Has Obama Made Us Into a Banana Republic?

[francoHFW]

You are saying insurance paid for it, not your employer, but your employer fired you for the medical bills. That makes no sense, though nothing else you say does either.

I can explain this to you six ways to sunday, and you STILL won't understand it.

Okay, try to make it simple for you. In 2007, I had two operations, costing a total of $70,000, of which I had to pay something like $20,000 out of my own pocket. And lo and behold, after six years of exemplary reviews, they tried a bunch of schemes to get me off the payroll. When those failed, they simply paid me $10,000 in "Please don't sue us" money.

They also fired two pregnant girls, and another fellow who had the same kind of surgery. There was a 20 year employee who was let go after he snapped a tendon in his arm, and another fellow who was injured on the job with a back problem. (He actually got a $300,000 settlement.)

And wow, you made your employer money "hand over fist" and they fired you for $70K? Again, that makes no sense. You kept saying it was a lot of money. I thought you were talking hundreds of thousands at least. But $70K for a rainmaker? No freaking way

It would make sense in a sensible world. But here's the thing, most of the fixes I put in were at the beginning of my career, not the end of it. This company saw employees who made medical claims as a liability, it didn't matter how long they had been with the company. (Again, I owuld point out the 20 year employee they let go.)

What year did all this happen?

 

[JoeB131]

What year did all this happen?

2008.

And yes, I probably could have sued. Main reason I didn't was because in my line of work, having your name attached to a lawsuit is never a good thing.

 

[francoHFW]

What line is that? Thanks, over. lol

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Has Obama Made Us Into a Banana Republic?"

Relativism has turned the US into a Banana Republic.

obama is just a carrier.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! No, that would create a bigger problem.

We'd go back to 1960's level prosperity? That kind of problem I could live with.

The only way we could go back to that economy is to bomb Europe and Japan back into the stone age. Furthermore, the fact is that we enjoy a higher standard of living now, even though the total percentage of taxes we pay is greater.

 

[SAYIT]

ROFL! No, that would create a bigger problem.

We'd go back to 1960's level prosperity? That kind of problem I could live with.

You do know what followed the 60s, right?
The 70s, and that's a problem none of us should have to live with.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'd go back to the 70s in a heart beat, if I could keep what I know now and return to my teenage body.

1st stop... To see my Dad.

2nd Stop: Stock broker.

 

[bluedog1]

Hey, Transformation baby. and just think...... some of you voted for it. yeehaaa

SNIP:
When I was growing up we used to make fun of countries in Central and South America for the flimsy governments that were run by two-bit dictators who made up the script as they went along. In fact, we made so much fun of these operations that Woody Allen made a movie in 1971 called Bananas which parodied the governments and their haphazard operations. It is probably considered insensitive today to even refer to our southern friends in such terms. More importantly, the question is: How much are we becoming a similar operation?

This is not to state that the root cause of this problem is President Obama. Presidents have been at odds with Congress regarding the powers of the presidency since time began (1789). Early on it was more a process of defining who could do what. In recent times, it has seemed to people and scholars on both sides of the aisle that executive power has expanded at the expense of the Congress with a short turnaround in the mid 1970’s in the aftermath of Watergate. However, the current president has exerted executive power to the 10th degree bringing us the edge of a constitutional crisis.

Since January 2011 when Mr. Obama no longer had a majority in both houses of Congress, he has told the Congress on too many occasions that he will do what he wants and they cannot stop him.

Instead of attempting to negotiate a deal with the Republicans who very actively want to structure a multi-faceted immigration reform program, Mr. Obama told them to stick it in their ear and “legalized” five million people here in America illegally.

That caused 26 states to sue him and have the program put on hold. He followed that up by negotiating an agreement with a dangerous adversary, Iran, and made blatant he intends to circumvent the Congress.

ALL of it here:
Has Obama Made Us Into a Banana Republic - Bruce Bialosky - Page 1

He is certainly trying to.

 

[Conservative65]

They try to make it where you actually have something because they know you damn well can't earn that much.

You have a problem with someone keeping more of what they earned yet none with someone that didn't earn it getting it. The latter is far more greedy than the former ever could be.

but you see, with your fucked upthinking, the thing is the wealth WAS earned by the people who did the work, not the people who invested in it. That's where you are seriously suffering from some fucked up thinking.

Here. We can try an expirament. We'll take 100 investors and put them on a desert island, and 100 laborers and put them on another desert island. Guess which group is probably going to end up surviving?

Now while it would be amusing to film Investors resorting to cannibalism, because that's probably what they end up doing given their natures, I think it proves a point.

Labor is more important than capital, and therefore deserves the higher consideration, to paraphrase Abe Lincoln.

(That would be the guy who freed the Darkies. I'm sure you're still mad at him.)

Nothing could have been earned without the investment. Those workers wouldn't have anything to do unless someone put the money up first.

