IDBillzFan Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 If the public sees it as a bad thing they can and will reverse course. The problem is that such a reversal notwithstanding, we will still be crippled financially. Realistically, his expanded entitlements cannot be reeled in once granted, and the all money will already have been spent. America waking up in five years and deciding to (for arguments sake) reduce the public sector and let the economy grow naturally won't alter the fact that our debt will have tripled. With this budget, for every three dollars the administration is spending, one is borrowed. We are going to owe a crippling abount of money very very quickly. My biggest concern is health care. The moment that system is up and going, it will be impossible to make it go away. I mean, $634 BILLION as a downpayment on a plan that has no plan. Reckless and irresponsible. But that's the "mandate." Things won't really change until the recession is prolonged (which is where it clearly seems to be heading given the number of unemployment claims at a time when we were promised the stimulus bill would stop the bleeding) or when the ceiling for higher taxes drops from $250K to $150K. But as others have said, it will likely be too late. Once people are on entitlement plans, it will take years upon years to get them off. Especially as they pass them down to their next generation. We can only hope we don't get attacked in the process. We're already in deep debt. I'm not sure what would happen if the US had to shut down again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 With this budget, for every three dollars the administration is spending, one is borrowed. We are going to owe a crippling abount of money very very quickly. Dont have the link right now. I read it was up to fiddy cent on the dolllah. I love me shange. Kickin it, yeah. Dats how we roll.... Peggy's got the fo zizzle. Word. bama, da man.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Dont have the link right now. I read it was up to fiddy cent on the dolllah. I love me shange. Kickin it, yeah. Dats how we roll.... Peggy's got the fo zizzle. Word. bama, da man.......... I did a quick search and I think you are right: for every dollar we spend, we are borrowing 50 cents of it. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/may/...gures-released/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 SUPPORT THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 SUPPORT THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT To what benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 So that people can join unions without worry of employer backlash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 So that people can join unions without worry of employer backlash. I thought the point of joining a union was, in part, to keep you from facing employer backlash. I thought unions protected workers. If you can't join a union for fear of employer backlash, then what's the sense of joining a union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I thought the point of joining a union was, in part, to keep you from facing employer backlash. I thought unions protected workers. If you can't join a union for fear of employer backlash, then what's the sense of joining a union? Very true. I should clarified that the Employee Free Choice Act will make it easier for employees to choose Union or Non-Union without backlash from employers. Employers have been known to use scare tactics and threats against employees keeping them from voting Pro-Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 My favorite Anti-Employee Free Choice Act quote: “We like driving the car and we’re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us.” —Lee Scott, former CEO of Wal-Mart BusinessWeek, Nov. 5, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 My favorite Anti-Employee Free Choice Act quote: “We like driving the car and we’re not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us.” —Lee Scott, former CEO of Wal-Mart BusinessWeek, Nov. 5, 2008 Wal-Mart profitable and employees still hired. Chrysler and GM...not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Wal-Mart profitable and employees still hired. Chrysler and GM...not so much. Wal-Mart... has a substantial amount of below poverty level employees... has many cases placed against it for breaking labor laws, discrimination... is very much against Port Security... has negative impacts on communities and taxpayers... etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Wal-Mart... has a substantial amount of below poverty level employees... has many cases placed against it for breaking labor laws, discrimination... is very much against Port Security... has negative impacts on communities and taxpayers... etc., etc. How many people are forced to work there? What are the skill sets of those employees? If you don't want to be a ditch digger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 How many people are forced to work there? What are the skill sets of those employees? If you don't want to be a ditch digger... True no one is forced to work there. And really in this economy people just need jobs. However, people can also be paid better than they are. Or in some cases at least minimum wage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 True no one is forced to work there. And really in this economy people just need jobs. However, people can also be paid better than they are. Or in some cases at least minimum wage. WalMart generally hires people who will one day be replaced by robots. Taking stuff out of boxes and putting them on shelves or running items across a scanner aren't jobs ANYONE should expect to be paid much to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 True no one is forced to work there. And really in this economy people just need jobs. However, people can also be paid better than they are. Or in some cases at least minimum wage. They do make at least minimum wage. That's why they call it "minimum wage." Truth is, most people who work at WalMart like working at Walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 Wal-Mart... has a substantial amount of below poverty level employees... has many cases placed against it for breaking labor