CEO Who Warned Employees They Might Get Fired if Obama is Re-Elected Explains his Email
Thanks to my sister Charlene who sent me this story. On a purely superficial level, I do agree with her assessment that some of his money should go to getting his sugar baby wife a longer dress. Apparently, money can’t buy taste. And that gilded “throne” à la Louis XIV? Unless it actually came from the Palace of Versailles, it’s T-A-C-K-Y.
Anyway, I think this is a new low. So, now, 7000 employees are wondering whether or not they’ll have jobs on November 7? And pretty much saying that it would be in their best interest to vote for Romney? This is just disgusting.
I know from personal experience that most CEOs work very, very hard like Siegel. They definitely earn that success and deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor. They work so hard that sometimes other areas of their lives get neglected. I was in a relationship with a CEO for three years. His constant traveling and work schedule took its toll, and I left. I felt lonelier in that relationship than I ever did alone. Thing is, having a career like that is his choice. Just like Siegel’s.
I was reading the e-mail he sent his employees, and, of course, some things really irritated me. What’s new, right?
I started this company over 42 years ago. At that time, I lived in a very modest home. I converted my garage into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
To have a successful business you need employees. Everyone – from the chambermaid to the cabana boys to the managers are essential to running his resort. He talks about providing “over 3 million people per year with a great vacation.” YOU CAN’T DO THAT WITHOUT EMPLOYEES. Ugh this is what bugs the crap out of me! We worker bees are important, but seem to have been forgotten by those like him who are “self-made.”
Over the past four years I have had to stop building my dream house, cut back on all of my expenses, and take my kids out of private schools simply to keep this company strong and to keep you employed.
Man, I am just weeping into my flute of Cristal for you.
Thomas Jefferson, the author of our great Constitution, once said, “democracy” will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Wow e-mailing this to those who work for you? That shows me what you think of them.
I will never, ever get it. Every successful person has someone to thank for helping them get there. Usually a lot more than one. I wish people like Siegel remembered that.
Spinny Liberal 
October 11th, 2012 at 2:49 AM
I do not see much wrong in the quotes above. Yes, I find the act of mailing your employees avoidable, but the content of the mail isn’t too far from the truth…or is it?
I really do not favor bigger governments. and as such I am prinicpally a non-democrat. The problem is that since the social views of the republicans are so twisted, I cannot call myself pro-republican.
But when it comes to economy,i feel low taxes are important. Having said that, it is interesting to note thatratio of percentage of taxes collected by the US government to the GDP is one of the lowest in the world.
and talking bout being a CEO, its a life I can’t ever imagine living…been a COO and that was enough for me.
October 11th, 2012 at 5:12 PM
The point of sending this to employees is to scare/guilt/threaten them into voting the way he wants them to.
Unfortunately for him, this “genius” doesn’t understand that sharing his baseless fears of having to put his dream palace on hold, stop spending like a drunken sailor and GASP!!! take his kids out of private school (sounds more like the kids’ sacrifice) is far more likely to get his employees to vote for Obama.
Such a complete misunderstanding of basic human psychology leads one to wonder how he can meet the needs of customers and how much of the building of his empire he can really claim responsibility for.
God forbid he say it was a “team effort”. He might have to pay his underlings who now fear for their jobs, their homes and have already put their kids in public schools a share that represents their effort.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:38 PM
I think the guy sees “team effort” as an expletive.
October 18th, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Hmm. “avoidable” I would call the act just plain wrong.
And because you’re non-Democrat (given), but also non-Republican because of the social issues, I think that makes you a Fiscal Conservative. 🙂
Oh and he was a COO when I met him. That sucked too, but not as much.
October 11th, 2012 at 3:58 AM
Glad you put this out there Cheryl. I’m working on something that covers this too and hope to have it out by early next week. There’s so much wrong with what Siegel says but for the time being let me just point out one of the historical errors he makes.
Jefferson wasn’t the author of the Constitution. He was our ambassador to France when this document was put together and was opposed to the central government that the Constitution represented, unlike the fragmented Articles of Confederation. James Madison is recognized as the author of the Constitution.
