It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because running a GD business is not a popularity contest.



Fair point, but multi billion dollar corps like Amazon could pay their taxes like me and you too.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They do contrary to the out right lies about business.



Mr. Trump’s suggestion that Amazon does not pay taxes is false. The company, in its latest annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that it paid $177 million in income taxes in 2014, $273 million in 2015 and $412 million last year.


www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What exactly is in this plan of hers? You'll have to forgive me if your spin on somebody else's opinion doesn't have me screeching, "OMG THAT COMMIE HAG!"



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because running a GD business is not a popularity contest.


I don't see how that policy proposal makes it a popularity contest. What's wrong with the line workers or lower management of a corporation getting part of a say in how the corporation develops?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was under the impression private business could do whatever the EFF they wanted to.

At least that was last weeks story.

Now comes along Warren, and forcing private companies to bend to HER will.

I've had enough of the GD HYPOCRISY.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't care what your impressions are neo. I was asking a specific question on why it is idiotic for employees to have a say in how a company is ran.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why should they ?

Seriously?

When you work for someone else, who is footing the bill FOR EVERYTHING.

WHY SHOULD YOU GET A SAY in SNIP?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So was Trump wrong when he said they didn't?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
sorry again, computer went crazy.... dbl


Computer taken over by government interventionalists !!!

😍🤷‍♀️



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't give a rats arse about what Trump said.

I heard the SAME GD LIES for years before he was ever elected.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
How about we un-molest the constitution and put taxes back to normal?

Small business' and normal employees are victims of a giant wealth redistribution racket put in place by lobbyists and a greedy pig of a gov.

Taxation, laws/regulations are choking us out.

More regulations won't fix this mess.

Why do leaders have to suck so bad, they are wrecking growth and quality of life for everyone.

Get rid of the irs, or get rid of the entire gd thing.

Let's put in an end the irs, audit the fed person.

We are not represented and should be taxed accordingly.




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Someone seriously give me an effing answer.

What makes people think the STATE can run a business better than a private citizen?

The country is $21 trillion in debt.

More WELFARE programs that there ever enough money to ever pay for.

Endless printing of fiat currency.

Continually picking winners, and losers.

WHAT ?

Explain the GD logic to me?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Well if it becomes law, then it's because the law said so. But you still aren't telling me why it is an idiotic idea to implement a rule like this. It's not like the employees would be able to dictate all corporate policies and hirings. They'd just have some more power in the decision making process that they lacked before. Again. How is that so terrible?
edit on 17-8-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Answer the GD question?

WHY DO YOU GET A SAY when someone else MORE EDUCATED, and has the experience to get the job in the first place is hired to do it ?

All anyone has said is basically because some jacksnip political HACK politician 'thinks' it's a good idea.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ill use a military analogy. Heirarchal control is vastly more expeditious. If all 3 squads in a platoon took a vote on what to do next, particularly in combat, no cohesive movement forward can occur as efficiently as a top down structure allows.

Also, not everyone with a vote sees the whole picture, nor does everyone share the same brain power or experience to have a valid opinion within operations. Emotions and emotionally driven opinions, have no place in leadership.

I think this is a terrible, company crippling idea, put forward by someone that obviously knows snip about running a business.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

But if a corporation asks it's QA department for advice on hiring (or promoting) to fill a QA director position, wouldn't the employees be educated in who would be a good fit?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Answer the GD question?

WHY DO YOU GET A SAY when someone else MORE EDUCATED, and has the experience to get the job in the first place is hired to do it ?

All anyone has said is basically because some jacksnip political HACK politician 'thinks' it's a good idea.


Calm down there buddy, you don't want to end up like Ted.....







posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because running a GD business is not a popularity contest.


I don't see how that policy proposal makes it a popularity contest. What's wrong with the line workers or lower management of a corporation getting part of a say in how the corporation develops?


Unless they are shareholders their opinion really isn't a priority... I mean most companies want to know what their employees think, but they aren't owners.

If the employees care so much, they should ban together and buy some shares. Then they can vote as a shareholder and hold the board accountable. They also can have some skin in the game as an owner if bad decisions are made.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

But if a corporation asks it's QA department for advice on hiring (or promoting) to fill a QA director position, wouldn't the employees be educated in who would be a good fit?


What's that snip?

Corporations CAN't do anything on their own without the 'wisdom' of Warren.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Its all a bunch of emotional responses in favor of this ridicilous notion, Id wager by a bunch of people who have never held an executive or military leadership role to know any better.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join