laws, discrimination... is very much against Port Security... has negative impacts on communities and taxpayers... etc., etc. It's profitable and keeps employees on its payroll. Look, no one is making anyone work at Wal-Mart. If you don't like your job, you need only ask yourself two basic questions: "Can you change what you don't like about your job?" If the answer is no, then ask "Can you live with it?" If the answer is still no, then at what point does that become Wal-Mart's fault? Go to school. Learn a new trade. Do something. At some point people need to be responsible for themselves and stop looking elsewhere for salvation from their miseries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 They do make at least minimum wage. That's why they call it "minimum wage." Truth is, most people who work at WalMart like working at Walmart. Really? I never understood that is why they called it that? :thumbdown: A few other nuggets from the great company. At least you get your socks cheap there: Wal-Mart executives did not act on warnings they were violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) * Wal-Mart has known for years of a massive company wide problem of fair labor standards violations but did not take sufficient steps to address the problem. An internal Wal-Mart audit of one week of time records in 2000 from 25,000 employees had alerted Wal-Mart officials to potential violations. The audit found 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times. It also alerted Wal-Mart executives to 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. [steven Greenhouse, "Suits Say Wal-Mart Forces Workers to Toil Off the Clock," New York Times, A1, 6/25/02] * Despite this knowledge, Wal-Mart had to settle in January 2005 for violations that took place from 1998 to 2002, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle U.S. Dept. of Labor charges that the company had violated provisions against minors operating hazardous machinery. [Ann Zimmerman, "Wal-Mart's Labor Agreement Is Criticized by Former Official," Wall Street Journal, 2/15/05] * In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle allegations that it had failed to pay overtime to janitors, many of whom worked seven nights a week. [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 11/7/05, Forbes, 10/10/05] * The State of Connecticut, investigating Wal-Mart's child labor practices after the federal investigation ended, found 11 more violations. In June 2005, Connecticut fined Wal-Mart Stores Inc. $3,300 over child labor violations after a state investigation found that some minors lacked proper paperwork and were operating hazardous equipment at the stores. ["Wal-Mart Is Fined for Child Labor Violations," Bloomberg News, June 22, 2005] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2009 Author Share Posted May 15, 2009 Really? I never understood that is why they called it that? :thumbdown: A few other nuggets from the great company. At least you get your socks cheap there: Wal-Mart executives did not act on warnings they were violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) * Wal-Mart has known for years of a massive company wide problem of fair labor standards violations but did not take sufficient steps to address the problem. An internal Wal-Mart audit of one week of time records in 2000 from 25,000 employees had alerted Wal-Mart officials to potential violations. The audit found 60,767 missed breaks and 15,705 lost meal times. It also alerted Wal-Mart executives to 1,371 instances of minors working too late, during school hours, or for too many hours in a day. [steven Greenhouse, "Suits Say Wal-Mart Forces Workers to Toil Off the Clock," New York Times, A1, 6/25/02] * Despite this knowledge, Wal-Mart had to settle in January 2005 for violations that took place from 1998 to 2002, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $135,540 to settle U.S. Dept. of Labor charges that the company had violated provisions against minors operating hazardous machinery. [Ann Zimmerman, "Wal-Mart's Labor Agreement Is Criticized by Former Official," Wall Street Journal, 2/15/05] * In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle allegations that it had failed to pay overtime to janitors, many of whom worked seven nights a week. [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 11/7/05, Forbes, 10/10/05] * The State of Connecticut, investigating Wal-Mart's child labor practices after the federal investigation ended, found 11 more violations. In June 2005, Connecticut fined Wal-Mart Stores Inc. $3,300 over child labor violations after a state investigation found that some minors lacked proper paperwork and were operating hazardous equipment at the stores. ["Wal-Mart Is Fined for Child Labor Violations," Bloomberg News, June 22, 2005] What can I tell you. Quit your job and stop shopping there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Employers have been known to use scare tactics and threats against employees keeping them from voting Pro-Union. And union tactics are limited to "pretty-please with sugar on it." Intimidation happens on both sides. The Employee Free Choice Act will do nothing but generate more misinformation and threats from both sides. And considering that employees have state and federal legal protections from employer malfeasance, whereas unions are almost completely unregulated, who do you think is going to become proportionally more abusive? (Yeah, I know. You think the employers will. A sane person would realize this opens the door to far more union abuse.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 True no one is forced to work there. And really in this economy people just need jobs. However, people can also be paid better than they are. Or in some cases at least minimum wage. I'm guessing that in your slams of WalMart, you recognize its roots in very rural Americana. You recognize its mission to bring low priced goods to areas that historically didn't have low price alternatives to people who are/were far below national averages in earnings. You recognize that it brought jobs to areas that never had jobs. Funny is that people who criticize WalMart are the ones who wouldn't work at a WalMart, nor dare shop at one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts