- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,376
- Reaction score
- 10,651
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Therefore, he is/was not a good employer.nine months, actually.
however, i am very much against discriminating against the long term unemployed.
Sure, just as soon as you get around to proving my statement as wrong.
You are sidestepping, you made a claim, back it up.
Therefore, he is/was not a good employer.
That chart had nothing to do with the relative amounts of increased spending by Reagan and Obama, you are avoiding what you claimed I was wrong about.The chart proves
Your previous statements about not hiring the long term unemployed have already been reposted in this thread.Isn't it amazing how someone who doesn't know me
That chart had nothing to do with the relative amounts of increased spending by Reagan and Obama, you are avoiding what you claimed I was wrong about.
You cannot honestly debate anything.
Your previous statements about not hiring the long term unemployed have already been reposted in this thread.
I opposed the Bush tax cuts and recent history has shown they don't work as you advertise.Aw, yes, more baiting and trolling. Prove that the numbers I have posted are wrong and paint a different picture than I presented. You cannot nor can you admit that you are wrong in your ideology.
Your previous statements about not hiring the long term unemployed have already been reposted in this thread.
They are consistent with the rest of the Ayn Rand concept you espouse.
The context was whether you were a good employer, the criteria included whether you would hire someone who had been unemployed long term. You admitted previously you would not hire the long term unemployed.As usual context doesn't matter to you just to make what you think is a valid political point.
I opposed the Bush tax cuts and recent history has shown they don't work as you advertise.
Therefore, he is/was not a good employer.
The context was whether you were a good employer, the criteria included whether you would hire someone who had been unemployed long term. You admitted previously you would not hire the long term unemployed.
Not only does this fit nicely into the Ayn Rand ideology, it also displays that your ideas do not fit with the situation of today. You cannot say that you know what the solutions are for the unemployed (that you use as a club) since you would never hire the long term unemployed.
Bush was fired in 2008 by the public rejecting Republicans. Bush added to much to the debt but Obama put that spending on steroids. Bush never had a 3.6 trillion dollar budget nor did he propose a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. National debt increased by 4.9 trillion dollars under Bush in 8 years, one trillion of which was attributed to 9/11. Obama has added 6.2 trillion in less than five years. You have an outrage over what Bush did but give Obama a pass. Do the economic numbers warrant adding 6.2 trillion to the debt?
Your argument is totally faulty, of course it is the standard business practice, to not hire those who have been out of work.....but that is not a solution for the current conditions. Further, you don't want fed spending on those unemployed for training to get them up to speed or to change jobs.What I find concerning is that you claim to own your own business yet employ no one. Tell me what makes you an expert on hiring individuals and why would you hire the person unemployed the longest vs the best qualified for the job if that person was working in a job they were over qualified to handle? Does working rather than collecting an unemployment check play any role in your decision making process? If a longer term unemployed applied for the job and was more qualified than the individual under employed individual who applied for the same job wonder who I would hire? Hmmm, you see hiring the wrong employee reflects poorly on my and my financial results. I just wonder how a long term unemployed individual is more qualified accepting an unemployment check than taking a job and working towards a better job?
Bush was term limited, not fired.
it mostly means he wasn't a perfect employer. pretty much every good employer i have worked for has had at least one stupid, anti-worker / counterproductive policy that i disagree with completely. the job that broke my nine month streak was awesome. however, they hired me as a ****ing "independent contractor," i had no job security, and i was somewhat mislead about whether i would be made a permanent employee. i was on track to be hired permanently, and then they sent the boss two levels above my supervisor to China. new guy didn't know me, and decided to pare down the team. i was first on the chopping block. that's what happens when workers have no representation, even if the worker is highly skilled and educated. still, the job was great, paid very well, and i definitely wanted to stay.
Bush was term limited, not fired.
You are avoiding the point made, those who will not hire the long term unemployed would not hire you as anything.it mostly means he wasn't a perfect employer. pretty much every good employer i have worked for has had at least one stupid, anti-worker / counterproductive policy that i disagree with completely. the job that broke my nine month streak was awesome. however, they hired me as a ****ing "independent contractor," i had no job security, and i was somewhat mislead about whether i would be made a permanent employee. i was on track to be hired permanently, and then they sent the boss two levels above my supervisor to China. new guy didn't know me, and decided to pare down the team. i was first on the chopping block. that's what happens when workers have no representation, even if the worker is highly skilled and educated. still, the job was great, paid very well, and i definitely wanted to stay.
So you oppose keeping more of your own money and believe the govt. needs it more? Working people today are still benefiting from the Bush tax cuts whereas people working today aren't benefiting from the Obama tax cuts. I find it interesting that you cannot see the difference. Could it be political ideology blinding you?
Your argument is totally faulty, of course it is the standard business practice, to not hire those who have been out of work.....but that is not a solution for the current conditions. Further, you don't want fed spending on those unemployed for training to get them up to speed or to change jobs.
Your arguments leaves them in the cold, you have no solutions for those you continue to use as a club.
Your argument is totally faulty, of course it is the standard business practice, to not hire those who have been out of work.....but that is not a solution for the current conditions. Further, you don't want fed spending on those unemployed for training to get them up to speed or to change jobs.
Your arguments leaves them in the cold, you have no solutions for those you continue to use as a club.
rewind...No, that isn't what I admitted, but keep playing the baiting diversion game. Post 484 explains it well to you. maybe you ought to get someone to help you read it.
Remind me again....if a guy has been out of work for a while.....you won't hire him.
For a while? Two years? Yes I won't hire someone who has been out of work for 2 years, no initiative, no drive, and someone who has lived off the taxpayers for too long
You seem to be forgetting that the house is were all legeslation starts and any jobs or economic policy Obama proposed in a bill has never seen the light of day. At least that has been the case since 2010.
rewind...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?