New York area Applebee's franchisee hiring freeze

[Steve]

Canyon Note: We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
suffering from their vote.

Zane Tankel, Applebee's Franchisee, Says He Won't Hire Because Of
Obamacare (VIDEO)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamacare_n_2094568.html

An Applebee's New York area franchisee is the latest CEO to go public
threatening drastic plans to avoid costs associated with the
Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.


The entire leftist agenda revolves around the ridiculous premise that they
have a right to be taken care of by other persons.

[Obama Phone]

On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> suffering from their vote.
>
> Zane Tankel, Applebee's Franchisee, Says He Won't Hire Because Of
> Obamacare (VIDEO)
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamac...

>
> An Applebee's New York area franchisee is the latest CEO to go public
> threatening drastic plans to avoid costs associated with the
> Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
>
> The entire leftist agenda revolves around the ridiculous premise that they
> have a right to be taken care of by other persons.

Truth be told most restauranteurs and retailers only hire part timers
because they need to avoid big benefit full timers. But when real
companies stop hiring i.e. fortune 500 because of Obamacare the Obama
Phones will feel it.

Oh wait what am I talking about. Obama Phones don't need to work. They
are takers. Not makers. They just wait for the check. While I work for
one.

So in truth. "I" am going to impacted by Obamacare. I'll get less
coverage for my money while I pay more taxes to cover the Obama Phones.

[Jay Herblock]

On Nov 11, 7:51 am, Obama Phone <billaryclinton2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> > suffering from their vote.
>
> > Zane Tankel, Applebee's Franchisee, Says He Won't Hire Because Of
> > Obamacare (VIDEO)
>
> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamac...
>
> > An Applebee's New York area franchisee is the latest CEO to go public
> > threatening drastic plans to avoid costs associated with the
> > Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
>
> > The entire leftist agenda revolves around the ridiculous premise that they
> > have a right to be taken care of by other persons.
>
> Truth be told most restauranteurs and retailers only hire part timers
> because they need to avoid big benefit full timers.  But when real
> companies stop hiring i.e. fortune 500 because of Obamacare the Obama
> Phones will feel it.

I think that Zane is going to try out a new repooplicon money saving
plan; the kosher good trough.
Less workers, more kosher chow.

[wy]

On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:

> Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> suffering from their vote.

You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose. The sweet
irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also
be kicking out their Repugnant employees too. Unless you're really
saying that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're
already out of work collecting government checks and food stamps like
a whole slew of them are across the South. You included.

>
> Zane Tankel, Applebee's Franchisee, Says He Won't Hire Because Of
> Obamacare (VIDEO)
>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamac...

[Yak]

On Nov 11, 10:27 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> > suffering from their vote.
>
> You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose.  The sweet
> irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
> exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also
> be kicking out their Repugnant employees too.  Unless you're really
> saying that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're
> already out of work collecting government checks and food stamps like
> a whole slew of them are across the South.  You included.

You're missing the larger point. Republicans knew that re-electing
the incompetent buffoon would result in exactly what is happening.
Democrat retards, on the other hand, thought the opposite...that
electing the incompetent buffoon would somehow be a boon to them. It
took one lousy day to place front and center for all to see that
elections have consequences. I wonder how Peggy Joseph is making out
not having to worry about paying her mortgage or putting gas in her
car?

[wy]

On Nov 11, 10:37 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 10:27 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> > > suffering from their vote.
>
> > You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose.  The sweet
> > irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
> > exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also
> > be kicking out their Repugnant employees too.  Unless you're really
> > saying that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're
> > already out of work collecting government checks and food stamps like
> > a whole slew of them are across the South.  You included.
>
> You're missing the larger point.  Republicans knew that re-electing
> the incompetent buffoon would result in exactly what is happening.

Here's even the larger point. Repugnants are spiteful racists. They
couldn't oust Obama out of his job the obstructionist way over the
last 4 years, so now they'll oust everyday Americans out of their low-
paying jobs the spiteful way instead, thanks to their embedded
seething disdain for any president who isn't lily-white Caucasian.

[Steve]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:27:20 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
>> suffering from their vote.
>
>You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose.

Some will, but mostly it'll be the bottom feeders.. Fact is that the
first to go will be the least qualified.. sort of like wy.

[wy]

Yeah, that's coming from the owner-operator of the Hey, Little Girl
lemonade stand at his trailer park home.

[Yak]

On Nov 11, 10:48 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 10:37 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 10:27 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> > > > suffering from their vote.
>
> > > You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose.  The sweet
> > > irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
> > > exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also
> > > be kicking out their Repugnant employees too.  Unless you're really
> > > saying that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're
> > > already out of work collecting government checks and food stamps like
> > > a whole slew of them are across the South.  You included.
>
> > You're missing the larger point.  Republicans knew that re-electing
> > the incompetent buffoon would result in exactly what is happening.
>
> Here's even the larger point.  Repugnants are spiteful racists.  They
> couldn't oust Obama out of his job the obstructionist way over the
> last 4 years, so now they'll oust everyday Americans out of their low-
> paying jobs the spiteful way instead, thanks to their embedded
> seething disdain for any president who isn't lily-white Caucasian.

Great logic. Greeeeeeedy republicans destroying their own businesses
out of racist spite. Smart. Real smart.

[wy]

On Nov 11, 11:22 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 10:48 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 10:37 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 10:27 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
> > > > > suffering from their vote.
>
> > > > You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose.  The sweet
> > > > irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
> > > > exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also
> > > > be kicking out their Repugnant employees too.  Unless you're really
> > > > saying that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're
> > > > already out of work collecting government checks and food stamps like
> > > > a whole slew of them are across the South.  You included.
>
> > > You're missing the larger point.  Republicans knew that re-electing
> > > the incompetent buffoon would result in exactly what is happening.
>
> > Here's even the larger point.  Repugnants are spiteful racists.  They
> > couldn't oust Obama out of his job the obstructionist way over the
> > last 4 years, so now they'll oust everyday Americans out of their low-
> > paying jobs the spiteful way instead, thanks to their embedded
> > seething disdain for any president who isn't lily-white Caucasian.
>
> Great logic.  Greeeeeeedy republicans destroying their own businesses
> out of racist spite.  Smart.  Real smart.

Yeah. The way they destroyed the economy when Bush was running
things. See the connection?

[Steve]

<SNICKER> Poor wy, you don't need to keep on demonstrating how
jealous you are of my being able to live in a nice condo on the beach
overlooking the Gulf of Mexico and driving a nice little truck with
leather seats.. Oh, I almost forgot, I also ride a bicycle worth more
than your muffler dragging car.

[wy]

You need to get off the drugs.

[Steve]

hey, wanna see the bike and the truck?

http://tinyurl.com/7qak8nq

We'll soon be going to Cozumel to scuba dive for a couple of weeks.
I'll try to get some pics from there to add..

[wy]

Yeah, nice. You load up your bike onto your neighbor's truck to get a
lift because you sometimes just get too lazy to ride that bike with
that one good leg of yours.

>
> We'll soon be going to Cozumel to scuba dive for a couple of weeks.
> I'll try to get some pics from there to add..

Sure. I'll be off to Mars this week, I'll post pics of that too.

[Yak]

What the....huh???

[Marvin the Martian]

If you have 50 employees or more, you have to buy insurance for them and
their families.

So, at 2.4 people per "family" (and gay marriage means more families,
10%, so more like 2.6) and a cost of about 6 k$/year, hiring that 50th
employee cost 2.6 * 6 k$ * 50 = 780 k$.

Even if the profits for the owner was 250 k$/year (what Obama thinks is
rich) this tax for having 50 employees will put the small business out of
business.

This firing people to get below 50 people and not hiring is the intrinsic
stupidity of Obama care.

Instead, the employees are now going to have to buy their own health
insurance or be "taxed" by the IRS for not having done so.

[Marvin the Martian]

That's the other bad thing about Obama care - "part time" drops to 27
hours a week. So, your hours get cut back to 27 and at minimum wage
you're making $10,100 per year with a take home of about $9500 due to
socialist security. But the IRS is going to "tax" you if you don't buy
health insurance and that's going to take half your paycheck.

Funny as hell. TANSTAAFL!!

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:27:20 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>> Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama voters
>> suffering from their vote.
>
> You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose. The sweet
> irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
> exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also be
> kicking out their Repugnant employees too. Unless you're really saying
> that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're already out of
> work collecting government checks and food stamps like a whole slew of
> them are across the South. You included.

