More blatant nonsense from the right, keeping the poor away from their schools

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government can't give advantages to certain companies. They can give advantages to certain industries, but not certain companies, and that only involves taxation.

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

Yet another one of your multiple posts on how things are so much better in other countries. It seems to be a theme with you, but you never think of moving to one of those wonderful places.

Tax incentives help all areas of our country. For instance, down south people will work for lower wages because the cost of living is so much lower. If not for tax breaks offered in other places, most businesses would move down south for lower labor costs.

I'm up north by the great lakes. Our water supply is what helps bring businesses up here. Others wanted us to channel lake water to their states, but we by the lakes refused. If you want to be by fresh water, move up here and bring your jobs with you. Winters are tough, but we all survive.

Tax incentives help balance things out when it comes to industry in this country. If your city or state has too many negatives to help lure business, you have to offer better tax breaks. Think of what would happen to an area that had nothing to offer if it were illegal to offer tax breaks. It would be a jobless town or state.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are cheaper, good schools. What in the world do you mean?

These top schools have foundations created by wealthy donors to help students. As it should be. Maybe ask them?
Also ask the student to work their way through. It helps build character

Every time the govt guarantees payments, pricing goes up..

Then maybe the govt should run some cheaper universities in order to put some of these students through.

What I mean is the govt spends all this money on sending kids to private universities, why not just set up govt universities and send them there instead, if there's a problem with universities charging too much so they can have a football team and a million golf carts.

We have public universities in every state. One could work their way through college driving a school bus (my dad) or working at the Student Union (my mother). Then, the Feds backed student loans and the public universities jacked up tuition to astronomical levels, REQUIRING poor students to take loans because one can't pay the new higher rates with a job.

The federal government caused the problem. There is no dispute about what happened.

Now, we have one group calling for us to scrap this debacle and go back to what worked. Farm children would, once again, be able to work themselves through school. The other group wants to make the taxpayer pay the inflated rate for that education rather than reduce the cost of the education.

We CAN reduce the cost. I cannot fathom what makes anyone think, "Education is ridiculously expensive and includes way too many fancy bells and whistles. Let's get the taxpayers to buy this poor person a gender studies PhD."

If taxpayers foot the bill, can we have a say in the degrees we fund? There are many we have a need for and many in fields way too saturated or useless.

Which comes back, again and again, to the same old problem.

The people vote negatively because the system isn't up to the task, they elect politicians who aren't interested in the people, because there are only two parties people don't have any choice.

Change the system, then things can start to fix themselves.

The reason we have little choice is not because of a two-party system. The reason we have little choice is because of what the media does to a candidate when running for office. WTF would want to put themselves or their family through that? Would you want to run for office and have your child watching television when some half-ass comedian holds a simulated severed head of you?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

/----/ Got any fake outrage for your slave master Obama?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-vouchers-and-hypocritical-just-like-congress
Despite giving lip service to education reform, the Obama administration has decided to put an end to the very successful D.C. school voucher program. This despite a United States Department of Education report that found students in the nation's capital that were provided with vouchers allowing them to attend private school through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program had made statistically significant gains in reading achievement.

According to the department's evaluation of the three-year-old program, "those offered a scholarship were performing at statistically higher levels in reading—equivalent to 3.1 months of additional learning," something very much in line with previous findings concerning the program's effectiveness.

Columnist Juan Williams, who can often be found providing the liberal perspective on the Fox News Channel, called the decision to end the program, "Obama's outrageous sin against our kids."

 

[Cellblock2429]

The federal government has no business being involved with colleges. They charge tuition on their students. Why aren't these colleges letting "poor" students enroll for free?

The poor don't have a right to force others to pay for their higher education. They can join the military and get the GI Bill if they want it that bad. So take your Fake News story and shove it.

Callous conservatism, bigotry and myopia all in a single post. Nice job Hawk.

/----/ Care to explain how Hawk's post was
1.) Callous
2.) Bigoted
3.) Myopic (lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.)
Or do you just toss out insults as they pop into your head?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are cheaper, good schools. What in the world do you mean?

