The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 21    Average: 2.5/5]
90 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8078
Rating: 2.5
Category:
Date: 10/13/12 02:35 AM

90 Responses to CEO Threatens To Fire Employees If Obama wins

  1. Profile photo of cleopatrajnz
    cleopatrajnz Female 30-39
    18 posts
    October 11, 2012 at 2:35 am
    Link: CEO Threatens To Fire Employees If Obama wins - 1%`er logic. ``The most profitable ever been, but I will fire you.
  2. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14621 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 2:45 am
    Well that`s a resort I won`t be going to.
  3. Profile photo of Bakcagain21
    Bakcagain21 Male 18-29
    560 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 3:08 am
    I see no problem with what he did. His company his opinion. If he thinks Obama will make it too tough to work and sell up and retire that`s his decision and choice to make.
  4. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 3:28 am
    That`s the most ignorant bit of bull I`ve ever seen. So, what, he`s going to go to the Caribbean and not sell his business to someone who`d need employees? He`s going to take a business that flourished under previous tax loads, prior to the current rates, which are the lowest in recent memory, and blow it up because rates are going to return to what they previously were? He`s going to give up hundreds of millions in profits for a few hundreds of thousands in taxes? He`s a drating idiot. And, granted, it`s his company, and he can do whatever he wants. But that doesn`t make him not an idiot.
  5. Profile photo of Atrayu4u
    Atrayu4u Female 18-29
    1478 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 3:38 am
    Nice misquote, cleopatrajnz.
  6. Profile photo of Atrayu4u
    Atrayu4u Female 18-29
    1478 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 3:42 am
    With his wording.. I`m gathering that he`s basically telling everyone just who to vote for. As in, this:

    "What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can’t tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

    However, let me share a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest."

    Way to be an ass, guy.
  7. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 4:50 am
    He`s a drating idiot. And, granted, it`s his company, and he can do whatever he wants. But that doesn`t make him not an idiot.

    Unless he knows he`s talking rubbish and he`s doing it as a form of political advocacy, coercing his employees into voting the way he wants them to vote. If that`s the case, he`s not an idiot. Many other things, none of them good, but not an idiot.
  8. Profile photo of Finker
    Finker Male 40-49
    505 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 4:57 am
    Ok, so he`s a successful idiot with a plan, having a plan does not stop him being an idiot on this point - he`s successful so clearly not an idiot in other respects.
  9. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:03 am
    "I see no problem with what he did. His company his opinion. If he thinks Obama will make it too tough to work and sell up and retire that`s his decision and choice to make."

    Yup, his decision is who he is going to vote. This guy is threatening with layoffs really clearly. Most likely you would get fired for wearing Obama merchandise on their own free time. There is also more examples of business owners making mandatory Romney campaign participation, registering only Republicans on their workplace etc.

    IMHO, this guy should have his CEO power taken of, it`s his company but it`s not right that a mental case is handling thousands of peoples incomes and cutting them at will. He has tremendous responsibility to his workers and no matter how much he has sacrificed of his own life, if CEO starts acting like this, workers should have the power to remove him from his post.
  10. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:05 am
    Interesting how this liberal blog erases the substantive and relevant middle part of the e-mail, explaining exactly what he would rather do.

    "Instead of raising my taxes and depositing that money into the Washington black-hole, let me spend it on growing the company, hire more employees, and generate substantial economic growth. My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But that is not what our current Government wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it somehow makes sense to take more from those who create wealth and give it to those who do not, and somehow our economy will improve."

    Leave it to a liberal to cut out the parts they don`t like to hear and make sense.
  11. Profile photo of mikelae18
    mikelae18 Male 18-29
    79 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:07 am
    This is the same guy who built the biggest mansion in America and then foreclosed on it. Not because he couldn`t afford it, but because he didn`t want to pay for a home valued less than his mortgage. Thanks for contributing to the financial crisis!
  12. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:09 am
    CrakrJak, his, as well as many, many corporations have been enjoying record profits over the last decade. Why? For exactly the reason he`s scared of: because they`ve had HUGE breaks. Yet, has this asshat dratstick created all those jobs he`s promising? No. He`s a selfish, greedy, lying liar. Now, does he have a right to be? Sure. But let`s not pretend that he`s been reinvesting his HUGE assed profits in hiring new jobs. It`s obviously gone into his "wife`s" boobs and his ass.
  13. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:13 am
    CreamK: Most likely you would get fired for wearing Obama merchandise on their own free time. There is also more examples of business owners making mandatory Romney campaign participation..

    Bullsh|t sir.

    workers should have the power to remove him from his post.

    I can see you are a well taught european union socialist thug. HE OWNS THE COMPANY, the workers do not.

    It`s obvious that you have no earthly idea how real business works, how jobs are created, how an economy grows.
  14. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:17 am
    smagboy: ..has this asshat dratstick created all those jobs he`s promising? No. He`s a selfish, greedy, lying liar.

    He certainly did create all those jobs. Apparently you`re one of those "you didn`t build it" Obama automatons that think only the government creates jobs.
  15. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    1013 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:07 am
    @cracker jacks

    Too be fair, the company is large enough most people assume that it is publicly traded.
  16. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:14 am
    CrakrJak, I acknowledged from the beginning that he owns the company and that he created the jobs that are there now.