If you earn money and are one of the 50% who pays income taxes, odds are
you already have health insurance and are making more than minimum wage.

If you make more $7.5/hour MORE than minimum wage and don't have health
insurance, then they lay you off and hire you back at about $7.5/hour
less and hour, which is about what Obamacare cost the employeer.

It is the low end worker who is going to get it in the shorts. These
dumbasses tried to vote themselves a free ride and it is going to have
unintended consequences.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:48:19 -0800, wy wrote:

> On Nov 11, 10:37 am, Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 10:27 am, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 7:47 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Canyon Note:  We're going to see lots of bottom feeding Obama
>> > > voters suffering from their vote.
>>
>> > You make it sound like Repugnants don't have jobs to lose.  The sweet
>> > irony in this is that a lot of businesses going through this phony
>> > exercise are run by Repugnants and along with Democrats, they'll also
>> > be kicking out their Repugnant employees too.  Unless you're really
>> > saying that Repugnants won't be affected - because maybe they're
>> > already out of work collecting government checks and food stamps like
>> > a whole slew of them are across the South.  You included.
>>
>> You're missing the larger point.  Republicans knew that re-electing the
>> incompetent buffoon would result in exactly what is happening.
>
> Here's even the larger point. Repugnants are spiteful racists. They
> couldn't oust Obama out of his job the obstructionist way over the last
> 4 years, so now they'll oust everyday Americans out of their low-
> paying jobs the spiteful way instead, thanks to their embedded seething
> disdain for any president who isn't lily-white Caucasian.

Obama passed the Obama care law that says business have a choice:
1) Fire people to get below 50 employees.
2) Cut people's hours to 26 hours/week or less so they're not full time.
3) Go out of business.

For this stupidity, you're blaming the Republicans? You are one stupid
fucker, you know that?

[Marvin the Martian]

> I don't beleive you.
>
> Neither did most Americans.
>
> That's why Mitt Romney remains unemployed.

I'm sure you don't "beleive" it, nor did the hoard of little brown people
who re-elected Obama - the head little brown person. Pleading ignorant
doesn't change reality.

That doesn't make it any less true. If you have more than 50 employees,
then you MUST buy health insurance for your employees. If an employee
works more than 26 hours a week, he's considered "full time" and you must
count them towards your maximum of 50 employees. And the cost of the
insurance is almost as much as 1 minimum wage employee. So yes, many
companies will have to fire people and cut the hours of their part time
employees.

The law was stupidly written; quite understandable since it was written
by idiots.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:47:24 -0800, Where's all the China Blue food?
wrote:

> In article <faWdnc8FZJm7kz3N...@giganews.com>,

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> If you make more $7.5/hour MORE than minimum wage and don't have health
>> insurance, then they lay you off and hire you back at about $7.5/hour
>

> Or you find a business that wants to grow and hire good workers for good
> wages.
> You certainly don't want to get stuck with a business that wants to
> martyr itself for the right to kick employees in the face.

You're being a fool. It is business issue. Obamacare was designed so that
the 50th employee cost a LOT more than the 49th employee. In the market
of minimum wage jobs, it can double the cost of the employee and make the
business model unworkable.

But you think that business owners just shit money, which is totally
hilarious. You clearly have no clue at all how a business works and you
can't do the math. And great, you think there is tons of high paying
minimum wage jobs out there for you to select from. Good luck with that
with actual employment running 20%

[Frances Lohr]

Lora D. (previously posted as "Uno Hu," currently posting as "Jay
Herblock") is a complete crackpot. Believes 9/11 was an inside job,
has seen UFOs and black helicopters and is on a first-name basis with
ass-probing space aliens... She is also an admitted Communist:
"Actually, its time to club repooplicon billionaires on the head and
take their stolen profits and give them back to the general
population."
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012
Message-ID:
<d6f2ba9a-8ee2-4e71...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
From: Jay Herblock <jayhe...@gmail.com>

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:31:24 GMT, "Uno Hu" <lora...@cs.com> wrote:
>NATO violated its own Charter when it ceases being a defensive
>organizaion and embarked upon military gression in order to achieve its
>political goals.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a
ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. A
coalition that included several NATO members began enforcing a no-fly
zone over Libya shortly afterwards. [...] On 24 March, NATO agreed to
take control of the no-fly zone from the initial coalition, while
command of targeting ground units remains with the coalition's forces.
NATO began officially enforcing the UN resolution on 27 March 2011
with assistance from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/

