See we told you.. Mcdonalds is ordering 7K touch screen to replace cashiers

[RKMBrown]

The State Mandates caused by Health Care lobbyists were definitely responsible for NYS rates sky-rocketing.
But that's the usual Contribution payback.

Yeah, it's the usual. Still stinks to high heaven.

It takes a skewed personality type to campaign for office.
And representatives spend most of their time in office running for office again.

Not all representatives. I like to vote for the ones who had a successful career and look to politics afterwards. You'll note quite a few successful doctors with more libertarian/conservative views. Other than Obama's drug dealing what did he ever do outside of politics?

 

[Againsheila]

The State Mandates caused by Health Care lobbyists were definitely responsible for NYS rates sky-rocketing.
But that's the usual Contribution payback.

Yeah, it's the usual. Still stinks to high heaven.

It takes a skewed personality type to campaign for office.
And representatives spend most of their time in office running for office again.

See, I think there should be a law against running for any type of office while you are already in an elected position. It takes your focus off of the job the tax payers are paying you for and puts it on getting money so you can get more votes for the next time. You get elected to do the job, not to campaign for the next one.

 

[Indeependent]

Yeah, it's the usual. Still stinks to high heaven.

It takes a skewed personality type to campaign for office.
And representatives spend most of their time in office running for office again.

See, I think there should be a law against running for any type of office while you are already in an elected position. It takes your focus off of the job the tax payers are paying you for and puts it on getting money so you can get more votes for the next time. You get elected to do the job, not to campaign for the next one.

I agree but the unfortunate reality, even in the Internet world of today, is that money buys recognition.
Most people vote based on Party and name recognition, not achievment.

 

[Impenitent]

Bam, you just slipped and fell flat on your face. Wow, that must have hurt. Note in the red, you just showed the problem was not "business practices," it was government. Government gave them the monopolies and the tax advantages. And your solution is to make government stronger. Wow, that's a tough shot you just gave yourself, it's gotta hurt. You might want to sit down a while.

Note this is like McDonalds, government is driving them to automate by artificially inflating labor costs. And again, your solution is to make government stronger. Maybe you should start thinking logically.

Ronald Reagan: Government is not the solution, government is the problem...

When business and the government are one and the same, it is "business practices" that are the problem. Do a little research on the East India Company. The Company, not the Pilgrims, founded the colonies. Look at how this company ruled India with an iron fist, at the time of the American Revolution. Do you think our founders were unaware of this?

The Boston Tea Party was a direct response to the power of the East India Co. It wasn't a government interfering with private enterprise, it was private enterprise (the East India Co) interfering with government!

You tell me to learn history? So they weren't British troops, they were East India troops? It was the power of government that they wielded, not market power. That they were technically a company is irrelevant. Corporatism is a variation of socialism, not capitalism.

The colonies were a capitalistic enterprise. And the founders were captives of the machinery.

I'mspeaking if the run up to war. Of course soldiers fought soldiers. But prior to that, it was subjects against company

 

[Synthaholic]

McD has a price ceiling ... the price at which sales and profits suffer. Therefore they must operate efficiently which means constantly adapting. Sometimes jobs are lost. McD's mission is not to provide jobs for society but rather profits for it's shareholders or in the case of franchises, the owners.

Then "job-creators" is quite a misnomer.

No, it's not. They create jobs by doing what SAYIT said, pursuing profit.

Government creates no jobs ever because it creates no value. The people government hires are paid through money taken out of the economy and for every government job created, more than one private sector job is destroyed.

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then "job-creators" is quite a misnomer.

No, it's not. They create jobs by doing what SAYIT said, pursuing profit.

Government creates no jobs ever because it creates no value. The people government hires are paid through money taken out of the economy and for every government job created, more than one private sector job is destroyed.

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

 

[kaz]

When business and the government are one and the same, it is "business practices" that are the problem. Do a little research on the East India Company. The Company, not the Pilgrims, founded the colonies. Look at how this company ruled India with an iron fist, at the time of the American Revolution. Do you think our founders were unaware of this?

The Boston Tea Party was a direct response to the power of the East India Co. It wasn't a government interfering with private enterprise, it was private enterprise (the East India Co) interfering with government!

You tell me to learn history? So they weren't British troops, they were East India troops? It was the power of government that they wielded, not market power. That they were technically a company is irrelevant. Corporatism is a variation of socialism, not capitalism.

The colonies were a capitalistic enterprise. And the founders were captives of the machinery.

That was one among many reasons for the colonies by the British. And it's only true of the British, not the colonists who stayed and built their life here. So I'm not seeing a particular point to this.

I'mspeaking if the run up to war. Of course soldiers fought soldiers. But prior to that, it was subjects against company

The company had no power other than what the government gave it. Government and a company with the power of government is a distinction without a difference.

Also, the British who owned the East India Tea company were the same ones who ran the government.

 

[Synthaholic]

No, it's not. They create jobs by doing what SAYIT said, pursuing profit.

Government creates no jobs ever because it creates no value. The people government hires are paid through money taken out of the economy and for every government job created, more than one private sector job is destroyed.

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

Halliburton, KBR, etc. have plenty of work that's not U.S. government connected. It may be work with other gov'ts but not ours. They are also involved in private, domestic business.

When the Bushies hired them to do contract work in Iraq, that was definitely a case of government creating employment in the private sector.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

I would argue that they are a net cost to society, if not also economically. On an almost daily basis I see obese people eating McDonalds for lunch. Their risks for greater obesity, diabetes, amputation, higher blood pressure, cardiac problems, vitamin deficiency, etc. are through the roof from eating this cap. And these folks are the ones who have no insurance, and use the emergency room for their basic care. That means taxpayers pay for their bad decisions.

What does a McDonalds contribute? Low wage jobs?

 

[kaz]

Then "job-creators" is quite a misnomer.

No, it's not. They create jobs by doing what SAYIT said, pursuing profit.

Government creates no jobs ever because it creates no value. The people government hires are paid through money taken out of the economy and for every government job created, more than one private sector job is destroyed.

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

You went to government schools, didn't you? Personally, I think economics should be a core class in high school.

 

[Foxfyre]

The first colonists in America were NOT capitalists. They were 100% communist sharing one and all in communal gardens and other enterprise. And they were starving and miserable. It was only when the local governor finally assigned each family unit their own garden plot to work and enjoy the bounty from that they finally began to feed themselves and had sufficient bounty left over that they could invite the Indians to the first Thanksgiving dinner.

Human nature has not changed all that much since way back then either. Many, if not most, people who get paid whether they put out effort or not will not put out much if any effort. But if their food, shelter, and clothing is dependent on their effort, they do what they have to do to get what they need and want. Those who appreciate that they can work for and achieve better than what they have, don't stay on the cook line at McDonalds for long. They move into managerial positions or find other work that is more profitable. Those who do not appreciate the concept that their destiny is in their hands and expect others to make it happen for them will usually flip burgers for modest wages for a very long time.

 

[Indeependent]

No, it's not. They create jobs by doing what SAYIT said, pursuing profit.

Government creates no jobs ever because it creates no value. The people government hires are paid through money taken out of the economy and for every government job created, more than one private sector job is destroyed.

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

What about the economy that grew around IBM?
But of course IBM makes a lot of it's money from municipalities, states and the federal government.
Not bad for a non-civil entity.

 

[Indeependent]

The first colonists in America were NOT capitalists. They were 100% communist sharing one and all in communal gardens and other enterprise. And they were starving and miserable. It was only when the local governor finally assigned each family unit their own garden plot to work and enjoy the bounty from that they finally began to feed themselves and had sufficient bounty left over that they could invite the Indians to the first Thanksgiving dinner.

Human nature has not changed all that much since way back then either. Many, if not most, people who get paid whether they put out effort or not will not put out much if any effort. But if their food, shelter, and clothing is dependent on their effort, they do what they have to do to get what they need and want. Those who appreciate that they can work for and achieve better than what they have, don't stay on the cook line at McDonalds for long. They move into managerial positions or find other work that is more profitable. Those who do not appreciate the concept that their destiny is in their hands and expect others to make it happen for them will usually flip burgers for modest wages for a very long time.

They were only "communistic" for the first couple of years until they established an infrastructure.

 

[kaz]

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

What about the economy that grew around IBM?
But of course IBM makes a lot of it's money from municipalities, states and the federal government.
Not bad for a non-civil entity.

You da man! Exactly the point. Had the money stayed in the hands of the people who earned it running a business that makes a profit, they would have created a product and spent it in ways that had all the same effects as the military spending, but they would have themselves created value.

The military is like buying insurance. It is not a profit, but it protects us and our economy. We should just be downsizing it to perform only that role and not use it to force our will on the rest of the world like both parties endlessly do.

 

[Indeependent]

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

What about the economy that grew around IBM?
But of course IBM makes a lot of it's money from municipalities, states and the federal government.
Not bad for a non-civil entity.

You da man! Exactly the point. Had the money stayed in the hands of the people who earned it running a business that makes a profit, they would have created a product and spent it in ways that had all the same effects as the military spending, but they would have themselves created value.

The military is like buying insurance. It is not a profit, but it protects us and our economy. We should just be downsizing it to perform only that role and not use it to force our will on the rest of the world like both parties endlessly do.

I don't get your point.
IBM relocated to India even though it makes most of its profit from US taxpayers.

 

[Foxfyre]

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

Halliburton, KBR, etc. have plenty of work that's not U.S. government connected. It may be work with other gov'ts but not ours. They are also involved in private, domestic business.

When the Bushies hired them to do contract work in Iraq, that was definitely a case of government creating employment in the private sector.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

I would argue that they are a net cost to society, if not also economically. On an almost daily basis I see obese people eating McDonalds for lunch. Their risks for greater obesity, diabetes, amputation, higher blood pressure, cardiac problems, vitamin deficiency, etc. are through the roof from eating this cap. And these folks are the ones who have no insurance, and use the emergency room for their basic care. That means taxpayers pay for their bad decisions.

What does a McDonalds contribute? Low wage jobs?

There are two companies in the world that can do what Halliburton does, so if Halliburton never netted another U.S. government contract, it would prosper quite nicely. To get those critical and specialized services, the U.S. government has to use Halliburton, incorporated in America and who pays taxes in America or it would have to use a French company with no hope of any return on the money spent. Which is why every administration uses Halliburton. Further, the likelihood doesn't exist that government would EVER be as competent and qualified as Halliburton to do what Halliburton does. Without Halliburton, we would all be paying a lot more at the pump than we currently pay.

And what does McDonald's contribute? It buys its infrastructure, supplies, and products from the private sector using money it earned to do so. It does not require the rest of us to finance that and therefore 100% boosts the economy instead of draining resources from it. It pays local, country, state, and federal taxes. Almost all McDonalds sponsor sports teams and give to charitable contributions in their respective communities. They provide a product people are willing to buy without coercing or requiring anybody to do so and without creating an artificial monopoly in order to sell their product. And they provide a lot of jobs to local people who want those jobs and they do so again without drainng a penny from the economy or requiring anybody else to finance that.

 

[kaz]

What about the economy that grew around IBM?
But of course IBM makes a lot of it's money from municipalities, states and the federal government.
Not bad for a non-civil entity.

You da man! Exactly the point. Had the money stayed in the hands of the people who earned it running a business that makes a profit, they would have created a product and spent it in ways that had all the same effects as the military spending, but they would have themselves created value.

The military is like buying insurance. It is not a profit, but it protects us and our economy. We should just be downsizing it to perform only that role and not use it to force our will on the rest of the world like both parties endlessly do.

I don't get your point.
IBM relocated to India even though it makes most of its profit from US taxpayers.

Then I misunderstood your point, I thought you were pointing out that if a profit company spent the money making a profit, they would also have spent the money on vendors just like the government does. That would have actually been a better point, you should have taken the credit.

