|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 23 2014 17:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 16:58 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:36 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:54 IgnE wrote:
I guess the only question remaining is how it would benefit walmart's business operations or shareholder value. They aren't scoring any points with liberals that will always use them as whipping posts. Raising prices on their customers isn't something a company would consider, in general, if additional costs aren't being forced on them. It still looks like the takeaway is take on additional costs and pass them to the customers because the population voted in corporate welfare and corporate welfare is bad. "Corporate welfare?" What is that? It's been previously mentioned on this same page. Do you care to comment on the remaining question? I don't see an explanation in that post of "corporate welfare." Is it when corporations pay zero taxes on massive profits? Or when corporations are bailed out of bankruptcy-level debt so that they can turn a profit that is based almost solely on their ability to arbitrage the value of an implicit government backing against smaller corporations? Or, oh I see. You might mean something else. Are you, Danglars, the Chancellor of the Iron Law of Wages, who decrees that when wages are above the absolute very minimum to sustain existence the excess is simply "corporate welfare" bestowed on us poor peons from our corporate overlords? Some companies are bigger on the welfare than others, but Walmart believes in tough love. Even our dismal minimal wage must qualify as corporate welfare, as we could be paying people nearly third world wages and set up shanty towns for them out in Idaho if only there weren't federally mandated "corporate welfare" forcing companies to pay more than the absolute minimum wages required. How about instead of raising prices 1.4% Walmart paid employees more out of the profits they received? The cost of raising the average wages of a Walmart employee to $13.63 from $8.81 would be about 25% of their profits from last year.
WMT wouldn't even need to cut into their profits, they have so much cash they're maintaining a nearly $7bn / year stock buyback program.
|
WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department has dramatically expanded the criteria for federal inmates eligible for presidential clemency and is preparing to receive thousands of applications from prisoners caught up in the war on drugs.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole unveiled the new criteria on Wednesday at a press conference at DOJ headquarters. He also announced the resignation of U.S. Pardon Attorney Ronald L. Rodgers, who is tasked with reviewing petitions for executive clemency and preparing recommendations for the White House.
Rodgers, appointed in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration, has long been criticized by criminal justice advocates, and the DOJ Inspector General found in 2012 that he "fell substantially short of the high standards to be expected of Department of Justice employees and of the duty that he owed to the President of the United States." Rodgers previously served as the head of the Drug Intelligence Unit inside DOJ's Criminal Division. Cole said he would soon name his replacement.
The most obvious candidates for clemency under the new guidelines, Cole said, are crack offenders sentenced before the passage of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, which lowered the disparity between mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of crack and powder cocaine-related crimes. The clemency guidelines won't only affect drug offenders, though that's the area where they will likely have the most impact.
Source
|
On April 23 2014 17:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 16:58 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:36 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:54 IgnE wrote:
I guess the only question remaining is how it would benefit walmart's business operations or shareholder value. They aren't scoring any points with liberals that will always use them as whipping posts. Raising prices on their customers isn't something a company would consider, in general, if additional costs aren't being forced on them. It still looks like the takeaway is take on additional costs and pass them to the customers because the population voted in corporate welfare and corporate welfare is bad. "Corporate welfare?" What is that? It's been previously mentioned on this same page. Do you care to comment on the remaining question? I don't see an explanation in that post of "corporate welfare." Is it when corporations pay zero taxes on massive profits? Or when corporations are bailed out of bankruptcy-level debt so that they can turn a profit that is based almost solely on their ability to arbitrage the value of an implicit government backing against smaller corporations? Or, oh I see. You might mean something else. Are you, Danglars, the Chancellor of the Iron Law of Wages, who decrees that when wages are above the absolute very minimum to sustain existence the excess is simply "corporate welfare" bestowed on us poor peons from our corporate overlords? Some companies are bigger on the welfare than others, but Walmart believes in tough love. Even our dismal minimal wage must qualify as corporate welfare, as we could be paying people nearly third world wages and set up shanty towns for them out in Idaho if only there weren't federally mandated "corporate welfare" forcing companies to pay more than the absolute minimum wages required. How about instead of raising prices 1.4% Walmart paid employees more out of the profits they received? The cost of raising the average wages of a Walmart employee to $13.63 from $8.81 would be about 25% of their profits from last year. The more full discussion might have happened 50 or 100 pages back, and I honestly thought you were a part of it. The sort of assistance to workers that have jobs paying the minimum wage has the effect of raising their effective income. Maybe the story of McDonalds and their McResource line that helped employees enroll in state and local assistance programs will ring a bell. It supports their employees earning comparatively low wages and thus exists as a form of corporate welfare (sometimes dubbed the new welfare queens).
Now you repeatedly propose that this company increase its costs by its own volition and pass them to consumers. Save less money, live slightly better. What's your justification from the company's perspective, even though you are more willing to constantly talk about how well their customers can support it and their employee wages could increase?
On April 24 2014 01:06 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 17:30 IgnE wrote:On April 23 2014 16:58 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:36 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:54 IgnE wrote:
I guess the only question remaining is how it would benefit walmart's business operations or shareholder value. They aren't scoring any points with liberals that will always use them as whipping posts. Raising prices on their customers isn't something a company would consider, in general, if additional costs aren't being forced on them. It still looks like the takeaway is take on additional costs and pass them to the customers because the population voted in corporate welfare and corporate welfare is bad. "Corporate welfare?" What is that? It's been previously mentioned on this same page. Do you care to comment on the remaining question? I don't see an explanation in that post of "corporate welfare." Is it when corporations pay zero taxes on massive profits? Or when corporations are bailed out of bankruptcy-level debt so that they can turn a profit that is based almost solely on their ability to arbitrage the value of an implicit government backing against smaller corporations? Or, oh I see. You might mean something else. Are you, Danglars, the Chancellor of the Iron Law of Wages, who decrees that when wages are above the absolute very minimum to sustain existence the excess is simply "corporate welfare" bestowed on us poor peons from our corporate overlords? Some companies are bigger on the welfare than others, but Walmart believes in tough love. Even our dismal minimal wage must qualify as corporate welfare, as we could be paying people nearly third world wages and set up shanty towns for them out in Idaho if only there weren't federally mandated "corporate welfare" forcing companies to pay more than the absolute minimum wages required. How about instead of raising prices 1.4% Walmart paid employees more out of the profits they received? The cost of raising the average wages of a Walmart employee to $13.63 from $8.81 would be about 25% of their profits from last year. WMT wouldn't even need to cut into their profits, they have so much cash they're maintaining a nearly $7bn / year stock buyback program. "They can afford it" might even work for you, out of your own checkbook, giving 20$ to a charitable cause every week. Is this still the moral line, some sort of corporate ethics and morality, or would you say it would make good business sense too?
|
It makes good business sense to pay your employees the highest wages possible; you want to hire the best and most innovative employees and pay them more than the other guy to build loyalty and keep them around. Wal Mart's business practices are not necessarily better, they are just adept at gaming the system, taking advantage of low labor costs (both at home and abroad), economies of scale, and are exceptional at squeezing every penny out of their suppliers.
There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
|
I think it makes good business sense to pay employees the lowest wages possible. Then take the best out of your frontline and move them up the corporate ladder. Strive to build a business where the system is set up that employees are interchangeable cogs in a wheel. Any raises should be tied to that employee bringing a greater amount of profits in first. Pointless raises are just overpaying.
|
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) speculated that the Republican Party may be exaggerating the extent of voter fraud, as more GOP-controlled states pass new voter identification laws to combat what the party claims is a widespread problem.
Paul sat down for a wide-ranging conversation Tuesday with David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics. Here's a portion of their conversation, according to a transcript from The Washington Post:
PAUL: Dead people do still vote in some elections. There still is some fraud. And so we should stop that, and one way of doing it is [driver's licenses].
AXELROD: Although the incidence of fraud is relatively small.
PAUL: It probably is, and I think Republicans may have over-emphasized this. I don't know.
Democrats say voter identification laws suppress the vote of minorities, seniors, students and women, who are less likely to have the required forms of identification and more likely to vote for Democrats.
Paul also told Axelrod that he opposes restricting access to early voting, as states such as Ohio and Wisconsin have done.
Source
|
On April 24 2014 05:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) speculated that the Republican Party may be exaggerating the extent of voter fraud, as more GOP-controlled states pass new voter identification laws to combat what the party claims is a widespread problem.
Paul sat down for a wide-ranging conversation Tuesday with David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, at the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics. Here's a portion of their conversation, according to a transcript from The Washington Post:
PAUL: Dead people do still vote in some elections. There still is some fraud. And so we should stop that, and one way of doing it is [driver's licenses].
AXELROD: Although the incidence of fraud is relatively small.
PAUL: It probably is, and I think Republicans may have over-emphasized this. I don't know.
Democrats say voter identification laws suppress the vote of minorities, seniors, students and women, who are less likely to have the required forms of identification and more likely to vote for Democrats.
Paul also told Axelrod that he opposes restricting access to early voting, as states such as Ohio and Wisconsin have done. Source
"Republicans may have over-emphasized this" And the award for understatement of the year goes to...
There isn't a single election they can point to that even has a hint of voter fraud influencing it one way or the other. Florida and the hanging/dimpled chads had more influence than all the 'voter fraud' in the last 30 years combined.
Even if you take the largest numbers of alleged fraud against the most conservative numbers of people negatively effected by the laws they are proposing, it's plainly obvious those laws and their implementations cause far more harm to democracy than help.
Anyone who claims voter suppression ('ID') laws as they are currently being written and implemented are anything but an attack on democracy (more specifically Democrats) are disingenuous to the core or so patently ignorant they deserve the social reprimands they receive.
|
I dunno, I think having government issued ID seems a very reasonable request to vote.
|
A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JQBePOr.jpg) Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.” In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups
Source
|
On April 24 2014 05:56 Wolfstan wrote:
I dunno, I think having government issued ID seems a very reasonable request to vote.
That is not even remotely the issue. So.... I don't know why you would even say that. Well other than what I mentioned before.
|
On April 24 2014 05:56 Wolfstan wrote:
I dunno, I think having government issued ID seems a very reasonable request to vote.
except when you try to implement it weeks before the election which is what happened last time.
I agree that I dont see much problem with ID's if it happens with plenty of time (a year for example), a good and far reaching information campaign to make sure everyone knows about it and a very low price tag.
|
You already have to show ID or even residence when you line up and get into a voting place.
|
Majorities of people surveyed in a trio of Southern states said they would rather keep Obamacare and improve than repeal and replace it, according to a New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Wednesday.
Residents in Kentucky, Louisiana and North Carolina chose improving the law over repealing it and replacing it by significant margins: 52 percent to 41 percent in Kentucky, 52 percent to 44 percent in Louisiana, and a whopping 60 percent to 35 percent in North Carolina.
In a fourth state, Arkansas, a plurality said they wanted their congressional representative to work to improve the law (48 percent) instead of work to repeal the law and replace it with something else (46 percent).
Source
|
Not in Canada, there is a huge political uproar over eliminating having a buddy verbally say "I swear this guy's legit." I thought the US was having similar "voter suppression" debates.
|
On April 24 2014 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.” In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups Source ThinkProgress still trying to wish away the scandal. The delays spanning years were conservative groups, the quick approvals were progressives. It's a bad faith effort, but what would you expect from TP regardless. Food for progressives that won't read the report to continue the whitewashing.
Most humorous part was "goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided." As if Be on the Lookout-TAG Historical (In Testimony, issues that haven't come up for a while aka progressives) and BOLO-TAG Emerging Issues (tea party) are even close.
298 cases selected for political review. 3 had "progressive". 0 had "occupy". IRS independent inspector general testimony.
30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were process as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.
Russel George, the IRS independent IG
The report is damning. The congressional testimony alone is damning, staffers aside. At least one of the higher ups, likely Lois Lerner, had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election, affecting voter turnout. The left knows this is a case of abuse of power, and thus employ so much effort burying the story and raising as many flimsy arguments as possible to cast doubt.
One last time for anyone reading that has a good faith desire to learn both sides of the story: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives
|
On April 24 2014 06:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.” In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups ThinkProgress still trying to wish away the scandal. The delays spanning years were conservative groups, the quick approvals were progressives. It's a bad faith effort, but what would you expect from TP regardless. Food for progressives that won't read the report to continue the whitewashing. Most humorous part was "goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided." As if Be on the Lookout-TAG Historical (In Testimony, issues that haven't come up for a while aka progressives) and BOLO-TAG Emerging Issues (tea party) are even close. 298 cases selected for political review. 3 had "progressive". 0 had "occupy". IRS independent inspector general testimony. Show nested quote +30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were process as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.
Russel George, the IRS independent IG The report is damning. The congressional testimony alone is damning, staffers aside. At least one of the higher ups, likely Lois Lerner, had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election, affecting voter turnout. The left knows this is a case of abuse of power, and thus employ so much effort burying the story and raising as many flimsy arguments as possible to cast doubt. One last time for anyone reading that has a good faith desire to learn both sides of the story: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives
had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election
Even if all of what you are saying was true and accurate (which I don't believe it is, but that conversation is going nowhere), no one was really 'silenced'.
Those organizations could of said whatever they wanted to say whenever they wanted to say it, they just wouldn't be able to do it tax-free...?
So was there probably some lazy and potentially illegal things happening like using keywords to identify the rush of potentially illegitimate 501c4's... maybe?
But acting like the government actually prevented anyone from expressing their view is pretty disingenuous.
It wouldn't have even been an issue if we didn't create ridiculous groups like 501c4's to start with. Or if blatantly political organizations weren't trying to get the status when they are clearly stretching the interpretation of the statute to it's limits.
If they just formed as Super/PAC's they would have been fine.
They insist their intention was social welfare but then people like Danglars complain that it negatively impacted Republican/'Conservative' turnout...
Not really surprised when Danglars gets so upset about something like this though when he, as far as I've been able to extract, would prefer unlimited secret donations? Not sure though because he never got back to me on that.
|
On April 24 2014 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 06:33 Danglars wrote:On April 24 2014 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888″ and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.” In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups ThinkProgress still trying to wish away the scandal. The delays spanning years were conservative groups, the quick approvals were progressives. It's a bad faith effort, but what would you expect from TP regardless. Food for progressives that won't read the report to continue the whitewashing. Most humorous part was "goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided." As if Be on the Lookout-TAG Historical (In Testimony, issues that haven't come up for a while aka progressives) and BOLO-TAG Emerging Issues (tea party) are even close. 298 cases selected for political review. 3 had "progressive". 0 had "occupy". IRS independent inspector general testimony. 30 percent of the organizations we identified with the words 'progress' or 'progressive' in their names were process as potential political cases. In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the tax exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit.
Russel George, the IRS independent IG The report is damning. The congressional testimony alone is damning, staffers aside. At least one of the higher ups, likely Lois Lerner, had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election, affecting voter turnout. The left knows this is a case of abuse of power, and thus employ so much effort burying the story and raising as many flimsy arguments as possible to cast doubt. One last time for anyone reading that has a good faith desire to learn both sides of the story: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's report Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives Show nested quote + had her department silence conservative 501c4 groups in advance of the 2012 election Even if all of what you are saying was true and accurate (which I don't believe it is, but that conversation is going nowhere), no one was really ' silenced'.
I'm not the one saying it. It's included in testimony from the independent inspector general, IRS employees, IRS auditors, men and women throughout the organization. Allowing one group to organize and receive donations they don't have to pay a tax on and denying that to another ... how is that not silencing? Freedom of assembly granted to one solely based on the group ideology they chose, and denied to another.
Those organizations could of said whatever they wanted to say whenever they wanted to say it, they just wouldn't be able to do it tax-free...?
So was there probably some lazy and potentially illegal things happening like using keywords to identify the rush of potentially illegitimate 501c4's... maybe? That's not what the investigation and the testimony points to. I do however like how you use "lazy and potentially illegal things." No scandal here, just some lazy and potentially illegal things. I don't even see you getting somewhere with all this quibbling on language.
But acting like the government actually prevented anyone from expressing their view is pretty disingenuous.
It wouldn't have even been an issue if we didn't create ridiculous groups like 501c4's to start with. Or if blatantly political organizations weren't trying to get the status when they are clearly stretching the interpretation of the statute to it's limits.
If they just formed as Super/PAC's they would have been fine. Criticize the current setup of 501(c)(4)'s if you want. Congress writes the laws and they can be changed. However, don't imply that allowing one side of the ideological spectrum to raise money, conceal donor lists, and engage in turn out the vote operations and denying that to the other side is anything short of silencing the opposition. If the laws are to have any force, they must be applied fairly to everyone. Greenhorizons, is equality before the law at all important to you?
They insist their intention was social welfare but then people like Danglars complain that it negatively impacted Republican/'Conservative' turnout...
Not really surprised when Danglars gets so upset about something like this though when he, as far as I've been able to extract, would prefer unlimited secret donations? Not sure though because he never got back to me on that. Both sides use 501(c)(4)'s, but the federal government under the Obama administration under its approval or without its knowledge made it so one side didn't get approvals. That's abuse of power. That's why this scandal is important for the future of our republic.
You adopt a pretty cavalier attitude when the government sics their IRS on you. Maybe lazy, potentially illegal ... are you now in the business of getting behind a podium and announcing, "Mistakes were made?" When they ask illegally for information, you comply ... they have great power at their disposal to punish you for failure to comply.
GreenHorizons, what are the content of your prayers? The IRS wants to know. I know I know, no big deal. It's not silencing, not intimidating, not antagonistic to free speech of the political kind. You just want to form a group that your neighbor did. The only problem is, we have disagreements with the way you think about government and not the way he thinks.
|
On April 23 2014 13:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 12:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2014 12:05 IgnE wrote:On April 23 2014 11:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2014 11:16 IgnE wrote:On April 23 2014 10:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2014 10:35 IgnE wrote:
Except it's not close to 100%. Even the 90th percentile of people who receive benefits only pay a ~60% marginal tax. Unless you are talking about the rara avis who stacks every benefit loss and every tax increase into one package. But that would be like talking about a black swan. The simulated marginal tax rates include the combined effects of federal individual income taxes, state individual income taxes (under provisions in effect in 2006), federal payroll taxes, and the reduction in SNAP benefits. The marginal tax rates were based on taxpayers’ total compensation before their employers’ share of payroll taxes was deducted. Hardly an exhaustive list of benefits. Also: including additional programs would generally increase estimates of marginal
tax rates. Other parts of the report that include more / other benefits do approach 100%. Ok but you didn't post the graph where they only included SNAP. That graph looks different from the one you posted. If you had looked deeper you would see the more widely cited 30% and the overall conclusion that most people pay roughly 30% marginal tax at that income. Other parts of the report include more/other benefits that reach up to 60%, and mention in passing that benefits can approach 100% before going into analysis that for the large majority of people 100% marginal tax is not a reality. I do not understand why you persist in this. Just look at the summary on page 1. Edit: It's kind of enraging that you paste an out-of-context quote unrelated to the graph and then say that they only counted SNAP benefits. They did a number of simulations, including ones where they only counted SNAP benefits. The graph you posted uses all of the programs that I cited earlier. Talking with you is like pulling teeth. I can't tell if you are just profoundly stupid or merely disingenuous. The graph I first posted included more programs and went nearly up to 100% marginal tax rate. The graph I used was consistent with my message. The data you cited "Even the 90th percentile of people who receive benefits only pay a ~60% marginal tax" only included the SNAP benefits. The 30% number from the summary is an average including people that make up to 450% of the poverty line - well beyond struggling cashier at Walmart - and only included SNAP benefits. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that
working taxpayers with income below 450 percent of federal poverty guidelines (commonly known as the federal
poverty level, so abbreviated as FPL) face a marginal tax rate of 30 percent, on average, under the provisions of
law in effect in 2012. That estimate takes into account federal and state individual income taxes, federal
payroll taxes, and the reductions in benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly known as the Food Stamp program) that occur when earnings increase. Edit: Removed the insult  Since the vast majority of people receive benefits from one or no programs and since SNAP is a high-cost benefit, the SNAP analysis is a good proxy for reality. Looking through most of the data, the ~30% rate is roughly accurate for everyone up to 450% of poverty, although it does approach 50% for some benefits users. 50% is still very different from 100%. You must have also ignored the part where they said increasing marginal tax rates have no perceptible impact on young males' willingness to work more (or seek higher wages). One or no programs given what the CBO was looking at (not all programs). I was also commenting on people who are using benefits, not all Walmart employees or all minimum wage earners. Disincentives to work are a different topic. Why wouldn't I ignore it? Edit: CBO also used self-reported data that, according to them, under-reported program use. They also point out that people with children are more likely to use multiple programs. On a friendly note, as I said at the start, I do think you brought up some good points. 100% marginal tax rate was a bit of hyperbole, even if they can go that high (or higher!) on occasion and tend to be higher for the more needy. So in conclusion, an increase in the wages at Walmart would benefit the employees and would impose a minor 1.4% price increase amounting to no more than a hundred dollars a year on the average customer.
Yep. It still doesn't sound like a good plan to me though.
On April 23 2014 15:54 IgnE wrote:
"Corporate welfare?" What is that?
Food stamps. EITC and the like.
Edit: on the grounds that they drive wages down and profits up.
Edit 2: at least that's what people were rolling with a few pages ago...
|
On April 24 2014 04:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2014 17:30 IgnE wrote:On April 23 2014 16:58 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:36 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:54 IgnE wrote:
I guess the only question remaining is how it would benefit walmart's business operations or shareholder value. They aren't scoring any points with liberals that will always use them as whipping posts. Raising prices on their customers isn't something a company would consider, in general, if additional costs aren't being forced on them. It still looks like the takeaway is take on additional costs and pass them to the customers because the population voted in corporate welfare and corporate welfare is bad. "Corporate welfare?" What is that? It's been previously mentioned on this same page. Do you care to comment on the remaining question? I don't see an explanation in that post of "corporate welfare." Is it when corporations pay zero taxes on massive profits? Or when corporations are bailed out of bankruptcy-level debt so that they can turn a profit that is based almost solely on their ability to arbitrage the value of an implicit government backing against smaller corporations? Or, oh I see. You might mean something else. Are you, Danglars, the Chancellor of the Iron Law of Wages, who decrees that when wages are above the absolute very minimum to sustain existence the excess is simply "corporate welfare" bestowed on us poor peons from our corporate overlords? Some companies are bigger on the welfare than others, but Walmart believes in tough love. Even our dismal minimal wage must qualify as corporate welfare, as we could be paying people nearly third world wages and set up shanty towns for them out in Idaho if only there weren't federally mandated "corporate welfare" forcing companies to pay more than the absolute minimum wages required. How about instead of raising prices 1.4% Walmart paid employees more out of the profits they received? The cost of raising the average wages of a Walmart employee to $13.63 from $8.81 would be about 25% of their profits from last year. The more full discussion might have happened 50 or 100 pages back, and I honestly thought you were a part of it. The sort of assistance to workers that have jobs paying the minimum wage has the effect of raising their effective income. Maybe the story of McDonalds and their McResource line that helped employees enroll in state and local assistance programs will ring a bell. It supports their employees earning comparatively low wages and thus exists as a form of corporate welfare ( sometimes dubbed the new welfare queens). Now you repeatedly propose that this company increase its costs by its own volition and pass them to consumers. Save less money, live slightly better. What's your justification from the company's perspective, even though you are more willing to constantly talk about how well their customers can support it and their employee wages could increase? Show nested quote +On April 24 2014 01:06 TheFish7 wrote:On April 23 2014 17:30 IgnE wrote:On April 23 2014 16:58 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:36 Danglars wrote:On April 23 2014 15:54 IgnE wrote:
I guess the only question remaining is how it would benefit walmart's business operations or shareholder value. They aren't scoring any points with liberals that will always use them as whipping posts. Raising prices on their customers isn't something a company would consider, in general, if additional costs aren't being forced on them. It still looks like the takeaway is take on additional costs and pass them to the customers because the population voted in corporate welfare and corporate welfare is bad. "Corporate welfare?" What is that? It's been previously mentioned on this same page. Do you care to comment on the remaining question? I don't see an explanation in that post of "corporate welfare." Is it when corporations pay zero taxes on massive profits? Or when corporations are bailed out of bankruptcy-level debt so that they can turn a profit that is based almost solely on their ability to arbitrage the value of an implicit government backing against smaller corporations? Or, oh I see. You might mean something else. Are you, Danglars, the Chancellor of the Iron Law of Wages, who decrees that when wages are above the absolute very minimum to sustain existence the excess is simply "corporate welfare" bestowed on us poor peons from our corporate overlords? Some companies are bigger on the welfare than others, but Walmart believes in tough love. Even our dismal minimal wage must qualify as corporate welfare, as we could be paying people nearly third world wages and set up shanty towns for them out in Idaho if only there weren't federally mandated "corporate welfare" forcing companies to pay more than the absolute minimum wages required. How about instead of raising prices 1.4% Walmart paid employees more out of the profits they received? The cost of raising the average wages of a Walmart employee to $13.63 from $8.81 would be about 25% of their profits from last year. WMT wouldn't even need to cut into their profits, they have so much cash they're maintaining a nearly $7bn / year stock buyback program. "They can afford it" might even work for you, out of your own checkbook, giving 20$ to a charitable cause every week. Is this still the moral line, some sort of corporate ethics and morality, or would you say it would make good business sense too?
Which came first, the food stamps or the lack of wages/employment that necessitated them? Perhaps instead of riding an exploitative cycle where they pay as low wages as possible so that more government welfare is provided so that they can pay lower wages so that more government welfare is provided (take note that the company pays far less in taxes than those it exploits, such that it doesn't even end up paying for the government welfare provided), companies might take pride in the fact that they are sustainable enterprises that pay living wages in a more robust capitalist economy. Walmart's extreme cost-cutting and securitizing is leading to systemic instability that makes the world a riskier place for everybody else. Perhaps if Walmart just wants to rake in as much capital as possible to ensconce itself in a protective fiefdom when the next crisis hits it has no incentive. If it actually believed in its Christian family prosperity company line and the virtues of capitalism then it might take actions, including paying higher wages, that increased the prosperity of its employees and communities.
Your question reads basically as, what incentive does a ruffian who will never get caught have to not pillage from everyone else?
|
Net neutrality is not dead. But it may be about to take a big blow to the head.
The Wall Street Journal has a foreboding scoop that provides details on an early draft of the Federal Communications Commission's new net neutrality rules. And to put it mildly, Internet activists will not be thrilled.
According to the WSJ's sources, the FCC's plan would restructure the rules that govern online traffic by granting Internet service providers the ability to give some websites "preferential treatment" -- i.e. faster traffic -- in exchange for money.
If such rules were imposed, activists fear Internet service providers would make bandwidth-exhaustive websites -- think Netflix and Skype -- pay more for smoother delivery, which would theoretically mean higher prices for customers in turn.
According to the WSJ, companies in need of faster connections would have to pay for preferred treatment on the "last mile" of networks that connect to customers' homes. Such pay-to-play schemes were banned under the old rules.
But there is some good news. The FCC's proposal will ban Internet service providers from the most outright discriminatory practices, like blocking a legal website that offers a service that the Internet provider also offers. Unfortunately for defenders of the original tenets of net neutrality, these proposed rules will not be enough.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
