Liberal Business owners - a true story of what I get to deal with right now

[Jarhead]

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

Now you look like the ass you have looked like since the day you came on this site.

Pay attention to how this is done.

I made a hasty mistake in the above post. I did indeed equate federal jobs with government jobs. It appears that, while in no way obvious , the federal workforce grew
by a small amount during Obama's first three years.

Here's The TRUTH About The Growing Federal Workforce Under Obama - Business Insider

I apologize for my error.

No sir...you did not just make a hasty mistake...you insulted an entire group of people using the information you believed you had , gained from your hasty mistake.

And you really need to look at more than just data...

You need to understand what the article was really saying....

'despite a recession, where local and state governments were diligent enough to downsize government in an effort to live within their means, the federal governemnt, under the Governance of President Obama has actually INCREASED its payroll thus increasing the already high annual deficit and adding to the extraordianrily high debt.'

It is not just an issue of a 1.5% increase in staff.

 

[G.T.]

You don't even know. *shakes head*

The jokes' on you.

I know you believe in double-standards but come on.

You want to blame the GOP for not voting for it but then the Dems get a pass.


Obama sends these idiotic budget proposals to congress for a reason.

They aren't meant to be passed.


Thus endith the lesson.

Umm, I didnt give anyone a pass.

You have a serious problem arguing with ghosts bro.

Do I have to throw your quotes back in your face again?

Your problem is you're too pigheaded to admit anything even when you keep walking into it.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think the Dems are justified in rejecting the proposal because it contained evil spending cuts? So how the fuck do you expect us to get to a balanced budget smart-guy?

Yet you think it's okay to be critical of Repugs because they don't want massive tax increases during a weak economy.

According to you everything is hunky dory so why cut spending. The debt is peanuts.

Is this your position?

I think you really need to show a quote of mine EVER that says we dont need spending cuts, or shut the fuck up....that's what I think.

 

[kwc57]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

See how that works?

It is an article talking about ALL governments in the US.....including state and local.

Here is a snippet form the article....

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent

This thread has been about FEDERAL government spending.

Just sayin'

At the risk or repeating other people's words, nutters have their own facts and when you prove them wrong, they ignore it.

 

[G.T.]

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

See how that works?

It is an article talking about ALL governments in the US.....including state and local.

Here is a snippet form the article....

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent

This thread has been about FEDERAL government spending.

Just sayin'

At the risk or repeating other people's words, nutters have their own facts and when you prove them wrong, they ignore it.

Lone Laughter didnt ignore being proven wrong, which proves you wrong. You gunna ignore that?

 

[mudwhistle]

Umm, I didnt give anyone a pass.

You have a serious problem arguing with ghosts bro.

Do I have to throw your quotes back in your face again?

Your problem is you're too pigheaded to admit anything even when you keep walking into it.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think the Dems are justified in rejecting the proposal because it contained evil spending cuts? So how the fuck do you expect us to get to a balanced budget smart-guy?

Yet you think it's okay to be critical of Repugs because they don't want massive tax increases during a weak economy.

According to you everything is hunky dory so why cut spending. The debt is peanuts.

Is this your position?

I think you really need to show a quote of mine EVER that says we dont need spending cuts, or shut the fuck up....that's what I think.

Maybe you should do the same when it comes to moochers fuckwad.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Now you look like the ass you have looked like since the day you came on this site.

Pay attention to how this is done.

I made a hasty mistake in the above post. I did indeed equate federal jobs with government jobs. It appears that, while in no way obvious , the federal workforce grew
by a small amount during Obama's first three years.

Here's The TRUTH About The Growing Federal Workforce Under Obama - Business Insider

I apologize for my error.

No sir...you did not just make a hasty mistake...you insulted an entire group of people using the information you believed you had , gained from your hasty mistake.

And you really need to look at more than just data...

You need to understand what the article was really saying....

'despite a recession, where local and state governments were diligent enough to downsize government in an effort to live within their means, the federal governemnt, under the Governance of President Obama has actually INCREASED its payroll thus increasing the already high annual deficit and adding to the extraordianrily high debt.'

It is not just an issue of a 1.5% increase in staff.

Allow me to be clear in the face of your very classy attitude.

I gladly insult you and your entire group of people based on YEARS of examples of you and your group being so fucking wrong.......about every conceivable subject.

Question: Has any of the federal personnel ( and funds ) that have been employed over the past three years been made necessary by the reduction in state and local labor forces?

Hmmmmm?

 

[G.T.]

Do I have to throw your quotes back in your face again?

Your problem is you're too pigheaded to admit anything even when you keep walking into it.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think the Dems are justified in rejecting the proposal because it contained evil spending cuts? So how the fuck do you expect us to get to a balanced budget smart-guy?

Yet you think it's okay to be critical of Repugs because they don't want massive tax increases during a weak economy.

According to you everything is hunky dory so why cut spending. The debt is peanuts.

Is this your position?

I think you really need to show a quote of mine EVER that says we dont need spending cuts, or shut the fuck up....that's what I think.

Maybe you should do the same when it comes to moochers fuckwad.

^ guess I'll take that as an admission of failure.

You claimed I'm against spending cuts.

Now balls up and show me where I ever said such a thing. S'gunna be tough, because I didnt. But I understand it would be even tougher to admit you lied, so go ahead with an insult and non-answer instead.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think you really need to show a quote of mine EVER that says we dont need spending cuts, or shut the fuck up....that's what I think.

Maybe you should do the same when it comes to moochers fuckwad.

^ guess I'll take that as an admission of failure.

You claimed I'm against spending cuts.

Now balls up and show me where I ever said such a thing. S'gunna be tough, because I didnt. But I understand it would be even tougher to admit you lied, so go ahead with an insult and non-answer instead.

I don't have to......I'm gonna use your rational. I don't have to prove anything because everybody knows that liberals don't want any spending cuts because they voted for Obama. He's not about to cut anything, so that's what you want. I can base that off of your attitude that everything is going great. I don't need quotes because you're a POS liberal and all of them think the same way.

See how it works?



According to you I'm a conservative so I automatically hate moochers. Section 8 folks.

I'm just turning your argument back on you.

Sorry if you don't like it.

 

[Ravi]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

See how that works?

It is an article talking about ALL governments in the US.....including state and local.

Here is a snippet form the article....

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent

This thread has been about FEDERAL government spending.

Just sayin'

That still isn't "obviously greatly increased."

But thanks for trying. In your figures are temporary census workers that are mandated.

http://zfacts.com/node/441

 

[Ravi]

Maybe you should do the same when it comes to moochers fuckwad.

^ guess I'll take that as an admission of failure.

You claimed I'm against spending cuts.

Now balls up and show me where I ever said such a thing. S'gunna be tough, because I didnt. But I understand it would be even tougher to admit you lied, so go ahead with an insult and non-answer instead.

I don't have to......I'm gonna use your rational. I don't have to prove anything because everybody knows that liberals don't want any spending cuts because they voted for Obama. He's not about to cut anything, so that's what you want. I can base that off of your attitude that everything is going great. I don't need quotes because you're a POS liberal and all of them think the same way.

See how it works?



According to you I'm a conservative so I automatically hate moochers. Section 8 folks.

I'm just turning your argument back on you.

Sorry if you don't like it.

Why would a slum lord hate section 8 folks?

 

[Lakhota]

The economy would be much improved had NaziCon Republicans not obstructed the Obama jobs bill - the American Jobs Act - and had they allowed more public sector hiring like under Bush.

 

[JoeB131]

Businesses would be a lot better off if they did not have to worry about how to save money on employee health insurance

I think it's a mixed bag. Taking my own case, I'd have probably been a lot better off had I changed jobs in late 2006, early 2007. The economy was still good, I could cache the experience gained, and so on. But I had these operations pending, and couldn't switch jobs.

Employers know that health insurance gives them a little leverage over employees that just paying them a paycheck doesn't.

I think they are less in love with it now that it costs so much.

 

[Toro]

Warren Buffet has been a liberal Democrat his whole life.

Keystone would have had a minimal effect on his pipeline business.

Buffet has pledged most of his $50 billion fortune to charity.

there ya go, again... bringing up those nasty little facts.

FYI...buffet admits that his fortune he is leaving will

1) Have absolutely no affect on his current lifestyle
2) Will still allow him to leave to his children money to afford them the same lifestyle he has enjoyed.

