Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All of Ford's workers had their jobs go overseas and now they compete with illegals for jobs? Are you on crack? Are you terminally stupid? Do you think Ford does not assemble cars in this country? Or that only robots or illegals do that? Just how stupid, precisely, are you?they do a job that a high school junior can do...it does not take much to do a good job when stocking goods...it simply takes the ability to get to work on time.the jobs at walmart were designed to be filled by high school kids, college kids, and in some cases the mentally challenged. Why are adults willing to take a job where they can be replaced by a high school junior?What the government takes in the form of taxes is ALSO mine, I fucking earned it, not the government.
The government needs it so they can pay Walmart workers so the Waltons can make billions.
And don't give me the old..."there are no jobs for them"..
During prosperous times, they were taking those same jobs at Walmart.
Tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing the Waltons. If they do a good enough job to make the Waltons billions they must not be so bad.
The question is why do they take those jobs....not why the waltons don't pay them more. They don't have to pay them more. A high school junior would be thrilled to make 8 bucks an hour stocking goods on a shelf.
They said the same thing about ford workers but they make $30 hr. You jealous?
Good question why did they take those jobs. Because all the jobs for people like them went overseas and now they compete with illegals for jobs.
This is exactly what the GOP wants.
The masses in america are going to be low skilled. You want them all to make less and I want them to make more. My way produces a better economy.
You're lying. As usual.A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.The right is so blinded by keeping as much of their income as they can they fail to see the importance of revenue. They don't even realize it makes them mooches for not wanting to cough up money to pay for public schools, infrastructure, and our badass military.Simply because we can use the money to build infrastructure, fund our science programs and support the best r&d! Plus, we can pay our police betterThe right wants something for nothing, while kissing the 1% ass.
90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.
You dont get interest in the stock market. Just how stupid are you, yet again?Higher taxes on the wealthy promote the wealthy to invest in higher risk investments to meet their financial goals, which tend to be job creating growth investments. Given lower taxes, wealthy people will tend toward low risk investments, which tend to be in more stagnant non-growth industries.
Right now the banks are giving less than 1% so I would assume that's getting them to invest in the stock market where they can get some interest.
Or my brother just bought 70 acres because he's got so much money he doesnt know what to do with it. We are going to have so much fun hunting. Were in our 40s and his kids are 10 and 13. We want them to remember the next 10-30(and hopefully more) with us sitting around camp fire telling stories about the one that got away. Sorry got off track.
Oh yes it did....It's a lie.Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.Then suggest it to them. Don't use government to force them to do it.
That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.
To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.
It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.
Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.
That cleared up nothing.
Boo boo is free entertainment.You dont get interest in the stock market. Just how stupid are you, yet again?Higher taxes on the wealthy promote the wealthy to invest in higher risk investments to meet their financial goals, which tend to be job creating growth investments. Given lower taxes, wealthy people will tend toward low risk investments, which tend to be in more stagnant non-growth industries.
Right now the banks are giving less than 1% so I would assume that's getting them to invest in the stock market where they can get some interest.
Or my brother just bought 70 acres because he's got so much money he doesnt know what to do with it. We are going to have so much fun hunting. Were in our 40s and his kids are 10 and 13. We want them to remember the next 10-30(and hopefully more) with us sitting around camp fire telling stories about the one that got away. Sorry got off track.
Actually, Walmart stock holders are responsible for the Walton family fortune.Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.Hey, lets clear up something right now...That Walmart= welfare collecting employees is a bunch of nonsense.That's why i would give them the choice. Pay employees well and pay low taxes. Pay employees poorly and pay high taxes. Would be their option.
To start, but progressives would then need more money for something else, and would re-raise the taxes on the businesses without lifting the requirement for the living wage.
It's simple. We just don't trust you people to do the right thing.
Well we are leaving the Waltons to decide now and while they make billions, employees are on welfare. Greed wins. What I suggest would give them incentive to do the right thing. Clearly they won't do that on their own.
Great article. All should read.
Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org
"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.
Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.
This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."
Which brings us to "they already do"Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.What others do with their wealth is none of your business.Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.Great article. All should read.
Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org
"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.
Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.
This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."
FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.