    What you refuse to acknowledge is that he`s saying this, "Wah! I am now making $100M in clear profits, but, if something happens to where I only make $85M in profits, I`m going to fire you all and take my toys and go home." So, he`s willing to fire several thousand people (who he pays about $40K/year) because he`s *only* going to clear $85M instead of $100M. Poor guy. Know who sounds like a whiny spoiled poo to me? Him.
  17. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:17 am
    As for the "you didn`t build that", Crakr, that`s weak freakin` sauce there. You know exactly what Obama was saying and it`s 100% true. If you can`t acknowledge that, why doesn`t this guy go build his resorts in the desert somewhere? Oh? No roads? He`d have to pay for utilities and security? Oh, and no communications, Internet, services? No work force? No infrastructure? Well, hey, he`s the great Creator. Certainly he can just pay for all of that. I wonder which`d cost more? That or a few percent in taxes? But, hey, whatever.
  18. Profile photo of tedgp
    tedgp Male 30-39
    3287 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:31 am
    Only in america. Any other country, he would be removed from the business immediately.
  19. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:35 am
    tedgp, Crakr`s point is that if he own`s the company outright (i.e., if it`s not traded publicly), he can do whatever he wants with it. He`s got no obligation to his employees whatsoever, other than to pay them for work already performed and other monies/benefits already earned. And, apparently, that`s exactly how he feels, too, because, poor guy, he`s going to not make quite so many tens of millions in pure profit (which is also likely a pure lie--he`s got a truckload of accountants, I`m sure, that`ll find loopholes for stuff like his wife`s boob jobs, etc.).
  20. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:11 am
    He`s doing better than he was under Bush, and he`s complaining???
  21. Profile photo of CreamK
    CreamK Male 40-49
    1423 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:44 am
    "workers should have the power to remove him from his post."


    "I can see you are a well taught european union socialist thug. HE OWNS THE COMPANY, the workers do not.

    It`s obvious that you have no earthly idea how real business works, how jobs are created, how an economy grows. "

    I do know how it currently works but am not agreeing it`s the best way. Workers who own their workplace are usually the highest motivated people you can get, they are innovative, make longer hours etc.

    It`s thousands of lives vs one dickhead who can`t get what he wants. I`m most certain his employees could run the business with out him. And trying to defend him show how screwed values can really get... You know it`s wrong but due to a principle it`s totally fine.

    Ig the company is downsizing, it should start at the top first.. Less lives ruined and more money saved if you fire one corporate boss vs hundred workers..
  22. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
    It`s also possible he could wind up firing more Romney voters over Obama voters. Even out of context, it`s clear this isn`t a threat but a warning. Threats are made out of spite.
  23. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
    He`s not threatening layoffs, he doesn`t say, "If Obama wins, I will immediately fire you". He says that an Obama victory will create conditions that will force him to fire some of them.

    We have freedom of speech, he can say that. Even company owners can have a political opinion. Yes, they really can. Even if you don`t like it.

    It`s kind of like how a Union can force you to pay dues and then tell you who to vote for. Actually, it`s not even nearly that bad.
  24. Profile photo of DFWBrysco
    DFWBrysco Male 40-49
    307 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:51 am
    First of all, let me say that without a doubt, David Siegel is d-bag - always has been and always will be. He is the poster-boy of the 1% "better than everyone else" @ss that is held as a stereotype. If you have any doubts, see the documentary about him and his family entitled "Queen of Versailles" which is about him, his trophy whore wife and spoiled little brats.

    On the other hand - and I can`t believe I am saying this - his company is privately held, he is the boss, and this article (as well as the original in MSNBC) is a bit of liberal tabloid media sensationalism.

    Note what he said - not "if Obama wins, you are going to lose your job." Instead, he said "if Obama wins, and *if* the Affordable Healthcare Act goes through, and *if* taxes are raised, I am going to have to lay some people off." Running out of characters, so will continue in next post.
  25. Profile photo of DFWBrysco
    DFWBrysco Male 40-49
    307 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:53 am


    I don`t agree with him, as this plainly is the best example of how corporations put profits over valuable resources like employees - after all, if higher taxes and benefits costs are going to happen, god forbit it cut into those pesky profits... lets just lay off employees.

    But unfortunately, that is the state of the world. More unbiased, fair reporting would have been to title the piece "CEO Informs Employees Layoffs Imminent with Obamacare Implementation."

    He`s still a d-bag, though.
  26. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:54 am
    There in lies the problem. These rich bastards want to continue making the exact same amount of money, regardless of what is going on. When everyone is tightening their belts and reducing, they maintain their greedy ways and just fire people and raise prices.
  27. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:59 am
    CreamK - FIrstly, you can`t force people into work cooperatives. One, because you have to steal from the boss, and two you`re forcing people to do things they might not want to do. We don`t collectivize in a civilized society. We`re not Stalin.

    And workplace co-operatives have failed to innovate anything. Apple could not succeed as a workplace co-operative. No company could grow and invent new things.

    Why, you ask? When it all comes down to it, it suffers from the same deficiencies communism had. It is repackaged communism when the "workers own the means of production". Communism has a worse track record than fascism as a viable system.

    If it were a truly more efficient system, it would be a common system and it would have produced most of our innovations. It`s not illegal to have a cooperative, if you make the choice. So if you don`t like company, go start a cooperative yourself.
  28. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 8:07 am
    When everyone is tightening their belts and reducing, they maintain their greedy ways and just fire people and raise prices.

    Well, if everyone`s "tightening their belts" as you put it then they`d be silly to raise prices as it would mean less of their products being sold.
  29. Profile photo of dsp2003
    dsp2003 Male 18-29
    153 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 8:20 am
    Sounds to me like a great reason to vote for Obama simply to hope you got fired and can sue for wrongful termination. Suing is the new American dream, it seems.
  30. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 8:25 am
    Let`s be clear about what exactly he did say--yes, he did say a lot of "if" this happens or "if" that happens, but, the very last thing he wrote was this:

    You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

    So, let`s be clear. He`s saying that "if" Obama is re-elected, he`s "threatening" to take away his employees` "opportunities." Over the loss of a few percent of pure PROFIT!
  31. Profile photo of FoSchizle
    FoSchizle Male 18-29
    330 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 8:31 am
    Did anyone read the full email and not just the selected paragraphs taken much out of context? He`s not saying if Obama is elected he`s going to start laying people off. He`s saying that if Obama is elected and carries through with the tax increases he has proposed, he will have no choice but to lay people off to keep the company solvent. It`s not about a personal vendetta. It`s not about his personal wealth. It`s about what is good and bad economic policy.

    Pull your heads out of your asses and look at the whole picture, not just what "think progress" (really?) wants you to see.
  32. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 8:55 am
    FoSchizle, if you`ve read the posts below, you`ll see that plenty of people *have* read the whole e-mail. It`s just that many don`t believe what he`s selling. But, he is a timeshare guy, so, perhaps that`s why?

    As for it not being personal, give me a break. He`s not an idiot. He`s lived through far heavier tax burdens than Obama is proposing. As a matter of fact, he built his business empire under tougher conditions than Obama is proposing. It`s manipulative bull poo is what it is. Plain and simple. As for the whole letter, here.
  33. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 8:56 am
    You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive


    First of all, what makes CEO`s "unproductive"? They wouldn`t get their salaries if their leadership didn`t have value. Secondly the productive aren`t "penalized" as they`re paid based on the value of the goods and services they provide. Of course govt easily distorts the system which can cause some to get overpaid and others undercompensated. China actually illustrates my point very well as the rule of law there is almost non-existant. Owning a business in China is really a privilege granted by the govt.
  34. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:03 am
    This is also the guy who wants to build himself the biggest house in America, so I`m sure the guy can afford to cut back a little so his employees can keep their jobs.
  35. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:11 am
    There seems to be an attitude around here that owners of businesses/corporations have a moral obligation to maximize employment while minimizing profits. And I don`t like it one bit.
  36. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:22 am
    `There seems to be an attitude around here that owners of businesses/corporations have a moral obligation to maximize employment while minimizing profits. And I don`t like it one bit.`

    First of all, I would say that this site is pretty evenly split between libertarian/conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints. We seemingly have arguments about the role of government every day, so I don`t think it`s fair to say that`s the prevailing attitude here.

    But I don`t think anyone is really saying he should maximize employment at the expense of profit. As I pointed out, this is the same guy who is building a modern day Versailles for himself. Maybe he should consider tightening his own wallet before he passes that burden on to the people who actually perform the jobs that help him make those profits.
  37. Profile photo of pumba62
    pumba62 Male 40-49
    1018 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:44 am
    This guy will not let anyone go ....he is in the business of selling time shares, the majority of his employees are salespeople and get paid commission. If he lets any of them go his sales will decrease.
  38. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:56 am
    SmagBoy, tedgp, CreamK and others: He built his business out of his garage, his own sweat and tears went into it. He`d rather not be taxed to death, he`d rather hire more people and make even more money. No one likes confiscatory taxes, why take the risk if there isn`t a substantial reward?

    You can call him a greedy bastard all you want, but that doesn`t change the fact that he`s hired 7000+ people and contributes mightily to revenue this nation needs.

    You europeans seem to believe the employees own the company more than he does, that`s just socialist bullcrap that you`ve been indoctrinated into since birth. That`s why the EU is failing, you all feel entitled and now that austerity is occurring you`re like babies that`ve had their rattles taken away, throwing a fit.

    You are not owed a living, you are not owed 8 weeks of vacation a year, nothing comes for free, life isn`t fair and you are not the boss of your boss.
  39. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 10:01 am
    "Maybe he should consider tightening his own wallet before he passes that burden on to the people who actually perform the jobs that help him make those profits."

    How is this any different than the attitude that I talked about?
  40. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 10:08 am
    There you go, Crakr. Can never be wrong, even about a single thing. Typical conservative. No conservative has ever been wrong about a single thing. It`s always the liberals who are ruining it.

