Do liberals even like this country?

[easyt65]

Democrats love this country. In what other country could they commit so many crimes and not go to jail?

Only Adolf Trump can do that.

You are either an idiot or a liar - which is it?

In a press conference Barak Obama declared he was NOT going to let Harry Reid and Julian Castro be rightfully indicted for violating the Hatch Act because 'they are SORRY for violating the law'.

WTF?! Again, Democrats love this country because they couldn't get away with such crimes in other nations.

Comey testified Lynch obstructed justice as Obama and Lynch protected Hillary from the crimes Comey admitted she committed.

Until now, only in some 3rd world shithole country could have such a corrupt political party rig primaries, engage in voter fraud, cheat in debates, engage in terrorism by threatening election officials in an attempt to get them to change the election results, call for military coups, call for assassinations, and try to carry out assassinations ... until the Democratic Party in the United States did it in 2016 / 2017.

 

[radical right]

Comey testified Lynch obstructed justice as Obama and Lynch protected Hillary from the crimes Comey admitted she committed..

Comey called it reckless, not criminal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that's not the only two choices nor should they be. We should not be supporting parents who have children they can't support. I've offered several solutions but nobody would have the guts to implement my ideas. If we created a deterrent of having children you cannot afford, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people being born. Rich or poor, everybody knows how babies are created.

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

 

[Clementine]

The problem with liberal 'logic':

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let em die is not a solution

We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We can afford to take care of our poor. If you want them to have fewer kids....stop bitching about birth control

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

Of course. But then you've said, as part of the OP, that Liberals don't like the country for DOING EXACTLY THIS.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem with liberal 'logic':

Wait, wait, liberal logic, and you post something about socialism, as if all liberals are socialists.

 

[easyt65]

Comey called it reckless, not criminal.

Bullshit. Comey testified in regards to the Felony Espionage she committed that she was too stupid to know she was breaking the law. In doing so, Comey admitted she broke the law. Comey also damn-well knows according to the law ignorance of the law is not a legally accepted defense for breaking the law.

And I am so tired of either ignorant or intentionally lying / deceitful liberals declaring Hillary did not break the law. A 1st year law student damn-well inows Hillary broke the law and what laws Hillary broke.

For example, as I asked / told Jillian:

Is giving access to classified information to someone who has no security clearance illegal?

YES!

Hillary gave access to classified to her MAID, her lawyers, an entire IT company, nome of whom had security clearnances.

If snowflakes had even an ounce of integrity they would stop this intentional lying / bs of claiming Hillary did not break the law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then show me one business where this is true. Show me where two businesses (one large and one small) have two different tax codes because of their size.

Again, what are you talking about? We're not talking about TAX CODES. Come on, I don't have the energy for pushing you back to the topic every post.

Well if you are not talking about two sets of rules for two like businesses just different sized, then I don't know WTF you are talking about. If both industries of like kind follow the same rules and have the same ability to write-off, then there is nothing unfair about it. That's besides the fact that prices are not set based on taxes paid instead of ability to buy in bulk and from the lowest price providers.

I go grocery shopping every week, but once every month or so I go to Sam's Club. Why? Because when you buy in larger quantities, you get a lower price just like businesses do. Our customers deal with Walmart and they are constantly dropping providers and picking up new ones; sometimes at a disadvantage to us and sometime an advantage to us. But none of our customers deal with K-Mart, Target or any other stores. They don't put as much effort into getting products at the lowest possible price as Walmart does. Even if they did, they would not sell their products as cheap as they sell to Walmart because Walmart buys in much larger quantities.

Fine you don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote it would help.

We are, in actual fact, talking about companies being GIVEN special deals by governments. Do you remember the bit about bribery? Do you think having a two day conversation about this might have meant that we weren't just talking about tax code? Come on Ray, what the fuck? Get off the bottle or whatever it is you're on man.

Why do you think Walmart can get lower prices?

How Walmart and Home Depot Are Buying Huge Political Influence

"Walmart and Home Depot are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, putting their fingerprints on tax and labor law."

Ah.... Walmart pay a lot for political influence.

Why do you think Walmart pay politicians a lot of money? Could it be because they get something out of it Ray?

They got govt to make it so they can pay their workers less and the govt picks up a $6 BILLION tap on that one. Workers come in and they're like "hey, we won't pay you much, but looky here, the govt WILL pay you".

You complain about the govt giving hand outs. They're giving hand outs because Walmart PAY THEM to do so.