This is so typical of you lefties. You see what others have and feel entitled to a portion of it..Greed
Keep living the lie of the narrative.They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.WalMart subsidizes the government by providing income to people who otherwise would be totally dependent on government for livelihood.
They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.
Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.
Yeah,....So do a lot of unionized workers.....They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.Yet they can make the Waltons billions. Sorry but no thanks communist.
They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.
Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.
And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.
Yeah,....So do a lot of unionized workers.....They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.WalMart hires people and pays them wages. What is communist about that? The opposite.
They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.
Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.
And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.
Not enough we need more.Which brings us to "they already do"Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.What others do with their wealth is none of your business.Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.Great article. All should read.
Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org
"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.
Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.
This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."
FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.
This is so typical of you lefties. You see what others have and feel entitled to a portion of it..Greed
How many times does it take for this to penetrate the 400 lbs of blubber on your Iowa sized ass, that prevents information from getting to your Shrew sized brain that the top 20% of wage earners are responsible for 70% of all income and capital gains tax revenue to the federal government.
The US federal government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem...
The fact is this tax the wealthy thing has zero to do with the efficient operation of government. it is all about politics. A means to gin up support for democrat candidates who willingly buy into class envy and class warfare.....
Every Walmart employee is offered stock options in company stock. Now..I can think of no better, no safer investment than to have my money supporting not only my employer, but the largest corporation on the planet.Yeah,....So do a lot of unionized workers.....They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.They are subsidized by the government. They are increasing government dependence. You that dumb? If you want small government then business needs to support workers, not government.
Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.
And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.
Not as many as you think. Better deals at meijers and Kroger's. So not the smart ones. And if they are smart enough to get themselves a fair share of the profits theyre probably smart with their money.
Who is "we"?....Not enough we need more.Which brings us to "they already do"Sure it is. Pay your fucking taxes and give us back our government.What others do with their wealth is none of your business.Righties will not agree but you are 100% correct.Great article. All should read.
Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org
"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.
Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.
This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."
FDR said and did this after ww2 and conservatives will not admit it worked. It did. The rich are sitting on too much money.
This is so typical of you lefties. You see what others have and feel entitled to a portion of it..Greed
How many times does it take for this to penetrate the 400 lbs of blubber on your Iowa sized ass, that prevents information from getting to your Shrew sized brain that the top 20% of wage earners are responsible for 70% of all income and capital gains tax revenue to the federal government.
The US federal government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem...
The fact is this tax the wealthy thing has zero to do with the efficient operation of government. it is all about politics. A means to gin up support for democrat candidates who willingly buy into class envy and class warfare.....
What planet are you on?Every Walmart employee is offered stock options in company stock. Now..I can think of no better, no safer investment than to have my money supporting not only my employer, but the largest corporation on the planet.Yeah,....So do a lot of unionized workers.....They subsidize the government. How stupid are you? If WalMart didnt pay wages the gov't would foot the bill for these people. How is hiring someone increasing gov't dependence? You sound like a retard.
Ok so they are making billions each year. Without employees they make nothing. They could pay employees enough they aren't on welfare and government gets smaller. You prefer however they are on welfare. You must be a communist.
And where do Walmart employees spend their foodstamp money? At walmart.
Not as many as you think. Better deals at meijers and Kroger's. So not the smart ones. And if they are smart enough to get themselves a fair share of the profits theyre probably smart with their money.
In fact most companies offer that option to their workers.
BTW, those retailers are paying more because they are more selective in who they hire.
DO your homework....Any company that offers a higher average rate of pay for its employees comes with strings attached. That is candidates are required to possess higher skills and more experience.
Would it surprise you if those two firms actually hire former Walmart workers who have gained experience and improved their skills to the point where they qualify for employment at Meijer's and Kroger?
