Marxist-in-Chief: Corporate Profits “Have To Be Shared By American Workers”…
What’s he really saying: I intend to force evil capitalists to redistribute their income in the name of class warfare.
(RCP)- “If we’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line,” President Obama told the Chamber of Commerce on Monday morning.
Posted by ZIP on Monday, February 7, 2011, at 1:54 pm | 
Tweet
I think what he is really saying is this… There is no private property and no private industry. It’s the right of the only legal entity, the State, to determine who gets what (money), and ultimately the State is going to take anything it wants. (Marxism 101)
Actually, by definition the workers don’t “share in the profits” unless a company has a specific profit-sharing plan. Workers’ wages are part of the cost of producing a company’s products, and hence innately part of the company’s expenses. Profits are what is left over after the expenses are deducted from the revenue—so, by their nature, workers’ regular pay cannot part of the profits.
Mr. Obama,
By what legal standard must your demand be applied? What law?
.
Oh…..you mean like an employee stock purchase plan or something? Aw, jeez- if only some brilliant, enterprising Wall Street type had come up with such a revolutionary concept…..OH WAIT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_purchase_plan
Now, using Hussein Dolt’s logic- when the company falls on tough times (I know, I know….so very farfetched and unheard in the Hopey Changey rainbow unicorn epoch) does that mean that the workers are obligated to share in the losses? How’s that gonna work out?
Dis information.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
~ Joseph Goebbels
It’s right here in the commerce clause, I get your money to give to my voters. Now get back to work, suckers.
Might I suggest the next time some goofball says he plans on fundamentally changing your country, you might want to ask to what? A caliphate?
Wonder if he’s going to figure out why he received very little applause- he isn’t going to change…anyone thinks he’s moving to the middle like the Talking Heads try to repeat everyday…hell, he only got applause twice during all that leftist tripe of us….he never shuts the hell up- who can listen anymore, I can’t stand to, yet the msm keeps putting him on our faces year after year…never seen anything like it.
The only plus to this is the backlash he gets every-time he opens his yapper from people who can use their brains and see right thru his BS
If Obama’s net worth is somewhere around $10 million, has he himself failed to share his own profits?
What about Nancy Pelosi? (~$12.5 million)
What about everyone else who is demanding the ‘re-distribution of wealth’?
.
Doesn’t charity begin at home?
What about the investors? They are the ones that funded the company to make profit, expecting a return, taking the risk that the company may not make a profit.
Obama in his SOTU wanted innovation.
How does a company FUND innovation?
By using PROFIT to fund it’s R&D.
But don’t dare accuse him of being a socialist.
He is not economically ignorant.
He is an ENEMY of the free market.
He is a MARXIST.
He’s not even trying to hide his marxism anymore. Basically he gave a big “Fuck You” to the Chamber of Commerce. Hopefully all, all of the businesspeople in the audience will now realize that they are in a fight for their very lives and livelihoods with this wanna be Marxist Dictator. He is at war with America and all American businesses.
What concerns me is that he must feel that at this point that nothing can stop him in his goal of President for Life as the Great Leader of a new marxist state. Pray that his blinding arrogance and narcissism has led him to reveal his true self prematurely.
Here’s a little bit of wisdon for this unpatriotic president to mull over: “All arrogance will reap a harvest rich in tears. God calls men to a heavy reckoning for overweening pride”. Herodotus.
@gastorgrab
aaahh, your point is interesting, however, didn’t Bill O’Reilly ask Obama, more than once, if he believed in “re-distribution of wealth?”, to which Obama repeatedly answered, “NO!”
and, sharing the “profit” is only applicable to others. Obama and his cronies have all “opted out”–They have received their “LIFETIME WAIVERS”. Don’t try to apply for one of those, though, we aren’t eligible. (SARC)
Ahh barry, exactly as your new hero, Ronald Reagan, would have put it! Oh wait……
I hate this freakin’ a-hole. He should have gotten booed off the stage for what he was saying. People have to stand up to this marxist asshole and the rest of them like pelousy, too. Stop being polite and listening – send a message right out of the blocks that “no – you are full of crap in what you are saying”.
