obama policy loses 500,000 jobs in a...
Williams

London, KY

#22 May 5, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo! Bravo! What a crock of shi-.
You hypocritical judges are the ones doomed to Hell. All you do is sit back and judge the entire human race while fact is, you just snorted your last package of cocaine. What do you want this President to do? Suck on your opinions? You see. That's what sets him apart from your weak ones. Your judgemental characters mean nothing.
This is a free country with equal rights...not just rights for the greedy, cheating conservative party who has been the biggest culprits of the divide. We have a transparent govt. You as-holes watch him go to the bathroom in case you can make a case out of the toilet paper he uses.
He's black. I would have thought you'd gotten use to it by now rather than attempting to justify that you hate him for any other reason.
Youth encouragement? Ask your damn millionaires. You know...kids of the wealthy that are comitting suicide everytime you turn around because being born with a silver spoon doesn't allow a whole lot of room for incentive now does it?
There is no incentive for the lesser fortunate these days, since big business pays them such small wages that it forces them to go to the govt. for supplements.
When are some of you going to stop fighting yourselves? Are you that frickin' stupid?
I was recently in London and what I learned was, the majority are on disability and drawing a check. The first of the month, you couldn't walk for all of them out cashing their govt. checks. It's those of you that suck off the government the most, that complain the most.
Go crawl back in your hole and get a grip. It's people like you the big guys LOVE to take advantage of because your brains are square up your poop shoots.
Greedy people ought to have the right to be greedy with their money. Its a free country... right?
Williams

London, KY

#23 May 5, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the truth ache that badly? Now tell us. Just what rewards is he demanding and let's be clear, he's NOT wanting to legalize ALL illegals. Do you understand that much? Cheap labor? No, that's what Bush brought about 12,000/Mo. in for, until Az., Ca., Tx. and border states finally got all they could handle...before they started complaining. You could go into 80% of corporate America and find out who is working them. Obama doesn't work them. Businesses do. You know, the same people that supply jobs. Or shall I say, supplies illegals their jobs.
Corporate America is breaking America is what it's doing. They pay low wages and they are sure to pay them just enough so they can qualify for every credit in our system. They practically guarantee it to them. Are you that blind to what really goes on? Are you far too busy blaming Obama for the wind blowing than face the real truth? Do you actually think big corporate America is going to pay you even $10/Hr. when they can get an illegal for $7? Ain't gonna happen and it hasn't happened. They got their illegal workers and their biggest taxcut in history simultaneously from the Bush administration.
Start facing reality and place blame where it lies. Corporate America can't be agreeing with Obama. Why? Because if some are legalized, they then might demand a higher wage since they won't have to hide anymore and big business darn sure don't like that. That's precisely why the wealthy do NOT want any legalized. It has zero to do with caring whether you have a job or not. It has all to do with their fear of possibly having to pay another dollar per hour. Real simple.
Oh, and did I mention there's 600 deaths and counting in Bangladesh from a garment factory burning to the ground where there were no regulations...just $38/Mo. cheap labor for corporate America! Compete against that if you can? Let me know.
Why don't you hire them all and give them at least minimum wage? After all, simply performing the act of breathing is worth the minimum wage... right?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#24 May 6, 2013
Williams wrote:
<quoted text>Greedy people ought to have the right to be greedy with their money. Its a free country... right?
Not when they either inherited it, or, cheated someone out of it. Yes, it is a free country, but not one where one lucky sector belittles another. There is also that moral conduct thing I so cherish. It really wasn't moral for the Officers of the Enron Corporation to cheat shareholders and employees out of their lifetime savings. Was it? Is that what happens in a free country? How about we make you pay us, then we quit buying your sh-t? Then we'll see how far you get? Are you game? How about we all collectively, as employees, walk in and take over your company? It's a free country....isn't it?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#25 May 6, 2013
Williams wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you hire them all and give them at least minimum wage? After all, simply performing the act of breathing is worth the minimum wage... right?
Here's the deal, friend. If YOU are the employer, it is YOUR choice of who you hire, your stipulations surrounding that employment and YOUR choice whether or not to maintain them as an employee and pay them for breathing. Although as long as they work for you, I do hope they are breathing? YOU make the choice of who you hire. THEN you pay that choice of yours a reasonable wage so that CHOICE of yours can feed their families. How hard is it? If you can't handle it, then maybe you need to hire an employment agency to do it for you? Our President hasn't ask you to pay for some lazy louse YOU hired that is YOUR responsibility. He has ask you to pay YOUR choice a reasonable wage. As far as I know, Obama doesn't hire your workers...right?
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#26 May 6, 2013
P.S. Obama didn't lose 500,000 jobs. Employers opted to let them go. I guess all the nice tax credits he's given them, they are opting to treat the same as the biggest taxcut in history Bush gave them......NO RESPECT. I'll also make mention, I have to be impressed it's only 500,000 for the month. Bush was losing over 700,000 per month the last months prior to his humiliating exit.
Well

