What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
277 Comments
- niradg, on 03/05/2009, -17/+173Cry me a ***** river. Nobody is talking about eliminating standard business travely, but you can't take US taxpayer money and use it on lavish junkets. It's ridiculous.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/lawma ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/WallStreet/Story?id= ... - ProfessorRiffs, on 03/05/2009, -16/+112Dear people in the US used to living the posh life,
Times are changing.
Signed,
Those of us who are paying attention. - KimmyGibbler, on 03/05/2009, -12/+85Instead of wasting advertising dollars trying to convince people that the government is wrong in complaining about tax dollars being spent on luxury trips, maybe they should create a new campaign and direct it at attracting companies that didn't receive taxpayer bailout money
- vr1000, on 03/05/2009, -4/+58I work in the lab for a multi-national big pharma. Every year, all the VPs and executive VPs go on a week long junket. They smoke the best cigars, drink the best wine, and party it up. This year, our scientific meeting travel was cut ~ 25%. They are still having their meeting.
- ericmcgill, on 03/05/2009, -5/+48Are these people kidding? How much luxury travel could these companies afford without the bailouts? Maybe they'd rather see these companies go out of business and not book any travel at all.
- gerrylazlo, on 03/05/2009, -6/+47Tough titties. When the economy is down, travel business shrinks. This is not some great secret they didn't know when they got into the biz.
- skinturtle, on 03/05/2009, -8/+48Welp...do as they think they must...but running ads like that...they risk public backlash themselves. There is no way the people are gonna stand for luxurious travel paid for by tax dollars
- KimmyGibbler, on 03/05/2009, -13/+52The people who went to the Democratic Convention didn't use taxpayer money to fly them out. Remember how Obama turned down public campaign funding and the Republicans had a *****-fit?
- clickfire, on 03/05/2009, -16/+48FTA: One of four print ads in the campaign includes a photograph of the back of President Barack Obama's head, superimposed over an empty stadium. "Imagine holding a convention and no one showed up," the headline says. "Until political conventions are held via conference call, we shouldn't expect business to do so either," the text reads.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 03/05/2009, -4/+35Next up: Hookers and cocaine dealers threaten to pull support from Dems!
- malanic, on 03/05/2009, -5/+34Exactly.
If jobs are lost, then taxpayers would be better off employing those jobless on community projects, rather than basically subsidising luxury travel for businessmen. It costs the same, but at least you'd get something in return.
It's time to start tightening belts, and if the 'luxury travel' industry is hurting, then it's an excess that you'd be better off without.
Wasting money on something that gives no return, simply for the sake of saving jobs, is only going to make the situation worse. The government is in enough debt already, and it's the taxpayers who end up paying. - DrVic, on 03/05/2009, -7/+33The smallest violin in the world is playing a sad tune for these d-bags. It is over, cry me a river, boo ***** hoo.
- harronoob, on 03/05/2009, -10/+36I will never understand the Republican war against preventative medicine... It's not just a hippie fad. If you have a healthy lifestyle and detect problems early, you will live longer and save yourself (and every taxpayer) money.
- flashpointbob, on 03/05/2009, -10/+33How about the travel industry comes up with something new. Give me a place new and exciting to travel to in the US and I will probably go there. As of right now it is more fun for me to sit on my couch and play on Xbox Live than to travel. Because it has all been done before.
Don't blame Obama, blame yourselves for not being innovative. - joaob, on 03/05/2009, -5/+24I don't know about you but I'd like my sex Chlamydia and HIV free. Both diseases which can be spread even with the use of a condom. But wait...let me guess....abstinence is the only thing that works!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - Sean42, on 03/05/2009, -6/+25Corporate crybabies. Try not running your company into the ground, pay your damn corporate taxes and don't come looking for the tax-payer funded money teet and then you can do what you want when it is YOUR money and not OURS,
- acknotSW, on 03/05/2009, -6/+24OMG, my stomach, can't......stop......laughing!
Seriously though, from the top on down, the party is over. From the mid level exec who takes the boys out for a $1200 lunch on the company down to the union guy who sweeps the floor for $20+ an hour, it's over. - lovek, on 03/05/2009, -5/+23While in a roundabout way I can agree with their point (although I don't think business conferences need to be luxurious, they are necessary)... what I really don't understand is the point of an ad campaign about this. What does that accomplish?
Thanks, Travel Industry! Now we know you're mad about something! I'm going to continue on with my life now! - PocchieTheMan, on 03/05/2009, -5/+23You're absolutely right. HIV testing is just stupid. We totally shouldn't get that under control. And does every ***** right-wing idiot think that a job only costs what you pay somebody? Yeah ***** equipment or building materials, or any of that *****. You're totally right. A job is only what you pay somebody to do the labor. I can't believe how foolish I've been. Also, yeah, why modenize federal installations! Totally pointless to consume less energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy by our own god damn government.
I don't care that the "travel industry" is sad because Obama won't let defunct banks and their ***** CEO's and corrupt executives use tax payer money to line their pockets. Comparing travel to political rallies is the dumbest ***** comparison I've ever heard in all my life. Get over yourselves. - MGrizam, on 03/05/2009, -8/+25HAHAHAH this is unreal... lets blame the current president for a financial mess thats not his doing, a recession thats causing everyone to cut back, and i mean EVERYONE... and yes its all obamas fault for causing people to be less lavish.
boo hoo... don't build a business that relies on luxury spending if you don't expect downtime during times like this... this reeks of selfishness on the travel companies end. - dk911, on 03/05/2009, -3/+20Dear people in the US used to living off the wealth of others,
Times are changing. We're sick of propping your lazy asses up.
Signed,
Those of us who actually work for a living - DangerCollie, on 03/05/2009, -2/+18Heck, I'd settle for the travel industry treating me like a human being instead of a walking ATM machine. And, yeah, I'm looking at you commercial airlines.
Make the travel experience better and more people might travel. Instead they act like they've got a right to exist. - KimmyGibbler, on 03/05/2009, -9/+24@ rthakidn
Actually, douche-bag, public campaign funding was alluded to in the original post: "Until political conventions are held via conference call, we shouldn't expect business to do so either". The tax payers didn't pay for Obama's political convention, so their point is negated. Also, McCain accepted public campaign funds and still stacked his advisory board with lobbyists. To cite one of the more embarrassing examples: McCain declaired that "We are all Georgians" during the Russia-Georgia conflict, and the next day it was discovered that one of his advisors was a former lobbyist for Georgia. You're the naive one, you ***** - gsadamb, on 03/05/2009, -3/+17Obama never said that business employees shouldn't travel.
He just asked that if they're gonna do it, just be a little ***** reasonable when using taxpayer dollars. Flying for business is a completely valid expense. Going on all-employee retreats and hiring Sheryl Crow after you accepted taxpayer money, is not.
No one's stopping any company from going all-out and throwing the world's biggest bash, if they're doing it with their own money. - jiggawatt, on 03/05/2009, -4/+17Exactly. This whole notion of whining about losinig luxury jobs is a farce! Cry cry cry. The most secure jobs are the ones that provide the most in demand service/product. There are no guarantees for luxury jobs. I don't feel sorry for Yacht builders. There are NO guarantees in a job. It's time to cinch up the belt and suck it up for a while. If you're getting tax payer money to essentially KEEP YOUR JOB, then deal with the conditions, or don't take the money and go out of business.
- Zaxcomp, on 03/05/2009, -4/+16Oh no, the superfluous is the first to be threatened when we start spending reasonably.
- Sean42, on 03/05/2009, -1/+13Another idiotic comment from iloveobama.
Really, funding new energy projects and technology won't create long term jobs. Really? You are going to stop using and buying energy in the future.
You are a dimwit. - Jade10145, on 03/05/2009, -2/+14I fly for work about 3 weeks out of the month..the difference is that my company pays for it without tax payer money..
These comercials are a ***** joke...you take tax payer money because your company ***** up, and then keep up the same ***** that got you into trouble in the first place??? ***** you... - WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2009, -9/+20rhakidn, are YOU that stupid?
Did you even hear about Obama's "pledge" until McCain threw a hissy fit? Heck, I sure didn't. Not much of a "promise", now was it? After all, his pledge really amounted to nothing but a checkbox. Is it really breaking a promise if nobody knew about it 'til his opponent thought he could score political points?
Oh, and the vast majority of Obama's contributions were from INDIVIDUALS, not corporations. The only reason McCain threw a fit was because he couldn't make as much money from donations as Obama could- if he could've we never would have heard of the so-called pledge. McCain was just hoping that he could force Obama to only use public money. Frankly, I think it's a heck of a sign that the public was willing to donate money to Obama's campaign, but McCain was forced to suck off the public teat.
But you're right, this isn't about campaign financing. This is about YOU being an idiot who can't let go of a lost election. Deal with it, or it's going to be a really long 4-8 years for you. - Demener, on 03/05/2009, -2/+13@fulibs:
The lab guys do the real work for society and get no real recognition and sub par wages (compared to execs). So yes, I don't blame him for being pissed. - CaptainNoPants, on 03/05/2009, -5/+16@thcobbs
True, I've never heard of anyone getting HIV from blood transfusions.
/s - Mystlyfe, on 03/05/2009, -3/+13You do realize that politicians are far from the only members of the federal government and that the government contstruction is going to create jobs.
- WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2009, -4/+14Wait... so you and your wife abstained... and then went in for full testing before you got married?
You seem to have very strange views on exactly how STDs spread.
By the way, congratulations on being the .0001 percent who abstained and tested. That'll really put the brakes on STD transmission for the rest of the citizenry, won't it? - theaceoffire, on 03/05/2009, -1/+11I personally believe in abstinence, but I don't pretend that that works for most people.
Even though I preferred to wait until after marriage, I see no problem teaching kids how to have safe sex rather than keeping them in the dark and hoping to God they don't catch something. - DiggityDugged, on 03/05/2009, -3/+13For a second I thought this was an Onion article with the headline "Travel industry slams Osama"
Sadly the real article was even more laughible. - Demener, on 03/05/2009, -1/+11They are free to give the money back. Additionally we SHOULD know what banks are doing bad, I don't want to open an account at a failing bank.
- WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2009, -0/+10For tax and business liability purposes, corporations effectively ARE citizens. Corporations effectively have income, so yes, they should pay taxes on that money.
- NYConcepts, on 03/05/2009, -4/+13Clearly the irony eludes them.
- DangerCollie, on 03/05/2009, -4/+13What did you expect after it was purchased by Rupert "Fox News" Murdoch?
- WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2009, -2/+11Why did you pay for your testing, thcobbs? I mean, it's already paid for by the government, right?
Oh, you didn't qualify for the free testing, because you either make too much money, or you've got insurance?
Boy, that's gotta suck for the people who can't afford it or who DON'T have insurance. - PhilliesBlunt, on 03/05/2009, -2/+11Here's the thing. The companies taking bail-out money are doing so because they're insolvent otherwise. If they didn't take the money, then the Travel Industry would still be taking a hit because they couldn't afford to do so on their own dime. You can't take Federal Funds and continue to operate as if your company is experiencing exponential growth. That money is to maintain the basic functionality of the financial industry. If travel is necessary, it should be done in the most economical fashion possible. End of story.
- anexanhume, on 03/05/2009, -5/+14Man, we really love to spam the anti-Obama articles from WSJ on Digg don't we?
I used to respect the WSJ, but now I see all they want to do is play the partisan game too. - OneOfNone, on 03/05/2009, -2/+11I feel your pain. By comparison, I work in a small pharma. No junkets or retreats for anyone, but no cutting on travel to important conferences or meetings with potential customers. One reason for this difference: our execs own a significant share of business and it makes no sense for them to rob themselves (they are nice people too, but self-interest always helps).
- Pstmann, on 03/05/2009, -0/+9Sounds like most companies.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/05/2009, -0/+8Yep, no one wants to sacrifice.
- Danger668, on 03/05/2009, -4/+12What few seem to realize is that many of the "working class" are employed in tourism. Many of those whose daily job functions make large events like the trade shows and conventions possible are threatened by the down turn. I agree that they should not be so lavish and must serve a purpose (which all that I have ever attended do), they are necessary. They will be cut back for sure with a contraction in the economy, but the government telling a business how to run its business is government overstepping its purpose and intruding on the lives of working people, whatever their socio-economic class.
- PhilliesBlunt, on 03/05/2009, -0/+8Dear joe122370
Quit digging and get back to work
signed,
A guy digging at work. - Jade10145, on 03/05/2009, -1/+9You say "The Rich employ people and have capital". Aren't these the same "rich" that outsource jobs? So I guess you are correct in saying the rich do employ people, just not their own citizens.
I understand the idea that if you take care of (give tax breaks) to the "rich" people they will be able to hire more people. But I think 8 ***** years of the travesty that was the Bush administration has proved this statement wrong. You give the rich people tax breaks, they out source jobs, lay off people, practice in shady business practices to make money faster. - DougChristian, on 03/05/2009, -2/+10Yeah totally. Cause above $249K the government takes all your money. Oh no wait, only 4% more, and only on the amount you make above that? Well that seems like it would still be advantageous to make more than $250K. That's weird. Your post doesn't make sense. Oh no wait, it does: you're an idiot.
- kierucom, on 03/05/2009, -2/+10What!? No more multi-million dollar retreats for the executives already getting millions in bonuses when their companys economic growth dropped 75% this year and they fired 8% of their workforce? Oh Travel Industry - so sorry for your loss.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 287 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is