    Here`s the deal. The man is making money hand over fist. So much so that he can`t even spend it fast enough. And that`s fine. But to pretend that his making 15% less (which will still be, literally hundreds of millions IN PROFIT) is going to put some sort of strain on him, that it would put him out in ANY WAY, is just praying to the alter of ignorance. And that`s fine. Be my guest. But I won`t pretend there`s anything honorable in the man.
  41. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 10:32 am
    SmagBoy: It will be much more that just 15%, that`s just the tip of the iceberg. He should be able to enjoy the wealth he created. You seem to believe he doesn`t deserve it and should just take it in the ass with a smile on his face. After all he`s rich, he`s got enough. Who the hell do you think you are to presume he`s too wealthy? What gives you the right to criticize his decisions if you`ve not walked a mile in his shoes?

    After all isn`t that what liberals like you tell us conservatives? Or is it only you guys that get that right?
  42. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 10:48 am
    Whenever the conservatives on this site make comments in support of people that exploit this country and it`s citizens it always reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

    "Socialism never took root in America because the poor there see themselves not as exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

    - John Steinbeck

    I always wonder if guys like the one in this post read these kind of posts and laugh to themselves, what a bunch of f.ucking suckers.
  43. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 10:51 am
    cracker - its not that they believe that they own the company more than the boss. it actually that the company makes their profit off of the employees hard work. if there were no employees then he would not make the same amount he did while having them there. this man is stupid. the only thing he is doing is using scare tactics to persuade his employees into voting against their best interests. "vote for Romney or get fired". how is this any different than the black people you bitched about outside the polling booths in Chicago? granted they had bats but he has their future incomes. this man is garbage and when the revolution finally comes, this type of person will be the first to go. they have been driving this country to ruin. and the increased pressure put on the normal person will eventually be too much. why do you think they are so worried about it. they are now spending extreme amounts to try and keep safe. i have no pity for the 1%, they did this to themselves.
  44. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:00 am
    HG: Yeah, right. He exploits his workers so much, he gives them a job, benefits, vacation, sick days, pays part of their retirement, etc... It`s such a sweatshop isn`t it?

    It`s people like you fostering class warfare and income redistribution that are trying to tear this country apart. And what for? To force people into believing socialism is better for them.

    Sorry, that crap doesn`t work. Other countries are running away from socialism as fast as they can and for good reasons. Yet you and your ilk are driving us toward it, and off the cliff, like Thelma and Louise.
  45. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:01 am
    jops: And he compensates them quite well for their work, you seem to think he owes them a piece of his company as well. Sorry, that`s not how capitalism works.
  46. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:03 am
    cracker - he is too wealthy. not only that, he made sure that he would never lose it or that no one else could ever come close to the amount he has. he closed the same doors that he went through to get there. he took away cheap education, he made credit harder to get, he is trying to take away sources of early education, he is trying to take away preventative medicine, and he is trying to raise the prices of goods across the market. he does this by effectively buying congress to do his bidding. by changing tax rates to favor his kind and to change interest rates so people would owe more over longer periods of time. the housing bubble, the teck bubble, the futures markets, and the recent allegations of banks raising interest rates are all proof of this. but all of these are semi-legal ways to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. ask yourself this, who benefits from the current market? who stands to get the most out of these circumstances? i`ll give a hint, not the bottom 50%.
  47. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:06 am
    But CJ, all of his employees (and the rest of us less-than-moguls) have ALREADY taken it in the ass with the $2 trillion hit to our wealth, our homes, and our retirements. What hit has he taken? I promise you, there is no tax, regulation, or burden being proposed that should force him to fire anyone, unless he is just so greedy and needy that he values his personal wealth-creation much more than his employees well-being. If he made just $80-85 million next year, exactly what hardship would that put him under? Would he starve? Would he lose his home(s)? No, but that could happen to the employees he lays off. There was a time when employers took hiring someone as a responsibility. The employee was a valued asset. Now, they are considered a liability, just another expense to be cut whenever possible. We need to instill some humanity into these corporations (since they call themselves "people").
  48. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:11 am
    Now, they are considered a liability, just another expense to be cut whenever possible.

    *FACEDESK*
    *FACEDESK*
    *FACEDESK*

    Am I actually reading this?
  49. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:16 am
    yes he does pay them, because he has to. i bet he wishes he didnt even to but that beside the point. class warfare is already a thing. the rich started it by stifling incomes over the past 30 years. the only growth has been to the top 10%. yet every cost of living has more than doubled. its not that we want a part of the company we want a better life. we want adequate income for the times. we want to work 40 hours and be able to save for the future. we dont want to have to work overtime to make up for the lack of funds. right now even if you make $20/hr you would still have to spend more than half of it to pay for the bills. more than half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck just barely getting by yet he wants more? you get so mad when we ask for the same, why? do we not deserve it. we already pay a higher percent in taxes yet he wants more tax breaks because he is a "job creator". bull poo. if people made what they should get everyone could be considered this.
  50. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:43 am
    CrakrJak, you asked me "Who the hell do you think you are to presume he`s too wealthy?"

