FYI: On the Working Poor

[CrusaderFrank]

Nationalize the fast food business and run it as an obamacare subsidiary... then make minimum wage $47.50 an hour

What a huge success!

 

[alan1]

Having a job that means saying, "Would you like fries with that?", was never meant to be the culmination of ones career. It is meant to be a stepping stone on ones way up, an entry level job for somebody newly entering the workforce. You know, like teenagers that aren't raising a baby, but just earning some cash for their first car or to pay for prom dates. That's why being a fry cook doesn't pay a living wage, one is supposed to better themselves, not be a career fry cook or cashier at McDonalds.

I hear a lot of people say this and I can't disagree; wearing a paper hat at McDonalds shouldn't be the highest level of achievement in one's professional career but I think the question at hand is when did it become acceptable in this country for an employer to pay so little knowing full well, in fact probably counting on the fact, that the taxpayers would pick up some of the slack when it comes to employee compensation?

People should try to better themselves and stand on their own, so should corporations.

And again, my point was that they are entry level jobs, not jobs for a person trying to support a family. Employers pay a wage that is comparable to the output of the employee or job, with some profit built in. If an employee's output is equivalent to $8.00 per hour benefit to the employer, the employer cannot pay them $8.25 an hour and expect to stay in business. An employee being paid $8.00 an hour needs to generate more than $8.00 per hour worth of output. Failure to do so will either cause the company to go out of business or raise their prices. And sometimes, raising their prices can also force them out of business if the customer isn't willing to pay the higher prices.

 

[Supposn]

This thread is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy. Explain your logic for this one. How is it you deem it acceptable that the federal government can be expected to subsidize the costs of an element of society that sits on their ass an does absolutely nothing. doesn't work, doesn't pay taxes, doesn't contribute to society in any way. but as soon as it goes to pay for a level up who is actually working but not making enough to make ends meet, you all of a sudden have a problem with that?

Spoonman, it must upset you that the moon and stars are equally bright for all who look up. They like the minimum wage are not expenditures within the federal budget and they are indiscriminate to those who are more or less wealthy or more or less deserving.

All USA labor compensations are inversely related to the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate; (i.e. the purchasing powers of higher wage jobs are lesser and lower wage jobs are more affected by the purchasing power of the minimum wage rate).

Public assistance is only one of the many government expenditures tied to the extent of poverty. There are many direct and indirect government and non-government expenditure due to the extent of poverty.
Conservatives complain of the direct and indirect costs attributable to public assistance but prefer an under-class of docile working poor to an economy fueled by a median wage and GDP of greater purchasing power.

The minimum wage is of no greater than most other expenditures affecting currency inflation. The minimum wage rate is much less a contributor and much more a victim of the U.S. dollar’s inflation.
I’m a proponent of the federal minimum wage annually adjusted to the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar because it will induce the purchasing powers of our median wage and GDP to be more than otherwise.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/232006-consequences-of-repealing-minimum-wage-rates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[lakeview]

Having a job that means saying, "Would you like fries with that?", was never meant to be the culmination of ones career. It is meant to be a stepping stone on ones way up, an entry level job for somebody newly entering the workforce. You know, like teenagers that aren't raising a baby, but just earning some cash for their first car or to pay for prom dates. That's why being a fry cook doesn't pay a living wage, one is supposed to better themselves, not be a career fry cook or cashier at McDonalds.

I hear a lot of people say this and I can't disagree; wearing a paper hat at McDonalds shouldn't be the highest level of achievement in one's professional career but I think the question at hand is when did it become acceptable in this country for an employer to pay so little knowing full well, in fact probably counting on the fact, that the taxpayers would pick up some of the slack when it comes to employee compensation?

People should try to better themselves and stand on their own, so should corporations.