[Obama Phone]

On Nov 11, 6:47 pm, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <faWdnc8FZJm7kz3NnZ2dnUVZ5vydn...@giganews.com>,

>  Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>

> > If you make more $7.5/hour MORE than minimum wage and don't have health
> > insurance, then they lay you off and hire you back at about $7.5/hour
>

> Or you find a business that wants to grow and hire good workers for good wages.
> You certainly don't want to get stuck with a business that wants to martyr
> itself for the right to kick employees in the face.
>

> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

It's so obvious that you know nothing about starting a business,
running a business, hiring employees or turning a profit. All you know
is that business should pay good wages. Which Obama Phones will never
earn now.

Fucking money grows on trees when you own a business doesn't it?

[wy]

I wouldn't expect you to see the connection.

[wy]

Now you very well know that's not in the law. That's just your
desperate rewording of it to make it sound Repugnant-friendly. Go
back to Mars.

[Marvin the Martian]

Tell me another one of your goddamned lies, you stupid asshole.

<http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703312504575141533342803608.html>


"Beginning in 2014, organizations with more than 50 employees that don't
offer affordable coverage will pay a penalty starting at $750 a year per
full-time worker under the bill approved by the Senate and House of
Representatives.

"A proposal approved separately by the House, which still requires Senate
approval, would raise that penalty to $2,000.

"Employers with 50 or fewer employees would be exempt from these
penalties, while organizations with more than 200 workers would be
required to enroll workers automatically into health-insurance plans
offered by the employer."

[Steve]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:51:10 -0800, "Where's all the China Blue food?"
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <dMudnfHqq_Kdcj3N...@giganews.com>,

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> Tell me another one of your goddamned lies, you stupid asshole.
>

>Only a business run by an asshole regards every dollar spent on employees as a
>personal insult. That sounds like your personal experience.
>
>A successful business makes hiring decisions on whether an additional employee
>is expected to increase net profits enough to justify the bother of hiring them.
>A successful business compares that cost to what the employee is expected to
>produce, not political nonsense that means nothing to profits.

As if you had any idea what successful businesses do.

>Some businesses have been keeping employees at part time for some years to
>reduce employee costs. Those same businesses are shocked when these employees
>disloyally jump to better paying employer on a moment's notice. Hiring and
>training new people has to be amortised over the term of employment; employees
>that change job quickly end up as a loss. If you want to start a business on a
>downward spiral, go ahead and blame employees for political frustration.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:51:10 -0800, Where's all the China Blue food?

wrote:

> In article <dMudnfHqq_Kdcj3N...@giganews.com>,

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> Tell me another one of your goddamned lies, you stupid asshole.
>

> Only a business run by an asshole regards every dollar spent on
> employees as a personal insult. That sounds like your personal
> experience.
>
> A successful business makes hiring decisions on whether an additional
> employee is expected to increase net profits enough to justify the
> bother of hiring them.

And if hiring the 50th minimum wage, 30 hour a week employee means an
outlay of $100,000 each year, what is the rate of return of hiring that
employee? Probably very negative.

That's the point, you stupid putz. The law makes it so small business
that uses unskilled labor will keep their employee count to less than 50
- either by not hiring or firing to get below the 50 level.

> A successful business compares that cost to what the employee is
> expected to produce, not political nonsense that means nothing to
> profits.
>

> Some businesses have been keeping employees at part time for some years
> to reduce employee costs. Those same businesses are shocked when these
> employees disloyally jump to better paying employer on a moment's
> notice. Hiring and training new people has to be amortised over the term
> of employment; employees that change job quickly end up as a loss. If
> you want to start a business on a downward spiral, go ahead and blame
> employees for political frustration.

As was pointed out before, you clearly know nothing about running a
business. Your claim that spending unlimited amount of money on employees
being goodness is not just laughable, but if you knew anything at all
about business or economics in general you'd realize you're making an ass
of yourself.

