MonkFan8 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A caste societyGod, it was hard to laugh through all that fear-mongering, but that got me good. Now at least I know that whole post was sarcasm.Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 When all of your promises don't come true, you will be angrier than I will. I won't be angry at all, because I never believed the promises to begin with. Depends on how much faith you placed in the promises being fulfilled. The more cynical among us (*cough* me *cough*) don't really place much of any faith in campaign promises. Healthcare for one. I don't know how that would work: "you can choose your job's healthcare or the government's!" I just don't see there being a half-@ss government run healthcare system. I can just see there being just one healthcare for all just like overseas, where you have no choice for doctors, dentists, orthodontists, anything: no choice for anything anymore, where it can take a year to wait for a surgery you need. And then everyone will complain about how bad the care is, how you can't choose your own doctor, etc....because that FREEDOM will be taken away completely. I don't think Obama has ever stated that he was in favor of government-run healthcare. He's more so concerned with finding ways to get more people insured by lowering some of the inherent costs of staying healthy. You still get to choose your insurance provider, providers will still compete for business, the world moves on... http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ The above doesn't have a lot in the way of substance (not that anything politicians say does) but its surprisingly reasonable on paper. Of course, if you don't believe anything the man says I can understand your sentiments And guess who is going to pay for this healthcare system? The people being taxed by Obama, making >50,000 a year. So we become poor. And then more and more people become poor. A caste society. Goodbye free, democratic America. You wanted change, you got it! You don't happen to have any support for the $50,000+ figure, do you? By all accounts Obama is more intent on taxing those in the $150k+ range. (and I love you, too!, thanks for that) and you'd better be at a game soon. Indeed, I've been slacking in the tailgating front. I'll be back soon enough, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgiaredskin Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 You don't happen to have any support for the $50,000+ figure, do you? By all accounts Obama is more intent on taxing those in the $150k+ range. In response to your other quotes, (too tired/lazy to requote): true that, true that, true that. Here is where I got it: Barack Obama is working for middle class Americans. The Obama-Biden tax plan includes a tax cut of $1,000 for more than 150 million working Americans. The plan will also eliminate income taxes altogether for more than 7 million senior citizens who make less than $50,000 per year. Finally, Obama's plan will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year. http://www.taxpolicycenter. org/publications/url.cfm?ID= 411693 Barack Obama will make healthcare affordable for your family. If you like your employer-offered healthcare, you can keep it -- at a reduced cost. If you don't, or you don't have health care, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options. You will not be turned away -- regardless of preexisting conditions. Obama will help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees with a Small Business Health Tax Credit. Read more about the Obama-Biden healthcare plan here: http://www.barackobama.com/ issues/healthcare/ Okay, so if all of these people are getting these tax cuts or tax eliminations even, who is going to pay for it? You and I or that single mom/dad/family who is making >$50,000 a year. And I understand your interpretation of his healthcare plan, yet my interpretation is this: more government control, when I already can't stand the control Medicare and Medicaid have over my job-they determine everything. It's all about money and not the patient. It has already taken over too much of our healthcare, so I cringe to see what more does to the system. Indeed, I've been slacking in the tailgating front. I'll be back soon enough, though I want to know dates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 www.taxpolicycenter.org Non-partisan site, the charts are there, hope it helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Okay, so if all of these people are getting these tax cuts or tax eliminations even, who is going to pay for it? You and I or that single mom/dad/family who is making >$50,000 a year. Well, clearly people making less than $50k a year are benefiting the most from the plan. The real question here is at what income level does the tax burden actually increase? And I understand your interpretation of his healthcare plan, yet my interpretation is this: more government control, when I already can't stand the control Medicare and Medicaid have over my job-they determine everything. It's all about money and not the patient. It has already taken over too much of our healthcare, so I cringe to see what more does to the system. I hope you aren't voting for a mainstream party if the size of the government is your primary concern. The problem with having a very small, flexible, and open-ended document at the heart of your government is that there is a lot of room to build and expand. That's the nature of the beast, it's size will keep trending upward over time because people just don't like cutting back on the programs and policies they've become accustomed to. I want to know dates! This information requires a security clearance :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Karla, I'm seeing some of the same things that you are seeing. The figures that are quoted now will never match what we will pay in a few years - or well into the future. Bill Richardson just said that the tax burden has dropped to $120,000. It was $250,000 last week and a few days ago, Biden lowered it to $150,000. I'm still reminded of what Bill Clinton said one month after he was sworn into office. A few years from now, Jason will probably be talking about how much is coming out of his paycheck and how nothing else has changed. A second job is never fun. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 im glad you finally came to your senses...... not about obama but about the republican party.... thos "conservative values" that people hold on so dearly to..... those are nothing more than exploitations to get your vote..... do you think for one second that any republican is EVER gonna overturn roe vs. wade? ..... really? because if they did then 50+ % of there base would start looking at all those other "values" and may be more likely to "spmeday" vote for a dem. they dont want to end abortion that would take away the pedestal they stand upon..... and this is only ONE example........ gun control.... the supreme court already decided that it is your right as a citizen to carry a gun..... case closed............ obama IS a once in a generation leader and i pray that we dont screw this up...... and if we actually get it right then i hope he doesnt get taken care of like kennedy did........ by some neo nazi neocon or some stupid crap........... cast your vote and be proud to be a part of making a real difference in everyones lives........ the man was the president of the harvard law review...... married a woman who graduated from princeton........ dont you think they are capable of making more than the 500k combined that they have made for the last 8 years if they each went into private practice? obama spearheaded the drive that put an end to the lobbyist bribing our congressmen and women with agi level get aways and cruises and stuff....... dude talks the talk ...... and if you look at his life and what he could actually do with it for his own financial well being....... public service isnt as lucrative...... just some more things to make you feel better about your decision.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgiaredskin Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Well, clearly people making less than $50k a year are benefiting the most from the plan. The real question here is at what income level does the tax burden actually increase? Yes. I'm using deductive reasoning. (one could say guessing) In order to pay for this many peoples' tax cuts and/or eliminations, it's got to be raised somewhere to get that money, to pay for the trillion $ spending he is planning. All of those cuts, and all of that spending. He's not going to come out and say he is taxing everyone over 50K. He doesn't have to for me. I work too hard and way too long to be taxed any more than I already am. I hope you aren't voting for a mainstream party if the size of the government is your primary concern.The problem with having a very small, flexible, and open-ended document at the heart of your government is that there is a lot of room to build and expand. That's the nature of the beast, it's size will keep trending upward over time because people just don't like cutting back on the programs and policies they've become accustomed to. Well, McCain is saying they want to cut out wasteful government programs that cost millions and aren't going anywhere, so that's a start. This information requires a security clearance :cool: Bring a burgundy towel Monday night!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgiaredskin Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Karla, I'm seeing some of the same things that you are seeing. I'm still reminded of what Bill Clinton said one month after he was sworn into office. A few years from now, Jason will probably be talking about how much is coming out of his paycheck and how nothing else has changed. A second job is never fun. Just saying... Listen to this pertinent song: it is so their MO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJP2PH8WKaI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 To me I look at which party enacts policy with me in mind. The GOP doesn't - they enact policy to help rich people and corporations. Doesn't take a crystal ball to see that, it happened before our eyes. How can people be so delusional over that? Will Obama do everything he's promised? Of course not, none of them ever do. But on the whole the policies he's likely to pursue will help me as a middle class working stiff more than those making a lot more money than me. The only argument to continually fund upper class and corporate tax breaks is trickle down and it's proven not to work - at least for me. The buying power of the middle class ( read:ME) is lower than it's been in a generation (read:my working career). The proof is in the pudding. He's specifically said he's going to target the rich and corporations to fund his policies why does that seem so hard to believe? When the bailout and the ridiculous spending of the Bush admin has to be paid back I'd rather it was those that made money, or at least should have made money, be the ones to pay it back. I don't want anything from the government except to not have to pay more and it amazes me the number of times I've been accused of being a freeloader when I've explained who I'm voting for to people. It becomes "freeloader at heart" when I explain that I've worked every day since I was 18. That semi-hateful and totally-incorrect characterization makes me scratch my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Yes. I'm using deductive reasoning. (one could say guessing) In order to pay for this many peoples' tax cuts and/or eliminations, it's got to be raised somewhere to get that money, to pay for the trillion $ spending he is planning. All of those cuts, and all of that spending. He's not going to come out and say he is taxing everyone over 50K. He doesn't have to for me. I work too hard and way too long to be taxed any more than I already am.Obviously if every Obama spending promise is enacted, somebody's taxes will be raised. Is there some way you think this is different from McCain? Who will pay for the $5K McCain is going to give to everybody? That $5,000 goes to everybody, not just taxpayers, and the McCain camp itself has bragged that after paying his health care tax nearly everybody will have a good chunk of that money left over. How is paying thousands in tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes any less "socialistic" than Obama? What about the millions of mortages McCain is going to bail out? Does McCain have access to some magic money tree Obama can't use?Well, McCain is saying they want to cut out wasteful government programs that cost millions and aren't going anywhere, so that's a start.Which, if you're paying attention, is exactly what Obama is saying. In fact, its exactly what every politician says about tax cuts and spending hikes, every election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It's a damn shame when the numbers and the plans are out there, and people choose to ignore it and just believe what they want to believe. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It's a damn shame when the numbers and the plans are out there, and people choose to ignore it and just believe what they want to believe.That is all. Math is no substitute for truthiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 We haven't had any more attacks since 9/11/2001, but no one seems to care about that. I care about that very much. Thousands of brave men and women work very hard to keep America safe. More over, they were able to achieve this DESPITE having a completely incompetent administration in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I hope someone shows the white West Virginia Republican this thread http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=268443 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Yes. I'm using deductive reasoning. (one could say guessing) In order to pay for this many peoples' tax cuts and/or eliminations, it's got to be raised somewhere to get that money, to pay for the trillion $ spending he is planning. All of those cuts, and all of that spending. He's not going to come out and say he is taxing everyone over 50K. He doesn't have to for me. I work too hard and way too long to be taxed any more than I already am. Your deductive reasoning is a bit flawed, though. People making less than $50k a year seem to benefit most from Obama's plan, for sure. This does not automatically mean that this comes at a detriment to everyone above that income level. You may still be seeing a slight tax cut at $75k or your taxes may still be the same at $125k as they were under Bush. You can't just jump to the conclusion that someone making $60k is going to end up paying more. Well, McCain is saying they want to cut out wasteful government programs that cost millions and aren't going anywhere, so that's a start. Don't all candidates say that? I know Obama has on numerous occasions when asked how he would fund his programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I care about that very much. Thousands of brave men and women work very hard to keep America safe. More over, they were able to achieve this DESPITE having a completely incompetent administration in the White House. Incompetency got elected in 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Incompetency got elected in 2006 Wrong. Incompetency stole an election in 2000 and then miraculously won again in 2004. Not this time. Not this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Well, McCain is saying they want to cut out wasteful government programs that cost millions and aren't going anywhere, so that's a start. FWIW, Obama has said the same thing and has pledged to adhere to a Paygo philosophy whereby any new spending must be matched by cuts. OTOH, all McCain has done is to make a vague promise to balance the budget in four years. Now, I admit that there are problems with Obama's Paygo plan, namely that it doesn't cut overall spending. However, I don't know how to put it any other way, McCain is lying when he says he can deliver the tax cuts he's promised, and balance the budget in four years-and he knows it. Yes. I'm using deductive reasoning. (one could say guessing) In order to pay for this many peoples' tax cuts and/or eliminations, it's got to be raised somewhere to get that money, to pay for the trillion $ spending he is planning. All of those cuts, and all of that spending. He's not going to come out and say he is taxing everyone over 50K. He doesn't have to for me. I work too hard and way too long to be taxed any more than I already am. Why do you think that is Georgia? Certainly, the GOP has steadily cut taxes since Reagan made tax cuts the GOP mantra. However, while the middle class and the poor have mostly voted for the GOP over that time, it clearly hasn't benefited the great majority of us. FOR MOST, ECONOMY YIELDS MORE OF LESSDespite surging productivity, Americans suffer from dwindling income, rising inequality, eroding living standards and declining expectations Unbalanced Growth The growth that economic statistics report may have seemed imaginary to most American families, but it was very real for another group. The people at the very top 10% of the income ladder reaped the lion’s share of the rewards of economic growth, more than 90% of all the growth from 1989 to 2006. And the higher up the ladder they started out, the greater the rewards. For the bottom half of that top 10% (the 90th to the 95th percentile) income grew 32%. But in the rarefied air of the top 1%, income more than tripled (203.7% increase) – and in the top 1% of that top 1%, incomes more than quintupled – increasing by 425% to an average income of $30.5 million for that group in 2006. “While most Americans were struggling, the good times were rolling among the top 10%,” said co-author Lawrence Mishel. “We have seen a large scale skimming of the benefits of growth from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 10%, and especially to the top one percent and, even more so, the top one-tenth of a percent.” Income Immobility It may not be surprising to see the old saying “the rich get richer” coming true. But if another saying is true, that in America we can all work hard and “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps,” maybe we can count on upward mobility to get us a bigger share of the pie. But the authors’ exploration of data on income mobility shows that the “bootstrap” theory does not describe most peoples’ experience. While some mobility exists, significant shares of families remain near their same position in the income scale. For example, about 60% of families that start in the bottom fifth are still there a decade later. At the other end of the