Hell, I like to make money also, but the employees get salaries and benefits, THAT’S their reward. The SHAREHOLDERS or BUSINESS OWNERS get the rest and decide how and what to do with the profits. Employees don’t generally stay up at night wondering how to make payroll in tough times, nor do they generally put their credit on the line for the business nor do they suffer for sometimes years before the business gets profitable enough for the small business owner to finally make a decent chunk of change.
Go screw yourself commie obammie.
Reparations.
And what better place to start than at Huffingtonpost.com Arianna just got a $315 million payday on the backs of a lot of underpaid and not even paid writers. It’s only fair that she gives up at least 40% in taxes and the rest to the workers…
shared by shared…workers
Definitely straight out of the Marxist dialectic.
What’s tragic: Most Americans don’t have a clue what the Marxist dialectic is and what it states!
Getting back to the start of our problems, why SHOULD one person pay a ‘progressively’ higher tax rate than anyone else? Why is it “fair” to ask one person to pay a higher percentage of his earnings? Why should any limit be placed on ambition, by a central authority?
Does a government have the right to regulate ambition?
Why should a short-legged man be given a head start in a foot race? Should the long-legged man be given a head start in a tunneling race? Why do ‘results’ have to be “equal”?
If Billy has nine marbles, and Bobby only has one, is Bobby ‘oppressed’?
.
How dare the President suggest proven business management tactics of incentivizing your workers by paying them more as profits increase, narrowing the wage gap between the highest and lowest level employees, and generally promoting corporate cohesiveness and shared vision??!?!?
“Getting back to the start of our problems, why SHOULD one person pay a ‘progressively’ higher tax rate than anyone else? Why is it “fair” to ask one person to pay a higher percentage of his earnings? Why should any limit be placed on ambition, by a central authority?”
Different risk. Taxes to go government. Government is the manifestation of the social compact which is basically an agreement defray risk. Billy with nine marbles has a lot more to lose than Bobby with one. Thus, the question really becomes why should Bobby have to pay the same amount to protect his one marble as Billy does to protect his nine?
One of America’s greatest moments will be the day that this enemy of the Constitution of the United States is frog marched out of the White House and into a prison cell.
Every. Single. Day. We are forced to listen to the Marxist rantings of this man and are told that he is just like every other president – even Ronald Reagan.
He has much more in common with Hugo Chavez than the Gipper.
And anyone, anyone who lived through the Reagan era knows that better than their own name.
“promoting corporate cohesiveness and shared vision”
———————-
Are you talking about a religion here?
Most people only have jobs to earn money. The ‘work to live’, they don’t ‘live to work’. The workers choose what is in their own best interest by establishing a reputation for reliability, and by looking for a better job when they are unsatisfied with the current agreement.
Without the freedom to act in one’s own self-interest, there is no market.
—
“Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations.”
- Thomas Jefferson
.
“why should Bobby have to pay the same amount to protect his one marble as Billy does to protect his nine”
————
If “protection” only serves to take Billy’s marbles away, then why does he need government protection?
—
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
- Thomas Jefferson
.
I hope this man drops dead – now!
@turfmann, Amen Brother!
And eventually turn him over to the U.K. (of his dual citizen status) for prosecution of Treason, having gave up U.K. nuclear secrets.
The Head Marxist told O’Reilly he doesn’t want to redistribute the wealth.
Well I’ll be damned.
I guess he still believes in OTHER PEOPLE redistributing THEIR WEALTH.
@ Rupaula
Just what “protections” do you believe that government can offer to a ‘marble holder’?
Does this apply to all private property? Does each of us pay the government for the privilege of owning property? (Does it really belong to us, or are we renting all property from the government?)
.