[Mr.B1ack]

I'd hazard to say that MOST workers are with
businesses that have LESS than 200 employees.
The next biggest chunk being businesses with
less than 50. Those "big employers" may be big
in the bizworld, but as a proportion of the
population they ain't employing a big slice.

Meaning MOST workers get SCREWED by OCare as
it's writ ... so if the Dems want to extend
their reign of power they'd better push those
index numbers down considerably OR go even
more 'socialist' and pick up everyone else
through tax-funded care.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:56:54 -0800, Where's all the China Blue food?
wrote:

> In article <75-dnXBDrMWx6DzN...@giganews.com>,

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> And if hiring the 50th minimum wage, 30 hour a week employee means an
>> outlay of $100,000 each year, what is the rate of return of hiring that
>> employee? Probably very negative.
>

> Only $100,000 a year? That doesn't even include salary. You sell
> yourself cheap.

As everyone pointed out, you don't understand business.

The way the Obamacare law is written, the 50th employee means that the
employer has AT LEAST another $100,000 a year in expenses added on to his
business. You're very confused, that's not my salary. Keep in mind that a
minimum wage employee costs about 7.25 * 1.075 * 40 * 52 = 16 k$/year so
that 50th employee costs more than the last 6 employees put together.

As an offset, the business gets 'tax credits' which only has value if the
company is making a profit.

I guess where you live, everyone's a millionaire.

[Mr.B1ack]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:11:12 -0800, Where's all the China Blue food?
wrote:

> In article <JI-dnXyx371nQj_N...@giganews.com>,

> Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:56:54 -0800, Where's all the China Blue food?
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <75-dnXBDrMWx6DzN...@giganews.com>,
>> > Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> And if hiring the 50th minimum wage, 30 hour a week employee means
>> >> an outlay of $100,000 each year, what is the rate of return of
>> >> hiring that employee? Probably very negative.
>> >
>> > Only $100,000 a year? That doesn't even include salary. You sell
>> > yourself cheap.
>>
>> As everyone pointed out, you don't understand business.
>>
>> The way the Obamacare law is written, the 50th employee means that the
>> employer has AT LEAST another $100,000 a year in expenses added on to
>> his business. You're very confused, that's not my salary. Keep in mind
>> that a minimum wage employee costs about 7.25 * 1.075 * 40 * 52 = 16
>> k$/year so that 50th employee costs more than the last 6 employees put
>> together.
>>
>> As an offset, the business gets 'tax credits' which only has value if
>> the company is making a profit.
>>
>> I guess where you live, everyone's a millionaire.
>

> Hmmm......that could explain the low crime rate.


Still think Bernie Madoff is gonna double
your money eh ? :-)

Plenty of crime where the streets are lined
with gold ... just a different GROUP of crimes
than you'll find down it ghettotown.

[Liberal Here]

Asshole...some numbers for you (have an adult explain them if it's too
hard for you). Peter G. Peterson Foundation advertisement BusinessWeek
11/11/12 issue, pgs 38-39.

Per person medical costs (2010)

OCED Average: $3,268
Italy: 2,964
UK: 3,433
France 3,974
Germany: 4,338
Canada: 4,445

*****USA****** $8,233

And this is before Obamacare, and the aforementioned nations all have
national healthcare. Our health ranks below every one of those nations
(source: UN's World Health Organization).

Implying we could see at least a $4,000 saving by a full national
healthcare system. And if everyone were taxed for healthcare exactly
what they pay today, that would be $4,000 * 310,000,000 =
$1,240,000,000,000 more to the US treasury, pretty much ending the
entire deficit. One point two trillion dollars.

You are the Internet's biggest asshole.

[Johnson J. Stroup]

Liberalhere is an umemployed bum posting from the public library in
Buffalo, NY. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage

them to continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:15:51 -0700 (PDT), liberal
<liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There has never been a privitization that made a
>former government good or service available at a lower price to
>consumer and was of better quality.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Before privatization the city had allowed the water system to
deteriorate to near collapse, was being fined by the EPA for violating
clean water standards, and had nearly 50% more employees working in
the water department than needed. The water department said it needed
to double water rates to solve these problems. Privatization saved the
city roughly $10 million per year, brought the system into compliance
with EPA standards, and raised rates only 10 percent to accomplish
it."
Atlanta dissolves water privatization
http://waterindustry.org/Water-Facts/atlanta-1.htm