And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.You're lying. As usual.A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.The right is so blinded by keeping as much of their income as they can they fail to see the importance of revenue. They don't even realize it makes them mooches for not wanting to cough up money to pay for public schools, infrastructure, and our badass military.Simply because we can use the money to build infrastructure, fund our science programs and support the best r&d! Plus, we can pay our police better
90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News
You did notice my article cited their sources right? There are some fundamental problems with what you are saying overall. According your source, federal tax revenue increased 750 billion between 2004 and 2007. Even if that were true, it wouldn't offset the two trillion lost from Bush's initial tax cuts (this total only includes before Obama's extension of them). Raw dollars ultimately means jack shit when we are talking about revenue anyway. Because of inflation and the growth of the economy, It must be computed as a percentage of GDP. In 2000, it was at 20% of the GDP. When they ran out under Obama, revenue per GDP was at 15% which is the historic low. Now it's around 16%. Bush's tax cuts completely killed revenue and Bush's overall job growth was pathetic. Hell if cutting taxes for the wealthy was such a stellar idea, the job growth would have been great but it was far from. You also seem to gloss over the the Great Recession which of course was the worst since the Great Depression. That began in late 2008.Great article. All should read.
Taxing the rich is good for the economy Marketplace.org
"One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods you'll hear during the next seven months of political campaigning is there's a necessary tradeoff between fairness and growth. By this view, if we raise taxes on the wealthy the economy can't grow as fast.
Wrong. Taxes were far higher on top incomes in the three decades after World War II than they've been since. And the distribution of income was far more equal. Yet the American economy grew faster in those years than it's grown since tax rates were slashed in 1981.
This wasn't a post-war aberration. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in the 1990s, and the economy produced faster job growth and higher wages than it did after George W. Bush slashed taxes on the rich in his first term.
If you need more evidence, consider modern Germany, where taxes on the wealthy are much higher than they are here and the distribution of income is far more equal. But Germany's average annual growth has been faster than that in the United States.
You see, higher taxes on the wealthy can finance more investments in infrastructure and education, which are vital for growth and the economic prospects of the middle class.
Higher taxes on the wealthy also allow for lower taxes on the middle -- potentially restoring enough middle class purchasing power to keep the economy going."
There is so much error and distortion packed into these statements that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just provide a few bullet points in reply, followed by some links:
* The post-WWII tax rates on the rich came with enormous loopholes that enabled the rich to shield most of their money.
* After WWII, Congress slashed federal spending.
* Clinton raised some taxes on the rich, but only moderately--he still kept them far below the pre-Reagan rates.
* Clinton also cut taxes on the rich--he signed one of the biggest capital gains tax cuts in our history.
* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge INCREASES in federal tax revenue. And any assessment of the economy under Bush must factor in the huge impact of the 9/11 attacks on the financial market and the two historically catastrophic hurricanes.
* Citing Germany as a positive example of liberal economic policy in action is erroneous. Germany's corporate tax rate is 30% lower than ours! Germany has severe tort laws, which save them billions of dollars (marks) per year (yet liberals in America fight tort reform tooth and nail). Germany put the hammer to labor costs and labor unions in the 1990s, and those reforms have paid huge dividends. If you think Scott Walker is the devil for imposing some modest restrictions on labor unions, you should research what the German government did to labor unions to get labor costs under control. Germany has not allowed the reckless deficits that have led us to an $18 trillion national debt. Germany has run relatively small deficits and balanced its budget in 2014. Germany's national debt has NEVER gone over 80% of GDP (do you know what our debt-to-GDP ration is? Hint: It's over 100%.).
* If you want to talk about a country that has followed most of the same economic policies that Democrats advocate, let's talk about Japan. Let's start with Barack Obama-san - WSJ and RealClearMarkets - Japan s Lost Decade Argues Against Obama s Policies .
Taxes Spending and the Economy
You are a boob. An ignoramus. A moron. A retard.And you're retarded as usual. That was in 2012 moron. Republicans cut the funding since then.You're lying. As usual.A grand total of 70 billion is spent on food stamps per year.The right is so blinded by keeping as much of their income as they can they fail to see the importance of revenue. They don't even realize it makes them mooches for not wanting to cough up money to pay for public schools, infrastructure, and our badass military.Simply because we can use the money to build infrastructure, fund our science programs and support the best r&d! Plus, we can pay our police better
90% of the revenue goes to provide sustenance for ticks on the ass of society.
Federal Food Stamp Program Spent Record 80.4B in FY 2012 CNS News
