Obama: stay away from Vegas

[Yurt]

great way to ruin a city's economy obama...


Mayor: Obama should apologize for Vegas trips quip

LAS VEGAS – Sin City's mayor wants President Barack Obama to apologize for saying companies shouldn't visit Las Vegas on the taxpayer's dime.

Oscar Goodman spoke after a regular scheduled meeting with tourism officials where he expressed concern that federal lawmakers might be discouraging travel to the city.

"What's a better place, as I say, than for them to come here," Goodman told KLAS-TV. "And to change their mind and to go someplace else and to cancel — and at the suggestion of the president of the United States — that's outrageous."

Goodman said Obama's remarks at the town hall meeting were unwarranted.

"That's outrageous, and he owes us an apology," he said. "He owes us a retraction."

Las Vegas tourism officials worry that increased scrutiny on business travel will discourage meetings and conventions — business that would be crucial for the city already suffering economically. The number of visitors to Las Vegas was down 4.4 percent in 2008 compared with a year earlier, and visits in December alone declined nearly 11 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_re_us/obama_las_vegas_mayor;_ylt=Ao8u9jRYjdtM.pdYa.EqHVM EtbAF

i'm sure obama will blame it on bush....and hey, FYI obama, vegas is a cheap place to stay and eat

[Noir]

If I may ask, what are these companies doing going to vagas on the tax-payers tab?

[Yurt]

If I may ask, what are these companies doing going to vagas on the tax-payers tab?

stimulating the economy...companies go to vegas all the time because airfare, hotels and food are generally cheaper because of the casinos. i would hope that even with tax payer money they take these trips, have meetings about how to get their business on track or more profitable and at a fairly inexpensive place to stay.

obama's statement only serves to harm vegas' economy. stupid statement.

[moderate democrat]

stimulating the economy...companies go to vegas all the time because airfare, hotels and food are generally cheaper because of the casinos. i would hope that even with tax payer money they take these trips, have meetings about how to get their business on track or more profitable and at a fairly inexpensive place to stay.

obama's statement only serves to harm vegas' economy. stupid statement.


why can't they meet in their own company offices? weren't you just complaining last week about democrats going all the way to Williamsburg to hold a congressional retreat?

[Yurt]

why can't they meet in their own company offices? weren't you just complaining last week about democrats going all the way to Williamsburg to hold a congressional retreat?

only because they bitched about the execs...pointing out hypocrisy, but then i can't expect you to understand that.

why are you against the private companies stimulating the economy? see, i told you that you only think the government can stimulate the economy...:poke:

[Noir]

Im still not getting why a private company gets taxpayers to pay for there trips, as surly then it is tax money that is stimulating the Economy, which seems a bit silly.

[Yurt]

Im still not getting why a private company gets taxpayers to pay for there trips, as surly then it is tax money that is stimulating the Economy, which seems a bit silly.

do you support obama taking tax money and stimulating the economy?

further, do you have proof that they used tax payer funds?

[Noir]

do you support obama taking tax money and stimulating the economy?

further, do you have proof that they used tax payer funds?


I don't know enough about the economics to say if taxes that are spent on stimulus will work, therefore I neither support or object to his plans.

It's says they are using tax funds in the OP

[Binky]

The problem we have today is that everyone from individuals to corporations are reaching out their arms for a handout of some sort. Whatever happened to funding your own way and getting to point B without greedily grabbing from the taxpayers? Why should any of us have to pay through our asses so that companies can go out and have a funfilled weekend etc.? Let them fund their own crapola rather than reaching into our pockets for money.

[moderate democrat]

only because they bitched about the execs...pointing out hypocrisy, but then i can't expect you to understand that.

why are you against the private companies stimulating the economy? see, i told you that you only think the government can stimulate the economy...:poke:


I am not against private companies stimulating the economy.

[Yurt]

I don't know enough about the economics to say if taxes that are spent on stimulus will work, therefore I neither support or object to his plans.

It's says they are using tax funds in the OP

you're right, the article did state that, on second thought i am beginning to think that those funds might not be directly traceable to tax payers funds.

would agree that obama's statement could cause harm to vegas' economy as the mayor suggested?