As I showed you before, they get $1 billion or more in govt subsidies

Report says Wal-Mart received $1B in government subsidies. - May. 24, 2004

" Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, "

Yes, how does a company go from a regional discount store to having stores in China and other countries around the world? Wait, let's see. Oh, yeah, the govt gives them an unfair competitive advantage to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, excluding the shit they get for paying their workers SIX BILLION too little a year and demand the govt picks up that tap too.

I've said all this before Ray, does it not ring a bell, or did you just not bother to read what I wrote?

Wal-Mart, feds struggle to settle bribery investigation

Here's Walmart being done for Bribery, but they don't want to be convicted of the crimes they've been committing, because if they get convicted Ray, they can't get govt subsidies, so they bribing people to make sure they don't get convicted and don't lose their ability to get money from their bribes.

Yes, we have been through this before, and unless you're going to post non-bias evidence instead of liberal propaganda, I'm not wasting the time to read them.

One more time: What Walmart workers con government for is NOT A SUBSIDY TO WALMART! Walmart doesn't benefit if one of their workers are on food stamps or 100,000. It has nothing to do with Walmart, it has to do with electing liberals into office. Saying Walmart workers getting X from government is a Walmart subsidy is an out and out lie and pure propaganda.

Now if you want to call industry asking for lower taxes a payoff, then why not talk about the union bribery to politicians, particularly government unions like the teachers? How about trial lawyer bribery to Democrats that make it possible for a con artist spilling hot coffee on themselves a liability to the restaurant? How about the environmental bribery of making laws that favor their agenda?

Yes, been through it before, and you somehow managed to come out of the whole thing thinking it was a conversation about tax code.

So what is "liberal propaganda" then Ray? Everything I have posted should be well known to you in the first place. I haven't posted anything that is shocking have I? Or are you just trying to deflect once again because you know that your partisan hackery view is under threat and if you close the door, the outside world doesn't need to impact you for a while?

Actually Ray, it does benefit Walmart, it benefits them quite nicely, because they can bring workers in, tell them they'll get X amount of money and pay them X-Y and save $6 billion a year.

It's quite simple, there are programs in place that you don't like, and somehow you're defending them. It's amazing how you'll defend anything if you think it'll make your argument.

And then you come along, Ray, and go off on one about pure propaganda. Rubbish, pure deflection is what it is.

Ray, we're talking about what we're talking about. We can talk about bribery elsewhere on a different thread if you like, but this is what we're talking about, and you're deflecting AGAIN by pointing to bribery within unions etc.

It's pretty simple Ray.

Companies like Walmart pay money to politicians. Walmart is in the top 100 contributors to politics in the US.

Walmart wants something in return.

Walmart gets something (quite a lot actually) in return.

Walmart becomes uber competitive as a result.

Simple process that you seem to be trying to ignore.

Wait a minute! You're the one who brought up bribery, not me. I just responded in like.

Yes, liberal propaganda, saying that Walmart is considered getting a subsidy by government allowing their workers on the dole is plain BS and propaganda. Walmart isn't getting anything--their employees are. Walmart could give two hoots what goes on between their employees and the government. It has nothing to do with them.

If Walmart tells their applicants they will pay them X dollars, it has nothing to do with government. They will pay them X dollars whether they don't go on one welfare program or they go on six of them. It's totally irrelevant to what Walmart is willing to pay their employees.

Yes Walmart wants something in return for their support to politicians, just like unions want something in return, trial lawyers want something in return, environmentalists want something in return, they wall want something in return, so don't pretend it's just Walmart.

 

[easyt65]

OBAMA SET A RECORD FOR BREAKING THE LAW:

Obama set a new record for CRIMINAL NON-COMPLIANCE with FOIA requests...

...which is pretty impressive for the 'MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVUH'!

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats love this country.

In what other country could they commit so many crimes and not go to jail?

Tell it to Crooked Donnie

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I never bitched about birth control. Let them take all the birth control they want. Just don't charge me for it.

I never said let them die. What I said is if a parent cannot financially support their children, those children should be removed from the household and put in an orphanage. I said that we should have a law were anybody applying for any kind of federal or state assistance get no money until we have them fixed first so they can't procreate while living on taxpayer dollars. If we did things like that, it would greatly reduce the amount of poor people procreating.

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

Of course. But then you've said, as part of the OP, that Liberals don't like the country for DOING EXACTLY THIS.

Yes, because liberals want to change us into another country. That's different than supporting a different agenda than the opposition. Republicans don't want to be like any other country, we just want us to be our country.

 

[rightwinger]

OBAMA SET A RECORD FOR BREAKING THE LAW:

Obama set a new record for CRIMINAL NON-COMPLIANCE with FOIA requests...

...which is pretty impressive for the 'MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVUH'!

Funny...Obama ran a scandal free administration for eight years

Crooked Donnie hasn't lasted six months

 

[rightwinger]

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

Of course. But then you've said, as part of the OP, that Liberals don't like the country for DOING EXACTLY THIS.

Yes, because liberals want to change us into another country. That's different than supporting a different agenda than the opposition. Republicans don't want to be like any other country, we just want us to be our country.

Liberals created THIS country

Don't forget to thank them

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't worry I'm a winner and very honest. I was born blessed, very successful and good enough help lots of poor people with my own money.

Gee, I didn't see that one coming.

"I know liberals like I know every inch of my glorious naked body."
Rush Limbaugh

There is nothing wrong with being a truck driver but you talk like------ You are ALMIGHTY up there very successful and telling us what to do including sex. Only Adolf Trump can say something like that.

WTF did I say anything about people having sex? I don't care what or who you have sex with. It's none of my business.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

Of course. But then you've said, as part of the OP, that Liberals don't like the country for DOING EXACTLY THIS.

Yes, because liberals want to change us into another country. That's different than supporting a different agenda than the opposition. Republicans don't want to be like any other country, we just want us to be our country.

Liberals created THIS country

Don't forget to thank them

You keep telling yourself that. Now tap the heels of your slippers together and repeat "There is no place like home, there is no place like home."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

OBAMA SET A RECORD FOR BREAKING THE LAW:

Obama set a new record for CRIMINAL NON-COMPLIANCE with FOIA requests...

...which is pretty impressive for the 'MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVUH'!

Funny...Obama ran a scandal free administration for eight years

Crooked Donnie hasn't lasted six months

Is that so? Next time I go to Mexico and run into one of those drug cartel people that bought firearms from Obama and killed one of our border patrol agents, I'll be sure to tell them that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Before Commie Care came along, I had employer provided insurance my entire adult life, and I'm 57 years old with preexisting conditions since I was 25. But that's not the point. The point is that Commie Care was designed to give likely Democrats voters affordable insurance at the cost to Republican voters. If you make an average income, you don't get crap from those subsidies. If you don't make any kind of real money, subsidies pay for most of it. That's why they wanted over 25% of my net pay.

Really Ray., you need to work on your logic. You are not a Democrat yet you had access to the exchanges. Yes, Ray, Republicans also used the exchanges. There are lower income Republicans. Really. Check out those red states that utilize food stamps & welfare among the top ten.

So, it is the fault of Democrats that your employer fucked you over.

The ACA protected you from pre-existing conditions. Your own party will bring them back. Your own party will allow insurance companies to charge you 5 times what they charge younger people . Under the ACA it was 3 times.

I laugh at ignorant fools like you voting for Republicans as they are about to totally fuck you over with their new healthcare bill.

BTW the ACA base their subsidies on holding the maximum you should pay for health insurance at 9.5% of your income. Your party will set that at 16-17%.

Under YOUR party's bill, your premiums are likely to double. But hey, Ray, keep voting Republican.

Even if there was any truth in your lies, what difference does it make to me? Either way I still can't get insurance.

You puppets are so brainwashed that you actually believe everybody in a red state is Republican and everybody in a blue state is Democrat. Your puppet masters kept the truth from you which is states don't get welfare--people get welfare. There are plenty of Republicans in blue states like there are plenty of Democrats in red states.

Although we are a swing state, we are and have been red for some time with the exception of voting for that big-eared commie. However our cities are blue just like many across the country. It is there you will find the most welfare leaches. It's in those places you will find otherwise healthy younger and middle-aged people walking around during the day doing absolutely nothing dragging their four kids with them.

Where I live, It is over 70% Republican & there are plenty of low income people & mostly white & rural. We have lots of people receiving food stamps & on Medicaid. Plenty of counties in Pennsylvania packed full of white, rural, low income people.

You really need to put your racism aside & your really ignorant stupid idea that Republicans are not low income people. BTE, lots with a shit load of kids.

Yeah, I'll do that:

View attachment 140025

Wonder who created that chart Ray. You may want to read the real news.

It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.

States with the most people on food stamps

Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

That's the one thing about you liberals: keep repeating the same BS over and over again, somebody will be likely to think it's the truth. So one more time since your memory is so restricted: STATES DON'T GET WELFARE--PEOPLE GET WELFARE!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Again, what are you talking about? We're not talking about TAX CODES. Come on, I don't have the energy for pushing you back to the topic every post.

Well if you are not talking about two sets of rules for two like businesses just different sized, then I don't know WTF you are talking about. If both industries of like kind follow the same rules and have the same ability to write-off, then there is nothing unfair about it. That's besides the fact that prices are not set based on taxes paid instead of ability to buy in bulk and from the lowest price providers.

