SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

[Dragonlady]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Well.......that may be, but most people would look at the market for their investment. The point I'm making is that when it comes to a company (and what they pay their employees) it all boils down to attracting investors. Even if they have a ton of money and could pay their employees more, that brings down the returns for those investors and it's a less attractive investment.

We created this monster that we now have no control over. We want cheap products, we want good paying jobs, and we want our retirement account in the market to grow as aggressively as possible. You can't have it all. And we collectively chose cheap products and high market growth.

Most people don't really follow politics, don't read labels before they buy things, and don't know how to read a balance sheet, or have any idea of what ratios are valid in terms of profits, material costs, and labour. If you're making investment decisions primarily on growth potential, good luck with that. I make investment decisions based on sound financial management. That includes a reasonable ratio between executive and worker salaries. Any company that pays it's CEO 200 or more times the amount they pay their lowest paid worker, is top heavy in salaries.

 

[Cecilie1200]

this would help to end so called food deserts...where the only food readily available is from fast food stores ....i would prefer mail order giving people a chance to order healthier foods, again i would prefer a give away program for staples...the money used to oversee these programs is wasted funding and give aways would prevent the high admins. costs

While I agree that administration and oversight is a problem - and one of the problems the EBT cards was meant to address, btw - I have to point out that "giveaways" require basically the same administration and oversight that money programs do. More, in fact, since you can't give people food electronically on a debit-type card.

It would actually be nice if EBT worked for mail order, at least from some sites, I think. I know Tucson has a thing called Market On The Move, where they have a farmers' market at a different location every Saturday in rotation, and they sell something like 30 lbs of produce for $10, and they arranged to be able to accept EBT cards. I understand that it's been wildly popular and helpful in that community. I'm all in favor of outside-the-box thinking and solutions that actually work.

There would be a problem with that. You can't even get these people to come out and vote in one day, I don't know how you would get them to a vendor in one day.

Clearly, you have not been to WalMart on Black Friday recently.

Seriously, it's all about priorities. These people don't much care about going out to vote. But 30 lbs of produce for $10? THAT, they care about. Trust me, that market is mobbed every Saturday, regardless of which location it's at that week, and they're out of produce by about two hours after they open.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

THIS is a brilliant post. It is, in fact, the best post I have read in the last week. Bravo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Mansplained? So what, his explanation is incorrect and invalid because he has a penis and you feel intimidated? If it helps any, I can tell you definitively that penises don't bite. They don't even have teeth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

People on snap aren't required to budget. The government just hands them more money.

continuing education makes more sense than requiring a work ethic, even in Right to Work States.

That makes no sense. BTW do they pay you for every left wing buzz word you type?

Would YOU pay someone to drivel on with totally ineffective arguments that make them sound ridiculous?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So blame Walmart and not your politicians?

Walmart or anybody else for that matter pay people what they are worth. What government does after that is not Walmart's doing or problem.

Walmart, McDonald's, K-Mart are in business for one reason and one reason only, to sell products and make a profit. They did not open up to be under some social obligation. They did not open up for the purpose of providing good paying jobs. If you think it's wrong that people who work these jobs go on social services, then abandon the Democrat party and join the Republicans, because we are against that as well.

If you think being a CEO is easy and are drastically overpaid, then become a CEO yourself and let us know how that works out for you. The reason CEO's make the money they do is because few have the ability to do their job. Don't you think that if a company could get a person to do the same job for half the cost, they would do it in a heartbeat?

We Americans don't think like people do in other countries. Our consumers want cheap, and that's their top priority. That's why Walmart is number one in the US today and has been for some time. They provide us with the cheapest products. It has noting to do with Reagan or the tax code.

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Well.......that may be, but most people would look at the market for their investment. The point I'm making is that when it comes to a company (and what they pay their employees) it all boils down to attracting investors. Even if they have a ton of money and could pay their employees more, that brings down the returns for those investors and it's a less attractive investment.

