patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,199,296 comments by 14,167 users - Stout, Tenpoundbass online now
Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new labor
invite response
2013 Sep 11, 5:41am 36,972 views 158 comments
« First « Previous Comments 96 - 135 of 158 Next » Last » Search these comments
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 12:05am
Even if you are right, and I have my doubts about it since your source is a liberal one, you forgot to include how much of my state and local taxes go for local welfare programs.
It's easy to pick on the weak.
Who is it that's making your life miserable? The "welfare bums" or the sociopaths in the top 0.1%?
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Sep 13, 12:21am
The violent crime wave is best correlated to demographics. When the Oldest Boomer passed 30, the crime wave dropped. That was the early 90s.
BTW, the prediction around 1990 was that Gen X would turn into "Superpredators" and violence would skyrocket. The opposite happened. The advocates kept trying to insist it was around the corner as crime continued to drop off steadily:
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/superscapegoating/
As the article above tracks, the tougher sentencing wave happened AFTER crime started to decline. Private Prison booms happened AFTER crime started to decline.
"Community Policing" is often cited as the reason. It's nonsense, because Canada also had a crime drop about the same time; both the US and Canada have similar age demographics. The Canadians didn't build a shitload more prisons, toughen sentencing, or enact widespread "Community Policing" policies.
The decline is simple: Any country that has a large supply of young people disproportionate to the other age cohorts experiences crime waves, religious fanaticism, and other goodness. Note the Arab World has a massive youth bulge, and in Northern Ireland their babyboom coincided with a an increase in Orange and Catholic terror.
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 12:35am
3) Make each country liable for the actions and welfare of their citizens while abroad. So we would charge back Mexico for criminals, social services and so on, and make them pay from their oil money.
And how much is this going to cost when we have to send in an army to collect?
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 12:36am
The decline is simple: Any country that has a large supply of young people disproportionate to the other age cohorts experiences crime waves, religious fanaticism, and other goodness.
Makes sense. Old people are too weak/sickly to bust a cap in yo' a$$.
Dan8267
2013 Sep 13, 12:49am
I've circled total warfare spending and total welfare spending for your convenience.
Even if you are right, and I have my doubts about it since your source is a liberal one, you forgot to include how much of my state and local taxes go for local welfare programs.
1. I am right. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. The data is verifiable.
2. The Government Printing Office is not a "liberal" source. It is completely nonpartisan and apolitical. And really? This is coming from a guy who quoted Fox News. 'Nuff said.
3. The data is a matter of public records.
4. The lie from Fox News that welfare spending is far larger than warfare spending is talking about federal spending, not state spending.
5. If you want to see state spending or total spending including federal/state/local, once again, you should go to my source as it spells out the spending precisely. And warfare spending is still more than welfare.
6. Most importantly of all...
There comes a point when the best thing you can do to save face is to simply admit that you were fooled by the lies of Fox News and demonstrate that you have learned something and won't listen to their lies anymore. To express doubt that the lie is really a lie, is to tell the world that you are still so stupid as to believe the lie even after it has been thoroughly exposed.
It's understandable to be fooled by lying "journalists" once or even a few times. But you look retarded if you keep getting fooled by the same damn liars even though their lies have been exposed in such a painfully obvious manner.
So show the world that you are not retarded by boldly claiming: Fox News lied to me, and I fell for it. But now I am on to their manipulation, and I will not listen to their lies anymore!
That would make you look respectable.
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 1:00am
If there were anyone who 'should' be complaining about taxes, it should be me because about 30% of my income goes to paying taxes while I can almost guarantee a lot of those complaining about taxes are either paying very little, or no taxes at all.
I pay way more then 30% of my income to taxes. 30% might just cover federal income taxes for me.
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 1:14am
I pay way more then 30% of my income to taxes. 30% might just cover federal income taxes for me.
And Warren Buffett pays a much lower %. Why do you think that is?
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 1:18am
And Warren Buffett pays a much lower %. Why do you think that is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.
Actually I thought that his % was much lower because of income from tax free municipal bonds. Perhaps I was confusing him with someone else???
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 1:27am
Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less
money.
So you acknowledge that Buffett is paying a significantly lower tax rate than you are?
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 1:36am
So you acknowledge that Buffett is paying a significantly lower tax rate than you are?
Yes, of course!
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 1:40am
5. If you want to see state spending or total spending including federal/state/local, once again, you should go to my source as it spells out the spending precisely. And warfare spending is still more than welfare.
