Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[Cleo's Mom 257]

See the red? - that bush and his recession and his job losses.

See the blue? that's when it starts to turn around, job losses are fewer and then we get to positive job growth

DUE TO OBAMA'S STIMULUS

So - recession under bush

- recovery under Obama

So to say that the recession (deficit) is Obama's IS A LIE!!

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

from pattygreen:"(Why should the taxpayer continue to pay the superintendant of schools $70,000. a year (1/2 his annual salary) AFTER he retires, till he dies? Noone in the private sector has such a benefit to his job, yet the government feels their employees are deserving of this extra treat!)"

You said no one in the private sector has such a benefit (you didn't clarify that to mean private superintendents) but below shows you that they do get big bucks.

But why should you even refer to what someone in private schools makes in comparison to a public school superintendent when you say you don't care what private businesses do with their money? You want to have it both ways.

In 2005, the board of trustees at the Horace Mann School—one of the city's most rigorous, prestigious prep schools—was conducting a national search for a new headmaster. The long-serving head of school, Eileen Mullady, was moving to Southern California after a decade at the institution.

To fill the privileged position, the board chose Tom Kelly, a young, plump, bespectacled man, whom they scooped up from his post as a superintendent of schools in Valhalla, N.Y. Kelly, famous among Horace Mann teachers for his suspenders and the Polo cologne that wafts from his clothes, immediately rubbed some long-suffering faculty the wrong way.

"He bragged to the faculty about the pay cut he took to come here," says one former Horace Mann teacher. Kelly's boast of selflessness didn't fly when faculty learned that he had earned $299,958 in 2006, plus a $9,703 expense account and a $22,766 contribution toward his pension. Kelly also lives for free in a Tudor-style mansion across the street from the school's 18-acre campus. "When Tom came, the trustees were in the process of the cutting the faculty's health benefits," says the teacher. "Tom didn't understand how to talk to faculty about money

Edited June 28, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Just because big companies don't do what's right, doesn't give the government a free ride to copy them. Discussing issues with you seems to always lead to a "If they can do it, so can the government" mentality. I can not tell private companies what to do with their business employees. If they choose to give them millions in pensions, what's that to me. It's their money, and they made it, and they can do as they please with their finances. The government, OTOH, is a company that I am forced to support with my finances and feel that they should get rid of pension plans that are outrageous!

So, how is what I said about School superintendents getting a pension plan incorrect, as you stated? I was talking about a private school's superintendant. They don't get pensions like the public, government run school supers get. Also, big companies that give big pensions are just fine with me, so long as it's their money and not mine. I could care less what they give their employees.

The federal government is giving out golden parachutes? Where do I sign up?:ohmy: Where did I say I wanted the government to give golden parachutes? It was you who claimed that no one in the private sector gets cushy pensions. WRONG.

Negotiating a pension plan or retirement plan is perfectly legitimate in the public sector. You are just SO anti-government that you can't see that giving an employee a salary, benefits and a retirement plan (that they pay into) is all part of doing business. And fair. And anyone who believes that the grass is greener should quit their private sector job and apply for a government job.

Government workers are people too and they are productive workers and they pay taxes and are consumers of good and services, but like the poor who receive gov't aid and that you bash regulary, they are easy targets.

And your statement that you can't tell a private business what to do is EXACTLY why we need more government regulations and why we needed a public option for healthcare.

When the government runs something, you have representation, you can call your senators or congressman and tell them what you like and don't like.

With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's some reality about those poor corporations that you always defend, pattygreen, and who suffer so because of the big, bad government and all those taxes that they have to pay and then pass onto us:

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)  

Last week, Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year. “Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.

No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas

.

Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein notes that, despite benefiting from corporate welfare in the U.S., Exxon complains about paying high taxes, claiming that it threatens energy innovation research. Pat Garofalo at the Wonk Room notes that big corporations’ tax shelter practices similar to Exxon’s shift a $100 billion annual tax burden onto U.S. taxpayers. In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”

[pattygreen 5]

With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times.

