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.
SSI and Medicare have done a lot for old people to add stability to their lives. Live is far easier and better for Americans for them. People that wish to take them away want to out ****** Africa and south Asia.
And SSI and Medicare have done a lot to destroy the future of the middle class. Just think how much wealth the average middle class person could have saved and infested if his payroll taxes remained in a private account.
Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.
Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.
Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory
If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
Interestingly the tea party in Michigan now wants to raise corporate taxes after the GOP tried to raise the sales tax.Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
like your creative math on SS tax rates
Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?
Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Look like again? Up until government decided to support people with forced charity, many people worked six to seven days a week. Where do you see a guarantee that all Americans should be able to make a living on 40 hours a week. It certainly isn't in our constitution.
True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.
Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.
I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education, etc
GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
Liberals ended slavery? I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?
Civil rights? A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats. And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.
Union stores? You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home. You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits. That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.
Fifty-Year 'War on Poverty' Brings Progress, Not Victory
If you measure poverty properly, which is only now being done, you find that the poverty rate has fallen pretty dramatically since the middle of the nineteen-sixties. Indeed, according to an important new study by a group of economists at Columbia University, it has dropped by forty per cent. The main driver of this fall, in fact, has been the very type of anti-poverty programs that L.B.J. championed: food stamps and housing subsidies, Social Security and Medicare, and generous income subsidies, in the form of tax credits, for the low-paid.
On Capitol Hill, it’s still largely taken for granted that trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting poverty—a version of history that should not go unchallenged.
This second chart shows the official and revised estimates of the child poverty rate, which is often regarded as a primary concern. The story is basically the same as the one presented in the first chart. According to the O.P.M., the child poverty rate is actually a bit higher now than it was in the late sixties. That’s depressing. But according to the S.P.M.—the new, improved measure—the child poverty rate in 1967 was close to thirty per cent, and fell to eighteen per cent by 2012, a drop of about a third. That doesn’t mean child poverty has been eliminated—far from it. But it does suggest that progress has been made, both in measuring human need and in tackling it.
How the War on Poverty Succeeded (in Four Charts) - The New Yorker
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
True UNTIL PROGRESSIVE policies kicked in, most AmeriKans worked 6-7 days a week for the "job creators". Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies changed it right? Created the worlds largest middle class? Took people out of poverty? Gave UNIONS the right to exist. You know DEMOCRACY in the workplace?
Democracy doesn't belong in the workplace. A workplace is there to work.
Unions? Mostly responsible for jobs leaving this country or influencing automation.
Poverty? Those statistics haven't changed much in the last 50 years and cost us over 15 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it.
I don't know of any Democrat/ liberal policy that was successful for any considerable length of time. As far as working OT, that was going on during the big union days as well. It's just people had different attitudes and values than they do today. Nobody used social programs because they didn't pay that much and it was too embarrassing to use. Knowing somebody on the dole was like knowing a famous rock star. They just weren't around.
I'm shocked a right winger hates democracy, even one in the workplace, much better to have union stores again right? lol
Weird how PROGRESSIVE policies lifted MILLIONS out of poverty and yet CONservatives/GOP gut the programs then claim they don't work?
How much has the US spent on wars? Are there still wars dummy?
HINT SOCIAL SAFETY NETS AREN'T HAMMOCKS, THE AVG FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT IS LESS THAN $100 PER PERSON, Welfare, with a five year LIFETIME limit on ADULTS is less than is has been in decades!
Jobs off shoring? Mainly CONservative/GOP "free trade", lowering tax rates for the Chinese/Latin American "job creators"
Liberal policy? ENDING slavery, Civil rights, Womans right, SS that keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, education, etc
GIVE ME ONE CONSERVATIVE POLICY THAT HAS EVER WORKED AS PROMISED? JUST ONE!
Liberals ended slavery? I guess that makes Lincoln a liberal, huh?
Civil rights? A higher percentage of Republicans voted for civil rights than Democrats. And SS is a system failing right before our eyes.
Union stores? You wouldn't shop at one if there was one near your home. You (like most all Americans) would rather travel farther and buy cheap Chinese junk than to support any American company that provides good wages and benefits. That's why Wal-Mart is still number one in America today.
I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else.
March 6, 1860 Speech at New Haven, Connecticut
How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
But she is the richest woman in the US, no?
So that's your hang-up? You don't like people who inherit money except the government?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
But she is the richest woman in the US, no?
So that's your hang-up? You don't like people who inherit money except the government?
NO DUMMY, ALICE WALTON IS, SHE INHERITED HERS, OPRAH, NOPE!
You do realize what a MERIT BASED society is right oh low informed tool?
What did I just write? Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill? Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up. That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental. Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.
Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring
Whereas the Turtle wants the US to run by plutocrats
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
You said taxes were not forced, it was incumbent upon you to prove the statement since you were challenged.
The question wasn't does everyone tax. The question is are they forced.
The government enforces the the law of paying taxes. By definition they cause to force.
So, we are forced to pay taxes. Your claim is false.
That matters how? Oh, I know, "it's your money". It remains a childish and inconsequential question.
In fact I believe scofflaws who hide their income ought to be executed, hung by their thumbs in public and allowed to rot (not really, but that would be the threat of force implied by your obsession).
What did I just write? Did you read my scenario with the neighbor that has many tenants and the water bill? Yes, when costs go up, your rental prices must go up. That's not only the case for apartments, it's that way with rental cars, rental party equipment, tool rental. Nobody has a business to lose money or not get ahead.
Dad2three thinks everyone else has a duty to pay for his offspring
Whereas the Turtle wants the US to run by plutocrats
Aristocracy vs Wealth Redistribution-- What Did the Founding Fathers Say?
The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
get a job peasant and stop wanting others to fund you and your spawn's miserable existences
yet I am able to feed myself and don't have to be a parasiteYour inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
Sounds great, working like dogs all over town when 1 job should be enough to make them satisfied. Thanks GOP! at least now they have healthcare.
They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible. That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
And don't try to blame Republicans. People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades. Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents. Of course back then, people had pride. Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance. Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
I didn't think so.
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
yet I am able to feed myself and don't have to be a parasiteYour inability to use reason, logic or honesty noted Bubs
you should be a bit more respectful to those of us who pay for your existence
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.
Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.
Back in 1964, America's poverty rate was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.
With such a massive sum, all the $15 trillion in taxpayers' money did was establish a welfare state in which a victom mentality was rewarded with handouts, government cheese, extended jobless benefits, food stamps, free healthcare, subsidized housing, and other entitlements that encourage leeches to be lazy.
A government cannot lift a person out of poverty. Personal responsibility and hard work lift a person out of poverty. Dependency keeps people poor.
War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
They are quite conservative and therefore, believe that people should support themselves if anyway possible. That's unlike liberals who believe in having only one job, and if the job doesn't pay enough, blame somebody else and get on a government program(s) to make up the difference.
And don't try to blame Republicans. People having two jobs is an old school thing that's been around for decades. Many times I've held two (or more) jobs and the same holds true of my parents. Of course back then, people had pride. Government handouts were for losers and only a failure would accept government assistance. Then again, liberalism is all about removing integrity from our country.
It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
I didn't think so.
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
It's Walmart and companies like that who are pushing for welfare for people who don't earn enough.
They are? Why would Wal-Mart have a care in the world about welfare? It doesn't benefit them. But I suppose you have evidence of this push for welfare Wal-Mart is involved in?
I didn't think so.
Walmart pays people so little that they can get welfare payments and work at the same time. This is why Walmart care, because without this they wouldn't be able to get such cheap labor.
For example, healthcare coverage. Walmart has a much lower proportion of workers on healthcare than other companies that are similar to Walmart. Why? They make it hard for them to get on the company health insurance plan.
A full time worker has to wait 6 months before they can get on. A part time worker 2 years.
This costs the US money because these people end up on state funded health care. We're talking more then 50% of the workers here. The average time at large companies is 1.3 months to get health insurance.
Also workers pay a lot of their healthcare costs. 16% is the average in the US, Walmart employees pay over 40%.
Walmart spent around $3,500 per employee on healthcare. The national average is $5,600.
Employees take some of this, the govt takes the rest.
California spend $20 million covering the cost of Walmart not paying people their healthcare. Walmart actively encourages its employees to seek funding for healthcare from the government.
Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Labor Record / CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER / Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce / U.S. House of Representatives 16feb04
"
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee. Specifically, the low wages result in the following additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers:
- $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
- $42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of the store employees qualify for such assistance, at $6,700 per family.