Using your chart, welfare is 19 + 9 = 28% welfare, and only 13% for defense. And this is only at the federal level. At the state level there is almost no defense spending and boatloads of welfare spending. I'm sure that Obamaphones aren't in the welfare section of your pie chart either.
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 1:41am
Yes, of course!
So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?
Welfare folks might be freeloaders, but at least they don't have the $ to buy politicians (and thus laws) to enslave us.
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 1:52am
So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?
Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:31am
Nobody said they were.
If one is 'needy' due to being too 'lazy' to work, they should not benefit from government handouts.
Full Definition of NEEDY
1: being in want : poverty-strickendead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\
1: a lazy person : a person who does not workThat's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.
1. Those two definitions are not mutually exclusive.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:34am
So according to you almost 100% of the population does not work.
You'll have to provide your definition of 'almost' as the generally accepted meaning renders your statement blatantly false.
And, as an aside, I did not 'preented' anything...
Full Definition of NEEDY
1: being in want : poverty-strickendead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\
1: a lazy person : a person who does not workThat's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.
2. Almost 100% of the population meets the definition of "lazy" you preented.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:36am
Again, it's not 'my' definition of lazy.
Take it up with Ms Merriam.
Full Definition of NEEDY
1: being in want : poverty-strickendead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\
1: a lazy person : a person who does not workThat's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.
3. Your definition of needy provides no means testing.
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 2:36am
Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.
What about someone who makes the vast majority of their income from ownership of assets (including your labor) rather than productive work?
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:39am
No, Marriage used to mean just one thing.
A modern day photoshop generated chart stuffed with left wing dogma constructed by the Maddow-O'donnell-MrEd trilogy during commercial breaks does not change history.
1. Marriage used to mean a hell of a lot of things.
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 2:40am
What about someone who makes the vast majority of their income from ownership of assets (including your labor) rather than productive work?
Doesn't matter, they still pay income taxes just like everyone else. I know I will still be paying taxes when I retire (if I ever retire).
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:42am
Dick jokes are being warehoused here.
http://patrick.net/?p=1229249
Try to keep up....
2. You cannot marry a canary under any adopted or proposed marriage equality laws. As for mating with your canary, well, I wouldn't be surprised if you were size-appropriate for that.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:44am
I never stated that.
Assumption Is The Mother Of All Fuckups.
3. Just because you want only men and women to have recognized marriages does not mean that there is any material secular difference between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:45am
No, it's simpler to come up with a different word and not disenfranchise a billion marriages based on the original interpretation of the word.
Instead of immediately dispelling hundreds of thousands of laws and causing utter chaos on the federal, state, and local level, it makes much more sense simply to update the legal interpretation of the word marriage to include same-sex marriages.
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 2:47am
Doesn't matter, they still pay income taxes just like everyone else. I know I will still be paying taxes when I retire (if I ever retire).
You don't care that the ultra-rich are paying a lower tax rate than you are? Why not?
Is it Stockholm Syndrome?
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:48am
I never said I had any religious beliefs.
You are simply becoming more hysterical as you try to defend the indefensible.
Assumption is the Mother of All Fuckups, and you are on a roll!
6. Whether or not your stupid, incorrect, religious beliefs say that homosexually is bad is irrelevant to the state and secular law.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 2:50am
Neither is there to discriminate against people married under the original definition of the word.
You disenfranchise billions by hijacking the word.
7. There is no legal justification to discriminate against homosexuals.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 3:00am
I never suggested they were. That thought emanated from your mind, not mine.
My reference to 'marrying a canary' goes to the hijacking of the word "marriage". Once you attempt to redefine the word, the door is open for anyone to redefine it.
Words have meaning. People make decisions and perform actions based on word definitions. That's why it is important to preserve word definitions.
There's a billion sounds as yet undefined eminating from the mouth of humans. Pick one, or better yet, sew together a catchy phrase that means marriage between two men, or two women. It's doable if you try.
Don't be a dickhead and disenfranchise a billion marriages entered into based on the original meaning.
Dan8267 says
8. Homosexuality and bestiality are not the same thing. Suggesting that they are is both stupid and bigoted.
zzyzzx
2013 Sep 13, 3:03am
Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?
One of Dan8267's posts a page back.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 3:06am
Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....
freak80 says
Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 3:09am
So this thread appears to be a perfect example of how (relatively) trivial stuff distracts us from the formation of a global plutocracy that wants to enslave us all.
My two cents: voluntary homosexuality is better than involuntary homosexuality, a.k.a. getting f*cked in the a$$ by a permanent aristocracy.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 3:14am
You don't update 'hundreds of thousands of laws'.