Yes you do. Don't do business with them or work for them. You have the freedom of choice. If you don't feel that hellman's mayo Co. is treating you fairly, refuse to work for them, or buy Cain's mayo.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times.

Yes you do. Don't do business with them or work for them. You have the freedom of choice. If you don't feel that hellman's mayo Co. is treating you fairly, refuse to work for them, or buy Cain's mayo.

Choosing to buy a competitor's product or service is one thing, my tax dollars going to corporate welfare is another thing. I don't want my tax dollars going to corporations so they can provide golden parachutes for their greedy CEO's.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times.

Yes you do. Don't do business with them or work for them. You have the freedom of choice. If you don't feel that hellman's mayo Co. is treating you fairly, refuse to work for them, or buy Cain's mayo.

I don't shop at Walmart but my tax dollars still go to subsidize them in the form of corporate welfare:

What Walmart Costs Us in Corporate Welfare

　

Due to low pay and lack of health care, Wal-Mart employees are eligible for federal assistance. The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion ("Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 310, No. 1858, 3/2005)

According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California-Berkeley, California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart in that state alone.[sylvia Chase, "The True Cost of Shopping at Wal-Mart," Now with Bill Moyers, Transcript (December 19, 2003).] In fact, Wal-Mart personnel offices, knowing employees cannot afford the company health plan, actually encourage employees to apply for charitable and public assistance, according to a recent report by the PBS news program Now With Bill Moyers.

Public Subsidies. For instance, the Southern California Association of Governments calculated that the Southern California wage multiplier was 2.08, meaning that for every $1 reduction in wages, the community lost an additional $1.08 in indirect impacts. The study done in Southern California calculated that, if area grocery workers were paid Wal-Mart wages, more than $1.6 to $3 billion per year would be lost ("The Impact of Big Box Stores in S. California," Dr. Marlon Boarnet).

It is common for Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation, to expect and receive taxpayer-backed subsidies for building stores and distribution centers ("Millions in subsidies paid for Wal-Mart jobs", Palm Beach Post, 8/30/2003). Economic development through taxpayer-backed incentives is a questionable policy. In fact, the National Governor's Association passed a resolution stating that "The Governors believe that the public and private sectors should undertake cooperative efforts that result in improvements to the general economic climate rather than focus on subsidies for individual projects and companies."

After conducting its own study, the Palm Beach Post reported that Wal-Mart has directly received at the minimum $150 million in direct incentives from municipal, county, state, and even federal governments to open 47 distribution centers in 32 states. The Palm-Beach Post reports that this figure is only a start--- and likely grows by tens of millions when less quantifiable breaks such as government bond financing and enterprise zones are taken into account (Palm Beach Post, 8/30/2003).

For example, the Palm-Beach Post reports that in Lewiston, Maine, provided Wal-Mart with $17 million in state and local incentives in February 2002 for a 400,000-square-foot food distribution center that is to employ 150 workers when it opens in 2005. The incentive package included free land and Water and sewer improvements (Palm Beach Post, 8/30/2003).

For more information on taxpayer-backed subsidies and corporate accountability, visit Good Jobs First at Good Jobs First.

The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year - about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:

$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.

$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3% of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.

$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.

$100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.

$108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.

$9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.

_Wal-Mart freely acknowledges shifting its health care costs to taxpayers and responsible employers. A company spokesman said, "[Wal-Mart employees] who chose not to participate in [Wal- Mart's health plan] usually get their health care benefits from...the state or federal government" (UPI, 12/2/98).

　

　

[loserbob 11]

With private industry (unless you're a voting shareholder) you have no say. But that doesn't mean our taxes don't support that business. They do - in the form of corporate welfare, which I have posted on here many times.

Yes you do. Don't do business with them or work for them. You have the freedom of choice. If you don't feel that hellman's mayo Co. is treating you fairly, refuse to work for them, or buy Cain's mayo.

Ya but, Cains mayo sucks! Thats like saying "use Hunts over Heinz, Id just quit eating French Fries!