We created this monster that we now have no control over. We want cheap products, we want good paying jobs, and we want our retirement account in the market to grow as aggressively as possible. You can't have it all. And we collectively chose cheap products and high market growth.

Most people don't really follow politics, don't read labels before they buy things, and don't know how to read a balance sheet, or have any idea of what ratios are valid in terms of profits, material costs, and labour. If you're making investment decisions primarily on growth potential, good luck with that. I make investment decisions based on sound financial management. That includes a reasonable ratio between executive and worker salaries. Any company that pays it's CEO 200 or more times the amount they pay their lowest paid worker, is top heavy in salaries.

Well then, you go on with your bad self. Myself, all I want to know about the company's "sound financial management" is that it's sound enough to give me a good return on my money.

And since you obviously are not investing in the companies with high-paid CEOs, once again: IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY, SO IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

 

[Dragonlady]

It is a total fallacy that corporations pay people what "they are worth". Or that Walmart isn't doing anything unethical Totally untrue. Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with. They want their wages to be the lowest possible. It's the "bottom line management" being taught at business schools all over the country.

With the surplus of low skill workers, and with the lack of legislation forcing them to pay workers more, corporations have had no shortage of workers would be take any job for any amount of money, however small. As the pool of low skilled workers grew, corporations were actually able to cut starting wages.

Walmart had employees who helped their workers obtain every bit of public assistance available to them. And others who made sure that said employees kept their hours and their wages low enough that they didn't miss a subsidy. Other employees "encouraged" suppliers to off-shore manufacturing to lower wholesale prices.

Walmart has built their brand on predatory practices. Lowering prices to drive out competition, and then raising them when competition was driven out of business.

Would Americans prefer to get stuff cheaper at Walmart while each taxpayer in the US contributes $2,500 to each Walmart's bottom line with wage subsidies. Personally, I'd prefer to have that $2,500 in my bank account, rather than the accounts of the Walton Family. And I'll bet if business wasn't lying to people about the real costs of earned income credits and food stamps, and how corporations who really don't need the money, are using the system to line their pockets at YOUR expense, that nickle more for a burger won't seem like so much.

If Walmart, McDonalds, and other large corporations were barely getting by financially, it would be one thing, but these are some of the most profitable corporations in the world. Companies that pay much higher wages in other jurisidictions.

American want to shrink government, reduce waste and reduce taxes - raise the minimum wage and dump earned income credits. It will do both. Yes, you'll pay a bit more at the cash register, but the cut in taxes will more than make up for it.

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Corporations will pay people the least amount of money they can get away with.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Well.......that may be, but most people would look at the market for their investment. The point I'm making is that when it comes to a company (and what they pay their employees) it all boils down to attracting investors. Even if they have a ton of money and could pay their employees more, that brings down the returns for those investors and it's a less attractive investment.

We created this monster that we now have no control over. We want cheap products, we want good paying jobs, and we want our retirement account in the market to grow as aggressively as possible. You can't have it all. And we collectively chose cheap products and high market growth.

Most people don't really follow politics, don't read labels before they buy things, and don't know how to read a balance sheet, or have any idea of what ratios are valid in terms of profits, material costs, and labour. If you're making investment decisions primarily on growth potential, good luck with that. I make investment decisions based on sound financial management. That includes a reasonable ratio between executive and worker salaries. Any company that pays it's CEO 200 or more times the amount they pay their lowest paid worker, is top heavy in salaries.

Well then, you go on with your bad self. Myself, all I want to know about the company's "sound financial management" is that it's sound enough to give me a good return on my money.

And since you obviously are not investing in the companies with high-paid CEOs, once again: IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY, SO IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

It is if said CEO's are using my tax money to pay their employees. It sure as hell is.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

That's the recipe for moonshine

That may be a good thing if the recipients are entrepreneurial.

 

[danielpalos]

continuing education in home economics includes budgeting, and working with balanced diets.

People on snap aren't required to budget. The government just hands them more money.

continuing education makes more sense than requiring a work ethic, even in Right to Work States.

That makes no sense. BTW do they pay you for every left wing buzz word you type?

it makes plenty of sense dear; you are merely clueless and Causeless.

only the right wing has to get paid for their morals.

 

[usmbguest5318]

i wonder what your typical south chicago thug uses those food stamp cards for.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Well.......that may be, but most people would look at the market for their investment. The point I'm making is that when it comes to a company (and what they pay their employees) it all boils down to attracting investors. Even if they have a ton of money and could pay their employees more, that brings down the returns for those investors and it's a less attractive investment.

We created this monster that we now have no control over. We want cheap products, we want good paying jobs, and we want our retirement account in the market to grow as aggressively as possible. You can't have it all. And we collectively chose cheap products and high market growth.

Most people don't really follow politics, don't read labels before they buy things, and don't know how to read a balance sheet, or have any idea of what ratios are valid in terms of profits, material costs, and labour. If you're making investment decisions primarily on growth potential, good luck with that. I make investment decisions based on sound financial management. That includes a reasonable ratio between executive and worker salaries. Any company that pays it's CEO 200 or more times the amount they pay their lowest paid worker, is top heavy in salaries.

Well then, you go on with your bad self. Myself, all I want to know about the company's "sound financial management" is that it's sound enough to give me a good return on my money.

And since you obviously are not investing in the companies with high-paid CEOs, once again: IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY, SO IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

It is if said CEO's are using my tax money to pay their employees. It sure as hell is.

How would a CEO do that? A CEO has no access to tax money and no authority to spend it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's try something else so you can understand better:

Let's say that today, you ran into a small fortune: a wealthy relative died, a lawsuit in your favor came through, a lottery ticket, anything. So now you have $300,000. Your house is paid for, your car and bills are paid for, what would you do with that money?

If you're like most people, you will invest it. But let's say you don't know much about investments, so you hire an expert. You tell them you want a nice safe conservative investment.

So he or she gives you two they boiled it down to: One is a company that's been around a long time with a growth of 6% a year. The second the same thing, except their growth is 3.75% a year. Which company will you put your money in?

Before you answer, your investment person tells you that the company making 6% a year grosses 1 million dollars a year. the 3.75% investment grosses 200 million dollars a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not. All you care about is the growth of your money.

Companies heavily rely on investors much more than they rely on how much they are worth or how much they are taking in. If a company is overpaying employees and not making as large of a profit, you will opt to invest your $300,000 somewhere else; most people would.

Yes they do, but are they doing anything different than you?

If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the $750.00 garage, the $1,100 garage, or the $1,500 garage to rebuild your transmission? If you need a new hot water tank, do you hire the plumber that charges $800.00, a plumber that charges $1,000, or the plumber that charges $1,200?

It's not just Walmart that hires the cheapest labor, it's all of us. We all do it. Why? Because why would you pay more to get work done than you have to?

And this price fixing is all urban legend. Walmart has fixed prices across the board. They can't adjust their prices very much because people would opt to online sales instead. Plus it's against the law and they would have nabbed Walmart by now.

Now that you've "mansplained" it all to me everything is SO MUCH CLEARER. The reason the US is in a total fiscal mess right now is because Americans are stupid. So long as the prices at the cash register are low, it's better than raising prices slightly, and lowering taxes a lot, and cutting government.

I have the good sense to know that using earned income credits to bankroll low income workers is a STUPID WASTE OF MONEY, for everyone except the government workers who process the payments.

As for your comments about how I would invest my money, you could not be more wrong. The last thing I would look at is growth. First off, I would never invest in the stock market. NEVER. I would invest the money in income property, or in a business with good prospects at profitability and income, but control of my property and my investment would always reside with me.