[red states rule]

In the case of Wells fargo, the trip to Vegas was a reward for the TOP PRODUCERS in the company

It was to reward those who hit their sales goals

So not only did Obama and the Dems screw them over, but also the employees of the hotels who were looking forward to the tips they would get

Libs claim to care about the working people, but it seems they are the ones who the libs end up screwing with their policies

[Sitarro]

Just as when the Dimwitocrats got rid of the tax write off lunches to look good to the poor, they hurt the restaurants, the waiters, the busboys, the cooking staff, the valet parkers. Every change that is made in the economy has a ripple effect. The imbeciles in the Dimwitocrat party have picked up the votes of jealous losers at the expense of those that serve the "rich". Same thing happened with the unfair extra tax on luxury yachts, it destroyed many boat building businesses in this country. The very rich just bought from country's that didn't have repressive taxation or bought used. I wouldn't doubt that was part of the reason CITI was purchasing a Falcon from France rather than a Gulfstream.

[red states rule]

Just as when the Dimwitocrats got rid of the tax write off lunches to look good to the poor, they hurt the restaurants, the waiters, the busboys, the cooking staff, the valet parkers. Every change that is made in the economy has a ripple effect. The imbeciles in the Dimwitocrat party have picked up the votes of jealous losers at the expense of those that serve the "rich". Same thing happened with the unfair extra tax on luxury yachts, it destroyed many boat building businesses in this country. The very rich just bought from country's that didn't have repressive taxation or bought used. I wouldn't doubt that was part of the reason CITI was purchasing a Falcon from France rather than a Gulfstream.

Remember the "Yaht Tax" Dems put on the rich? It had to be repealed because it killed the yacht building industry


snip

KWAME HOLMAN: According to David MacFarlane, president of Alden Yachts, Dockery's order brought the company back from the brink of collapse. MacFarlane thinks back to November 1990, when President Bush and the Democratic majority in Congress agreed to levy the luxury tax. He says he still can't believe they did it.

DAVE MacFARLANE, Alden Yachts: I don't know anybody in the Marine industry that didn't know that there was a total disaster to start, and it's still amazing to think how somebody could come up with an idea that would shut off a business, and everybody that was in the business knew this would happen, and yet it floated right through.

KWAME HOLMAN: The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone.

WALTER SCHULZ, Boat Builder: (1992) When that tax came down, I mean, it was just as if, I know the metaphor sounds exaggerated, as if someone turned the faucet off.

KWAME HOLMAN: At that time we talked with Walter Schulz, founder and president of Shannon Yachts. After 17 years of building boats, his company did collapse. Schulz was forced to declare bankruptcy.

WALTER SCHULZ: American boat builders, manufacturers were able to still dominate. We were able to compete head-to-head in terms of price. We were able to compete head-to-head in terms of technology. We were able to make the technological advances that still continue to dominate. We were able to make the design advances that dominate the world market. And that existed, by the way, right up until last year, I mean, and then it vaporized.

KWAME HOLMAN: We talked with Ken Kubic, manager of the East Passage Marine on Narragansett Bay.

KEN KUBIC, East Passage Marina: (1992) We used to do close to $400,000 worth of launching and christening work for these manufacturers, and that, that just dried up to nothing.

KWAME HOLMAN: When we talked with Dave MacFarlane in 1992, Alden Yachts had no new boats on order. MacFarlane had been forced to lay off dozens of skilled workers and at the time concluded the luxury tax was costing the government more money than it was collecting.

DAVE MacFARLANE: (1992) If you look at approximately say 35 or so people laid off at about say two hundred and sixty-five to three hundred and ten dollars a week in unemployment, if you add that up, you know, it comes to about $1/2 million.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html

[Missileman]

stimulating the economy...companies go to vegas all the time because airfare, hotels and food are generally cheaper because of the casinos. i would hope that even with tax payer money they take these trips, have meetings about how to get their business on track or more profitable and at a fairly inexpensive place to stay.

obama's statement only serves to harm vegas' economy. stupid statement.

If they're operating with my money, I'd suggest phone or video conferencing to hold these meetings and then suggest they get back to work.

[red states rule]

If they're operating with my money, I'd suggest phone or video conferencing to hold these meetings and then suggest they get back to work.

and what do you tell the front line employees who won those trips for doing an exceptional job, and the front line workers in Las Vegas who were counting on those people to come and spend some money?

