Back to this: Papa John and His Anger at Obama Ruining his Business

page: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ConcernedConservative
 


Wow,you are elitist,a bigot, and woefully ignorant. Your mother must ne proud. Let us break you of your affliction. First,the states that receive the most welfare are red states,they also have the worst scores foreducation. But thatis how the rigjt gets members,keep trhem poor,stupid and angry,sothey don,t know better.

Second,the biggest economic boom inthe country was under the highest corporate tax. The l lowcorporate tax that thegop keeps trying has never worked in the history of the us. The Bush tax cuts resulted in the great recession.

Next, people can make whatever money they want, just not at the expense of employee's health, families, and quality of life.
If they can't provide basics of living to theiremployees,and medical care IS a basic need, then they shouldn't be in business.

You are greatly mistaken inthinking that American employment has advanced. The US is the only country that doesn''t have mandated sick leave,vacationleave,,and maternity leave. Even Vietnam mandates 10 vacation days.
no, we are not a communist country,the communist countries are doing better than us.



You are a corporate communist, you think faceless corporations have the right to dictate the state of living for citizens Americanshave spoken, they want to leave corporate communism where it belongs, in the 19th century. Either catcj up, or leave.




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This is more in regard to elected officials, but, it has some reflection on the sorts of environments that let cheeky 'royals' like this flaunt their bums at those less fortunate.

As it stands, politics is typically a path to wealth and power if one is successful at it.
How many former state Governors, Senators, and other sorts are seen living a median life in a practical middle class home?

Thing is, our politicians have their own McMansions at least, and rarely ever own a car more than 2 or 3 years without trading in for a newer model.
They've walked the path toward wealth, influence and power.

Now, consider if politicians were required to reflect the greater part of the least of his/her constituents.

Homeless people in your district? You're sleeping in a tent too until you fix it.

People starving in your State? You're forced to skip and miss meals, at random, often not knowing when next you'll be allowed to have food, until you fix it.

Poor healthcare in the region you're in charge of? You don't get medical insurance/benefits and you're only allowed to see doctors at free clinics, or random hospital emergency rooms.

If politicians had to deal with and actually live with similar conditions faced by the least of their constituents, something might actually get done about poverty, homelessness, unemployment, hunger, and general overall quality of life everywhere.

From the ground up, as quality of life gets better, quality of life for political termers gets better.

Wealthy 'royals' can throw whatever temper tantrums they want.
Politicians can coax incentives out of the wealthy by giving them a little bit of a tidbit of something they might be lobbying for if, say, they hire only unemployed people as opposed to people simply changing jobs from one company or another, or if they directly participate in building safe, clean, low and no-income housing, or sponsoring educational resources , or any number of things.

As life gets better for the least of our citizens, we all benefit, especially the politicians and disadvantaged (in this scenario).

edit on 21-11-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
If one is successful in their ventures they should create their 'own' charities to help others develop their talents, skills, abilities, Gifts and live to be loved and appreciated at the same time for that effort. Most charity 'givings' are simply tax write offs which is in reality not giving but rather saving grace while often those blind funds are misspent or not received by the intended recipients.

Greed, selfishness and other related foolishness has it's own end, naturally. Known many examples. They should know better; some do better. There is nothing more rewarding in life than to know you have helped another be who they were capable of being or to save a life, help another in their direction in life, assist another in a time of need.

That is what life is about and thAt is what one will be remembered/memorialized for. The Xperience in the flesh is but a fleeting one with such potential often gone unnoticed. One doesn't even have to be 'religious' to understand this basic respect for 'life'.
edit on 21-11-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluemoonsine
If one is successful in their ventures they should create their 'own' charities to help others develop their talents, skills, abilities, Gifts and live to be loved and appreciated at the same time for that effort. Greed, selfishness and other related foolishness has it's own end, naturally. Known many examples. They should know better; some do better. There is nothing more rewarding in life than to know you have helped another be who they were capable of being or to save a life, help another in their direction in life, assist another in a time of need. That is what life is about and thAt is what one will be remembered/memorialized for. The Xperience in the flesh is but a fleeting one with so potential often gone unnoticed. One doesn't even have to be 'religious' to understand this basic respect for 'life'.
edit on 21-11-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)


That was well put and very truthful.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Papa John lives in my town. At least most of the time. I have met him a few times and he is a total *snip* That being said, I do respect this mans success and I don't feel like he or his CEO should be criticized for it. As you may or may not know, Papa Johns is a franchised business, so they are really sticking up for their franchise owners, who are not nearly as wealthy as John and this douche. They are the ones that will be affected by paying for their employees health care.

With the employee cap on whether or not an employer has to pay its employees healthcare, this will cause franchise owner to expand less, which means less jobs. This is a job killer and the US is about to be hit hard with some serious layoffs in the restaurant industry. Also kiss those 40 hours a week goodbye, you are going to be seeing 30 hour works weeks.

What does this all mean? Much less tax revenue for an already seriously indebted country. Things are not looking good here. Obama is trying to close the gap between the rich and the poor, revive the middle class. There wont be a middle class in a few years. Mark my words.

 

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 21-11-2012 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The man has a right to run his business as he sees fit and sees it's necessary just as you have the right to buy a pizza elsewhere, IMO. I may buy one just for the sake of the fact I really don't think boycotts in a bad economy are the least bit helpful. I know people at the college working at Papa Johns. What did they do? Boycotts usually hit the wrong people but we each have our own choice to make with our dollars. The free market in action.