The bigger point that Siegel misses is that though his ideas put his company in motion it is the labor force who create his wealth and the wealth of the nation with their spending. But spending is diminished when wages don’t keep pace with inflation or exists at levels just barely above the costs of good or services. Once enough people quit spending at rates that allows his customer base to purchase his services then his ideas and efforts have very little impact on the economy.
October 18th, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Spot on about Siegel missing the bigger point. The importance of his labor force and spending. We’re pretty much a consumer driven economy.
October 11th, 2012 at 4:19 AM
Is this just margin filler – or what?
Siegel did not threaten his employees. He didn’t say they have to vote for Mitt Romney or lose their job, like your title suggests. He said that if Obama is reelected, he might be forced to downsize.
Nobody knows what Obama is capable of doing in his second-term. As anti-business as Obamacare is, it may just be the tip of the iceberg.
I know it’s not a very popular thing to say within liberal circles, but Obama is anti-business.
I know, I know. Liberals have spent all sorts of time adding up corporate profits over the last four-years, using them as a defense. But you know better. Listen to Obama’s words, look at Obamacare, and recognize that he knew from day one that he’d have to win reelection. You haven’t seen nothing yet.
Business leaders will tell you that they’re afraid of an Obama second-term. Don’t believe me? Listen to Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/15111560/wynn-bashes-obama
October 12th, 2012 at 4:04 PM
You’re a complete fucktard.
Oh no he didn’t threaten them, this almighty “Job Creator” just told them the jobs he gave will probably disappear due to some politician getting RE-elected. The only reasons you tell your employees shit like this is to:
A) threaten them into voting your way
B) blame the layoffs you’re planning on Obama
C) intimidate them into accepting pay cuts, a very popular trend for (non-executive) employees these days.
And then there’s the 2nd Coming of Black Jesus scare tactic.
“Oh yeah, look out for that 2nd term! Look out for that 2nd term! We’ll all be forced to assemble in Karl Marx Squares across America and sing The International” before disbursing to do unpaid work at state owned facilities.”
You literally have to be a drooling imbecile to be more afraid of an Obama 2nd term than an Obama 1st term WHERE THE DEMOCRATS HAD MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES and Obama had the best chance he will ever get to do whatever you accuse him of secretly planning to do in his second term.
And what was the worst thing he did when he was as close to complete power as he’s ever going to get? He instituted Romneycare nationally. It’s worth noting he was just BARELY able to get enough of his fellow Democrats to vote for it in order to pass.
Oh my God! Oh my God! He forced us to be covered by health insurance. Next thing you know, he’ll make us buy auto insurance for our car! He forced the private insurance companies to actually deliver what they’ve been promising their customers all along…The horror! The horror!”
Jesus fucking Christ!!! Yeah, the only thing missing from your deluded conspiracy theory is:
– motive
– opportunity
– anything remotely approaching rational thought.
As witnessed in the debate, if not his entire 1st term, Obama is a complete fucking pussy who folds under the slightest pressure. This is not a guy who is suddenly going to ramrod ultra-radical legislation down everyone’s throats, even if he had the chance, which he won’t get.
If Obama does manage to squeak this election out, he will be a “lame duck” almost immediately. If the polls are even slightly accurate, there is absolutely NO chance of him having majorities in both houses of Congress. (Besides, you can no longer do anything in the Senate without 60 seats.) He will have a divided Congress and many of the Democrats will be scared to anything remotely controversial because they are pussies too.
Obama will be more impotent than the average 90 year old man was before the Little Blue Pill was invented. In short, it is unlikely Obama will get anything he wants done, never mind the fears you have in your delusional mind.
October 12th, 2012 at 4:05 PM
…and, as usual, I fuck up the HTML to italicize the last half of my comment.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:25 PM
I fixed it because aesthetically, it was irritating the hell out of me. 😀
October 12th, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Sedate Me,
Still acting like a pitiful little child that isn’t hugged enough, I see.
Then you say:
So you admit that it wasn’t necessarily a threat – like I said.
