Papa John's: Obamacare likely to raise costs, employee's hours being cut

Hey, I bet if we allow sweatshops full of children to make our pizzas, they will be 15 cents cheaper... we definitely need to do that....

 

The point is that there are no Obama policies that make businesses successful. Please make me a liar and cite the policy that made the guy's business successful. It seems like you were pulling this out of thin air to make it look like you had some sort of inside track on Dear Leader's policies, or to make it appear you know what you are talking about. Make my day....prove me a liar with your citation, and I will concede that you know what you're talking about.

I gotta shiny nickle that says you can't prove it, but that you will respond with some childish remark.

 

They've distorted and manipulated everything, especially since August 2007! If nothing else, consider interest rates alone. To "rescue" banks, the Fed has gone on bond-buying binges and other magic tricks to stuff money into all the big banks and investment banking houses. The banks haven't had to do anything to make large amounts of money but go to the Fed's "discount window" and get the money and sit on it! The interest rates have been crushed down to microscopic levels, so the banks milk the difference and make huge amounts of money -- for doing nothing! And people who save money? They get almost completely nothing... why? Because the Fed wants to herd everybody into the stock market casino!

Without this "insider" central bank controlling everything in the U. S. economy, our commerce would be regulated only by supply and demand -- period! No bailouts, no "rescues", no manipulation, and no bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!

When does it end? In theory, the Fed could go on generating hundreds of billions more imaginary dollars and simply add more zeros to all the debt figures. But what happens when we can't even pay the interest on all that debt! . Do we blithely go deeper into debt to pay the interest on the debt? And how long is that allowed to continue? Like I said, that is just one way that the Federal Reserve has taken over the economy... with other central banks, like the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, and the European Central Bank, they've been trying to take over all the economies of the entire world....

 

there is no fiscal cliff

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

the federal reserve isn't responsible for the national debt, congress is

the fed doesn't ever lend money to congress, it lends to its member banks

 

The passage of Obamacare—is wreaking havoc on the economy and is the result of the lies told by the President and many Democratic members of Congress who voted for it without even reading it.

 

Obama started in 09. Not 08.

 

Go back and read the other posts, jac... I said emphatically in the first post you cited that we would NOT be going off a "fiscal cliff", whereupon you criticized me for saying that!(?) >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Remove<<< Oh, and the Fed... when the Fed -- all by itself, without any say-so from Congress -- goes on these big bond-buying extravaganzas, who do you imagine gets stuck with the costs?

Here... acquaint yourself with the basics about "the debt". I know you can do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

 

SO MUCH HAVOC!

GDP grew by 4%

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE STOP ALL THIS HAVOC!

 

there is no fiscal cliff

neither congress or any taxpayers have to pay for anything the federal reserve does

 

Completely false. Laughably false, in fact.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

In January 2009, total nonfarm employment was 133,976,000.

As of September 2014, total nonfarm employment was 139,481,000 -- an INCREASE of 5.5 million from when Obama took office.

Do you have the integrity to apologize for a total falsehood?

And you add a dishonest chart. Obama did not take over in mid-2008, as your chart claims.

Go here:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

At the top of the page, change the date range so it starts in, say, 1948.

You'll get this chart:


Notice that the participation rate for most of the 20th Century was well below what it is now. It peaked at 67.3 in March 2000, and has been declining ever since. The dropoff steepened during the giant recession, as would be expected. But it's part of a long-term trend related to our aging population, not decisions by politicians.

Indeed, the participation rate under Obama is basically the same as it was under Reagan. Was Reagan bad for the economy, in your view?

 

Ayuh,.... 'n the Democrats took Congress in '06, the beginin' of the fall,....

 

Which policy did they pass in '06 - 08 that would have encouraged this?