 

[Indeependent]

You da man! Exactly the point. Had the money stayed in the hands of the people who earned it running a business that makes a profit, they would have created a product and spent it in ways that had all the same effects as the military spending, but they would have themselves created value.

The military is like buying insurance. It is not a profit, but it protects us and our economy. We should just be downsizing it to perform only that role and not use it to force our will on the rest of the world like both parties endlessly do.

I don't get your point.
IBM relocated to India even though it makes most of its profit from US taxpayers.

Then I misunderstood your point, I thought you were pointing out that if a profit company spent the money making a profit, they would also have spent the money on vendors just like the government does. That would have actually been a better point, you should have taken the credit.

The point was that the Free Market allows major contributors to manipulate the US out of tax money.
In fact, MNCs actually wrote off their moving expenses.

 

[Foxfyre]

This may be USMB's dumbest statement of the year.

Every military base in the world has an economy built up outside it's gates.

Contractors are primarily private companies, creating jobs through that government contract.

I could go on and on, but I suspect I would be wasting my time.

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

What about the economy that grew around IBM?
But of course IBM makes a lot of it's money from municipalities, states and the federal government.
Not bad for a non-civil entity.

What about it indeed. IBM saw a need and filled it. And it did not then nor does it now depend on government contracts to survive. Like Microsoft, IBM was so ahead of its time that it mushroomed into myriad splinter and copy cat and support industries. But both did it without depending on government to fund them or make it happen. It was pure human initiative, ingenuity, and the capitalist spirit that created both mega corporations that has provided a good living for millions of people around the world and improved all of our quality of life.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't get your point.
IBM relocated to India even though it makes most of its profit from US taxpayers.

Then I misunderstood your point, I thought you were pointing out that if a profit company spent the money making a profit, they would also have spent the money on vendors just like the government does. That would have actually been a better point, you should have taken the credit.

The point was that the Free Market allows major contributors to manipulate the US out of tax money.
In fact, MNCs actually wrote off their moving expenses.

If anybody is allowing major contributors to manipulate the U.S. out of tax money, it is definitely not the free market. It IS rather an unscrupulous, dishonest, and self-serving government. It is THERE you should target your scorn and demands for reform.

 

[Indeependent]

The economy that grows up around military bases is purely the American entreprenourial spirit at work. The government doesn't do it. When the base goes away, the economy suffers because so much of it was built around the ready customers provided by the government employees. That is why closing bases is so painful and difficult to do for the elected representatives of those areas. How much healthier is a community that is created and grows through private sector initiatives alone? Such a community is much more likely to be self sustaining and will be hurt less by changes in government policy and initiatives.

As for those private contractors, yes, they are 'private companies' even though some exist purely to serve and service government installations, processes, and projects. Those are just as draining on the economy as all government operations are. The money still has to be drawn out of the private sector, with a goodly portion of it swallowed up by government bureaucracy, before the private contractor can be paid.

McDonalds, no matter how much it is despised and maligned, contributes to the economy and helps grow it. It does not depend on others to hand over money without receiving products and services of value in return.

What about the economy that grew around IBM?
But of course IBM makes a lot of it's money from municipalities, states and the federal government.
Not bad for a non-civil entity.

What about it indeed. IBM saw a need and filled it. And it did not then nor does it now depend on government contracts to survive. Like Microsoft, IBM was so ahead of its time that it mushroomed into myriad splinter and copy cat and support industries. But both did it without depending on government to fund them or make it happen. It was pure human initiative, ingenuity, and the capitalist spirit that created both mega corporations that has provided a good living for millions of people around the world and improved all of our quality of life.

IBM totally depends on tax dollars to survive.
With the exception of hard drive technology IBM's innovation died in the 60s.
Yes, I know they have millions of patents; most of these patents either never emerge into the market or are limited to their own mainframe infrastructure which is dependent upon, drum roll, please...Tax Dollars.

Microsoft, or should I say Bill Gates, stole every piece of software, underpriced and sued MS's way to fame.
MS has been irrelevant for years; just updates to the same old bloated software on an annual basis.