[Missileman]

and what do you tell the front line employees who won those trips for doing an exceptional job, and the front line workers in Las Vegas who were counting on those people to come and spend some money?

You make it up to them AFTER the company gets its shit together.

The workers in Vegas can still count on gamblers and trips by companies that aren't receiving bail out money.

[red states rule]

You make it up to them AFTER the company gets its shit together.

The workers in Vegas can still count on gamblers and trips by companies that aren't receiving bail out money.

So if a company takes bailout money, they must do whatever the government tells them to do? The government is then running the company?

I would think you would want the company to get back on its feet as fast a spossible so they culd repay the money

Telling good employees they are screwed out of their trip because Barney Frank and Obama is pissed they are going, is not a good way to get those employees to keep doing an exceptional job

Same goes for the workers in Las Vegas. Hell most of them are union people Obama is screwing over

[Noir]

you're right, the article did state that, on second thought i am beginning to think that those funds might not be directly traceable to tax payers funds.

would agree that obama's statement could cause harm to vegas' economy as the mayor suggested?

What makes you think they are not directly traceable?

Obama stated he thought private companies should not be spending tax $'s in Vegas, would you want your tax $'s spent by a private company in vegas?

[Missileman]

So if a company takes bailout money, they must do whatever the government tells them to do? The government is then running the company?

I would expect the company to exercise some common sense. If a company is doing badly enough that they need bailout money to stay in operation, then perks should be suspended.


I would think you would want the company to get back on its feet as fast a spossible so they culd repay the money

Absolutely...trips to Vegas AREN'T going to help the company get back on its feet any more than more money towards PELL grants is going to stimulate the economy.


Telling good employees they are screwed out of their trip because Barney Frank and Obama is pissed they are going, is not a good way to get those employees to keep doing an exceptional job

Good employees aren't going to slack off because perks are suspended.

[red states rule]

What makes you think they are not directly traceable?

Obama stated he thought private companies should not be spending tax $'s in Vegas, would you want your tax $'s spent by a private company in vegas?


Funny how Dems lecture private companies of how to use taxpayer money - while Dems piss through taxpayer money for their retreats and parties

Of course Dems are the party of do not do as I do - do as I say

[red states rule]

I would expect the company to exercise some common sense. If a company is doing badly enough that they need bailout money to stay in operation, then perks should be suspended.

Absolutely...trips to Vegas AREN'T going to help the company get back on its feet any more than more money towards PELL grants is going to stimulate the economy.

Good employees aren't going to slack off because perks are suspended.

Funny how Dems are no cutting back on their perks at the expense of taxpayer money

I wonder how you would feel if you worked hard all year - earned the trip - then it was taken away because Obama was miffed

I can tell you, alot of employees would not be putting out the extra effort after being screwed

Libs have a great way to motivate people to work hard. They tax them more on what they make, they take away their rewards, and tell there company how they can operate

[Noir]

Funny how Dems lecture private companies of how to use taxpayer money - while Dems piss through taxpayer money for their retreats and parties

Of course Dems are the party of do not do as I do - do as I say

Indeed, they seem very hypocritical on this point.

My question to you is, do you not think the goverment should try and ensure that tax payer money is spent effectivly? (regardless of the hypocrisy (sp?) shown)

[red states rule]

Indeed, they seem very hypocritical on this point.

My question to you is, do you not think the goverment should try and ensure that tax payer money is spent effectivly? (regardless of the hypocrisy (sp?) shown)

NOir, the Dems can't even run their own damn cafeteria (it loses millions per year) and these clowns are going to tell CEO's how to run their companies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

[Missileman]

Funny how Dems are no cutting back on their perks at the expense of taxpayer money

Even if true, I don't consider that justification for everyone to piss away my tax dollars.


I wonder how you would feel if you worked hard all year - earned the trip - then it was taken away because Obama was miffed

Maybe you'd like to see taxpayer money used to buy every employee of every company that didn't need a bailout a trip to Vegas. They worked hard all year - earned a trip - right?


I can tell you, alot of employees would not be putting out the extra effort after being screwed

I'll repeat it for you...GOOD employees won't slack off.




Libs have a great way to motivate people to work hard. They tax them more on what they make, they take away their rewards, and tell there company how they can operate

Gibberish!

[red states rule]

Even if true, I don't consider that justification for everyone to piss away my tax dollars.

Maybe you'd like to see taxpayer money used to buy every employee of every company that didn't need a bailout a trip to Vegas. They worked hard all year - earned a trip - right?

I'll repeat it for you...GOOD employees won't slack off.

Gibberish!

If it is true? Dems just had a nice trip to a VA retreat at taxpayer expense. Even Obama took Air Force One for the long 150 mile trip where he had a temper tantrum on TV over Republicans opposition to the mega pork bill

The employees earned the trip by their hard work. The Vegas employees were looking forwardto them coming so they could earn some money

So "good" employees will keep working even as Obama and the Dems are screwing them? Typical of the left to punish achievement. You call it gibberish - I call it reality

Try taking a trip there sometime

[Noir]

NOir, the Dems can't even run their own damn cafeteria (it loses millions per year) and these clowns are going to tell CEO's how to run their companies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html?hpid=topnews

Red herrings my way come!
I shall ask you another time- would you be happy about knowing your tax $'s were being spent by a private company in vegas, a simple yes/no will do.

[Yurt]

Red herrings my way come!
I shall ask you another time- would you be happy about knowing your tax $'s were being spent by a private company in vegas, a simple yes/no will do.

as long as it is for the reason the money was given, stimulate the economy, keep the company alive....absolutely

[red states rule]

Red herrings my way come!
I shall ask you another time- would you be happy about knowing your tax $'s were being spent by a private company in vegas, a simple yes/no will do.

Red herrings? You have no problem with a bunch of people who can't run a cafeteria telling others how to run their company?

As far as the trip to Vegas, it was rewarding superior performace by employees who are keeping the company afloat. Would you rtaher the company goes under, and Barney Frank is made the CEO?

[Yurt]

What makes you think they are not directly traceable?

Obama stated he thought private companies should not be spending tax $'s in Vegas, would you want your tax $'s spent by a private company in vegas?

unless the company had zero funds, assets, etc..., the tax payers money could have gone to other things, the trip is not expensive, the money could have come from anything else...

where do you think the money should go?

obama is a moron, and i answere your question above :cool:

[Missileman]

If it is true? Dems just had a nice trip to a VA retreat at taxpayer expense. Even Obama took Air Force One for the long 150 mile trip where he had a temper tantrum on TV over Republicans opposition to the mega pork bill

The employees earned the trip by their hard work. The Vegas employees were looking forwardto them coming so they could earn some money

So "good" employees will keep working even as Obama and the Dems are screwing them? Typical of the left to punish achievement. You call it gibberish - I call it reality

Try taking a trip there sometime

The employees earned their paycheck by their hard work...a bonus in the form of a trip is something to be given if the company can afford it. If they have to resort to tax payer bailout, they CAN'T AFFORD it.

You bitch about Dems and frivolous spending and then complain when a Dem suggests something that actually makes sense for a change.

I don't remember, did you post that congress was out of line when they chastised the CEOs of the Big 3 for taking their private jets to DC? Those CEOs worked hard for those private jets...how dare the Dems tell them to drive back? :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

The employees earned their paycheck by their hard work...a bonus in the form of a trip is something to be given if the company can afford it. If they have to resort to tax payer bailout, they CAN'T AFFORD it.

You bitch about Dems and frivolous spending and then complain when a Dem suggests something that actually makes sense for a change.

I don't remember, did you post that congress was out of line when they chastised the CEOs of the Big 3 for taking their private jets to DC? Those CEOs worked hard for those private jets...how dare the Dems tell them to drive back? :rolleyes:

By all means, destroy one of the avenues the company is using to become profitable. Take away those sales and income for the company

The same Congress that went after the CEO for their private jets are the same Congressmen who fly around the nation on jets. San Fran Nan even demanded a BIGGER jet when she took over in 2007

[Yurt]

The employees earned their paycheck by their hard work...a bonus in the form of a trip is something to be given if the company can afford it. If they have to resort to tax payer bailout, they CAN'T AFFORD it.

You bitch about Dems and frivolous spending and then complain when a Dem suggests something that actually makes sense for a change.

