Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

and your all blaming this on Obama?

I'd rather have people getting laid off, than sending people to war in Iran.

Because do not doubt for a second that the republicans (neocons) were not going to instruct Romney to take out Syria, Iran and Lebanon. It was a done deal with Romney at the post that the bankers, CEO's and the such were going to take home much more $$$ by increasing the Bush Tax Cutes to the wealthy!

Obama's going to cut defence spending, isnt that a good thing? Arent they raping the US tax $ enough?

You've had 4yrs of Obama, now he's been elected for another 4yrs all of a sudden everyones going to lose their job like its prophecy, reincheck, the US is only struggling because bankers, the military and its ceo's are out sourcing your jobs so they can take more profit.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
and your all blaming this on Obama?

I'd rather have people getting laid off, than sending people to war in Iran.

Because do not doubt for a second that the republicans (neocons) were not going to instruct Romney to take out Syria, Iran and Lebanon. It was a done deal with Romney at the post that the bankers, CEO's and the such were going to take home much more $$$ by increasing the Bush Tax Cutes to the wealthy!

Obama's going to cut defence spending, isnt that a good thing? Arent they raping the US tax $ enough?

You've had 4yrs of Obama, now he's been elected for another 4yrs all of a sudden everyones going to lose their job like its prophecy, reincheck, the US is only struggling because bankers, the military and its ceo's are out sourcing your jobs so they can take more profit.

Funny you would mention the word raping.

With a weakened military in a tumultuous world, strength of military would prevent your entire country from getting (as you say it) raped.

Maybe that is what Obama wants though.

Time will tell the full story.

reply to post by ninjamikec


well I guess your not buying anything then, every company has had to do layoffs..from vehicle manufacturing, coal and natural gas companies, and electric companies, so with what you said..you have no heat/AC and don't drive..just saying.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

No, IMHO, they are not the ones “raping the system”:
US Federal Spending 2011
Its the ones not paying their fair share, despite having the highest incomes out of anyone in the country:
US federal Tax Receipts 2011
They are also the same ones who are driving the unemployment levels up and cutting everyone’s benefits, thereby causing more folks to have to rely on social services.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)Ahhhh, left wing idiots. Gotta love 'em. At least they give me something to laugh at every day.....even if it's not the "HAHA" kind of funny. No matter how many horrible things this guy's done to our once great nation, they will never blame "Dear Leader".

Companies aren't going to be laying off based on WHO got elected, they are going to be laying off based on who got elected's POLICIES. What is SO hard to understand here? Obamacare for full-time employees, MUCH higher taxes, and tighter regulations will inevitably lead to lay-offs, unless of course you're one of the few companies out there that qualify for the exemptions or make SO much business that they can off-set all the extra taxes. That would take a HUGE increase in business though......unrealistic in these times of people being more broke than ever. The only other option is to DRASTICALLY increase prices for the consumer.

I LOVE the "boycott" idiots too. LOL. Yeah....great idea geniuses. A company has to lay people off to offset higher over-head, so you boycott the company, which leads to even less income for the company, which in turn leads to even MORE layoffs, which then leads to more people without jobs on governement assistance not paying into the system, which leads to America being even more broke than it is. Why don't you economic geniuses just have your own "Down with America" flags made up? FOOLS !!!!!!

I DO love the one poster's idea about the people that like Obama's idiotic economic policies, and voted for him....to be the only ones who have to pay the increased taxes, and be forced to pay for Obamacare, and be the ones who get laid-off first. That makes perfect sense to me. It's the old saying.....You made your bed, lie in it. I don't want Obama or his policies for America, I'm adamantly against both.....so why should *I* have to suffer because of them?

reply to post by morethanyou


I really wonder about Obama's relationship with the communist Putin, when he was (he thought) off-mike saying that he would "have more flexibility" after the election.

What are they planning? Are we going to "lose" the war with Russia in the Middle East? Those Russians and Chinese are really good at controlling their peoples.

reply to post by Larry L

Who's policies?

Let me give you an example for how these 'sacred' corporations are raping the US tax payer...

www.walmartmovie.com...
In 2004, a study released the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that "reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.