    I don`t think he`s too wealthy. At all. You have a reading comprehension problem, Crakr. What I said, in fact, was that he`s a dillweed if he decides to fire anyone over the difference in $100M in clear profit or $85M in clear profit. That`s just effing stupid. And contrary to what you see to think, I most assuredly *don`t* think he`s stupid. I do, however, think that he thinks his employees are.
  51. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:56 am
    jops - There is no conspiracy among the rich to stifle income. It`s not like they were just being so benevolent in the 50`s, and stopped being benevolent after the 70`s. That`s not how it works.

    It`s mostly inflation`s fault, along with policies like Quantitative Easing. These make people poorer and the rich benefit. Wage increases don`t increase enough with this inflation. Since the 70`s, inflation has been crazy. Blame your government`s inflationary policies.

    I can buy a gallon of gasoline with a dime from 1960. Today, a dime from 2012 will buy me less than 3% of a gallon of gasoline. You need to think outside of the box as to why things are the way they are. Looking to the rich and saying "Get `em, they`re being mean and selfish and keeping me a victim" is so uncreative, unimaginative, false, and self-loathing. It`s a complex system, there are probably other causes (and there are).
  52. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:57 am
    "he`s a dillweed if he decides to fire anyone over the difference in $100M in clear profit or $85M in clear profit"

    Once again, where the hell are you getting these numbers from? How do you know the choice isn`t between $15 million in profit and $150 million in losses?

    If, purely hypothetically but completely realistically, a person owned a company with revenues of $5 billion and expenses of $4.9 billion, he has EVERY REASON to worry his $100 million in profits. After all, if he doesn`t lay anyone off, next year`s expenses might be $5 billion with revenues of $4 billion.

    The fact that $100 million a year is more than he can spend on himself is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

    Why don`t people understand the sheer RISK involved in owning running a typical $5 billion company?
  53. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6163 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    CreamK-"Workers who own their workplace are usually the highest motivated"

    And yet the workers, as a rule, are not willing to take the chances and sacrifices of starting such a business. Only after someone else has done so, and made it successful, do the workers think they should own the workplace.

    CreamK-"It`s thousands of lives vs one dickhead who can`t get what he wants."

    No, it`s an individual who started a business with an idea to make a profit and succeeded (in the process enriching thousands), who knows what it takes to make a business profitable, and who does not want to run a business at a loss (like if excessive taxes are levied).

    jops360-"he is too wealthy"

    Not your determination to make. He earned it, and in the process provided a living to thousands of others.

    I`m sorry if the fact that you can`t be a success makes you feel inadequate, but don`t try to pull down others because you aren
  54. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    I still don`t understand how CEOs are unproductive.
  55. Profile photo of Bakcagain21
    Bakcagain21 Male 18-29
    560 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    People point out he would not be making his profits without his employees. Fair point. But those employees would not be there is he didn`t start a business put his own house, wealth etc on the line to found the business. He then had to re invest the profits he made to expand the business employ more people. Where in the beginning his employees would spend their share he put his back into hiring another person and getting another share. That`s why he gets money because he has worked his way upto 7000 employees to get 7000 shares of the work by providing the environment for them to work. You can`t just one day say im going to hire 7000 people and be rich off of themwhich a lot of people today seem to forget
  56. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm
    Obama and the Democrats think they can create more jobs by raising taxes on employers. Anyone with a 3-digit IQ can see how that`s going to work. Unfortunately, people with 3-digit IQs aren`t going to decide this election.
  57. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm
    For any idiot that thinks we are headed TOWARDS socialism and redistribution of wealth:

    tinyurl.com/9tsddur

    Highlight:
    Average CEO pay 42 times average worker pay in 1980.
    Average CEO pay 380 times average worker pay in 2011.

    Keep marching to the beat lemmings.
  58. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm
    OldOllie

    Do me a favor. Go to Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    tinyurl.com/3gss8qd

    Now change the date range to cover 1961 to today. Now look at who was president.

    EVERY run of democrats hands off to a republican LOWER unemployment than when they took over.

    EVERY run of republicans hands off to a democrat HIGHER unemployment than when they took over.

    How can you look at history like that and continue to believe that republican presidents are better for employment? I don`t get it.
  59. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:05 pm
    "For any idiot that thinks we are headed TOWARDS socialism and redistribution of wealth:

    Average CEO pay 42 times average worker pay in 1980.
    Average CEO pay 380 times average worker pay in 2011."

    HolyGod, That`s what socialism does to a country. It chases capital investment out of the country which destroys jobs and the livelihood of the middle class.

    Socialism ATTEMPTS to increase the wealth of the middle class by taking it from the upper class. It fails miserably in the sense that it chases away the wealth completely.

    Don`t confuse the intent of socialism with the end result of socialism. They`re polar opposites.
  60. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:09 pm
    EVERY run of democrats hands off to a republican LOWER unemployment than when they took over.

    EVERY run of republicans hands off to a democrat HIGHER unemployment than when they took over.

