One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
I believe Obamacare is creating jobs!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Apr 1, 2014 00:39:49   #
bobgssc
 
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding work. All of a sudden, Home Depot is hiring out the ying yang! Of course, they are all part time jobs. If Home Depot wants to keep their prices low, they have to cut a lot of full time jobs in half and hire a lot more part timers. Also, he is still "underemployed" and will therefore still be able to collect a portion of his "benefit" (I hate calling something a "benefit" that you have to pay into to collect, sounds more like an account to me).
So yah, I was just trying to start something with the title, as expected, the net change will be a big minus to the workers of the country.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 02:19:44   #
grace scott
 
bobgssc wrote:
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding work. All of a sudden, Home Depot is hiring out the ying yang! Of course, they are all part time jobs. If Home Depot wants to keep their prices low, they have to cut a lot of full time jobs in half and hire a lot more part timers. Also, he is still "underemployed" and will therefore still be able to collect a portion of his "benefit" (I hate calling something a "benefit" that you have to pay into to collect, sounds more like an account to me).
So yah, I was just trying to start something with the title, as expected, the net change will be a big minus to the workers of the country.
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding w... (show quote)


Yeah. There's one like you in every crowd. But, at least he's working, not spending the day having fun.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 06:10:42   #
funguy1949
 
Yep all the lieing going on about how the % of unemploment is going down is all BS everyone who's getting a job is part time.Part time is nothing now days can't even go out an get a place to call your own.Full time job's is what's needed.put a stop of obama care an watch how things will come alive,then creat more job's an not bigger goverment.Also cut the porkbely spending to lower tax's an so forth it's high time for this nation to start growing again. Vote Conservative come this NOV.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 06:57:55   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
bobgssc wrote:
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding work. All of a sudden, Home Depot is hiring out the ying yang! Of course, they are all part time jobs. If Home Depot wants to keep their prices low, they have to cut a lot of full time jobs in half and hire a lot more part timers. Also, he is still "underemployed" and will therefore still be able to collect a portion of his "benefit" (I hate calling something a "benefit" that you have to pay into to collect, sounds more like an account to me).
So yah, I was just trying to start something with the title, as expected, the net change will be a big minus to the workers of the country.
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding w... (show quote)




Let me correct a common misunderstanding among workers. You say the unemployed paid into the unemployement tax. The employees do not pay one cent into the unemployment tax. 100% of the federal and state unemployment tax is paid by the employer. When an ex employee collects, the employer's tax rate goes up.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 07:25:25   #
astrolite
 
hprinze wrote:
Let me correct a common misunderstanding among workers. You say the unemployed paid into the unemployement tax. The employees do not pay one cent into the unemployment tax. 100% of the federal and state unemployment tax is paid by the employer. When an ex employee collects, the employer's tax rate goes up.


Technically you are right! But if I didn't have to pay the government I could pay that amount directly to my employees! I would look like I'm paying them twice as much! It would still cost me as much per hour as before. No bargain for either of us! But I would get credit for paying higher wages instead the democrats get credit for giving the employee "FREE" money! Interestingly enough the present way creates more jobs------Government drones who distribute less than half of the money with held from true wages for themselves! Paying the employees directly would put a lot of democrat appointees out of (not work, but a position) the "Gravy train".

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 07:46:41   #
Retired669
 
bobgssc wrote:
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding work. All of a sudden, Home Depot is hiring out the ying yang! Of course, they are all part time jobs. If Home Depot wants to keep their prices low, they have to cut a lot of full time jobs in half and hire a lot more part timers. Also, he is still "underemployed" and will therefore still be able to collect a portion of his "benefit" (I hate calling something a "benefit" that you have to pay into to collect, sounds more like an account to me).
So yah, I was just trying to start something with the title, as expected, the net change will be a big minus to the workers of the country.
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding w... (show quote)


Maybe Home Depot is finally using the Wal-Mart play book of getting the taxpayers to subsidize their part time workers health care, food stamps etc.?...You know let the tax payers foot the bill while we rake in the profits. :thumbup:

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 09:07:30   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
Lowes also but most of those jobs are 32 hours but are called full time. Both have been hiring for about a year now.



bobgssc wrote:
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding work. All of a sudden, Home Depot is hiring out the ying yang! Of course, they are all part time jobs. If Home Depot wants to keep their prices low, they have to cut a lot of full time jobs in half and hire a lot more part timers. Also, he is still "underemployed" and will therefore still be able to collect a portion of his "benefit" (I hate calling something a "benefit" that you have to pay into to collect, sounds more like an account to me).
So yah, I was just trying to start something with the title, as expected, the net change will be a big minus to the workers of the country.
My son was unemployed and having trouble finding w... (show quote)

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 09:29:55   #
Terry Allan Hall Loc: Republic O' Tejas
 
Retired669 wrote:
Maybe Home Depot is finally using the Wal-Mart play book of getting the taxpayers to subsidize their part time workers health care, food stamps etc.?...You know let the tax payers foot the bill while we rake in the profits. :thumbup:


It's a growing trend, and the Sheeple praise WalMart, Target, HD, etc. for doing it to America...all the while sniveling about people on welfare.

