Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[JoeB131]

Couldn't it be said that the banks were taking the bad loans, and doing bad things with them because the Democrats were forcing them to make bad loans to people who could never repay the loans back, and they knew it ?

Nope, it wouldn't be that at all. I know you guys like to blame poor people buying houses under the CRA, but the CRA only prevented banks from discriminating against people based on where they lived, not what their finances were.

No, the housing bubble was caused by the banks and realtors encouraging MIDDLE CLASS people to buy in way over their heads with the fools gold of flipping a house after throwing a new paint job on it.

 

[JoeB131]

You're going to have to quit drinking so early in the morning Joe. Need that chart yet again? You show me where the decline under Bush was even close to DumBama's.

Um, dude, it's on you chart, dumbass.

In 2000, the senior citizen population in this country was around 35 million people. In 2016 the Senior citizen population is now around 45 million

Yes.. The number of people over 65 increased by TEN MILLION. Out of a population of 300 million, that works out to about 3%. IN a workforce of some 200 million, that's closer to five. About the amount it declined between 2000 and 2010.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes.. The number of people over 65 increased by TEN MILLION. Out of a population of 300 million, that works out to about 3%. IN a workforce of some 200 million, that's closer to five. About the amount it declined between 2000 and 2010.

Get a new calculator.

The labor participation rate when DumBama took over (2008) was 14 million more people than today. Since 2000, we only had 10 million more senior citizens added to our total senior citizen rate. And again, cut that figure in half assuming half of those senior citizens are still working.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope, it wouldn't be that at all. I know you guys like to blame poor people buying houses under the CRA, but the CRA only prevented banks from discriminating against people based on where they lived, not what their finances were.

No, the housing bubble was caused by the banks and realtors encouraging MIDDLE CLASS people to buy in way over their heads with the fools gold of flipping a house after throwing a new paint job on it.

You're so fixated on this CRA thing. Who ever mentioned anything about CRA's besides you?

HUD (Fanny and Freddy's boss) lowered the loan standards on top of CRA's. The motive was to insure more poor and minorities were able to purchase homes.

 

[beagle9]

But here's the thing. The problem is not "There are jobs out there and people arent' taking them because the government is giving them goodies."

In fact, there are jobs out there, the people providing them don't pay shit, and the government has to give out goodies.

Let's take your wonderful example of kids living at home. Why is that? because these kids are "irresponsible', or because they often find themselves burdended down in student debt and working jobs that don't provide health benefits so they have to go on their parent's coverage?

Now, back in the oldy days, you hit 18, you went down to the union hall and you got an apprenticeship and you made good money.

Now you don't really hit your stride as an adult until your Mid-20's, which is why we have so many desperate women starting families in their 30s when they should have in their 20s when their bodies were ready.

Not those welfare people. They are still having kids while in their teens. The more kids you have, the more Democrats will pay you.

Even though I have said this repeatedly, anybody who's looking for a job join the transportation industry. We have thousands of jobs Americans won't take, and they don't pay all that badly. In fact, industry is forced to bringing in foreigners because Americans won't get off their lazy ass and go to work. They have their Obama phone, a generous food stamp card, maybe a house in the suburb....... why work? And if you're a liberal, why work when you can keep making excuses why you shouldn't work?

. Oh so your saying that Americans who qualify (have to qualify for many jobs), won't take the jobs eh ? Hmmm, no their are lots of Americans who have quit trying, because they finally understood that they weren't wanted. It was all by design... Get the Americans to quit trying, then say that they are lazy and won't work, and after that bring in the foreign cheap labor to fill the positions. Wow. Anyone who don't understand this stuff, has probably had their head in the sand badly lately or they are enablers of this bull crap, also they are corrupt & part of the entire problem themselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. Oh so your saying that Americans who qualify (have to qualify for many jobs), won't take the jobs eh ? Hmmm, no their are lots of Americans who have quit trying, because they finally understood that they weren't wanted. It was all by design... Get the Americans to quit trying, then say that they are lazy and won't work, and after that bring in the foreign cheap labor to fill the positions. Wow. Anyone who don't understand this stuff, has probably had their head in the sand badly lately or they are enablers of this bull crap, corrupt & part of the entire problem themselves.

What stops Americans from trying is our social safety net. That's it. It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!" and it's the truth.

The Democrats have conditioned people into the belief that if you're not born a certain color, not born into a certain family, not born in a specific neighborhood, you don't stand a chance at success in life. So don't bother trying.

Back in 1980 I got my first apartment at the age of 20. At the time, I was fascinated by birds, so my first objective for my new apartment was to hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch.

The winter turned to spring and I finally got a chance to meet my elderly neighbor. After some small talk, he brought up my bird feeder.

He said "Ray, what you are doing for the birds is a nice thing, but you may be doing them more harm than good. You see, hanging that feeder in the winter time as you have is a good thing because there is no food for the birds. But if you keep that thing up year round, the birds will solely depend on it and forget how to obtain food for themselves. Their young will do the same, and if you quit feeding them, or otherwise move to a different apartment, those birds will parish because they no longer can depend on nature to feed themselves.

The old mans words stuck with me my entire life; not because of birds, but because this is the same situation our government puts some people in. Keep feeding them, and they will depend on you and you only. Because of that, they will keep voting to keep you in office because you no longer know how to take care of yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

Get a new calculator.

The labor participation rate when DumBama took over (2008) was 14 million more people than today. Since 2000, we only had 10 million more senior citizens added to our total senior citizen rate. And again, cut that figure in half assuming half of those senior citizens are still working.

I wouldn't make those assumptions. the point you ignore is that the average age of Americans is getting older, not younger.

People are living longer and there are less new people to replace them. A lot of our population growth has been due to immigration, not new births. Point was, the Labor Participation rate has been going down for decades...

Something your Boy Bush accellerated by giving us two recessions and two wars.

 

[JoeB131]

You're so fixated on this CRA thing. Who ever mentioned anything about CRA's besides you?

HUD (Fanny and Freddy's boss) lowered the loan standards on top of CRA's. The motive was to insure more poor and minorities were able to purchase homes.

Except- again- it wasn't poor people who caused the crash. It was middle class people buying more homes than they needed. I drive by the McMansions every day where I live.

 

[beagle9]

. Oh so your saying that Americans who qualify (have to qualify for many jobs), won't take the jobs eh ? Hmmm, no their are lots of Americans who have quit trying, because they finally understood that they weren't wanted. It was all by design... Get the Americans to quit trying, then say that they are lazy and won't work, and after that bring in the foreign cheap labor to fill the positions. Wow. Anyone who don't understand this stuff, has probably had their head in the sand badly lately or they are enablers of this bull crap, corrupt & part of the entire problem themselves.

What stops Americans from trying is our social safety net. That's it. It's like Rush Limbaugh said repeatedly "If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't!" and it's the truth.

The Democrats have conditioned people into the belief that if you're not born a certain color, not born into a certain family, not born in a specific neighborhood, you don't stand a chance at success in life. So don't bother trying.

Back in 1980 I got my first apartment at the age of 20. At the time, I was fascinated by birds, so my first objective for my new apartment was to hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch.

The winter turned to spring and I finally got a chance to meet my elderly neighbor. After some small talk, he brought up my bird feeder.

He said "Ray, what you are doing for the birds is a nice thing, but you may be doing them more harm than good. You see, hanging that feeder in the winter time as you have is a good thing because there is no food for the birds. But if you keep that thing up year round, the birds will solely depend on it and forget how to obtain food for themselves. Their young will do the same, and if you quit feeding them, or otherwise move to a different apartment, those birds will parish because they no longer can depend on nature to feed themselves.

The old mans words stuck with me my entire life; not because of birds, but because this is the same situation our government puts some people in. Keep feeding them, and they will depend on you and you only. Because of that, they will keep voting to keep you in office because you no longer know how to take care of yourself.

. All true, but what I said is also true, and it is very much a part of the problem as well. These things are multi-layered, and we all need to slowly unpeal everything about them.

 

[kaz]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

Yes, Redskin, all workers are the same. Interchangeable widgets who are all identical. If Walmart paid more, they wouldn't fire the workers they have and hire better ones because they can't. Workers are like socket wrenches.

Yeah ...

So if Walmart fires the workers and hires better ones, the OP stands, the government is picking up the full ride for the workers at Walmart who get handouts now. Explain how that's better for the country or the workers who lose their jobs

 

[kaz]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

No aga

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Your thread title is ass backwards. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart because they're too cheap to pay a living wage.

No you are not listening it is walmart who subsidize the US government welfare program.with out them us tax payers would have to shell out another 15 grand per employee

Talk about being ass-backward. American taxpayers have been subsidizing the wages of some of America's most profitable companies, and Walmart has been the WORST offender. It is to be noted that Walmart has changed direction and is now paying higher wages, as of this year. In large part, this change is due to the negative publicity they have received over the years and the public's outrage over their practices.

In 2012 or 13, while Walmart was bragging about being the second most profitable company in America, every American taxpayer contributed $2500 to Walmart's bottom line, even if they never set foot in a store. In total, Walmart employees received $9B in benefits. Had the corporation paid its workers just $100 a week, it's profits would have been reduced from $26B to $15B, and instead of Walmart's employees being part of the 47% who pay no taxes, they wouldn't qualify for social assistance, and would be part of the taxpaying public. The corporation would still be very profitable, just not the second most profitable in the USA.

The workers would be better off because they have more money to spend. And the government wouldn't need as many employees to process applications for social assistance and payments to the Walmart, McDonald's and other workers who are underpaid for their efforts, thereby reducing government, and taxes. The taxpayers would see their tax burden reduced by the amount currently used to subsidize minimum wage workers, and the amount paid to the government workers who deal with such assistance.

Again, if WalMart fires their workers and hires better ones since they pay more, how does that help the workers who get fired? How does that help the country since we're paying the full ride then?

Or are you also arguing that workers are socket wrenches, they are all identical and there is no difference between them?

 

[kaz]

Full time walmart workers should receive govt assistance. I have zero problem with that. Cant live on 10 dollars per hour. If one does it is not really living. But some anti life folk will disagree.

. As wealthy as Walmart is, it has to have the government subsidize it's employees ? How wrong is that ? The government needs to get out of the business of feeling sorry for these corporations, and require them to have a proper pay grade system that is suitable to the minimum cost of living standards in which are a part of the communities in which it serves & prospers from.

At any point is the responsibility for the workers of WalMart to be worth more so they can make more the responsibility of the workers at WalMart?

WalMart pays wages set by the market, that is their responsibility

 

[beagle9]

Full time walmart workers should receive govt assistance. I have zero problem with that. Cant live on 10 dollars per hour. If one does it is not really living. But some anti life folk will disagree.

. As wealthy as Walmart is, it has to have the government subsidize it's employees ? How wrong is that ? The government needs to get out of the business of feeling sorry for these corporations, and require them to have a proper pay grade system that is suitable to the minimum cost of living standards in which are a part of the communities in which it serves & prospers from.

At any point is the responsibility for the workers of WalMart to be worth more so they can make more the responsibility of the workers at WalMart?

WalMart pays wages set by the market, that is their responsibility

. Yes, but no one should walk into a Walmart or any other job to find that there are workers who have been loyal, excellent workers for more than 2 years, and find that they are getting government assistance. That should be unexceptable by any standards. All companies should have a structured pay scale from entrance level to retirement level if choose to stay on for the long all or a company is the type of company for that to be the case. I mean a company like an arcade, ice cream parlor etc. that works school students should be exempt under the rules that apply to large companies employing 25 employees or more.

 

[kaz]

Full time walmart workers should receive govt assistance. I have zero problem with that. Cant live on 10 dollars per hour. If one does it is not really living. But some anti life folk will disagree.

. As wealthy as Walmart is, it has to have the government subsidize it's employees ? How wrong is that ? The government needs to get out of the business of feeling sorry for these corporations, and require them to have a proper pay grade system that is suitable to the minimum cost of living standards in which are a part of the communities in which it serves & prospers from.

At any point is the responsibility for the workers of WalMart to be worth more so they can make more the responsibility of the workers at WalMart?

WalMart pays wages set by the market, that is their responsibility

. Yes, but no one should walk into a Walmart or any other job to find that there are workers who have been loyal, excellent workers for more than 2 years, and find that they are getting government assistance. That should be unexceptable by any standards. All companies should have a structured pay scale from entrance level to retirement level if choose to stay on for the long all or a company is the type of company for that to be the case. I mean a company like an arcade, ice cream parlor etc. that works school students should be exempt under the rules that apply to large companies employing 25 employees or more.

Yes, comrade, after two years WalMart has adopted them and should pay them what they need, not market rates.

And your scenario is unrealistic, if they were "loyal, excellent workers for more than 2 years," they are very unlikely to need government assistance now either because WalMart would see that or another employer would. WalMart gives opportunities to people who don't have good job histories and gives them a chance. They are a great American company. Capitalism is win-win.

Companies like McDonalds going to technology to cut workers really hasn't registered with the socialist crowd, has it? What would it take for you to get that companies don't pay workers more than they are worth and it's the job of the employee to be worth more, not the company to pay them what they are not worth?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except- again- it wasn't poor people who caused the crash. It was middle class people buying more homes than they needed. I drive by the McMansions every day where I live.

The flipping went into effect later, but it was never the cause.

The cause was banks pressured into giving loans to poor and minorities which caused an increase in house prices due to sales. Any investor following the news knew what to do next. When banks are giving away loans like pop-tarts, the only way for home values is up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wouldn't make those assumptions. the point you ignore is that the average age of Americans is getting older, not younger.

People are living longer and there are less new people to replace them. A lot of our population growth has been due to immigration, not new births. Point was, the Labor Participation rate has been going down for decades...

Something your Boy Bush accellerated by giving us two recessions and two wars.

Wars have nothing to do with the labor participation rate, Santa Clause as President does.

According to the BLS chart, Bush took over with a 67% participation rate. When he left, it dropped down to 66 and then DumBama took over. After five years of DumBama, the rate went from 66% to 62.5%

Now this is the hard part for you public educated people: 66-62.5 = 3.5%, 67-66= 1% Again, the hard part: which number is greater than the other?

 

[initforme]

"Walmart is a great american company". Now that is hilarious. Working there for one year would be intolerable much less 2. When we start thinking walmart is great something is vastly wrong. If this is the new global economy we are screwed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"Walmart is a great american company". Now that is hilarious. Working there for one year would be intolerable much less 2. When we start thinking walmart is great something is vastly wrong. If this is the new global economy we are screwed.

What kind of loser would work there more then a few months, if they are working a few years then don't you fucking think something is really wrong with the Uemployment rate?


Hell if that's as good as it gets, you might as call Obama

The walmart president

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Walmart is a great american company". Now that is hilarious. Working there for one year would be intolerable much less 2. When we start thinking walmart is great something is vastly wrong. If this is the new global economy we are screwed.

Obviously American consumers think they are a great American company. That's why Walmart is number one and has been for many years now.

 

[JoeB131]

The flipping went into effect later, but it was never the cause.

The cause was banks pressured into giving loans to poor and minorities which caused an increase in house prices due to sales. Any investor following the news knew what to do next. When banks are giving away loans like pop-tarts, the only way for home values is up.

guy, I knew house flippers back in the 1980's, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about... and neither do you.

Wars have nothing to do with the labor participation rate, Santa Clause as President does.

No, but they do have something to with truly fucking up the economy. Which did. But I'm glad you are finally admitting your boy Bush gave us recessions.

According to the BLS chart, Bush took over with a 67% participation rate. When he left, it dropped down to 66 and then DumBama took over. After five years of DumBama, the rate went from 66% to 62.5%

Obviously, you can't read a chart. It was down to 64.5% by the time Bush's Second Recession was done decimating the middle class.