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

[martybegan]

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.

I stated it quite clearly actually. The local unions don't want it, and since 90% of the democratic politicians rely on the unions for campaign contributions, they oppose Wal Mart to make thier buddies happy.

Unions don't like wal mart because they are non union.

Sorry I had to connect the dots for you there, i was expecting better of you. Now I know better.

 

[dblack]

You blame ONLY the Pols WHILE DEFENDING the right to contribute UNLIMITED amounts of dollars. Let me put it so you can get it. You dislike cronyism, pols provide cronyism to whoever lines their pockets, companies line the pols pockets with "cronyism cards"...those companies investments pay off.

But this is the same broad brush approach that makes the law in the OP so wrong. You're assuming that anyone donating more than some arbitrary maximum is buying favors. Some companies and wealthy interests obviously are, but where's the justice in punishing all of them?

It also ignores that fact that there are endless ways to influence and pressure politicians. Banning cash simply blocks one avenue. Unless you want to ban all attempts by citizens to influence their representatives, the people with the most to gain and lose will do everything they can think of to steer things their way.

 

[eflatminor]

See? This is Eflat for you. He sees the problem, fights against doing anything about the problem then points at the problem he's in favor of as the reason why things are messed up.

Break it, then complain about how it's broken

So you're capable of an ad hominem attack. Impressive.

Would you like to actually address the point now?

It would be ad hominem if it wasn't true.

You act as if cronyism is the fault of one side and not all parties involved. They Lobby, Pols get it, then they provide them with favors.

You blame ONLY the Pols WHILE DEFENDING the right to contribute UNLIMITED amounts of dollars. Let me put it so you can get it. You dislike cronyism, pols provide cronyism to whoever lines their pockets, companies line the pols pockets with "cronyism cards"...those companies investments pay off.

You defend the "cronism cards" given while expecting cronyism to disappear. It's like defending blowing dandelions in your grass then get pissed when a dandelions grows from the seed

I made it crystal clear that I have no love for the companies engaging in cronyism. It's simply that I place the real blame with the politicians, the ones with the power. Again, I can avoid WalMart. I can't avoid government.

Now, if those politicians were restrained within their enumerated powers, there could be no special favors, could there? Is that so hard to understand?

 

[eflatminor]

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

Okay, I'll use simple, short words for you. Companies cannot prevent a law from being made anymore than they can force a law to be made. They can request that a law be made or not, just as anyone can. Only government can choose to make a law, or to not make a law.

Thanks once more for making my point.

So, once more, how are corporations able to enact (or prevent) laws that shift costs without government lawmakers?

If a government neglects to restrict pollution or ensure human rights, there are by implication, no government lawmakers.

You know, in an argument, when you can't follow the concept of linguistic logic, you should realize that you've lost. Of course, you're probably not bright enough to see that either.

Of course, we're talking about cronyism, not pollution.

One more time: How are corporations able to enact (or prevent) laws that shift costs without government lawmakers?

 

[JoeNormal]

Okay, I'll use simple, short words for you. Companies cannot prevent a law from being made anymore than they can force a law to be made. They can request that a law be made or not, just as anyone can. Only government can choose to make a law, or to not make a law.

Thanks once more for making my point.

So, once more, how are corporations able to enact (or prevent) laws that shift costs without government lawmakers?

If a government neglects to restrict pollution or ensure human rights, there are by implication, no government lawmakers.

You know, in an argument, when you can't follow the concept of linguistic logic, you should realize that you've lost. Of course, you're probably not bright enough to see that either.

Of course, we're talking about cronyism, not pollution.

One more time: How are corporations able to enact (or prevent) laws that shift costs without government lawmakers?

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

 

[Oddball]

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

Wow...What you give away in not being terribly bright, you make up for with a total lack of introspection.

 

[JoeNormal]

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

Wow...What you give away in not being terribly bright, you make up for with a total lack of introspection.

Hey, I'm just trying to meet you guys on your own fucked up turf. Sorry if I haven't mastered tard speak quite yet.

 

[Oddball]

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

Wow...What you give away in not being terribly bright, you make up for with a total lack of introspection.

Hey, I'm just trying to meet you guys on your own fucked up turf. Sorry if I haven't mastered tard speak quite yet.

Don't sell yourself short....You've mastered 'tard speak magnificently.

 

[JoeNormal]

Wow...What you give away in not being terribly bright, you make up for with a total lack of introspection.

Hey, I'm just trying to meet you guys on your own fucked up turf. Sorry if I haven't mastered tard speak quite yet.

Don't sell yourself short....You've mastered 'tard speak magnificently.

I'm sure you could teach me a thing or two about it.

 

[Kondor3]

So what is the summary of what the California bill proposes?

I could not find anything substantive in the OP article other than the title and I didn't see anything in the first couple of pages of this thread...

So what's the deal?

What is going to happen to Wal-Mart if it passes?

 

[eflatminor]

If a government neglects to restrict pollution or ensure human rights, there are by implication, no government lawmakers.

You know, in an argument, when you can't follow the concept of linguistic logic, you should realize that you've lost. Of course, you're probably not bright enough to see that either.

