California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You

[flacaltenn]

WalMart could pay them more so they could afford it but you oppose that because Walmart should be able to do what they want (which is not the issue)
The State could raise mw but you would oppose that because mw is for entry level workers (which is a lie but the point you would raise)

So there are fixes, it's just that you oppose or have opposed all the fixes. So you can crow about how things aren't fixed. See how that works. Break it, then complain about it being broken

ABSOLUTELY NONE of that would prevent those workers from qualifying for Medicaid or allow them to afford Health Insurance.. I can't afford health insurance anymore and may soon drop that $22K/year burden..

Are you not getting that point? Doesn't fix the problem.. Just gives YOU and mental midgets in Cali an excuse to rape WalMart..

Lower the health care costs which you also oppose. How many things are you going to oppose before you realize that you and your ilk are part of this problem? 5 things? 15?

Say WHAT Bullwinkle?? Me opposed to lowering health care costs? Listen man, a large part of my business is in the science and engineering of medical devices. I know a bit about health care delivery and costs. Go find a MIRROR and read your comment to me back.. You've got the wrong culprit here..

If you think the "AFFORDABLE Health Care" act does ANYTHING to make health care avoidable -- Then I have a PATRIOT act for you that will make you a revered mention in the history books and keep you safe..

How am I opposing lowering health care costs? Do you know that it was the LIBERTARIAN CATO institute and the LParty that pushed for Medical Savings Accounts which worked WONDERFULLY to help millions lower their insurance?

The only fix there is to forceably eject all the middle man players between you and your doctors. It works for veterinary medicine quite well...

 

[Oddball]

Lower the health care costs which you also oppose. How many things are you going to oppose before you realize that you and your ilk are part of this problem? 5 things? 15?

Gubmint programs never ever lower the costs of anything.

Speaking of certain ilks being part of the problem.

 

[eflatminor]

Corporations aren't able to shift their costs onto anyone. Only government has the power to do that.

Someone gets it.

Not you apparently.

Okay, then please explain to us how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers.

The floor is yours.

 

[PredFan]

California To Wal-Mart: Enough! No More Taxpayer Subsidized Profits For You

Back to the original OP --

Why are rw's in favor of tax subsidies for WalMart?

There aren't any tax subsidies for Walmart you twit.

 

[PredFan]

Back to the original OP --

Why are rw's in favor of tax subsidies for WalMart?

WalMart offers healthcare plans to all employees who average over 30 hours a week. Please prove how taxpayers are subsidizing WalMart.

Read OP's much?

Don't jump in at the 40th page of a thread & ask to be filled-in.

The OP does nothing waht so ever to prove that taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart. that only exists in the festering cesspool that is the liberal mind.

 

[martybegan]

So you believe that there are no Walmarts in low income areas? Is that what you're saying?

Your statement:

WalMart has cheaper check cashing prices but WalMarts are too big to be in the Inner cities. Its a land problem not that "liberals wont let a WalMart here" thing.

I just showed a place where Liberals don't want Walmart in, and it has nothing to do with land/space, it has to do with them not liking Wal Marts Buinsess model.

That is thier right. What you do not have the right to do is lie about it.

And I asked you are they allowed to not want Walmart there for any reason. You seem to agree they have the right but you are questioning their rights at the same time.

Ok, great...I said no one. You showed someone. You got me. Whoop de doo.

Now do me the same courtesy and answer my questions:

So you believe that there are no Walmarts in low income areas?
You said "for some reason the NYC council has an issue with them". From your link can you not find the reason? Should the council approve every company or be labeled as "haters"? What makes WalMart different that they should approve them and not others who go thru the same process?

I'm sure there are Wal Marts in low income areas. The reason they have an issue here is due to the union-centric government NYC has.

In this case it is actual "hate" driven by thier need to placate thier union overlords.

I dont see walmart trying to circumvent the process. You dont see the same level of animosity towards the other BB stores.

 

[Amelia]

Legislation is now making its way through the California legislature—with the support of consumer groups, unions and, interestingly, physicians—that would levy a fine of up to $6,000 on employers like Wal-Mart for every full-time employee that ends up on the state’s Medi-Cal program—the California incarnation of Medicaid.

That would make it harder for people to get full-time hours. So incomes would go down but liberals could feel good about themselves for trying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your statement:



I just showed a place where Liberals don't want Walmart in, and it has nothing to do with land/space, it has to do with them not liking Wal Marts Buinsess model.