Louisville, KY

#27 May 7, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Not when they either inherited it, or, cheated someone out of it. Yes, it is a free country, but not one where one lucky sector belittles another. There is also that moral conduct thing I so cherish. It really wasn't moral for the Officers of the Enron Corporation to cheat shareholders and employees out of their lifetime savings. Was it? Is that what happens in a free country? How about we make you pay us, then we quit buying your sh-t? Then we'll see how far you get? Are you game? How about we all collectively, as employees, walk in and take over your company? It's a free country....isn't it?
If I own something, I have or at least in a free country I should have the right to transfer ownwership to another person of my choosing who then becomes the owner withall the covenants of ownership I possessed. Inheritance has nothing to do with it. That's just a marxist concept that has no place in a free country. In an unfree country, I would fully expect to see concepts such as the inheritance tax in place. Comparing inheritance and cheating as virtually the same thing ignores the ownership principle completely and places government in the position to be the arbiter of what people should be able to keep. Cheating deprives ownership of one's rightful property and is an immoral act. Inheritance does not qualify as an immoral act because the transfer is the will of the rightful owner. To think any other way is tantamout to claiming that inheritance is the rightful property of government.
Well

Louisville, KY

#28 May 7, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the deal, friend. If YOU are the employer, it is YOUR choice of who you hire, your stipulations surrounding that employment and YOUR choice whether or not to maintain them as an employee and pay them for breathing. Although as long as they work for you, I do hope they are breathing? YOU make the choice of who you hire. THEN you pay that choice of yours a reasonable wage so that CHOICE of yours can feed their families. How hard is it? If you can't handle it, then maybe you need to hire an employment agency to do it for you? Our President hasn't ask you to pay for some lazy louse YOU hired that is YOUR responsibility. He has ask you to pay YOUR choice a reasonable wage. As far as I know, Obama doesn't hire your workers...right?
OK. If the president asks me to pay my CHOICE a reasonable wage. Thats fine. I will tell him to mind his own business. That is between me and my CHOICE.

“Gods Curse On Lazy Hillbillies”

Since: Jun 12

Dale City, VA

#29 May 7, 2013
Doesn't That Web Site That Fred Posted Say That Employees are Working a Nation Wide Average Of {12 Minutes Less Per Day}???...Which Is Equivalent To Approximately 500,000 Jobs Based On Calculated Total Minutes???....

That's What It Says!!!!....Just Read It....

12 Minutes.....

outraged

Siauliai, Lithuania

#30 May 7, 2013
c r maybe most of them are on brake all the time.

“Gods Curse On Lazy Hillbillies”

Since: Jun 12

Dale City, VA

#31 May 7, 2013
let me answer wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you haven't noticed Obama is demanding rewards for the illegal aliens. He wants to keep them here for the cheap labor. That's why he stop deporting them during his first term too.
He Hasn't Stopped Deporting Them....He's Just Stopped Chasing Them....It Cost To Much To Chase After Them....That's Why He's Demanding Rewards For The Illegal Mexicans....

You Catch One And Take It To Him....He'll Give You a Reward!!!....It's Kinda Like Gathering Pop Bottles And Turning Them In....Except a Pop Bottle Don't Speak Spanish.....Or Have a Pregnant White Girl On It's Arm.....

But It's a Similar Concept.....
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#32 May 7, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>If I own something, I have or at least in a free country I should have the right to transfer ownwership to another person of my choosing who then becomes the owner withall the covenants of ownership I possessed. Inheritance has nothing to do with it. That's just a marxist concept that has no place in a free country. In an unfree country, I would fully expect to see concepts such as the inheritance tax in place. Comparing inheritance and cheating as virtually the same thing ignores the ownership principle completely and places government in the position to be the arbiter of what people should be able to keep. Cheating deprives ownership of one's rightful property and is an immoral act. Inheritance does not qualify as an immoral act because the transfer is the will of the rightful owner. To think any other way is tantamout to claiming that inheritance is the rightful property of government.
The fat cats didn't mind it when they all stole the Indian's land. Railroads were built and even the Vanderbilts got wealthy off of it! They did steal the land and kill to get it.

You forget WHY wealth is transferred and the same goes in reverse. When you have $10M and you slowly sifen that through to your kids, then later become a product in a public aid Nursing Home, get closer now.........it's wrong! The only sane thing you've stated is, inheritance tax indeed should be in place. Lord knows they get a few million exempted anyway. Once the money is taxed, then so be it. Hand it down. I just want it taxed, that's all. No reason why a NEW person should get millions handed to them taxfree. Any other NEW person would have to work for it.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#33 May 7, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>OK. If the president asks me to pay my CHOICE a reasonable wage. Thats fine. I will tell him to mind his own business. That is between me and my CHOICE.
No it isn't. You want to produce and you can't do it without workers , thus you have someone else's interest to consider. It appears you're a very selfish person. IF our President sets into law a reasonable wage, NO, you will not tell him to mind his business. Other than selfish, you're very disrespectful. I suggest you pack up and go to Iran. You'd fit much better there apparently.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#34 May 7, 2013
outraged wrote:
c r maybe most of them are on brake all the time.
A "brake" is what you use in your car to stop.

A "break" is what is allowed by law that workers take.
sick and tired of liberal

London, KY

#35 May 8, 2013
--Crack Rabbit-- wrote:
<quoted text>
Two Questions....
1....What Is The United States....{As You Once Knew It}????....
2....What Is Obama {Doing}....That's Destroying It???....
If you are so STUPID and IGNORANT to not see, I will not waste my time telling you.
Ralph

London, KY

#36 May 8, 2013
It is really very simple.

Are less people working today than when he took office?

The answer is the, well, answer.
Ralph

London, KY

#37 May 8, 2013
http://www.lakeshorelaments.com/...

CNN Fact Check.

"And total non­farm pay­rolls, includ­ing gov­ern­ment work­ers, are down from 133.6 mil­lion work­ers at the begin­ning of 2009 to 133.2 mil­lion in July 2012. There’s been a net loss of nearly 1 mil­lion public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in tem­po­rary hir­ing for the 2010 census.

Mean­while, the jobs that have come back aren’t the same ones that were lost.

Accord­ing to a study released last week by the liberal-leaning National Employ­ment Law Project, low-wage fields such as retail sales and food ser­vice are adding jobs nearly three times as fast as higher-paid occupations.

Lib­eral pun­dits have been try­ing to say “The Net Jobs” argu­ment is bunk — the irony to this is that they point out that gov­ern­ment jobs have taken (which they have)— few have an answer as to why the White House is using data which begins nearly one year after they took office.

If they wanted to get really credit — then again, maybe they don’t — they would use since the pas­sage of the Stim­u­lus pack­age. We tended to focus on that dur­ing the 2010 Sen­ate race.

Inci­den­tally, the jobs num­bers haven’t really all the improved all that much since then either."

“Gods Curse On Lazy Hillbillies”

Since: Jun 12

Dale City, VA

#38 May 8, 2013
sick and tired of liberal wrote:
<quoted text>If you are so STUPID and IGNORANT to not see, I will not waste my time telling you.
Hell!!!...You Were The One That Brought It Up!!!...I Simply Ask {Your} Opinion....

If I'd Known You Were Gonna Get So Damn Defensive About {Your Opinion}....I would Have Watched Fox News To See What {Your Opinion} Was.....

And If The Truth Be Known....You Probably Don't Really Know What {Your} Opinion Is....So Don't Pretend You Care About Something That You Can't Provide an Opinion On....

“Gods Curse On Lazy Hillbillies”

Since: Jun 12

Dale City, VA

#39 May 8, 2013
Ralph wrote:
It is really very simple.
Are less people working today than when he took office?
The answer is the, well, answer.
Only a Simple Mind Thinks Like That Ralph....

