Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Olbermann: Targets React to Anti-Unemployment Benefits Gingrich - 'I Was Appalled'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 07:56 PM
Original message
Olbermann: Targets React to Anti-Unemployment Benefits Gingrich - 'I Was Appalled'
Edited on Thu Aug-12-10 08:14 PM by Hissyspit
 
Run time: 12:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7zpfJdPjQ
 
Posted on YouTube: August 13, 2010
By YouTube Member: PoliticsNewsNews
Views on YouTube: 2
 
Posted on DU: August 13, 2010
By DU Member: Hissyspit
Views on DU: 3272
 
MSNBC Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN - 12 Aug. 2010: Must-view interview by Keith of Lumberton, NC mechanic Mike Hatchell, who Newt Gingrich targeted as being willing to stay on unemployment instead of taking jobs, such as one in Dubai. Gingrich called taking the benefits, which Hatchell notes he has paid into most of his lie, 'welfare.'

HATCHELL: "Keith, it's really hard for someone like Mr. Gingrich to understand that fact that when you have a mortgage, you have a family to support, you have car payments, insurance, and everything else, that, when you're going out and looking for a job... that are going to pay half of what I'm used to making..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
theaocp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. I saw this and nearly
put my fist through the wall. Dexter needs to have Newt on his table, under much plastic wrap. He wouldn't need pictures, just a map of the 'States. He has caused so much misery for others and is openly hypocritical about his role in the whole charade. It makes me ill. Where's my vaporizer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R


That's rich coming from Gingrich, a bastard who http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/gingrich_profile_featuring_ex-wife_begets_question.php?ref=tn">couldn't even balance his checkbook because doing so "stressed" him out!

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He is such a shit. Why don't these disgraced hypocrites just shut up and go away?
Oh, yeah. He makes a lot of money peddling this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Having Gingrich around is like when you unknowingly step into dog poo......
...you can't always see it, but the stench lingers with you wherever you go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Cold-hearted republicans - Happy to be a bleeding-heart democrat anyday - Fuck the liar Gingrich!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Worst first post EVER ...
The employer's contribution is considered a benefit that is
EARNED by the employee having a job. It's like health in-
surance that may come with a job. So you may not have paid
the entire amount (as with healthcare) or even ANYTHING (as
with this insurance) but by working consistently, you have
EARNED the right to something if you are let go WITHOUT CAUSE,
the same way you earn the right to participate in your employer's
healthcare plan as long as you're employed.

"Distance yourself from Olbermann" ... yeah, right, buddy.
I'll drink your Kool-Aid ... NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. He paid ZERO into the system. Not dime one. It is NOT a benefit that is earned like insurance.
While I disagree with the poster calling him a turkey, it is not like health insurance that comes with a job.

The entire unemployment tax is paid by the employer. It is not an option. There are not different levels or kinds. It is a tax paid by the employer. Period.

If you want to be taken seriously, by someone who knows what he or she is talking about (Keith obviously does not know what he is talking about) don't say that as it shows how ignorant of the system you are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Nonsense. It is an employer tax that is figured when coming up with your salary as a cost of having
an employee so the employer can qualify for other tax deductions and breaks. It figures into the benefits of having an employee...you agree to rules so you can get breaks. The insurance is paid for him if necessary but only if necessary but providing for that situation allows the employer to make substantial gains like write offs etc.

It is not welfare, it is insurance paid as a tax, and an employee benefit just the same as being paid your salary for medical leave or injured on the job.

Exxon/Mobile made over $19 billion in profit last year but paid zero taxes and still got $156 million tax return. They must not be paying any unemployment "tax", or have laid anyone off or even fired anyone to pay this "tax" according to your understanding of unemployment insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. absolutely untrue
the man in the video said he had paid into the system for 35 years and therefore was entitled to the benefits.

That is not how unemployment is calculated. It is based entirely on wages in your last year of work (actually the last four completed quarters or the first four of the last five completed quarters depending on which state you live in.) It is not based on 35 years.

And to say it is a benefit is like saying all taxes an employer pays are a "benefit" to the employee. So, the business tax the employer pays is a benefit?

I don't know what you mean by "substantial gains by write offs" for paying taxes.

It is not like wages. If you earn wages and an employer doesn't pay, you can sue the employer. If the government said tomorrow that it is no longer going to offer unemployment benefits, you can't sue anyone.

On the job injuries are a little different. If you are injured on the job and the employer has workers' comp insurance, you can't sue the employer, you can only collect workers' comp. If your employer doesn't have workers' comp, you can sue the employer but only for your injuries. Both the workers' comp and UI systems were set up as a give and take. Employers get something in exchange for "buying" the mandatory insurance (through a tax in the case of UI). For UI, the employer gets free employment agencies to help it find employees when needed. Employers also wrote into the law that you must be able and available for work and actively seeking work while on UI and that you cannot turn down suitable work while on UI (which is the real question Keith should have talked about with the guy. Was the work suitable? If so, he had to take it. If not, and Newt doesn't like that law, he should work to change the suitable work law instead of singling out unemployed workers and telling half truths about them. Newt should say "we need to change the suitable work definition so this guy has to take one of these jobs." Then we could have a discussion about facts, not lies.

I will agree it is not "welfare". It is not a public assistance payment under the legal definition of that term. If you lose your job through no fault of your own and YOU ARE OTHER WISE ELIGIBLE, you can get UI. Even if the employer didn't pay the tax it should have paid. But, even if you get laid off through no fault of your own and you are not able or available for work, you do not get unemployment benefits. If you had "paid" for unemployment, you'd have made it different so, for instance, if you have to leave your job because you are ill you'd still get unemployment. But you didn't, and you don't. (I could go on and on. I've worked in unemployment and welfare exclusively for 13 years. Before that, I worked in workers' comp for 16 years.)

There are issues here that need discussion and when we get our facts wrong, and say things like "I paid for my unemployment" we get the discussion off track and allow people to say we don't know what we're talking about. Which could lead to our losing the argument.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freebrew Donating Member (478 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. The guy was self-employed for a while too.
So, he paid into the UI system for himself. I was an employer briefly as well. You cannot get out of paying into the system. If you don't pay and an employee files a claim, legal or not, you will be forced to pay back the system.

So, to get it straight, SOMEONE paid into the UI system for this guy while he was employed.


If the employer wasn't liable for this 'tax' then we, as employees would be making more $$$, right? Right?

(crickets?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. true, BUT, if the CEO didn't take a salary, you make more $$$ and if the company
returned all of its profits to employees you'd make more $$$ and if the employer didn't pay any taxes you'd make more $$ and if the employer didn't pay the rent you'd make more $$$, and if the employer didn't pay the wages of the other employees you'd make more $$$.

To say the employee has paid into the system is incorrect.

If he was self-employed, he only paid into the system if he was a corporate officer (which, btw, makes him ineligible for benefits if that was his last job).

(the crickets snark was unnecessary, seems to me.)

All I'm saying is, debate the issues instead of getting pulled off course by something like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. The employer doesn't make money through the labor of the employee?
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 04:53 AM by Hissyspit
News to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. not what I said
I said, the employee does not pay and is not responsible for the payment of unemployment compensation tax/benefits/insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Um, it's a tax set aside that would otherwise be in your paycheck.
So, essentially, you are paying for it.

And, it's set aside specifically to be used for when you become unemployed.

Not unlike health coverage, a benefit, meant to be used, that costs and employer money that might otherwise be your money if you were an independent contractor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. only if you say you are paying for the profits of a company too
which means you think you have a claim to a portion of that as a benefit?

Not legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SouthernLiberal Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Not true everywhere
You have described the situation here in South Carolina accurately, and I guess you've got your state's rules correct. But that does not mean that you are correct for all states. When I was living in NJ, my premium payment for unemployment insurance was deducted from every paycheck and clearly indicated.

My employers paid a portion of the total premium as well,true, but not the entire premium.

So it is not correct to describe unemployment as "a tax paid by the employer. Period."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. not really, at least not since 1979.
NJ passed a law in 1980 that mandated disability insurance for all employees covered by unemployment compensation. The employer pays the unemployment tax and the employee pays the disability tax.

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/epbam/additional/uitdi.htm

Under FUTA (unemployment law) the unemployment system in each state is considered a "state federal partnership" agency. The federal government must approve every state law passed in every legislature that has any impact on the unemployment system. If a state wants to opt out of the state/federal unemployment system they can (none do) but the employer must then pay a higher federal unemployment tax rate (which is higher than and state and federal rate combined.)

So, if NJ really did make employees pay a portion of the UI tax, the NJ employer would pay an ever higher tax to the feds.

So, he didn't UI and, not to sound rude, but neither did you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-14-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Wow, you're wrong. In 6 of the last 11 listed posts. Is that a DU record?
Employees get taxes levied for Unemployment insurance. It's listed on pay stubs in various ways, as a deduction for SUI, SUTA, EE SUTA, SDI, State UC, etc. It's strange that you're so positive that you're right, and simultaneously are wrong.
And the 'employer contribution' part of unemployment insurance is money that the employer OWES the employee, as part of the employee's Total Compensation Package. Just exactly like medical insurance, where the employer owes the insured employee hundreds of dollars per week, that must be paid for the employee's medical coverage. Both types (unemployment and medical) of those 'employer contributions' are EARNED by the employee, but don't show up on the employee check stubs. So American workers earned both employee and employer contributions to their unemployment insurance and medical insurance, as part of their total compensation.
I honestly hope that you have a good total compensation package. Really. Because defending the repugs is a really hard job, and you deserve to be compensated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I am not defending the republicans, I'm just stating the law
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=104985,00.html

http://www.staffmarket.com/peo/pricing-suta-2008.asp

There are 3 states that require employees to contribute under certain circumstances. NJ, PA and AK. http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/comparison2010.asp (PDF file by clicking "Financing")

