No to stimulus 5. Paying people to not work and to bail out bad local governments and unions is wrong

[kaz]

Dude, you got art work from customers and sent it to three vendors for a box quote. Doing that was done by customers service, my lowest end service providers. Boxes were like the simplest thing we did. Most of what we did were products that my own designers produced. Your job was to take their easy jobs off the designer's plates because you were way cheaper.

Yeah, the problem was, your chicken outfit was never the lowest bid.... I can see the resentment

It's interesting you admit that. Reselling boxes is a shitty, low margin business. You're a middle man and middle men are endlessly squeezed. The only box deals that we got were from the two universities that we were on a short list of approved vendors who could use those universities standard art work and logos.

Getting on the approved list for Universities is very difficult now, it gave us a huge competitive advantage. We only got the deals from those departments because they did a lot of other work with us and wanted to keep things simpler. In return we did the deals for them for below our own margin standards to have them keep all their work with us.

No f'ing way you'd have made the kind of money in that business you claim to have made for that shitty, low margin work for just getting quotes, sending in art work and making delivery arrangements. Other than as a loss leader or to keep our best customers happy, we'd have not done boxes at all.

And no one can afford you. We can afford the money, LOL. We can't afford what your bad attitude does to your co workers. Firing you was such a dramatic lift for the whole organization

Yeah, okay.. Hey, you know what happened to that organization after I left. They had to fire another 60% of their employees... because they lost so much business. That's how sad they were at the end.

My immediate manager fought to keep me, actually. She lost. Most of those people in that organization are still my friends. When I started my resume business, GUESS WHO MY FIRST CUSTOMERS WERE?

Actually I sold the business to a bigger company that hired everyone on my staff. Since I cleaned out the bad ones, including you, everyone there was pretty good and the acquiring company liked them all. I got a nice check upfront and then monthly checks for the last four years. They finished paying me off in full this summer

 

[RodISHI]

I bet it happens. And while you are blaming dems, repubs control the presidency, senate, and Supreme Court. It wouldn’t happen if repubs didn’t want it to.

The OP says he is a Libertarian. The people who like to see people starve.

The only people that think that are people that like the govt to wipe their ass for them.

People are starving in the streets what do you do? Let the free market decide. Isn’t that what libertarian say?

Where are people starving in the streets? I know of junkies and meth heads, etc... who'd rather buy dope than food but even that is limited to only a few.

 

[JoeB131]

It's interesting you admit that. Reselling boxes is a shitty, low margin business. You're a middle man and middle men are endlessly squeezed. The only box deals that we got were from the two universities that we were on a short list of approved vendors who could use those universities standard art work and logos.

OH, you have to know what you are doing to sell corrugated. You have to sell it by the truckload to make any money, that's the point.

No f'ing way you'd have made the kind of money in that business you claim to have made for that shitty, low margin work for just getting quotes, sending in art work and making delivery arrangements. Other than as a loss leader or to keep our best customers happy, we'd have not done boxes at all.

I'm sure... but the thing is, the Corrugated Industry is a multi-billion dollar business. Now, I'd never work in it again... too many shitty people work there... but the money is fantastic. You just have to know what you are doing.

Actually I sold the business to a bigger company that hired everyone on my staff. Since I cleaned out the bad ones, including you, everyone there was pretty good and the acquiring company liked them all. I got a nice check upfront and then monthly checks for the last four years. They finished paying me off in full this summer

I'm sure you sold your dung heap to someone who probably fired all those people in a year... too bad for them, but I'm sure they were happy to be rid of you.

Again- you didn't even offer people health insurance... that tells me you were a real bottom feeder.

 

[kaz]

Again- you didn't even offer people health insurance... that tells me you were a real bottom feeder.

Not technically true. I gave them a stipend to buy their own insurance. I didn't offer a group policy after Obama screwed us with the costs. I gave my staff a choice how they wanted to proceed when our costs doubled.

But again, it cracks me up how you claim to have made all this money in business, and yet you don't understand even basic management. You have to pay market wages to have employees. Market wages is ALL COSTS.

You don't get medical insurance for FREE from your employer. It's part of your pay. I gave my employees the choice of how to be paid, and they chose the stipend because they liked seeing the higher number in their salary. I really didn't care which they wanted.

Total wages = salary + benefits.

How do you not understand that? You seriously think

Total wages = total wages + freebies?

You know ZERO about business. Have you ever actually had a job?

If I don't pay my staff market wages, I wouldn't have a staff. You still think that medical insurance is something given free to you by your employer and is not calculated as part of your compensation. You know shit about business. Nothing

 

[RodISHI]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense

kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?