    If you adjust the time slots to account for the effects previous admin`s policies you`ll find that overall there`s no substantial change.
  61. Profile photo of Zghost
    Zghost Male 13-17
    152 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 6:46 pm
    I read the letter this guy sent to his employees based on I think a CBS article. When it starts out, the guys himself explains how this is about his workers, not him. Then the whole letter is all about how obama is killing us with the terrible economy, never giving specifics, and giving a sob story about how hard he worked to get there, and how "when your day ends I still work, my workday is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." this man has to stop building his dream home, has to take his kids out of private schools, and cut back expenses. Essentially, he`s telling everyone he`s being put more on the employee`s level, which makes sense. So the "terrible" economy and the obamacare bill, which mitt romney originally made for his state to begin with, is making him have to cut costs. It really is all about him.
  62. Profile photo of DFWBrysco
    DFWBrysco Male 40-49
    307 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 7:02 pm
    I have, over the past several years worked as a consultant very closely with the Finance groups of multi-billion corporations and meet regularly with C-Level officers to discuss and forecast the future for the company to keep it health and efficient.

    There has been a fundamental shift in business theory since about 1968, when Finance was drastically restructured and forecasted value of employee resources were removed from the equation. This also led to metrics such as EBIT, the often misused EBITDA, and the holy bible, PTP.

    As such, with the loss of human resource value and the addition of these metrics, a "short-term" vision problem has developed...anything to bring the bucks now. Example is offshoring - in the long-term, offshoring is a bad idea and costs more money... but you save a bunch of salary money upfront by getting rid of on-shore workers. This short term vision is what leads to knee jerk reactions like this.
  63. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm
    andrew - the easyest answer is probably the right answer, Occam`s Razor. are you saying they did not participate/ gain wealth from the actions over the last decade? i know i am grabbing at straws but the the time has never been more right for the rich. they could take massive amounts of land, foster a new geveration of people who feel "lucky" to have a job making crap wages and all the while claiming they are the victims of unfair taxation. the middle/lower class are bairly making due, all while the upper are claiming they are victums. they are buying polititions left and right. making laws that only help their kind and leaving the problems to those that dont make enough. i can say that Obamas is the best answer because he understands what its like growing up poor. he started his life like most of us, in a lower income bracket and worked his influence all the way to the white house. but this is only part of the solution.
  64. Profile photo of 458italiagtr
    458italiagtr Male 18-29
    8 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm
    i work for this guy, and to be honest hes always said to vote republican, he did it last election too.

    Anyways hes building the biggest house in america, yet he has "no money". Hes very delusional from reality.
  65. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:10 pm
    the nest part is to redo congress and the rest of the government. did you know that most politicians only became millionaires AFTER coming into power? they constantly reject laws stating they could not make money through insider trading. but the catch is they are responsible for passing the laws to stop them from cheating. the whole system is corrupt, from the judges to the oval office. i am not saying we should stop it but merely purge it. get rid of career politicians that are only there for the paycheck and put in normal people, like the jury system. i can understand that this is an oversimplified way of explaining it but i hope you can understand where i am heading. ron paul had the right idea but he just wanted to end it all. my plan is to give the power to the people.
  66. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm
    mcgrendal - its not that he made too much, its that the people working for him should make more. the times have changed. people should make more for the work performed. i am a clear advocate for increased minimum wages. NO ONE can survive off of them and that was the intended purpose. wages should reflect the times. simple as that. so yes he did keep too much of the profits, everyone should gain if the company prospers.
  67. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    SmagBoy you just like jops have demonstrated an attitude of socialism that includes class warfare and income redistribution.

    You believe that since `he can`t spend his money fast enough` that he is indeed too rich and should be giving that excess to his employees and or the government.

    What I`m telling you is that is NOT your judgement call to make, or anyone else`s. His reasons for spending or saving are his own, so are his business decisions.

    Even if he does decide to close his business, don`t you have the wisdom to know that another will grow to take its place? Do you believe his employees are just going to sit at home and mope about the loss? No, they won`t. Their experience puts them in the unique position of creating their own business to replace his or join a competing firm.

    Some people, with no higher education at all, with a lot of experience have gone on to become rich themselves. Experience can count for more than any sheepskin.
  68. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm
    SmagBoy you just like jops have demonstrated an attitude of socialism that includes class warfare and income redistribution.
    My god, you are the ultimate hypocrite Crakrjak. You`re long-time disabled and out of work. And I`m sorry for that, I really am. But yet you rail against socialism at every turn. The spirit of socialism (basically, let`s help each other) keeps your cheques coming, keeps food on your table, and stops you from being homeless.
  69. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm
    Why do you hate socialism so much? I`m lucky, I`ve made 6 figures since I graduated. F*ck, I just bought a boat, for kicks and giggles. But I recognise how lucky I`ve been. I wouldn`t begrudge anyone one cent of my tax dollars to help them out, if they had a bad beat.

    But you go vote Romney Crakrjak. The biggest coup the republicans ever pulled was convincing people like you that they were on your side.

    CJ, you must understand, that when he talked about the 47% entitlement leeches, he was talking about people like you, first. I don`t agree with that.
  70. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    October 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm
    "CJ, you must understand, that when he talked about the 47% entitlement leeches, he was talking about people like you, first. I don`t agree with that."

    HE NEVER SAID THAT!

    Sorry for getting so grr about it, but that is the media spin, and you fell for it.

    He was talking about the 47% of Americans, who he will never, ever, get to vote for him. Why should he focus his campaign on that segment of the public, if it is for naught?

    It just so happens, that most of them, are on entitlements.
  71. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 3:29 am
    Also, Romney/Ryan want to keep SS, medicare and medicaid viable. As it stands, the way the system is designed (as a Ponzi scheme) it takes more and more people paying in to pay for those that retire or become disabled.

    The population growth of young people is slowing, there are fewer children now and the `baby boomers` are near/at retirement age. This upside down pyramid can`t support the current SS system.

    Changes need to be made. If people were allowed to invest part of their SS funds they`d be much better off. If someone were to invest $500 a month and put it away in the form of investments with an annual rate of return of 10%, over 40 years, their investments approach $3 million.

    That`s far better than a few thousand dollars a month in SS when they retire, as the system stands now and those investments become inheritable as well.
  72. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 3:40 am
    davymid: Calling me `a hypocrite` is BS Davy. I`ve worked most of my life and paid into the system most all of that time. Now that I`m disabled those funds are available to me, precisely because I first paid into it. Now I know that what I paid in didn`t go into an account solely for me, it helped pay for those before me. In that way, Social Security is not unlike a Ponzi scheme, but that`s just the way it was set up and I had no choice in the matter.

    My mother and 2 of my grandparents contributed to Social Security, most of their lives, and didn`t get to benefit from it. So I don`t feel guilty about accepting it and I`ll tell you why.

    Had my mother and grandparents had a choice they`d had invested those funds toward their retirement, profited from those investments and then passed them on as inheritance. That inheritance would`ve been considerable even with it not bearing any interest in investment.
  73. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 3:40 am
    I also support the idea of income qualification for SS as well, If you`re already rich you don`t need SS even though you paid into it. I`m pretty sure we can agree on this idea, right?
  74. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 7:11 am
    CrakrJak, I don`t know how else to say this, but I`ll try again. I don`t care how much this guy makes. He has every right to do whatever he wants with his money, including bitch about paying taxes! I`ve not said a single thing against that!

    My ONLY point has been that he`d be a complete moron (and liar) to act like his ONLY making $85M in clear profits versus $100M in clear profits would cause him to close his business. The only think I`m challenging is his lame claim. I am NOT suggesting that our tax system is fair or unfair. I`m not saying that he can`t do whatever he wants with his money. I couldn`t give a rip. My point was this guy will be making so much money either way that it`s not supportable to lie to his employees over it. At least not using the terms he used. This is all I`ve aid all along. Think I`m a socialist all you want. Income redistribution has nothing to do with any of my posts in this thread.
  75. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6163 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 9:24 am
    jops360-"i can say that Obamas is the best answer because he understands what its like growing up poor."

    How does that make him any more insightful than someone who grew up middle-class?

    I`d much prefer if he understood what it means to have a JOB, understand how to run a business and understand how to do anything but blame other people.
  76. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6163 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 9:28 am
    jops360-"its that the people working for him should make more."

    Why? They contracted out their services for the agreed upon compensation. If they wanted more, they should have bargained for it and proved they were worth it. If they could add to the profit more than their pay, they are not worth it.

    jops360-"i am a clear advocate for increased minimum wages"

    So you`re for more people unemployed while fewer are required to do more work?\

    jops360-"NO ONE can survive off of them and that was the intended purpose."

    In this (as in many things) you are wrong. Minimum Wage WAS NEVER intended to provide a living wage. Minimum wage is for kids. If you`re 40 and your strongest job skill is flipping burgers, you have no marketable jobs skills.
  77. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6163 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 9:32 am
    jops360-"he did keep too much of the profits"

    Again, not your determination to make.

    jops360-"everyone should gain if the company prospers"

    They do, they get their agreed upon compensation. BUT if the deserve part of the profits, if the company DOES NOT prosper, they should all work for less? Or for free? Or pay to keep the company running? If they are not willing to do that, not willing to take the CHANCE that he is, they are not entitled to part of the profits.

    The chances are, if the business took a loss for a period of time, every one of those employees would still expect to get paid. If he asked them to help pay the expenses to keep the company going, they would all find another job.
  78. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 10:14 am
    One thing I noticed about this is that this email was 100% unnecessary. If he was writing it to encourage his employees to vote for "whoever serves their interests" then he didn`t even have to say anything. So therefore his only intention could have been to influence who his employees vote for. If he were trying to make his stance known publicly, why not issue this as a press release instead? I just don`t see the point in this other than to coerce your own employees. It`s like he`s a politician himself:
    "My employees will enjoy the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries."
    Since the tax cuts have been going on for so long, have these employees been getting more raises and promotions compared to before their implementation? If not I don`t see why they would start now.
  79. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 10:38 am
    I hate to say it, but I *somewhat* agree with the lefties on this thread.

    First off, it was not a direct threat; in order to be so, he would have needed to threaten a direct action with a consequence. However, obviously his intentions were to persuade employees into voting for Romney by "scaring" them.

