Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What the next 4 years are going to look like

page: 13
51
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Starbucks tried that and they still had to close locations after Obama won the WH. I talked with a guy who managed a location which closed. And that was right after they had to raise prices too. Who would have guessed.


Oh, and by the way:


The company announced it will invest nearly $180 million in expanding manufacturing capacity in the Southeastern U.S. by building a fifth U.S. plant in Augusta, Ga. and expanding an existing facility in Sandy Run, S.C.... When the state-of-the-art soluble plant is completed, it is expected to create more than 140 new manufacturing jobs, in addition to hundreds of indirect jobs related to construction, shipping, and supply chain functions with local economic impact...... In Fiscal 2012, with the addition of nearly 300 net new stores (company owned and licensed) and the remodeling of 1,700 existing cafes, more than 5,000 direct and indirect net new jobs are being created in the U.S. this year.
news.starbucks.com...
edit on 19-11-2012 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
the next four years are gonna suck



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Starbucks tried that and they still had to close locations after Obama won the WH.


I'm sure that had nothing to do with a company that sells three dollar coffees getting hit by a massive recession.


What difference does it make? Recession is recession wherever it comes from. Obama has not made the economy better. It was like Christimas 2010 when I talked to that guy, so the "bush recession" was supposedly "over".

Does the report say how it is handling Obamacare? Perhaps they just didn't tell you the higher cost was for that. The fact is that midway thru Bobo's first term they had to close locations.

edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


See my post above. Contrary to your anecdotal evidence as of 2012 Starbucks is expanding in the U.S.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
You realize that the most prosperous society in history was after Roosevelt's reforms right?





You do realize it was only prosperous because of the influx of a ton of new cash under the Social Security Act.
I am glad that you mentioned FDR though, I believe it was his Social policies that started us down the path to where we are now.
He took us from being a Country of people who believed in individual responsibility and charity and started us down the path of letting one group take care of another through the Govt.
Sure there have beem lots of issues from one President to another but FDR was the one who started the Social Engineering of our nation.
FDR started us down the path of failure.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DelMarvel
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


See my post above. Contrary to your anecdotal evidence as of 2012 Starbucks is expanding in the U.S.


They have already raised the prices of their coffee products including drinks made by barristas. They just don't tell you why the cost is higher.

And spreading propaganda too

sayanythingblog.com...

But surely you will have to accept that even the mighty liberal Starbucks had to make some changes


But during the depths of the recession, Starbucks nearly drowned in its caramel macchiato. After decades of breakneck expansion under Mr. Schultz, tight-fisted consumers abandoned it. The company’s sales and share price sank so low that insiders worried Starbucks might become a takeover target.


So, after an eight-year hiatus, an alarmed Mr. Schultz returned as chief executive in January 2008. He shut 900 shops, mostly in the United States, drastically cut costs and put the company back on course.





Mr. Schultz concedes that he can no longer run Starbucks through the Cult of Howard. And he readily acknowledges that he badly misread the economy and underestimated the extent to which his customers would pull back during the recession.



Executives concluded that Starbucks had to close 200 American shops. The board suggested 600. Executives said that if sales and the economy got worse, they would also cut $400 million in costs. The board said no, let’s start cutting costs immediately, while closing locations. Starbucks ultimately closed 900 locations worldwide and cut $580 million in costs. As the decline in same-store sales neared 10 percent, board members asked executives to model what would happen if the sales slide hit 20 percent — which once would have been unthinkable.

www.nytimes.com...


So, my premise was that donating to La raza and all their social responsibility stuff didn't make them a financially feasible operation. Cutting costs and closing stores and remaking things to fit a new economic climate saved them.
edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
America must be the only country where people openly brag about zionism, big business, anti-welfare state, pro-military occupations, etc. The problem is this country has the most economic and military muscle in the world and setting the world back with each republican victory.

That is not to say democrats are good. They are simply the lesser of two evils. But why vote the lesser of two evils when you can actually vote for good? There are at least 10 parties in america which given the chance could correct lots of wrongs gradually. Either people do not know about them or they are afraid to dump this sick status-quo.

Only in america is socialism a dirty word. Not saying you have to love it, but at least try to understand what it is all about before you start bashing people with different ideas. I don't love the government for the sake of loving it. The government is what people make of it, it is what the majority want it to be, minus the corruption of course. If they want hamas as the government, then hamas runs the government. Or you can have a communist government.


I have to disagree. It's not what we want. It's what the lying msm say we want. The msm control what shapes peoples ideas about what's wrong, and who's responsible. No one is being told the truth. Americans are treated like cattle. Oboma will not help us. He's a puppet like Bush before him. Corporations are the real power behind the scene. While the media reports who's sleeping with who, what movies are coming out next, the national debt keeps getting bigger. No one is doing anything about it.

The msm ignores all political partys except the ones they want you to vote for. The one they want you to vote for is the one that won't help you.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


blah blah blah blah...your short sided thread deserves an equally short sided reply. Wah wah wah...being white sucks!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Starbucks tried that and they still had to close locations after Obama won the WH.


I'm sure that had nothing to do with a company that sells three dollar coffees getting hit by a massive recession.


What difference does it make? Recession is recession wherever it comes from. Obama has not made the economy better. It was like Christimas 2010 when I talked to that guy, so the "bush recession" was supposedly "over".

Does the report say how it is handling Obamacare? Perhaps they just didn't tell you the higher cost was for that. The fact is that midway thru Bobo's first term they had to close locations.

edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Actually the dumocrats made the recession infinitely worse by bailing out big business in the order of 3 to 4 trillion dollars and have absolutely nothing to show for it. That is why I said democrats are not left. Bush wants war and Obama wants big business. Both treasonous, cheating liars of the worst kind!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Now you're talking. You got that right man.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Here are some more!