Geez. You fucking liberal losers can’t even keep pace with your own asinine ramblings, ‘eh? You crazy little canuck!
Anyway.
Obama’s rhetoric is very much anti-business, as is Obamacare. I see you have no real argument to dispute that, but what else is new?
BTW, go fuck yourself! :-()
October 12th, 2012 at 6:53 PM
That’s because you’re a fucking idiot.
October 12th, 2012 at 7:01 PM
Are you learning impaired? I addressed that in my original comment, you prattling fuck. Should I write it in crayon, scan it, then send it to you? Would that make you understand a bit better?
Currently, Obama’s chances of reelection are not the best. Imagine what they would be if he had instituted a bunch of nutjob, leftwing policies…Ever consider that?
Besides, he doesn’t necessarily have to institute a bunch of off-the-wall policies in order to further rupture our economic recovery. He’s increased the debt by $6 trillion in less than four-years, for crying out loud. We’re supposed to give him another four-years so he can add another $6 trillion?
What? What’s that you say? You’re a dumb liberal fuck that doesn’t understand why so much debt is bad? Go read a fucking book.
Now I’m finished with you.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Tsk tsk Sedate. We can be civil to those we disagree with. The lame duck thing. Actually, I see the opposite happening. There are no political ramifications, and he doesn’t have to worry about reelection. I think he’ll really fight for the causes he’s championed.
October 19th, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Hey, Spinny, all I did was call him a fucktard once. That’s mild by my standards and it should be so obvious to anyone who read what he wrote that he’s a fucktard. Besides, he was far less civil toward me. You should have seen the draft response I prepared to this douche. While crude, the main reason I spiked my second comment was length. A fact-based beating takes a lot longer to prepare than the illogical, evidence-free, conspiracy theory he was parroting. I suspect he knows he’s full of shit because, when confronted, he attempted a “strategic retreat” from some positions under a covering fire of personal insults.
I’m usually semi-civil to folks I disagree with on certain issues. However, I am very tired of self-fellating conservatives who pretend they are so much more intelligent and rational than any & all liberals, even as they’re promoting delusional conspiracy theories that collapse with just a gentle breeze of logic. And in this case, he was also attempting to deny the obvious threat this CEO was making to employees. To Terrance, the obvious case was less likely to than the implausible theory.
The idea that Obama passed up on the best chance he was ever going to get to impose his Stalinist agenda upon America just so he could do it in a 2nd term is a completely illogical scare tactic.
First, it requires motive. Has Obama shown any indication that he will ram the rest of the “radical iceberg” down America’s throat? No. One major knock on Obama is that he is such a pussy. I’m not sure how Obama is going to transform from a French surrender monkey to a Spartan just because he was re-elected. Certainly, less than NO supporting evidence of it was presented by TerranceH.
Then there’s opportunity. This theory might hold some water if Presidents passed laws, not Congress. The alleged reason Obama showed only the tip of the iceberg in his 1st term was because such a radical agenda would kill any chance of him being re-elected. However, in order for his more radical 2nd term agenda to pass, he would need Congressmen, who will ALL face re-election, to vote for it. That would ensure all but the most unbeatable Congressmen would lose in the next election. How many politicos would choose almost certain unemployment (some within 2 years) over a long, lucrative, career at the trough? Not enough to pass a bill. So, by Terrence’s very own “logic”, it’s an illogical proposition.
The only way that radical agenda could happen is with a Democratic sweep larger than 2008 because Obama struggled passing the tip of his radical iceberg with the 2008-10 Congress. I haven’t yet seen anything that would indicate a more Democratic Congress than there is right now, never mind anything more Democratically dominated than 2008-10. And let’s not forget, in 2008, America was in Crisis Mode and far more open to radicalism than a more stable 2012.
