Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

I don't know if my company is just bullshitting us or what, but in the states last year, we had one of the strongest if not the strongest year we've had as a separate organization, at least going back to 1999.

I also had my best year almost tripling the amount of ..well for lack of better word...output on my part. Admittedly that wouldn't have happened if we didn't also have a kickass year overall.

Anyways, my point is, right before raises were to kick in and we were to get our attaboy pat of the backs, here is your raise speech, we had a town hall where the company said "we expect 2013 to be 2008 with a serious decline in the economy, therefore in order to avoid headcount reduction we are scaling back on the size of pay increases as well as delaying quarterly bonus. They have also cut out all non revenue producing travel, all company wide events, and all training that isn't customer funded. Yet we are 10% above plan and 18% above last year at this time in revenue, as well as our margins are in line with expectations.

Sure enough, I got my raise, and for the kind of year I had it should have been 3x as much as what I received. I didn't even get the national cost of living index. I wasn't alone as I talked to some people in other groups outside my cost center just to make sure my boss wasn't fucking me over, which he has never done before anyways.

Now mind you my humble upbringings naturally has me go into the fallback position of "hey, at least you got something and you have a job" so I'm not complaining. However its keeping me awake at night that my company thinks immediately after the election the world is going to go to shit.

The way they are acting, they are betting its going to be bad.

[eCat]

so apparently on Nightline tonight, ABC is going to report that according to Newt's ex-wife, the one he cheated on with his first wife and then cheated on with his current wife, Newt asked her to have an open marriage so he could retain a mistress - I would guess in order to save on lawyer fees.

nuh..nuh..nah..nah...nuh..nuh..nah..nah..Hey...Hey..hey..gooooooooooodbuyaaaaeeeeeeee

Looks like Rick Perry is quitting today as well

[Bklyn]

Perry is quitting and tossing his 9% Newton Leroy's way. We'll see how that plays.

[sardis]

I don't know if my company is just bullshitting us or what, but in the states last year, we had one of the strongest if not the strongest year we've had as a separate organization, at least going back to 1999.

I also had my best year almost tripling the amount of ..well for lack of better word...output on my part. Admittedly that wouldn't have happened if we didn't also have a kickass year overall.

Anyways, my point is, right before raises were to kick in and we were to get our attaboy pat of the backs, here is your raise speech, we had a town hall where the company said "we expect 2013 to be 2008 with a serious decline in the economy, therefore in order to avoid headcount reduction we are scaling back on the size of pay increases as well as delaying quarterly bonus. They have also cut out all non revenue producing travel, all company wide events, and all training that isn't customer funded. Yet we are 10% above plan and 18% above last year at this time in revenue, as well as our margins are in line with expectations.

Sure enough, I got my raise, and for the kind of year I had it should have been 3x as much as what I received. I didn't even get the national cost of living index. I wasn't alone as I talked to some people in other groups outside my cost center just to make sure my boss wasn't fucking me over, which he has never done before anyways.

Now mind you my humble upbringings naturally has me go into the fallback position of "hey, at least you got something and you have a job" so I'm not complaining. However its keeping me awake at night that my company thinks immediately after the election the world is going to go to shit.

The way they are acting, they are betting its going to be bad.

They are listening to economists that are telling us that the economy will be anemic through at least 2013. I don't know what business your company is in but maybe the factor that is giving them profits currently is not guaranteed them in the next few years and they want to keep a war chest to keep them alive through that time.

[Bklyn]

I'm calling cop-out. Still, a bonus is not guaranteed, so it's within their rights. I wonder what the payout to the top executives were. My guess is that it wasn't that same story.

Taxes

"Tax the millionaires, of course. However, leave me out of it...tax THOSE millionaires"

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... xempt.html

[eCat]

I don't know, I'm not really pissed at the raise, I'm just pissed that I have to keep going into work with this economic gloom hanging over me.

I want it to be 1998 again.

[eCat]

High School yearbook photos of the candidates

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... 85/#slide1

[Bklyn]

John Huntsman...awesomeness



It's like Andy Gibb got Brundleflied with Napoleon Dynamite.

Sarah (Heath) Palin had some thighs on her. Nice. She probably squeezed the shit outta Glen Rice.

[sardis]

LOL, I think Ron Paul wants to take the federal budget back to 1953...

[hedge]

I don't know why you find that amusing. I'd like to take it back to 1853...

"I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." - Thoreau

I guess sardis isn't quite prepared for that. He still needs someone to tell him what to do. Fucking child...

The rest of Thoreau's opening paragraph takes Ron Paul's stance even further with regard to the military. Note the similarity b/w the Mexican War and our current fiasco in the middle east. Of course fear mongers like sardis wail that such a situation would leave us "vulnerable" to attack (by whom?), forgetting that we still have the largest nuclear arsenal by far:

"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure."

[eCat]

This is great

http://gizmodo.com/5877679/anonymous-ki ... nge-strike

[Bklyn]

nice

[sardis]

No, Sardis is not fretting over less govt. No one has lived his life with less govt assistance than I. No one is more conservative than I. Even my job is defending American citizens in their fight to keep their hard earned wealth away from gov't confiscation. The problem is that 95% of Americans depend on the other 5% to help fund their existence, and, unfortunately, the bloodsucking 95% have an equal vote as their providers so there is no chance in hell that politically we will reverse course to 1953. Striving for that goal is a waste of breath. Realistically, Our only hope is to convince a decent portion of the public to not make the situation any worse than it is now.

[Bklyn]

Heh. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I look at it as 95% of Americans do a helluva lot for the other 5%. It's basically symbiotic. Actually, it's more than a little arrogant to speak of it otherwise.

[hedge]

"Realistically, Our only hope is to convince a decent portion of the public to not make the situation any worse than it is now."

Wow, way to aim high, sardis. "I have a dream, that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: that things won't be any worse than they are now. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia things won't be any worse than they are now. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, that things won't be any worse than they are now. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character and that things won't be any worse than they are now. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification", that things won't be any worse than they are now!"

Way to dream big, sardis...

[hedge]

"I look at it as 95% of Americans do a helluva lot for the other 5%. It's basically symbiotic. Actually, it's more than a little arrogant to speak of it otherwise."

Bingo, esp. that last part, precisely with regard to sardis. I wonder how that 5% got into the position to fund "the bloodsuckers" that make up the rest of the population? Surely they did it all on their own and completely amongst themselves. The bloodsucking 95% had NOTHING to do with the wealth of the 5%. How arrogant to think otherwise. Right, sardis?

[eCat]

This is how I see it - I could be way off base but I don't think so

You look at a guy like Mitt Romney or John Huntsman and I think its a valid question to ask

if it weren't for the infrastructure of this country, from the community they lived in ,the college they attended, the business environment made available to them (for their fathers mainly) - would they be where they are today? Alot of Americans like to buy into the "America is the land of opportunity for those that want to work hard and get ahead" but what we really don't want to talk much about is the obligation we have as an American to make sure the people following us have that same opportunity.

For the most part that opportunity still exists but the hurdles to get there for many Americans is much tougher. The days of a high school educated student working their way into the 3/2 with the white picket fence with a new chevy in the driveway and the new Kelvenator in the kitchen are gone.

And if you talk about the obligation a wealthy capitalist has to society, then you are labeled anti-free market or a socialist.

Now I'm not in favor of a payroll tax - I firmly believe that if you provide a days worth of work, you should get paid a fair days wage and there is no gain on either side. That kind of service transaction was never intended to be taxed by the founders of this country. However, if you take your money and invest it or otherwise utilize it where in the sense your capital is doing the work as opposed to you, then that is the clear definition of a capital gain, and that was intended to be taxed.

Now is 15% too much? not enough? I don't know but I do know that this idea that the wealthiest Americans are job creators is a bullshit premise pushed down on the middle class who are scared to death of losing their jobs, and they buy completely into the idea that reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans translates into more jobs for America. And that might be true to some extent for white collar jobs, but the people that are on the government dime - those parents of 49% of kids who are on free or subsidized lunches, the 52% of Americans who pay little or no income tax, the 1 out of almost 2 that are at or below the poverty line in America aren't white collar job holding people. They don't have 401K's or pensions and working a $10 an hour job in a service industry is about as close as they are going to get to corporate America. They are the people who can't wrap their head around how America is the largest manufacturer in the world, yet has seen its manufacturing base of jobs decline steadily since the 1970's.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example where his vast resources in terms of his own personal wealth or the wealth he controls thru investment firms is not concerned with job creation. And no I'm not buying into the talking points about buying a company, raiding it and laying off workers -but I am pointing out that there is very little in his process that relates to "giving back" to those people I mentioned above. Yea, he might help a guy like me - either by investing in my company or providing a investment opportunity for my 401K but to those people mentioned above they don't see it - matter of fact, whatever help I do get either directly or indirectly is probably offset by the fact that I'm having to give some of it back at the state and local level to support the people mentioned above - from the cost of my ever increasing healthcare to the levy increases and bonds that I have pay to keep the schools, fire, police and various services in the black every year.

So that goes back to my point - Does a Mitt Romney have an obligation to this country for providing him, his father, his children with the opportunity to become a 1%, or is his obligation no more by % than the $45K a year blue collar guy? If you assume everyone has the same opportunity from birth, does a person who ends up in a job making X regardless of why have more obligation than a person in job Y? Should a person who puts in an 8 hour day of hard labor be taxed less or more than a person who earns their income from interest or increased value of their holdings?