That is thier right. What you do not have the right to do is lie about it.

And I asked you are they allowed to not want Walmart there for any reason. You seem to agree they have the right but you are questioning their rights at the same time.

Ok, great...I said no one. You showed someone. You got me. Whoop de doo.

Now do me the same courtesy and answer my questions:

So you believe that there are no Walmarts in low income areas?
You said "for some reason the NYC council has an issue with them". From your link can you not find the reason? Should the council approve every company or be labeled as "haters"? What makes WalMart different that they should approve them and not others who go thru the same process?

I'm sure there are Wal Marts in low income areas. The reason they have an issue here is due to the union-centric government NYC has.

In this case it is actual "hate" driven by thier need to placate thier union overlords.

I dont see walmart trying to circumvent the process. You dont see the same level of animosity towards the other BB stores.

So you really don't know the reason ppl oppose them but you're sure that its a bad one.

 

[JoeNormal]

Someone gets it.

Not you apparently.

Okay, then please explain to us how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers.

The floor is yours.

As I pointed out to BriPat, they do it in other countries by finding places where pollution and human rights violations are never prosecuted. In this country, all they have to do is lobby against tariffs.

 

[martybegan]

And I asked you are they allowed to not want Walmart there for any reason. You seem to agree they have the right but you are questioning their rights at the same time.

Ok, great...I said no one. You showed someone. You got me. Whoop de doo.

Now do me the same courtesy and answer my questions:

So you believe that there are no Walmarts in low income areas?
You said "for some reason the NYC council has an issue with them". From your link can you not find the reason? Should the council approve every company or be labeled as "haters"? What makes WalMart different that they should approve them and not others who go thru the same process?

I'm sure there are Wal Marts in low income areas. The reason they have an issue here is due to the union-centric government NYC has.

In this case it is actual "hate" driven by thier need to placate thier union overlords.

I dont see walmart trying to circumvent the process. You dont see the same level of animosity towards the other BB stores.

So you really don't know the reason ppl oppose them but you're sure that its a bad one.

Its not good or bad, its stupid. Wal Mart is the cause celebre among the anti-corporate pro union people, in particular New York City. Since the unions dont want wal mart here, thier bought and paid for lackeys are doing the leg work to make sure they cant move here.

What I want to know is when a legislature got the power to restrict a legal buisiness from opening a location, especially since their competitors are already here.

Doesnt that sound like a trust violation?

 

[Defiant1]

Back to the original OP --

Why are rw's in favor of tax subsidies for WalMart?

WalMart offers healthcare plans to all employees who average over 30 hours a week. Please prove how taxpayers are subsidizing WalMart.

Read OP's much?

Don't jump in at the 40th page of a thread & ask to be filled-in.

I've been following the thread from the beginning Dot.bat.

From the OP:

Legislation is now making its way through the California legislature—with the support of consumer groups, unions and, interestingly, physicians—that would levy a fine of up to $6,000 on employers like Wal-Mart for every full-time employee that ends up on the state’s Medi-Cal program—the California incarnation of Medicaid.


Now answer the question, how is WalMart the culprit here if all their employees who average over 30 hours a week are eligible for healthcare coverage?

 

[eflatminor]

Not you apparently.

Okay, then please explain to us how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers.

The floor is yours.

As I pointed out to BriPat, they do it in other countries by finding places where pollution and human rights violations are never prosecuted. .

A failing of lawmakers in those countries perhaps, but you haven't addressed the point. You still haven't demonstrated how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers. Abiding by another countries laws, however inadequate they might be, is NOT an example of corporations enacting laws to shift costs. Again, corporations don't make laws, governments do.

Care to try again?

In this country, all they have to do is lobby against tariffs

Which requires LAWMAKERS. Geez, thanks for making my point.

Further, the kind of tariffs you're talking about restrict free trade, which artificially keeps prices higher than the market would otherwise dictate. How wonderful for poor people. How typical of a central planner that's just sure he knows what's best for everyone else.

Pass.

 

[eflatminor]

Now answer the question, how is WalMart the culprit here if all their employees who average over 30 hours a week are eligible for healthcare coverage?

Doesn't fit their agenda. Expect to be ignored, attacked or peppered with red herrings. It's all they've got.

 

[PredFan]

Okay, then please explain to us how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers.

The floor is yours.

As I pointed out to BriPat, they do it in other countries by finding places where pollution and human rights violations are never prosecuted. .