    That being said, I completely reject any notion that he has a responsibility to forego some of his profits to save jobs. It amazes me that people still fail to consider the "other half" of these contracts. Consider if a bank issues a mortgage with a fixed-rate of 50% and some idiot accepts the offer. Does this make the bank evil or does it make the person stupid? Jobs work the same way. When you accept employment, you accept that your services will be as valuable as your compensation. If you accept a bad offer, is the employer evil or are you stupid?

    This guys a dick, but not wrong.
  80. Profile photo of LillianDulci
    LillianDulci Female 18-29
    2674 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 11:25 am
    "He was talking about the 47% of Americans, who he will never, ever, get to vote for him. "

    He was talking about the 47% who are dependent on government and such. He claimed that that 47% will never vote for him, because he doesn`t realize that uneducated people will vote for candidates that wont help them for various reasons (such as social issues). Plenty of that 47% will vote for him.
  81. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    "He was talking about the 47% of Americans, who he will never, ever, get to vote for him. "

    He was talking about the 47% who are dependent on government and such.
    It`s true that 47% of the people take more than they currently contribute to the government, and it`s true that 47% of the people will never vote for a Republican. What you didn`t hear in the Romney video (either he failed to clarify it, or the liberal media deliberately edited the vid to misrepresent what he said) was that while there is probably a ~75% overlap between these two groups, they are not exactly the same people. You can cite examples of people who pay taxes (actors, musicians, reporters, etc.) but will vote for Obama, and you can cite examples of people who don`t pay taxes (enlisted military, working poor evangelicals, retired people, etc.) who will vote for Romney. But there are WAY too damned many people (30-35%) who fit into BOTH groups, i.e., parasites.
  82. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 4:13 pm
    OldOllie

    "It`s true that 47% of the people take more than they currently contribute to the government"

    WAY more than 47% of people take more than they contribute to the government including, I would assume, you.

    There is $6.4 T of total government spending, including federal, state, and local. Let`s take out all welfare spending as you probably don`t utilize any of that. So take away $.8 T, leaving $5.6 T.

    tinyurl.com/8gulr6p

    There are 311 M people in the U.S. So each person`s share of total government spending is $18,000 a year.

    Do you pay $18,000 in taxes?

    This country only manages to function because the few people at the very top who have been very lucky and some that have also worked very hard pay more than their share.

  83. Profile photo of collegebound
    collegebound Male 18-29
    3745 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 6:44 pm
    can we all say "Union"?
  84. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6163 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    collegebound-"can we all say "Union"?"

    Yes: "Ruthless, Useless, Incompetent Protecting, Blackmailing, Intimidating, Violent Murdering Extortionists."
  85. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 8:58 pm
    HG, what I pay in taxes is my own business, but I`ll give you a hint: I pay my accountant more to prepare my tax return than most people pay in taxes.

    BTW, your math is off. While per cap. govt. spending is ~$18K/yr, revenues are only ~$14K leaving a per cap deficit of ~$4K/yr. So, while you may be curious as to how much I pay in taxes each year, the better question is, how much do you think your kids should have to pay for the benefits we are enjoying today?
  86. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6740 posts
    October 14, 2012 at 10:18 pm
    OldOllie

    "BTW, your math is off."

    It most certainly is not sir. I said $18,000 was each person`s share of government spending. I said nothing of it being their share of taxes paid.

    I am well aware that the government spends more than they take in.

    "what I pay in taxes is my own business"

    The question was rhetorical, obviously I don`t expect you to share that online.

    "I pay my accountant more to prepare my tax return than most people pay in taxes."

    Well "most people" pay nothing in taxes, so that isn`t much of a hint now is it? ;)
  87. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    October 15, 2012 at 4:17 am
    grendal - there is no more bargaining for better pay now. the economy has screwed us out of that option. the right said it all the time, that we should be grateful for even having a job and the companies know that. they understand that they have us by the balls and they are taking full advantage of it by taking away benefits, increasing temp labor lowering starting pay. this is a trend seen across the board. btw, Obama did have jobs just like you and me, on the other hand romney had his fortune at birth. he then used it to by companies, starve them of all profits and then sell them when there were no good, thus taking away many jobs in the process. to me, he would do the same no matter what position he was in and thats what scares me when he want to run the US.
  88. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 15, 2012 at 7:32 am
    I hate to say it, but I *somewhat* agree with the lefties on this thread.
    Why do you hate to say it? You supposedly agree with lefties on other issues...
  89. Profile photo of irunfast86
    irunfast86 Male 18-29
    404 posts
    October 15, 2012 at 7:54 am
    he said in the email he can`t tell people who to vote for and he encourages people to vote for whomever they want. he simply stated the possibility of rough times for the company. whether obamas to blame or not is another question.
  90. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10731 posts
    October 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm
    he then used it to by companies, starve them of all profits and then sell them when there were no good, thus taking away many jobs in the process


    If Romney sold the companies when "they were no good" it would be fraud. There`s no proof that he engaged in such transactions. In fact when Bain invested in companies they had an interest to make them profitable, and many times over they did creating more jobs.

Leave a Reply