Then maybe the govt should run some cheaper universities in order to put some of these students through.

What I mean is the govt spends all this money on sending kids to private universities, why not just set up govt universities and send them there instead, if there's a problem with universities charging too much so they can have a football team and a million golf carts.

We have public universities in every state. One could work their way through college driving a school bus (my dad) or working at the Student Union (my mother). Then, the Feds backed student loans and the public universities jacked up tuition to astronomical levels, REQUIRING poor students to take loans because one can't pay the new higher rates with a job.

The federal government caused the problem. There is no dispute about what happened.

Now, we have one group calling for us to scrap this debacle and go back to what worked. Farm children would, once again, be able to work themselves through school. The other group wants to make the taxpayer pay the inflated rate for that education rather than reduce the cost of the education.

We CAN reduce the cost. I cannot fathom what makes anyone think, "Education is ridiculously expensive and includes way too many fancy bells and whistles. Let's get the taxpayers to buy this poor person a gender studies PhD."

If taxpayers foot the bill, can we have a say in the degrees we fund? There are many we have a need for and many in fields way too saturated or useless.

Which comes back, again and again, to the same old problem.

The people vote negatively because the system isn't up to the task, they elect politicians who aren't interested in the people, because there are only two parties people don't have any choice.

Change the system, then things can start to fix themselves.

Sure, that's a great idea, one I'm down for. Meanwhile, we could scrap this debacle and go back to the way that proved to be better. That would be a lot faster, so more people could become educated during this revolution.

Well that doesn't happen often. Usually it's "the system is broken, the system is broken" "Well it should be changed" "oh, no, we don't do change".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you serious? If you really think this is the case then your eyes are so blinkered it's impossible. Do you really not see what is going on around you?

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

Yet another one of your multiple posts on how things are so much better in other countries. It seems to be a theme with you, but you never think of moving to one of those wonderful places.

Tax incentives help all areas of our country. For instance, down south people will work for lower wages because the cost of living is so much lower. If not for tax breaks offered in other places, most businesses would move down south for lower labor costs.

I'm up north by the great lakes. Our water supply is what helps bring businesses up here. Others wanted us to channel lake water to their states, but we by the lakes refused. If you want to be by fresh water, move up here and bring your jobs with you. Winters are tough, but we all survive.

Tax incentives help balance things out when it comes to industry in this country. If your city or state has too many negatives to help lure business, you have to offer better tax breaks. Think of what would happen to an area that had nothing to offer if it were illegal to offer tax breaks. It would be a jobless town or state.

A) You don't know where I live.
B) You don't know whether I think about moving to one of those countries
C) it's the same shit argument you keep coming up with and it isn't going to convince anyone about anything.

Tax incentives FUCK most areas of the country, that's for sure.

If everyone moved down south for the lower wages, then the south's wages would RISE and then it would equal itself out. But the govts keep throwing money around and the South is still poor. And somehow this HELPS THE SOUTH. Are you fucking KIDDING ME?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are cheaper, good schools. What in the world do you mean?

Then maybe the govt should run some cheaper universities in order to put some of these students through.

What I mean is the govt spends all this money on sending kids to private universities, why not just set up govt universities and send them there instead, if there's a problem with universities charging too much so they can have a football team and a million golf carts.

We have public universities in every state. One could work their way through college driving a school bus (my dad) or working at the Student Union (my mother). Then, the Feds backed student loans and the public universities jacked up tuition to astronomical levels, REQUIRING poor students to take loans because one can't pay the new higher rates with a job.

The federal government caused the problem. There is no dispute about what happened.

Now, we have one group calling for us to scrap this debacle and go back to what worked. Farm children would, once again, be able to work themselves through school. The other group wants to make the taxpayer pay the inflated rate for that education rather than reduce the cost of the education.

We CAN reduce the cost. I cannot fathom what makes anyone think, "Education is ridiculously expensive and includes way too many fancy bells and whistles. Let's get the taxpayers to buy this poor person a gender studies PhD."

