Sold my half of the restaurant to my 50/50 partner to come back home from Columbus, OH. God, I hate that city! Sold my half of the carpentry business to my partner when the bottom fell out of new construction (Thanks, Unkie Dubya!). He still owns and operates the business.

Oh, and thankee fer the gold star, Frank! Made my day!

Bingo! Givin' my gold star to Jack.

 

My read of the article, right in line with Dave's

He gave his opinion on what could happen if Obama was elected AND the higher taxes are enacted.

Siegel has no way to know who his employees vote for.
- This is key if it was a "threat", he has no way follow through with it, if he meant it as you vote for Obama you are fired.
They could all vote for the GOP candidate, and Obama gets reelected, the same end game could happen.
Alternately, they could all vote for Obama and the GOP takes the presidency and the house and senate go Dem and the same could still happen with taxes.

I don't understand how the more money you earned in life is inverse to the freedom of an opinion.
Seems if you have money you cannot state any opinion, where if you have a net worth of less than { some number } you can say the most scary things, and get away with it.

Siegel can do what ever he wants with HIS company, he does not owe anything to anyone.
They work, he gives them a check. That is the end of the transaction.
I cannot understand when or why it became the responsibility of the companies to employee people. The company has 1 group it is responsible to, the shareholders.

Call it greed, call it drive.
He is the one that laid it on the line to start and continue to grow his business. He only answers to himself with his business, he makes the calls.
If his employees don't like it, they can start their own company and grow it to billions in revenue, then they can make the call on what happens with it.

Unions are the worst for taking credit for things they did not do, and intimidation, and none of the leaders do jail time. Even when they are telling everyone to stop paying their loans ( the union leader from ~ 2009 time frame in NYC ).
His thought, if everyone did it at the same time, the system could fall apart. At the time sounded a lot like domestic terrorism to me. He is still walking the streets, but this guy should do jail time for stating an opinion that could have an impact on his company ( not the entire US ).

 

There are a few other links out there on the web regarding this 'breaking news.' Turns out the letter he sent was basically a cut and paste from an email that was making the rounds back in 2008. He admits as much, and that he updated it slighlty.

Is the guy greedy a greedy bastage? Sure, I'll agree to that.

But does confiscating even more of his wealth really help? Will throwing him in jail help?

FWIW, for every $315 million in extra taxes he pays (or gets confiscated from him), YOUR share of the national debt will go down by $1.

Go ahead, throw all the Siegels in jail and take all their money. We will still have a huge debt and defecit.

I've heard all the private wealth in this country is estimated at $95 Trillion or so.

The unfunded liabilities (money your government has already committed to spending) are in excess of that.

Sorry folks, we have to CUT SPENDING, or we are going down.

 

Why wait till they are your employees? Get them while they're young!




While you fiddle,


America burns.

 

THIS is the correct answer!!

its his money, his company, he can do what he wants. i cant believe yall are arguing about this.
and throwing him in jail? give me a break!

 

He is not the only company looking at making changes in 2013 due to Obama Care. I have seen more than one state that new hires in 2013 may only be part-timers (no benefits) due to the cost. Another thing you will see is a good many doctors, especially those anywhere near retirement leaving their practice due to it's regulations. Especially the rural doctors. My doctor who I have been going to for 20 years was one of them.

 

At lot of companies are sitting on piles of cash from operations, and not hiring at all, due to the uncertainty of what is going to happen once the Affordable Health Care act is in full swing, as well as the unknown on what new regulations and taxes might be.
Until these questions are answered, you will see a lot of companies work people with overtime ( which the current employees will not complain about ) or hire 1099 temp workers to offset the work load. If Obama gets reelected unemployment might not stay below 8% for very long ( fear is one of the 2 items that sells things ).
A lot of small businesses are having the same issue with being at the break point for Affordable Health Care act limits, and getting rid of a few people, just to avoid cost increase.

Been going on for some time around here, doctors that are within 10 years of retirement age selling off or closing practices to go be a doctor at a hospital or packing in and going for retirement.
A lot of practices are closing off new Medicare patients.
They are keeping the ones they have, but when 1 leaves, they are not taking new ones. 5 years ago, some practices only took medicare if you were a previous patient that converted. They want out of that as well, too much headache for what they get paid ( when they finally get paid ) and all the regulations that are associated with it. A state run program funded by the federal govt. Can you think of a mess that is worse than getting the state and the fed involved with the same program ?