“Most people only have jobs to earn money. The ‘work to live’, they don’t ‘live to work’. The workers choose what is in their own best interest by establishing a reputation for reliability, and by looking for a better job when they are unsatisfied with the current agreement.”
Agreed. So why wouldn’t a corporation attempt to create a place where people move past “work to live” into “live to work?” Do you think most of the people at Google hate going to their jobs everyday? Heck no.
Employers are part of the market to, so it is in their best interest to promote a business model which encourages loyalty and hard work. The Japanese started this a long time ago. The attitude of “if they don’t like it, they can leave” is an awful way to manage. Online business management seminar 101 will tell you that, much less common sense.
if you want to profit $$$$ wise from the company you work for work hard and buy company stock.
“Just what “protections” do you believe that government can offer to a ‘marble holder’?”
-Police and firemen to protect physical goods. Upkeep of transportation and electricity grid to keep your goods in market which earn your marbles. Regulation and protection to keep the stock market, banking institutions, etc. honest and free (market police if you will, debatable how well this is currently being handled).
Does this apply to all private property? Does each of us pay the government for the privilege of owning property? (Does it really belong to us, or are we renting all property from the government?)”
-Yes, that is the point of the social compact. You sacrifice some liberty for the ability to securely own private property. If not, you risk having somebody simply take your property through force.
“Government is the manifestation of the social compact”
———–
Is that some sort of an omnipotent & benign moral entity?
Our Constitution is a binding social contract. It implies nothing than isn’t specifically stated. (“nor be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law”)
We are a nation of written laws. The Soviet Union was a nation of agendas.
.
No, Obama is not a Socialist.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/02/obama-says-there-is-nothing-socialist-about-obamacare-you-want-fries-with-that-whopper-mr-president-video.html
We have nothing to worry about.
Our Constitution is a binding social contract. It implies nothing than isn’t specifically stated. (“nor be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law”)
It is. 16th Amendment, Chief.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
gastorgrab – “Does it really belong to us, or are we renting all property from the government?”
Rupaula – “Yes, that is the point of the social compact.”
————-
That’s Communism.
.
Rupaula,
If the government takes 100% of everyone’s earnings, are the People protected 100%?
or is there a point where you admit that taxes are theft?
Sorry, that yes was in response to the first two questions: Does this apply to all private property? Does each of us pay the government for the privilege of owning property?
So no, the government doesn’t own the property within the US borders and we don’t rent it. Our government is set up to protect the private landowners. Call it paying for privilege or paying for protection, but it is really the same thing.
Also, remember that the Constitution does not gaurantee your right to own property. The 5th Amendment explicitly allows the government to take your property from you.
OMG! What a lame argument!
Does anyone truly believe, that a person would opt for “I just love my job so much I live to work” attitude, if somehow a corporation could create that atmosphere. I would much rather be playing with my kids, traveling the country with my wife, and enjoying all the things I really love to do; fishing, camping, painting, racing, etc., etc., etc.
We work because we have to work to survive. Our quality of life is usually up to us. I do love to work at the things I love. I work for someone else to put food on the table, and to pay the bills. Why the hell would anybody bust their ass at a 9-5, or shift work, if they didn’t have to? Most people don’t love their job more than they love their life and their families. That is beyond ignorant to even suggest that a normal human being would “live to work”!
Your suggestion that people who work for Google love to go to work everyday, tells me that you either work for Google, and got paid for that advert, or, Google is some mystical, magical workplace that employees would desire, over all other choices in life.
LOL! Maybe I am the ignorant one! Maybe not!
If the Federal Government is taking taxes to protect the citizenry from invasion, do we get a refund now that Barbary Pirates have established a beach head?
I Was sent a picture it said ” And we thought Carter sucked! 86-44.”
Amen.
Did the Federal Government time travel to the future to ask our grand kids if it is ok to saddle them with repaying the Stimulus being spent now?
Isn’t Debt Spending actually taxation without existing yet to be represented?