If said Sheeple ever found out what percentage of their tax dollars went into welfare for the wealthy business owners, not single moms and the handicapped...

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

Before we look at the details, a heartfelt plea from the Save the CEO’s Charitable Trust:

There’s so much suffering in the world. It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. Consider, for a moment the sorrow in the eyes of a CEO who’s just found out that his end-of-year bonus is only going to be a paltry $2.3 million.

“It felt like a slap in the face. Imagine what it would feel like just before Christmas to find out that you’re going to be forced to scrape by on your standard $8.4 million compensation package alone. Imagine what is was like to have to look into my daughter’s face and tell her that I couldn’t afford to both buy her a dollar sign shaped island and hire someone to chew her food from now on, too. To put her in that situation of having to choose… She’s only a child for God’s sake.”

It doesn’t have to be this way. Thanks to federal subsidies from taxpayers like you, CEO’s like G. Allen Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland was able to take home almost $14 million in executive compensation last year. But he’s one of the lucky ones. There are still corporations out there that actually have to provide goods and services to their consumers in order to survive. They need your help.

For just $93 billion a year the federal government is able to provide a better life for these CEO’s and their families. That’s less than the cost of 240 million cups of coffee a day. Won’t you help a needy corporation today?

The Traditional Welfare Queen
Definition: social welfare

n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to specific individuals.

When one thinks about government welfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the proverbial welfare queen sitting atop her majestic throne of government cheese issuing a royal decree to her clamoring throngs of illegitimate babies that they may shut the hell up while she tries to watch Judge Judy. However, many politically well-connected corporations are also parasitically draining their share of fiscal blood from your paycheck before you ever see it. It’s called corporate welfare. The intent here is to figure out which presents the greater burden to our federal budget, corporate or social welfare programs.

There are, of course, positive and negative aspects to this spending.The primary negative aspect is that you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Taxing individuals lowers their standard of living. It reduces people’s ability to afford necessities like medical care, education, and low mileage off-road vehicles.The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps. Welfare checks are supplied through a federal program called Temporary Aid for Needy Families. Combined federal and state TANF spending was about $26 billion in 2006. In 2009, the federal government will spend about $25 billion on rental aid for low-income households and about $8 billion on public housing projects. For some perspective, that’s about 3 percent of the total federal budget.

Note: I do not consider Medicaid to be included in the term “welfare” as it is used in common parlance. Typically, if one states that someone is “on welfare”, they mean that the person is receiving direct financial aid from the government. If we included Medicaid in our definition of social welfare, we would also have to consider any service that the government pays for to be “welfare”. For instance, public roadways to individuals’ homes would also be considered “welfare” under that expansive definition.
TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families)

Another negative aspect relates to the fact that social welfare programs reduce the incentive for recipients to become productive members of society. However, in 1996, Congress passed a bill enacting limited welfare reform, replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the new Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program. One key aspect of this reform required recipients to engage in job searches, on the job training, community service work, or other constructive behaviors as a condition for receiving aid. The bill was signed by a man named Bill Clinton, who is much better known for an act of fellatio which, of course, had far greater societal implications. Regardless, the success of this reform was pretty dramatic. Caseloads were cut nearly in half. Once individuals were required to work or undertake constructive activities as a condition of receiving aid they left welfare rapidly. Another surprising result was a drop in the child poverty rate. Employment of single mothers increased substantially and the child poverty rate fell sharply from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 16.3 percent in 2000.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Child-pov-by-living-arrangements-75-09.jpg

The Corporate Welfare Queen

Now, let’s consider the other kind of welfare.
Definition: corporate welfare

n. Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses.

The Cato Institute estimated that, in 2002, $93 billion were devoted to corporate welfare. This is about 5 percent of the federal budget.To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud, I suppose the primary service they provide could be considered to be repeatedly violating the American taxpayer.On the other hand, the $15 billion in subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to the oil, gas, and coal industries, would be considered corporate welfare because no goods or services are directly returned to the government in exchange for these expenditures.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/energy-subsidies-chart-1024x607.jpg

Tax breaks targeted to benefit specific corporations could also be considered a form of welfare. Tax loopholes force other businesses and individual taxpayers without the same political clout to pick up the slack and sacrifice a greater share of their hard-earned money to decrease the financial burden on these corporations. However, to simplify matters, we’ve only included financial handouts to companies in our working definition of corporate welfare.

Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea. Politicians say that they’re stimulating the economy or helping struggling industries or creating jobs or funding important research. But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.

Most of the pigs at the government trough are among the biggest companies in America, including the Big 3 automakers, Boeing, Archer Daniels Midland, and now-bankrupt Enron.
Farm Subsidies

However, the largest fraction of corporate welfare spending, about 40%, went through the Department of Agriculture, most of it in the form of farm subsidies. (Edwards, Corporate Welfare, 2003) Well, that sounds OK. Someone’s got to help struggling family farms stay afloat, right? But in reality, farm subsidies actually tilt the cotton field in favor of the largest industrial farming operations. When it comes to deciding how to dole out the money, the agricultural subsidy system utilizes a process that is essentially the opposite of that used in the social welfare system’s welfare system. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. The result is that the absolute largest 7% of corporate farming operations receive 45% of all subsidies. (Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, 2004) So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/Farm-Subsidies2.jpg

Wal-Mart. Always high subsidies. Always.

The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses. If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main street, mom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice. Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. For example, a distribution center in Macclenny, Florida received $9 million in government subsidies in the form of free land, government-funded recruitment and training of employees, targeted tax breaks, and housing subsidies for employees allowing them to be paid significantly lower wages. A study by Good Jobs First found that 244 Wal-Marts around the country had received over $1 billion in government favors.

The Big Picture

So now let’s look at the big picture. The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations. So, the government spends roughly 50% more on corporate welfare than it does on these particular public assistance programs.

Should we spend less on corporate welfare and/or social welfare programs? Or should we spend even more? It’s up to you. A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy, so if you feel strongly about this issue you owe it to them to call or write your congressman and senators and give them a piece of your mind.
Some More Sources:

2013 Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/budget.pdf

Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government (Washington: Government Publishing Office), various years; and data from the American Association for the Advancement of Science R&D Budget and Policy Program, various years.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data.

Source: Export-Import Bank, 2006 Annual Report (Washington: Export-Import Bank, 2007).

Source Data from Chris Edwards at Cato:

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 10:13:03   #
OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!
 
Retired669 wrote:
Maybe Home Depot is finally using the Wal-Mart play book of getting the taxpayers to subsidize their part time workers health care, food stamps etc.?...You know let the tax payers foot the bill while we rake in the profits. :thumbup:


Of course, Obamacare has nothing to do with it?? Eh?

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 10:33:41   #
skott Loc: Bama
 
OldSchool wrote:
Of course, Obamacare has nothing to do with it?? Eh?


All of her data was pre-Obamacare. So yeah, nothing to do with it.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 11:37:27   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
Well if that be the case take a good look at those numbers. Yeah more people will be employed with less that a 40 hour work week.


skott wrote:
All of her data was pre-Obamacare. So yeah, nothing to do with it.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 11:41:27   #
bobgssc
 
grace scott wrote:
Yeah. There's one like you in every crowd. But, at least he's working, not spending the day having fun.


Yes, there is one critical thinker like me in every crowd. Unfortunately, there is also one like you, who simply posts stupid remarks like those above while not offering any alternative or even reason for what you think. Good job helping keep this forum intelligent!

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 11:43:34   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
bmac32 wrote:
Well if that be the case take a good look at those numbers. Yeah more people will be employed with less that a 40 hour work week.




The reason for the cutback in hours is because Obamacare dictates to private business that it must buy health insurance (with the provisions of the policy dictated by government bureaucrats) for all full time employees. The 30 hours is the cutoff between full time and part time.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 11:47:01   #
bobgssc
 
hprinze wrote:
The reason for the cutback in hours is because Obamacare dictates to private business that it must buy health insurance (with the provisions of the policy dictated by government bureaucrats) for all full time employees. The 30 hours is the cutoff between full time and part time.


Yep and HD is offering a bunch of 16 hour jobs so that they can work extra if needed and stay below the 30 hour mark. Can't blame them, they have to find someway to survive.

| Reply
Apr 1, 2014 14:06:48   #
bmac32 Loc: West Florida
 
Jobs were being cut before ObamaCare, simply go back and look at the numbers and not much change for real growth is being squashed by ObamaCare.


hprinze wrote:
The reason for the cutback in hours is because Obamacare dictates to private business that it must buy health insurance (with the provisions of the policy dictated by government bureaucrats) for all full time employees. The 30 hours is the cutoff between full time and part time.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.