The investors would survive. They would have the money to get things done and the laborers would have nothing to do because there wouldn't be anything to do.

Labor is nothing without capital. You can't labor unless someone provides you an opportunity to labor and something to labor doing. You don't seem to get that workers can't work unless they have something to do because capital put the money up and provided that opportunity. Labor doesn't get hired unless those with capital hire them. Without being hired, no one can labor. I hope you're not telling me that a worker can get paid for a job if he doesn't have one provided by someone willing to pay them. If you are, try doing work for someone that didn't hire you and see if you get paid.

Lincoln freed no one but I guess you're stupid enough to believe the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed a single slave. Funny thing is you're still trying to be one and don't realize it.

 

[francoHFW]

You're quite mad. The US started to go to hell under Reaganism- which continues mainly. We need more taxes on the bloated rich and corps, more investmentment in the country and the people, higher wages to create demand. That's all that's wrong with the USA. Dumbass greedy a-hole Pubs.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
A 10% Decrease.
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[JoeB131]

The only way we could go back to that economy is to bomb Europe and Japan back into the stone age. Furthermore, the fact is that we enjoy a higher standard of living now, even though the total percentage of taxes we pay is greater.

By 1960, Germany and Japan had fully recovered. No, the reason we had prosperity is because we had a unionized middle class, the rich paid their fair share and the government spent plenty on infrastructure.

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing could have been earned without the investment. Those workers wouldn't have anything to do unless someone put the money up first.

Bullshit. Investment is gambling.

Labor is nothing without capital. You can't labor unless someone provides you an opportunity to labor and something to labor doing. You don't seem to get that workers can't work unless they have something to do because capital put the money up and provided that opportunity. Labor doesn't get hired unless those with capital hire them. Without being hired, no one can labor. I hope you're not telling me that a worker can get paid for a job if he doesn't have one provided by someone willing to pay them. If you are, try doing work for someone that didn't hire you and see if you get paid.

Government could provide capital just as effectively as the rich and probably more efficiently. Capital is provided by consumer demand, not investment.

Give you an example. Whacky billionaire decides he wants to build a factory that makes shit sandwiches. While a few inbred hillbillies like you might buy them, most people won't. Consumer demand creates jobs, not investment or capital. It's why we enjoyed our greatest prosperity when 33% of the workforce was unionized and brought home good paychecks.

If anything, investment has made things worse, because it's put a demand for lower wages and less employees to maximize profits. It's why wages and spending are still low despite a record stock market.

Time to get our heads straight about what makes good economies.

Lincoln freed no one but I guess you're stupid enough to believe the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed a single slave. Funny thing is you're still trying to be one and don't realize it.

Oh, I'm sorry, you come from one of those states that thinks the South was in the right. Sorry to hear htat, Cleetus.

 

[Conservative65]

Nothing could have been earned without the investment. Those workers wouldn't have anything to do unless someone put the money up first.

Bullshit. Investment is gambling.

Labor is nothing without capital. You can't labor unless someone provides you an opportunity to labor and something to labor doing. You don't seem to get that workers can't work unless they have something to do because capital put the money up and provided that opportunity. Labor doesn't get hired unless those with capital hire them. Without being hired, no one can labor. I hope you're not telling me that a worker can get paid for a job if he doesn't have one provided by someone willing to pay them. If you are, try doing work for someone that didn't hire you and see if you get paid.

Government could provide capital just as effectively as the rich and probably more efficiently. Capital is provided by consumer demand, not investment.

Give you an example. Whacky billionaire decides he wants to build a factory that makes shit sandwiches. While a few inbred hillbillies like you might buy them, most people won't. Consumer demand creates jobs, not investment or capital. It's why we enjoyed our greatest prosperity when 33% of the workforce was unionized and brought home good paychecks.

If anything, investment has made things worse, because it's put a demand for lower wages and less employees to maximize profits. It's why wages and spending are still low despite a record stock market.

Time to get our heads straight about what makes good economies.

Lincoln freed no one but I guess you're stupid enough to believe the Emancipation Proclamation actually freed a single slave. Funny thing is you're still trying to be one and don't realize it.

Oh, I'm sorry, you come from one of those states that thinks the South was in the right. Sorry to hear htat, Cleetus.

If the government provides then capital, it has to tax someone and force them to invest. I choose to invest my money the way I see fit. The government has invested enough of my money in leeches with no return on it. That's no efficient. Trillions spent on the war on poverty with the same percentage in poverty as before it started is not a good investment.

You have proven you'll eat a shit sandwich. You get the shit for it every time you kiss Obama's black ass.

Doesn't matter where I live. What matters is your statement about Lincoln freeing slaves is false. Sorry to hear you're that stupid son. Just another education investment that failed. You can't even keep a job and claim you sue because someone hurt your feelings.