If taxpayers foot the bill, can we have a say in the degrees we fund? There are many we have a need for and many in fields way too saturated or useless.

Which comes back, again and again, to the same old problem.

The people vote negatively because the system isn't up to the task, they elect politicians who aren't interested in the people, because there are only two parties people don't have any choice.

Change the system, then things can start to fix themselves.

The reason we have little choice is not because of a two-party system. The reason we have little choice is because of what the media does to a candidate when running for office. WTF would want to put themselves or their family through that? Would you want to run for office and have your child watching television when some half-ass comedian holds a simulated severed head of you?

Oh, right. The reason you don't have much choice is not because there isn't much choice.... it's because.......

The media? You're blaming the media?

Oh fuck off Ray.

I could go through the countries with PR and I could go through the countries with FPTP and show you the fucking obvious, but I can't be bothered because I know you'll just ignore it. You can just ignore me not having bothered instead.

 

[Cellblock2429]

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

/----/ When I graduated from HS there were no decent jobs, just minimum wage dead end ones. So instead of complaining 24/7 I moved to where the jobs were and gained the skills necessary to make a great living. How White of me.

 

[koshergrl]

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

They'd close and all those people working for them would be out of work.

Walmart provides an income to people with zero skills, who are often disabled or otherwise not prime employee material. These are people who would be entirely dependent upon the government if they didn't work at walmart, and they come away from walmart with marketable skills.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

They'd close and all those people working for them would be out of work.

Walmart provides an income to people with zero skills, who are often disabled or otherwise not prime employee material. These are people who would be entirely dependent upon the government if they didn't work at walmart, and they come away from walmart with marketable skills.

/----/ Why Walmart is one of America’s great anti-poverty institutions

 

[BrokeLoser]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

This is such great news huh?
Us legitimate American's are sick and tired of watching silver tooth anchors go to school for free on the backs of hard working REAL American's while middle class folks with just enough income and assets can't qualify for funding and go broke sending their kids to school.
Trump....YOU ROCK!

Do you know about exchange rates?

A Chinese person goes to work, and an American goes to work, and both of them could do the same job, and yet an American will earn more money for it. They will pay more for housing, they'll pay more for food, but they'll pay the same for electronic goods, for flights, and when the American goes to China he thinks "fuck me, this is cheap" and when a Chinese person goes to America they think "fuck me, this is expensive".

Do you know how countries end up having their currencies worth more? Because it sounds like you don't.

HOLY SHIT...."you people" come up with some awesome spins on shit. Inject complexities so we can all pretend that everything is so confusing...haha
It's why you never solve problems at their root...you sprinkle other people's money over the top of shit..that's all. Folks with a knack to problem solve do so by simplifying complex issues.
WTF does currency exchange have to do with REAL American's barely getting by and unable to qualify for funding while foreigners are able to go to school on my checking account?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When one company is more successful than another, it hardly has anything to do with government. Some companies do things better than others.

For instance they just closed down a K-Mart store where I live. It didn't surprise me. Every time I went in there, there were a lot of empty spaces in the shelves. Years ago I remember going there and complaining about not being able to find the products I went there for. One worker explained the K-Mart system to me:

She said that their store cannot order anything. It doesn't matter what they need or if they have too much of something else. K-Mart just sends in trucks of "stuff" and the items people want clear off the shelves fast. The items that they sell less of stay on the shelf and they have much more of it in the warehouse.

Well...... other stores like Target and Walmart found a better way of doing things. They not only do a better job keeping stock, but they have lower prices to boot.

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Avatar4321]

The right is all about fucking over the poor. It has be so since the days of the Barons of mainland europe in the 13th century and it is true today!

How the fuck can a poor person or worker ever vote for the goddamn right?

Easy. So someday we and our posterity will be free and no longer be poor.

How much will you sell your freedom for?

 

[koshergrl]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

This is such great news huh?
Us legitimate American's are sick and tired of watching silver tooth anchors go to school for free on the backs of hard working REAL American's while middle class folks with just enough income and assets can't qualify for funding and go broke sending their kids to school.
Trump....YOU ROCK!