"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "

^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.

I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.

 

[RodISHI]

Again- you didn't even offer people health insurance... that tells me you were a real bottom feeder.

Not technically true. I gave them a stipend to buy their own insurance. I didn't offer a group policy after Obama screwed us with the costs. I gave my staff a choice how they wanted to proceed when our costs doubled.

But again, it cracks me up how you claim to have made all this money in business, and yet you don't understand even basic management. You have to pay market wages to have employees. Market wages is ALL COSTS.

You don't get medical insurance for FREE from your employer. It's part of your pay. I gave my employees the choice of how to be paid, and they chose the stipend because they liked seeing the higher number in their salary. I really didn't care which they wanted.

Total wages = salary + benefits.

How do you not understand that? You seriously think

Total wages = total wages + freebies?

You know ZERO about business. Have you ever actually had a job?

If I don't pay my staff market wages, I wouldn't have a staff. You still think that medical insurance is something given free to you by your employer and is not calculated as part of your compensation. You know shit about business. Nothing

Great post! Now if those employees had that money directly they could manage it themselves for their medical needs, etc... The whole ACA insurance scam was nothing more than racketeering and wealth stripping on a massive scale. And for many in Unions they haven't a clue that their leadership was helping to lead them down the path to lower wages and inferior medical care via those loving insurance banksters, big pharma and medical provider bullies.

 

[JoeB131]

Not technically true. I gave them a stipend to buy their own insurance. I didn't offer a group policy after Obama screwed us with the costs. I gave my staff a choice how they wanted to proceed when our costs doubled.

So essentially, you offered crap insurance that didn't meet ACA standards.

Hey funny thing happened at the REAL company I worked for when ACA passed. Um. Nothing. The only change was people who wanted to add their college kids to the program could. That was it. What stopped was the annual meetings where they announced this year insurance will cost more and cover less.

But that's what happens when you work for a REAL company.

But again, it cracks me up how you claim to have made all this money in business, and yet you don't understand even basic management. You have to pay market wages to have employees. Market wages is ALL COSTS.

You don't get medical insurance for FREE from your employer. It's part of your pay. I gave my employees the choice of how to be paid, and they chose the stipend because they liked seeing the higher number in their salary. I really didn't care which they wanted.

Naw, buddy, it just tells me that you weren't all that important. If you couldn't get a good insurance, it was because you were a bottom feeder company. At the time ACA passed, I worked for a multi-national company (Headquartered in the UK). They bitched that their US operations were expensive because they had to buy insurance, but buy it they did, and at a good cost.

You see, what makes ACA horrible is that it was RomneyCare writ large. You could have solved all the problems by 1) Having a public option for those who work for companies like yours that are too Bottom Feeder to offer insurance and 2) allowing a Medicare buy-in for those over 55.

I mean, if you are dead set against having single payer like every sensible country in the world does.

 

[JoeB131]

If I don't pay my staff market wages, I wouldn't have a staff. You still think that medical insurance is something given free to you by your employer and is not calculated as part of your compensation. You know shit about business. Nothing

Labor is a commodity, buddy.

I'm sure you can get uneducated people with no experience and no ambition who are willing to put up with a shitty boss and no benefits, for a while.

Hey, I'm happy for shitty bosses like you. Shitty bosses like you are the reason I have a business. People don't quit jobs, they quit bosses.

 

[kaz]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense

kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?

"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "

^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.

I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.

You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.

1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.

2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.

So,

Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people

Social Security - Exactly the same thing

 

[kaz]

Not technically true. I gave them a stipend to buy their own insurance. I didn't offer a group policy after Obama screwed us with the costs. I gave my staff a choice how they wanted to proceed when our costs doubled.

So essentially, you offered crap insurance that didn't meet ACA standards.

Hey funny thing happened at the REAL company I worked for when ACA passed. Um. Nothing. The only change was people who wanted to add their college kids to the program could. That was it. What stopped was the annual meetings where they announced this year insurance will cost more and cover less.

But that's what happens when you work for a REAL company.

But again, it cracks me up how you claim to have made all this money in business, and yet you don't understand even basic management. You have to pay market wages to have employees. Market wages is ALL COSTS.

You don't get medical insurance for FREE from your employer. It's part of your pay. I gave my employees the choice of how to be paid, and they chose the stipend because they liked seeing the higher number in their salary. I really didn't care which they wanted.

Naw, buddy, it just tells me that you weren't all that important. If you couldn't get a good insurance, it was because you were a bottom feeder company. At the time ACA passed, I worked for a multi-national company (Headquartered in the UK). They bitched that their US operations were expensive because they had to buy insurance, but buy it they did, and at a good cost.

You see, what makes ACA horrible is that it was RomneyCare writ large. You could have solved all the problems by 1) Having a public option for those who work for companies like yours that are too Bottom Feeder to offer insurance and 2) allowing a Medicare buy-in for those over 55.

I mean, if you are dead set against having single payer like every sensible country in the world does.

View attachment 372957

My employees made market wages, or I wouldn't have had employees.

You're endlessly whining that I paid higher salary and lower benefits. You're demanding I pay lower salary and higher benefits even though they didn't want that and I didn't care since I only cared about their total compensation. It was their pay, I gave them their choice. This is the endless bull shit whining that led me to fire you.

JoeBull131: Damn it, f'ing kaz. You should have subtracted $500 from their salary and then paid them $500 more! I want it I want it I want it!!!!!!!

Joe at the car shop: This bill is fucking bulls shit. I want you to charge me $20 less for an oil change and charge $20 more for the break service. Don't f'ing con me.

Joe at the barber shop: Damn it, I want to pay $5 less for the haircut and $5 more for the shave!!! Don't f'ing con me!!!!!

Joe at the butcher shot: Damn it, I want to pay $15 less for the ham and $15 more for the flank steak. Don't f'ing con me!!!!!

Yeah, Joe, you're really sophisticated ...

 

[RodISHI]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense

kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?

"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "

^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.

I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.

You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.

1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.

2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.

So,

Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people

Social Security - Exactly the same thing

Point; those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers. It was never intended to be that away. That same handful of peeps selected that are running the majors are also allowed to get away with pumping up the prices on stocks shortly before dumping them onto the unsuspecting retirement savers who invested due to the legislation that was put in place to encourage people to invest, etc...

It really isn't all that confusing as it has been just a con game from the get go telling people what a good thing it is to let someone else manage your life finances because they are surely too stupid to do it for themselves.

 

[kaz]

If I don't pay my staff market wages, I wouldn't have a staff. You still think that medical insurance is something given free to you by your employer and is not calculated as part of your compensation. You know shit about business. Nothing

Labor is a commodity, buddy.

I'm sure you can get uneducated people with no experience and no ambition who are willing to put up with a shitty boss and no benefits, for a while.

Hey, I'm happy for shitty bosses like you. Shitty bosses like you are the reason I have a business. People don't quit jobs, they quit bosses.

It's a mix. You should know that. The management and designers all had college degrees. Most of the rest were support roles and didn't

 

[JoeB131]

My employees made market wages, or I wouldn't have had employees.

The problem is, you didn't have good ones. Now, there might be a logic to working a job that doesn't offer real benefits... if your spouse is already getting them, for instance. But you'd have to be a complete idiot to work for someone who starts out with, "We don't offer health insurance".

You're endlessly whining that I paid higher salary and lower benefits. You're demanding I pay lower salary and higher benefits even though they didn't want that and I didn't care since I only cared about their total compensation. It was their pay, I gave them their choice. This is the endless bull shit whining that led me to fire you.

Are you some kind of fucking retard.

A moderate illness can wipe a family out economically... Even my knee surgery cost me tens of thousands beyond what insurance covered (after I had to fight with Cigna for a year).

Nobody is going to be able to buy insurance to cover their family for an extra $500.00. Not good insurance, anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a mix. You should know that. The management and designers all had college degrees. Most of the rest were support roles and didn't

Again, worked with bottom feeders like you for years... and those shops were always a little sad to visit on Vendor Inspections I had to do to complete ISO certification.

 

[eagle1462010]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

OMFG.........The fund was raped by career politicians decades ago.............with a stack of IOUs as they put the cash in their pockets and their donors pockets.............We are accelerating the destruction of the dollar.........so the Globalist can do a reset to electronic currency.

The writing is on the wall.

 

[eagle1462010]

Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster | The White House

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SUBJECT: Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster By the authority veste

www.whitehouse.gov

Sec. 2. Deferring Certain Payroll Tax Obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed to use his authority pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7508A to defer the withholding, deposit, and payment of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 3101(a), and so much of the tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 3201 as is attributable to the rate in effect under 26 U.S.C. 3101(a), on wages or compensation, as applicable, paid during the period of September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The deferral shall be made available with respect to any employee the amount of whose wages or compensation, as applicable, payable during any bi-weekly pay period generally is less than $4,000, calculated on a pre-tax basis, or the equivalent amount with respect to other pay periods.

