K, I know, because it was my old HS. Some might oppose on the extra curricular activities, but getting out of the house and exercising or what ever the activity is; stimulates the brain for a number of good, incliding better test scores. It also reduces the chance of stupid teenage decisions. But that's another thread.

INFIDEL wrote:

My God, GT is a fu-king soscolist!

And Mr White, SHHH, you cant talk bad about social welfare programs, there GREAT for the nation.

It breeds lots and lots of good democrats!
(fact.)

Yet the man reaps & eats socialist platter like there is no tomorrow. BTW, when you know what a socialist is, start a dialogue.
So tell me, how does your fascist philosophy working for you? No, I would say Feudalism is more of your liking.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Monday, September 13, 2010 12:13 AM on j-body.org
Goodwrench,

I am not unemployed, and still fail to see where you came up with that idea. I've been with my current employer for two months. Prior to that, I was with the same employer for almost fifteen straight years. For final clarification, I am not the one collecting "disability" payments from the taxpayers. On the contrary, I am helping pay said disability payments.

[quoteKevin Trudeau wrote:


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:

So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"
Wrong- I posted on the mosque debacle in new york, saying they had the right to put it there, despite that I thought it was offensive. I may not like the muzzies, but I recognize their right to the same rights I enjoy under our laws.

To bad your history here proves otherwise.
]

And since you need a history reminder:

]Obama defends construction of mosque near Ground Zero site in NY.
Saturday, August 14, 2010 11:24 AM on j-body.org
Kevin Trudeau

But I am likely going against the grain of most conservatives. Although I personally find it arrogant and distateful, this is still America. The true test of how much I believe in freedom of religion, is NOT in what I'm allowed to do/say, but rather what I will allow my neighbors to do/say.

So, to the conservative talking heads who just won't shut up about how offensive and arrogant the mosque is.......shut up. The US Constitution that we are ardently defending against subvertive attacks from the left, is the same document that affirms the Muslims rights as well. The US Constitution does not protect you from being offended.
You can't scream from the rooftops about how the dems are trampling on the document, while you simultaneously try to prevent someone else from exercising their God-given rights. (even if the god they serve is not your own, and even if they are doing something on purpose, just to make you mad)

I don't care if you are offended. Get over it, and go mow the lawn

As a general rule, I don't trust the muzzies. I think the true practitioners of their "religion" are evil maniacs, bent on global domination and coercion of every last soul to convert to their faith. However, the moment you become a citizen of this country, you are afforded all the rights of every other citizen.... including the right to practice your faith, hold rallies, protest, burn books, buy property and build a mosque wherever you want. I may not like it, but I'd rather stand for their rights, than see my country start to trample on both of ours.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Monday, September 13, 2010 10:47 AM on j-body.org
Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Goodwrench,

I am not unemployed, and still fail to see where you came up with that idea. I've been with my current employer for two months. Prior to that, I was with the same employer for almost fifteen straight years. For final clarification, I am not the one collecting "disability" payments from the taxpayers. On the contrary, I am helping pay said disability payments.

Who said any thing about you being unemployed? And quite frankly I could not give a sh!t if you were, or not.
The point was (now for the third time): you and 92.4% of the Republican parrots in this nation claims raising taxes will loose jobs. I claim you are in the same boat as the freeloaders getting government assistant while being able bodied.
Here, I'll highlight my answer ( you know, the one you conveniently avoid) to answer the lamest excuse on this argument:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:


---
I get a kick reading Scott's or Kevin's or what ever you want to be for the month... as the poor schmuck defends the rich. What's even more hilarious is that he criticizes the people who receives some sort of social help too.
So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?" Why the one way street Scotty? Also nobody is "envious" (BTW, lamest excuse on Earth) of the rich that earn/steal/ W-E a large sum of money. This is America, and if you want to earn that kind of money, you gotta get your ass up and move. Not sit on you f-ing laurels and hope and pray Mr.Moneybags hires your lazy ass, no brains, that will never amount to being your very own boss of something.
The majority of the ones planning to be taxed higher are rightfully so. How? Blame our Foreign Policy for one. You want to your expand a certain industry and corporation in a not so neutral territory around the world? Create wars, Coup d'état, lay out security all in the name of "National Interest." Now: PAY FOR YOUR SH!T. The people getting taxed higher can afford to pay the higher taxes that Corporate/Industry lobbyist and politicians spend on. You make $X millions/billions amount, after taxes you could still afford your yacht, plane, Rolls Royce, while still be able to expand your business via our Military. No?
I love reading "jobs will be cut." But no CEO talks about adjustment from the top in terms of salary/benefits/perks to accommodate for the extra tax, but the easy way out is to just fire the employees to make up lost revenue. And yet here we are; defending them like we owe them something and if they're saints. You look like a "yes-man" for the group that does not pertain to you. Tell me Scotty, when someone stabs you on your back, do you say thank-you and give them $10... "here, lunch is on me," all with a smile?
Since the 80's, the upper class (1% ) have been spoiled in low taxes and any mention of higher taxes turns into a outrage... mainly from the poor, driven from the top through the media; and you all don't see this!
With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit from.
Lastly, here's an idea... instead of waiting on Mr. Moneybags to put out a "Help Wanted Ad," why don't you get off your ass and become an entrepreneur of something, anything? Be your own boss, don't rely on anyone, you set your salary, hours, etc. "Gasp! That involves work and investment... . You know what... I rather criticize the other guy for not working and getting social help." Right Scotty?