As I mentioned, if you read NJ law, the ee contribution goes to the state created disability portion of the fund while the employer pays the UI, PA requires employees to contribute only when the reserves fall below a certain number and maxes out at .09% or 90 cents per $1,000 in wages annually. So, if you make say $30,000 you pay $270 per year in PA. http://www.alleghenyconference.org/PRA/RegionalData/Unemployment.asp AK also has an employee contribution which maxes out at $170 per year. http://labor.alaska.gov/estax/faq/w1.htm AK, as I recall, got the employee contribution in exchange for adding a sum for dependent children to the weekly benefit. Other states add for dependents too but don't make employees pay UI taxes.

The guy in the interview was from NC. He did not pay into his unemployment fund. He is not from one of the three states.

If you want to consider everything the employer pays on your behalf as "something you paid for" then it is semantics. But, in 47 states, if you contract with an employer to pay you X in wages, the employer can not pay you x minus anything for unemployment insurance. It is not considered "earned" under any legal definition I am aware of.

And don't worry about me. I am well compensated. Your snide comments are neither appreciated nor becoming.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-15-10 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Sorry H. No offense meant to you as a Democrat.
I appreciate the links you included, and see you are a long time post-er, so it wasn't fair to be snide. If you were on the other team, I'm sure you wouldn't continue posting. I just couldn't believe you kept saying we pay nothing, when the check stubs I have, going back many years, show employee contributions. This occurred when the fund was low, and when it wasn't, and I knew when the fund was low, because the state gave me a 2.3% reduction on my weekly max. Since I have a paper trail for deductions, I got miffed to see a bunch of posts (6 out of 11 sequentially) where someone said employees don't pay. I apologize for seeing red.

Instead of putting it down to semantics, on the employer contribution point, I would respectfully suggest you to consider that the employer contribution part of unemployment insurance is exactly like medical insurance. Both are worked for by the employee, both are not reflected on the employees check-stubs. Neither are given through the kindness of the employers' hearts, but are owed to the employee for work performed and profit created. When our contract is re-negotiated, we often shift dollars per hour, from pay into insurance. We forego dollars per hour from our gross, so the quadrennially-renewed contract for our Total Compensation package provides you with a legal definition of 'earned' (a legal document you should be aware of), and it covers all of the 'employer contributions'.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Thanks LS. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. How do you know he didn't pay in for 35 years. Maybe he had employees under him?
And his work and labor didn't create the captial necessary to pay into the insurance system?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
13. If Gingrich was true to his cause
he'd be returning his Congressional pension checks to the Treasury. But Newt is nothing more than a huckster for the privileged elites.
One solution might be to cut off all registered Republicans from unemployment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Or from citizenship. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
florida08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. excellent exchange
and if we don't get it by now this is what the rightwing wants. Reduced wages. Kill the american dream. Unemployment benefits are to protect workers from losing everything and being homeless upon losing their job ..and get this "through NO fault of their own".
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=101065,00.html. You don't get it for being fired because you're unproductive.

Second..unemployment is taxed http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/news/tax_surprises/unemployment-benefits.asp so yes those receiving do pay back into the system. A new law is in effect that allows the first 2400 to be tax free. Whoopee. But that's because over 5 1/2 million have no job! http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205633,00.html

It's the law that they pay not an option. In many cases it helps them to recoup good employees they've had to layoff for later when the economy is better because rehiring a known good employee is easier and cost productive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. Why does Sharron Angle always sound like she's talking to a roomful of kindergartners?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
18. Employees DO pay unemployment tax, in two different ways.
Two simple points: 1) Unemployment Insurance is a Federal program, but it is administered by the states, and the states levy taxes on the employer AND employee for it. 2) Employee check stubs (and W-2s) don't reflect hundreds of dollars per week, hundreds that the employer owes the employee for working, and that money is part of your 'Total Compensation' package. The 'employer contribution' portion of your pay isn't reported to you, the worker. This is for employers' tax purposes, it benefits employers at tax time. Too many American employees don't understand that, so the repugs get away with the lie that we didn't earn these benefits, and don't deserve them. An easy way to see through this lie is to look at your own check stubs to see how much money you earned for your medical insurance plan, if you're lucky enough to be working and have health insurance, in the America that the bush repugs created. If you see zero dollars/hour, don't worry. The medical insurance you EARNED still exists. You also earned every cent of the 'employer contribution' to your unemployment insurance. They have to pay you these funds, to entice you to work for them in the first place. They aren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, they are competing with other employers to hire you.

