Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lucky we don't live in a world of extremes. Are you an extremist? You must be because your statement is extreme to the max. I guess in your world if working people would like a decent wage they are COMMUNISTS. Very scary stuff there, those darn people wanting to be paid decently. You know, there was a time when I thought people like you who are straight out of Dr. Strangelove had died out in the USA. I was wrong about that because it seems that you only have to turn over a bale of hay anywhere in the country to find a Joe MacArthy in waiting.
Well you and your ilk are a one-size-fits-all kind of people. You simply throw yourself out there with signs all over yourselves saying you want universal equality. Now that you're finally starting to understand what that means you want to puke all over yourselves and call it something else so that you can play the game of Self Delusion and act like it's the game of Life.
"Walmart's employees receive $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. They are also the top recipients of Medicaid in numerous states. Why does this occur? Walmart fails to provide a livable wage and decent healthcare benefits, costing U.S. taxpayers an annual average of $1.02 billion in healthcare costs. This direct public subsidy is being given to offset the failures of an international corporate giant who shouldn’t be shifting part of its labor costs onto the American taxpayers."
And before Wal*Mart entered their market where they somehow not eligible for those programs. You simply have a horrible ability to understand the number of people Wal*Mart employs and how that applies to using statistics. Just another day in liberal la la land though with DailyKos using its most unfortunate adherents to spread their message of disinformation and doublethink with a side of doublespeak.
And before Wal*Mart entered their market where they somehow not eligible for those programs. You simply have a horrible ability to understand the number of people Wal*Mart employs and how that applies to using statistics. Just another day in liberal la la land though with DailyKos using its most unfortunate adherents to spread their message of disinformation and doublethink with a side of doublespeak.
It would be cute if it wasn't so sad.
If you want to see what subsidies Walmart has received in your area, go to the following site and plug in your state, city, and type of subsidy and it will give you a list of the subsidies.
This website does not include food stamp and medicaid that walmart employees are receiving but instead lists actual tax breaks state or local government has given to Walmart.
When Walmart gets breaks in state and local taxes then if I live in that state I, as a taxpayer, am subsidizing Walmart. If Walmart employees are forced to rely on Food stamps then, once again, the taxpayer is subsidizing the Waltons.
And you fail to realize that you'll be paying either way. At least with Wally World there you have a straw man that you can parlay with every night... Other wise you'd be attacking the fact that those people didn't have jobs before or they had jobs but they were spread out between many local businesses but that the results were still the same. You still subsidize them. And since you don't seem to understand how and why people who invested in Wally World are rich you might want to take some courses on investing, the stock market and after that get a high enough education so that you don't have time to concentrate on such trivial and inconsequential things as $2.66 billion in subsidies while your government spends that excess amount in 6 hours.
And you fail to realize that you'll be paying either way. At least with Wally World there you have a straw man that you can parlay with every night... Other wise you'd be attacking the fact that those people didn't have jobs before or they had jobs but they were spread out between many local businesses but that the results were still the same. You still subsidize them. And since you don't seem to understand how and why people who invested in Wally World are rich you might want to take some courses on investing, the stock market and after that get a high enough education so that you don't have time to concentrate on such trivial and inconsequential things as $2.66 billion in subsidies while your government spends that excess amount in 6 hours.
You're just ignoring the fact that if Walmart had adequate affordable healthcare insurance for its employees and paid a living wage, these employees wouldn't have to rely on government assistance. Apparently for you it's OK that your taxes are subsidizing one of the biggest corporations in the world. I would rather Walmart pay it's employees instead of part of it coming out of my pocket.
If you want to see what subsidies Walmart has received in your area, go to the following site and plug in your state, city, and type of subsidy and it will give you a list of the subsidies.
Answer the question. What's the alternative? Do you think these minimum wage employees were making enough before so they wouldn't qualify for the same welfare?
Do you think all the sudden they went from $20/hr jobs to minimum wage jobs because Walmart came in to town? You know, because that would be silly.
Employement is a two way street and you don't seem to realize that you're advocating for less employement, crappy stores and worse customer service. That wouldn't be so bad except your ilk like to talk about work share programs where you voluntarily lower one persons hours so you can give another person like hours for like pay with both of them not making enough to do anything but survive. The you label them poor so you can buy them off with other people's money.
You've got a disease. I'm pretty sure it's a mental one but that may not be its limits.
Answer the question. What's the alternative? Do you think these minimum wage employees were making enough before so they wouldn't qualify for the same welfare?
Do you think all the sudden they went from $20/hr jobs to minimum wage jobs because Walmart came in to town? You know, because that would be silly.
Employement is a two way street and you don't seem to realize that you're advocating for less employement, crappy stores and worse customer service. That wouldn't be so bad except your ilk like to talk about work share programs where you voluntarily lower one persons hours so you can give another person like hours for like pay with both of them not making enough to do anything but survive. The you label them poor so you can buy them off with other people's money.
You've got a disease. I'm pretty sure it's a mental one but that may not be its limits.
You've got a disease called being rude. Were you a bully when you were a kid?
Here's a question I've been asking 100 times on another current thread.
Now, if wages are so low at places like Macdonald's and WallMart that workers there need food stamps, then isn't this one big problem?
why should the taxpayer foot the wage bill?
why should the companies be allowed to pay so low?
what is the purpose of this system?
how about just a decent wage but no food stamps, make coming off welfare pay, surely this is the right solution?
LOL I give folks like you credit for one thing, at least. That is, y'all sure have a good knack for appealing to the most ignorant and naive amongst us. Generally young kids, socialists, and those who will pay no price for being wrong...
It always presumes a false foundation (either intentionally or deliberate) that if "we" don't pay a "living wage" to people, then it will cost "us" more in some sort of entitlement program. Thus, there are no choices but A or B, and neither one good.
Uhhhh, for one thing? Who --or what entity -- owes you a job at all? Or a certain arbitrarily set wage? And if you don't have one? Then why do you think the tax-payers owe you anything at all either, to make up for it?
To backtrack a bit, the "poor" are not a static class. Most earning minimum wages are those young people just getting started in life and will -- with a good work ethic and foresight and brains -- will move up over their lifetime into another economic class consideration. They will go to management and etc.
Thomas Sowell has written some great articles on the subject. Here are just a couple of them:
Regardless though, I come back to the main point of that your whole premise is based upon -- when it comes right down to it -- that some are "owed" something. If not a real job and set wage (that continually increases), then the obligation falls upon tax-payers to support you otherwise. This is the classic propoganda technique of the left that has great emotive value, but fails to take into account others -- as James Burnham (Suicide of the West) said in another context -- refuse to be cowed into accepting either contrived horn at all?
LOL I give folks like you credit for one thing, at least. That is, y'all sure have a good knack for appealing to the most ignorant and naive amongst us. Generally young kids, socialists, and those who will pay no price for being wrong...
It always presumes a false foundation (either intentionally or deliberate) that if "we" don't pay a "living wage" to people, then it will cost "us" more in some sort of entitlement program.
Uhhhh, for one thing? Who --or what entity -- owes you a job at all? Or a certain arbitrarily set wage? And if you don't have one? Then why do you think the tax-payers owe you anything at all either, to make up for it?
To backtrack a bit, the "poor" are not a static class. Most earning minimum wages are those young people just getting started in life and will -- with a good work ethic and foresight and brains -- will move up over their lifetime into another economic class consideration. They will go to management and etc.
Thomas Sowell has written some great articles on the subject. Here are just a couple of them:
Regardless though, I come back to the main point of that your who premise is based upon -- when it comes right down to it -- that some are "owed" something. If not a real job and set wage (that continually increases), then the obligation falls upon tax-payers to support you otherwise. This is the classic propoganda technique of the left that has great emotive value, but fails to take into account others -- as James Burnam (Suicide of the West) said in another context -- refuse to be cowed into accepting either horn. And might just take the offensive...
In a civilized society, if someone is working hard and still can't feed their family, then, yes we are obligated out of shared humanity to see that they receive assistance. What would you rather see? Children starving to death like in the third world?
In a civilized society, if someone is working hard and still can't feed their family, then, yes we are obligated out of shared humanity to see that they receive assistance. What would you rather see? Children starving to death like in the third world?
That part about "obligations" and "shared humanity" is fine. I would agree on many levels
But how about letting me be the one to decide where and who my money goes to? And you be the one who decides where and who yours goes to?
And of course, there is that silly-arsed false dilema always presented that if we don't let government control things, then we must be in favor of letting children starve to death. Geez...
How much money of your own do you donate to feed starving kids? I mean directly to charitable organizations, not allowing a government buracracy to do it for you? Which will and always has and will, natural, mean paying those who redistribute it, a salary of their own where they would have a vested interest in seeing that the problem always remain? I mean, if someone is paid, say, $50,000 a year by the government, to administer entitlement programs, such as food stamps or whatever, do you think it would be in their personal best interest to actually kill the golden goose that pays their salary? Hell no. Their best interest is served by more and more people being dependent upon government.
So who do you trust with this control of your money? Individuals to give freely as they choose? Or government to decide on your behalf...and make a damn good living of their own, doing so?
Last edited by TexasReb; 01-04-2013 at 07:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