 

The big problem my doctor had was with the electronic medical records. Basically everything, your records, prescriptions, etc have to be electronic. He would have had to buy expensive software and hire who knows how many people to get all of his records onto an electronic system. As a one doctor operation and for the few years he had to go before retirement, it was not worth it to him.


Here is one of the ones I saw about the part time workers.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busin...,1505128.story

I can see that or companies forcing overtime on salaried workers to cut cost.

 

So you blame someone else for your failures at business....nice.

IF you're going to blame Bush, you gotta blame Obama also. He voted for all of the same spending while he was Senator.

The bubbles of the early 2000's were created by cheap/easy money via the federal reserve.

 

You do realize the appropriate blame is government in general, right? The financial meltdown can be blamed on two things first peoples' stupidity for signing loan documents without reading and understanding them. Second a bill that was passed in 1998 allowing banks to invest in credit default swaps. The law was passed by a GOP controlled Congress and signed by Billy Clinton. It took until 2005 or 2006 to realize there was a problem. At that point the FED tried to deflate the bubble caused by excessive mortgage lending. If the loans had been good loans the excess air would have come out of the market and all would have been fine. However because many of the lenders had no skin in the loan a lot of the loans were not good and people who had no business getting a loan had one. This lead to a pop instead of a deflate, which in turn caused the credit markets to seize, and the financial meltdown in 2008. Yes Bush had his chance to get rid of the problem before it was a problem, and he didn't, but then again so did Bill Clinton, the GOP congress, and the Dem controlled Congress.


As to the greed issue. It is one of the basic human emotions. Nobody can get rid of it. The liberals try to punish people who are being greedy, because the greedy take advantage of the "poor, innocent people". One thing I've learned along the way is a reasonably prudent person who is not greedy can not be taken advantage of. In case you haven't noticed the church has been trying to stamp out greed since before the dark ages and has failed miserably. If you can't get rid of greed, is it really necessary to try. All you are doing is wasting more money trying to do something that can't be done.

 

Sorry Jack, there is a HUGE difference between telling someone you may get fired if Obama wins, and telling someone how to vote.

It's troubling that you can't see the difference.

 

Yeah...the business 'failed'. Go ahead and tell yourself that, Frank. Tell yourself that this insufferable 'liberal' (which couldn't be further from the truth, by the way ) couldn't make it in the business world and had to place the blame on somebody.

Neither I nor the business failed. Trust me, Frank. I'm fully aware of what prompted me to sell, and why it happened. The market collapsed. I'm surprised you missed that. Of course, when "the right" has their man in the seat, they miss a lot of things.

It only upsets you because YOUR man was in office when all this went down. It's half-sad, half-comical to see this behavior from "the right". Anything, and I mean anything that goes "wrong" with this country, you'll blame "the liberals". The GOP never did anything to hurt our country, right?

Seriously, Frank? For the love of God, man! Put down your GOP hat for a minute and exercise just a little bit of common sense here! You even said yourself you weren't 'comfortable' with what this guy said. Why, Frank? What did he say that made you uncomfortable? He's obviously a republican. I thought you guys had to agree on everything.

I'm guessing liberals are the only people who can spin a story or a point or view, and the only people who can see through it is "the right"...right?

Riiiiight.....

 

Because of Obamacare, Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse) is cutting all the full time employees they can back to less than 30 hours a week so they become part-timers. This makes it so they can fall under the 50 full time employee mandate for health care.

 

Dewser, it's obvious you either can't read or can't comprehend what was posted. Mr. Seigel never told anyone how to vote. He told them that if Obama wins re-election, many of them will be laid off. Go read the entire letter that he wrote.

"Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best."

How is this not sinking in? I'm beginning to think you're just attention starved. lmao

 

I appreciate the concern, Frank. However, I read quite well (obviously) and I'm good on the amount of attention I get. (Whatever that was supposed to mean)

Frank, if you were one of the employees who got that email, what would you think? It's very easy for a person to say: "I'm not trying to tell you what to do or anything, but if Obama gets re-elected, there's a strong possibility you could be laid off." This is basically what he's saying. What kind of message is that supposed to relay to his employees?

Read the line you just quoted again. Really read it! He admits that, as their employer, that he can't tell his people how to vote. Then, he 'encourages' them to vote for whomever they think will serve their best interests. Well obviously having a job is in their best interests! Then he explains that the chances of them all being employed there greatly decrease if Obama gets re-elected.

(sigh...2+2=4..... )

Let's try it this way. Why do you think he wrote the email, Frank? Furthermore, why do you think it was worded in such a manner?



'How is it not sinking in', indeed. Wow.