Whereas I do not have the same kind of money as Buffet, my will has plenty going to my children...and more going to charity.

The difference is...I did not go out and brag to the world how my entire fortune is going to charity and then admit otheriwse when pressured by the press.

Buffett does not live an opulent lifestyle. His house is an unremarkable home in an upper class - not rich, upper class - neighborhood in Omaha in which he has lived for 50 years. The only conspicuous trapping of wealth is his private jet. Anyone who has followed Buffett even remotely knows that he lives a rather unremarkable lifestyle.

I believe he is giving each of his kids $4 million. Until about a decade ago, he publicly and repeatedly had stated that his kids were getting $0. But his now deceased ex-wife thought that was being too cheap and hectored him to at least leave something. Buffett always believed that inheritance was bad because it made people lazy. And with his kids being somewhat successful in their own right, he relented.

Finally, he has always stated that he would give his money away when he died. Buffett is famously cheap, and that included with charities. He reasoned that 1.) people would need help in the future just as they do today, and 2.) no one on the planet can allocate capital better than he can, so he will have given more money away at his death than he could during his lifetime because no one can compound capital faster than he can. He has turned out to be right.

I have followed Buffett for 20 years. These are facts known by anyone who has an inkling about Buffett.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Lakhota]

Hey, Windbag, tell us some more about the cliff bluff...

 

[MikeK]

Buffett does not live an opulent lifestyle. His house is an unremarkable home in an upper class - not rich, upper class - neighborhood in Omaha in which he has lived for 50 years. The only conspicuous trapping of wealth is his private jet. Anyone who has followed Buffett even remotely knows that he lives a rather unremarkable lifestyle.

I believe he is giving each of his kids $4 million. Until about a decade ago, he publicly and repeatedly had stated that his kids were getting $0. But his now deceased ex-wife thought that was being too cheap and hectored him to at least leave something. Buffett always believed that inheritance was bad because it made people lazy. And with his kids being somewhat successful in their own right, he relented.

Finally, he has always stated that he would give his money away when he died. Buffett is famously cheap, and that included with charities. He reasoned that 1.) people would need help in the future just as they do today, and 2.) no one on the planet can allocate capital better than he can, so he will have given more money away at his death than he could during his lifetime because no one can compound capital faster than he can. He has turned out to be right.

I have followed Buffett for 20 years. These are facts known by anyone who has an inkling about Buffett.

Warren Buffett is indeed an interesting fellow. Like all who manage to accumulate vast personal assets he manifests the hoarder mentality, probably to an exceptional degree as evidenced by his stinginess. But unlike most other money hoarders he clearly has retained a rational appreciation for the simple and real pleasures of life and is not impressed with superficial opulence, nor is he egotistically inclined to assert the power of his wealth. He probably would have made a good clergyman.

I will venture a guess that his parents, like mine, struggled through the Great Depression and imparted to him an appreciation of simple, essential comforts. He seems to understand and accept the wisdom which holds that one can only live in one room at a time and he is not at all inclined to gluttony or waste.

 

[Barb]

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

Yeah, I don't get it. And when you prove them wrong, just like the OP, they pretend you didn't.

Actually...you jumped the gun. His post referred to FEDERAL government jobs...you cited an article that was referring to ALL government jobs....an article that admits federal employment is UP under Obama.

from you

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent

down 1.3 and up 1.3 makes it flat, not UP.

sheesh

 

[Barb]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

See how that works?

It is an article talking about ALL governments in the US.....including state and local.

Here is a snippet form the article....

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent

This thread has been about FEDERAL government spending.

Just sayin'

1.3 - 1.3 = 0

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

The declines in government jobs in both the Reagan and Obama presidencies coincided with major recessions, of course, which reduced tax receipts for all levels of government. If Mr. Obama had had his way, state and local government job losses in 2011 could have been reduced with more federal assistance, but such proposals were blocked by Republicans in Congress.

There is no reason to think Mr. Obama is as happy about the reduction in government workers as some Republicans. But like it or not, the Obama administration has turned out to be anything but a big-government one.

 

[Barb]

Barb, I just can't understand why liberals always interpret self-reliance as FUCK YOU I GOT MINE. Like jarhead said about being homeless, he learned that he had to rely on himself and no one else. Yes, most of us have families and friends and in many cases churches we can depend on. But really, truthfully, honestly when push comes to shove in the worst possible scenarios, you are the only one who can ultimately look out for you. Survival is our most basic instinct. My 19 year old son has lived a pretty nice life free of need because we could provide it to him. But he heard plenty of no's along the way as well. When he was in jr high and wanted $125 Nikes, the answer was a flat no, end of discussion. When he turned 16, he was treated the same as my wife and I. You want a vehicle, get a job and pay for it. He did. He was actice in Boy Scouts and earned his Eagle. He knows how to build a shelter from sticks and leaves and how to build a fire without a lighter. He knows how to camp in 0 degree weather comfortably. He is self-reliant. Now, along with all of that, he has learned charity and giving to those in need. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping our fellow man and you won't find a conservative who thinks otherwise. Everyone needs a hand once in a while whether it be the short lady at the grocery store who can't reach an item on the top shelf or someone who has no money to buy food. But if there is no one there to help them.........who do they have to rely on? Themselves. Today, we have multi-generations enslaved to government entitlement programs like cows in a feedlot. They have accepted dependency as a way of life and there are far too many politicians out there willing to keep them dependent in order to stay in power. Teaching people that they are going to have to take care of themselves is far better in the long run than just giving to them. Someone else demanding me to give what is mine to make themselves feel better about helping people is bullshit. It isn't fuck you, I have mine. It's have some dignity and learn to stand on your own two feet.....because ultimately you only have yo to depend on. While liberals like to clothe conservatives in rhetoric of hate and uncaring, it really turns out to be that liberals want to feed a man a fish a day where conservatives want to teach them to fish and feed themselves for a life time. The latter is more compassionate and caring than the former.

It would be IF there were a job for every one who wanted to work. There isn't though, is there? This is where the dreaded government policy comes into play. Say business HERE is rewarded by our tax and corporate welfare to a greater extent than business that expatriates production anywhere BUT here. Say chapter eleven protections aren't available to corporations that don't hire American workers, but have nothing but a land line and answering machine in THIS country. Say ALL small businesses get the balance of THOSE savings.

My father owned his own business. I grew up knowing, because my father TOLD ME SO, that his employees put the roof over our heads and the food on our table. HE never laid anyone off in slow times, HE wrote the slow times into his business plan. We didn't lay ANYONE off because those slow times came (like snow does in the winter) WE ate a cheaper cut of meat instead (fried bologna sandwiches, and I loved them), because my father respected reciprocity.

I remember a better time for labor because I LIVED during a better time for EVERYONE.

My father had a legitimate reason to hold his head up. I was, and am RIGHTLY proud of him.

There WAS a time, once upon a time in America, when MY father wasn't the exception, but the rule. THAT was the time the fucktarded "job creators" meme of today was legitimate.

not anymore.

Not for nothing, but Regan didn't do squat for him, either.

You of course realize that there never has been and never will be a job for everyone who wants one don't you? If you think otherwise, how do you propose we do that? Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama, but that isn't there answer. Government jobs don't creat goods and services that people want or need. The government doesn't grow crops, process and package food and sell it in stores. They don't build cars.......well, that's questionable right now. Unless you move to a socialist state where the government nationalizes all the businesses and then doles out jobs, you can't provide jobs for everyone. That's a fantasy. And thos nations that use that model have had greater poverty, misery and general unhappiness than the US.

Of course, which is part of the overriding point.

Not for nothing but the part left unbolded had absolutely nothing to do with what you responded to. You know that, right?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I company A makes product B and makes it way cheaper, which necessarily happens with a Corporation, then shoppers say peace out to your small business. You missed the point.

you are talking about manufacturing...and I made it clear that it is different in manufacturing.

I have made it clear in every one of my posts that i am referring to service companies...and service companies make up a vast majority of all oif the small nbusinesses.

you mean like walmart getting so big that theyre expanded to doing automotive work and at a far cheaper price than a local small shop can charge?

yea.

it's in every industry. Corporate expansion is eating the middle and lower class i.e. small businesses.

Not really. Wal-Mart does not do "automotive work"...they sell tires and do oil changes. (Small shops generally do little or none of either.) Big chains (see: Sears, K-Mart, even Pep Boys) have tried getting into that market for decades...and small shops are still going strong.