 

ever heard the term 'commander in chief'? it's not congress

 

Isn't it funny how it starts to peak when the boomers all reach working adult age and it starts to decline when the boomers start to retire? Gee I wonder why that is. Maybe it's because the boomers are the largest generation of adults and they're leaving a labor gap as they retire. Nah that couldn't be it. It must be Obaaaaaaaaama

 

January, 6, 2015

US employers are ramping up hiring. (Nonfarm payrolls surged by 321,000 jobs in November, crowning 2014 as the best year for job growth since 1999.

The GDP accelerated to 5 percent in the third quarter (a level unseen since 2003.) and consumer sentiment is also on the rise.

In December, the Dow climbed above the 18,000 mark for the first time ever. The S&P 500 rose a healthy 11 percent in 2014, capping off three years of double-digit gains. That's the best winning streak since the late 1990s.

"This economy has quite a head of steam. It's like a perfect storm to the upside," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Potomac Research Group, which provides policy analysis to investors.​

Papa John's report for the third quarter of 2014 shows a gross profit margin of 59.18%.

Of course PJ's corporate director has noted that "if our business is successful and we achieve 'excessive' profits, we are under no obligation to share with our employees."


... and the ongoing governmental redistribution of wealth, increasingly into the coffers of an elite few, continues under the Obama Administration:

The richest 1% of Americans have received 95% of the income-gains during the Obama "economic recovery." The "recovery" has raised incomes for the top 1% by 31.4%. Everyone else has seen income-gains of 0.4%.

 

Still less than 2% mean growth over Obama's tenure......6 years so far.

 

He can afford it. Have you seen his prices? The man is making a killing. And he's never short on advertising either. This OP is a joke.

 

We had 8 years of less than 2% growth before Obama too.

 

That looks like over 2% to me.



This is less than 2%.

 

You don't have to eyeball it, just look at the BEA data yourself. The average GDP between 2001 and 2008 was only 1.8%. The average in the 69 months since then is 1.9%. When are you going to admit that we're doing better under Obama than we did under Bush?

 

When the US is attacked 9/11/2001 AND the Clinton dotcom bubble under Bush I will.

 

And obama was handed the worst recession in 80 years.

 

You realize that the GOP could have ended all of it since the took control of the House, and we're able to filibuster, since 2011, right? They blocked jobs/economic growth bills, and the Federal Reserve has been left being one of the few sources of growth in the US economy since the ARRA. Granted, President obama and Democrats were wrong to be afraid of the big price tag for a stimulus program that could end the recession far sooner, and make the assets the Fed has been buying hold their worth. But here's the thing... Eventually, those assets the Fed has bought will be sold back to the markets, as QE is a temporary program. The assets are largely real estate, as they were at one point toxic mortgages created when the GOP sat on their hands during the run up of the housing bubble.

 

here's another guy like john schnatter:

timeshare mogul david seigal blamed his financial problems on obama, when the recession hit

then after the economy turned around under obama's leadership, his fortunes increased immensely

the documentary 'queen of versailles' illustrates how ridiculously dysfunctional these guys so often are

[video=youtube;vgjIH9AmQB8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgjIH9AmQB8[/video]


Troubled American 'Versailles' Owner Has 'Never Been Better'

In October 2012, delusional billionaire David Siegel, timeshare CEO and builder of Florida's unfinished, 90,000-square-foot palace (the subject of the documentary The Queen of Versailles) sent a disquieting, rambling email to his employees, in which he basically says that any vote for President Barack Obama is a vote against their job prospects, and that lives of the 1 percent are really hard, too.

After several paragraphs of preamble about how life ain't easy for gazillionaires, he cuts to the chase:

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."

So how has the company, Westgate Resorts, fared under the tax-happy (=evil, obviously) thumb of America's commander-in-chief? Pretty damn good. So good, in fact, he's given his employees raises, boosting the minimum pay to $10 an hour. In fact, "things have never been better."

No word on when his ridiculous house is actually expected to be completed, though.

http://curbed.com/archives/2015/01/06/david-siegel-success-obama.php

 

Poor Papa John. lol This guy must think we're really stupid. Btw, you're welcome on behalf of tax payers John for subsidizing your employees so you can make so much profit.