Its estimated that every Walmart that exists cost the US taxpayers $400K/year in social services because they rely on the US taxpayer to be their “benefit package”. They even hold classes to show their employees how to apply for social services...

yet at the same time they are posting record profits:

www.huffingtonpost.com...
Overall, revenue, excluding Sam's Club membership fees, was up 5.5 percent to $108.6 billion. Results were buoyed by Wal-Mart's international business, which produces 26 percent of its revenue. The company's international division was up 16.2 percent.
The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., reported net income of $3.8 billion, or $1.09 per share, in the three months ended July 31. That compares with $3.6 billion, or 97 cents per share, in the same period last year. Analysts had expected $1.08 per share on revenue of $108.08 billion.

you still want to blame the president (any president) for this kind of corporate greed?

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
reply to post by ararisq

 

This argument is nothing more than financial terrorism from the right. Such slime, they are.

Poor liberal, he doesn't understand basic economics yet. Look up the Laffer curve. It works like this. How much money does the government get, when taxes are at 100%? In other words when you are a voluntary slave working but receiving nothing in return?

The answer is the government gets $0. All economic activity stops and everybody, including the government is a pauper. It follows that reducing taxes from 100% would increase government income. Well the number that you can reduce taxes by, to increase government income is much lower than governments current total take, which is near 50%, including state, local and property taxes. Taxes and regulations SUPPRESS economic activity. Why don't liberals understand this? Do they think government creates wealth?

This is especially true for capital gains tax, which they want to increase back to the Clinton levels of 38%. Reducing this tax INCREASED government revenues. When Obama was informed of this, he didn't care. He much preferred for people to simply suffer and 'pay their fair share'.

Now we know why liberals really shouldn't be allowed to vote. We need to have economic and political literacy tests to qualify for that privilege.

reply to post by defcon5


Put the gov't in charge of anything and all you'll get is more middle-men, more red tape, and more expense.

Why can't normal healthy people just have major medical insurance, and pay to get penicillin when they have strep throat?

Why can't people who have been born with expensive diseases get gov't help?

Why can't the american people trust someone in the gov't to make these decisions?

Why is Big Pharma making soooooo much money on the crap they keep producing?

reply to post by ararisq


"Obama Wins - Layoff Starting"

This is what is called a post hoc fallacy:
Event A happens then Event B happens
Therefore A caused B.

reply to post by defcon5


Are you REALLY unable to understand why Wal-Mart/Sam's Club's profits are higher than ever? It's pretty simple, and has little to do with "corperate greed" (a highly over-used left-wing/socialist buzz-word btw). They are BY FAR the cheapest places to buy goods in America, and people are more broke than ever, therefore have really no other choice than to shop at these places, which leads to higher and higher profits for the company.

Now, more than ever, we the people need to make a dollar stretch further and further, and the horrible reality is, a dollar goes further at Wal-Mart (or Sam's Club if you've got the funds to buy in bulk) than anyplace else. Wal-Mart will in no way be affected by Obama's crippling business policies, that will only affect the smaller companies which will kill off even more of Wal-Mart's competition.

The more people that are poor, will inevitably equate to higher and higher profit margins for Wal-Mart. You can get more for your food stamps there. Trust me, I know as someone who's been unemployed for 2 years now, with no employment in sight. Anyone who votes democrat, ESPECIALLY Obama, has no right to complain about Wal-Mart's profit margins because the policies these people voted for directly led to the business that provided those profits.

I'd be willing to bet everything I have, which is about 53 cents right now, and $23 left on my EBT card, that most of the new profits taken in by Wal-Mart year over year, are provided to them in the form of Government assistance in one form or another.

reply to post by Larry L

My point is not that they are making a profit, or why they are making a profit...

Can you explain to me why you feel its okay for a company that is making plenty of profit to be allowing the US taxpayer to have to pay out benefits to their employees (through social services), when they have plenty of money to be paying out those benefits themselves? ...And at the same that they are using more then their fair share of those social services, they are also paying out less in taxes then normal joe blow citizen for those services?

Originally posted by ararisq
I work for a company that has been on a hiring spree all year, adding 50+ jobs this year alone. Today, I got the call that my staff is being cut by over 75%. I have no idea how we'll be able to deliver our work next year, it just seems impossible.

I've heard some other anecdotal evidence that people are losing their jobs all across the company as businesses allocate what used to be salary to future taxes.

Fearmongering.

reply to post by defcon5


I find it hard to follow your points as they seem to be jumping all over the place.

You seem to be pro-Bama, yet the things you're complaining about sound like you should be anti-Obama.
I can tell that you're complaining about the US taxpayer covering for other people (a good thing to be upset about to a certain extent)...well.....you're going to be paying alot more in taxes durring Obama's 2nd term.

