Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

#1
For all of the Wal-Mart defenders on here, they will be cutting benefits costs by modifying/reducing the level of benefits, and also cutting certain pay for new employees. I guess the current billions in quarterly profits isn't enough for the corporate elite at Wal-Mart.

Also, by reducing pay, Wal-Mart sets an example that leads to lower pay at many other businesses. Shopping at Wal-Mart contributes to the redistribution of income into the pockets of the corporate elite.

Also, even if you save in the short-term with very low prices, it just comes back in the form of higher taxes, since the workers take welfare payments caused by the low wages and benefits. With health care reform, this will just be more workers who will get government subsidies to buy health care (since the employer provided benefits would be too expensive and the wages will be low enough for government aid). This will also come from the taxpayers, including middle class taxpayers who have to foot the bill for Wal-Mart's workers


Excerpts of Article;

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the largest private employer in the U.S., plans to stop paying staff there an additional $1 an hour for working Sundays, taking a bite out of its single biggest expense

“It’s sad -- people who work on Sunday need that extra dollar,” Cynthia Murray, a Wal-Mart employee at a supercenter in Laurel, Maryland, said in an interview

Wal-Mart’s move represents a blow to hourly workers, said Dorian Warren, an assistant professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University who studies labor relations.

Wal-Mart said it plans to end profit-sharing contributions next year, replacing them with matches to employee 401(k) retirement plans to bring down benefits costs.

“The company is obsessive about labor costs, not just to save money in the coming quarter but to encourage turnover, which also keeps wages low,” Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in an e- mail message

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/wal-mart-to-end-extra-pay-for-sunday-shifts-in-2011-as-duke-targets-costs.html
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#2
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

[
Also, even if you save in the short-term with very low prices, it just comes back in the form of higher taxes, since the workers take welfare payments caused by the low wages and benefits. With health care reform, this will just be more workers who will get government subsidies to buy health care (since the employer provided benefits would be too expensive and the wages will be low enough for government aid). This will also come from the taxpayers, including middle class taxpayers who have to foot the bill for Wal-Mart's workers
[]
Not to mention you support China since Wal Mart imports over 90% of their cheap junk from there.American companies send their jobs over there so they can ''compete'' for that floor space at Wal Mart with matching cheap labor.
 
#3
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

its called greed. they arent happy making billions and billions. They arent happy with a store on every other corner. that isnt enough.

they have to come up with ways to cut expenses that are cutting into their profit margins.. the people making them those billions and billions will have to bite the bullet for the evil empire.

Feel sorry for the walmart family. they must be on hard times if they have to do this.

GREED is evil and it is in full force in america.get out of the way.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#4
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

I am sure this means that they will create more jobs with all that extra cash now right??
 
#6
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts



This is what you get for playing class warfare with your bullshit wealth redistribution, your bullshit government intrusions, and your bullshit BIG LABOR policies.

I hope every company in America follows Walmart's and McDonald's example until all you greedy, envious, anti-American socialists fuck off and leave the people alone. 2938u4ji23
 
#7
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

Thursday, September 30, 2010
McDonald's Getting Ready to Cut Employee Healthcare Benefit Thanks to Obama


Obamacare was supposed to solve the insurance crisis in the United States. It appears to be creating another crisis. Of course, we all knew this was going to happen. McDonald's may be getting ready to drop some health insurance coverage from their benefits plan thanks to Obamacare.

From the Wall Street Journal:

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

Democrats who drafted the health law wanted the requirement to prevent insurers from spending too much on executive salaries, marketing and other costs that they said don't directly help patients.

McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees.

More recently, insurers have proposed a round of double-digit premium increases and said new coverage mandates in the law are partly to blame. HHS has criticized the proposed increases as unwarranted.

Democrats, looking toward midterm elections in which the health overhaul is an issue, say it already has stopped insurance practices they call abusive, has given rebates to seniors with high out-of-pocket prescription costs and has allowed parents to keep children on their insurance plans until they turn 26.

McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits. Officials said McDonald's would probably have to hit the 85% figure, which applies to larger group plans. Its insurer, BCS Insurance Group of Oak Brook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment.

McDonald's didn't disclose what the plan's current medical loss ratio was.

The issue of limited-benefit plans has also hit colleges, which face the same 80-to-85% requirement beginning next year.

"Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants," said McDonald's memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014."

The health law expands Medicaid and offers large subsidies to lower-income people to buy coverage, but those provisions don't kick in until 2014.

Federal officials say there's no guarantee they can grant mini-med carriers a waiver. They say the answer may not come by November, when many employers require employees to sign up for the coming year's benefits.

The government is waiting for the association of state insurance commissioners to draft recommendations. The head of the association's health-insurance committee, Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, said she doesn't think these types of mini-med plans deserve an exemption.

"If they are sold as comprehensive coverage, we expect them to meet the same [medical-loss ratio] standards as other health plans," she said.

teven Larsen, the HHS official who received McDonald's email memo, said the department doesn't want employers to drop coverage over the law. The agency says it has already given the carrier for McDonald's and others the chance to seek exemption from new annual limits on benefit payouts.

Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc., one of the largest sellers of mini-med plans, provides the plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.

Aetna declined to comment; it has previously indicated that the requirement could hurt its limited benefit plans.

"There is not any issuer of limited benefit coverage that could meet the enhanced MLR standards," said Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, using the abbreviation for medical loss ratio.

A spokeswoman for McDonald's said it would look for other insurance options if it couldn't get the waiver. The company's chief people officer for the U.S., Steve Russell, said, "McDonald's will continue to be committed to providing competitive pay and benefits."

The chain has offered a limited benefits plan for more than 10 years. The current version provides outpatient, inpatient, preventive-care and prescription-drug coverage. McDonald's says 85% of participants have less than $5,000 in medical expenses a year.

The new rules at issue apply only to fully insured health plans and not those where the employer absorbs the risk and directly pays out medical claims. The rules wouldn't affect Wal-Mart Stores Inc., for instance, because it is self-insured.

Benefit consultants anticipate that, by 2014, most employers will stop offering mini-med plans. Such plans likely wouldn't meet the definition of adequate coverage for full-time workers. Under the law, midsize and large employers that fail to offer such coverage will have to pay a fine.

Until 2014, workers on mini-med plans would have few affordable alternatives for coverage. According to a survey by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, workers without health insurance were three times as likely to visit the emergency room without being able to pay as their counterparts with health insurance.

"The packages maybe could be better, but for a start, they're quite good," said Jerry Newman, a professor at State University of New York at Buffalo, who worked under cover at McDonald's to write "My Secret Life on the McJob." He added: "For those who didn't have health insurance through their spouse, it was a life saver."
Marxist Progressives specialize in sabotaging one industry after another, then turn around and point the finger at liberty and the free market. Their solution? Even MORE control and wealth redistribution.

What's the avg. honest, hard working American to do? What do we do when a bunch of envious fanatics are committed liars, economic illiterates and Marxist ideologues? 2938u4ji23

Pray for America.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#8
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts



This is what you get for playing class warfare with your bullshit wealth redistribution, your bullshit government intrusions, and your bullshit BIG LABOR policies.

I hope every company in America follows Walmart's and McDonald's example until all you greedy, envious, anti-American socialists fuck off and leave the people alone. 2938u4ji23
As long as the wealth is redistributed to the top 2 % it is alright then??
Simple question even you should be able to answer...who is forcing the employees to turn to the government for help????It cannot be Wal Mart now could it??No, no way in Joes fascist world!!As long as the money goes to the top 2% it is not wealth redistribution and those employees that go on government assistance and add to the deficit and debt are at fault here.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#9
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

Marxist Progressives specialize in sabotaging one industry after another, then turn around and point the finger at liberty and the free market. Their solution? Even MORE control and wealth redistribution.

What's the avg. honest, hard working American to do? What do we do when a bunch of envious fanatics are committed liars, economic illiterates and Marxist ideologues? 2938u4ji23

Pray for America.
Explain this free market to me.Add in all the subsidies and tax breaks too while you are at it.Then be stupid enough to turn around and cry about the deficit and debt while we borrow more money from China to finance this free market.
 
#10
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

As long as the wealth is redistributed to the top 2 % it is alright then??
Of course it's alright, providing all the wealth is redistributed organically in a free market.

In a free market, it doesn't matter where the wealth is concentrated, EVERYONE (who chooses to participate in the system) benefits. More private wealth = more $$$ for banks = more capital to build factories, houses, tall buildings, houses and entire industries. The more wealth in private (capable) hands, the more efficient and productive it's redistribution, the faster it multiplies, the more prosperous a society.

On the other hand, wealth in govt hands disintegrates because govt wealth isn't earned wealth, it's stolen wealth. Govt doesn't create new wealth, it only redistributes existing wealth arbitrarily (politically picking winners and losers). History has shown time and again these top-down centrally planned economies are train wrecks and eventually collapse.

Here's a small example. Have you been to a shopping a mall lately? A shopping mall is technically "privately owned", yet public domain. Hmmm...which is safer, cleaner and more beneficial to a community? A shopping mall or pick your fav govt program? Which provides the community better service? Does anyone in their right mind believe the govt could run a shopping mall more efficiently? And does the private ownership of a shopping mall have any negative impact on those individuals who don't own the same property? On the contrary. One can either choose to shop there, or go someplace else... free of coercion and manipulation. Demonizing the owner of said shopping mall because he owns it and you don't is vacuous left wing tomfoolery, end of story.

This "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" is nothing but regurgitated Marxist demagoguery with no basis in reality because the radicals who engage in this class warfare BS measure poverty in relative terms. The truth is, by any objective living standard, "poor people" in America are the wealthiest on the planet.

Put another way, in a free market -- defined as the voluntarily exchange of goods and services -- the man standing on the street corner begging for $20 is no more a consequence to me than the billionaire with 15 cars, a yacht and 5 houses. In a free society, one man's wealth does not prevent me from acquiring the same. All that's required is the necessary skills, smarts, abilities, drive, resources etc. to achieve the same level of success.

Only the idle -- the lazy bitter losers who refuse to participate in the democratic free market system -- become restless (unionize and/or organize politically) and buy into this class warfare BS demanding "their fair share." Karl Marx, the father of every leftist crackpot theory in history himself was an unemployed bum leeching off the wealth of Engels which gave him plenty of time to dream up the most dangerous and destructive economic ideas ever.

Simple question even you should be able to answer...who is forcing the employees to turn to the government for help????It cannot be Wal Mart now could it??No, no way in Joes fascist world!!As long as the money goes to the top 2% it is not wealth redistribution and those employees that go on government assistance and add to the deficit and debt are at fault here.
Um, Wal-Mart lobbied the govt heavily for Obamacare: mission accomplished. Now they are cutting benefits. (Surprise!) Do your homework, sucka. :LMAO

Sooooooo.... the govt colludes with large corporations and you economically illiterate useful idiots vote away even more of your individual sovereignty and more government control of your lives ("free heathcare"), buying into their class warfare bullshit which pits one group of citizens against another.

Call it what you want...national socialism, communism, crony capitalism, progressivism, Marxism, central planning... it's all the same shit.

Socialism is as ugly as Helen Thomas, corrupt as Bernie Madoff, and it DOES NOT WORK -- ANYWHERE! 2938u4ji23
 
#11
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

The problem isn't the idea of national health care, it's just the way it was implemented.

The Obama health care reform bill was designed with corporate interests in mind. The tax penalties for employers who fail to provide healthcare are much lower than the costs of healthcare. This will give the employers to incentive to eliminate coverage and just pay the small fines. Now, the taxpayers will have to take care of the rest.

Instead of causing employers to be more responsible, the Obama plan instead puts all of the burden on the taxpayer and allows corporations to get off even easier. With the use of part-time workers and independent contractors, companies will also be able to reduce their tax penalties. The law will only increase costs to the taxpayers the way it is written.
 
#12
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

The problem isn't the idea of national health care, it's just the way it was implemented.
No, the problem is national healthcare = socialized medicine, which doesn't work anywhere. At most, these govt pyramid schemes can sustain themselves for one generation, two at the most. Germany, France, Britain, Canada...name the country, decentralization and massive cuts in services is in the planning stages or already being implemented.

The goal of socialism is egalitarianism...but the practical outcome is always equal access to nothing, because govt cannot create wealth.

I repeat, destroying wealth does not produce prosperity.

"There's plenty of money out there. Don't fall into the trap of this whole deficit argument. The only question is how it's spent."
-- Van Jones :doh1
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#13
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

Of course it's alright, providing all the wealth is redistributed organically in a free market.

In a free market, it doesn't matter where the wealth is concentrated, EVERYONE (who chooses to participate in the system) benefits. More private wealth = more $$$ for banks = more capital to build factories, houses, tall buildings, houses and entire industries. The more wealth in private (capable) hands, the more efficient and productive it's redistribution, the faster it multiplies, the more prosperous a society.
Their is no such thing as a free market and if their was you would not need subsidies and tax breaks like all the corporations get ?

On the other hand, wealth in govt hands disintegrates because govt wealth isn't earned wealth, it's stolen wealth. Govt doesn't create new wealth, it only redistributes existing wealth arbitrarily (politically picking winners and losers). History has shown time and again these top-down centrally planned economies are train wrecks and eventually collapse.
True so does this mean we can cut defense spending to 0 since that is one of our biggest expenses?

Here's a small example. Have you been to a shopping a mall lately? A shopping mall is technically "privately owned", yet public domain. Hmmm...which is safer, cleaner and more beneficial to a community? A shopping mall or pick your fav govt program? Which provides the community better service? Does anyone in their right mind believe the govt could run a shopping mall more efficiently? And does the private ownership of a shopping mall have any negative impact on those individuals who don't own the same property? On the contrary. One can either choose to shop there, or go someplace else... free of coercion and manipulation. Demonizing the owner of said shopping mall because he owns it and you don't is vacuous left wing tomfoolery, end of story.
No one cares who owns the Mall but the people are pissed that the Mall owner get's subsidies to fix up his mall and tax breaks to pay practically nothing in taxes while the citizen see's his taxes go up to make up for the shortfall that is created by these subsidies and tax breaks that the mall owner enjoys.

This "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" is nothing but regurgitated Marxist demagoguery with no basis in reality because the radicals who engage in this class warfare BS measure poverty in relative terms. The truth is, by any objective living standard, "poor people" in America are the wealthiest on the planet.
Then why is it always the rich that start this nonsense?

Put another way, in a free market -- defined as the voluntarily exchange of goods and services -- the man standing on the street corner begging for $20 is no more a consequence to me than the billionaire with 15 cars, a yacht and 5 houses. In a free society, one man's wealth does not prevent me from acquiring the same. All that's required is the necessary skills, smarts, abilities, drive, resources etc. to achieve the same level of success.
No such thing as a free market and the rich man has tax lawyers that will help him screw the beggar while he enjoys tax breaks and safe havens.

Only the idle -- the lazy bitter losers who refuse to participate in the democratic free market system -- become restless (unionize and/or organize politically) and buy into this class warfare BS demanding "their fair share." Karl Marx, the father of every leftist crackpot theory in history himself was an unemployed bum leeching off the wealth of Engels which gave him plenty of time to dream up the most dangerous and destructive economic ideas ever.
You are out of touch with reality.Do you really think people want to be poor?Sure you have a lot of them with no ambitions but most are not like that.Have you ever donated your time working at a homeless shelter?You should and it will open your eyes and learn to give back to society rather then sit back and only think of yourself and judge these people.

Um, Wal-Mart lobbied the govt heavily for Obamacare: mission accomplished. Now they are cutting benefits. (Surprise!) Do your homework, sucka. :LMAO
Of course they did since this was their plan all along.Let the government pay for their employees insurance while they make more money.This is corporate welfare 101 and they have been doing it since the beginning.But of course when the taxpayers are stuck with the bill it should be okay according to you right?Let everyone else pay for it except the corporations who should get a free pass and then turn around and call it a free market too right?

Sooooooo.... the govt colludes with large corporations and you economically illiterate useful idiots vote away even more of your individual sovereignty and more government control of your lives ("free heathcare"), buying into their class warfare bullshit which pits one group of citizens against another.
Show me one politician that has run on the platform of making corporations pay their fair share and doing away with subsidies and this so called free market.

Call it what you want...national socialism, communism, crony capitalism, progressivism, Marxism, central planning... it's all the same shit.
Let's just call it a free market or capitalism huh?

Socialism is as ugly as Helen Thomas, corrupt as Bernie Madoff, and it DOES NOT WORK -- ANYWHERE! 2938u4ji23
x
 
#15
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

Their is no such thing as a free market and if their was you would not need subsidies and tax breaks like all the corporations get

Tax breaks and subsidies for one form of citizen and/or corporations are examples of govt colluding the free market (again, picking winners and losers). That's not capitalism, it's socialism. And politicizing economics is suicidal....hence the current massive unrecoverable debt.

Onward.


True so does this mean we can cut defense spending to 0 since that is one of our biggest expenses?
Of course not. Defense is one of the few legitimate and necessary functions of govt, see the 18 enumerated powers. No business can function and no individual can free if our fundamental rights and property cannot be protected.

No one cares who owns the Mall but the people are pissed that the Mall owner get's subsidies to fix up his mall and tax breaks to pay practically nothing in taxes while the citizen see's his taxes go up to make up for the shortfall that is created by these subsidies and tax breaks that the mall owner enjoys.
Subsidies and tax breaks = govt colluding the market. Stop creating strawmen arguments. Corporations didn't give the government this type of insane unchecked power, the progressives did.

Then why is it always the rich that start this nonsense?
Heh?









No such thing as a free market and the rich man has tax lawyers that will help him screw the beggar while he enjoys tax breaks and safe havens.


Tax havens wouldn't exist were not for the anti-American progressive income tax -- straight out of the Communist Manifesto and anyone smart enough to earn a lot of money understands what a scam it is.

Progressive income tax = Marxism.


You are out of touch with reality.Do you really think people want to be poor?

No, of course not, but very few are willing to make the necessary sacrifices and take the necessary risks...they just want all the rewards. Life doesn't work that way and too many freeloaders demanding progressive government fill in the imaginary gaps could end up being our economic Armageddon.


Sure you have a lot of them with no ambitions but most are not like that.Have you ever donated your time working at a homeless shelter?You should and it will open your eyes and learn to give back to society rather then sit back and only think of yourself and judge these people.

We have churches and private charity to care for those people. Indeed, progressives marginalize and demonize those groups and then some...anything and everything except their omnipotent leviathan state.

It's never been about compassion, it's always been about CONTROL (of the people) with these contemptible assholes.


Of course they did since this was their plan all along.Let the government pay for their employees insurance while they make more money.This is corporate welfare 101 and they have been doing it since the beginning. But of course when the taxpayers are stuck with the bill it should be okay according to you right?Let everyone else pay for it except the corporations who should get a free pass and then turn around and call it a free market too right?

Okay, I'm starting to repeat myself here...


Corporate Welfare and Control 101 is NOT
capitalism, it's Progressivism 101. It's what the Nazis did. Merging government and corporations = national socialism.

Show me one politician that has run on the platform of making corporations pay their fair share and doing away with subsidies and this so called free market.
There's that emotive Marxist "fair share" slogan again. 2938u4ji23

Corporations shouldn't pay ANY taxes. Why? Because all taxes and regulatory costs are passed onto the end consumer.


Let me explain:


Every time some demagogic left wing interest group succeeds in hamstringing a corporation with some stupid regulation, draconian tax, or labor law, the consumer pays for it at the check-out line. Taxes, labor, regulatory costs, cost of materials...in an accounting ledger it's all the same: EXPENSES. Since business models and profit margins can't be manipulated the way, say our criminal govt manipulates Social Security, the accounting dept simply adds whatever extra cost imposed on them to the sticker price. Moreover, as we have seen with Wal-mart, the most powerful corporations probably have enough $$$ and influence to buy their way out of whatever scam the left wing political class 'thinks' they are imposing on them, ie Obamacare wavers.


So you see, tank, progressivism means you lose....we all do...except govt bureaucrats and entire industries whose existence depends on suckers like you and ACCC and everyone else to keep voting for the guy with the 'D' next to his name (or RINOs like Mark Kirk).


If you actually had to go out and EARN a living (meaning you made your living risking your own capital and hard assets) and/or educated yourself on economics, you'd understand all this...and probably hate progressives even more than I do. Alas, while you cut and paste sideshow Huffington Compost tabloid journalism depicting Sarah Palin as a bimbo...


 
#16
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts



So you see, tank, progressivism means you lose....we all do...except govt bureaucrats and entire industries whose existence depends on suckers like you and ACCC and everyone else to keep voting for the guy with the 'D' next to his name (or RINOs like Mark Kirk).



<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
I just wanted to clear up a few things regarding some of your comments. <o:p></o:p>

First of all, I only voted for Obama in 2008 involuntarily because there wasn't any other choice. It was that or a guranteed 100 years in Iraq and continued Bush policies with McCain. Obama turned out to not be so much different, but there wasn't anything to lose by voting for him. Also I did not vote at all in 2010 due to the poor performance of the weak submissive Democrats. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It's nice of you to admit that corporate interests like Wal-Mart have a lot of control over the US government. I don't know why you consider that to be a "free" society when a limited group of corporations, Wall Street elites, and politcians are involved in collusion against most of the country. <o:p></o:p>
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#17
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
I just wanted to clear up a few things regarding some of your comments. <o:p></o:p>

First of all, I only voted for Obama in 2008 involuntarily because there wasn't any other choice. It was that or a guranteed 100 years in Iraq and continued Bush policies with McCain. Obama turned out to not be so much different, but there wasn't anything to lose by voting for him. Also I did not vote at all in 2010 due to the poor performance of the weak submissive Democrats. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It's nice of you to admit that corporate interests like Wal-Mart have a lot of control over the US government. I don't know why you consider that to be a "free" society when a limited group of corporations, Wall Street elites, and politcians are involved in collusion against most of the country. <o:p></o:p>
The one thing I agree with Joe on is that the corporations own the politicians and have the money to get want they want.Joe keeps blaming the Democrats when their is no difference between the 2 when it comes to taking money from the corporations and doing their bidding for them.Bush sucked and Obama is continuing his legacy and they are one and the same...corporations own them both.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#18
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

[
So you see, tank, progressivism means you lose....we all do...except govt bureaucrats and entire industries whose existence depends on suckers like you and ACCC and everyone else to keep voting for the guy with the 'D' next to his name (or RINOs like Mark Kirk). [/SIZE][/FONT]

If you actually had to go out and EARN a living (meaning you made your living risking your own capital and hard assets) and/or educated yourself on economics, you'd understand all this...and probably hate progressives even more than I do. Alas, while you cut and paste sideshow Huffington Compost tabloid journalism depicting Sarah Palin as a bimbo...



I risk my capital every year when I buy seed to plant crops.I am honestly thinking about giving up the factory job and just farming all the acreage instead of just doing half it.I cannot think of one industry that is not controlled by the Govt.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#19
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts


Tax breaks and subsidies for one form of citizen and/or corporations are examples of govt colluding the free market (again, picking winners and losers). That's not capitalism, it's socialism. And politicizing economics is suicidal....hence the current massive unrecoverable debt.
If it was really a free market it would be about supply and demand with competition and they would not need tax breaks and subsidies.If a company cannot make it on it's own it should fail right?But since it is all about revenue the government steps in and subsidies it.Places like Wal Mart that are very profitable take advantage of this by paying their employees so little that they get their insurance from the state[ aka the taxpayers]
]

Of course not. Defense is one of the few legitimate and necessary functions of govt, see the 18 enumerated powers. No business can function and no individual can free if our fundamental rights and property cannot be protected.
Sure but do we need over 700 bases around the world for this?

Subsidies and tax breaks = govt colluding the market. Stop creating strawmen arguments. Corporations didn't give the government this type of insane unchecked power, the progressives did.
Nobody gave them that power...the corporations pay for it dearly and have money to waste to get what they want.Progressives have nothing to do with it since both sides enjoy the money.






Tax havens wouldn't exist were not for the anti-American progressive income tax -- straight out of the Communist Manifesto and anyone smart enough to earn a lot of money understands what a scam it is.
So rather then pay their fair share just hide it for yourself huh?Then expect the taxpayer to buy new roads and pay all the maintenance on your property while you hide your money offshore.

Progressive income tax = Marxism.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

No, of course not, but very few are willing to make the necessary sacrifices and take the necessary risks...they just want all the rewards. Life doesn't work that way and too many freeloaders demanding progressive government fill in the imaginary gaps could end up being our economic Armageddon. [/COLOR][/SIZE]
We have churches and private charity to care for those people. Indeed, progressives marginalize and demonize those groups and then some...anything and everything except their omnipotent leviathan state.
Unless of course they are gay and then we know who marginalize them.

It's never been about compassion, it's always been about CONTROL (of the people) with these contemptible assholes.

Then why do corporations move their jobs overseas besides for cheap labor?They are the ones that want to control you from cradle to grave.



[ capitalism, it's Progressivism 101. It's what the Nazis did. Merging government and corporations = national socialism.
Nobody wants to merge the 2 but the corporations are the first to have their hands out when taxpayers money is being given away.

]There's that emotive Marxist "fair share" slogan again. 2938u4ji23
As long as the taxpayers are the one footing the bill it's ''fair '' then right?

Corporations shouldn't pay ANY taxes. Why? Because all taxes and regulatory costs are passed onto the end consumer.
Pure B.S. If this was true then all the corporations that moved their plants to China would be charging half as much for their product yet they are not so that is all the proof anyone needs.

Every time some demagogic left wing interest group succeeds in hamstringing a corporation with some stupid regulation, draconian tax, or labor law, the consumer pays for it at the check-out line. Taxes, labor, regulatory costs, cost of materials...in an accounting ledger it's all the same: EXPENSES. Since business models and profit margins can't be manipulated the way, say our criminal govt manipulates Social Security, the accounting dept simply adds whatever extra cost imposed on them to the sticker price. Moreover, as we have seen with Wal-mart, the most powerful corporations probably have enough $$$ and influence to buy their way out of whatever scam the left wing political class 'thinks' they are imposing on them, ie Obamacare wavers.
Again if this was true then all the product coming from China from American companies that went there would be half price.Why are they not??
So you see, tank, progressivism means you lose....we all do...except govt bureaucrats and entire industries whose existence depends on suckers like you and ACCC and everyone else to keep voting for the guy with the 'D' next to his name (or RINOs like Mark Kirk).


If you actually had to go out and EARN a living (meaning you made your living risking your own capital and hard assets) and/or educated yourself on economics, you'd understand all this...and probably hate progressives even more than I do. Alas, while you cut and paste sideshow Huffington Compost tabloid journalism depicting Sarah Palin as a bimbo...




x
 
#20
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

The problem with all the left wing anti-corporate sentiment is this: the small business share of GDP is 80%.

When the left uses corporations like Wal-Mart as a political rallying point for even more intrusive progressive govt, they're not hurting Wal-Mart, they're hurting their competition: future Wal-Marts. Wal-mart has enough clout and influence to buy an Obamacare waiver, smaller shops do not. It's the next Wal-Mart that progressives prevent from even entering the marketplace. Stricter regulations are great for big players like Wal-Mart because it allows them to squeeze out competition.



When Obama defines "rich" as anyone who earns $250,000+, he exposes his ignorance on economics and how many small businesses operate.

The day I see new US auto manufacturers open their doors, is the day regulations and taxes will have been cut back enough so the economy can bloom again. Why would anyone invest thousands into something that will be controlled by progressive govt and/or their surrogate unions?

Progressives don't redistribute wealth, they destroy it.



Sad.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#21
Re: Wal-Mart pay and benefit cuts

The problem with all the left wing anti-corporate sentiment is this: the small business share of GDP is 80%.
And they get subsidies and tax breaks just like the big boys do.Subsidies and tax breaks do not discriminate.

When the left uses corporations like Wal-Mart as a political rallying point for even more intrusive progressive govt, they're not hurting Wal-Mart, they're hurting their competition: future Wal-Marts. Wal-mart has enough clout and influence to buy an Obamacare waiver, smaller shops do not. It's the next Wal-Mart that progressives prevent from even entering the marketplace. Stricter regulations are great for big players like Wal-Mart because it allows them to squeeze out competition.
Wal Mart does away with the competition all by it's self when they can buy in bulk and take a loss on one product while the little guy cannot do this.You keep bringing up progressives when they do not have crap to do with any of this.It is all about supply and demand and being competitive and when the big boys control it then the little guy is going to lose everytime like we are seeing now.



When Obama defines "rich" as anyone who earns $250,000+, he exposes his ignorance on economics and how many small businesses operate.

The day I see new US auto manufacturers open their doors, is the day regulations and taxes will have been cut back enough so the economy can bloom again. Why would anyone invest thousands into something that will be controlled by progressive govt and/or their surrogate unions?
They have been opening new plants down south in the union free states for years now so what is the excuse this month?The price of a car is still the same coming from a non union plant so what possible excuse can we come up with for that?

Progressives don't redistribute wealth, they destroy it.
Neither do the rich, they just hoard it.Of course if this was true then we would have seen millions of jobs created in the last 10 years but we never.
[

.
x
 
Top