CEO Threatens to fire workers if Obama is reelected

[Mr. X]

I am just as concerned as you are about the potential layoffs, which is why I oppose Obama's tax plan.

If your so concerned about the layoff's, then why do you support this person and his intention to fire his employee's out of nothing but spite?

Can you really justify the greed? Can you justify a company firing employees, even when the company is still turning a lot of profits and is in no danger of failing, just so they can make a couple more million a month?

I'd be supporting him, if his company was in danger of failing. But it isn't. His company has the money to survive, and to support more workers. He should do his part to help fix the economy, by hiring people, instead of weakening it further, by firing them.

 

[Mario The World Champion]

Wow. What a nice employer. To ensure his pockets are still full despite Obama's tax plan, he'll ruin the lives of the people who work for him because he doesn't want Obama to take his money.

All this guy is doing is bullying his employees to make them vote Romney. Plain and simple. This is the "greatest election" ever. And I use that term very loosely.

 

[93Aiwass]

I do agree that the unemployment or jobless numbers are heavily due to the current administration and its inability to do anything about it. But each person should decide for themselves - do they want another four years of this, or do they want to take a risk with Romney? Either way... it might not be pretty...

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.​

And that's why I'm voting for Aleister Crowley in 2012, because neither option is acceptable.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.​

 

[Mr. X]

Another interesting peice I found...

https://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/17/1037881/leaked-audio-romney-employers/

 

[93Aiwass]

He is a billionaire. His 'take-home' pay is more then everyone in a small town will likely make in their entire lifetimes. Even with increased taxes, he will have more money then he will ever spend.

Also, answer this.

If low taxes truly created more jobs, then why did the recession start when Bush was in charge?

Edit - You know why the unemployment problem is bad? Because Republicans #1 objective is the make Obama a one term president. This was stated by one of the partys leaders.

Here and here.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012...with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU&feature=related

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.​

Yeah, the Republicans have been docket blocking any piece of legislation that could possibly increase jobs or make this a better place - regardless of whether they themselves agree with the legislation or not.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.​

 

[droomph]

My god he's dumb.

I am just as concerned as you are about the potential layoffs, which is why I oppose Obama's tax plan.

I...no. Why do you oppose it? Look what happened in feudalism. The rich people don't want to share their wealth (as that's a fact of life), so these "trickle down" things won't happen at all. The only way to fix things is to let those who have money fund the poor to make them better, so that they can become better themselves. But with the small foresight of humans, only if we force them to do what's sensible in the long run, will they do it.

And regarding about the "what about him" problem, good! He doesn't deserve employees if he is so dumb as to oppose the good (at least, better) thing to do.

 

[Mr. X]

My god he's dumb. I...no. Why do you oppose it? Look what happened in feudalism. The rich people don't want to share their wealth (as that's a fact of life), so these "trickle down" things won't happen at all. The only way to fix things is to let those who have money fund the poor to make them better, so that they can become better themselves. But with the small foresight of humans, only if we force them to do what's sensible in the long run, will they do it.

This. Reganomics is basicly the idea that the poor can become rich, by giving the wealthy more money.

One of the people involved with Regan later said that the point behind it was to create a hatred of government intervention, thus allowing them to do away with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole list of other governmental programs.

Frankly though, it doesn't matter who wins this election. Either way, the average person is going to get ****ed over. With Obama, it will be because the Republicans will likely continue with their policy of non-cooperation, even on policies that they usually support, out of pure spite. As for Romney, we are really going to get ****ed by him mainly because no body knows what his real beliefs are, because he changes them every couple of weeks.

That, and Romney's 'business' experience centers around reducing production costs, by outsourcing jobs to other countries that lack worker protections.

Edit - I don't see what is so hard about solving the jobs issue. I've came up with a two point plan that will give us a lot of jobs. It's simple. Round up the illegal immigrants. Deport them, and if both parents are illegals, and their children back to their country of origin.

 

[Khawill]

This story is very amusing to me, there is assuming that he is a greedy person. But have you met him before? I don't see his logic in threatening his workers in such a manner, he is successfully running a company which means he is smart, so he must've known this would give his company a bad name.

This is biased to the bone. I mean I never knew that so many people could see the future, I wish I knew which ones were telling the truth, republicans or democrats. Being neutral I can honestly say that anything we do will be wrong, if we lower taxes the big business makes more money, if we lower it they complain but also retaliate. It's not like other companies are not going to do this, this man is just public about it.

I wish I could live without people who think they can change, predict, or better my future. This man, he is trying to predict the future and he sees a bad and a good one for himself. The bad comes from raised taxes (who knows maybe it won't work) and the good from absolutely no change (which really won't change anything would it? But maybe passiveness would work.)