 

[bripat9643]

The only way we could go back to that economy is to bomb Europe and Japan back into the stone age. Furthermore, the fact is that we enjoy a higher standard of living now, even though the total percentage of taxes we pay is greater.

By 1960, Germany and Japan had fully recovered. No, the reason we had prosperity is because we had a unionized middle class, the rich paid their fair share and the government spent plenty on infrastructure.

Huh, no, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that theory. It's a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

The idea that unions create prosperity is obvious bunk. How does a union increase the number of cars and houses produced? If anything it decreases the number produced by driving up the price.

How do high marginal tax rates produce prosperity? They idea is utterly absurd.

 

[JoeB131]

If the government provides then capital, it has to tax someone and force them to invest. I choose to invest my money the way I see fit. The government has invested enough of my money in leeches with no return on it. That's no efficient. Trillions spent on the war on poverty with the same percentage in poverty as before it started is not a good investment.

the question is, why do we have the same percentage? Is it because the government didn't spend that money wisely, or is it because the 1%ers you love have spent so much time sending the good paying jobs overseas?

The idea that unions create prosperity is obvious bunk. How does a union increase the number of cars and houses produced? If anything it decreases the number produced by driving up the price.

no, it increases the number by increasing the number of people that can afford them. The price of labor in a car is only a small percentage of the cost of a car.

Point was, we were more prosperous when we had more union households. Even for people who weren't in a union because they raised the bar for everyone.

How do high marginal tax rates produce prosperity? They idea is utterly absurd.

Again- Wealth is redistributed from the Wealthy (who don't need it) to infrastructure projects, which increase prosperity, and produce more working class wages, which increase prosperity.

You just aren't very bright, are you?

 

[JoeB131]

You have proven you'll eat a shit sandwich. You get the shit for it every time you kiss Obama's black ass.

Well, my days of thinking of you as a racist are definitely coming to a middle.

 

[JoeB131]

Doesn't matter where I live. What matters is your statement about Lincoln freeing slaves is false. Sorry to hear you're that stupid son. Just another education investment that failed. You can't even keep a job and claim you sue because someone hurt your feelings.

Uh, sorry, man, I went to Catholic School (it's why I hate religion with a burning passion), but yeah, Lincoln freed the slaves. That's why he's called "The Great Emancipator". Look it up.

 

[Conservative65]

If the government provides then capital, it has to tax someone and force them to invest. I choose to invest my money the way I see fit. The government has invested enough of my money in leeches with no return on it. That's no efficient. Trillions spent on the war on poverty with the same percentage in poverty as before it started is not a good investment.

the question is, why do we have the same percentage? Is it because the government didn't spend that money wisely, or is it because the 1%ers you love have spent so much time sending the good paying jobs overseas?

The idea that unions create prosperity is obvious bunk. How does a union increase the number of cars and houses produced? If anything it decreases the number produced by driving up the price.

no, it increases the number by increasing the number of people that can afford them. The price of labor in a car is only a small percentage of the cost of a car.

Point was, we were more prosperous when we had more union households. Even for people who weren't in a union because they raised the bar for everyone.

How do high marginal tax rates produce prosperity? They idea is utterly absurd.

Again- Wealth is redistributed from the Wealthy (who don't need it) to infrastructure projects, which increase prosperity, and produce more working class wages, which increase prosperity.

You just aren't very bright, are you?

We have the same percentage because the concept that handing money to people will motivate them to do better and strive to get out of poverty is a false premise.

I've never been part of a union and my household is prosperous. It damn sure had nothing to do with the unions.

Since when it is your place to determine what someone other than yourself needs?

 

[Conservative65]

You have proven you'll eat a shit sandwich. You get the shit for it every time you kiss Obama's black ass.

Well, my days of thinking of you as a racist are definitely coming to a middle.

My days of thinking of you as an ass licking piece of shit is maintained.

What's racist about stating a fact? Doesn't Obama have a black ass? Also, when you voted for him due to the color of his skin, it made you one.

 

[Conservative65]

Doesn't matter where I live. What matters is your statement about Lincoln freeing slaves is false. Sorry to hear you're that stupid son. Just another education investment that failed. You can't even keep a job and claim you sue because someone hurt your feelings.

Uh, sorry, man, I went to Catholic School (it's why I hate religion with a burning passion), but yeah, Lincoln freed the slaves. That's why he's called "The Great Emancipator". Look it up.

What abolished slavery and freed the slaves was the 13th Amendment. It wasn't ratified until 8 months after Lincoln died moron. The last shot of the War of Northern Aggression was fired in June, 1865 although the official declaration was May 9, 1865. Both were after Lincoln died. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't recognized by the south as they didn't recognize Lincoln as President. If what you said were true, from the time it was issued in 1863, no more slaves would have been slaves. The north winning the war and the 13th amendment was what freed the slaves. Funny thing is you and many like you are still slaves to the same overbearing government that produced such a war in the first place.