Just thought I'd add to the mix of thinking...

So, we decrease the taxes paid by those of the top 1% (so that it is no longer based on a proportion of their income, but based on a comparison to what others have paid).

It is therefore, also important that we increase laws to ensure that more money is somehow siphoned into their pockets, so that they are tempted to stick around and pay some of the ordinary people to work for them. This will further give us an excuse to decrease the taxes paid out by these people.

These two activities should get the final nails in the coffin and fix everything.

This is finally going to turn into a situation of "Who is going to pay for publicly required infrastructure?" - It will have to be the last people with money - and boy do they love paying for things that are not exclusively used!

*THIS* is why I believe that a complete breakdown will fix everything. Those who are smart will prepare for the coming depression.
edit on 19-11-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: missed image



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sensibleSenseless
 


The only thing that will level the playing field is a complete and total collapse with the ending of all income taxation.

The only thing they are doing is pitting all 3 classes against each other for a vote to keep and maintain power.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrnotobc
.
The msm ignores all political partys except the ones they want you to vote for. The one they want you to vote for is the one that won't help you.


Yeah you need BIG MONEY to run a successful campaign. Ron Paul had to dump his campaign in the garbage 3/4 of the way into the election season because he ran out of money. Freedom of speech in terms of financial contributions should a cap imo, but the republicans were the ones that passed unlimited contributions in the supreme court.

Just imagine how little attention all the third parties get. Gary Johnson was given the ball late in the season and only mustered to get 1 percent of the total popular vote nationwide. Just 1 percent, barely beating the past libertarian vote count. And I dislike libertarians quite a bit! Other parties get .01 to .30 of total pv. It is really awful. I have no problem with the electorate college though, seems fair. And no problem with saying the voting booths are ok, no cheating there. All the cheating happens in lack of finance to campaign properly. But still the libertarians were on the ballot in every state which is rare for third parties. You would assume there would be more "protest vote" other than writing in ron paul who dropped out or santa claus.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


There is a hole in boat....

Water coming in.

Navy says one ship, one crew. hmmmm

Where did I put that one man raft?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The crux of the problem is money and it's distribution.

How can this not be the problem? Unless, you are saying that everything is as it should be. The richest of the rich are more rich than ever. In that case where is the problem?

If you hadn't noticed, there isn't some non-human vortex where all the money disappeared.

Don't be upset about the inequalities between the classes.

If you're wondering, I am upset about the wealth distribution, but I am resigned to the idea that if it belongs to Caesar, give it to Caesar. If you really want to live, take precautions to live during the times that the "system" falls apart, because it's owners ( /investors), no longer have faith in it. The "system" crashing is going to have to have someone to pay for it - unless no one wants to lose their hard earned money defending the system that created the money in the first place.
edit on 19-11-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: wrong reply to



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree both Democrats and Republicans went for the baillouts. Tea Party was against the baillouts, for the record.

But here you are calling Obama and the Democrats right wing again. Why do left wingers keep trying to disassociate from them and yet are responsible for re electing him?
Antony Sutton says that the synthesis is the result of the conflict of left and right producing a new product which is neither right nor left. This is the Hegelian dialectic, so while the end result is neither right nor left, the Democrats still represent left leaning Progressive agendas and methodologies.
edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Sounds like the blame game... as opposed to the garbage you are spewing?

Just like a majority of republicans in this country, completely hypocritical.

POT MEET KETTLE



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Freedom of speech in terms of financial contributions should a cap


I understand your frustration that someone heroic like Ron Paul cannot win because other people had more money. That is the big business of elections unfortunately. However in an effort to promote the underdog you really seem to be supporting a way to equalize speech, not necessarily encourage free speech. In other words, if someone you want to win doesn't have enough money, you want to stop other people from spending money on their free speech, so the end result is curbing free speech. This is what the liberals tried to do with talk radio and npr, by controlling legislation to force equality by stopping others from their free speech.
edit on 19-11-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


You mean HALF of America.... the other half is aware of what Obama and his groupies are doing to ruin us.


Actually they mean ~25% of America, and you also mean ~25% is aware of what Obama is doing.

The only thing HALF of all Americans did on election day was NOT VOTE for either of the scumbags.

I wish the democrats telling people to "get over it" would realize their "majority" is really only around 1 out of every 4 people over 18 in this country and I wish both the democrats and republicans would realize that only 2 out of every 4 adults even think that voting is worth the small amount of time.

Anyhow, I just want to make it clear to people that ALL presidents are elected by a minority of the population.

If we really wish for the majority to rule in the USA, we should listen to the majority and have NOBODY in the whitehouse for the next 4 years.

edit on 19-11-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree both Democrats and Republicans went for the baillouts. Tea Party was against the baillouts, for the record.


The way I see it, there isn't much difference between the tea party folks and maintream republicans. They both serve plutocracy and I would say the tea party variant(more like libertarianism) which proposes free trade aka laissez faire capitalism would make the distribution of money more lopsided then what republicans want.

The big difference though, and I respect them for that is a)against military-industrial complex b)against irs and federal reserve. But still you need money to run a nation and most of the money should come from the privileged and tariffs. The right does not want any of this. A federal consumption tax to replace the irs is extremely inadequate hence medicare/medicaid taking a 50% drop and eventually the end of ss. That is what gary johnson was advocating. Ron Paul is more mild!





new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join