I don't remember, did you post that congress was out of line when they chastised the CEOs of the Big 3 for taking their private jets to DC? Those CEOs worked hard for those private jets...how dare the Dems tell them to drive back? :rolleyes:

you fail to grasp the point...people complained about the dems this year because the dems complained about the execs....

the cart does not go before the horse

[Missileman]

By all means, destroy one of the avenues the company is using to become profitable. Take away those sales and income for the company

The same Congress that went after the CEO for their private jets are the same Congressmen who fly around the nation on jets. San Fran Nan even demanded a BIGGER jet when she took over in 2007

Bonuses cut into profits.

And you didn't answer the question about the jets.

[red states rule]

Bonuses cut into profits.

And you didn't answer the question about the jets.

Increased sales and income lead to the bonuses

I did answer the jet question. I guess you would rather have the CEO's hitchhike from Detriot

Or do a video conference. Oh, then the Dems could not sit in judgement and play to their base by browbeating those "evil" CEO's

[Missileman]

you fail to grasp the point...people complained about the dems this year because the dems complained about the execs....

the cart does not go before the horse

This thread has been about whether a company that needs a bail out can afford to give out bonuses. Should bonuses even be considered in an unprofitable company?

I brought up the Big 3 CEO thing to see if RSR is consistent in his position on government interference.

[Missileman]

Increased sales and income lead to the bonuses

Bonuses come out of profit...period. If the company isn't making a profit, there isn't money for bonuses.


I did answer the jet question. I guess you would rather have the CEO's hitchhike from Detriot

You still haven't answered the question...did you have a problem with Congress chastising the CEOs or not? How did they get to DC for the 2nd set of hearings?

[Yurt]

Bonuses come out of profit...period. If the company isn't making a profit, there isn't money for bonuses.



You still haven't answered the question...did you have a problem with Congress chastising the CEOs or not? How did they get to DC for the 2nd set of hearings?

i don't think the government should have any say what happens to the money...the government is not in the corporation business and we've seen how crap the government can manage...

the money isn't just for that company, it is supposedly to save the ENTIRE economy. the economy was supposedly to blame, not the company, hence the bailouts. if the government wants to give money, fine, but thats it, don't manage the company because the government will cause that company to fail.

i'll state again, the companies should have been allowed to fail.

[Yurt]

This thread has been about whether a company that needs a bail out can afford to give out bonuses. Should bonuses even be considered in an unprofitable company?

I brought up the Big 3 CEO thing to see if RSR is consistent in his position on government interference.

uh, yeah....hence my reply :poke:

see you guys keep looking at it as if the company failed, from the bailout perspective it was the economy that failed, hence why the companies needed a bailout --> to save the ECONOMY not the company itself.

[Missileman]

uh, yeah....hence my reply :poke:

see you guys keep looking at it as if the company failed, from the bailout perspective it was the economy that failed, hence why the companies needed a bailout --> to save the ECONOMY not the company itself.

Companies fail all the time. Unnecessary spending by a company in trouble is no different than unnecessary government spending. Bonuses given by a company at a time when they aren't profitable is the same to me as when that bank gave out millions in bonuses a few weeks before filing bankruptcy.

[Kathianne]

I think the government does have the right to attach strings to companies that take taxpayer dollars. If the companies don't want to be puppets, then don't take the money or strings.

However, I don't think the White House should be holding dinners for members of Congress serving $100 lb. steaks either. Nor funding retreats, since the government is going much deeper into hock with China and other foreign investors. We, the people shouldn't be paying for limos for anyone in Congress or the Executive Branch, below the level of President, VP, Cabinet Officers.

It shouldn't be just the US workers that have to figure out ways to lean up their costs, it should be from the top, down. While Obama continues to further tank the economy with his malaise speeches, the least they can do is turn down their thermostats, lighten up the costs of meals and transportation. Hold meetings by teleconferencing and get to work themselves.

[Psychoblues]

Why isn't this poster removed from the thread?!?!?!?!?!??!!? This is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


By all means, destroy one of the avenues the company is using to become profitable. Take away those sales and income for the company

The same Congress that went after the CEO for their private jets are the same Congressmen who fly around the nation on jets. San Fran Nan even demanded a BIGGER jet when she took over in 2007

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[darin]

PB removed from thread.