 

[Oryx]

New story: On tape, Romney urges bosses to tell their workers how to vote

Oh Romney, how unsurprised I am that you're behind this.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I...no. Why do you oppose it? Look what happened in feudalism. The rich people don't want to share their wealth (as that's a fact of life), so these "trickle down" things won't happen at all. The only way to fix things is to let those who have money fund the poor to make them better, so that they can become better themselves. But with the small foresight of humans, only if we force them to do what's sensible in the long run, will they do it.

And regarding about the "what about him" problem, good! He doesn't deserve employees if he is so dumb as to oppose the good (at least, better) thing to do.

When you raise taxes on "the rich" (a.k.a. small business owners who make $250,000 a year before they pay their three employees), revenues actually go down. This is because the rich will take action to avoid paying the additional taxes, or to compensate for their loses. Look what's happening in the socialist hellhole called France! A wealthy businessman just announced that he's completely closing shop, renouncing his French citizenship, and relocating to Belgium. This will result in all of his French workers becoming unemployed, meaning that they too will no longer be paying taxes, further reducing the tax base. The UK is even trying to entice fleeing wealthy Frenchmen to come to their country, so that their tax base will be expanded.

On the other hand, when job creators have lower taxes and regulations to deal with, they will invent more, and hire more workers. When more people have jobs, they will consume more, further stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

The economic theory that contends that increasing taxes on the rich actually decreases revenue is called the Laffer Curve.

 

[Mr. X]

And look at whats happening in Greece, with them cutting down everything.

Riots. A lot of them.

Both tax increases, and large scale spending cuts, have negatives. The only way to ballance things out it to cut in 50/50, right down the middle. If you want to reduce the deficit by say... 500 million, then 250 should be cuts and 250 should be from tax increases on the top 1%. Basically, I'm saying share the pain instead of making only a single class feel the pain.

Also, job creators and lower taxes don't invent anything. More research funding, and less restrictions on sciences, are what invents things.

What I dont get is how corperations are still making record profits, yet we have a lot of unimployment. Seems strange for companies to still be turning lots of profit, in such a poor economy. Or that we have such a high unimployment rate, although companies can easily afford to hire more workers.

You know what will fix this issue? The corperations using some of those profits to hire more workers, instead of giving it away as massive bonuses to people who don't need them.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

And look at whats happening in Greece, with them cutting down everything.

Riots. A lot of them.

Goody gumdrops. Let them riot. Maybe they should actually work and actually pay taxes (the government there consistently brings in significantly less than they accounted for. How do you budget like that?).

Both tax increases, and large scale spending cuts, have negatives. The only way to ballance things out it to cut in 50/50, right down the middle. If you want to reduce the deficit by say... 500 million, then 250 should be cuts and 250 should be from tax increases on the top 1%. Basically, I'm saying share the pain instead of making only a single class feel the pain.

It should be 50-50, yes. But how does tax increases on just the richest mean the pain is being shared and that it isn't concentrated to one class? O_o

Also, job creators and lower taxes don't invent anything. More research funding, and less restrictions on sciences, are what invents things.

Very true. I think math and science should be things the Government should invest in, foster, and support. I'm thinking maybe Freaky meant "invest" instead of "invent"?

What I dont get is how corperations are still making record profits, yet we have a lot of unimployment. Seems strange for companies to still be turning lots of profit, in such a poor economy. Or that we have such a high unimployment rate, although companies can easily afford to hire more workers.

You know what will fix this issue? The corperations using some of those profits to hire more workers, instead of giving it away as massive bonuses to people who don't need them.

They don't need more workers though, not unless they bring manufacturing back in full-force. For the buildings and infrastructure in place, they don't need "needless" employees. It works as it is. They also see record profits because:
- They cut enough nationally to still be totally functional
- Other jobs went overseas where it is more cost efficient
- And yet, people continue to buy their products even though they can no longer afford it. This will bite a lot of people in the butt eventually.

The jobs that exist here now are managerial. Manufacturing is gone. We switched to service-oriented, but that is low paying and also going overseas. Not everyone is qualified to be in business or be a doctor or a lawyer or something specialized like that. Other sectors need to be restored here, so that everyone can again be able to get a private-sector job

 

[Mr. X]

It should be 50-50, yes. But how does tax increases on just the richest mean the pain is being shared and that it isn't concentrated to one class? O_o

The spending cuts will hit programs that effect the middle class more then they effect the top 1%.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

The spending cuts will hit programs that effect the middle class more then they effect the top 1%.

Kay. But, there's no wealth outside of the insanely wealthy 1%? Why can't moderately wealthy or upper-middle-class people get taxed too?

 

[droomph]

When you raise taxes on "the rich" (a.k.a. small business owners who make $250,000 a year before they pay their three employees), revenues actually go down. This is because the rich will take action to avoid paying the additional taxes, or to compensate for their loses. Look what's happening in the socialist hellhole called France! A wealthy businessman just announced that he's completely closing shop, renouncing his French citizenship, and relocating to Belgium. This will result in all of his French workers becoming unemployed, meaning that they too will no longer be paying taxes, further reducing the tax base. The UK is even trying to entice fleeing wealthy Frenchmen to come to their country, so that their tax base will be expanded.

On the other hand, when job creators have lower taxes and regulations to deal with, they will invent more, and hire more workers. When more people have jobs, they will consume more, further stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

The economic theory that contends that increasing taxes on the rich actually decreases revenue is called the Laffer Curve.

However, explain why most rich people seem to have mansions and do nothing to help except complain about their taxes and protest. Believe me, my family is pretty rich, living in California and whatnot, so I can understand that "tax increase" thing. I would be pretty pissed too, and I am, with paying 10% sales tax. However, being rich makes us snobby, as you want to keep money rather than spend. Believe me, I know. I would never spend the $100 I have for charity unless 1) there was some reward or 2) I would get in deep trouble if I didn't. I would never spend it, I would never help people with it, if I were just to be a normal person.

I'm not saying take all their money away, because that would no doubt hurt the economy as the situation you've proposed, but make them equals to the poor in percentage, if not slightly more. Tax cuts aren't good for us, if it's put on anyone, poor or rich.

However, creating more jobs is just as important as spreading the wealth. Show me a way that the upper class will readily actually do make jobs, and I will support that plan. Theory is not enough - people are not machines, they don't follow the simulations.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And look at whats happening in Greece, with them cutting down everything.

Riots. A lot of them.

Both tax increases, and large scale spending cuts, have negatives. The only way to ballance things out it to cut in 50/50, right down the middle. If you want to reduce the deficit by say... 500 million, then 250 should be cuts and 250 should be from tax increases on the top 1%. Basically, I'm saying share the pain instead of making only a single class feel the pain.

Also, job creators and lower taxes don't invent anything. More research funding, and less restrictions on sciences, are what invents things.

What I dont get is how corperations are still making record profits, yet we have a lot of unimployment. Seems strange for companies to still be turning lots of profit, in such a poor economy. Or that we have such a high unimployment rate, although companies can easily afford to hire more workers.

You know what will fix this issue? The corperations using some of those profits to hire more workers, instead of giving it away as massive bonuses to people who don't need them.

If we want companies to hire more American workers, we have to make it cheaper to hire here in America than it is to hire in India and China.

 

[Mr. X]

We are never going to get labor that low unless we repeal the majority of our worker protections, or decide to force students to work in factorys as part of their education.

I've said this a couple of times, quickest most effective way to get more jobs would be to round up illegal immigrants and deport them back to their home country. Addon to this, but heavily fine companys found to knowingly have employed illegal immigrants.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

We are never going to get labor that low unless we repeal the majority of our worker protections, or decide to force students to work in factorys as part of their education.

I've said this a couple of times, quickest most effective way to get more jobs would be to round up illegal immigrants and deport them back to their home country. Addon to this, but heavily fine companys found to knowingly have employed illegal immigrants.

Workers protections should be dealt with on an individual basis. Laws like that interfere with the freedom to contract between employees and their employer. All they do is price unskilled workers out of a job. If someone's labor is only worth $5 an hour, then I should be able to pay him or her $5 an hour.

Companies resort to hiring illegal immigrants because they're willing to work for what their labor is worth, while those companies must pay American workers artificially inflated prices. Blaming immigrants is ignorant.

 

[Mr. X]

Workers protections should be dealt with on an individual basis. Laws like that interfere with the freedom to contract between employees and their employer. All they do is price unskilled workers out of a job. If someone's labor is only worth $5 an hour, then I should be able to pay him or her $5 an hour.

Companies resort to hiring illegal immigrants because they're willing to work for what their labor is worth, while those companies must pay American workers artificially inflated prices. Blaming immigrants is ignorant.

And if you are paying them $5 an hour, then then the product they are making should be priced so a person making that item will be able to afford it.

I'm not blaming immigrants. They want to get a green card, come here legally, thats great. I'm just wanting to get rid of the ones who are here illegally. You know, the ones that are a drain on our welfare, medicare, and education systems?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And if you are paying them $5 an hour, then then the product they are making should be priced so a person making that item will be able to afford it.

I'm not blaming immigrants. They want to get a green card, come here legally, thats great. I'm just wanting to get rid of the ones who are here illegally. You know, the ones that are a drain on our welfare, medicare, and education systems?

Products would be priced lower if money wasn't created by the Fed out of thin air at such an alarming rate. The more abundant money is, the less valuable each individual dollar is. This means that it will take more dollars to buy the same product.

You just explained how to get illegal immigrants to leave. It would cost a lot of money to roundup and deport all of the ones that are currently here; however, if we stop giving them benefits that are already scarce for the American citizens who benefit from them, then they might think twice about coming here illegally.