Well.......that may be, but most people would look at the market for their investment. The point I'm making is that when it comes to a company (and what they pay their employees) it all boils down to attracting investors. Even if they have a ton of money and could pay their employees more, that brings down the returns for those investors and it's a less attractive investment.

We created this monster that we now have no control over. We want cheap products, we want good paying jobs, and we want our retirement account in the market to grow as aggressively as possible. You can't have it all. And we collectively chose cheap products and high market growth.

Most people don't really follow politics, don't read labels before they buy things, and don't know how to read a balance sheet, or have any idea of what ratios are valid in terms of profits, material costs, and labour. If you're making investment decisions primarily on growth potential, good luck with that. I make investment decisions based on sound financial management. That includes a reasonable ratio between executive and worker salaries. Any company that pays it's CEO 200 or more times the amount they pay their lowest paid worker, is top heavy in salaries.

Well then, you go on with your bad self. Myself, all I want to know about the company's "sound financial management" is that it's sound enough to give me a good return on my money.

And since you obviously are not investing in the companies with high-paid CEOs, once again: IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY, SO IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

It is if said CEO's are using my tax money to pay their employees. It sure as hell is.

How would the CEO be using your tax money?

Oh, and btw, the CEO and the company both pay taxes, too, each of them a hell of a lot more than you do. If they do happen to be working with the system - which, by the way, is championed by liberals a hell of a lot more than conservatives - to take advantage of tax breaks or something, are you suggesting they have less right to do that than some pissant who pays piddly personal taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, paying low wages so the rich can get richer faster leads to socializing social costs for the poor and underpaid.

 

[Dragonlady]

How would the CEO be using your tax money?

Oh, and btw, the CEO and the company both pay taxes, too, each of them a hell of a lot more than you do. If they do happen to be working with the system - which, by the way, is championed by liberals a hell of a lot more than conservatives - to take advantage of tax breaks or something, are you suggesting they have less right to do that than some pissant who pays piddly personal taxes?

Minimum wage workers rely on Medicaid, food stamps and EIC's to supplement their income. Walmart admitted that if they paid their minimum wage workers $100 a week more, they wouldn't qualify for this assistance. Based on a 40 hour work week, that's $2.50 per hour.

A friend recently told me that he went to his bosses and asked for a raise. He's a low skill worker who's basically working for the same money he made 20 years ago. Everyone in his company gets the same wage, even though he shows up early, takes no breaks, and is never sick. The guys he works with show up late, slack off frequently, and aren't very reliable. His employer quoted him facts, figures, and why his work ethic made no difference, and how he factored his costs.

Back in the late 1970's when I was a small town bank manager, taking night classes towards a MBA, I read an article saying that Harvard Business School's "bottom line management" would be the destruction of the American economy. That Harvard was far too focused on the profit and loss statement and should be interested in the impact of the management decisions on the community. At the time, I thought this guy a total twit, but I now fully understand what he was talking about.

Profit isn't everything. I know that in a capitalist economy, it is heresy to even think such a think, but there is a concept called "enlightened self-interest". If I pay my workers well, they will be more loyal to me than the guy who values people by their bottom line.

My friend's boss is about to lose his best, most reliable employee. He's now looking for another job. Because his hard work and extra effort are not valued, nor compensated. His boss won't care. He probably won't even notice the downturn in productivity in his area. Because he can't see past the bottom line.

 

[leftwinger]

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

i wonder what your typical south chicago thug uses those food stamp cards for.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

OK I think I just found out. Back to the OP........they are buying too much Soda. edit: lookey there, She has Oatmeal in that cart. Since this thread, I have finished off 1 tub myself.

The findings show that the No. 1 purchases by SNAP households are soft drinks, which accounted for about 10 percent of the dollars they spent on food. “In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “It’s pretty shocking.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html?_r=0

 

[usmbguest5318]

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

i wonder what your typical south chicago thug uses those food stamp cards for.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

OK I think I just found out. Back to the OP........they are buying too much Soda. edit: lookey there, She has Oatmeal in that cart. Since this thread, I have finished off 1 tub myself.

