Why?

[sirs]

Corporate Profits "Have To Be Shared By American Workers"

"If we're fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports, the benefits cannot just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that opening markets will lift their standard of living as well as your bottom line,"....President Obama, 2/7/11

Shouldn't the coporation(s) determine how much profit is shared by the workers?  Shouldn't the worker decide for themselves if they wish to stay with a corporation, if they feel they're being compensated appropriately, and leave if they don't?  Isn't this America?

[Christians4LessGvt]

just more class warfare......
no wonder last week we saw in the news that Obama's
second year is the most polarizing since Eisenhower.

[BT]

Couple of points:

I didn't see any regulatory action mentioned in the soundbite

Most successful businessmen share in the success of their companies because they know that their employees are a major reason they are successful.

And what did Obama say that is any different than what Bush or Clinton said when giving pep talks to the Chamber?

[sirs]

Putting aside the point that no one is refuting that good business strives to pay their workers well, when they do well, but when the president states Corporate Profits have To Be Shared By American Workers.....who, if not the Government is going to "make" them share?  One also has a track record of Obama's previous efforts for the Federal government to "make" people/corporations do their will.  Obamacare, ring a bell?

The "have" to is what seperates Bush from Obama, unless you can post a transcript that has Bush using the same verbage, at which point we can downgrade Obama's rhetoric to a mere strong encouragement

[sirs]

If the President would have said "should" vs "have to", I'd see no problem in his comments, outside of an annoying sense of the Government trying to dictate private policy.  That was not the case here, nor is it his track record to encourage x.  It's been much more you will do x.

[BT]

yeah every right thinking American businessman knows that the proper way to run a business is to penalize your employees for success, to treat them like dirt, and to use and abuse them at every opportunity.

Because that's how you build employee loyalty. Ask any true conservative business man if that is how they run their company.

I'm sure CU would agree.

[sirs]

Yea, because that's what I said          You had to start misrepresenting my position so fast?  You couldn't wait for at least 2 more responses to be so wrong?? 

And once again, we have BT here, looking for something to try and demean sirs on, even if he has to make it up.  Couldn;t actually address the point being made, regarding Obama and his use of have to.  Naaaa, let's completely misrepresent what sirs said, and run with that.  Sad, really

I'm sure CU would agree

[BT]

You make a poor victim.

But riddle me this:

what is the use of a bully pulpit if you can't use it?

The commandment doesn't say " maybe you shouldn't kill" It's called moral imperative.

And really what did Obama say that differentiates from sound business practice?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Two for the show
Chamber claps twice for Obama

By MJ LEE | 02/07/11

The good news for President Obama: The Chamber of Commerce broke
into applause twice during his speech Monday morning to welcome his ideas.

The bad news: They clapped just twice, in a 35-minute address.

Obama himself acknowledged early on that he doesn't have the best relationship
with the Chamber. ("Maybe if we had brought over a fruit cake when we first
moved in, we would have got off to a better start," he joked.)

The first applause line came halfway through Obama's remarks, as he spoke of
opening up new markets and selling more American goods in other countries.

"I'll go anywhere to be a booster for American businesses, American workers and
American products," Obama said, to which the audience broke into applause.
Then, in an ad-libbed moment, Obama remarked, "And I don't charge a commission."

The only other applause for Obama came at the end, when Obama once again hit
the right note in calling for bringing jobs back the United States.

"That's good for everybody," he said. "So if I've got a message, that message is:
"Now's the time to invest in America." "As the audience applauded, Obama repeated,
"Now's the time to invest in America."


http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0211/two_for_the_show_8135b507-60a3-4d2c-8a07-4a7f384328c8.html

[sirs]

You make a poor victim.

You make a poor example of an objective debater and leader

But riddle me this:

what is the use of a bully pulpit if you can't use it?

Who said he couldn't?  He said he shouldn't?  You see Bt, you are so wrapped up with trying to prove me wrong, you completely ignore the current reality of what's being said.  A president absolutely should use the bully pulpit, to ADVOCATE that which he believes is the right course of action.  NOT to MANDATE it.  You understand the difference?  Of course you do, but as I said, it apparently burns yo to no end now-adays if sirs is right on something.  So, Bt's job is to try and play Defense Attorney, & to cast reasonable doubt to something sirs says/posts.....like misrepresenting my entire POV, or injecting a non-point of what good business strives to do, or imply how a President shouldn't use his bully pulpt.

TRY TO STAY ON POINT, please

Obama used the term "..HAVE TO..."  Not should, not its in their best interest, not it would be greatly helpful, but have to.  And who else besides the Fed is going to make corporations share their profits??   You claimed he's said nothing more than what Bush & Clinton have said in the past.  Please provide a contextual quote of Bush claiming what corporations must do.  NOT, simply using the bully pulpit or talking up a pep rally, but the actual relevent point of what he said.  If you can at least provide that, then we can downgrade the current Obama quote from what his already established track record leads us to objectively deduce where this one would lead us to.

[BT]

You make a poor victim.

You make a poor example of an objective debater and leader

Who says I have to be objective?

But riddle me this:

what is the use of a bully pulpit if you can't use it?

Who said he couldn't?  He said he shouldn't?   You see Bt, you are so wrapped up with trying to prove me wrong, you completely ignore the current reality of what's being said.  A president absolutely should use the bully pulpit, to ADVOCATE that which he believes is the right course of action.  NOT to MANDATE it.  You understand the difference?  Of course you do, but as I said, it apparently burns yo to no end now-adays if sirs is right on something.  So, Bt's job is to try and play Defense Attorney, & to cast reasonable doubt to something sirs says/posts.....like misrepresenting my entire POV, or injecting a non-point of what good business strives to do, or imply how a President shouldn't use his bully pulpt.

TRY TO STAY ON POINT, please

Obama used the term "..HAVE TO..."  Not should, not its in their best interest, not it would be greatly helpful, but have to.  And who else besides the Fed is going to make corporations share their profits??   You claimed he's said nothing more than what Bush & Clinton have said in the past.  Please provide a contextual quote of Bush claiming what corporations must do.  NOT, simply using the bully pulpit or talking up a pep rally, but the actual relevent point of what he said.  If you can at least provide that, then we can downgrade the current Obama quote from what his already track record leads us to objectveily deduce where this one would lead us to.

Wah poor baby. BT disagrees with my take on an issue. Boo Hoo.

Please provide a contextual quote of Bush claiming what corporations must do.  NOT, simply using the bully pulpit or talking up a pep rally, but the actual relevent point of what he said.

Better yet, why don't you provide a quote from any of the previous presidents that in essence says we should treat employees like shit, so we can then see how far Obama has wandered from the norm.

[sirs]

Didn't think you could.  But cudos to the misrepreesentation efforts.  They're reaching Oscar levels

[BT]

Don't have to. It is your issue. Prove that what Obama said is out of the norm.

Doubt you can.

[sirs]

I already did with the "have to", and his track record of mandating activity, via Government.  It's your job to demonstrate that it's perfectly normal and consistent with other Presidents' comments of what corporations have to do.  That was YOUR claim.  By all means, back it up

I doubt your up to it though. 

[BT]

Are you seriously getting all anal over his choice of the words "have to"?

As if he has the legislative majorities to implement such a thing. Which in case you are wondering he doesn't.

He couldn't even make the new 1099 rules stick.

But more importantly, how is saying that companies should reward their employees for the companies success any different than CU throwing a Christmas party for his folks?