I go grocery shopping every week, but once every month or so I go to Sam's Club. Why? Because when you buy in larger quantities, you get a lower price just like businesses do. Our customers deal with Walmart and they are constantly dropping providers and picking up new ones; sometimes at a disadvantage to us and sometime an advantage to us. But none of our customers deal with K-Mart, Target or any other stores. They don't put as much effort into getting products at the lowest possible price as Walmart does. Even if they did, they would not sell their products as cheap as they sell to Walmart because Walmart buys in much larger quantities.

Fine you don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote it would help.

We are, in actual fact, talking about companies being GIVEN special deals by governments. Do you remember the bit about bribery? Do you think having a two day conversation about this might have meant that we weren't just talking about tax code? Come on Ray, what the fuck? Get off the bottle or whatever it is you're on man.

Why do you think Walmart can get lower prices?

How Walmart and Home Depot Are Buying Huge Political Influence

"Walmart and Home Depot are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, putting their fingerprints on tax and labor law."

Ah.... Walmart pay a lot for political influence.

Why do you think Walmart pay politicians a lot of money? Could it be because they get something out of it Ray?

They got govt to make it so they can pay their workers less and the govt picks up a $6 BILLION tap on that one. Workers come in and they're like "hey, we won't pay you much, but looky here, the govt WILL pay you".

You complain about the govt giving hand outs. They're giving hand outs because Walmart PAY THEM to do so.

As I showed you before, they get $1 billion or more in govt subsidies

Report says Wal-Mart received $1B in government subsidies. - May. 24, 2004

" Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, "

Yes, how does a company go from a regional discount store to having stores in China and other countries around the world? Wait, let's see. Oh, yeah, the govt gives them an unfair competitive advantage to the tune of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, excluding the shit they get for paying their workers SIX BILLION too little a year and demand the govt picks up that tap too.

I've said all this before Ray, does it not ring a bell, or did you just not bother to read what I wrote?

Wal-Mart, feds struggle to settle bribery investigation

Here's Walmart being done for Bribery, but they don't want to be convicted of the crimes they've been committing, because if they get convicted Ray, they can't get govt subsidies, so they bribing people to make sure they don't get convicted and don't lose their ability to get money from their bribes.

Yes, we have been through this before, and unless you're going to post non-bias evidence instead of liberal propaganda, I'm not wasting the time to read them.

One more time: What Walmart workers con government for is NOT A SUBSIDY TO WALMART! Walmart doesn't benefit if one of their workers are on food stamps or 100,000. It has nothing to do with Walmart, it has to do with electing liberals into office. Saying Walmart workers getting X from government is a Walmart subsidy is an out and out lie and pure propaganda.

Now if you want to call industry asking for lower taxes a payoff, then why not talk about the union bribery to politicians, particularly government unions like the teachers? How about trial lawyer bribery to Democrats that make it possible for a con artist spilling hot coffee on themselves a liability to the restaurant? How about the environmental bribery of making laws that favor their agenda?

Yes, been through it before, and you somehow managed to come out of the whole thing thinking it was a conversation about tax code.

So what is "liberal propaganda" then Ray? Everything I have posted should be well known to you in the first place. I haven't posted anything that is shocking have I? Or are you just trying to deflect once again because you know that your partisan hackery view is under threat and if you close the door, the outside world doesn't need to impact you for a while?

Actually Ray, it does benefit Walmart, it benefits them quite nicely, because they can bring workers in, tell them they'll get X amount of money and pay them X-Y and save $6 billion a year.

It's quite simple, there are programs in place that you don't like, and somehow you're defending them. It's amazing how you'll defend anything if you think it'll make your argument.

And then you come along, Ray, and go off on one about pure propaganda. Rubbish, pure deflection is what it is.

Ray, we're talking about what we're talking about. We can talk about bribery elsewhere on a different thread if you like, but this is what we're talking about, and you're deflecting AGAIN by pointing to bribery within unions etc.

It's pretty simple Ray.

Companies like Walmart pay money to politicians. Walmart is in the top 100 contributors to politics in the US.

Walmart wants something in return.

Walmart gets something (quite a lot actually) in return.

Walmart becomes uber competitive as a result.

Simple process that you seem to be trying to ignore.

Wait a minute! You're the one who brought up bribery, not me. I just responded in like.

Yes, liberal propaganda, saying that Walmart is considered getting a subsidy by government allowing their workers on the dole is plain BS and propaganda. Walmart isn't getting anything--their employees are. Walmart could give two hoots what goes on between their employees and the government. It has nothing to do with them.