As a union construction worker, I work for many different employers every year, through my union hall's hiring referral system. This happens to millions of AFL/CIO - employed Americans, every year. Each employer, (on every check stub), shows the 'employee contribution' that is deducted for unemployment funds. Here are 7 deduction entry titles from the past 3 years: 1) Sometimes the deduction is called 'State Unemployment Insurance (SUI)' as Busch Electric Construction Inc. (in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania), terms it. 2) Sometimes it is termed 'Pennsylvania Unemp. SUTA', as Franklin Electric, LP (in Pittsburgh, PA), puts it. Or 3) it is put down as 'PA Unemployment Compensation (UC) Fund', as Lighthouse Electric Company, Inc. calls it. Or 4) it is deducted as 'PA UC (Unemployment Comp)', by Precision Electrical Contractors, Inc. 5) In the case of Hoffman Elec., Inc., my wage deduction is mysteriously abbreviated as 'EE SUTA PA' (the 'U' is for unemployment); or 6) it's termed (and deducted) as 'SDI' by Chapman Corporation (& you got me by the short ones what any letter means, but it's the same deduction. Maybe the 'S' means State). 7) Fallon Electric Co., Inc., in Pittsburgh, calls it 'PA State Unemployment Compensation (UC)'. Powell Electric Corporation calls it 'State Unemployment Insurance (SUI)', the same as Busch Electric. These seven employer check-deduction entry-titles are just a few examples of check stubs I currently have at hand, going back 15 years. These deduction entry-titles are all indisputable and very proveable facts.

On the same check stubs, each employer shows zero dollars that I have earned, or have had deducted, for my medical plan. But the employers are contractually obligated to pay me that money, if they want me to work for them and make them money. As a currently unemployed person, I can say that I owe my medical insurance plan $280 per week, or $7 dollars per hour, if I want my family and myself to keep the same medical coverage. The employers, insurance companies, and government are all very willing to tell me how much I am worth, when they are telling me how much I am costing them by being unemployed, and hence, how much I OWE THEM. But they aren't willing to put in writing, on check stubs and tax documents, that THEY OWE ME that $280/week, every week that I work for them. That particular contractual obligation, between employee and employer, is not reflected on my stubs. (But keep in mind that the repugs WERE floating a proposal to tax me for that health plan, in an effort to turn Americans with insurance against Americans that didn't have insurance, during the Health Care reform fight.) The 'employer contribution' part of my unemployment insurance is exactly the same as the 'employer contribution' part of my medical insurance. We worked for, and earned, the 'employer contribution' for unemployment. Again, the employers aren't paying it out of the kindness of their hearts. This is true whether the 'employer contributions' are to unemployment funds or medical insurance funds, or FICA, or Medicare, or retirement pension, or Social Security, etc. My union sisters and brothers make two figures in dollars per hour, in terms of benefits, that are not on our pay stubs. And we make two figures in dollars per hour on our pay checks, reflected in various deduction entry-titles on the pay stubs.

The 'employee contribution' deductions by employer companies, for unemployment insurance -- those deductions exist, and we earned that money. This is easily provable, just look at your pay stubs. We also earned the 'employer contribution' part of our unemployment insurance. It's part of the total compensation package that our employment contract secures for us. Anyone who denies those two facts is either poorly informed, or is knowingly working for the other team. If the latter is true, I hope they have a nice total compensation package, because it sure is hard work trying to defend ANY repug policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
23. Unemployment is insurance and as we all know ...
insurance should be PAID for, but not actually used.

:sarcasm:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressOnTheMove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
26. Unions, people of latin american heritage, and the out of work should unite to win this election..
Edited on Fri Aug-13-10 05:18 PM by ProgressOnTheMove
One so that people of latin american descent aren't demonized further by the right, so Unions can get 'employees free choice act' with healthy progressive gains, and so the out of work ahve a fighting chance. Time to join up, brain storm and make big things happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoIsNumberNone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
27. Americans should work for less?
Yeah right. Like working class salaries aren't low enough already. You know who should be working for less? CEO's. Those fucking fatcats who get 7 and 8 figure salaries to trim payrolls- and usually have enough time left over between rounds of golf to sit on a couple of other boards for 6 or 7 figures each. Lucky for these scumbags we've spent the last 150 years indoctrinating people on the evils of communism, or there would now be a revolution just around the corner.

The last job I had working for a big corporation ended when a new CEO came in- he brought all of his buddies into the boardroom and fired 25% of the workforce. He cleared out people who had been there for 10 years or more only because they were making too much money. For all that cost cutting he got a $3 million performance bonus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobhuntsman Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-13-10 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
30. In the sound bite leading up to this story. . .
Newt mentioned "Productive Americans".

Can anyone confirm whether or not Newt has EVER produced ANYTHING??

(. . .other than hot air, I guess. . .)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC