View Full Version : Millions of people will starve in the allegedly richest country on Earth
Alright, you Randtard teabagging sons of bitches......
I would like one of you to explain to me exactly WHO benefits from cutting food stamps?
Obviously not the people on food stamps. They starve. Clearly not a plus.
Certainly not the grocery stores. They lose money. Which will cause them to fire people. Who will then have to go on food stamps. (Except for the Wal Mart employees who are already on them.)
The food industry obviously loses money. They too, will fire people to reduce costs. Who will then have to go on food stamps.
Even the goddamned treasonous Stalin funded piece of shit KKKoch Brothers will lose money on this. They own Georgia Pacific, which manufactures a lot of food packaging, among other things. Not much risk of them going broke, but I can't believe they're backing this bullshit.
Food Stamps are a text book example of direct economic stimulus. Not only should they not be cut, they should be DOUBLED, as every last dollar that is spent on this program goes immediately (or nearly so) back into the economy, for all the reasons listed above and more. And people who are eating properly are also less likely to add more burdens to the already fucked up health care system, considering most people who are on food stamps probably won't be able to see a doctor until January (and that's assuming they live in a state without a KKKochsucking governor).
ELVIS
10-31-2013, 07:33 PM
Food Stamps are a text book example of direct economic stimulus.
HahahahahahaHahahHahahahahahahahaHahahaha:biggrin:
Dude, they're trying to kill...
Nobody in the government is trying to benefit the American people...
Wake up...
:elvis:
That's not the question.
The question here is, WHO benefits from cutting food stamps, and HOW, exactly would that be the case?
ELVIS
10-31-2013, 08:56 PM
The banks, of course...
The banks, of course...
Actually, they lose money too. Specifically JP Morgan Chase, who issues the SNAP debit cards, and likely makes a percentage off of every dollar spent with them.
And all the banks that do business with the grocery stores will lose money, and to a lesser degree, the banks that do business with the food producers.
Not that I have any sympathy for the criminal banksters, but there's no win for them here either.
twonabomber
10-31-2013, 09:19 PM
I have to LOL at the idea of people on food stamps "eating properly."
well.... not on $1.40/meal they won't :(
ELVIS
10-31-2013, 10:30 PM
I have to LOL at the idea of people on food stamps "eating properly."
I didn't get that far the first time...
But handing out more food stamps will make people eat better ??
That's a good one...
Food stamps were originally designed as a program of the Dept of Agriculture, which is why it was always tied to the Farm Bill until this year when the goddamned teabaggers fucked it all up.
Now granted, what passes for "agriculture" these days often includes a lot of GMO crap, but even a salad full of MonSatan tomatoes and lettuce is going to be more nutritious than Top Ramen, or white pasta with HFCS tomato sauce.
Nitro Express
11-01-2013, 04:08 AM
HahahahahahaHahahHahahahahahahahaHahahaha:biggrin:
Dude, they're trying to kill...
Nobody in the government is trying to benefit the American people...
Wake up...
:elvis:
Right now the US Federal Government has been captured by central bankers. Henry Kissinger once said you control food you control the population. Well the people on food stamps are controlled and fair game for the people who control the government to do with whatever they want. Sure there are Republicans responsible here but there are also Democrats as well. If anything conservatives didn't want all these people on welfare in the first place. We would rather have them productive making their own money and owning their own property and having their own food supply. Again it's diversifiying your assets and not leaving your eggs in one basket.
All they would have to do is crash the Federal Reserve note and that will take the food stamps and everything else down with it. You would have massive civil unrest and hell on earth. Then when everyone has had enough and are desperate for anything better, they roll their new system in with a gold backed currency. Gold they stole from us and other countries by the way. Hijack the currency, steal the gold, ruin the currency, destroy law and order, and then come in with the solution with the assets you stole. Order out of chaos.
Nitro Express
11-01-2013, 04:15 AM
Food stamps were originally designed as a program of the Dept of Agriculture, which is why it was always tied to the Farm Bill until this year when the goddamned teabaggers fucked it all up.
Now granted, what passes for "agriculture" these days often includes a lot of GMO crap, but even a salad full of MonSatan tomatoes and lettuce is going to be more nutritious than Top Ramen, or white pasta with HFCS tomato sauce.
Who are the teabaggers? You mean the Tea Party? It has no political power whatsoever and never did. It certainly hasn't been around long enough to have any influence on food stamps. If guess you need a scape goat to blame. Yeah they are a real powerful group that the IRS cannot harass and they control everything. Yeah right. Eric Holder himself has more power than the whole Tea Party movement combined. Remember that IRS scandal? The Tea Party isn't exactly sitting high on the food chain like you think they are. It's more like the banker whores are in control and they exist on both sides of the isle.
jacksmar
11-01-2013, 06:06 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/09/23/the-problem-is-obesity-not-hunger-thoughts-on-the-food-stamps-debate/
Throughout history, politicians have fabricated crises to justify their own solution to the crisis they themselves dreamed up. History is strewn with non-existent crises – the population bomb, global cooling, resource depletion, freon destroying the ozone layer, and so on – that threaten destruction unless the government acts. The U.S. “hunger crisis” is the latest in a long line of such relics.