Comon Rupaula… can you think outside of your idiot box?
“If the government takes 100% of everyone’s earnings, are the People protected 100%?
or is there a point where you admit that taxes are theft?”
I understand the point you are trying to make but the premise is so simplistic that it fails in its purpose. The point of the social compact is to sacrifice some liberty for some protection. No philosopher or social theorist has ever said or shown it was a linear equation, e.g. that 1% of freedom is equal to 1% of protection. The point is to try to create a government as efficient as possible so minimal amounts of freedom have to be sacrificed to obtain the maximum amounts of protection.
But sure, you could label a point where everything is being run so inefficiently as to be criminal. I have no problem with saying the government can be negligent to the point of criminality.
“It is. 16th Amendment, Chief.”
————
You seem to think that all property is ‘income’, even that which individual create for themselves.
What happens to Billy’s marbles next year? Does the government stop protecting the same number of marbles, which may have been income last year, but could not be considered income this year?
What you’re talking about is a ‘Wealth Tax’, and our system most certainly does not support that. Again, what you’re describing is called Communism. Income is only income in the year it occurs.
Socialists want to share “wealth”, not “income”.
.
@Rupaula
You stated – “So no, the government doesn’t own the property within the US borders and we don’t rent it. Our government is set up to protect the private landowners. Call it paying for privilege or paying for protection, but it is really the same thing.”
I am wondering what the folks in areas, including but not exclusive to Texas and Arizona, get for their tax payments? Obviously it is not privilege or protection for the private landowners, or anyone else, unless partial privilege and protection count.
We want all your money, and we promise to do a “half-ass” job for you. But, that is how the government works, when they are in charge of anything. We really don’t get our money’s worth, IMO.
“The point is to try to create a government as efficient as possible so minimal amounts of freedom have to be sacrificed to obtain the maximum amounts of protection.”
hence the TEA Party… right?
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
James Madison, Federalist #62
“We work because we have to work to survive. Our quality of life is usually up to us. I do love to work at the things I love. I work for someone else to put food on the table, and to pay the bills. Why the hell would anybody bust their ass at a 9-5, or shift work, if they didn’t have to? Most people don’t love their job more than they love their life and their families. That is beyond ignorant to even suggest that a normal human being would “live to work”!”
-Thats the shitty attitude that is causing this country to epically fail. The innovators and entrepeneurs in this world work because they love what they do. I have worked to survive and to get to where I am now. I now work because I love my job and I like being a productive member of society and helping people. My life is not just family and friends.
But, hey, more power to you. If your goal in life is just be a cog from 9-5 and then go hang with your peeps, go for it. It is your life. However, that still doesn’t negate the fact that if your 9-5 cog job is more tolerable, you are going to be happier there and you are going to produce more. That is unless you are just a miserable person and have no pride in your work and will not to give your best no matter what you are doing. If you have that attitude you will be stuck in the crappiest jobs available, so have fun with that.
So until everyone finds a dream job, they get to suck on the nanny state teet?
Or do they have a DUTY to themselves, their neighbors, their country, to provide for themselves, their family, and contribute to society by being productive?
“hence the TEA Party… right?”
A bit, which is why I liked the tea party at first when they were more like libertarians. Then people like Sarah Palin quickly got involved and took it to the far religious right.
Or else what there barak? Flesh out the rest of it…..POS
What the Chief is saying reminds me of what the ETA in Spain would do back in the 80′s, they allowed young people to get high on hash in the bars so as not to get involved in politics, here the Prez is using money instead of drugs for people to stay happy and not get involved w/ corporate competition. since o is reading from a manuscript and not from his creative brains, i for one will tell him do not play robin hood with peoples creative smarts!!!!!!!!!!
“Then people like Sarah Palin quickly got involved and took it to the far religious right.”
LOL… she’s hardly far religious… she ain’t Amish or Mennonite.. understand?
Of course, those who do not care even a little about the moral and ethical core of the People in this great nation end up supporting islam by default..
Don’t you just want to slap those morons upside the head on that one?
Did you catch the South Sudan independence story?
Last time I checked history, islam has been the catalyst of Christian evils since islam’s inception…
Good luck with those peaceful, tolerant muslims… Shit, even Dawkins hopes Christianity can withstand islam’s evil…
@Rupaula
I am an innovator. I work my ass off. Innovators and entrepeneurs do love what they do, but a vast majority hold down regular jobs to fund their ventures, or they have investors. They don’t just magically produce.
I take offense at someone who accuses anyone of having a “”shitty attitude” when it comes to having an opinion about how much money they are paying in taxes and where that money is going. I don’t want to give the neighbor half of my paycheck, if he is going to be partying or gambling on it. If he is hungry, I will extend my hand and I will try to offer him work. If he refuses, should I then keep feeding him? I could invest that money back in my own business, or someone elses, and expand, and hire more employees, and produce more– I don’t think it is unrealistic or selfish to feel that way.
I didn’t just get rich overnight, and I have helped other’s build their own businesses and life. Not because I have to, but because I could, and I wanted to. I think I feel the same as the majority of hard working people in this country, on that subject. They just want the Government to get out of the way; quit wasting our hard earned money on what you want, like keeping people victim to the “handouts” that come from other people’s labor, and open the floodgate so that everyone can make it on their own.
Quit assuming that everyone who is given $100,000.00 dollars to start or run a business, would use it for that, produce on that, or be successful. Sometimes you can dump all the money in the world into an idea or venture; if it isn’t a good plan, implemented by people who know what they are doing, have some integrity, and are willing to put time, energy, and commitment into the project, it isn’t going to fly. Everybody is not cut out to own or run a business. Some people work, not because they love their jobs, but because they know that they aren’t going to eat if they don’t. I am sure that is what was being implied in the comment you referenced.
Oooooooh, don’t say that.
Democrats want to micromanage every company in the country and necessarily outperform WITHOUT any form of competition.
What Rupaula is picturing is the perfect Utopia where everyone who works at a company earns the same paycheck, regardless of their skills. The top engineer would make just as much as the guy who scrubs the toilette. The guy who delivers the mail would be just as financially successful as the guy who makes decisions that affect the lives of every worker.
And at the end of the day, they all get together and hold hands, and they sing folk music.
.
@JCM
Thank you. That is all I was trying to say. Sometimes we are not in a place where we can find our dream job. I would be great at hosting a fishing and wild-life show. LOL. I guess they have enough of those.
I guess some people have their dream jobs, and are happy doing what they do. Some even feel comfortable blaming others who are not so lucky; blame us for the country’s problems, and for those who don’t work, and for how inept our government is in management of our tax payments, and how incompetent the government is at are creating and running any project or program. I guess, no matter how hard we work, or how much we give, there will always be problems, and inequality, and we just need to work harder, and produce more–which, btw, we should love doing.
Sometimes, due to circumstances beyond our control, such as elderly parents that we choose to care for, or kids who need to be close to certain medical facilities, we are stuck in the existing environment, for the time being. I can either put my folks in a home and let them go on state aid, travel 9 hours one way, weekly, to take my child to a specialist, or I can live close, in a home I can afford, where there is room for all of us. I choose family, and if my Father were aware of his surroundings, and thought for one minute that he was a burden, it would kill him. My Mom knows though, and it would kill her if they weren’t together,or if they had to depend on “welfare”. They are proud, and so are we.
I do work hard to put food on the table. I hate my job, but I do it, because I would hate myself, if I didn’t pull my own weight. That is how I was raised, and that is how I feel.
Sorry if my “shitty attitude” doesn’t fit into the COMMUNISM mentality.
@gastorgrab
LMAO! If you find the address of that place, where “EVERY FART SMELLS LIKE RAINBOWS” do tell!
“I take offense at someone who accuses anyone of having a “”shitty attitude” when it comes to having an opinion about how much money they are paying in taxes and where that money is going.”
Whoa, whoa whoa, reread my post, Hoss. I said nothing about taxes. “Shitty attitude” was in reference to that poster saying people only “work for someone else to put food on the table, and to pay the bills.” You yourself are proof that is wrong. You may be working a job you don’t love, but you are working it on the path to a job you love.
“Quit assuming that everyone who is given $100,000.00 dollars to start or run a business, would use it for that, produce on that, or be successful…. Some people work, not because they love their jobs, but because they know that they aren’t going to eat if they don’t.”
-I think implied in this paragraph is a fundamental ideological difference. Obviously not everybody has the innate creativity and drive to be succussful busnessmen, innovators and entrepeneurs. However, and this relates back to the beginning of this whole thread, I don’t believe that the others are desiring to work a crap job and feed themselves and nothing more. If whoever they work for, values them as a person and not just their labor, they will work harder because that spark in them is lit to become a better person and a better employee.
I don’t get why you conservatives have such a negative view of humanity. I can’t get behind the thought so many people are leaches looking to avoid work. That is a depressing view of mankind.
“What Rupaula is picturing is the perfect Utopia where everyone who works at a company earns the same paycheck, regardless of their skills. The top engineer would make just as much as the guy who scrubs the toilette. The guy who delivers the mail would be just as financially successful as the guy who makes decisions that affect the lives of every worker.”
-Look, a republican completely and knowingly mischaracterizing something so his tiny, shitfilled brain doesn’t have to deal with him being wrong. That’s new.
Insults aside, I never said equal paychecks. I said narrow the gap in pay in order to boost the self-worth of an employee instead of just treating him like a tool or a cog. Of course the higher pay and power is a powerful incentive and should be there.
However, basic goal setting says to make achievable goals. If a lowly janitor feels that if he works hard he can work his way up to boss one day he will be more productive. If the lab tech feels like his work contributing to the overall company and he agrees with the company’s goals, he will be more productive. Giving workers a little human decency is not a crazy idea.
That is the whole point of having the government get out of the way and let us do it ourselves. Most people have that spark and want and need to do better. Sometimes, they make it. The accomplishment is doing it on our own. Not by expecting or forcing someone else, who went to college for 8 years, to pay my way. I don’t expect to be equal – by paycheck comparison – to someone who is highly educated with years of experience and hard work under their belt. Someday I might be there, but I don’t want a handout to get there. It takes away my incentive, and the learning experience of the challenge. That is the satisfying part of the whole experience; when I really put forth the effort and make it.
“If whoever they work for, values them as a person and not just their labor, they will work harder because that spark in them is lit to become a better person and a better employee.”
———–
Is that why people start companies? To begin new relationships?
What happens when their employer values them as a human being, but the job still consists of unclogging toilettes? (technically, a shitty job)
No. Most of the practical people in the world do what they have to do, only as a means to do what they want to do. No one really enjoys taking out the garbage, but it doesn’t get done without someone willing to do it……usually for the right price $$$$$.
Why do you think garbage men smile so much? It’s not because they like garbage.
.
JCM says:
February 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm
So until everyone finds a dream job, they get to suck on the nanny state teet?
Or do they have a DUTY to themselves, their neighbors, their country, to provide for themselves, their family, and contribute to society by being productive?
-I’m not sure what you are getting at?? I think you are probably pointing out what so many people today believe, and is fundamental flaw in our thinking and why the US is crashing. To be successful (however you choose to describe it (and I’m assuming most people have similar definitions)) requires hard work. You don’t wait for a dream job. I bet you $100 nobody who has what they would describe as their dream job waited around to find it.
In finding your dream job you are going to be working your way up and being productive on your way to your goal. It’s not an either or situation, i.e. living the dream or living hand to mouth.
A lot of people who appear on American Idol have imagined their dream jobs too. The only problem is that they really suck at it.
Should we give them exclusive recording contracts, even though they cant sing for shit?
“What happens when their employer values them as a human being, but the job still consists of unclogging toilettes?”
-You keep missing my fundamental point, that there is more to business than just money. There is an employer/employee relationship. You do not turn off being human when you go to work.
Answer me this, who is going to get to unclogging the toilet faster – (1) the janitor who is just punching the clock or (2) the janitor who has a relationship with his boss and feels that his unclogging the toilets faster makes everybody in the office happier?
Who is going stick with that pardon the pun shitty job longer and thus cost the company less in human resources costs of rehiring a janitor?
“Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“Should we give them exclusive recording contracts, even though they cant sing for shit?”
I assume that was directed towards me??
I give up on you, you obviously can’t read. Literally the post I wrote directly above yours says that success requires hard work. Later tator.
Rupaula,
Are you a John Huntsman fan?
He runs his business like he doesn’t need government. Everybody is happy.
The point of having Rule of Law is to weed out the bad guys.
You can’t tell a business how to operate based on a Federal Cookie Cutter. See how the DOEd turned out for a proof.
“Answer me this, who is going to get to unclogging the toilet faster – (1) the janitor who is just punching the clock or (2) the janitor who has a relationship with his boss and feels that his unclogging the toilets faster makes everybody in the office happier?”
————
3) The one who gets a big fat incentive ($$$) to do so.
.
“You can’t tell a business how to operate based on a Federal Cookie Cutter. See how the DOEd turned out for a proof.”
I totally agree. Where in the above quote from Obama is there any mention of a Federal mandate or intervention? He was speaking to the Chamber of Commerce and suggesting approaches to take. What is wrong with the chosen speaker, the leader of this country, giving ideas?
And yes, I am a Jon Huntsman fan.
Corporations should share their profits. That is until the list of exceptions is released, with the name of GE and the top followed closely by the Unions….they get to keep thier profits…..and yours too!
“What is wrong with the chosen speaker, the leader of this country, giving ideas?”
demanding is more like it..
Show me an idea Obama has had that has done any empirical good?
Uh oh…
Don’t worry… I figure you will ‘get it’ within the next two years… We are at end game time.. those of us who see it ‘know’ what Obama really means.
Yawn. President Obama struggles for relevancy post 2010 midterms.
Obama is a fucking communist illegal alien without a USA passport.
“What is wrong with the chosen speaker, the leader of this country, giving ideas?”
————-
On what experience is his expertise based?
There is reason to believe that the President of the United States is Obama’s very first full time job. He has ZERO business experience and has spent most of his adult life attacking corporate structures in the hopes of a pay-off. That’s what Community Organizers do. They don’t create new sources of wealth, they siphon off the wealth that others have.
The guy doesn’t have any constructive skills.
.
Does he really think that our standards of living have never been raised by big business?
I don’t blame him for hating business, it’s been force fed to him, and to the rest of us for most of our lives. I do blame him for not being a particularly original thinker, or questioner of the common wisdom.
How many movies can you name that paint business and businessmen as being evil? Off the top of my head: syrania, it’s a wonderful life, norma rae…there are many others. Name a por business movie..
commie bastard!!
“Most people only have jobs to earn money. The ‘work to live’, they don’t ‘live to work’. The workers choose what is in their own best interest by establishing a reputation for reliability, and by looking for a better job when they are unsatisfied with the current agreement.”
Agreed. So why wouldn’t a corporation attempt to create a place where people move past “work to live” into “live to work?” Do you think most of the people at Google hate going to their jobs everyday? Heck no.
Employers are part of the market to, so it is in their best interest to promote a business model which encourages loyalty and hard work. The Japanese started this a long time ago. The attitude of “if they don’t like it, they can leave” is an awful way to manage. Online business management seminar 101 will tell you that, much less common sense.
Hey, Rupaula…did you ever hear of the lost decade of Japan?
Also, online business management seminar 101? You have got to be kidding!