Still want to conveniently avoid this philosophy? Or is starting your own small business to radical and involves to much work to ever be a good idea....Yhea, lets defend the rich on the higher taxes and "wait on Mr. Moneybags to hire me." Nothing is better then to depend on someone else.


Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:

So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"
Wrong- I posted on the mosque debacle in new york, saying they had the right to put it there, despite that I thought it was offensive. I may not like the muzzies, but I recognize their right to the same rights I enjoy under our laws..

To bad your history here proves otherwise.

And since you need a history reminder: ... .

Allow me to inform you that your band-aid fix about that: you don't do religious and racial warfare is about as legit as $4.20 dollar bill.
Here are a few to piss you off:
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=politics&i=65429&t=64654&p=1
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=politics&i=65216&t=63647&p=1
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=politics&i=65142&t=65142#65142
If you need more... search under your name... you'll find plenty more.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Monday, September 13, 2010 11:30 AM on j-body.org
A VERY intriguing philosophical look at how those who "depend" on others to provide jobs and an income are at least as "dependent" as those who are unwilling and/or unable to land one of those jobs. I agree. As an entrepreneur myself, I can really relate to this.

And Scotta...don't fool yourself for one minute. You do not "pay" for disabled people. Your employer does. The money you think you "pay" was never in your possession in the first place. The only place it REALLY comes out of is your employer's profitability, for he has to raise your alleged wage to cover it. If it were not for this "contribution" that you THINK you are making, your wage would be lowered by that same amount, for that would then be the prevailing wage for the job.

Want to REALLY contribute? Take Goodwrench's advice and go into business for yourself. Then you can learn what providing for others' welfare (be they your employees, or the unemployed) REALLY means.






Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Monday, September 13, 2010 7:04 PM on j-body.org
Very clever. What do you think would happen if we had an world full of shop and factory owners, with no laborers? You guys are simple minded twats. History is full of people who, laid off from their jobs, embarked on their own and started their own business....and hired people to work for them. Trying to equate someone who is an able-bodied willing worker, with someone who cannot or most often, will not work, is ignorant. The saddest part, is that you know its ignorant.

.



“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Monday, September 13, 2010 7:39 PM on j-body.org
Kind of shoots your simple-minded self-righteousness about "paying taxes to support welfare" right in the head, doesn't it? Since you've done little here lately other than call names, allow me to respond in kind (to a degree):

You don't have the BALLS, or the ability, or the freedom of thought, to go it alone and attempt self-employment. If you had, you'd have done so by now. Content yourself with being the worker drone that you are, and will never be more than. Let us real men pay the bills.






Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Monday, September 13, 2010 10:29 PM on j-body.org
oh, you captain of industry! Are you really as contemptous of the working middle class as you are trying to appear, or are the mice and men merely attempting to lay out a snare?

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:12 AM on j-body.org
Nah, I just wanted to pump a few rounds into your mistakenly inflated ego. It felt good!

I am enjoying this notion Goodwrench has presented, however. It's one helluva reality check!





Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:44 AM on j-body.org
"I will reiterate... . More like, being that you're sitting on your lazy ass and wait for a job from Mr.Moneybags, you're no different then the next guy out there sitting to get a paycheck from the Government. Both on the same boat. One sits on the ass and hopes for a job, the other sits on the ass and hopes for a check. Get it? Or is it to close to home that you don't want to admit it?"



to me they are entirely diffrent and no where near the same. the person that is working is putting in WORK he is going to a company. and doing what the company asks for 40hours or whatever a week, and in return he is paid for his services. not much diffrent really then the owner of the company who who provides a product or service to someone else and is paid for it. only real diffrence between the two is the owner is going to collect the majority of the money. the guy sitting there collecting the check from the goverment isn't doing any WORK for the money he is receiving. being a laborer or worker is not welfare, its being paid for doing a job. workers who depend on the company for there paychecks are no diffrent then the company who depends on its customers to keep the company in business.




i also will disagree with hahn saying that the employer pays for welfare and not the employee. when i receive a check every week it shows the money i made and what was taken out to pay taxes. if i worked for you bill and the money for taxes was not taken out of my check, who would they come for at the end of the year? they would come after me because i would be the one not paying my taxes. your right if there were no taxes my paycheck would be lowered. but thats kind of a moot point because if there were no taxes there wouldn't be an issue to argue with.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:45 AM on j-body.org
Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Very clever. What do you think would happen if we had an world full of shop and factory owners, with no laborers? You guys are simple minded twats. History is full of people who, laid off from their jobs, embarked on their own and started their own business....and hired people to work for them. Trying to equate someone who is an able-bodied willing worker, with someone who cannot or most often, will not work, is ignorant. The saddest part, is that you know its ignorant.

.


So by your logic, I (someone who is not ABLE to work). Am lumped in with the people who are not willing to work? Please explain this statement because I find it really offensive. I took a lot of pride in my work ethic when I was able. I missed my kids growing up for two years because of being on the road truck driving.





Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:33 AM on j-body.org
Michael, the very fact that you are able to sit and type at a computer, tells me that you ARE able to work. Perhaps not drivimg a truck, but you could be trained in a new line of work, no?

And goodwrench's attempt to equate laborers working for an employer as being akin to wellfare recipients is boneheaded. Now, I think his end goal is to prove how we are
all interdependent on one another, and therefore, all equal, and by that, should all be sharimg equally in the profits. He just wont actually say it.

ir


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 9:05 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

A VERY intriguing philosophical look at how those who "depend" on others to provide jobs and an income are at least as "dependent" as those who are unwilling and/or unable to land one of those jobs. I agree. As an entrepreneur myself, I can really relate to this.

And Scotta...don't fool yourself for one minute. You do not "pay" for disabled people. Your employer does. The money you think you "pay" was never in your possession in the first place. The only place it REALLY comes out of is your employer's profitability, for he has to raise your alleged wage to cover it. If it were not for this "contribution" that you THINK you are making, your wage would be lowered by that same amount, for that would then be the prevailing wage for the job.

Want to REALLY contribute? Take Goodwrench's advice and go into business for yourself. Then you can learn what providing for others' welfare (be they your employees, or the unemployed) REALLY means.

Good thing you chimed in on this, you'd surely be a prime example of taking the initiative and not rely on others to provide for you. As you can see here, it is ALLOT easier to just the defend the group that does not pertain to them, instead of making something of themselves. Thanks for your input, Bill.

Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Very clever. What do you think would happen if we had an world full of shop and factory owners, with no laborers? You guys are simple minded twats. History is full of people who, laid off from their jobs, embarked on their own and started their own business....and hired people to work for them. Trying to equate someone who is an able-bodied willing worker, with someone who cannot or most often, will not work, is ignorant. The saddest part, is that you know its ignorant.
This country was made up of industries and entrepreneurship. PERIOD. Today it is borrow and what can someone else do for me: you're an example of it. What I said was to show you have options to the lamest excuse of: "if we raise the taxes on the rich we won't have jobs. Turns out the excuse is BS and that you're too lazy to exercise your options or maybe to dumb to figure them out, you decide.
Lastly... ."Trying to equate someone who is an able-bodied willing worker, with someone who cannot or most often, will not work is ignorant" means one does not not know about the subject? (???) Or are you using the JBO's definition of ignorant to mean "stupid."

sndsgood wrote:


to me they are entirely diffrent and no where near the same. the person that is working is putting in WORK he is going to a company. and doing what the company asks for 40hours or whatever a week, and in return he is paid for his services. not much diffrent really then the owner of the company who who provides a product or service to someone else and is paid for it. only real diffrence between the two is the owner is going to collect the majority of the money. the guy sitting there collecting the check from the goverment isn't doing any WORK for the money he is receiving. being a laborer or worker is not welfare, its being paid for doing a job. workers who depend on the company for there paychecks are no diffrent then the company who depends on its customers to keep the company in business.
Put it like this, so we are all on the same page. When there is a argument of: "we should not raise taxes, because jobs will be lost or no jobs will rise" and that argument is done in the USA, the only thing it tells me, you can't do sh!t for yourself. Because in country that you can do all sorts of things to better your self in order to provide for yourself, here now what you are doing with this argument is, bitch for the sake of bitching, while still being peon for the rich. If they don't hire... fine... f-them and do something on your own. But no it, it is allot easier to "bench-bitch" and criticize others who are on the same boat with the folks who does not provide a better life for themselves through government. No rocket science here.

Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Michael, the very fact that you are able to sit and type at a computer, tells me that you ARE able to work. Perhaps not drivimg a truck, but you could be trained in a new line of work, no?

And goodwrench's attempt to equate laborers working for an employer as being akin to wellfare recipients is boneheaded. Now, I think his end goal is to prove how we are
all interdependent on one another, and therefore, all equal, and by that, should all be sharimg equally in the profits. He just wont actually say it.

Funny you should say that... I'm also making extra money selling items online, why can't others (like you) who bitch on "raise the taxes on the rich we loose jobs" do the same? When I have my house 75% paid off and in a few years, I will be opening up small pizza franchise store. I will not solely rely on a employer to pay my bills, nor do I have to be a soldier for the rich and chant "no higher taxes for the rich." Hell, the day I see a rich guy chant no taxes for the middle or poor class, I will literally LOLMAO. But a scene like that can only be played on SNL skit as it would be a total joke.
Lastly, no one is interdependent on one another. It is a matter of becoming independent... period. If you want to rely on Mr. Moneybags to provide for you a check, then don't bitch on the welfare folks. On the day employers decides to play politics with people's careers and jobs and just like you note, since Micheal could get a computer job, you can start a online buisness too, or any buisness for that matter. Get it or will you just take the lazy-ass route?



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:48 AM on j-body.org
your going to be dependant on your customers goodwrench, without them your business will fail. even a business owner is dependant on people.

there are things the goverment can do to make it more attractive for people to start a business just as there are things the goverment can do to make it more attractive for a business to add employee's. if you want to push people to start a business as some people choose to do then you make the evnirement easy and favorable for them to do it.


wanting the goverment to provide for you while doing nothing in return is allot diffrent then working every day and being paid for your work. i dont know how you can't see that.

im sure your employees will love working for you if your just going to consider them welfare recipients.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 12:28 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

your going to be dependant on your customers goodwrench, without them your business will fail. even a business owner is dependant on people.

No Sh!t?
Quote:

there are things the goverment can do to make it more attractive for people to start a business just as there are things the goverment can do to make it more attractive for a business to add employee's. if you want to push people to start a business as some people choose to do then you make the evnirement easy and favorable for them to do it.
You mean tax incentives... not lower the rate for the 2%: which we are talking about here... . But sure, I'm for incentives that will promote growth on actions that one takes, instead of tax breaks that only hopes you take action.

Quote:

wanting the goverment to provide for you while doing nothing in return is allot diffrent then working every day and being paid for your work. i dont know how you can't see that.
Apparently you still don't get it. Just read up there.

Quote:

im sure your employees will love working for you if your just going to consider them welfare recipients.

Eh?
Um..."Welfare recipients" really? Heh, if they are working for me... who are they relying to get a paycheck... I'll give you a hint... it surely isn't going to be their name on the business title for them to rely on. How independent are they now? Whether they rely on me or the government they are still dependant. The moral of my story is:
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

If they don't want to hire... fine... f-them and do something on your own. But no it, it is allot easier to "bench-bitch" and criticize others who are on the same boat with the folks who does not provide a better life for themselves and rely through government. No rocket science here.

Get it?


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:42 PM on j-body.org

i looked thru a few definitions of the word welfare and none of them stated someone who gets paid for doing work. that isnt what welfare means. and no your employees arnt your welfare recipients they get paid for doing work just like you will get paid for providing a customer pizza. they arn't relying on you as a form of welfare. they are getting paid for the work they did for you. they are relying on thereselves to come in and do the job every day. don't pay them. they will take you to court because they earned that money. your not giving it to them out of the generosity of your golden heart, they provided a service and you are required to pay them. no diffrent then someone paying you for a pizza, you are required to make and hand over the pizza. that is not welfare. about the only diffrence between the worker and the owner is the risk, this is the reason why the owner gets most of the money because your taking most of the risk.again id hate to be an employee for you if that is how you feel. that is really messed up thinking. i can see you having a huge turnover rate if that's your thinking.