And again, my point was that they are entry level jobs, not jobs for a person trying to support a family. Employers pay a wage that is comparable to the output of the employee or job, with some profit built in. If an employee's output is equivalent to $8.00 per hour benefit to the employer, the employer cannot pay them $8.25 an hour and expect to stay in business. An employee being paid $8.00 an hour needs to generate more than $8.00 per hour worth of output. Failure to do so will either cause the company to go out of business or raise their prices. And sometimes, raising their prices can also force them out of business if the customer isn't willing to pay the higher prices.

I understand the point you made about McDonalds and low wage entry level jobs and I agree with you on that, no one should expect to get rich or even live comfortably if they're working the register at McDonalds but the point of the OP is that if McDonalds knows that they can have the taxpayers pick up some of the freight for employee benefits then don't you think that distorts wages within the industry? I'm not saying fry cooks should get rich working at MickeyD's but if you're against wages being artificially propped up then shouldn't you also be against those wages being artificially depressed?

 

[alan1]

I hear a lot of people say this and I can't disagree; wearing a paper hat at McDonalds shouldn't be the highest level of achievement in one's professional career but I think the question at hand is when did it become acceptable in this country for an employer to pay so little knowing full well, in fact probably counting on the fact, that the taxpayers would pick up some of the slack when it comes to employee compensation?

People should try to better themselves and stand on their own, so should corporations.

And again, my point was that they are entry level jobs, not jobs for a person trying to support a family. Employers pay a wage that is comparable to the output of the employee or job, with some profit built in. If an employee's output is equivalent to $8.00 per hour benefit to the employer, the employer cannot pay them $8.25 an hour and expect to stay in business. An employee being paid $8.00 an hour needs to generate more than $8.00 per hour worth of output. Failure to do so will either cause the company to go out of business or raise their prices. And sometimes, raising their prices can also force them out of business if the customer isn't willing to pay the higher prices.

I understand the point you made about McDonalds and low wage entry level jobs and I agree with you on that, no one should expect to get rich or even live comfortably if they're working the register at McDonalds but the point of the OP is that if McDonalds knows that they can have the taxpayers pick up some of the freight for employee benefits then don't you think that distorts wages within the industry? I'm not saying fry cooks should get rich working at MickeyD's but if you're against wages being artificially propped up then shouldn't you also be against those wages being artificially depressed?

Actually, I am what could be considered a cold-hearted conservative bastard that thinks that the taxpayer supported welfare should be ended. People can either make it or fail on their own. Social safety nets (charity) should be voluntarily handled in ones own community, not forced upon me, you or anybody else by government. The government should not be in charge of deciding charity.

 

[MeBelle]

And again, my point was that they are entry level jobs, not jobs for a person trying to support a family. Employers pay a wage that is comparable to the output of the employee or job, with some profit built in. If an employee's output is equivalent to $8.00 per hour benefit to the employer, the employer cannot pay them $8.25 an hour and expect to stay in business. An employee being paid $8.00 an hour needs to generate more than $8.00 per hour worth of output. Failure to do so will either cause the company to go out of business or raise their prices. And sometimes, raising their prices can also force them out of business if the customer isn't willing to pay the higher prices.

I understand the point you made about McDonalds and low wage entry level jobs and I agree with you on that, no one should expect to get rich or even live comfortably if they're working the register at McDonalds but the point of the OP is that if McDonalds knows that they can have the taxpayers pick up some of the freight for employee benefits then don't you think that distorts wages within the industry? I'm not saying fry cooks should get rich working at MickeyD's but if you're against wages being artificially propped up then shouldn't you also be against those wages being artificially depressed?

Actually, I am what could be considered a cold-hearted conservative bastard that thinks that the taxpayer supported welfare should be ended. People can either make it or fail on their own. Social safety nets (charity) should be voluntarily handled in ones own community, not forced upon me, you or anybody else by government. The government should not be in charge of deciding charity.

You left out curmudgeon.

 

[daveman]

I see two of the proud and loud members of the echo chamber want to play tag-team. Good for them, I hope warrior doesn't get jealous of Rabbi giving Daveboy attention.

Back then to the facts I posted, not withstanding the two moron's efforts to play a game of semantics:

The Right to Life Movement
The 'Fair Tax'
The Reduction or Elimination of Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA)
The USSC Decision in CU v. FEC
The Effort to Suppress the Vote
The Anti-Union Movement
The Right to Work Movement
The Effort to Deny Workers Collective Bargaining
The Effort to Reduce a Women's Opportunity to Secure Contraceptives
The Effort to Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws, and
The War on Women
The War on Public Education

Think if you can or will how taken collectively the fact that these movements (dispute them if you are able) march our nation further into the abyss of an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

 

[The Rabbi]

I see two of the proud and loud members of the echo chamber want to play tag-team. Good for them, I hope warrior doesn't get jealous of Rabbi giving Daveboy attention.

Back then to the facts I posted, not withstanding the two moron's efforts to play a game of semantics:

The Right to Life Movement
The 'Fair Tax'
The Reduction or Elimination of Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA)
The USSC Decision in CU v. FEC
The Effort to Suppress the Vote
The Anti-Union Movement
The Right to Work Movement
The Effort to Deny Workers Collective Bargaining
The Effort to Reduce a Women's Opportunity to Secure Contraceptives
The Effort to Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws, and
The War on Women
The War on Public Education

Think if you can or will how taken collectively the fact that these movements (dispute them if you are able) march our nation further into the abyss of an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

There were no more facts this time than the last time you posted that collection of headlines and slogans.
One fact you fail to address is that poor people are poorer under Obama and rich people are richer. Are those the aims of Obama's programs or merely the results of them?

 

[daveman]

I hear a lot of people say this and I can't disagree; wearing a paper hat at McDonalds shouldn't be the highest level of achievement in one's professional career but I think the question at hand is when did it become acceptable in this country for an employer to pay so little knowing full well, in fact probably counting on the fact, that the taxpayers would pick up some of the slack when it comes to employee compensation?

People should try to better themselves and stand on their own, so should corporations.

And again, my point was that they are entry level jobs, not jobs for a person trying to support a family. Employers pay a wage that is comparable to the output of the employee or job, with some profit built in. If an employee's output is equivalent to $8.00 per hour benefit to the employer, the employer cannot pay them $8.25 an hour and expect to stay in business. An employee being paid $8.00 an hour needs to generate more than $8.00 per hour worth of output. Failure to do so will either cause the company to go out of business or raise their prices. And sometimes, raising their prices can also force them out of business if the customer isn't willing to pay the higher prices.

I understand the point you made about McDonalds and low wage entry level jobs and I agree with you on that, no one should expect to get rich or even live comfortably if they're working the register at McDonalds but the point of the OP is that if McDonalds knows that they can have the taxpayers pick up some of the freight for employee benefits then don't you think that distorts wages within the industry? I'm not saying fry cooks should get rich working at MickeyD's but if you're against wages being artificially propped up then shouldn't you also be against those wages being artificially depressed?

It wasn't McD's that set up the system that props up those with low wages.

It was Congress.

 

[lakeview]

It wasn't McD's that set up the system that props up those with low wages.

It was Congress.

Yeah, I know, and McD's isn't even close to being the only company to encourage its employees to take advantage of public assistance. The reason I asked Alan what I asked him is because he appeared to me to be expressing two conflicting ideas...turns out he wasn't but that's why we ask questions of others, eh?

You don't really think that I thought that McDonalds was responsible for creating and regulating the social safety net do you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I see two of the proud and loud members of the echo chamber want to play tag-team. Good for them, I hope warrior doesn't get jealous of Rabbi giving Daveboy attention.