The current hysteria over the House bill to cut food stamps by $40 billion over a decade (see Krugman, Free to Be Hungry) will be framed against America’s “hunger crisis” fabricated by the powerful “hunger lobby.” Democrats will use the “hunger crisis” as a cudgel to beat those who favor cuts in food stamps into bloody submission. How can any decent person favor cutting aid to hungry families, who, according to the crisis mongers, constitute one out of six of our neighbors? Few politicians have the fortitude to withstand the onslaught and the “crisisists” will likely win. A non-crisis will be “solved,” as real facts and real crises are ignored.
Facts are the enemy of the “crisisists.” Therefore, we hear few of them, and the facts we hear are distorted beyond recognition. In this case, the facts speak for themselves: The United States, and increasingly the affluent world, has a crisis not of hunger but of obesity. The hunger crisis is a clever fabrication to serve political and commercial interests. If the hunger lobby’s facts are true, our hunger rates equal those of the poorest African and Asian countries.
ELVIS
11-01-2013, 07:15 PM
The U.S. “hunger crisis” is the latest in a long line of such relics.
You mean the teabaggers ain't really starving people ??
Say it ain't so...
:biggrin:
cadaverdog
11-01-2013, 08:01 PM
Actually the reason they claimed they were cut was because some funding bill expired that added a few bucks per month to the small amount they give out every month. They practically give it to anyone who applies but stop it if you don't provide what they ask for to proof you really need it.
I'm still waiting for somebody to answer the question.....
WHO FUCKING BENEFITS FROM THIS CRUEL AND UNAMERICAN FASCIST INHUMAN BULLSHIT???
Temporary increase expired? Bullshit. Grocery prices have pretty much tripled on anything with any nutritional value since Chimp stole the White House.
Hell, even the stuff without nutritional value. Used to be able to get a case of Top Ramen for $2.00. Now you're lucky if you can find 5 packages for $1 when it's on sale. Not that I've eaten that shit in years, but I would imagine its a staple for somebody who only has $1.40 for a meal.
Nickdfresh
11-02-2013, 02:30 PM
I think it's a ridiculous rollback, and a lot of children and old people are going to suffer for this. BTW, it is also shitty for the economy. For farmers, for grocers and food manufacturers, entitlement programs such as these are shown to be vastly more effective infusions into the economy than "tax breaks" are for corporations that often pay little in taxes to begin with...
Kevin Fagan
Updated 10:46 pm, Friday, November 1, 2013
(http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Food-stamp-cuts-take-effect-hurting-families-4948219.php#photo-5402649)
One less bowl of cereal a week for his boy, one less sandwich a week for himself. That's what Friday's cut to national food stamp allotments means to Lionel Hill, but the math equation for lost meals is bound to get worse in the coming months.
Hill, 57, and others who need the government aid to eat have no hope of getting their lost benefits back, considering the only debate in Congress over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - food stamps - is how much further to slash it. That makes the situation both personal and worrisome in his household.
"Food stamps mean a lot to me," said the retired elections worker, who lives in San Francisco with extended family and is attending community college to retool his job skills. "I'm raising my 7-year-old nephew, and with food stamps I can concentrate more on paying rent, gas, bus fare, utilities.
"Without them, something has to give. And it won't be good."
Hill already buys mainly the cheapest generic brands. He picks up weekly groceries at his local food bank, where he also volunteers.
4 to 6 fewer meals
Friday's cuts mean he will receive $20 less each month in food stamps than the $200 he's been getting for the past two years. That translates to four to six lost meals a month.
"I understand these cuts have to do with politics, but here on the local level, in my house, it hurts," Hill said. "Every dollar counts."
Friday's reduction in the nation's food stamp disbursement came with the expiration of extra funding provided by the federal stimulus act of 2009. More than 47 million low-income Americans receive food stamps, and nearly half of those are children.
The reduction generally translates to $36 less a month for a family of four and $11 less for an individual.
In California, the food stamp program is called CalFresh, and it serves 4.1 million people - 250,000 of whom are in the Bay Area. An announcement of Friday's cuts on the CalFresh website urged recipients to call their local food banks to try to make up the shortage.
They're unlikely to find much help there. Food bank managers say they are already swamped and can't fill any new gaps.
"There's no magic we can do," said Paul Ash, executive director of the San Francisco and Marin Food Banks. "At food banks, we're all high-output, tight-performance operations as it is. As the line gets longer, you try to prioritize to the degree you can, but there's really not much you can do. It's not pretty."
Ash's food bank serves 225,000 people a year. Across the bay, the Alameda County Community Food Bank helps 260,000 people a year, and its managers are no more hopeful than Ash.
"These cuts to (the food stamp program) couldn't come at a worse time," said Michael Altfest, spokesman for the East Bay nonprofit. "The holiday time is just beginning, and that's already a busy time when we're stretched.
"Having less in food stamps means a lot of people are not going to be able to enjoy the holidays like they wish they could," Altfest said.
The prospect of restoring the stimulus funding that vanished Friday is virtually nil in Congress.
Driven by the recession, the food stamp budget in the United States has doubled since 2007 to about $80 billion a year, and conservatives say there is enough economic progress now to consider that amount bloated.
In the debate over funding the national farm bill - which determines the supplemental nutrition budget - the Republican-dominated House of Representatives recently passed legislation to cut $40 billion from food stamps over the next 10 years. The Senate's version would cut $4.1 billion. No serious effort has been mounted to increase funding as the two chambers try to reconcile their dueling proposals.
GOP talking point
Fueling the fervor to slash has been the potent imagery of Jason Greenslate, a 29-year-old San Diego-area surfer shown in a Fox News report cashing in his food stamps for sushi and lobster. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R- Kan., declared he was "against fraud and freeloaders" as he cast his vote for reductions, and added that "you can no longer sit on your couch or ride a surfboard and expect the federal taxpayer to feed you."
Democrats retorted that the Greenslate story was an overblown update of 1980s tales of welfare queens. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, trotted out examples of taxpayer-funded meals of steak and caviar bought on overseas research trips by Republicans.
Trent Rhorer, executive director of the San Francisco Human Services Agency, maintained that CalFresh cuts have a ripple effect that hurts the local economy, saying every dollar spent in food stamps translates into $1.84 for merchants and distributors. More than 35,000 people a month use $8 million in food stamps in San Francisco, so the potential effect in the city alone is hefty.
"The cuts Friday are going to cause families some level of hardship, but the big concern for me is what the House is proposing," Rhorer said. "It's huge. If that passes, we're talking gross hardship."
Kevin Fagan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: kfagan@sfchronicle.com
ELVIS
11-03-2013, 11:40 AM
Hey, maybe all citizens should be forced to be on Obombastamps™ so affordable food can be available to everyone...:rolleyes:
Hey, maybe all citizens should be forced to be on Obombastamps™ so affordable food can be available to everyone...:rolleyes:
Well... keep electing teabaggers to Congress, and when WalMart is the only employer left in the US, then everybody WILL be on food stamps, just like all of their underpaid employees are.
Grocery store (to use the term loosely, in Wal Mart's case) employees not being able to afford food is almost as ridiculous as nurses without health insurance. But then, you know all about that, right?
On the other hand, if we rolled back 32 years of destructive anti-American economic policies, stopped the Treasonous Prick Partnership before it does any damage, and start making some fucking shit in this country again, and pay people reasonable wages to do so, maybe NOBODY would have to be on food stamps?
ELVIS
11-03-2013, 12:57 PM
What would be a reasonable wage ??
What would be a reasonable wage ??
Well, at a bare minimum, it should be enough to afford food, housing, and transportation to get to work. I don't have the link handy, but I remember reading something recently which said that the 1968 minimum wage, if adjusted to today's dollars, would be around $22.
Now obviously, the economy was doing pretty well in 1968, so the so-called "job creators" obviously were not going broke paying their employees. Of course they didn't have ridiculously low tax rates then either, so they invested money into their businesses (in order to dodge taxes) which in turn caused their businesses to grow, hire more people, who in turn would spend money, and cause other businesses to grow.
Not very complicated, is it? Yet it was all ruined by the greed of a handful of anti-American bastards. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNcy-hBaqFA
ELVIS
11-03-2013, 04:46 PM
I remember reading something recently which said that the 1968 minimum wage, if adjusted to today's dollars, would be around $22.
Sounds like BS to me...
Nickdfresh
11-03-2013, 04:48 PM
Hey, maybe all citizens should be forced to be on Obombastamps™ so affordable food can be available to everyone...:rolleyes:
Maybe you should drink some Alex Jonestown Kool Aid, and fuck the strawman in the ass. The one you just posted?
jacksmar
11-03-2013, 05:10 PM
Fuck Ubama regardless.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/11/judge-strippers-must-be-paid-at-least-minimum-wage/
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — A federal judge ruled this week that exotic dancers at a Midtown strip club are protected by labor laws and entitled to be paid at least a minimum wage.
The ruling came Tuesday in a class-action lawsuit brought by current and former dancers at Rick’s Cabaret, at 50 W. 33rd St. The lawsuit against Peregrine Enterprises – the subsidiary that operates the club – and the club’s Houston-based parent company, charged that the strippers were denied wages and required to pay a variety of fees to the club.
The club had argued that the dancers were independent contractors.
But Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the dancers were the “main attraction” at the club and integral to its success.
In a news release, Rick’s Cabaret International said the ruling will have no impact on the club’s operation, noting that it has changed its independent contractor policy and that Judge Engelmayer ruled against holding the parent company liable.
“It is hard to imagine how these entertainers should be paid at the minimum wage, which would amount to a fraction of the $1,000 or more that some of them acknowledged they earned in a single night,” Rick’s Cabaret International chief executive officer Eric Langan said in a news release. “Additionally, the court did not rule on the issue of whether the substantial amounts entertainers earned are wages under New York State Labor Law.”
Club attorney Jeffrey A. Kimmel said the club will be appealing the decision.
“Additionally there are significant remaining issues that were not addressed on these motions, including whether the substantial amounts earned by the plaintiffs can be deemed wages under New York State Law and therefore be applied against any claimed minimum wage obligations,” he said in the release. “Based on recent developments in the law we also intend to move the court to decertify the class and we are optimistic that the class will be decertified.”
The publicly-traded Rick’s Cabaret International also operates nightclubs in several other cities, under the names Rick’s, Jaguars, Club Onyx, Tootsie’s Cabaret, and XTC Cabaret. The company also runs the auction site NaughtyBids.com, the swingers dating site CouplesTouch.com, and the adult subscription portal site xxxpassword.com.
The company was founded in 1983, and its company Web site notes that the late Anna Nicole Smith met her oil billionaire husband, J. Howard Marshall, while dancing at one of its clubs in Houston.
Nickdfresh
11-03-2013, 05:24 PM
Really? You're pissed off at Obama because strippers received minimum wage? Really?
Firstly, those fucking scumbag clubs should in every way be forced to pay minimum wage to strippers! When you tell someone they have to be on a certain schedule, that worker is in NO WAY a 1099 "independent contractor!" Retard!
ELVIS
11-04-2013, 12:20 PM
LMAO !!
What a dork...:biggrin:
http://assets.amuniversal.com/b27d5a90255701313911001dd8b71c47.jpg
http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/ta131101.gif
http://media.cagle.com/23/2013/11/04/139661_600.jpg
Be Very Afraid: The American Economy Is Cannibalizing Itself, and We the People Are Going to Pay a Huge Price
Robert Reich (http://www.alternet.org/economy/be-very-afraid-american-economy-cannibalizing-itself-and-we-people-are-going-pay-huge-price)
November 3, 2013 |
So how to explain this paradox?
As of November 1 more than 47 million Americans have lost some or all of their food stamp benefits. House Republicans are pushing for further cuts. If the sequester isn’t stopped everything else poor and working-class Americans depend on will be further squeezed.
We’re not talking about a small sliver of America here. Half of all children get food stamps at some point during their childhood. Half of all adults get them sometime between ages 18 and 65. Many employers – including the nation’s largest, Walmart – now pay so little that food stamps are necessary in order to keep food on the family table, and other forms of assistance are required to keep a roof overhead.
The larger reality is that most Americans are still living in the Great Recession. Median household income continues to drop. In last week’s Washington Post-ABC poll, 75 percent rated the state of the economy as “negative” or “poor.”
So why is Washington whacking safety nets and services that a large portion of Americans need, when we still very much need them?
It’s easy to blame Republicans and the rightwing billionaires that bankroll them, and their unceasing demonization of “big government” as well as deficits. But Democrats in Washington bear some of the responsibility. In last year’s fiscal cliff debate neither party pushed to extend the payroll tax holiday or find other ways to help the working middle class and poor.
Here’s a clue: A new survey of families in the top 10 percent of net worth (done by the American Affluence Research Center) shows they’re feeling better than they’ve felt since 2007, before the Great Recession.
It’s not just that the top 10 percent have jobs and their wages are rising. The top 10 percent also owns 80 percent of the stock market. And the stock market is up a whopping 24 percent this year.
The stock market is up even though most Americans are down for two big reasons.
First, businesses are busily handing their cash back to their shareholders – buying back their stock and thereby boosting share prices – rather than using the cash to expand and hire. It makes no sense to expand and hire when most Americans don’t have the money to buy.
The S&P 500 “Buyback Index,” which measures the 100 stocks with the highest buyback ratios, has surged 40 percent this year, compared with a 24% rally for the S&P 500.
IBM has just approved another $15 billion for share buybacks on top of about $5.6 billion it set aside previously, thereby boosting its share prices even though business is sluggish. In April, Apple announced a $50 billion increase in buybacks plus a 15% rise in dividends, but even this wasn’t enough for multi-billionaire Carl Icahn, who’s now demanding that Apple use more of its $170 billion cash stash to buy back its stock and make Ichan even richer.
Big corporations can also borrow at rock-bottom rates these days in order to buy back even more of their stock — courtesy of the Fed’s $85 billion a month bond-buying program. (Ichan also wants Apple to borrow $150 billion at 3 percent interest, in order to buy back more stock and further enrich himself.)
The second big reason why shares are up while most Americans are down is corporations continue to find new ways to boost profits and share prices by cutting their labor costs – substituting software for people, cutting wages and benefits, and piling more responsibilities on each of the employees that remain.
Neither of these two strategies – buying back stock and paring payrolls – can be sustained over the long run (so you have every right to worry about another Wall Street bubble). They don’t improve a company’s products or customer service.
But in an era of sluggish sales – when the vast American middle class lacks the purchasing power to keep the economy going – these two strategies at least keep shareholders happy. And that means they keep the top 10 percent happy.
Congress, meanwhile, doesn’t know much about the bottom 90 percent. The top 10 percent provide almost all campaign contributions and funding of “independent” ads.
Moreover, just about all members of Congress are drawn from the same top 10 percent – as are almost all their friends and associates, and even the media who report on them.
Get it? The bottom 90 percent of Americans — most of whom are still suffering from the Great Recession, most of whom have been on a downward escalator for decades — have disappeared from official Washington.
fraroc
11-04-2013, 01:41 PM
This is fucking bullshit. Just because some assholes take advantage of food stamps doesn't mean that people who are actually dealing with real poverty have to suffer.
cadaverdog
11-04-2013, 03:17 PM
This is fucking bullshit. Just because some assholes take advantage of food stamps doesn't mean that people who are actually dealing with real poverty have to suffer.
There will always be people who work the system because that's the only thing they know how to do. Mom and/or dad worked the system to get by without working so why shouldn't they. My mother worked in an individualized learning class at a local high school before she retired. There were several girls in that class that were pressured into getting pregnant as soon as possible to bring in more money to the household. One girl's grades dropped and she started crying alot so my mom asked her what was wrong and she said her mother wanted her to have sex with her boyfriend (the mothers boyfriend) so she could get pregnant and get more welfare. My mother told the principal but he told her to mind her own business because last time someone reported something similar the school got sued for making false allegations about the mother.
TFM_Dale
11-04-2013, 03:45 PM
It does suck that some work the system and make a career of being on welfare but to penalize everybody getting assistance because some people are lazy fucking bums isn't right. We should feed and shelter the people in our own country before worrying about others and cutting assistance to people that truly need it is NOT the way to do that.
Von Halen
11-04-2013, 03:53 PM
Hey, Generic Motors is on welfare. They are one the biggest corporate welfare recipients ever. And some of you dumb fucks still buy their cars.
Don't you dare cry about welfare issues in this Country, and then go out and buy a Generic Motors product.
TFM_Dale
11-04-2013, 04:05 PM
Hey, Generic Motors is on welfare. They are one the biggest corporate welfare recipients ever. And some of you dumb fucks still buy their cars.
Don't you dare cry about welfare issues in this Country, and then go out and buy a Generic Motors product.
Those assholes and the banks, wonder what cuts they will be getting? Would love to see those fuck head politicians (all parties involved) taking pay cuts and less benefits to try and help but Lord knows that will not happen.
GM was probably the best use of "corporate welfare" possible. It preserved a segment of a much needed manufacturing industry. As opposed to bailing out criminal Wall Street banks, or subsidizing mad scientists like MonSatan, or whatever.
I don't currently own a GM product, but I'd consider buying one in the future if it fit the type of car of vehicle I was looking for. And I do think that GM - as a recipient of the peoples' money - has an obligation to the American people to develop better cars - both in the sense of built better, and more energy effiecient - whether that means improving the 19th century technology of the combustion engine, or moving forward with electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, gerbil powered turbine motors, or whatever.
TFM_Dale
11-04-2013, 04:15 PM
At least the GM bail out saved a lot of jobs (never mind how many jobs have been shipped to other countries, that is another discussion altogether), still seems the assholes in charge should be skipping any bonuses until the debt is paid back.
Von Halen
11-04-2013, 04:25 PM
GM was probably the best use of "corporate welfare" possible. It preserved a segment of a much needed manufacturing industry. As opposed to bailing out criminal Wall Street banks, or subsidizing mad scientists like MonSatan, or whatever.
I don't currently own a GM product, but I'd consider buying one in the future if it fit the type of car of vehicle I was looking for. And I do think that GM - as a recipient of the peoples' money - has an obligation to the American people to develop better cars - both in the sense of built better, and more energy effiecient - whether that means improving the 19th century technology of the combustion engine, or moving forward with electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, gerbil powered turbine motors, or whatever.
How do you propose we power all these electric cars? Are you one of the ones that has your hands in someone's pockets? Making money off the fraudulent claims of the "green" people?
The combustion engine is more efficient than any of that other bullshit, and always will be.
How are you going to make more power for all these electric cars, with out causing even more pollution and harm to the environment? Build more power plants? What kind? Coal fired? That's not pollutant. Nuclear? There you go. :rolleyes:
You political nuts are nothing more than spin doctors. Spinning stuff to meet your agenda. Facts and realities have no place in your world.
And no, Generic Motors should NOT have been bailed out, with OUR money, WITHOUT our permission. Somebody would have picked up the slack on mfg jobs. How many of those "saved" manufacturing jobs is Generic Motors now sending abroad? Many more than they saved. What about all the suppliers GM put out of business because they refused to pay them for product purchased and received? What about all those manufacturing jobs? Why was Generic Motors allowed to take money from those tax paying suppliers, and then put them out of business? That's what they did to hundreds of suppliers.
Only a fucking apologist FOOL would buy from that corrupt WELFARE company known as GM.
cadaverdog
11-04-2013, 04:26 PM
At least the GM bail out saved a lot of jobs (never mind how many jobs have been shipped to other countries, that is another discussion altogether), still seems the assholes in charge should be skipping any bonuses until the debt is paid back.
If the company you're running loses money you don't deserve a bonus period.
TFM_Dale
11-04-2013, 04:27 PM
If the company you're running loses money you don't deserve a bonus period.
Damn straight.
Von Halen
11-04-2013, 04:28 PM
At least the GM bail out saved a lot of jobs (never mind how many jobs have been shipped to other countries, that is another discussion altogether), still seems the assholes in charge should be skipping any bonuses until the debt is paid back.
That debt will NEVER be paid back.
GM formed "New GM", so they wouldn't be held responsible for the debt of "Old GM". Two corrupt companies working together, our Government and GM.
Von, you're only the second Michigan native I know of who wanted GM to go out of business.
The other guy was a billionaire predatory capitalist who hasn't lived in your state for decades, Mittens the Mor(m)on, so that's why he doesn't give a shit. (Though the irony of his old man being both an ex-governor AND the former CEO of American Motors wasn't lost on me)
I'm not sure why you would want the economy of your state to go further into the shitter though (as if Snyder and his little dictators aren't already working towards that).
I mean I'm not crazy about a lot of the shit that Microsoft, Boeing, and Starfucks do, but I know how fucked the state would be if they suddenly ceased to exist.
ELVIS
11-05-2013, 01:33 PM
:rolleyes:
And what would you do if the.......
uhh..... well shit, I can't think of any major industry located in Lousyana.
Oh, wait.... I think I got one......
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/FranksBottleShot1.jpg/232px-FranksBottleShot1.jpg
oops... scratch that. They got bought out by French's Mustard and moved to New Jersey. Nevermind.......
cadaverdog
11-05-2013, 03:34 PM
And what would you do if the.......
uhh..... well shit, I can't think of any major industry located in Lousyana.
Oh, wait.... I think I got one......
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/83/FranksBottleShot1.jpg/232px-FranksBottleShot1.jpg
oops... scratch that. They got bought out by French's Mustard and moved to New Jersey. Nevermind.......
They still make Tabasco sauce there.
tbone888
11-06-2013, 12:18 AM
Well, at a bare minimum, it should be enough to afford food, housing, and transportation to get to work. I don't have the link handy, but I remember reading something recently which said that the 1968 minimum wage, if adjusted to today's dollars, would be around $22.
Now obviously, the economy was doing pretty well in 1968, so the so-called "job creators" obviously were not going broke paying their employees. Of course they didn't have ridiculously low tax rates then either, so they invested money into their businesses (in order to dodge taxes) which in turn caused their businesses to grow, hire more people, who in turn would spend money, and cause other businesses to grow.
Not very complicated, is it? Yet it was all ruined by the greed of a handful of anti-American bastards. :(
22 dollars sounds like a good min wage, but I see some possible issues.
First of all, you throw that person into quite a bit higher tax bracket, and the additional fed and state taxes would take away a nice chunk of that raise. Not to mention, the extra SS and medicare dollars taken out of their check every week.
Secondly, every person in America would now start out at 45k a year (working 40 hours a week). Sounds good...but their supervisor, who currently makes 45k, would need a substantial raise to make it worth his position of increased responsibility. In addition, his boss would also need a raise and so on and so on.
With labor generally being the biggest cost a business has, goods and services would, imo, prolly increase by at least 50% overnight. Prolly more like 100%.
With the increase in prices and more taxes, the average worker wouldn't come out any more ahead...maybe behind.
ELVIS
11-06-2013, 11:04 AM
whether that means improving the 19th century technology of the combustion engine
Further proof that you have no idea what you're babbling about...:biggrin:
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/EaganT/2013/EaganT20131107_low.jpg
GOP Food Stamp Cuts Would Kick 170,000 Vets Out of the Program
—By Erika Eichelberger
Mon Nov. 11, 2013 9:26 AM PST (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/veterans-food-stamp-cuts-republicans-snap?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Motherjones%2Fmojoblog+%28Mot herJones.com+|+MoJoBlog%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo)
Republicans will salute America's veterans Monday, while simultaneously trying to deny them benefits. In addition to reducing housing aid, and denying health care to vets, the GOP is also trying to remove thousands of vets from the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
At least 900,000 veterans rely on SNAP. The House Republican version of the farm bill, the five-year piece of legislation that funds nutrition and agriculture provisions, would slash funding for the food stamps program by nearly $40 billion and boot 2.8 million people off the program next year. That includes 170,000 veterans, who would be removed through a provision in the bill that would eliminate food stamps eligibility for non-elderly jobless adults who can't find work or an opening in a job training program.
Veterans returning home from service have more trouble finding work than other folks, and rely more heavily on the food stamp program. The unemployment rate for recent veterans—those who have served in the past decade—is about 10 percent, almost 3 points above the national unemployment rate. War-related disabilities are one reason why. About a quarter of recent veterans reported service-related disabilities in 2011. Households that have a disabled veteran who is unable to work are twice as likely to lack access to sufficient food than households without a disabled service member, according to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
This month, SNAP funding was reduced by $5 billion as extra stimulus money for the program expired. While the Senate will never approve the $40 billion in further cuts to the food stamps program that House Republicans want, deeper cuts are pretty much inevitable. The two chambers are in the middle of negotiating a final version of the farm bill, which will contain food stamp reductions somewhere in between the $4 billion level the Senate wants and the level the Republicans want.
Whatever the final number, veterans will likely feel the pinch.
Research shows the much-maligned aid to the poor buys broad economic and public health gains.
—By Christopher D. Cook
Fri Oct. 25, 2013 2:00 AM PDT
In September, just two days after a Census Bureau report showed that food stamps helped keep 4 million Americans out of poverty last year, the US House of Representatives approved a $39 billion cut to the program (known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) over the next decade.
The House proposal, now being negotiated along with smaller, yet still significant, Senate cuts of $4 billion, would result in 3.8 million people being removed from food stamps in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The haggling comes at a time when more than 15 percent of Americans remain mired in poverty, and more than half are at or near the poverty line when stagnant middle-class wages are matched against rising costs of living, US Census data show.
Although the Republican-controlled House cuts are unlikely, given a promised veto from President Obama, food stamps will still be slashed by $5 billion on Nov. 1, when the 2009 Recovery Act that increased the aid along with other stimulus spending expires. The 13.6 percent temporary boost in food stamp dollars helped more than half a million Americans escape food insecurity, and millions more to climb out of poverty—4.7 million in 2011 alone, according the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
Eighty-three percent of food stamps go to households with children, seniors, and nonelderly people with disabilities. The Nov. 1 reduction means $36 less per month for a family of four and $11 less for a single person. In 2012, the average recipient got $133.41 in food stamps per month—that works out to $1.48 per meal. "Without the Recovery Act’s boost, SNAP benefits will average less than $1.40 per person per meal in 2014," reports the CBPP.
"The Republican attack on food stamps is "totally counter-factual," says Peter Edelman, a professor of law at Georgetown University and a former Clinton administration official who resigned in protest of the 1996 welfare overhaul. "Millions of people are unemployed and millions more don’t earn enough to pay all their bills. The idea that food stamps, which provide support at one-third of the poverty line, is incentivizing people not to seek jobs that don’t exist anyway is beyond bizarre."
Extensive research shows food stamps are a highly effective investment delivering big returns for all Americans, not just the poor. SNAP not only provides an economic and nutritional lifeline for low-income Americans, it also creates a significant boon to the wider economy.
The Economic Benefits of Food Stamps
When food stamps get spent, we all benefit. Despite critics’ focus on the costs of SNAP, research has shown that these dollars are among the best forms of government stimulus. Food stamp spending generates local economic activity, jobs in the farm and retail sectors and beyond.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-01.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-02.jpg
Food Stamps Lift Millions Out of Poverty
In addition to boosting the economy and job creation, food stamps have helped millions of Americans climb out of poverty and away from hunger. The dollars put food on the table, and by covering much of poor people’s food expenses, free up vitally needed cash to cover rent and other necessities. That can help people stabilize their lives and get back on their feet. Since SNAP expanded in 2009, according to the USDA, "food insecurity among likely SNAP-eligible households declined by 2.2 percent, and very low food security declined by 2 percent; food spending rose by 4.8 percent."
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-03.jpg
Food Stamps Improve Kids’ Health
Children are especially vulnerable to the lifelong ripple effects of poverty—exposed to hunger, under-nourishment, and a greater likelihood of chronic illnesses and disease. But studies show that when poor families get food stamps, kids’ nutrition and health improve. This can be particularly critical during infancy and early childhood, when brain development and metabolic health get their start. The added food and nutrition from food stamps has been shown to create marked health improvements both in childhood and later years.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-05.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-06.jpg
Who Gets Food Stamps?
An extraordinary number of Americans have benefited or will benefit directly from food stamps. Half of all adults (pdf) will receive SNAP benefits at some point between the ages of 20 and 65, while half of all children will receive them at some point during their childhood. In 2012, nearly 1 in 7 adults received food stamps.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-04.gif
http://www.motherjones.com/files/food-stamps-07_0.jpg
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/131112-new-poll-public-strongly-supports-minimum-wage-increase.jpg
jacksmar
11-13-2013, 11:42 AM
http://www.dakotavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/obamacard-poster-tpc.jpg
jacksmar
11-13-2013, 11:58 AM
So how many leftists believe we need a system that provides free food, free healthcare, free housing, no guns in the hands of your neighbor, and a diverse and multicultural environment?
We already have that; it's called
Prison
:flame:
So how many leftists believe we need a system that provides free food, free healthcare, free housing, no guns in the hands of your neighbor, and a diverse and multicultural environment?
We already have that; it's called
Prison
Yes, that really is the teabaggers answer for everything, isn't it?
Except you want the prisons owned by corporations too. And then you want people sent to them for smoking dope. Or not paying 39.9% interest to a criminal bank on a credit card. Or shoplifting food to feed their families because the teabagging treasonous KKKochsucking scum sent their jobs to China and then cut off their unemployment and food stamps.
And what happens to the economy at large as a result of all this? Not a single living wage job created. Less money in the economy --> More people out of a job ---> More people on unemployment & food stamps ---> More racist inbred fucks bitching about a "Kenyan houseboy" causing the problems that they themselves actually voted for.
Yeah.... more Halliburton corporate prisons.... that's the fucking answer :rolleyes:
ELVIS
11-13-2013, 12:20 PM
What the hell is a living wage job ??
What the hell is a living wage job ??
You know.... those things that most able bodied adult Americans had before 1980..... Where you could feed your entire family, buy a house and a decent car, eat food with nutritional value, take a few weeks of vacation every year and still be able to stick some money in the bank after all of that.
ELVIS
11-13-2013, 12:40 PM
Maybe Obomba can force everyone to have a job and a house and use the IRS to make everyone pay into home and job insurance...
Maybe Obomba can force everyone to have a job and a house and use the IRS to make everyone pay into home and job insurance...
Well, the irony is that he said as much himself during the 2008 campaign, when he was rightly criticizing Hillary for running on the corporate insurance mandate.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
ELVIS
11-13-2013, 05:06 PM
The irony to me is that you're still falling for the Obombascam...
Seshmeister
11-13-2013, 05:19 PM
Maybe Obomba can force everyone to have a job and a house and use the IRS to make everyone pay into home and job insurance...
And you are annoyed because at the moment you don't have a job or a house but if you go to ER everyone else has to pay for you...
The irony to me is that you're still falling for the Obombascam...
I fell for it in 2008, when he was vocally supporting Howard Dean's public option, and opposing the Hillary/Romney corporate mandate bullshit.
I stopped falling for it when Jellyfish Pelosi allowed the false "Democrats" to strip it out of the House bill, and Spineless Reid let that corporatist asshole Max Baucus strip every last word that Ted Kennedy wrote from the Senate bill.
After that point, the result bore no resemblance to what I voted for. And even then, it was far short of what I actually wanted. Which would be the Medicare for All bills that Dennis Kucinich sponsored in the House and Ted Kennedy originally sponsored in the Senate.
Nickdfresh
11-13-2013, 07:49 PM
So how many leftists believe we need a system that provides free food, free healthcare, free housing, no guns in the hands of your neighbor, and a diverse and multicultural environment?
We already have that; it's called
Prison
:flame:
Actually, prison is far more expensive than entitlement programs and education. Dolt...
Nickdfresh
11-13-2013, 07:50 PM
What the hell is a living wage job ??
From the mouths' of babes... :D
jacksmar
11-13-2013, 08:41 PM
Actually, prison is far more expensive than entitlement programs and education. Dolt...
Old mr helper again. No sense of humor nickyd? Here’s few to make you laugh while you worry about prison costs.
Incest is relative.
Q. Why did Obama change his name from Barry to Barack?
A. He thought Barry sounded too American.
Q What's red and smells like blue paint?
A Red paint
Q What did the lawyer say to the other lawyer?
A We're lawyers
Q What's yellow and lives off dead beatles?
A Yoko Ono
Q What's worse than biting into the core of an apple and getting a worm?
A Getting raped by a giant scorpion
Ubama says: My Kenyan village is holding their annual incest competition.
I've entered my sister
ELVIS
11-13-2013, 08:55 PM
And you are annoyed...blah blah blah...
You're such a retard, dude...
And a liar...
And a drunk...
And a smugmeister...
And a cheerleader for corruption...
:biggrin:
ELVIS
11-13-2013, 09:02 PM
Q What's the difference between Obomba and God ??
A God doesn't think he is Obomba...
Jesus Christ
11-13-2013, 09:10 PM
Q What's the difference between Obomba and God ??
A God doesn't think he is Obomba...
No, He doesn't.
Nor does Barack thinketh that he is Me or My Dad.
Stop bearing false witness, Gregory. :(
Jesus Christ
11-13-2013, 09:11 PM
You're such a retard, dude...
And a liar...
And a drunk...
And a smugmeister...
And a cheerleader for corruption...
:biggrin:
Way to live by My teachings, as usual..... :rolleyes:
ELVIS
11-13-2013, 09:14 PM
Faux Jesus® by FORD teachings ??
Jesus Christ
11-13-2013, 09:20 PM
Verily I say unto you, that the Messiah shall never work for the false prophet Rupert Murdoch, nor his network of treasonous liars and felons.
Nitro Express
11-14-2013, 12:58 AM
Outsource the economy and get everyone dependent on food stamps. Those bankers are clever. Buying votes is what it is. Once the votes aren't needed the food stamps will be taken away.
"A government that can give you everything can take it away" --Thomas Jefferson--
Jesus Christ
11-14-2013, 01:14 AM
"As you have done unto the least of these, you have done unto Me" - Me
Nickdfresh
11-14-2013, 06:31 AM
Outsource the economy and get everyone dependent on food stamps. Those bankers are clever. Buying votes is what it is. Once the votes aren't needed the food stamps will be taken away.
"A government that can give you everything can take it away" --Thomas Jefferson--
You give bankers WAAAAYYY too much credit. You really think they've clever enough to "plan" anything of that sort. They fucked the economy alright, but the banks haven't totally gotten out free and clear --though they haven't suffered nearly enough either....
Seshmeister
11-14-2013, 09:31 PM
Going back to the original thread title I think this is yet another example of this faux 'American exceptionalism' thing that maybe people should examine a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
If you look at the GDP figures by population the US comes out 10th, 14th, 15th or 18th in the world depending on who you believe.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.