i get it, your basically trying to say go out there and do it on your own and don't bitch about the way things are with the goverment. im really surprised at you trying to take the stance of don't complain about the goverment. you seem to have bitched about things the goverment has done tons of times before. and someone complaining who is working is still diffrent then someone complaining who isn't.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:07 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:

i looked thru a few definitions of the word welfare and none of them stated someone who gets paid for doing work. that isnt what welfare means. and no your employees arnt your welfare recipients they get paid for doing work just like you will get paid for providing a customer pizza. they arn't relying on you as a form of welfare. they are getting paid for the work they did for you. they are relying on thereselves to come in and do the job every day. don't pay them. they will take you to court because they earned that money. your not giving it to them out of the generosity of your golden heart, they provided a service and you are required to pay them. no diffrent then someone paying you for a pizza, you are required to make and hand over the pizza. that is not welfare. about the only diffrence between the worker and the owner is the risk, this is the reason why the owner gets most of the money because your taking most of the risk.again id hate to be an employee for you if that is how you feel. that is really messed up thinking. i can see you having a huge turnover rate if that's your thinking.



sndsgood wrote:


i get it, your basically trying to say go out there and do it on your own



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:21 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

Lastly, no one is interdependent on one another. It is a matter of becoming independent... period.


Goodwrench hates big corporations, which explains his disdain for the working man. I guess he doesn't realize, that after and if his business grows, he will NEED to hire workers, and will be DEPENDENT on them to show up for work on time and make pizzas. And unless he plans on opening a farm, growing a milling his own flour, tomatoes, spices...opening a butchery and processing plant, owning his own fleet of trucks to haul his goods around....(get it?) He'll be beholden to someone else in order to be successful.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but my gut tells me, that he'd like to severely amend, or utterly abolish our captialistic society, and move to some type of egalitarian communist/ agrarian society.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 9:21 PM on j-body.org
Kevin Trudeau wrote:

Goodwrench hates big corporations

Only the ones that doesn't work correctly, basically the ones you defend so admirably ol' chap.
Quote:

which explains his disdain for the working man

Could you get more ironic with that statement? BTW 'ya got it backwards.
Quote:

I guess he doesn't realize, that after and if his business grows, he will NEED to hire workers, and will be DEPENDENT on them to show up for work on time. And unless he plans on opening a farm, growing a milling his own flour, tomatoes, spices...opening a butchery and processing plant, owning his own fleet of trucks to haul his goods around....(get it?)He'll be beholden to someone else in order to be successful.

Good, now explain that to the rich that loves to lay off workers just to play politics. Wait a minute, since when are you fighting for the working class? Oh, that's right... you have nothing else to add, so now you must switch camps.
Quote:

I can't quite put my finger on it, but my gut tells me, that he'd like to severely amend, or utterly abolish our captialistic society, and move to some type of egalitarian communist/ agrarian society.

Is this the same gut that tells you that all black are thugs/welfare recipients and drive Dodge Magnums, or all Arabs are scathing terrorist, or every central American are illegal immigrants? So that's a new one; you open up your own business and be a leader and not dependent, now falls under a commie? Heh... when all else fails and it is the opposite of what you think...label them a Communist. Brilliant!
Then again this is Scotty, the one that believes that our president is not American and thinks he's a Muslim. What else can I expect? Heh, you remind me of this political cartoon, here's another thing to piss you off:



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:23 AM on j-body.org
"Good, now explain that to the rich that loves to lay off workers just to play politics. Wait a minute, since when are you fighting for the working class? Oh, that's right... you have nothing else to add, so now you must switch camps. "



most companies don't love to layoff anyone. a good workforce is hard to find and the last thing you want to do is hire someone, train them and then lay them off. but sometimes you have to do whats best for the company. sometimes your choices are dont lay anyone off and let the company run into the ground sending everyone out of work. or you make cuts go lean and the company and a good percentage of your employees get to keep there jobs.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Why should Obama keep Bush tax cuts?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:53 PM on j-body.org
sndsgood wrote:


most companies don't love to layoff anyone. a good workforce is hard to find and the last thing you want to do is hire someone, train them and then lay them off. but sometimes you have to do whats best for the company. sometimes your choices are dont lay anyone off and let the company run into the ground sending everyone out of work. or you make cuts go lean and the company and a good percentage of your employees get to keep there jobs.

You are preaching to the quire man. Unfortunately, in my past, I worked for two companies that did love to layoff... never any adjustment from the top, just always the easy way out; just chop at the knees/ankles off. In the end, to many chiefs not enough indians. Sorry to inform you, but these companies do exist. Being that I lived through it, I don't have to much sympathy for certain higher ups. Now, if you did all you could from the top (and it is visible) then there is exception to my weariness, but living in a culture similar to what Machiavellian designed, the only thing you can do is watch your back.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search