[Hobbit]

The employees earned their paycheck by their hard work...a bonus in the form of a trip is something to be given if the company can afford it. If they have to resort to tax payer bailout, they CAN'T AFFORD it.

You bitch about Dems and frivolous spending and then complain when a Dem suggests something that actually makes sense for a change.

I don't remember, did you post that congress was out of line when they chastised the CEOs of the Big 3 for taking their private jets to DC? Those CEOs worked hard for those private jets...how dare the Dems tell them to drive back? :rolleyes:

Bonuses are not gifts from the companies for kicks and giggles. Bonuses are like the tips you give a waiter. They're something extra you give in return for doing a good job.

Let's look at a scenario on that, shall we? Let's say Blah inc. is going under. They're applying for bailout money and, based on the criteria given, they need it (personally, I don't think ANY company needs bailout money, but that's just me). Anyway, this year, they're expected to lose $5 billion and have to lay off a minimum of 4000 employees. Now let's say that Mike is a really good businessman. He has a reputation for turning around failing companies. He's the Gordon Ramsey of large corporations (check out Kitchen Nightmares to see what I mean). Now, companies are lining up to hire this guy and he decides to talk to Blah Inc., because he thinks they're a good company and that he can turn them around. When he gets there, he explains that things are too bad to not lose money or not have to lay off workers, but he is going to try to stem the tide so that the next year, they can more easily move back into profitability. After negotiating a flat salary, he also asks that he receive one quarter of one percent (25 cents out of every $100) of everything he's able to knock off of that $5 billion. Due to his hard work, long hours, knowledge and expertise, Blah Inc. only loses $2 billion and only has to lay off 400 employees. 3600 more people have their jobs and the company is that much more likely to stay afloat because he was at the helm. Question is, does he deserve that $7,500,000 bonus he'll get as part of that contract (one quarter of one percent of the $3 billion he saved)? Did he earn it? Does this fall under you narrow little vision of CEOs running off with somebody else's money because they can?

[Missileman]

Bonuses are not gifts from the companies for kicks and giggles. Bonuses are like the tips you give a waiter. They're something extra you give in return for doing a good job.

Let's look at a scenario on that, shall we? Let's say Blah inc. is going under. They're applying for bailout money and, based on the criteria given, they need it (personally, I don't think ANY company needs bailout money, but that's just me). Anyway, this year, they're expected to lose $5 billion and have to lay off a minimum of 4000 employees. Now let's say that Mike is a really good businessman. He has a reputation for turning around failing companies. He's the Gordon Ramsey of large corporations (check out Kitchen Nightmares to see what I mean). Now, companies are lining up to hire this guy and he decides to talk to Blah Inc., because he thinks they're a good company and that he can turn them around. When he gets there, he explains that things are too bad to not lose money or not have to lay off workers, but he is going to try to stem the tide so that the next year, they can more easily move back into profitability. After negotiating a flat salary, he also asks that he receive one quarter of one percent (25 cents out of every $100) of everything he's able to knock off of that $5 billion. Due to his hard work, long hours, knowledge and expertise, Blah Inc. only loses $2 billion and only has to lay off 400 employees. 3600 more people have their jobs and the company is that much more likely to stay afloat because he was at the helm. Question is, does he deserve that $7,500,000 bonus he'll get as part of that contract (one quarter of one percent of the $3 billion he saved)? Did he earn it? Does this fall under you narrow little vision of CEOs running off with somebody else's money because they can?

How much hypothetical bailout money did this hypothetical company receive?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

In the case of Wells fargo, the trip to Vegas was a reward for the TOP PRODUCERS in the company

It was to reward those who hit their sales goals

So not only did Obama and the Dems screw them over, but also the employees of the hotels who were looking forward to the tips they would get

Libs claim to care about the working people, but it seems they are the ones who the libs end up screwing with their policies Nothing new for Liberals they have screwed the sheeple for so long they enjoy it

[red states rule]

Nothing new for Liberals they have screwed the sheeple for so long they enjoy it

Punish achievement, keep them dependent on government, and they will be loyal Dem voters for life

[Yurt]

Punish achievement, keep them dependent on government, and they will be loyal Dem voters for life

sound liek obama today...he went on and on how much we NEED government and that we can't do things on our own, we NEED government. while that is true to a point, he wants us utterly reliant on the government.