View attachment 106706
The findings show that the No. 1 purchases by SNAP households are soft drinks, which accounted for about 10 percent of the dollars they spent on food. “In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “It’s pretty shocking.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html?_r=0

Wait a minute here. Do I see a Trumpkin citing the NYT as though something it published is credible? I can't even imagine why you'd have looked there for content.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

i wonder what your typical south chicago thug uses those food stamp cards for.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

I doubt you'll find out in Longboat Key.

OK I think I just found out. Back to the OP........they are buying too much Soda. edit: lookey there, She has Oatmeal in that cart. Since this thread, I have finished off 1 tub myself.

View attachment 106706
The findings show that the No. 1 purchases by SNAP households are soft drinks, which accounted for about 10 percent of the dollars they spent on food. “In this sense, SNAP is a multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidy of the soda industry,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “It’s pretty shocking.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html?_r=0

Which brings us back to the point that it's really none of your business what people eat. And before you come back with, "It's my tax money, so that makes it my business!" let me just point out that you're buying into left-think. Rather than taking the TRUE conservative position of "I have a problem with the government using my tax money to just hand out checks" - or EBT credits, in this case - you're suggesting that we go even farther into leftist micromanaging of people's lives by not only making them dependent, but then trying to tell them what they can and can't eat. Increasing government control and direction of people's lives is never a good thing, and will not achieve anything truly positive, like moving them toward independence. It will just encourage them to be more dependent on the government to tell them what to do, like increasingly dumber robots.

 

[usmbguest5318]

before you come back with, "It's my tax money, so that makes it my business!" let me just point out that you're buying into left-think. Rather than taking the TRUE conservative position

Ideology always paves the way toward atrocity.
― Terence McKenna


When faced with the choice between...

1. "taking the TRUE conservative position"
2. deciding what position I believe in, only to later find out it aligns with the "true [insert ideology] one," I'll jump for joy and say "whoopty doo," or
   if instead, I later find out it does not align with the "true [insert ideology] one," I'll again jump for joy and say "whoopty doo

....I'm choosing #2 every single time.


Ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked. Principles are something different: a set of values that have to be applied to circumstances but not compromised away.
― George Packer

 

[danielpalos]

Only the ring wing is cognitively dissonant enough to claim to be for Individual Liberty, while insisting on micromanaging the poor.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which brings us back to the point that it's really none of your business what people eat. And before you come back with, "It's my tax money, so that makes it my business!" let me just point out that you're buying into left-think. Rather than taking the TRUE conservative position of "I have a problem with the government using my tax money to just hand out checks" - or EBT credits, in this case - you're suggesting that we go even farther into leftist micromanaging of people's lives by not only making them dependent, but then trying to tell them what they can and can't eat. Increasing government control and direction of people's lives is never a good thing, and will not achieve anything truly positive, like moving them toward independence. It will just encourage them to be more dependent on the government to tell them what to do, like increasingly dumber robots.

When I think of government dependency, I think of freedom limitations.

It's kind of like when you (or somebody you knew) turned 18 while still living with their parents. Yes, you are of legal age, but that doesn't mean you do whatever the hell you want.......at least not while living under this roof.

You still can't smoke in the house. You can't bring your friends over for a night of drinking. No, your girlfriend cannot sleep over. You will be home by 12:00 am weekends included.

When somebody is supplying your shelter, you still have very limited freedoms. If you want much more freedom, move the hell out of your parents house and get your own apartment. Of course if the parents are very liberal and allow such things, then it will take much longer for that kid to move out of the house.

I understand what you are saying and I don't think there is an advantage of food restrictions while on food stamps, but like I said, the more liberal the program is, the less likely people will want to get off of it.