Do you know about exchange rates?

A Chinese person goes to work, and an American goes to work, and both of them could do the same job, and yet an American will earn more money for it. They will pay more for housing, they'll pay more for food, but they'll pay the same for electronic goods, for flights, and when the American goes to China he thinks "fuck me, this is cheap" and when a Chinese person goes to America they think "fuck me, this is expensive".

Do you know how countries end up having their currencies worth more? Because it sounds like you don't.

HOLY SHIT...."you people" come up with some awesome spins on shit. Inject complexities so we can all pretend that everything is so confusing...haha
It's why you never solve problems at their root...you sprinkle other people's money over the top of shit..that's all. Folks with a knack to problem solve do so by simplifying complex issues.
WTF does currency exchange have to do with REAL American's barely getting by and unable to qualify for funding while foreigners are able to go to school on my checking account?

Those of us who work call it "being mentally ill".
They're ruined and worthless.

 

[koshergrl]

The right is all about fucking over the poor. It has be so since the days of the Barons of mainland europe in the 13th century and it is true today!

How the fuck can a poor person or worker ever vote for the goddamn right?

Easy. So someday we and our posterity will be free and no longer be poor.

How much will you sell your freedom for?

They sold theirs long ago.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

This is such great news huh?
Us legitimate American's are sick and tired of watching silver tooth anchors go to school for free on the backs of hard working REAL American's while middle class folks with just enough income and assets can't qualify for funding and go broke sending their kids to school.
Trump....YOU ROCK!

Do you know about exchange rates?

A Chinese person goes to work, and an American goes to work, and both of them could do the same job, and yet an American will earn more money for it. They will pay more for housing, they'll pay more for food, but they'll pay the same for electronic goods, for flights, and when the American goes to China he thinks "fuck me, this is cheap" and when a Chinese person goes to America they think "fuck me, this is expensive".

Do you know how countries end up having their currencies worth more? Because it sounds like you don't.

HOLY SHIT...."you people" come up with some awesome spins on shit. Inject complexities so we can all pretend that everything is so confusing...haha
It's why you never solve problems at their root...you sprinkle other people's money over the top of shit..that's all. Folks with a knack to problem solve do so by simplifying complex issues.
WTF does currency exchange have to do with REAL American's barely getting by and unable to qualify for funding while foreigners are able to go to school on my checking account?

Or maybe I just don't see the world as simply as you wished it were.

You'd fix the oven simply because it's easier to fix the oven that isn't broken than the fridge which is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Jesus Ray, we've done this to death and you're still ignoring everything.

Right, let's try again.

Two companies.

Company one pays no taxes because they did a special deal, and they pay their workers less because they've managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company two pays 30% tax because they didn't do a special deal, and they pay their workers more because they haven't managed to get the govt to subsidize their wages.

Company one sells their goods at X-10% and company two sells their goods are X.

Which company do you think is going to succeed?

So K-mart closed down near you. So what? What does this have to do with anything we're talking about?

Blatant lie! Any employee below a certain income is eligible for benefits, no matter what store employs them. Wal-Mart does not get subsidies for their employees' pay, period. Wal-Mart receives no federal money for keeping wages low. KMart's employees under that income level are eligible for the EXACT same benefits. It has nothing to do with the evil Wal-Mart vs the angelic Target.

States and counties/parishes offer incentives to lure businesses to them because it benefits their citizens. Their citizens have a voice on who they want and don't want. Many areas have said no to WalMart, as is their right. These same localities lure MANY businesses they want, as is their right. We (La) offer a lot to chemical plants and refineries because it benefits La.

The federal government does NOT give Wal-Mart an amount of money per employee while forcing other retailers to pay higher wages. That is a lie some love to tell, despite knowing it is a lie. You're on an awfully high horse to be telling such obvious lies.

I didn't say employees under a certain level weren't entitled. Did I?