income scale, 52% of families that start in the top fifth finish there at the end of the decade. There is also less income mobility in the United States than in many other advanced countries, including European countries like Germany and Denmark whose societies are perceived to be more rigidly stratified than ours. Inequality itself leads to diminished mobility. The greater concentration of income tends to limit access to the tools that would help make that climb possible. The report examines the gap between top and bottom in completion of a college degree among students with similar academic potential. So wide is that gap that high-achievement students from low-income families are no more likely than low-achievement students from high-income families to complete a college degree. “When income concentration creates barriers to the resources and opportunities that would enable people to get ahead through their own initiative and efforts, that violates our fundamental sense of fairness,” said co-author Jared Bernstein. “Americans do not object to unequal outcomes if they mean that some people are working harder and smarter, but we do object if the deck is being stacked by unequal opportunities.” In short, your boss has worked your ass to death and he and his superiors have taken home way more money while you have taken home less and they're paying less in taxes to boot. Don't misunderstand me, I certainly don't have a problem with people getting ahead and I don't believe in soaking the rich. However, the whole premise behind trickle down economics is that a rising tide would lift all boats by virtue of the wealthy creating more/better jobs. In fact, exactly the opposite has happened. Even worse, this income inequality has lead to a diminution of the time honored ability of Americans to work their way up the ladder. Furthermore, even if like Keeastman you're willing to accept getting ever poorer in exchange for the GOP's stance on values, you still have little to show for that highly principled stance. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, homosexual marriage and other gay rights are gaining steam, families are weaker than they've ever been and the Bible hasn't been reinserted into public policy very much if at all. In short, you've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray. Until they can provide more tangible benefits to me personally, I for one am choosing to abandon the GOP. You can do whatever you think is best for you. However, I'd strongly suggest you carefully re-evaluate exactly what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgiaredskin Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 FWIW, Obama has said the same thing and has pledged to adhere to a Paygo philosophy whereby any new spending must be matched by cuts. OTOH, all McCain has done is to make a vague promise to balance the budget in four years. Now, I admit that there are problems with Obama's Paygo plan, namely that it doesn't cut overall spending. However, I don't know how to put it any other way, McCain is lying when he says he can deliver the tax cuts he's promised, and balance the budget in four years-and he knows it. Obama's voting record in the Senate shows no evidence that he'll follow through with his tax plan. Obama will get money after 19 months if he pulls out of Iraq and "ends the war responsibly", yet he puts a timeline on it, and if he cannot get out "in time" then that shoots his plans down right there. Not to mention his current tax plan won't raise enough revenue to fund all the programs he wants to do. What programs would he consider being wasteful in the federal government besides defense? Just name one, because there isn't a program out there besides defense that Obama is going to be willing to cut. Everything is going to grow. Obama has been lying plenty. He lied about not using federal dollars for campaigning. That's why he has so many more ads than McCain. He's lied about past associations with shady characters and constantly changes his story on that. He has no record in his history that supports the idea that he is going to cut taxes for anybody. Obama claims to give a tax cut to 95% of working families, yet mathematically that is impossible since he plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire, so most of those families will see an increase. He says he is going to give $1000 "tax cut" to people that make a certain amount of money, but the people he talks about giving these tax cuts to includes people that don't even pay taxes at all. 40% of working America doesn't even pay taxes. So therefore this man of many promises will have to break some of his promises to provide what he is promising, for instance if he pulls out of the war before 19 months, he wouldn't be "ending the war responsibly", yet he will be getting that money. If he ends the war responsibly, he can't possibly afford all of the programs and the plan he promised. He is already contradicting himself. Why do you think that is Georgia? Certainly, the GOP has steadily cut taxes since Reagan made tax cuts the GOP mantra. However, while the middle class and the poor have mostly voted for the GOP over that time, it clearly hasn't benefited the great majority of us. Tax cuts were across the board in the Bush era in general. Obama's proposal now is to increase taxes on small business owners making >250,000/year, and they are just going to pass them on to the consumer. Any tax cut given by the GOP since the Reagan years have stimulated the economy and increased federal revenue. As far as me personally, I had a salary increase of 32 grand in the last 4 years so my tax rate has increased and I "feel it" more than I used to. In short, your boss has worked your ass to death and he and his superiors have taken home way more money while you have taken home less and they're paying less in taxes to boot. Actually, the rich pay the vast majority of the tax burden. But the question of the week is "what do you consider rich?" Are you talking about my company, or my boss, because my boss himself pays taxes and probably pays a crapload. If Obama taxes my BIG and I mean BIG company that owns over 900 nursing homes, that means higher prices for rooms for residents. Those old people are going to feel it. Don't misunderstand