 

[iceberg]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

The Democrats intentions were never to help the American people.

Who were we trying to help ?? Putin , Like Trump is doing?

God damn you just make shit up.

 

[kaz]

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

What Nancy Pelosi wants is a pure government giveaway to discourage people from working by paying them more money to not work than work. And the rest is a giveaway to unions and bad blue State governments and their huge pension fund liabilities that were never adequately funded. And then she wants other green and leftist objectives to tie it all up in a nice bow. I didn't see ANYTHING in her bill that I supported. There is no compromise with that. Far better to not do anything.

This is an unusual time since government forced businesses to shut down. So I'm open even as a libertarian to spending I would not normally support. But the bill would have to be payouts to get businesses running and hiring again. A payroll tax suspension would be great for workers and businesses. But those are non-starters for Nancy. At least 20 or so Republicans realize that a deal is not always a good thing. And this deal isn't worth making. Let's send them home for their August break.

"Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, said Wednesday that at least 20 Senate Republicans will not vote for a fresh coronavirus stimulus deal."

At least 20 Senate Republicans won't vote for coronavirus stimulus deal: congressman

Rep. Lance Gooden said Wednesday that at least 20 Republicans won't vote for a new stimulus agreement.

www.foxnews.com

Wouldn’t a payroll tax break hurt social security?

No. There is no social security trust fund. There is no money. So the idea that it's taking money from the fund is a ruse since it doesn't exist. Social security is a welfare program

Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program.

You're just babbling Marxist propaganda. Nothing you said makes sense

kaz What is it about this that you think is "Marxist propaganda"? Or are you talking about Sealbooboo's remarks?

"Social Security is paid for by workers. Subsidies to corporations is a welfare program.

Allowing companies to buy back their own stocks, which used to be illegal, at the expense of laying off employees, after receiving tax breaks is a welfare program. "

^^This is where the major corporate bodies have truly screwed the American work force along with taking good manufacturing out of the country.

I see many of those same companies will be going into bankruptcy but even in that they will screw over many pension funds as they know before hand those companies are going down and they shuffle their losses to make it others losses. The problem is many of our legislators have been bought and paid for by unscrupulous, unethical, unconscionable business men/women.

You're mixing a bunch of unrelated things. You talk about social security, but then talk about corporate "subsidies" and I don't know specifically what you are referring to. Then you ramble about buy backs and link that to laying off employees, which doesn't make sense. And again no idea what "tax breaks" you're referring to. So I'll make two points, feel free to clarify what you meant by the others if you want me to address those.

1) We tax businesses on profits. Taxing profits means we can deduct our expenses. So again I don't know what you're referring to with subsidies and tax breaks. Deducting expenses is not a subsidy. It's our system.

2) The point with social security is none of the money is saved. You aren't paying into social security. You're just paying taxes. Just like if you pay taxes and the money is spent on the military, there is no "military trust fund." Not one dime of your social security check will be money you paid into the system. That was spent and gone as it came in.

So,

Welfare - You tax today's taxpayers, redistribute the money to other people

Social Security - Exactly the same thing

Point; those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers. It was never intended to be that away. That same handful of peeps selected that are running the majors are also allowed to get away with pumping up the prices on stocks shortly before dumping them onto the unsuspecting retirement savers who invested due to the legislation that was put in place to encourage people to invest, etc...

It really isn't all that confusing as it has been just a con game from the get go telling people what a good thing it is to let someone else manage your life finances because they are surely too stupid to do it for themselves.

Again, no idea what "those corporates are getting the SS money when they get their welfare checks from the federal coffers" means. What welfare checks are you referring to?

And that doesn't change that social security is a welfare program, it's just tit for tat

 

[initforme]

Average $59,000 in this state. Yikes that's scary low. People living on less calling it a "dream".

 

[kaz]

My employees made market wages, or I wouldn't have had employees.

The problem is, you didn't have good ones

Yeah, that's what they said about you. Bitter much?

Now, there might be a logic to working a job that doesn't offer real benefits... if your spouse is already getting them, for instance. But you'd have to be a complete idiot to work for someone who starts out with, "We don't offer health insurance"

Joe at Subway: Damn it, I want to pay $1 LESS for the sub and $1 more for the chips!

Joe at the gas station: Damn it, I want you to charge me $2 LESS for gas and charge $2 MORE for the air I put in my tires!

Joe at Staples: Damn it, I want to pay $5 LESS for the paper I bought and $5 MORE for the printer I bought!!!!

Yes, you're quite sophisticated