There Were Also Less Jobs In 2008 Than There Were In 2001....I don't Recall You Bitching About { Less Jobs} Then.....
Well

Louisville, KY

#40 May 8, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
The fat cats didn't mind it when they all stole the Indian's land. Railroads were built and even the Vanderbilts got wealthy off of it! They did steal the land and kill to get it.
You forget WHY wealth is transferred and the same goes in reverse. When you have $10M and you slowly sifen that through to your kids, then later become a product in a public aid Nursing Home, get closer now.........it's wrong! The only sane thing you've stated is, inheritance tax indeed should be in place. Lord knows they get a few million exempted anyway. Once the money is taxed, then so be it. Hand it down. I just want it taxed, that's all. No reason why a NEW person should get millions handed to them taxfree. Any other NEW person would have to work for it.
The fat cats could not have stolen the Indians land to make way for the trancontinental railroad and waged a war of genocide against the Plains Indians without the federal government butchering those who refused and those who did not refuse to give up their land. You are right to condemn the corporate plunderers who coveted the Indians property but you assign little to no blame on the most brutal institution that ever existed and that is government. One would think you would be ready to condemn the actions of the government in this slaughter because it was run primarily by republicans during this genocide. The Indians sought to defend what was theirs and violence was used against them and even those who had not used violence themselves by a corrupt government. This was a failure of government. So, I agree with you for the most part about the Plains Indians but the genocide could not have occured without the brute force of government.

If you are worried about millionaires ending up in publicly funded nursing homes, I have a solution. Stop public financing of nursing homes. That is the purpose of charity not government. The only way government can be charitable to one person is to be uncharitable to someone else. They do this by threats and violence against the person if he refuses to give his money to another person whether it be for a good reason or a bad reason.

To quote your icon, Hillary, "what difference does it make" to tax inheritance. So what if government does not get a cut. So what if that person did not have to work for the inheritance. A liitle less money in the government coffers is a good thing...it will just be wasted anyway.
Well

Louisville, KY

#41 May 8, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't. You want to produce and you can't do it without workers , thus you have someone else's interest to consider. It appears you're a very selfish person. IF our President sets into law a reasonable wage, NO, you will not tell him to mind his business. Other than selfish, you're very disrespectful. I suggest you pack up and go to Iran. You'd fit much better there apparently.
I can produce without someone else. But if I find it in my self interest to hire the services of another person I am doing this because it serves my interest and not necessarily his interest. The other person will only be willing to work for me if it serves his interest. The only reason we would enter into a transaction would be because we perceive ourselves as better off than some other alternative. Now I know what you are going to say. "He has no choice when you offer slave wages because he has to eat or he will freakin die you selfish bastard. So you are forcing him to do work for peanuts because he has to live." No. he is free to work for himself. He is not being forcibly compelled to do anything by me. I cannot help it that nature requires that he has food, clothing, medicine, and shelter needs. By the way, he may have skills and services that I may need very badly and could charge me a premium for his services.

I thought you said the President was asking me to pay a reasonable wage. Are you now saying that his asking is not a request? That sounds like Al Capone. Are you willing to see the Department of Labor's goon squad descend upon me to violate my rights to sell an employment opportunity at the price I wish to another adult who voluntarily agrees to the wage? I'll answer that for you. "Yes." You would be willing to see violence used against me by the goon squad although you would probably prefer me to submit to their authority before it actually got to physical violence I suppose. But here is a question for you that I would really like an answer to. When should violence be initiated? I am almost afraid of the answer you will give. Here is my simple answer: Violence should only be used against those who have first used violence themselves orviolated the property rights of another. In the case of my non-violent transaction with another adult for labor services that he agrees with, what justification is there for the President to pass laws that could end up with violence being used against me when I have not used violence against a would be employee or violated his rights to his property? If you still feel violence should be used against me maybe you are the one who would be a better a fit as a subject of the Iranian government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Daily Bible Verse (Oct '12) 1 min Walk with God 1,765
did your loved one die at Baptist Health 3 hr overnight 3
Senate Just Passed Sweeping Tax Bill 7 hr Hank1936 17
Well 8 hr banker 7
Camper "In the movies"? 8 hr Awake 7
who do girl like more country boys or city boys? (Oct '08) 9 hr Rebel 1,084
cta cheaters (Sep '10) 9 hr Curious 20

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages