For the Obama Supporters

[Humble2drive]

I fail to see how demanding more money is a whole lot different than "say no to cheap freight".

The sammich makes a good observation here. Teachers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less. Some drivers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less.
Notice he doesn't mention the source of where the money comes from because that is irrelevant to this observation.

Yet this is where the EO wolf pack takes it:

The two situations are different as night and day - just think about it.

A meaningless yet negative response with absolutely no explanation.
But Muttly piles on and agrees?

Then we kick it up a notch with a total switch in direction:

You see no difference between public and private money, really? Np wonder this country is sinking fast.

A totally irrelevant yet negative response that has nothing to do with the original observation yet attacks the poster with a condescending statement and basically saying his kind is the reason for our countries problems.
It's game on time now as Davekc, Muttly, chefdennis, purgoose10 and bobwg all pile on with their approval.

This emboldens chefdennis to go a step further:

Lets see, Cheap freight is paid for by with money from a "privately owned company"....teachers are paid with TAX DOLLARS.....

You are right Xiggi, the is no reason to wonder why this country is sinking...but as they say "ignorance is bliss"....

Now our poster is being called ignorant for something that was never even in his post.

And on and on it goes. The big fish in a very little pond have decided that another newbie just doesn't share the views of the pack. The same old pattern that causes member after member to lose interest in the soapbox and out of 16,000 members the same 15 to 20 members get to preach to the choir and cheer each other on.

Just sayin.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

The sammich makes a good observation here. Teachers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less. Some drivers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less.
Notice he doesn't mention the source of where the money comes from because that is irrelevant to this observation.

Yet this is where the EO wolf pack takes it:



A meaningless yet negative response with absolutely no explanation.
But Muttly piles on and agrees?

Then we kick it up a notch with a total switch in direction:



A totally irrelevant yet negative response that has nothing to do with the original observation yet attacks the poster with a condescending statement and basically saying his kind is the reason for our countries problems.
It's game on time now as Davekc, Muttly, chefdennis, purgoose10 and bobwg all pile on with their approval.

This emboldens chefdennis to go a step further:



Now our poster is being called ignorant for something that was never even in his post.

And on and on it goes. The big fish in a very little pond have decided that another newbie just doesn't share the views of the pack. The same old pattern that causes member after member to lose interest in the soapbox and out of 16,000 members the same 15 to 20 members get to preach to the choir and cheer each other on.

Just sayin.

If that is the way you translate....no wonder.....

What I mean is....all the responses point in one direction and are pretty self explaining....Taxpayers money vs the private sector money....

I can see Sammiches connection of both wanting more for less....it is the source $$$$ that is under contention...

 

[bobwg]

Top Ten

 

[Pilgrim]

The sammich makes a good observation here. Teachers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less. Some drivers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less.
Notice he doesn't mention the source of where the money comes from because that is irrelevant to this observation.

Yet this is where the EO wolf pack takes it:



A meaningless yet negative response with absolutely no explanation.
But Muttly piles on and agrees?

Then we kick it up a notch with a total switch in direction:



A totally irrelevant yet negative response that has nothing to do with the original observation yet attacks the poster with a condescending statement and basically saying his kind is the reason for our countries problems.
It's game on time now as Davekc, Muttly, chefdennis, purgoose10 and bobwg all pile on with their approval.

This emboldens chefdennis to go a step further:



Now our poster is being called ignorant for something that was never even in his post.

And on and on it goes. The big fish in a very little pond have decided that another newbie just doesn't share the views of the pack. The same old pattern that causes member after member to lose interest in the soapbox and out of 16,000 members the same 15 to 20 members get to preach to the choir and cheer each other on.

Just sayin.

OK - I'll offer a more detailed explanation to anyone who may still be in the dark. First, a couple of observations that are relevant to the subject at hand (the Chicago teachers' strike) (bold emphasis mine):

1. "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"
- Margaret Thatcher

2. "Despite severe cost cutting, scores of layoffs and wholesale restructuring last year, Chicago Public Schools faces a budget deficit estimated at $600 million to $700 million in 2013, with the cost of a longer school day still unknown, officials said.In a presentation to the school board Wednesday, CPS officials are expected to detail how rising costs; steep drops in local, state and federal revenue; and ballooning debt obligations will combine for massive budget shortfalls over the next three fiscal years...
The deficit could top $1 billion by 2014 when the district's four-year pension holiday expires and the district will have to resume making full pension payments, said CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll. CPS projects pension costs to increase that year by almost $340 million, Carroll said."
CPS faces another massive budget deficit in 2013 - Chicago Tribune

Now allow me to offer another scenario that most of those who run small businesses will understand. Suppose you own a small fleet of three straight trucks, and one of your drivers calls you in the middle of a trip from Chicago to El Paso; in spite of having previously agreed to a contracted price for the shipment with your customer and the prevailing market rate of compensation to your driver, he's now in Memphis and is demanding 30% more money or he's not going to complete the move. He's demanding this additional 30% for no added productivity. Due to your overhead (truck payments, insurance, fuel, etc) if you give him what he wants you end up losing money on the shipment. You think you can go back to the customer and tell them they have to pay more?? Good luck with that. Do you choose to continue operating at a loss just to accomodate this driver? That won't last long. The solution is to replace the driver. The moral of the story? It matters greatly where the money comes from when it's YOUR money.

 

[chefdennis]

Thank You, Thank You Berry Mush....

 

[muttly]

The sammich makes a good observation here. Teachers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less. Some drivers hope to set their pay at a higher level by refusing to work for less.
Notice he doesn't mention the source of where the money comes from because that is irrelevant to this observation.

Yet this is where the EO wolf pack takes it:



A meaningless yet negative response with absolutely no explanation.
But Muttly piles on and agrees?

Then we kick it up a notch with a total switch in direction:



A totally irrelevant yet negative response that has nothing to do with the original observation yet attacks the poster with a condescending statement and basically saying his kind is the reason for our countries problems.
It's game on time now as Davekc, Muttly, chefdennis, purgoose10 and bobwg all pile on with their approval.

This emboldens chefdennis to go a step further:



Now our poster is being called ignorant for something that was never even in his post.

And on and on it goes. The big fish in a very little pond have decided that another newbie just doesn't share the views of the pack. The same old pattern that causes member after member to lose interest in the soapbox and out of 16,000 members the same 15 to 20 members get to preach to the choir and cheer each other on.

Just sayin.

What a hoot. Getting called out for posting a "like'. Too funny. I couldn't read this post entirely because I got to go,but I've have to chalk this up as a DISLIKE

 

[chefdennis]

humble wrote:

This emboldens chefdennis to go a step further:

LOL, ahhh , While I appreciate being mentioned in your disgust of how things go here in the Soapbox, I real don't need any "enbolding"...i am more then capable and happy to insert my opinion at anytime without anyone "leading me on" or "enbolding" me to do so... But again, "Thank you, Thank you berry mush!!

 

[cheri1122]

Let me try it another way. If a private person/company had a investment that you knew was good, you would invest in that venture and make a profit.

This 'entitlement mentality' still blows my mind, because investing used to be considered a gamble, indulged in by those who [literally] had more money than they knew what to do with. They'd invest in someone with an idea for a profitable product or service, but no money to make it happen. If it paid off, they both won, and so did everyone who could now get that product or service. If it didn't pay off, NBD, they could afford the loss. Course, it usually did pay, cause people who have that much money aren't generally stupid, but I can't quite figure out when it transitioned to requiring a profit. I can see where it led to a whole lot of jobs being 'outsourced' for cheaper labor, though, and where has that got us?

The government takes your money and invests in many things that you know up front are losers.

Education is a "loser"?! You can argue the best way to achieve an educated population, but surely you don't believe that it's an investment the government has no business making.

Solyndra or the Volt comes to mind.

Again: the government's reason for existence is not to make a profit - it's to promote the common welfare [right behind providing defense]. Trying to find ways to provide the energy we [arguably] need without destroying our limited natural resources or screwing too much with the ecosystem should be a high priority for the government, though it's nowhere on the list of private business' concerns, beyond what the government forces them to do.

No.....you are paying at the ground level as well.

We're all paying, one way or another. Put people out of work, the taxpayers cover their basic needs, because we can't just let them starve, can we? Before you answer, keep in mind that a great many people on welfare are kids.....

 

[Humble2drive]

humble wrote:

LOL, ahhh , While I appreciate being mentioned in your disgust of how things go here in the Soapbox,

Oh, not disgusted at all. Just pokin a stick into the wolves den to see what I can stir up.

I real don't need any "enbolding"...i am more then capable and happy to insert my opinion at anytime without anyone "leading me on" or "enbolding" me to do so... But again, "Thank you, Thank you berry mush!!

Now there is something we can agree on!
Btw, the word is embolden and I like the dramatic effect it has.

 

[Humble2drive]

OK - . . .The moral of the story? It matters greatly where the money comes from when it's YOUR money.

Your back to the "source" discussion? I agree completely with that so not sure why you quoted me?
Thanks for the story though.

 

[davekc]

I'm just happy that someone pointed out a consensus of brilliant minds thinking alike.
Just too good of observation to go unnoticed.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

you guys have an uphill battle...if you watch this....

Media Malpractice Obama Voter Video

 

[bobwg]

Obamas economy

 

[davekc]

As mentioned before, I like opposing views. Gives one a chance to look at something from other angles.
Now for Cheri's post. With regards to investing, many of your investors are everyday people with pensions 401k's and so forth. Most if not many, can't afford high risk gambles. Now whether pensions, 401k's, IRA's contribute to cheaper labor could be debatable.

"Government takes your money and invests in many things
that you know up front are losers"

That is my quote and your response was education. Government invests in MANY things that are losers. Not necessarily everything. Although with the state of our schools spending the highest in the world with the worst results, I think the Federal government needs to get out of it. Based on results, it really should return to state function. Department of eduction is a disaster.

On investment. Solyndra and the Volt were designed specifically to turn a profit. They failed because the government was entering into businesses that they had no knowledge. Look carefully or follow the money. Both ventures were rich with Obama supporters. No secret. Problem is, they invested taxpayer money rather than their own on a poor opportunity.
Would have been better off taking those billions and just giving them out.
Keep in mind that nothing was cutting edge. Solyndra collapsed trying to compete with Chinese solar panels that were half the price. Same with the Volt. Technology is already available in the market place but limited demand.
Remember, it is not the governments function to be involved in any business venture. Not sure why that constantly gets overlooked.

 

[Turtle]

It should be noted that investors invest money specifically to make a profit. They always have. There was never a NBD because investors don't want to waste money. That's why it's called investing.

On the other hand, the federal government never invests money to make a profit. They spend money. They call it "investing in education", for example, but it's not an investment at all, it's an expenditure that has the end result of increasing the cost of education. Educators know they can demand, and get, more and more money, because the government has removed the free market from the equation. The rising cost of a semester at college has left the rising cost of inflation in its dust. Colleges know that it's not the student who has to pay, it's a federally funded guaranteed loan that will pay for it. We've seem the same human nature take place with health care costs, which charge outrageous fees because insurance pays for it, and it'll get worse with Obamacare. It can't NOT get worse. It's human nature.

The Fed announced yesterday that they will begin buying up $40 billion PER MONTH of mortgage bonds to help with the economic recovery. The credit rating agency Egan-Jones today cut the US credit rating from AA to AA- (after cutting it from AAA already) because buying up that many mortgage bonds does nothing but guarantee those mortgages to the lenders, and will end up reducing the value of the dollar even further, thereby raising the cost of oil and other commodities which trade in US dollars (which is nearly all of them), and will hurt both businesses and consumers. Awesome.

 

[cubansammich]

OK - I'll offer a more detailed explanation to anyone who may still be in the dark. First, a couple of observations that are relevant to the subject at hand (the Chicago teachers' strike) (bold emphasis mine):

1. "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"
- Margaret Thatcher

2. "Despite severe cost cutting, scores of layoffs and wholesale restructuring last year, Chicago Public Schools faces a budget deficit estimated at $600 million to $700 million in 2013, with the cost of a longer school day still unknown, officials said.In a presentation to the school board Wednesday, CPS officials are expected to detail how rising costs; steep drops in local, state and federal revenue; and ballooning debt obligations will combine for massive budget shortfalls over the next three fiscal years...
The deficit could top $1 billion by 2014 when the district's four-year pension holiday expires and the district will have to resume making full pension payments, said CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll. CPS projects pension costs to increase that year by almost $340 million, Carroll said."
CPS faces another massive budget deficit in 2013 - Chicago Tribune

Now allow me to offer another scenario that most of those who run small businesses will understand. Suppose you own a small fleet of three straight trucks, and one of your drivers calls you in the middle of a trip from Chicago to El Paso; in spite of having previously agreed to a contracted price for the shipment with your customer and the prevailing market rate of compensation to your driver, he's now in Memphis and is demanding 30% more money or he's not going to complete the move. He's demanding this additional 30% for no added productivity. Due to your overhead (truck payments, insurance, fuel, etc) if you give him what he wants you end up losing money on the shipment. You think you can go back to the customer and tell them they have to pay more?? Good luck with that. Do you choose to continue operating at a loss just to accomodate this driver? That won't last long. The solution is to replace the driver. The moral of the story? It matters greatly where the money comes from when it's YOUR money.

Your analogy is compelling though it doesn't compare apples to apples. Should the driver you describe be in my fleet he would be told to leave the truck immediately as he was contracted to operate my property for a set amount of compensation. His actions as you have laid them out would be in violation of that contract. The contract would be terminated at that moment per my demanding it. A represented worker would not be exactly the same animal. Though this person works under a contract, it has an expiration date. Should that contract expire without an new agreement in place the worker has every right to demand whatever they want. Actually receiving the demands would of course be up for negotiation.

 

[xiggi]

It matters little whether it is private or public money. The results are going to be the same. Workers work because they need to subsist. They couldn't care less where it comes from. How many expediters here move freight for both public and private sources? Do you suppose those individuals consider where the money is coming from when they accept or turn down a load? If anything there are many who would say, wow, a government load! Let's get em' for all we can. There might even be one or two individuals here who don't even pay taxes!

Can you imagine?

I would bet over 90 percent of expedite loads are private money. What happens to our country has an incredible amount to do with how much public money is spent. You do realize the government has none of there own money right.

sent from my FISHER PRICE Z100 using EO forums

 

[cubansammich]

I would bet over 90 percent of expedite loads are private money. What happens to our country has an incredible amount to do with how much public money is spent. You do realize the government has none of there own money right.

sent from my FISHER PRICE Z100 using EO forums

Yes. I am fully aware who's money the government is playing with. I received an A in macroeconomics at the college level. However, this has nothing to do with my view. The gist of my argument is that those at the end of the line, in effect those who are the ultimate receivers of the dollars, do not care where it comes from as long as it ends up in their pockets.

 

[layoutshooter]

Your analogy is compelling though it doesn't compare apples to apples. Should the driver you describe be in my fleet he would be told to leave the truck immediately as he was contracted to operate my property for a set amount of compensation. His actions as you have laid them out would be in violation of that contract. The contract would be terminated at that moment per my demanding it. A represented worker would not be exactly the same animal. Though this person works under a contract, it has an expiration date. Should that contract expire without an new agreement in place the worker has every right to demand whatever they want. Actually receiving the demands would of course be up for negotiation.

Do you have a fleet? Each MAN should succeed, OR FAIL, on HIS own performance. Unions by pass individual performance insuring lower standards. They 'protect' the lazy, the drunks, druggies and bums, to insure dues. They eliminate superior performance, lowering the output of all.

 

[layoutshooter]

Your analogy is compelling though it doesn't compare apples to apples. Should the driver you describe be in my fleet he would be told to leave the truck immediately as he was contracted to operate my property for a set amount of compensation. His actions as you have laid them out would be in violation of that contract. The contract would be terminated at that moment per my demanding it. A represented worker would not be exactly the same animal. Though this person works under a contract, it has an expiration date. Should that contract expire without an new agreement in place the worker has every right to demand whatever they want. Actually receiving the demands would of course be up for negotiation.

Do you have a fleet? Each MAN should succeed, OR FAIL, on HIS own performance. Unions by pass individual performance insuring lower standards. They 'protect' the lazy, the drunks, druggies and bums, to insure dues. They eliminate reward for superior performance. They eliminate removing the failures, lowering the output of all.