No apparent motive. No apparent forthcoming opportunity. No evidence presented. At best, an illogical theory based upon delusional fears. At worst, just like the CEO, he’s knowingly spreading a faulty theory meant to scare folks into voting against Obama. I’m going with the latter because Terrance quickly retreated by claiming Obama doesn’t actually have to DO anything to further destroy America. He can worsen America by just by preventing the undoing of what he did. Of course, that also implies the 2012 Congressional make-up will be more capable of undoing Obama’s agenda than the current one, which is also highly unlikely. I seriously doubt Republicans can win both houses of Congress at the same time Obama wins the Presidency. Without a doubt, the most likely post-election, Obama victory scenario is basically more of the last 2 years.
Does anybody REALLY think the deadlocked American political system will just magically clear its bowels and get things moving again?
October 19th, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Hey, Spinny, all I did was call him a fucktard once.
Hahaha that’s all?
Besides, he was far less civil toward me.
😆 Well, what did you expect after you called him a “fucktard?”
You should have seen the draft response I prepared to this douche. While crude, the main reason I spiked my second comment was length.
Whatever the reason, I thank you for your restraint. 🙂
I definitely agree with the “pussy” assessment of Obama. If I were to sum up his presidency so far (keeping hope alive), it would be: In the effort to please everyone, he ended up pleasing no one. I think, fundamentally, he has a need to be liked. No matter what he does, though, someone is going to be pissed off. I think he is finally getting that.
October 19th, 2012 at 5:33 PM
SedateMe,
So we have roughly seven paragraphs of dogmatic silliness that doesn’t boil down to so much as a fucking shred of reason.
We have ample evidence to rummage through of Obama’s anti-business ideology. But for the sake of breviloquence, let’s agree that the suggestion is unfounded. Guess what? $6 trillion in new debt is not unfounded; it’s an anti-consumer, and thus anti-business, reality. Now imagine our national debt climbs to over $20 trillion. We’d be close to facing the same prospect as Greece.
So-called conspiracies are not require to fear an Obama second-term; mere reality is quite sufficient.
October 25th, 2012 at 1:49 PM
So we have roughly seven paragraphs of dogmatic silliness that doesn’t boil down to so much as a fucking shred of reason.
Don’t be so hard on yourself. To your credit, it seems you did go back and actually read what you wrote; dogmatic silliness and accusations completely devoid of reason or evidence, yet presented as iron clad fact that should be obvious to all.
First off, I thought you were “finished” with me. However, just like Romney’s promises, I instantly knew it was too good to be true.
Second, I challenge, not just your accusations, but your very terminology. Being “anti-consumer” (whatever that’s supposed to mean, as I do not own a Fox Noise to English dictionary) does NOT translate into being “anti-business”. They are two completely separate things. It has become increasingly common for businesses to engage in “anti-consumer” behaviours. The Blockbuster Late Charge is a famous example. A more relevant example would be health insurance companies denying coverage to customers when the customers thought they were covered. I’d call that a pretty “anti-consumer” move. Oddly enough, I suspect the vast majority of health insurance “consumers” prefer coverage, especially if they’re paying for it, or if the denial of coverage results in death. It doesn’t get more “anti-consumer” than that.
Does that mean these businesses are “anti-business”?
The point of the above (and some of the below) is purely to demonstrate that, while you throw these terms around as if they were universally accepted fact, they aren’t. The proof is as simple as pointing to the national argument over Obama taking Romneycare national. “Obamacare is anti-consumer/business” is a complete value judgment, whether you think so or not. You may have “absolute proof” in your, otherwise empty, noggin. However, actual proof won’t exist until Obamacare is at least fully functional. Shockingly, most provisions won’t come into place for several years, some don’t kick in until after the NEXT Presidential election. At this moment, it’s largely a case of “Which estimates (or more often opinions) back up my personal ideology better?”
With regards to Obamacare being “anti-business”; “anti-business” is very different than “not good for business”. One is a broad, but generally negative, term that implies non-lethal trauma. That’s a term that would be appropriate in a serious critique of Obamacare presented by a semi-rational person. The other is a very definitive term that requires a deliberate assault upon the very existence of business. No evidence for that kind of action is present here because it really only exists in the skulls of people who watch Fox Noise all day and think it’s objective fact.
Even in the darkest projections, private medicine will continue to make money, as will private insurance. To pretend a deliberate assault has been made is to be completely blinded by an inflexible ideology (or just a severe learning disability).