Back then to the facts I posted, not withstanding the two moron's efforts to play a game of semantics:

The Right to Life Movement
The 'Fair Tax'
The Reduction or Elimination of Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA)
The USSC Decision in CU v. FEC
The Effort to Suppress the Vote
The Anti-Union Movement
The Right to Work Movement
The Effort to Deny Workers Collective Bargaining
The Effort to Reduce a Women's Opportunity to Secure Contraceptives
The Effort to Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws, and
The War on Women
The War on Public Education

Think if you can or will how taken collectively the fact that these movements (dispute them if you are able) march our nation further into the abyss of an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

Not a thing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I see two of the proud and loud members of the echo chamber want to play tag-team. Good for them, I hope warrior doesn't get jealous of Rabbi giving Daveboy attention.

Back then to the facts I posted, not withstanding the two moron's efforts to play a game of semantics:

The Right to Life Movement
The 'Fair Tax'
The Reduction or Elimination of Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA)
The USSC Decision in CU v. FEC
The Effort to Suppress the Vote
The Anti-Union Movement
The Right to Work Movement
The Effort to Deny Workers Collective Bargaining
The Effort to Reduce a Women's Opportunity to Secure Contraceptives
The Effort to Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws, and
The War on Women
The War on Public Education

Think if you can or will how taken collectively the fact that these movements (dispute them if you are able) march our nation further into the abyss of an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

There were no more facts this time than the last time you posted that collection of headlines and slogans.
One fact you fail to address is that poor people are poorer under Obama and rich people are richer. Are those the aims of Obama's programs or merely the results of them?

Can you prove a cause and effect relationship wherein Obama's Policies created the gulf between the middle class / working poor and the very wealthy? Why do you ignore the policies of Reagan and G H. W. Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr., Obama's predecessors? Answer: 'cause you're a partisan hack.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see two of the proud and loud members of the echo chamber want to play tag-team. Good for them, I hope warrior doesn't get jealous of Rabbi giving Daveboy attention.

Back then to the facts I posted, not withstanding the two moron's efforts to play a game of semantics:

The Right to Life Movement
The 'Fair Tax'
The Reduction or Elimination of Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA)
The USSC Decision in CU v. FEC
The Effort to Suppress the Vote
The Anti-Union Movement
The Right to Work Movement
The Effort to Deny Workers Collective Bargaining
The Effort to Reduce a Women's Opportunity to Secure Contraceptives
The Effort to Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws, and
The War on Women
The War on Public Education

Think if you can or will how taken collectively the fact that these movements (dispute them if you are able) march our nation further into the abyss of an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

There were no more facts this time than the last time you posted that collection of headlines and slogans.
One fact you fail to address is that poor people are poorer under Obama and rich people are richer. Are those the aims of Obama's programs or merely the results of them?

Can you prove a cause and effect relationship wherein Obama's Policies created the gulf between the middle class / working poor and the very wealthy? Why do you ignore the policies of Reagan and G H. W. Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr., Obama's predecessors? Answer: 'cause you're a partisan hack.

Can you show a cause and effect between Bush being president and the recession? No.
I can make all kinds of explanations. Obama's intervention in the economy stalled new business formation and growth. Regulatory uncertainty did the same. These things curtailed job growth and family income. Low interest rates benefitted stock investors, who are generally wealthy.
But the facts are as they are.
The rich got richer under Obama, the poor got poorer.
This is unlike Bush, where the rich got richer, but the poor got richer too.
Obama: President of the Rich. That's why he hangs around with Hollywood types all the time. If you think he represents you, you've been fooled.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Translation: I got my azz kicked and have nothing to refute it with.

Thanks for playing.

No Rabbi, I won't play stupid games with you. We both know you're a highly partisan liar and not bright enough to take the fact that these movements - and I left out the war on women and on public education - all lead to a large, poorly trained and educated labor force easily exploited by the Koch Brothers, et al.

They are a means to an end, the end being our nations proud history as a democratic republic and its transformation into a Plutocracy.