me, I certainly don't have a problem with people getting ahead and I don't believe in soaking the rich. However, the whole premise behind trickle down economics is that a rising tide would lift all boats by virtue of the wealthy creating more/better jobs. In fact, exactly the opposite has happened. Even worse, this income inequality has lead to a diminution of the time honored ability of Americans to work their way up the ladder. I think that is ridiculous. It is the wealthy that is creating jobs. Any increase in taxes is going to result in higher unemployment rates, not lower ones, because people are going to start laying people off if the economy tanks. If they get taxed, they are going to lay more people off. There is no incentive to hire more people. Obama's tax plan does plan on soaking the rich. Furthermore, even if like Keeastman you're willing to accept getting ever poorer in exchange for the GOP's stance on values, you still have little to show for that highly principled stance. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, homosexual marriage and other gay rights are gaining steam, families are weaker than they've ever been and the Bible hasn't been reinserted into public policy very much if at all. Obama is one of the most liberal politicians in Washington, and although he claims to reach across the aisle in his voting history it is very rare. I will always go with the GOP's stance on values like my ES sister Keeastman, but I also believe I will not get poorer with McCain's plan. I'll get to keep my Bush tax cut and it won't go up. In short, you've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray. Until they can provide more tangible benefits to me personally, I for one am choosing to abandon the GOP. You can do whatever you think is best for you. However, I'd strongly suggest you carefully re-evaluate exactly what that means. You guys seem to have a motto "A vote for McCain will make you poorer", when in actuality it is "Keep the money you already have." I think Obama's tax plan will more resemble the Carter years than the Clinton years, because that is the last time the Democrats had control of Congress and the White House. They were big spenders. That's the last time we had a recession. When Reagan was inducted January 1981, the inflation rate was 11.83%, and averaged 13.58% the year before. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=2 A big reason we are in a recession now is because the Democrats shot down Bushs' proposal in 2003, which McCain supported, to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Some Republicans voted against the reform, but the ones who made the biggest stink against it were the Democrats. Clinton was a social liberal but he was pretty much a fiscal moderate in order to pass his budgets because he had to work it out with the Republican Congress. He promised tax cuts to the middle class and he didn't deliver them, he raised them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Georgiaredskin2, you seem to be operating on the following principles. 1) Don't read the actual proposals. 2) Assume what the proposals are. 3) Criticize your own assumptions. It's not very persuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Incompetency got elected in 2006 We haven't been attacked since 2006, so Dems must be doing a heck of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Georgiaredskin2, you seem to be operating on the following principles. 1) Don't read the actual proposals. 2) Assume what the proposals are. 3) Criticize your own assumptions. It's not very persuasive. It's not terribly honest, either. Even when you look at the candidates' strategies you are essentially operating under the assumption that Obama absolutely will go back on his word while McCain would never, EVER think to do any of the things you're afraid of. The simple truth of the matter is that we won't know what either of them will do in office until we experience it firsthand. "Read my lips - no new taxes." - George H.W. Bush Any tax cut given by the GOP since the Reagan years have stimulated the economy and increased federal revenue. I will say this, though, the impact of tax cuts and tax hikes is highly overrated. If you cut taxes across the board people will tend to go out and spend more money, providing a very short term boost to the economy. In the end, however, all you're really doing is fueling inflation because the cost of goods and services will rise with demand. If you raise taxes across the board, people will be less inclined to go out and spend money there will be a very short term slump and the costs of goods and services will eventually decrease. In either situation, a certain equilibrium is sustained after a brief market adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Great job of ducking the questions I asked Georgia. Again, do you really buy McCain's promise to balance the budget in four years? What about the GOP's lack of delivery on those religious values issues? Do you really think they'll give up all those votes by actually doing something to overturn Roe v. Wade? Did most of America benefited from the GOP's tax cuts? How do you explain the failure of trickle down economics as I characterized it? Personally, I'm not buying your seeming lack of understanding of the latter. You work in an industry (nursing homes) where margins are razor thin and you rely on getting ever higher productivity out of your workers. It benefits you and upper management at the expense of your workers and residents. In short, you're treading water because you're middle management. The folks above you have done quite well and the folks below you are drowning. If the folks above you want to try to lay off workers and increase patient loads and get sued more often over a few thousand bucks a year, let them. As for the false and misleading issues you've raised, I'll address those tomorrow-if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Georgiaredskin2, you seem to be operating on the following principles. 1) Don't read the actual proposals. 2) Assume what the proposals are. 3) Criticize your own assumptions. It's not very persuasive. Keep it up, maybe you'll even convince someone to change their vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.