Of course, we're talking about cronyism, not pollution.

One more time: How are corporations able to enact (or prevent) laws that shift costs without government lawmakers?

I learned a while back not to engage in circular arguments with people who are either disingenuous or hopelessly confused. I suspect you're just disingenuous.

According to your logic (if you could call it that), the only way to have an absence of unicorn farts is to first get a unicorn and then keep him from farting.

So you can't answer the question, got it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I sure hope this causes Wal Mart to leave California. Fire all those people move. Surely they can find just as many customers in China or India. Or move to Nevada and only sell to California on line. Become another Amazon!

Of course if such a bill did make it into law, imagine what that would do to the agriculture industry and all the low paid illegals they employ.

This bill might be the death knell for democrats in California. It might be the straw that finally makes things so bad, it shows the state exactly what democrats will do when given power.

It's just noise.

The Communists are farting loudly to please their mindless subjects. They won't even pass their own bill. It's there to excite morons like ClosedCaption.

Let's see how this works.

Jorge gets trabajo at Walmart. They pay him $15 an hour. Jorge has 27 children, so his espousa and the niños go down to get welfare - they are illegal - so are instantly given everything from cash grants to Wic and of course Medi-Cal. Then the Peoples Republic turns around and sues Walmart for not paying enough?

How will that go over in federal court? Prior restraint? Variable application of the law, just to name a couple.

 

[BillyV]

You know, it seems like liberals would be happy for Walmart’s policies; the mainly lower and lower-middle class, Walmart’s main customers, get to pay less for products as a result, and pushing employees onto government programs mainly paid for by income taxes paid by the upper-middle and upper classes sticks it to the well-to-do. Seems like a win-win to me! It’s funny that anyone cares about rich Walmart theoretically being subsidized by other rich taxpayers. And before you say that Walmart doesn’t pass on cost savings to its customers and instead lines its pockets with obscene profits, consider this:

Wal-Mart’s primary growth strategy is to increase revenue by increasing the number of stores while maintaining an everyday low-price business model. This means that the company cannot afford to pay its employees a higher wage because the company’s goal is to provide customers with the lowest prices possible. Over the past 20 years, Wal-Mart’s profit margin has been in the 3% to 3.85% range, with just 85 basis points of fluxuation. To put this into perspective, Wal-Mart’s profit margin is more stable than the Treasury market bond yield.

Wal-Mart and Costco Are Like Apples and Oranges - COST, SWY, WMT - Foolish Blogging Network

This law will be easy for Walmart (and other retailers) to navigate and will punish the poor workers much more than the company. Part-time employees (at least those who are not high school kids or seniors who already have healthcare and are no threat to claim against MediCal) will not be hired and/or will be the first to be let go; it’s highly unlikely that any business is going to hire a part-timer that has an annual additional cost of $6,000. The LA Times notes that companies “would face fines based on 110% of the average cost of health insurance for every employee who is enrolled in Medi-Cal and works more than eight hours a week.” California bill would fine big firms whose workers get Medi-Cal - Los Angeles Times

Say goodbye to part-time workers; you’ll end up with more full-time workers and the part-timers that are currently at least able to partially support themselves will be left completely dependent on government services (and costing the government even more). Well done.

 

[Oddball]

So what is the summary of what the California bill proposes?

I could not find anything substantive in the OP article other than the title and I didn't see anything in the first couple of pages of this thread...

So what's the deal?

What is going to happen to Wal-Mart if it passes?

Nothing.

Wal-Mart, along with virtually every other business that has a lot of entry-level employees, will pare back, if not eliminate altogether, full time positions.

Lolberals can't think past the tips of their noses.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So you're capable of an ad hominem attack. Impressive.

Would you like to actually address the point now?

It would be ad hominem if it wasn't true.

You act as if cronyism is the fault of one side and not all parties involved. They Lobby, Pols get it, then they provide them with favors.

You blame ONLY the Pols WHILE DEFENDING the right to contribute UNLIMITED amounts of dollars. Let me put it so you can get it. You dislike cronyism, pols provide cronyism to whoever lines their pockets, companies line the pols pockets with "cronyism cards"...those companies investments pay off.

You defend the "cronism cards" given while expecting cronyism to disappear. It's like defending blowing dandelions in your grass then get pissed when a dandelions grows from the seed

The cronyism cards wouldn't pay off if the politicians didn't have the power to issue them, fool.

but they do and you still support it. See the problem?

They have the right to blown dandelions ANYWHERE THEY WANT!! Next order of business: What the fuck is up with all these Dandelions!!!!?!?

 

[Immanuel]

How many times have people tried to tell others that just because it's profitable for Wal MArt doesn't mean its good for America? Answer: Too many

That's $6000 per employee times how many employees = $$BIG BUCKS$$$

*snip*

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

This move will make other business think twice before thinking they can just get the tax payer to foot their bills

Do away with the business killing Obamacare and these employees would still have their full hours of employment.

Did you fucks really think there wasn't going to be any consequences to your fucked up law?

Hilarious that libs whine about Walmart then support Obamacare, which is driving premiums through the roof for the middle class to subsidize for HC for the poor.

BTW, many of those "poor" also have family members working under the table and will not want the IRS scrutinizing their income in order to qualify for a subsidy. They're only "poor" on paper, in how much income they claim when they file a return each year.

I also don't buy the stats (estimates) the Dems/unions put out regarding how many Walmart employees are on assistance. Many are just one of many in the household working, and only work to bring in extra income.

How dare you question Den/union stats?

You should be publicly flogged and humiliated!
/sarcasm off

Immie

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, I don't see any reason to call closed caption a name. I don't like Obamacare and expanding medicaid has always seemed crazy to me. Certainly we need some public insurance to pick up workers who become disabled and lose thier insurance, not to mention disabled kids, and while it galls me that we buy "scooters" for people who have eaten themselves to diabetes and disability, the option is pretty much to let die in the streets, which despite the gop's current view on social compacts isn't really where we are as a nation.

But I don't see any reason not to tax uber profitable multi-nationals who refuse to provide healthcare as a benefit to pay for employee healthcare. There's the thread of why the gop is dead to kids. Here's the answer again. The gop views the govt as having no biz in solving a problem in society: low wages and people not having employer sponsored healthcare. Good luck selling that message.

So then your position is;

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need?

Yep, you're an Obamunist.....

 

[buckeye45_73]

For years, Wal-Mart—and other large retail operators—have been piling up huge profits by controlling their labor costs through paying employees sub-poverty level wages. As a result, it has long been left to the taxpayer to provide healthcare and other subsidized benefits to the many Wal-Mart employees who are dependent on Medicaid, food stamp programs and subsidized housing in order to keep their families from going under.

With Medicaid eligibility about to be expanded in some 30 states, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Wal-Mart has responded by cutting employee hours—and thereby wages—even further in order to push more of their workers into state Medicaid programs and increase Wal-Mart profits. Good news for Wal-Mart shareholders and senior management earning the big bucks—not so good for the taxpayers who will now be expected to contribute even larger amounts of money to subsidize Wal-Mart’s burgeoning profits.

How many times have people tried to tell others that just because it's profitable for Wal MArt doesn't mean its good for America? Answer: Too many

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.

The amount of the fine is no coincidence.

A report released last week by the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, estimates that the cost of Wal-Mart’s failure to adequately pay its employees could total about $5,815 per employee each and every year of employment.

That's $6000 per employee times how many employees = $$BIG BUCKS$$$

After analyzing data released by Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that a single 300- person Wal-Mart Supercenter store in Wisconsin likely costs taxpayers at least $904,542 per year and could cost taxpayers up to $1,744,590 per year – about $5,815 per employee.”

*snip*

What I always find fascinating is that the very people who are so critical of the subsidies provided by Obamacare to lower-earning Americans (how many times have these people reminded us that “someone is paying for these subsidies&#8221 never seem to have much of a problem with the subsidies we pay to support Wal-Mart’s massive profits by picking up the healthcare tab for so many of the company’s employees. But then, those who support taxpayers doing the job that Wal-Mart should be doing tend to be the same folks who are quick to suggest that nobody is forcing workers to take a job at Wal-Mart. Apparently, these people are operating under the opinion that a Wal-Mart worker earning below the federal poverty level wouldn’t readily move to a better paying job if such a job were available to that worker.

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

This move will make other business think twice before thinking they can just get the tax payer to foot their bills

Wait so Obamacare is a failure so bad, they are now fining companies because they dont want to pay these premiums? I Thought premiums were going down? I thought we could keep our doctors? This insurance is a disaster and a joke.
I thought we had no death panels?
Kathleen Sebelius at center of storm over child?s lung transplant - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

“Should Sebelius step in and do something? No. She doesn’t have all the facts,” said NYU bioethicist Art Caplan. Acting under pressure from a media savvy family “or the noisiest person in line” is bad policy, he added.

Since when do liberals think this? this is all they do!!!

I thought liberals cared after the baby was born? I guess not!

 

[eflatminor]

It would be ad hominem if it wasn't true.

You act as if cronyism is the fault of one side and not all parties involved. They Lobby, Pols get it, then they provide them with favors.

You blame ONLY the Pols WHILE DEFENDING the right to contribute UNLIMITED amounts of dollars. Let me put it so you can get it. You dislike cronyism, pols provide cronyism to whoever lines their pockets, companies line the pols pockets with "cronyism cards"...those companies investments pay off.

You defend the "cronism cards" given while expecting cronyism to disappear. It's like defending blowing dandelions in your grass then get pissed when a dandelions grows from the seed

The cronyism cards wouldn't pay off if the politicians didn't have the power to issue them, fool.

but they do and you still support it. See the problem?

Actually, they don't have the power (not a power granted in the Constitution) and we don't support politicians engaging in cronyism or anything outside those enumerated powers for that matter.

See now?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The cronyism cards wouldn't pay off if the politicians didn't have the power to issue them, fool.

but they do and you still support it. See the problem?

Actually, they don't have the power (not a power granted in the Constitution) and we don't support politicians engaging in cronyism or anything outside those enumerated powers for that matter.

See now?

They still use it and you support it denying reality