You need to explain why Obama's policies like Obamacare raising insurance rates for everyone who doesn't qualify for free money from those earning too much to get it, his desire to raise energy prices, and his wasting taxpayer dollars on failed green energy companies owned by big Dem Party donors is good for America.

Prediction: All I'll get is "Thanks for sharing."

1. Obamacare isn't in effect yet, time will tell how it will play out.

2. President Obama desires to raise energy costs? News to me. Better check your opinions with some facts.

3. Green and renewable sources of energy are the future. Only the brainwashed few believe otherwise.

4. Haliburton ring a bell? Why do I think you and others like you are dishonest hypocrites?

"The report noted that some government officials raised the concern of a potential conflict of interest because of Cheney's former position with Halliburton, but that "White House officials said the mission took priority over whatever political fallout might occur" from awarding contracts to KBR. Since winning the latest version of the LOGCAP contract in 2001, the government has ordered work from KBR worth more than $31 billion.

"Government officials have raised many questions about KBR's fulfillment of its contracts, everything from billing for meals it didn't serve to charging inflated prices for gas to excessive administrative costs. Government auditors have noted that KBR refused to turn over electronic data in its native format and stamped documents as proprietary and secret when the documents would normally be considered public records.

"Over the course of several years, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that $553 million in payments should be disallowed to KBR, according to 2009 testimony by agency director April Stephenson before the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Full report here:

PolitiFact | Halliburton, KBR, and Iraq war contracting: A history so far

 

[daveman]

I see two of the proud and loud members of the echo chamber want to play tag-team. Good for them, I hope warrior doesn't get jealous of Rabbi giving Daveboy attention.

Back then to the facts I posted, not withstanding the two moron's efforts to play a game of semantics:

The Right to Life Movement
The 'Fair Tax'
The Reduction or Elimination of Entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA)
The USSC Decision in CU v. FEC
The Effort to Suppress the Vote
The Anti-Union Movement
The Right to Work Movement
The Effort to Deny Workers Collective Bargaining
The Effort to Reduce a Women's Opportunity to Secure Contraceptives
The Effort to Eliminate Minimum Wage Laws, and
The War on Women
The War on Public Education

Think if you can or will how taken collectively the fact that these movements (dispute them if you are able) march our nation further into the abyss of an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

Not a thing.

Then why do you believe right-to-work laws are bad?

 

[The Rabbi]

No Rabbi, I won't play stupid games with you. We both know you're a highly partisan liar and not bright enough to take the fact that these movements - and I left out the war on women and on public education - all lead to a large, poorly trained and educated labor force easily exploited by the Koch Brothers, et al.

They are a means to an end, the end being our nations proud history as a democratic republic and its transformation into a Plutocracy.

You need to explain why Obama's policies like Obamacare raising insurance rates for everyone who doesn't qualify for free money from those earning too much to get it, his desire to raise energy prices, and his wasting taxpayer dollars on failed green energy companies owned by big Dem Party donors is good for America.

Prediction: All I'll get is "Thanks for sharing."

1. Obamacare isn't in effect yet, time will tell how it will play out.

2. President Obama desires to raise energy costs? News to me. Better check your opinions with some facts.

3. Green and renewable sources of energy are the future. Only the brainwashed few believe otherwise.

4. Haliburton ring a bell? Why do I think you and others like you are dishonest hypocrites?

"The report noted that some government officials raised the concern of a potential conflict of interest because of Cheney's former position with Halliburton, but that "White House officials said the mission took priority over whatever political fallout might occur" from awarding contracts to KBR. Since winning the latest version of the LOGCAP contract in 2001, the government has ordered work from KBR worth more than $31 billion.

"Government officials have raised many questions about KBR's fulfillment of its contracts, everything from billing for meals it didn't serve to charging inflated prices for gas to excessive administrative costs. Government auditors have noted that KBR refused to turn over electronic data in its native format and stamped documents as proprietary and secret when the documents would normally be considered public records.

"Over the course of several years, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that $553 million in payments should be disallowed to KBR, according to 2009 testimony by agency director April Stephenson before the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Full report here:

PolitiFact | Halliburton, KBR, and Iraq war contracting: A history so far

You lefties need to get your story straight. Candycorn on another thread swears up and down Obamacare is working.
Obama on raising energy costs:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_yt3S9e2o]2007 Obama discusses raising energy prices to reduce dependency - YouTube[/ame]

Green energy might be in the future. Sometime. Way way in the future. But we have 200 years' worth of coal and who knows how much oil. We are the largest exporter of oil in the world now.

Low information poster strikes again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What gives a union member a greater right to work than a non-union member?

Not a thing.

Then why do you believe right-to-work laws are bad?

Rent Norma Rae and study U.S. History from Reconstruction until the First World War. Then ask me that question.

BTW, I spent a substantial part of may career in battle with Union Business Agents. I understand many of the problems but also many of the benefits.

 

[daveman]

No Rabbi, I won't play stupid games with you. We both know you're a highly partisan liar and not bright enough to take the fact that these movements - and I left out the war on women and on public education - all lead to a large, poorly trained and educated labor force easily exploited by the Koch Brothers, et al.

They are a means to an end, the end being our nations proud history as a democratic republic and its transformation into a Plutocracy.

You need to explain why Obama's policies like Obamacare raising insurance rates for everyone who doesn't qualify for free money from those earning too much to get it, his desire to raise energy prices, and his wasting taxpayer dollars on failed green energy companies owned by big Dem Party donors is good for America.

Prediction: All I'll get is "Thanks for sharing."

1. Obamacare isn't in effect yet, time will tell how it will play out.

Fewer and fewer people are optimistic.

2. President Obama desires to raise energy costs? News to me. Better check your opinions with some facts.

It's not me who's short on facts, Skippy.

Obama: I?ll make energy prices ?skyrocket? « Hot Air

3. Green and renewable sources of energy are the future. Only the brainwashed few believe otherwise.

And there's none of those people here.

But perhaps you can tell me what the American people got for their investment in these companies:
Up to 50 Obama-backed energy companies financially troubled | The Daily Caller

Hint: Absolutely nothing.

But, hey, as long as some of that money was funneled back to the Democratic Party, it's all good, right? I mean, isn't that what tax dollars are for, to pay back Obama's cronies?

4. Haliburton ring a bell? Why do I think you and others like you are dishonest hypocrites?

"The report noted that some government officials raised the concern of a potential conflict of interest because of Cheney's former position with Halliburton, but that "White House officials said the mission took priority over whatever political fallout might occur" from awarding contracts to KBR. Since winning the latest version of the LOGCAP contract in 2001, the government has ordered work from KBR worth more than $31 billion.

"Government officials have raised many questions about KBR's fulfillment of its contracts, everything from billing for meals it didn't serve to charging inflated prices for gas to excessive administrative costs. Government auditors have noted that KBR refused to turn over electronic data in its native format and stamped documents as proprietary and secret when the documents would normally be considered public records.

"Over the course of several years, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that $553 million in payments should be disallowed to KBR, according to 2009 testimony by agency director April Stephenson before the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Full report here:

PolitiFact | Halliburton, KBR, and Iraq war contracting: A history so far

Halliburton, did you say? Funny how you guys seem to ignore a lot of history. But you know that doesn't make it go away, right?

FrontPage Magazine - The Facts on Halliburton

Why do leftists demonize Halliburton? What proof exists of their claims of corruption? What exactly has Halliburton done to profit from American military casualties? Indeed, have they profited from military casualties? Is there a special relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton so that the company receives contracts without observing the normal bidding process?

It is certainly true that during a two year period Halliburton’s revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. However, that increase in revenue occurred from 1998 to 2000 - during the Clinton administration.

In 1998, Halliburton's total revenue was $14.5 billion, which included $284 million of Pentagon contracts. Two years later, Halliburton’s DoD contracts more than doubled.