A failing of lawmakers in those countries perhaps, but you haven't addressed the point. You still haven't demonstrated how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers. Abiding by another countries laws, however inadequate they might be, is NOT an example of corporations enacting laws to shift costs. Again, corporations don't make laws, governments do.

Care to try again?

In this country, all they have to do is lobby against tariffs

Which requires LAWMAKERS. Geez, thanks for making my point.

Further, the kind of tariffs you're talking about restrict free trade, which artificially keeps prices higher than the market would otherwise dictate. How wonderful for poor people. How typical of a central planner that's just sure he knows what's best for everyone else.

Pass.

That's an internet ass woopin' right there.

 

[JoeNormal]

Okay, then please explain to us how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers.

The floor is yours.

As I pointed out to BriPat, they do it in other countries by finding places where pollution and human rights violations are never prosecuted. .

A failing of lawmakers in those countries perhaps, but you haven't addressed the point. You still haven't demonstrated how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers. Abiding by another countries laws, however inadequate they might be, is NOT an example of corporations enacting laws to shift costs. Again, corporations don't make laws, governments do.

Care to try again?

In this country, all they have to do is lobby against tariffs

Which requires LAWMAKERS. Geez, thanks for making my point.

Further, the kind of tariffs you're talking about restrict free trade, which artificially keeps prices higher than the market would otherwise dictate. How wonderful for poor people. How typical of a central planner that's just sure he knows what's best for everyone else.

Pass.

Jeezus, how the fuck is not making a law the same as making a law?

 

[JoeNormal]

As I pointed out to BriPat, they do it in other countries by finding places where pollution and human rights violations are never prosecuted. .

A failing of lawmakers in those countries perhaps, but you haven't addressed the point. You still haven't demonstrated how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers. Abiding by another countries laws, however inadequate they might be, is NOT an example of corporations enacting laws to shift costs. Again, corporations don't make laws, governments do.

Care to try again?

In this country, all they have to do is lobby against tariffs

Which requires LAWMAKERS. Geez, thanks for making my point.

Further, the kind of tariffs you're talking about restrict free trade, which artificially keeps prices higher than the market would otherwise dictate. How wonderful for poor people. How typical of a central planner that's just sure he knows what's best for everyone else.

Pass.

That's an internet ass woopin' right there.

Oh, are you his support group?

 

[PredFan]

A failing of lawmakers in those countries perhaps, but you haven't addressed the point. You still haven't demonstrated how corporations are able to enact laws that shift costs without government lawmakers. Abiding by another countries laws, however inadequate they might be, is NOT an example of corporations enacting laws to shift costs. Again, corporations don't make laws, governments do.

Care to try again?



Which requires LAWMAKERS. Geez, thanks for making my point.

Further, the kind of tariffs you're talking about restrict free trade, which artificially keeps prices higher than the market would otherwise dictate. How wonderful for poor people. How typical of a central planner that's just sure he knows what's best for everyone else.

Pass.

That's an internet ass woopin' right there.

Oh, are you his support group?

No. It's just that an ass kicking like that deserves to be recognised.

 

[JoeNormal]

That's an internet ass woopin' right there.

Oh, are you his support group?

No. It's just that an ass kicking like that deserves to be recognised.

If anyone's ass got kicked, it wasn't mine. Did you read my reply?

Here it is again:

Jeezus, how the fuck is not making a law the same as making a law?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sure there are Wal Marts in low income areas. The reason they have an issue here is due to the union-centric government NYC has.

In this case it is actual "hate" driven by thier need to placate thier union overlords.

I dont see walmart trying to circumvent the process. You dont see the same level of animosity towards the other BB stores.

So you really don't know the reason ppl oppose them but you're sure that its a bad one.

Its not good or bad, its stupid. Wal Mart is the cause celebre among the anti-corporate pro union people, in particular New York City. Since the unions dont want wal mart here, thier bought and paid for lackeys are doing the leg work to make sure they cant move here.

What I want to know is when a legislature got the power to restrict a legal buisiness from opening a location, especially since their competitors are already here.

Doesnt that sound like a trust violation?

So you do know why they oppose it, you just think it stupid and because you are the arbiter of stupidity they should agree with you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now answer the question, how is WalMart the culprit here if all their employees who average over 30 hours a week are eligible for healthcare coverage?

Doesn't fit their agenda. Expect to be ignored, attacked or peppered with red herrings. It's all they've got.

Read the links provided...not sure of the question tho