If Walmart tells their applicants they will pay them X dollars, it has nothing to do with government. They will pay them X dollars whether they don't go on one welfare program or they go on six of them. It's totally irrelevant to what Walmart is willing to pay their employees.

Yes Walmart wants something in return for their support to politicians, just like unions want something in return, trial lawyers want something in return, environmentalists want something in return, they wall want something in return, so don't pretend it's just Walmart.

Oh, come on Ray. Bribery, it's all part of what we're talking about, people paying politicians for favors. This is the whole point of EVERYTHING on this particular part of the topic.

No Ray, it's not propaganda, it's TRUE.

Walmart employees are able to get government subsidies, which in other countries they'd probably not be able to get. Food stamps. What kind of a working person needs food stamps?

Now, the issue here is that the govt giving Walmart tax breaks for opening a store is far more direct and gives Walmart far more of an advantage than food stamps because other companies can also take the food stamps, but will struggle to get tax breaks like Walmart gets.

The point I am making is that there is a link between companies paying politicians and politicians giving out favors. We know it happens, I showed a source of people getting put in prison for this, AND I showed a source of where Walmart is getting in trouble for bribery.

Walmart makes sure this sort of thing continue. They pay politicians because it's beneficial for them. As a competitive advantage over those who are in the same game, it doesn't give them that much, because the other stores can also do the same thing. They can ride the wave that Walmart has managed to gained.

However Walmart gives more than two hoots. Its profits are directly linked to how much it pays workers, right? If Walmart can pay $9 an hour rather than $15 an hour, they save $6 an hour per employee who is on this wage. If they employ 50 people at a store who are saving $6 and hour, that's $48 a day they save on each employee, which is $2,400 a day for 50 employees.

Now, if you can save that kind of money, that's an extra $2,400 a day, that's nearly $900,000 a year. Nothing to be sniffed at, when the govt is paying you $900,000 per year, theoretically here.

The issue you seem to be having here Ray is that people will go to work for less than they can live off.

If the govt said "you're working, you get no subsidies" and Walmart charged $9 an hour, people wouldn't go work there. What's the point. If you can get the subsidies then you're earning more than $9 an hour, you're potentially earning $15 an hour.

You go from an wage where you can't live, to one where you can.

Ray, where did I say it's just Walmart that wants something in return? I didn't. More deflection huh?

The reality is those companies who make a lot of money, many of them are paying a lot of money to politicians to get things how they want them.

The system is supposed to be 1) people vote 2) politicians then do what is best for the voters.

This doesn't seem to happen any more, because people know that there are two parties and people choose one or the other, which means people don't vote much on policies, they vote of personality, how much name recognition there is and the like, they are advertised to death and they buy it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No more charge than if their insurance pays for an antibiotic. The antibiotic will prevent an infection.......birth control will prevent a pregnancy

Both are wise investments from a public health perspective

The rest of your post sounds worthy of Hitler

Why Hitler? I ask nothing more of poor people than we working people practice ourselves. When a working couple has the most children their income can afford, they use birth control, and many cases, getting physically fixed. If they don't make enough money to support any children, they get fixed so they never have any. The same standard should be held with poor people. if you don't make enough money to support a family, don't have children.

In most cases, people get infections through no fault or action of their own. Nice try though.

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

Of course. But then you've said, as part of the OP, that Liberals don't like the country for DOING EXACTLY THIS.

Yes, because liberals want to change us into another country. That's different than supporting a different agenda than the opposition. Republicans don't want to be like any other country, we just want us to be our country.

Do you really not see the irony in what you are saying?

You don't want change, and anyone who promotes change is unpatriotic. What the fuck? So anyone who isn't conservative is automatically unpatriotic because they don't agree with you.

This is pathetic Ray. If this really is your view on life, then I feel sorry for you that you demand everyone agree with you or you'll hit them with being unpatriotic.

The reality Ray, is that a Communist who loves their country, wants it to be a Communist state. That's the reality of patriotism, but right wingers like you have tried to own the term.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is Ray, you're not looking at the real world, you're looking at the world as you think it should be, but it's not as you think it should be.

Which is why you elect people to make it the world you would like to see.

Of course. But then you've said, as part of the OP, that Liberals don't like the country for DOING EXACTLY THIS.

Yes, because liberals want to change us into another country. That's different than supporting a different agenda than the opposition. Republicans don't want to be like any other country, we just want us to be our country.

Liberals created THIS country

Don't forget to thank them

You keep telling yourself that. Now tap the heels of your slippers together and repeat "There is no place like home, there is no place like home."

Who were the liberals and conservatives in 1776?

Clearly conservatism 1776 style would have been keeping the British Empire, supporting the King and all of that.