- $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children.
- $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families qualify with an average of 2 children.
- $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP), assuming 30 employees with an average of two children qualify.
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
- $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance."
The Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year – about $2,103 per employee.
Let's assume a part-time worker, 30 hours a week at $10 an hour. About $15,000 a year.
If WalMart closes her store, does that supposed $2,103 cost increase or decrease?
Basically Walmart costs the US loads of money.
Liberal math is funny.
WalMart has about 1.4 million employees in the US. If we assume the $2,103 number is correct (I don't), that's about $3 billion. Now you'd have to balance that against the tens of billions they save consumers each year, the tens of billions they contribute in sales taxes, the $8 billion they paid in income taxes, the $7 billion they paid in dividends, the $3 billion they spent to buy back stock, the income and payroll taxes their employees pay, the taxes collected on the dividends and capital gains taxes and more that I've left out.
It's clear to anyone who understands economics, and math, that WalMart does not cost the US loads of money.
Let's assume a Walmart closes down. Another shop will open in it's place, assuming there's a market for stuff that Walmart sells, which there is. Perhaps you'd have a company which makes a profit and pays wages, and doesn't make them pay extra for healthcare and doesn't send them off to the government to collect welfare money.
Your logic is funny. Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff. However they don't save people money because they pay lower wages. They make massive profits. Let's say you're calculations are right, the $3 billion is STILL only half of their profits. They could easily afford to pay this stuff.
What the contribute is what everyone has to contribute. What they don't contribute and other companies do is the factor here.
It's like saying that this company pays X amount in tax therefore that's okay, even though everyone else pays X*2. I don't get it.
Walmart has people working, and has people taking. The right seem to hate it when people are on welfare, EXCEPT when people are on welfare and making someone else a shed load of cash. I don't get it.
I'm not in favor of people being on welfare. Some people have to be on welfare, but when big corporations are putting people on welfare, when this is an actual policy of the company, and then paying them much less so they can get the welfare to back up their meager wages, then something is wrong, wouldn't you say?
Sure, they save people money, people who buy their stuff.
They also save money for people who don't buy their stuff.
On Monday, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus will announce its finding that the “implied claim” in the ads — that families shopping at Wal-Mart will save $2,500 a year more than those that shop at other big stores — is misleading.
It is a message “for which the advertiser provided no support and, in fact, conceded that there was none,” the group says.
The claim of saving $2,500 dates to 2005, when Wal-Mart, under mounting criticism from unions and elected leaders over its business practices, commissioned a study of its economic impact on Americans.
An outside firm, paid by Wal-Mart, found that the company’s emphasis on low prices led to a 3 percent decline in overall consumer prices. That translated into $287 billion in savings in 2006, or $2,500 a household, whether a family shops at Wal-Mart or a competitor, according to the study.
The watchdog group had no quibble with what it called the “express claim” of Wal-Mart’s ad — that it saves American families $2,500 a year. “The advertiser has provided adequate support for its intended message,” according to the report.
Shopping at WalMart specifically does not save the average family $2,500 a year. But the effect of WalMart on the total economy means that the average family does save $2,500 a year on their shopping. This is, if you like, the consumer surplus of the big box stores having driven all those Mom and Pop stores out of business: and of having destroyed all of those jobs in the process.
Or, if you prefer, that $287 billion a year. And please do note that that’s each and every year.
WalMart Destroys Jobs, Yes, But The Benefits Go To Consumers, Not The Top
How much have we spent on wars? Are there still wars Bubs?
WHEN WAS MEDICARE CREATED AGAIN?
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
Based on this Cut and Paste, why would income inequality really matter??
Middle class AND the Founders wanted a society based on merit, not generational inherited wealth, like the Kochs/Waltons, which occupy the top 6 of 10 richest in the US...
I see you forgot the richest such as Buffett, Gates and Oprah.
Weird, did THEY INHERIT THEIR MONEY LIKE THE KOCHS/WALTONS? lol
Moron, Oprah is BARELY a billionaire to begin with.
Oprah is a black woman that is barely a billionaire in supposedly an oppressive, racist country against blacks and women.
It's called SYSTEMIC dummy. She's an exception to the rule. Know what that means Bubs?