Yes, and we have a right not to buy his crappy pizzas if we don't want to support his position, right?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


The middle class has been under attack for the last 20 years. I appreciate your comments though.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Druscilla,

thank you for that post. You are spot on. Remember the video of Bush Sr going to a grocery store for the first time? Pure comedy gold. They are the untouchables and have no, I repeat, no clue what the "average" American has to do to put food on the table. Most in congress are millionaires and the system is bought.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by ConcernedConservative
 

First,the states that receive the most welfare are red states,they also have the worst scores foreducation. But thatis how the rigjt gets members,keep trhem poor,stupid and angry,sothey don,t know better..


Completely and utterly false. Check you facts please. That stat is for federal funding per tax dollar paid. When you take into account those states on the list you will see very low populated poor states. However, if you look at the states that take in the most money for federal aid, most of those states don't even make the top ten.

8. Minnesota Blue State
7. New York Blue State
6. DC Blue State
5, Vermont Blue State
4. Mass Blue State
3. Tenn Red State
2. Maine Blue State
1, California Blue State

So out of the top 8, there is one red state. Yup, your are completely wrong.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Shazbott. Do I really have to post the per capita list for you? How many states voted Obama vs conservative...it ain't gonna fall in your favor.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


All business pay medicare taxes as well as employees. They should not be responsible for their health care though. I personally would rather have a job, then healthcare. People will soon see, they will be wishing for the same!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Hi nixie_nox. You rock. Well said.

CJ



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   


Obama is trying to close the gap between the rich and the poor, revive the middle class.
reply to post by tide88
 


I respectfully disagree. Obama's cabinet is full of Wall Streeters, which he appointed. Wall Street has profited more under Obama than it did in eight years of Bush. These are the bankers and lobbyists that have looted and pillaged and raped our country.
If you think Obama gives a flying rat's ass about the middle class, you're deluded.


One

Two



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


www.cnbc.com...


Post what you want. The percentage of people on welfare on these high population states are all democratic states. It is sick that this group pushes entitlements onto people. Why should these people work, when they dont have to.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ColeYounger
 


Im not saying anything of the sort, but that is what he ran on and his policies are going to do the exact opposite of what he says they are going to do.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ConcernedConservative
 


No one wants to emulate anything. Intelligent people tend towards analysis, followed by synthesis of existing and novel information. Emulation is for traditionalists.

I am a full blown, dyed-in-the-wool progressive. I want to see a move towards systemic changes in how politics works, how much should be raised and spent, how much an elected person should "work" -- and how much time "off" they should get to run their "elections." Economically, both parties argue pure straw. The money policy in the US (and every other first world nation) is designed to enrich the house over the punters. That's why Bush chose QE, and why Obama kept the ball in play. What if the Fed had paid each household an X amount of dollars, and mandated the money go to creditors first, until all the bills are paid? Right now -- personal debt in the US is almost twice our GDP. The system cannot function in such an extreme environment. Paying the people, to pay their creditors is a jubilee that would have circulated through the system until that number was back at 40% of GDP, where the excess liquidity would be "watered down" to ward off inflation.

An capitalist market, comprised of large groups of co-op's, competing against one another on a product and service basis, is a way forward, and can encourage coordinated movement into the inner and outer planets, for resource manipulation on a solar scale, over the next 250 years. It's not socialism. In fact -- its a purer kind of competition-based capitalism, except that it rewards "ownership" in the classic (my hands contribute this) sense, and not in the neo-traditional (Robber Baron's) sense.

In my opinion -- we would get a lot further if we turn our competitive nature on its head, and crank it up by making the rank and file stake-holders in the human dream of "moar west."

Capitalism and socialism are dead concepts from an historical simulation. We need a third way; a kind of anarcho-capitalism mashed into a framework of progressive utilitarianism (where we power our civilization through expansion of all existing "west's.") A fundamental baseline in food, energy, shelter, medicine and education is preserved, because it's actually better for business over LARGE scales if those variables are minimized.

We don't need emulation. We don't need to revisit the past and play out the same routines. Nobody wants to sit down and play Monopoly with a guy who already owns all the properties, utilities, hotels and houses, no matter how much he is willing to "lend ya" so that you can "play." As more and more wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer elites, the game will grind to a halt. It's just common sense.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by ColeYounger
 


Im not saying anything of the sort, but that is what he ran on and his policies are going to do the exact opposite of what he says they are going to do.


I apologize if I misunderstood your comment!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by tide88
 


Shazbott. Do I really have to post the per capita list for you? How many states voted Obama vs conservative...it ain't gonna fall in your favor.

CJ


My list is per capita. The list you are talking about is the list on states paying out and taking in federal aid. Of course states like NY, California, Mass, etc. states with high wealthy individuals, hence more taxes, would not be on that list. Of course Alabama, Miss, Louisiana, etc. Poorer southern states with smaller populations and fewer rich people, hence fewer taxes paid, would be on your list.




The Public Policy Institute of New York State noted that New York spent $2,236 per capita on welfare during the 2005-06 fiscal year, making it the highest spender per capita of all the states. In contrast, Mississippi spent $1,289, putting it 17th.


edit on 21-11-2012 by tide88 because: added



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by lithographyman
Hopefully Obama dies of natural causes real soon....


Now that is a zinger. What a childish and stupid thing to say.

CJ


So, if I read your (sick) comment, you'd like to have Joe Biden as the president?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


www.cnbc.com...


Post what you want. The percentage of people on welfare on these high population states are all democratic states. It is sick that this group pushes entitlements onto people. Why should these people work, when they dont have to.


Ok. There are more conservatives on welfare than liberals. Math.


CJ





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join