You simply enact one new law that states wherever 'marriage' is used in law, it can be substituted with 'Marriage/GayMarriage/MilfMarriage/CanaryLove', or whatever pushes your button.
Instead of immediately dispelling hundreds of thousands of laws and causing utter chaos on the federal, state, and local level, it makes much more sense simply to update the legal interpretation of the word marriage to include same-sex marriages.
Shaman
2013 Sep 13, 3:17am
Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....
Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?
Single guy living alone, doesn't want or like kids, yah I guess he might be a little sensitive on that issue ...
Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....
Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?
Single guy living alone, doesn't want or like kids, yah I guess he might be a little sensitive on that issue ...
Hehe. Since Nazis are not popular anymore Godwin's law now favors the "gay discrimination discussion" and racism as the new cul-de-sac for every discussion, no matter what the original topic was - I think it has even displaced the feminazi issue.
Vicente
2013 Sep 13, 3:41am
Single guy living alone, doesn't want or like kids, yah I guess he might be a little sensitive on that issue ...
Oh come now, he's probably 100% hetero, except for his subscription to Buff Boys magazine.
A good subservient mail-order bride and he'll pipe down.
Y
2013 Sep 13, 4:01am
If I marry my canary, then eat the resultant eggs is it considered abortion or breakfast?
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 4:01am
God is real! And he's a Republican!
(now we have all three...God, Guns, n' Gays!)
freak80
2013 Sep 13, 4:02am
If I marry my canary, then eat the resultant eggs is it considered abortion or breakfast?
Life begins at constipation.
« First « Previous Comments 96 - 135 of 158 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://washingtonexaminer.com/companies-lay-off-thousands-then-demand-immigration-reform-for-new-labor/article/2535595
On Tuesday, the chief human resources officers of more than 100 large corporations sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
The officials represent companies with a vast array of business interests: General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Marriott International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, McDonald's Corporation, The Wendy's Company, Coca-Cola, The Cheesecake Factory, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, and many more. All want to see increases in immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skill workers, in addition to a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.
A new immigration law, the corporate officers say, "would be a long overdue step toward aligning our nation's immigration policies with its workforce needs at all skill levels to ensure U.S. global competitiveness." The officials cite a publication of their trade group, the HR Policy Association, which calls for immigration reform to "address the reality that there is a global war for talent." The way for the United States to win that war for talent, they say, is more immigration.
Of course, the U.S. unemployment rate is at 7.3 percent, with millions of American workers at all skill levels out of work, and millions more so discouraged that they have left the work force altogether. In addition, at the same time the corporate officers seek higher numbers of immigrants, both low-skill and high-skill, many of their companies are laying off thousands of workers.
For example, Hewlett-Packard, whose Executive Vice President for Human Resources Tracy Keogh signed the letter, laid off 29,000 employees in 2012. In August of this year, Cisco Systems, whose Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer Kathleen Weslock signed the letter, announced plans to lay off 4,000 — in addition to 8,000 cut in the last two years. United Technologies, whose Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Organization Elizabeth B. Amato signed the letter, announced layoffs of 3,000 this year. American Express, whose Chief Human Resources Officer L. Kevin Cox signed the letter, cut 5,400 jobs this year. Procter & Gamble, whose Chief Human Resources Officer Mark F. Biegger signed the letter, announced plans to cut 5,700 jobs in 2012.
Those are just a few of the layoffs at companies whose officials signed the letter. A few more: T-Mobile announced 2,250 layoffs in 2012. Archer-Daniels-Midland laid off 1,200. Texas Instruments, nearly 2,000. Cigna, 1,300. Verizon sought to cut 1,700 jobs by buyouts and layoffs. Marriott announced "hundreds" of layoffs this year. International Paper has closed plants and laid off dozens. And General Mills, in what the Minneapolis Star-Tribune called a "rare mass layoff," laid off 850 people last year.
There are more still. In all, it's fair to say a large number of the corporate signers of the letter demanding more labor from abroad have actually laid off workers at home in recent years. Together, their actions have a significant effect on the economy. According to a recent Reuters report, U.S. employers announced 50,462 layoffs in August, up 34 percent from the previous month and up 57 percent from August 2012.
"It is difficult to understand how these companies can feel justified in demanding the importation of cheap labor with a straight face at a time when tens of millions of Americans are unemployed," writes the Center for Immigration Studies, which strongly opposes the Senate Gang of Eight bill and similar measures. "The companies claim the bill is an 'opportunity to level the playing field for U.S. employers' but it is more of an effort to level the wages of American citizens."