If Obamacare was truly anti-business, it would have attempted to push private-for-profit companies out of the health care picture altogether. Certainly, Obamacare wasn’t anti-Big Pharma. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/high-drug-prices-Obama/2012/06/09/id/441767 Big Pharma was excluded from Obamacare since Obamacare was nothing more than a sparkle in Romneycare’s eyes. (Although, I might ask for a DNA test from potential Baby-daddy, infamous communist, Bob Dole. http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/health.htm )
Since there is nothing resembling even so much as a public option, virtually everything in Obamacare depends 100% upon private business. In short, the status-quo remains with a slight amendment that may, or may not, be negative for private medicine. If anything, one can argue that Obamacare increases the customer base of private insurers and may very well increase private health care delivery overall because everyone will be covered by some kind of insurance. Payment for services will no longer be an obstacle to seeking medical care.
With regards to Obamacare being “anti-consumer”, (as if people actually choose to “consume” health care) it depends on what kind of “consumer” you are. Those with Cadillac Plans might have different opinions than those with Pedestrian Plans (aka none) Millions of them will be treated better by moving from a system that refuses to insure them (or provide them with coverage worth buying) and toward either Medicaid or this amorphous Insurance Company Undesirables Board. As bad as either option may, or may not be, it’s better than nothing.
Oh but consumer choice consumer choice!
Yes, some imbeciles do freely choose the option of nothing. However, their numbers are far smaller than those who have nothing without being allowed to make a choice. The small group of imbeciles who would rather risk dying than paying for coverage in no way constitutes a representative consumer that’s being assailed by Obamacare.
Add to this the elimination of lifetime coverage limits, pre-existing conditions and other seedier bullshit that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place, and Obamacare is looking very consumer friendly. More consumers will do better under Obamacare than will be “harmed” by having their “choice” to be imbeciles taken away. (By the way, why isn’t having to own car insurance met with such outrage? Unlike health, cars are completely discretionary.)
Now, in your defence, perhaps the most relevant question to your “Obamacare is anti-business” assertion is “How does Obamacare affect businesses offering healthcare to employees?” I’ve watched panels of business folk argue endlessly about it. Both sides have made decent arguments about how it affects their own personal situations. I suspect it may ultimately boil down to a case-by-case situation. Yeah, adjusting to the changes might not be easy, but that assumes the status-quo was “easy”.
I’ve always been of the mindset that businesses being put in the position of having to supply workers with major medical insurance coverage is nothing but a colossal, unnecessary, pain in the ass. Then again, I’m Canadian. Health insurance is a right of citizenship here. The only thing businesses have to worry about is providing more minor things like drugs, dental, private rooms, massages, etc…or not. I don’t hang around the Country Club like I used to. But in all my years, I’ve never met a Canadian businessman (even among the tiny minority who want to privatize Medicare) express a desire to negotiate for major medical plans for employees.
Actually, the best argument that Obamacare is “anti-business” might just be that it didn’t offer single-payer or a public option in order to take this potential burden off of business.
October 25th, 2012 at 3:53 PM
But for the sake of breviloquence, let’s agree that the suggestion (Obama is anti-business) is unfounded.
Smartest thing you’ve written yet, because it is unfounded. No truly anti-business candidate could ever get elected in America, never mind get the chance of being re-elected. “Anti-business” is just another empty term thrown around by propagandists. Half of them don’t even believe it themselves. Those that do believe it just lack the knowledge/imagination to fathom anything beyond their own narrow and rigid ideology.
Guess what? $6 trillion in new debt is not unfounded; it’s an anti-consumer
Debt is not anti-consumer. In fact, our entire consumer-based society (and illusion of prosperity) absolutely hinges upon people (and, less obviously, governments) spending themselves into oblivion.
Now imagine our national debt climbs to over $20 trillion. We’d be close to facing the same prospect as Greece.
Let me pass you the moussaka, motherfucker. Strip aside all the special treatment and the deep denial it’s in, and you’ll realize America IS Greece. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chart-america-s-capita-government-debt-worse-greece_631797.html
Actually, America’s per capita debt is worse than that of Greece, Italy, Ireland, or Spain. These are nations with a reputation for sorry fiscal practices and are currently getting hammered. Why does America get a relative Free Pass?
1) The European Union is pressuring those other nations to do something while nobody pressures America.
2) America is the centre of the global financial world. It receives better treatment because a disproportionate amount of financial decision making occurs there. Why slit your own throat when there are plenty of others?
3) Nobody is brave enough to knock on America’s door. You can take Greece to the back 40 and put a bullet in its head and nobody will give a fuck. However, putting down America will cost everyone money and business. So, keep the Dead Man Walking, for now.
4) China is just quietly waiting until it is ready for global dominance before it shows up to America’s door to collect.
Why imagine a $20 trillion debt? Just take an extended nap and you’ll wake up to see it happen WHOEVER IS IN POWER Because it’s going to happen fairly soon, no matter how many so-called deficit hawks get elected. A quick flashback to the Bush years will show that a Republican President with a Republican Congress spent worse than drunken Democratic sailors and got nothing to show for it. (At least Greek citizens can point to some benefits coming from their insane debt.)
Bush era debt “highlights” included:
– Two never ending, overpriced, wars costing trillions that were put on the credit card. Other than some feeling of revenge, little else of value was achieved with that money. Well, other than massive profits for the military-industrial complex.
– A tax cut that just refuses to expire, even when it was designed to.
Which brings us to Romney/Ryan’s “debt busting” plan of significantly increasing military spending while handing out 20% tax cuts to everybody. Who the fuck wrote that plan…Oprah? “Everybody look under your seats. There’s a 20% tax cut! Woooooo!!!! Don’t worry, it’s paid for with spending cuts and closed loopholes that won’t hurt anyone. We promise.”
America is going to disappear as we know it before its debt is under control. Hell, I’m not sure if it will ever see even a balanced budget again. But deficit/debt does make for a great excuse for Republicans to cut spending on people they don’t like while continuing to spend on those they do. No matter how little money there is, there’s always plenty for the friends of those in office, whatever party is there.
It will take FAR more than just a “return to prosperity”. To control the debt requires ALL of America making massive sacrifices. Taxes probably need to double. Spending needs to be halved. And the military-industrial complex has to be broken up. None of those will ever happen. Sacrifice and self-control is as un-American as it gets. Everybody wants everything and they don’t want to pay for any of it. Even the folks who have more personal wealth than some entire nations want more in the form of tax cuts and public spending that will benefit their business interests.
The bottom line is that America is fucked as soon as China comes calling for the money it lent America from the mountains it got from Americans blowing it all on cheap Chinese made shit just because it cost a couple bucks less than stuff made by Americans.
The game is long over. The only thing left to determine is how many people are going to be crushed in the collapse.
Am I sounding like a conservative yet?
October 26th, 2012 at 3:07 AM
I know you like to play cutesy and deflect, but let’s try and stay on topic, hmmm? Are you in that much need of praise? Geez. Pathetic.
I was. But given that it’s so close to election and many people remain undecided, I thought it best not to allow liberals to run amok. I wouldn’t want your rubbish infecting the minds of possible voters.
Fortunately, I did not use the terms interchangeably. So this must be yet another example of the crazy canuck trying to win praise for his imagined sagacity?
Consumers who keep movies and games past the rental period are violating a contract they made with Blockbuster, which can affect the business’ bottom line. By charging a late-fee, the business is attempting to cover any losses that might be received as a result of the consumer violating the contract. Pity you chose such a piss-poor example of the fleeting point you were trying to make.
With respect to your second example, I can only agree that some businesses take advantage of people for greater financial gain. We have many laws on the books that protect both consumers and law-abiding businesses from such predatory practices.
Unfortunately, sometimes our laws are not good enough. There exist extreme and heartbreaking examples, which is why I support stricter guidelines and punishment to prevent as many of these atrocities as possible. I don’t support revamping the entire healthcare system in order to deal with it.