No, Walmart doesn't get the subsidies. But they do get to keep what they didn't pay their workers who could then go to the govt to get help. Right?

Actually states and counties offer incentives because the US is for sale. It doesn't benefit the US.

The problem is that these companies are playing different areas off each other, and they get the benefits from it. In the EU they're not allowed to do this.

A company can go from area to area demanding the best deal to set up shop. They're still in the US. If they didn't get any incentives they'd still have to choose somewhere in the US to set up. So while one area might benefit, another area loses out, while the whole country loses out.

If their competitors don't get such a good deal, then there's an unfair advantage. Smaller businesses are losing out big time because they can't hope to get the level of deal that's coming their way, and they're paying more in taxes, which means their products cost more.

Also these areas lose out on taxes, so who makes up the shortfall in those taxes? The people, the other businesses, someone is going to have to pay.

The whole system doesn't benefit the US at all. There's a reason why the US has changed to a system where they can't give favorable advantages to one company and not everyone else.

In Ireland Google were getting this, and the EU said that Google had to pay the taxes just like everyone else, and quite rightly so.

The federal government does not subsidize WalMart's payroll. No matter how you spin it, it's just a flat out lie. Wal-Mart simply pays shitty wages that people agree to work for. Mom-N-Pop convenience store pays shitty wages, too. It is quite legal and all on the up and up.

The Fed's don't recruit plants and refineries to La. La does that on its own. It is a huge benefit to La. It brings in jobs, a ton of supporting industries (CNC, river pilots, heavy machinery companies, hotels and housing, and on and on. It absolutely benefits us.

Yes, Walmart pays shitty wages that people wouldn't accept unless they had other income. Simply said, if the govt refused to give these people money while they're working, Walmart would NOT be able to get away paying such low wages, would they?

No, what would happen to Walmart's profits if they had to pay MORE WAGES? Go on, have a guess.

A couple things here: if Walmart had to pay higher wages, it's likely that the price of their stock would go down. That would decrease the amount of stockholders they have. That would force them to take other cost cutting measures. Secondly, if the government did not hand out goodies to low wage workers, they would have to work more hours, maybe get a second job, maybe force them to learn a trade, but it would not make Walmart pay more money.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Okay, if Walmart pay wages more and their stock goes down to the RIGHT LEVEL it should be at, you have a problem?

So they have less stock holders, good. More cost cutting measure and become more efficient, good.

I like what you're saying here. It would require Walmart to be a NORMAL company competing on a level playing field.

I'm wondering what YOUR problem is with that?

No, if the govt didn't hand out "goodies" then the people would demand to have a LIVING WAGE or they wouldn't bother working for Walmart. Which is again, GREAT>

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is Trump cutting grants for poor students to go to top schools? | Opinion

"
Why Is Trump Stopping Poor Students From Going to Top Schools?"

"The Administration’s education budget slashes $150 billion in federal student aid over 10 years. This move would cut by half our federal Work-Study program, which helps 675,000 students support themselves through college every year. "

Basically Trump put DeVos in charge at "education" and she's a proponent of school vouchers. Now, for me, school vouchers are just a way of taking money out of schools and giving it to rich people. But the right say it's all about CHOICE. The same people will then dismiss choice elsewhere, and ignore the fact that the UK manages to give choice to kids to go to schools they want to go to WITHOUT school vouchers.

Now, they want choice with school vouchers, and yet.... they're taking away money from poorer kids to go to college. Oh, so, what, wait.... universities will only be for rich kids, so it will benefit the rich and mean they can get the levels of education needed to get higher paid jobs....

Oh, I see, they're preventing choice, once again.

A leader elected not by choice of the people, but by the system, is making sure poorer people don't get to go to school.

When Kelly Anne Conway was on her needs at the Whitehouse, Pres. Trump has signed into budget 24 billion dollars, to grant poor Black students the opportunity to attends universities. But the media had put the focus on Kelly Anne on her knees, on the sofa, making it seems as if she was performing fellatio on the members of the Black caucus.

So what is your point here? Bashing the media again?