It seems to me we've gotten to the point that the wealthiest people in this country believe that because of their work and status, they aren't obligated to pay for the opportunity they've been given to insure that those who follow them have the same, and over the years, the working class (up until the financial meltdown) were led to believe that was in their best interest even when the data in front of them suggested otherwise.

Now I know someone could say "how can you say the wealthiest don't pay their fair share, half of Americans don't even pay taxes" but that is confusing the issue. The issue is that half of America doesn't have incomes that merit paying taxes - and asking why that is, and how do we fix that is the issue.

[sardis]

"I look at it as 95% of Americans do a helluva lot for the other 5%. It's basically symbiotic. Actually, it's more than a little arrogant to speak of it otherwise."

Bingo, esp. that last part, precisely with regard to sardis. I wonder how that 5% got into the position to fund "the bloodsuckers" that make up the rest of the population? Surely they did it all on their own and completely amongst themselves. The bloodsucking 95% had NOTHING to do with the wealth of the 5%. How arrogant to think otherwise. Right, sardis?

Hey, I admit to condescension on my part.

[sardis]

This is how I see it - I could be way off base but I don't think so

You look at a guy like Mitt Romney or John Huntsman and I think its a valid question to ask

if it weren't for the infrastructure of this country, from the community they lived in ,the college they attended, the business environment made available to them (for their fathers mainly) - would they be where they are today? Alot of Americans like to buy into the "America is the land of opportunity for those that want to work hard and get ahead" but what we really don't want to talk much about is the obligation we have as an American to make sure the people following us have that same opportunity.

For the most part that opportunity still exists but the hurdles to get there for many Americans is much tougher. The days of a high school educated student working their way into the 3/2 with the white picket fence with a new chevy in the driveway and the new Kelvenator in the kitchen are gone.

And if you talk about the obligation a wealthy capitalist has to society, then you are labeled anti-free market or a socialist.

Now I'm not in favor of a payroll tax - I firmly believe that if you provide a days worth of work, you should get paid a fair days wage and there is no gain on either side. That kind of service transaction was never intended to be taxed by the founders of this country. However, if you take your money and invest it or otherwise utilize it where in the sense your capital is doing the work as opposed to you, then that is the clear definition of a capital gain, and that was intended to be taxed.

Now is 15% too much? not enough? I don't know but I do know that this idea that the wealthiest Americans are job creators is a bullshit premise pushed down on the middle class who are scared to death of losing their jobs, and they buy completely into the idea that reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans translates into more jobs for America. And that might be true to some extent for white collar jobs, but the people that are on the government dime - those parents of 49% of kids who are on free or subsidized lunches, the 52% of Americans who pay little or no income tax, the 1 out of almost 2 that are at or below the poverty line in America aren't white collar job holding people. They don't have 401K's or pensions and working a $10 an hour job in a service industry is about as close as they are going to get to corporate America. They are the people who can't wrap their head around how America is the largest manufacturer in the world, yet has seen its manufacturing base of jobs decline steadily since the 1970's.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example where his vast resources in terms of his own personal wealth or the wealth he controls thru investment firms is not concerned with job creation. And no I'm not buying into the talking points about buying a company, raiding it and laying off workers -but I am pointing out that there is very little in his process that relates to "giving back" to those people I mentioned above. Yea, he might help a guy like me - either by investing in my company or providing a investment opportunity for my 401K but to those people mentioned above they don't see it - matter of fact, whatever help I do get either directly or indirectly is probably offset by the fact that I'm having to give some of it back at the state and local level to support the people mentioned above - from the cost of my ever increasing healthcare to the levy increases and bonds that I have pay to keep the schools, fire, police and various services in the black every year.

So that goes back to my point - Does a Mitt Romney have an obligation to this country for providing him, his father, his children with the opportunity to become a 1%, or is his obligation no more by % than the $45K a year blue collar guy? If you assume everyone has the same opportunity from birth, does a person who ends up in a job making X regardless of why have more obligation than a person in job Y? Should a person who puts in an 8 hour day of hard labor be taxed less or more than a person who earns their income from interest or increased value of their holdings?

It seems to me we've gotten to the point that the wealthiest people in this country believe that because of their work and status, they aren't obligated to pay for the opportunity they've been given to insure that those who follow them have the same, and over the years, the working class (up until the financial meltdown) were led to believe that was in their best interest even when the data in front of them suggested otherwise.

Now I know someone could say "how can you say the wealthiest don't pay their fair share, half of Americans don't even pay taxes" but that is confusing the issue. The issue is that half of America doesn't have incomes that merit paying taxes - and asking why that is, and how do we fix that is the issue.

That ain't Ron Paul supporter talk there.

[crashcourse]

gingrich sounds like he wins southcarolina. nailed king when king asked him about the open marriage question. ron paull seemed like an afterthought in most of the debate. romney is losing ground to the other 3