Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A Libertarian advocating an Entity whose Business Model includes Social Welfare programs?
REALLY?
I'm not advocating for an "Entity" (seriously, capitalized?? is it some important Essence or something?). I'm simply pointing out the idiocy of your complaint. If you don't like Wal-Mart, or anyone else who hires poor people, to profit from welfare, make it illegal for people with a job to get welfare.
Yes, an Entity IS important because it often determines the Legislation that removes renumeration from your paycheck.
Yeah, I can talk fancy if you'd prefer.
Now, Liberatrian retard, Walmart's Business Model INCLUDES training employees to go on Tax Payer assistance.
Got it, Libtard?
Good for them!
Listen, I'm not one of these stingy conservatives who whines about leeches on welfare. They didn't create the stupid system. If they can glean some benefit from it, good for them.
I understand that companies like Wal-Mart profiting from welfare (you're kidding yourself if you think they're the only ones) is an unintended consequence of the welfare state. But it's exactly the kind of unintended consequence that libertarians complain about when these laws are proposed. And we're slammed for being heartless.
So, in the end, I just think it's kind of funny.
As I said, if this shit really burns you up, why not just make it illegal for companies to hire anyone on welfare. Wouldn't that pretty directly solve the problem?
How exactly does Walmart.... or ANYONE.... "profit" from the welfare? What's your logic there?
Do you think that if Welfare did not exist, they would pay more? I would argue the exact opposite. Without welfare, more people would get off their butts, and work. This would result in there being a larger supply of zero-skill labor... which would if anything, lower the price of labor.
Welfare if anything, costs Walmart more. Not only in the 30% corporate tax rate that is higher than the rest of the world, that they wouldn't need to pay if the government wasn't funding the welfare state, but also in the fact they have to pay wages high enough to convince people to work, instead of sitting around on welfare.
If we had a balanced budget, that argument might make sense. But we don't. And as far as convincing people to work - it's a lot easier to convince someone to work for peanuts when they're already on a stipend. That's why retirees will often work for minimum wage, or volunteer, for jobs that they wouldn't take if they actually needed to fully support themselves.
For what it's worth, I'm not really attacking Wal-Mart here. They're whipping dog for socialist, but the entire middle class benefits from welfare, and the accompanying minimum wage laws. It keeps the poor dependent and out of the way (in their place).
Uh, you realize that DC spends more money per student than anywhere else in the US?
Where are the small businesses going to get the money to pay someone more than they are worth?
Student cost has no basis in reality.
It depends on the City, cost of living, students who requires special help, teacher pay, Insurance costs, utilities, maintenance.
My district allowed the buildings to deteriorate and now want a tremendous budget to make up for it.
You are so full of shit! Your town probably named the sewage treatment plant after you.
Nope. A few years ago the H1-B requests were filled the day they started.
Because all non-teachers need to be replaced.
You need to lay off to lay off the mind-altering substances. You are running your lies together now.
You notice I've been polite and haven't asked you why you can't hold down a job while I can.
The site you Linked to is a well known-H1B shill site.
65,000 H1-Bs are requested on day 1 every year and so more have to be added to accommodate the excess.
That's Americans who lose salaries and benefits.
Jpmorgan Chase & Co., Jobs & Salary for Foreign Workers | myvisajobs.com
My bad, this site is a H1-B shill site that's been lying it's a$$ off for years.
The posters on Dice used to laugh at this site all the time.
Pathetic! You really are pathetic! What a useless troll!
Goodbye!
Ad hominem...from a teacher!Student cost has no basis in reality.
It depends on the City, cost of living, students who requires special help, teacher pay, Insurance costs, utilities, maintenance.
My district allowed the buildings to deteriorate and now want a tremendous budget to make up for it.
You are so full of shit! Your town probably named the sewage treatment plant after you.
Nope. A few years ago the H1-B requests were filled the day they started.
Because all non-teachers need to be replaced.
You need to lay off to lay off the mind-altering substances. You are running your lies together now.
You notice I've been polite and haven't asked you why you can't hold down a job while I can.
The site you Linked to is a well known-H1B shill site.
65,000 H1-Bs are requested on day 1 every year and so more have to be added to accommodate the excess.
That's Americans who lose salaries and benefits.
Polite? You have repeatedly lied your ass off!
Up yours troll!
I'm not advocating for an "Entity" (seriously, capitalized?? is it some important Essence or something?). I'm simply pointing out the idiocy of your complaint. If you don't like Wal-Mart, or anyone else who hires poor people, to profit from welfare, make it illegal for people with a job to get welfare.
Yes, an Entity IS important because it often determines the Legislation that removes renumeration from your paycheck.
Yeah, I can talk fancy if you'd prefer.
Now, Liberatrian retard, Walmart's Business Model INCLUDES training employees to go on Tax Payer assistance.
Got it, Libtard?
Good for them!
Listen, I'm not one of these stingy conservatives who whines about leeches on welfare. They didn't create the stupid system. If they can glean some benefit from it, good for them.
I understand that companies like Wal-Mart profiting from welfare (you're kidding yourself if you think they're the only ones) is an unintended consequence of the welfare state. But it's exactly the kind of unintended consequence that libertarians complain about when these laws are proposed. And we're slammed for being heartless.
So, in the end, I just think it's kind of funny.
As I said, if this shit really burns you up, why not just make it illegal for companies to hire anyone on welfare. Wouldn't that pretty directly solve the problem?
How exactly does Walmart.... or ANYONE.... "profit" from the welfare? What's your logic there?
Do you think that if Welfare did not exist, they would pay more? I would argue the exact opposite. Without welfare, more people would get off their butts, and work. This would result in there being a larger supply of zero-skill labor... which would if anything, lower the price of labor.
Welfare if anything, costs Walmart more. Not only in the 30% corporate tax rate that is higher than the rest of the world, that they wouldn't need to pay if the government wasn't funding the welfare state, but also in the fact they have to pay wages high enough to convince people to work, instead of sitting around on welfare.
If we had a balanced budget, that argument might make sense. But we don't. And as far as convincing people to work - it's a lot easier to convince someone to work for peanuts when they're already on a stipend. That's why retirees will often work for minimum wage, or volunteer, for jobs that they wouldn't take if they actually needed to fully support themselves.
For what it's worth, I'm not really attacking Wal-Mart here. They're whipping dog for socialist, but the entire middle class benefits from welfare, and the accompanying minimum wage laws. It keeps the poor dependent and out of the way (in their place).
It's almost impossible to have a balanced budget.
Hurricane Sandy or excessive bad winters, for example.
And yes, politicians are in politics to grab every penny they can.
I'd rather spend money on DC than build another State of the Art city in Afghanistan.
Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
There's things I want and things I don't want.
It doesn't mean I can do any more than express my educated opinion.
I'm old enough to see patterns I don't think are good for America's future.
Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
There's things I want and things I don't want.
It doesn't mean I can do any more than express my educated opinion.
I'm old enough to see patterns I don't think are good for America's future.
Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
There's things I want and things I don't want.
It doesn't mean I can do any more than express my educated opinion.
I'm old enough to see patterns I don't think are good for America's future.
Seriously, if you don't understand that post, lift yourself 30 feet above your Ideology and read it again.
Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
There's things I want and things I don't want.
It doesn't mean I can do any more than express my educated opinion.
I'm old enough to see patterns I don't think are good for America's future.
Huh? Are you running for office?
I did answer the question...It just doesn't fit into your box.Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
There's things I want and things I don't want.
It doesn't mean I can do any more than express my educated opinion.
I'm old enough to see patterns I don't think are good for America's future.
Seriously, if you don't understand that post, lift yourself 30 feet above your Ideology and read it again.
It just sounded like a politician avoiding a question they don't want to answer.
I did answer the question...It just doesn't fit into your box.Hey Indeependent, I guess you missed it, but I'd asked earlier - if you don't want companies that hire poor people to profit from welfare, why not make it illegal for them to do so?
There's things I want and things I don't want.
It doesn't mean I can do any more than express my educated opinion.
I'm old enough to see patterns I don't think are good for America's future.
Seriously, if you don't understand that post, lift yourself 30 feet above your Ideology and read it again.
It just sounded like a politician avoiding a question they don't want to answer.
Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.
Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?
No problem; just ensure no Tax Dollars from Long Island get there until a bunch of locals own their own stores and hire local people.Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.
Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?
That's why we wanted WalMart to come in, idiot.
Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.
Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?
Perhaps if someone built a store in the city that would provide them with jobs, they could work their way out of poverty?
Oh, wait...
NOW you're talking.
Yes, small stores owned by local people who could also use an opportunity to make good.
AND support this effort, along with a better educational infrastructure, with Federal Tax dollars.
Thank you for your input, Comrade!
Keep on keeping on.......you will be taken down. It's not fair nor feasible for the most powerful country in the world to accommodate it's rich people while starving it's less fortunate. This bullshit started with Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the wealthy and when George W. Bush cut them two more times it put average Americans into the jaws of death.
One of every four workers in this country is earning less than the determined poverty level. If you think that's anything close to fair you've got your right wing head up your ignorant ass.
So in your world, poor people not having jobs, because you wiped out the corporations that employ people like Walmart, will some how reverse your myths?
My concept seemed to work well in the 90's for Bill Clinton.....'course you wouldn't want to acknowledge that because the first thing he did when he took office was raised taxes. Republicans stand for cutting taxes, a bigger military and god knows what else.....that's it, GOD!!
The most ignorant or uncaring person I've known in my 81 years on this planet was Ronald Reagan. He slashed tax rates to pre depression levels for the richest people in the country and never cut his spending a goddam dime. He quadrupled the national debt. In other words he funneled trillions of borrowed dollars(from foreign banks) into the pockets of the richest people in the country in the form of tax cuts.
2nd Most ignorant or uncaring....George W. Bush:
..............................................Total U S Debt................................................
Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt
US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?
09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
Amazing what ending a couple of hot Republican wars will do for spending:
Debt is caused by spending. Not cutting taxes. The amount of money collected by the government under Reagan, and Bush, nearly doubled in both cases. So clearly the cutting of taxes, isn't what caused debt.
What did cause debt was over spending. Unlike the military which is a primary duty of the Federal government, welfare, food stamps, medicare and medicaid are not.
Moreover, blaming the military spending when cutting the military to zero, would still have had us in deficit, is illogical... but that's what you people on the left always are. Illogical.
Lastly, if you look at the budget, all during the Reagan years, he proposed lower budgets, and the Congress, which was democrat, over spent Reagans budget.
Equally during the Clinton years, the Republicans in Congress under cut the Clinton budget. If you look the budgets that Clinton proposed, he never once even attempted to cut the deficit. If not for the Republicans during the 90s, the budget would never have come close to being balanced. It was the Republicans that pushed welfare reform. Not Clinton. It was the Republicans that cut subsidies and grants. Not Clinton.
Similarly, Bush Jr for all his failures, after raising spending for the neccessary and good work of dealing with Saddam and Bin Laden, cut the deficit every single year until 2007 where the budget deficit was only $161 Billion. If not for the left-wing sub-prime mortgage disaster (because everyone should own a home, even if they can't afford it), it would have been almost balanced by the time he left office. And since he left office, it's been in the Trillions.
So while you can blather and rave around, the facts really are not on your side at all.
You're so full of shit that you stink. Reagan borrowed enough money to quadruple the national debt from less than one trillion to more than four. Bill Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget and left a surplus. Then along came George, cut tax rates twice, 2001 and 2003 and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion. None of them has ever cut their spending a goddam dime!
..............................................Total U S Debt................................................
Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt
US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?
09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)
09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
No problem; just ensure no Tax Dollars from Long Island get there until a bunch of locals own their own stores and hire local people.Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.
Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?
That's why we wanted WalMart to come in, idiot.
No problem; just ensure no Tax Dollars from Long Island get there until a bunch of locals own their own stores and hire local people.Everybody in freaking Washington D.C. is on the federal teat. They would be unemployable in a simple job like Walmart.
Is ANYONE advocating for the residents?
Is perpetual poverty an answer for an American city?
That's why we wanted WalMart to come in, idiot.
Well, let's see. That's not a really good retail model in the current environment.
Where do you buy your groceries? I buy mine from a small chain of gourmet stores based in NY but have a few branches in the local area. I buy essentials from Harris Teeter. Oh, wait, owned by Kroger. Of course Whole Foods is a giant in our inner city. In the gentrified areas, of course.
I could buy from the Korean convenience store but their prices are higher than Harris Teeter's for the same merchandise.
Oh, and one more thing --YOUR tax dollars? Since when does someone from LI pay DC taxes?