Regarding the Iraq contracts, Halliburton was accused by Democrats of receiving special "no-bid" contracts because of Cheney’s influence. One advertisement by the Democrats charged, "Bush gave contracts to Halliburton instead of fighting corporate corruption."

FactCheck.org an organization which ascertains the validity of political campaign advertisements researched this accusation. According to FactCheck, "The Bush administration is doing a fair amount to fight corporate corruption, convicting or indicting executives of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco International, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Credit Suisse First Boston, HealthSouth Corporation and others, including Martha Stewart. The Department of Justice says it has brought charges against 20 executives of Enron alone, and its Corporate Fraud Task Force says it has won convictions of more than 250 persons to date. Bush also signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, imposing stringent new accounting rules in the wake of the Arthur Andersen scandal."

When Factcheck.org checked the facts about allegations by Democrats that there was a scandal because of the "no-bid" contracts awarded to Halliburton they stated, "It is false to imply that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The ‘no-bid contract’ in question is actually an extension of an earlier contract to support U.S. troops overseas that Halliburton won under open bidding. In fact, the notion that Halliburton benefited from any cronyism has been poo-poohed by a Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Clinton administration. ‘One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded...who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,’ Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November." (Emphasis added.)​

Moreover:

LiveLeak.com - Obama administration approves No-Bid Halliburton Contract...


How DARE Obama do business with the eeeeevil Halliburton?!

Speaking of hypocrisy, you will not condemn this.

 

[daveman]

Not a thing.

Then why do you believe right-to-work laws are bad?

Rent Norma Rae and study U.S. History from Reconstruction until the First World War. Then ask me that question.

BTW, I spent a substantial part of may career in battle with Union Business Agents. I understand many of the problems but also many of the benefits.

Ahhh. So you DO believe right-to-work laws are bad.

Tell me...have you given this any thought whatsoever?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You need to explain why Obama's policies like Obamacare raising insurance rates for everyone who doesn't qualify for free money from those earning too much to get it, his desire to raise energy prices, and his wasting taxpayer dollars on failed green energy companies owned by big Dem Party donors is good for America.

Prediction: All I'll get is "Thanks for sharing."

1. Obamacare isn't in effect yet, time will tell how it will play out.

2. President Obama desires to raise energy costs? News to me. Better check your opinions with some facts.

3. Green and renewable sources of energy are the future. Only the brainwashed few believe otherwise.

4. Haliburton ring a bell? Why do I think you and others like you are dishonest hypocrites?

"The report noted that some government officials raised the concern of a potential conflict of interest because of Cheney's former position with Halliburton, but that "White House officials said the mission took priority over whatever political fallout might occur" from awarding contracts to KBR. Since winning the latest version of the LOGCAP contract in 2001, the government has ordered work from KBR worth more than $31 billion.

"Government officials have raised many questions about KBR's fulfillment of its contracts, everything from billing for meals it didn't serve to charging inflated prices for gas to excessive administrative costs. Government auditors have noted that KBR refused to turn over electronic data in its native format and stamped documents as proprietary and secret when the documents would normally be considered public records.

"Over the course of several years, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that $553 million in payments should be disallowed to KBR, according to 2009 testimony by agency director April Stephenson before the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Full report here:

PolitiFact | Halliburton, KBR, and Iraq war contracting: A history so far

You lefties need to get your story straight. Candycorn on another thread swears up and down Obamacare is working.
Obama on raising energy costs:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_yt3S9e2o]2007 Obama discusses raising energy prices to reduce dependency - YouTube[/ame]

Green energy might be in the future. Sometime. Way way in the future. But we have 200 years' worth of coal and who knows how much oil. We are the largest exporter of oil in the world now.

Low information poster strikes again.

So, let's wait 199 years before we begin R&D on green and renewable energy, even as other nations are putting their resources into their development. Amazing.