Perhaps these discussions would be more fruitful if you didn’t harbor this morbid desire to inflate the remarks of others. I did not use the terms “anti-consumer” and “anti-business” interchangeably. Nor did I suggest that bad business practices are mythical.
Try as you might, you can’t wish nonsense into fact. Romneycare and Obamacare are very different in the way they were crafted.
Foremost, Romney’s plan had bipartisan support from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in Massachusetts. Obamacare, on the other hand, was passed without a single Republican vote. It seems Romneycare is the very epitome of the bipartisanship Obama supposedly strives for but never seems to achieve.
Furthermore, Romneycare was created with the unique culture and values of Massachusetts’ residents in mind. Obamacare is a one-size-fits-all bill that doesn’t take into consideration the values and economic realities in any given state.
Perhaps that is why Romneycare is incredibly popular in Massachusetts while Obamacare is incredibly unpopular all over the United States.
Someone with your limited capacity for logic cannot afford to be so arrogant.
Precisely the reason it’s necessary to seek objectivity in the material one uses to prove his or her point. The Congressional Budget Office (a non-partisan agency) is one such objective source. They’ve calculated that Obamacare will cause a reduction in the labor force. It’s anyone’s guess how big of a reduction, but a reduction is still a reduction. Therefore, it’s not inaccurate to say that Obamacare directly causes job loss.
This brings to mind yet another difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. Romneycare was created only after the budget was balanced. Obamacare is costing us trillions of dollars.
To someone that doesn’t understand the positive and negative aspects of debt, that probably means very little to you. In fact, it probably does anyway since you’re not an American.
You’re simply wrong. Drug companies will see $27 billion in new taxes as a result of Obamacare. Businesses will naturally pass this cost off to patients. So we have an example of Obamacare being both anti-business and anti-consumer. A well-sourced study.
Obamacare depends on private business to administer the healthcare, yes. But that still means you have government controlling healthcare. Shouldn’t be too difficult for you to figure that out.
People actually do consume healthcare. They choose which insurance company to go through, which doctor, which pharmacy, which physical therapist, et cetera…Again, not too hard to figure out.
The rest of the nonsense you spewed regarding Obamacare is a rehash of things already addressed.
Yes, it is. Too much debt means the government prints too much money, which causes inflation, thereby devaluing the money in your pockets and accounts. Thus, it is anti-consumer.
To put it in terms even an imbecile like you can understand: You can’t buy as much shit.
For crying out loud, read a fucking history book. Post-World War I Germany comes to mind.
Use this sophomoric horseshit on someone else, ‘eh? The Greek debt-to-GDP ratio is 101%, The American debt-to-GDP ratio is roughly 88%. Big difference.
More of the cutesy shit, I see. Guess what? Obama has tallied up more debt in one-term than Bush did in two.
Besides, I’m not defending Bush. He is not the topic of discussion, but good to see you playing the typical liberal game. I’ve got it memorized. Ready?
Conservative says, “I can’t believe Obama lied about Benghazi!”
Liberal response, “It’s Bush’s fault and you’re a racist.”
Such intelligence.
October 18th, 2012 at 12:16 PM
😆 “Margin filler.” Terrance, ever the congenial commenter. 😉
Forced to downsize. Fancy talk for layoffs. I believe to hang that over your employees’ heads is emotional abuse. By sending that e-mail, he doesn’t see his employees as part of a team, let alone important.
The CEO of the company I work for values her employees and really emphasizes team work. She has an “open door” policy. Even after the dot com crash, she did everything she could to stay afloat – even asking employees to take a 10% pay cut. She reassured people that she would do everything she can to keep the company going. And she did. She didn’t complain when Obama became president. She looked at ways she could use “big government” to her advantage. And it worked. Business is thriving, and her employees are fiercely loyal to her. Turnover is very low. She realizes how important we are to her. It shows in the way she treats us. She offers employees 100% health, dental, and vision coverage. I can’t think of a company does that anymore. And she matches 401K contributions up to 3%. That’s practically unheard of nowadays.
Hmmm. Anti-business. Agree to disagree.
October 18th, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Spinny,
Different areas of business call for different strategies. I don’t know what sort of work you’re in, but I must ask whether the service provided is a need or a luxury. If it’s a need, business will thrive regardless of the economy. If it’s a luxury, like the good Winn Resorts, it’s a different story.
I don’t quite see how it’s emotional abuse. It’s a fact that Obama uses a lot of anti-business rhetoric that naturally causes some anxiety among many business owners, including a family friend of mine who owns a restaurant, my brother who owns a tattoo shop, and myself with my photography business.
It’s anybody’s guess that whack-job liberal policy Obama will institute if he gets reelected. After all, Spinster, as the Russian’s well-know, Obama will have “more flexibility” after the election.
October 19th, 2012 at 4:06 PM
I suppose it’s a “need,” but there is a lot of competition. I see it as emotional abuse because it’s being held over their heads which causes them as much anxiety as the owners. I would argue more. I guess they’ll just have to either exhale or start planning after the election.
I hope many “whack-job liberal policies” will be instituted. 😛
October 18th, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Sounds like you should have her bronzed.
October 19th, 2012 at 4:09 PM
😆 Right? Someone will. She even works with a charity that helps people who are developmentally delayed get jobs. A few of our team members are developmentally delayed.
October 11th, 2012 at 6:11 AM
He has the right to believe what he wants, run his business as he wants, and even spend a letter to his employees like that … but the latter doesn’t qualify as the right thing to do.
Bugs Bunny
October 18th, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Perfectly stated.
October 26th, 2012 at 5:21 PM
I was in such a hurry that my previous response was crafted in roughly ten-minutes, leaving little time to source much of the information provided. Frankly, I’m not concerned with whether you accept anything I say, SedateMe, because you’re a know-nothing liberal hack who fancies the employ of transparent, dismissive rhetoric in a futile attempt to save face. My purpose is to inform any undecideds reading this thread.
Before I begin, let me offer you some constructive criticism. The cutesy game you play is somewhat pitiful. Perhaps you’re a lonely, bald, forty-something man who lives in his mother’s basement, desperately in need of praise from women; I don’t know. I do know that most of these liberal ladies have more class than what you give them credit for. I understand eHarmony has a special this month…Perhaps you could try them.
Anyway.
Regarding whether Obamacare is antibusiness, I offer this study.
Upon examination, you’ll discover that the regulatory burden of Obamacare will cost the U.S. economy roughly $28 billion dollars, and 18,000 jobs. Compliance alone costs 60 million hours worth of paperwork, roughly 2,000 hours-a-year.
Director of the study, Sam Batkins, said:
18,000 jobs is a generous estimate.
Obamacare also creates quite a bit of wage-loss as well. Consider:
Keep in mind, that’s just one company announcing plans to cut the labor force to part-time. How many more will announce plans to cut their workforce? How many will have to? As distasteful as it may seem to you, businesses are in business to make a profit, and when their stark black bottom line slowly fades, they’ll going to recover those losses in one of two ways, whether right or wrong: (1) cut the workforce; (2) increase prices on the consumer. So another example of Obamacare being both antibusiness and anti-consumer.
A perfect article to lead us into the next study:
Antibusiness and anti-consumer.
Your endless jabber regarding the benefits Obamacare will provide so many people is apparently lost on a majority of Americans. Not only is Obamacare likely opposed by a majority of the 30 million left uninsured after its implementation, but by over 50% of Americans in all 114 polls taken. [1,2]
So what does Obama do to combat such unpopularity? Wastes millions of dollars on PR campaigns and engages in – wait for it – left-wing propaganda. Yes, propaganda. Hollywood producers have been asked to write Obamacare into the scripts of such shows as Grey’s Anatomy in an attempt to quash the dissent. [1,2]
Of course, then we have the report I provided in my previous post which nicely lists the billions in new taxes Obamacare will create, and of course we already know the total cost to taxpayers will be roughly $3 trillion dollars. So, yet more debt. And I’ve already explained why too much debt is a bad thing.
Perhaps you ought stick to Canadian politics. Go argue with someone over whether the police should invest in more horses or something.