[pattygreen 5]

Choosing to buy a competitor's product or service is one thing, my tax dollars going to corporate welfare is another thing. I don't want my tax dollars going to corporations so they can provide golden parachutes for their greedy CEO's.

Neither do I. Yet, you support all that this administration allows, so this must be something that your proud of that Obama is not addressing.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

[/u]

Neither do I. Yet, you support all that this administration allows, so this must be something that your proud of that Obama is not addressing.

It has been addressed (this is only ONE example) And yes, I am proud of Pres. Obama for doing so :

The Obama administration has asked bailed-out insurance company American International Group to reduce almost $200 million in future retention payments after their bonus fiasco last spring, a government watchdog reported today.

Here is another example:

Seven institutions have received “exceptional financial assistance” under TARP. In addition to being subject to TARP rules generally, as noted above, the pay of top executives at an institution receiving “exceptional financial assistance” is subject to direct control by the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, Kenneth Feinberg.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[MsMackieLee 0]

[/u]What one man gives away and splurges on, another is forced to work very hard to pay for.

This makes me wonder if you self-payed to have all your dreams come true.

I'm eating shrimp...and its GOOOOOOOOODDDDD!

[loserbob 11]

:thumbup:

We are now socialist, one step away from communism, the red menace.

I wish Mr. Bush could have run again, he would have wiped the floor with that Osama.

Look at this economy, it was never this bad under Mr. Bush

Spend, Spend, Spend, Who's got the money? Aww, it's alright we'll make more

I know this post was a long time ago but I feel the need to respond to this stupidity, I guess thats why you havent been back! Bush had 2 terms to catch Osama. He could have had him in the White Mountain area between Tora Bora and the Khyber Pass but didnt authorize the proper US troops instead opting to go with the mostly Afghan troops who have loyalties to Osama which resulted in his escape somewhere in the Khyber Pass region. Im assuming your not familiar with the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, it should have been fairly easy to capture him here as there arent alot of escape routes once surounded like he was. Now I believe Bushs intention wasnt to capture him, I believe it was to use that as a reason to keep us there so he and his buddy Dick (I mean that more ways than one)could line their pockets. If captured that early on he wouldnt have made money because we wouldnt have a reason to stay, then he wouldnt have been able to link Iraq to the war on terror in turn missing out on alot of money(Haliburton, Blackwater)!

[MsMackieLee 0]

instead opting to go with the mostly Afghan troops who have loyalties to Osama which resulted in his escape somewhere in the Khyber Pass region.

You're wrong, Osama is shacked up in a penthouse high in the skies. Dining on Fillet Mignon and Shrimp Cocktail, all courtesy of the US Government.

CONSPIRACY!

May "god" have mercy on all of you.

DEMONS!

FAERIES!

UNICORNS!!!!!!!!

[loserbob 11]

You're wrong, Osama is shacked up in a penthouse high in the skies. Dining on Fillet Mignon and Shrimp Cocktail, all courtesy of the US Government.

CONSPIRACY!

May "god" have mercy on all of you.

DEMONS!

FAERIES!

UNICORNS!!!!!!!!

Actually I heard he's staying in the Crawford Texas area in some ranch!

[pattygreen 5]

Obama must get serious about new job creation and economic growth. The economy wont come roaring back until investors are confident they can take risks investing in businesses again. But that confidence level is threatened by uncertainty over the tax treatment of investments. Here's why. pres. Bush signed into law a dividend-tax cut in 2003, which expires this year. It's up to Congress and the President to extend it, but his progressive allies would like to see the tax cut expire to force investors to pay for new social programs. Obama could help the economy by extending this and other expiring tax cuts. Better yet, he could push for bipartisan tax reform that would simplify the tax code radically, broadent eh tax base and promote a gusher of new economic activity and risk taking. America's entrepreneurs would respond, hiring would jump, and the economic engine would kick into higher gear. That's change you can believe in. Got Hope? Nick Schultz (American enterprise institute)