Thread: Obama 2012?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Guess what, they make a commission to work for you. If they don't want you to read the largest contract you will likely sign in your life then fire them. I got my loan docs days in advance of the closing date.


Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

The average person doe not look at the situation that way but i do agree with you.

Originally Posted by Bubbasam

Pretty basic stuff huh? So.....I have 60 employees X $15278 profit THAT each one generates for me, right? Hmmm....that means that I made a $916680 profit last year. FANTASTIC MAN. WOW !! That's an unbelievable 56.67% profit margin on the brow of my employees. It also isn't even close to the truth. And don't try and tell me that I'm part of the right wing movement. You don't know my political beliefs, and you certainly don't know me. You obviouisly don't know much about owing a business and you certainly don't know anything about my business....I ain't reading about it from some ridiculous chart Wicked, I'm living it. A lot of people here respect your opinion and stance on things, but when you throw a chart up that fits your argument but has no basis in reality (especially in my case, and EVERY other businessperson I know) it kinda hurts your credibility.

You've missed, or completely ignored a few important points in my posts. You'll note that, in my original post, I said average, so while it's possible that you're taking a loss on a few of them, on average, unless your business is tanking, you're making profit off of each of them. You'll also note that I never said that you'd greater than 100% average profit per employee, just that you'll make profit. Not only didn't I say this, but the first time that you got this wrong, I corrected you. You seem to have missed that too. I forgive you.

So you're saying that I'm wrong, that viable businesses out there lose money for each employee, on average? This means that, for example, your restaurant would be making more total profit with one employee than with 60. If that's the case, why don't you fire 59 of your employees?

Arn't we in the process of leaving Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

This I can agree with. So, now the question is do we expect the average person to be a little more intelligent and responsible, or do we just regulate the shit out of everything, so the government can be our parents? Oh, don't touch that sizzling hot plate of fajitas that just came out of the kitchen because guess what, you might burn your dumb ass. Oh, and when you order a steaming hot cup of coffee it might actually be, I don't know, HOT, so don't pour it on yourself, or put it in a spot where it can be poured on you by accident. Your car came with cup holders, use them.

When did personal responsibility become a bad thing in this country?

I like natural selection. You shouldnt need someone to tell you something is hot if you asked for coffee or food. You should expect it to be hot and complain if it isnt. As far as what we were discussing well my answer is put a box for a signature right next to what the payments are and what they will be in plain english. Get rid of the double talk from contracts and odds are people will be able to understand them. So essencially get rid of the nonsense and some of the regulations.

Originally Posted by Langrad

Arn't we in the process of leaving Afghanistan?

Not that im aware of. I know they were discussing it but i dont think a conclusion has been made yet.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I think somewhere things got a bit twisted. I dont think anyone is saying you hire people to lose money for various reasons.

Actually, I was pointing out exactly this simple fact - that employers aren't hiring people with the expectation of losing money.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

You've missed, or completely ignored a few important points in my posts. You'll note that, in my original post, I said average, so while it's possible that you're taking a loss on a few of them, on average, unless your business is tanking, you're making profit off of each of them. You'll also note that I never said that you'd greater than 100% average profit per employee, just that you'll make profit. Not only didn't I say this, but the first time that you got this wrong, I corrected you. You seem to have missed that too. I forgive you.

So you're saying that I'm wrong, that viable businesses out there lose money for each employee, on average? This means that, for example, your restaurant would be making more total profit with one employee than with 60. If that's the case, why don't you fire 59 of your employees?

First off I didn't ignore any important points in your post.
And I'll show you -- let's say that I am an average business (which I am). That means, by your post, (I) "the employer will be making more from each employee than it (I) pays them". If I "pay them" what my "average wage" of 28% of my sales is, that will be $448000. By your post, that means I will be making $448000 from my collective employees. Not true.
Now excuse me if I misunderstood this part of your post "......the employer will be making MORE from each employee........" as being something less than 100%, but maybe you know something about MORE that is somehow LESS than the 100%. I just don't see it, and I called my accountant and he doesn't see it either. Also, NOWHERE did I say that viable businesses lose money for each employee. But, I have to say you can make up for labor costs in other areas of the business (yes, there are other areas that viable businesses sacrifice to retain good employees). See, it's a puzzle you have to put together to run a business. You don't look at a random chart from a business that sells software to other business that generates charts and graphs that only reflect THEIR data. You have to look locally at demographics, ...............................nevermind.
Now that I've noticed you missed these points.....well let's just say we agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue or post things that seem to go right by you.

Originally Posted by Warprosper

Source?

The way I understand it is that NATO wanted to extend not Obama.
NATO running out of time to negotiate troop extension in Iraq | The Cable

U.S. Troop Withdrawal Motivated by Iraqi Insistence, Not U.S. Choice - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com

"Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year, but the White House -- anxious about growing Iranian influence and Iraq’s continuing political and security challenges -- publicly and privately tried to sell the Iraqis on a troop extension. As recently as last week, the White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the year."

That was Bushs deal to withdrawl all troops. Obama just tried to convince everyone that wasnt paying attention that he was behind it.