I'm not going to blame any company for not wanting to pay for every single one of their employees medical or other things. That's socialism bordering on communism. Do you make enough a week to save any money in the bank? Well, if so you should be giving ME some of that money since you can afford to save, and I can't get employed, RIGHT?! If you believe that, and are offering, trust me.....I'll take that extra money you don't need. But the reality is, I don't think you owe me anything. I'm not asking for your money, nor am I even asking for a company to pay my medical. I just want a F'ing job.

And I'm SURE Wal-Mart is paying less in taxes than J.Q.Citizen. And they are paying those less taxes under who again? Oh yeah......Obama. And if he wanted to change that he could have durring his first 2 years, you know.......when democrats had complete control of the government......

With the issues you're justly concerned with, you should HATE Obama and the left, yet you seem to be arguing FOR them. Exactly what side are you on? Because you're VERY confusing.

Oh and BTW, if you're planning on sending me all your savings in the bank, let me know, cause I'd LOVE to have Christmas this year. LOL

reply to post by ararisq


Staff is cut down by 75%...this means that 75% percent increase in employment in China.

One of the few things I can think of, that will get the economy rolling again, is get rid of this free trade with the world crap. The only free trade should be between states. Tax the crap out of imports. We were once a strong nation because we had very strong manufacturing. Can't have a strong nation, with weak manufacturing.

Originally posted by Larry L
I find it hard to follow your points as they seem to be jumping all over the place.

You seem to be pro-Bama, yet the things you're complaining about sound like you should be anti-Obama.

You probability having difficulty because you're trying to paint me into a little preconceived box about what you believe that I believe based on who you think that I support as president.

The truth is that I don't support any of them...
I also don't blame them for everything as they are nothing but a sideshow to the real power.
They are scapegoats that are replaceable every 4 years to give people the false impression of having a choice in this corporate/bank/greed generated system of stealing from the common man in order to better line their own pockets.

Originally posted by Larry L
I can tell that you're complaining about the US taxpayer covering for other people (a good thing to be upset about to a certain extent)...well.....you're going to be paying alot more in taxes durring Obama's 2nd term.

that bothers me a lot less then this does:
Corporate income from taxes

Originally posted by Larry L
I'm not going to blame any company for not wanting to pay for every single one of their employees medical or other things. That's socialism bordering on communism.

Refusing to pay employees a realistic survivable income, and using your corporate power to lobby the level of minimum wage to an unrealistic low number... Is slavery...

Expecting the US tax payer to pick up the difference between what you want to pay to maximize your profits, and what it really costs an employee to realistically survive, while pay next to nothing in taxes yourself... Is theft...

They, of course, have lobbied in the rules to get away with this however.
Which is worse though...
Socialism, or an Oligarchy?

Originally posted by Larry L Do you make enough a week to save any money in the bank? Well, if so you should be giving ME some of that money since you can afford to save, and I can't get employed, RIGHT?! If you believe that, and are offering, trust me.....I'll take that extra money you don't need. But the reality is, I don't think you owe me anything. I'm not asking for your money, nor am I even asking for a company to pay my medical. I just want a F'ing job.

Your company should be paying you a reasonable, survivable, wage, not me or the other tax payers...
That is the problem, these companies are getting away with shirking their responsibility by depending on the rest of us to pay their benefits and make up for their lack of payment to their employees. At the same time they are reaping record profits, and paying nothing in taxes.

Originally posted by TKDRL
One of the few things I can think of, that will get the economy rolling again, is get rid of this free trade with the world crap. The only free trade should be between states. Tax the crap out of imports. We were once a strong nation because we had very strong manufacturing. Can't have a strong nation, with weak manufacturing.

edit on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:51:14 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Ain't gonna happen. American's can't afford American made stuff.

Originally posted by TKDRL
One of the few things I can think of, that will get the economy rolling again, is get rid of this free trade with the world crap. The only free trade should be between states. Tax the crap out of imports. We were once a strong nation because we had very strong manufacturing. Can't have a strong nation, with weak manufacturing.

..And any corporation who 'off-shores' more then 50% of their business or manufacturing should be considered a foreign corporation, and be subject to all the taxes and tariffs for importing goods for sale in the US...

reply to post by longlostbrother


Take a look at Defcon's post, and you find one of the biggest reasons why they can't afford it anymore.