Forum: Current Events
Topic: shared sacrifice.
started by: the breeze

Posted by the breeze on Aug. 11 2011,4:27 pm
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end!! Democrats would rather see America go bankrupt rather than eliminate the wasteful programs.

*Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
*Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings..
*International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
*Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
*National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5million annual savings.
*National Endowment for the Humanities $167.5 million annual savings.
*Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings.
*Amtrak Subsidies. $156.5billion annual savings.
*Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
*U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annualsavings.
*Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
*Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
*John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
*Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
*Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
CutFederal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings
*Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
*Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
*Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
*Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
*Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
*New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
*Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their *Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts ..$9 million annual savings
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
*Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
*Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
*Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
*Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
*Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
*FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
*Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
*U.S. Agency for International Development.$1.39 billion annual savings.
*General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
*Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
*No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
*End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
*Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
*IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers(such as processingpayment plans for taxpayers) to the *Treasury,instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees..$1.2 billion savings over ten years.
*Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress..
*Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings
*Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
*USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
*Subsidy to Organizationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).$93 million annual savings.
*Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
*Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..
*HUD Ph.D. Program.
*Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

Posted by grassman on Aug. 12 2011,9:36 pm
I didn't see any mention of the tax loophole and giveaways for big business, or not funding the Reagan Library. No limiting or reduction of perks for our highnesses. What's up? :p
Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 12 2011,9:39 pm
Why does this savings have to take a total time of 10yrs?  Why not implement it NOW.
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 16 2011,7:37 pm

(grassman @ Aug. 12 2011,9:36 pm)
QUOTE
I didn't see any mention of the tax loophole and giveaways for big business, or not funding the Reagan Library. No limiting or reduction of perks for our highnesses. What's up? :p

our Highnesses like the democrats currently vacationing in Hawaii at the taxpayers expense???  For a meeting Wed. (17th) on Indian something or other.  The dems (D ont E xpect Much), left for Hawaii with members of the media and of course their entourage on Wed. for a meeting a week later at TAXPAYERS expense!  The SOLE Republican arriving the day before :angel:

That kind of wasteful taxpayer spending you meant when talking of our highnesses...Right?

A meeting that could have been held via skype for virtually nothing...and the dems chose to again throw away tax dollars.  Nice gig if ya can get it!

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 16 2011,8:30 pm
You want to save money by having Congress use skype? :dunce:

QUOTE

Nice gig if ya can get it!

You can get it, you just have to run for office, but I'd suggest you find a district crazier than Bachmann's otherwise you don't stand a chance.

Posted by nedkelly on Aug. 17 2011,8:06 am
Shared sacrifice, as defined by congress: The poor lose and the rich win!!!! Thank you John Boehner and the tea party... :p ......ned
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 17 2011,8:49 pm
You guys dont get it :frusty:

so tell me...what by your definition is the poor???
Those that do not have jobs?  Those that collect unemployment or welfare?  Perhaps homeless?  Those that get food stamps? The elderly on SS?

Posted by Liberal on Aug. 17 2011,9:53 pm
Everyone agrees what poor is, the government sets the poverty level and if you're under it, you're poor.

QUOTE

Over the last decade, child poverty surged in 38 states and erased many of the gains in child well-being made in the last 20 years, according to a new report released Wednesday by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

In most states, the federal government considers a family of four living on less than $22,350 a year "poor." According to the report, child poverty increased 18 percent between 2000 and 2009 and today shapes the lives of nearly 15 million children.

The findings are the latest in a series of studies that reveal the real impact of the recession on family-level finances in the country, including stagnating and declining wages during the 2000s. These sharp changes in individual financial security may ultimately influence the nation’s future.

Children -- particularly very young children -- who experience even a bout of poverty are less likely to graduate from high school, are more likely to become very young parents, have more difficulties learning and earn less money than their non-poor peers as adults, said Patrick McCarthy, president and CEO of the Casey Foundation.

"Child poverty is in some ways a leading indicator of how the country is going to be doing down the road," said McCarthy. "Nearly all of the social problems that we worry about in this country are heavily correlated with child poverty."

Around the country, there were almost 15 million children who lived in poor families in 2009. But another 31 million children also lived in families where the loss of just two paychecks would produce economic catastrophe, McCarthy reported. Taken together, this means that about 43 percent of the nation’s children live in economically insecure households, he said.

"This is a problem that is not just about somebody else's kids, this is about a lot of kids," McCarthy said.

The study also found that 4 percent of the nation’s children had been directly effected by a foreclosure and 11 percent had at least one parent who lost their job since the recession began. (Individual state data can be accessed here: < http://datacenter.kidscount.org.) >

In Nevada, the state where the greatest share of children had been effected by foreclosure or a parent's job loss, conditions for children have evolved from challenging before the recession to deeply problematic since it began, said Robert Parker, a sociologist at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Before the recession, Nevada often sat near the top of the list of states experiencing both job and population growth, Parker said. But the vast majority of the jobs created in the 2000s involved low-wage, service-sector work. As a result, Las Vegas has long had one of the highest teen pregnancy and drop-out rates in the nation. But since the recession began, more obvious signs of social distress have begun to abound. The state's unemployment rate has remained well above 10 percent for more than two years, and Parker said families are clearly struggling.

"The number of families living in non traditional settings -- renting rooms to unrelated adults, multiple families living in a single home and all sorts of arrangements have just skyrocketed," Parker reported. "There's even a phrase that's developed here -- 'going ghetto' -- to describe what's happening in a lot of the glamorous, glitzy master plan communities. There are just these incredibly sharp contrasts that you see. There are houses with overgrown grass and boarded up windows or two or three families inside next door to houses filled with marble."

The number of children visible on the city's streets instead of engaged in structured summer activities has also surged, Parker said. And cuts to education are being made at every level.

"There's really good reason for a great deal of concern," said Parker.

< http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011...05.html >

Posted by librarian on Aug. 17 2011,9:58 pm
How many jobs would be lost if these were all eliminated?
Posted by nedkelly on Aug. 18 2011,10:04 am
Good question librarian... Wonder how long before Breeze finds an answer...If he/she ever has one....... :p .....ned
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 18 2011,10:12 am

(librarian @ Aug. 17 2011,9:58 pm)
QUOTE
How many jobs would be lost if these were all eliminated?

If all of what were eliminated?????
Posted by grassman on Aug. 18 2011,7:18 pm

(Santorini @ Aug. 18 2011,10:12 am)
QUOTE

(librarian @ Aug. 17 2011,9:58 pm)
QUOTE
How many jobs would be lost if these were all eliminated?

If all of what were eliminated?????

OK, read slowly, and think about each word. Breeze started this post about all of the cuts that the Republicans want to make. Go back, collect yourself and read. Hit the  back button. :laugh:
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 19 2011,11:34 pm

(grassman @ Aug. 18 2011,7:18 pm)
QUOTE

(Santorini @ Aug. 18 2011,10:12 am)
QUOTE

(librarian @ Aug. 17 2011,9:58 pm)
QUOTE
How many jobs would be lost if these were all eliminated?

If all of what were eliminated?????

OK, read slowly, and think about each word. Breeze started this post about all of the cuts that the Republicans want to make. Go back, collect yourself and read. Hit the  back button. :laugh:

Like I said grassman; (try to wrap your head around it!)
WHAT JOBS???
Apparently NON-essential ones:dunce:
So your idea is to continue to finance non-essential positions?  (continued BIG-government-gravy-train positions at the tax-payers expense)...then tax the he** out of the rich so they can create more non-essential positions?  That about right :dunno:  Yea, lets tax the he** out of the rich and watch them relocate and then lets increase the corporate taxes (since we are only the 2nd highest corporate taxed country IN THE WORLD; lets shoot for #1) so companies continue to move their corporate headquarters to other more corporate-friendly countries then we can eliminate ALL the potential jobs here at
home and government can create more non-essential positions with all the tax $$$$ they get from the rich that are left!  Can you say total COLLAPSE!

Posted by grassman on Aug. 20 2011,6:30 am
Don't get me wrong, I am all for making some cuts to get this budget under control. Look at what some of these are.

*Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings

This does employ a lot of people. This does help a lot of people who would otherwise freeze to death.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

If we can develop other countries, should we not spend some on our own? Look around, we need it.

Why can they cut stuff like this and yet keep the Reagan Library and such fully funded? What does the library do for anyone? I am looking at what they choose to cut and what it means.

They could cut a lot if they would just change the way our govt did daily business. Why do the ones who need help have to suffer.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Aug. 20 2011,7:39 am
QUOTE
*Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings

This does employ a lot of people. This does help a lot of people who would otherwise freeze to death.


Do we really need a federal agency telling people how to keep warm when all it takes is some god damn common sense?  Are people that dumb now that they have to rely on a fed govt to tell them what to think and how to go about it?  sad, just sad.

QUOTE
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

If we can develop other countries, should we not spend some on our own? Look around, we need it.

Isn't this more a States issue than a federal one?  Why is it your responsibility for another states failing infrastructure?  It isn't.  

QUOTE
Why can they cut stuff like this and yet keep the Reagan Library and such fully funded? What does the library do for anyone? I am looking at what they choose to cut and what it means.


You are absolutely right, why didn't it get cut.  Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to fund a presidents library, should the ex pres be responsible for that?  I say if a business cannot make it on its own then it deserves to fail.

Posted by busybee on Aug. 21 2011,2:02 pm
Grassman...

***Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings

This does employ a lot of people. This does help a lot of people who would otherwise freeze to death. ****

Grinning_Dragon · Posted on Aug. 20 2011,7:39 am

***Do we really need a federal agency telling people how to keep warm when all it takes is some god damn common sense?  Are people that dumb now that they have to rely on a fed govt to tell them what to think and how to go about it?  sad, just sad.***

I think you are both wrong.  

I guess I believed and have been taught that the Federal Government sets the expectations and expenses of the individual States in this country FIRST, and the State's respond to this based upon their individual budgets.  

Therefore, if a State is subjected to a Federal Mandate of Law that every household in their State has to have a refridgerator that meets the Federal Guidelines of being "Federally" energy efficient...if a State can not AFFORD to comply with this IMPROVED STANDARD solely within their own separate STATE budget, they are afforded the opportunity to apply for Federal GRANTS of money to afford to do what the Federal Government is demanding of them to do.  

The FACT is...if the U.S. FEDERAL Government passes a law that every household in every State in the U.S. can't have a refridgerator older than the year 2010 any longer according to the new and improved guidelines based upon "energy efficient" appliances...NOT a SINGLE U.S. State could afford to meet this "Federal" condition and expectation because they set aside enough money in their State budget to buy a refridgerator for every person in their State's household who qualifies as being "poor" according to Federal and State Poverty Guidelines.  

Therefore, the Federal Government allows individual States to request financial assistance GRANTS to "help" them  do as they are being told they have to according to the Feds.  

I really don't care which political party "creates" this type of issue of Federal, State and Local expenditures...I only care about the innocent citizens who are BLAMED and SHUNNED for not being able to buy a new refridgertor.

Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 22 2011,12:54 am
< http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u...tKJudkA >

"The government could raise $700 billion by either taking half of everything earned by the bottom 50% or by raising the marginal tax rate on the top two percent." Guess which approach is more appealing to our so-called leaders?

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 22 2011,1:25 am
<

Posted by Santorini on Aug. 22 2011,11:24 am

(Botto 82 @ Aug. 22 2011,12:54 am)
QUOTE
< http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u...tKJudkA >

"The government could raise $700 billion by either taking half of everything earned by the bottom 50% or by raising the marginal tax rate on the top two percent." Guess which approach is more appealing to our so-called leaders?

botto, it is NOT an eithor or situation as you are led to believe!
Taxing the top 2% (which is the only rhetoric tossed around lately!) is only a very temporary answer...it does NOT address the CORE problem...the out-of-control-deficit.  In order to get out of this mess we need to grow the economy.  That is NOT done through tax increases or cuts!  We need to allow business to be free to grow without interference which has caused business to relocate overseas.  Business wants to maximize profits, (this some of you are opposed to), yet politicians only want to stay in power or increase their power so sometimes it is in their best interest to extend the economic crisis.  Think about it...if the economy is healthy and growing people do not see a need for government action BUT if the economy is lagging the public feels a greater need for government to come help them.   When this happens politicians policies and actions that amplify their political power and influence are attached to convincing the people they are entitled to more and more benefits at no cost.
Politican job security!  We do NOT grow the economy through tax increases or cuts...but we do through private sector jobs!! :angel:

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Aug. 22 2011,11:38 am
^Another reason to ignore this forum. Santorini is simply parroting things Roger Ailes puts in her brain. In other words what she's saying is the boat is sinking and everybody is desperately bailing water but the rich guy doesn't have to lift a finger to help us bail water. Why?
Well, because the boats gonna sick anyway so why does the rich guy have to help us bail water? It's not gonna help much anyway.

This forum is total waste and dead for all practical purposes.

Santorini can't even understand evolution and basic science! She SURE isn't gonna grasp something like the economy, that's math.  :;):

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Aug. 22 2011,11:52 am
I think Roger's a genius, but I'm gonna listen directly to him, not you trying to interpet what you think he wants you to say.  :;):

For all of you who don't know Roger Ailes runs FOX news and is the guy behind the FOX news puppets and who writes what they are gonna say. Forget FOX, just listen directly to Roger. I'll admit this guy is a genius and I have total respect for his abilities. The Green Acres line was very funny. If I was there, I would have cracked me up on the spot.


Posted by Santorini on Aug. 22 2011,3:24 pm

(Stone-Magnon @ Aug. 22 2011,11:38 am)
QUOTE
^Another reason to ignore this forum. Santorini is simply parroting things Roger Ailes puts in her brain. In other words what she's saying is the boat is sinking and everybody is desperately bailing water but the rich guy doesn't have to lift a finger to help us bail water. Why?
Well, because the boats gonna sick anyway so why does the rich guy have to help us bail water? It's not gonna help much anyway.

This forum is total waste and dead for all practical purposes.

Santorini can't even understand evolution and basic science! She SURE isn't gonna grasp something like the economy, that's math.  :;):

So you must have graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Obama School of Economics  :rofl:

I have an idea stoner...instead of blaming the rich guy for being rich why dont YOU start a business. Put YOUR house up for collateral...take a risk...it is called entrepreneurship!!!  and it is what built this country :dunce:   But that takes hard work, determination and innovation...Just think you could actually teach your children and grandchildren
self-respect!!!  OR you can teach your children and grandchildren to stand around with their hands open hoping someone puts something in it. (but thats right...Obama did campaign on hope...)!

Posted by alcitizens on Aug. 22 2011,6:10 pm
I bet the family of the Wal-mart fortune never had to mortgage their home to start up a business.. Thank you Daddy Sam

List of Walton's family fortune as of March 10, 2010 published by Forbes.

Jim Walton US$20.7 billion
Christy Walton and family US$22.5 billion
Alice Walton US$20.6 billion
S. Robson Walton US$19.8 billion
Ann Walton Kroenke US$3.2 billion
Nancy Walton Laurie US$2.7 billion
John Walton US$2.5 billion

Total: US$92 billion

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family >

Posted by Wolfie on Aug. 22 2011,7:53 pm
The Walton family is exactly why everyone needs to go to a local shop and make their purchases.  If you go to a local shop and not "settle" for the crap that is peddled by walmart, your benefits are two-fold.  First you will yes spend a little more money , but a it will be spent locally and then return many times over, and b it will incur slightly higher sales tax which will give the state more money to spend and hopefully slow down the states desire to raise property taxes.  Secondly you will take a little out of the sales of walmart and hopefully force them to rethink their marketing strategy.  Plus it doesnt hurt to hit the bastards in the wallet, f*ck em where they live.
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 23 2011,7:30 am

(alcitizens @ Aug. 22 2011,6:10 pm)
QUOTE
I bet the family of the Wal-mart fortune never had to mortgage their home to start up a business.. Thank you Daddy Sam

List of Walton's family fortune as of March 10, 2010 published by Forbes.

Jim Walton US$20.7 billion
Christy Walton and family US$22.5 billion
Alice Walton US$20.6 billion
S. Robson Walton US$19.8 billion
Ann Walton Kroenke US$3.2 billion
Nancy Walton Laurie US$2.7 billion
John Walton US$2.5 billion

Total: US$92 billion

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family >

Actually, Sam Walton (rest in peace) lived in the same house after he attained his fortune as he did before he became wealthy!
Secondlly, the entire Wal-Mart enterprise was run completely different when he was alive.  He was about the consumer!  About making things affordable and customer satisfaction.  He came into the old AL Wal-Mart unannounced with his entourage wearing the famous bib-overalls while his entourage sported the Italian suits!  He borrowed the $$ to open his first Ben Franklin store.  He was an amazing entepreneur and innovative in his concepts.  This is what you people do not understand and want to punish the rich for...being innovative, working hard, being successful??

Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 23 2011,11:06 am
Sam Walton may have tried to appear a humble man, but records do show he was not always that way.

Do you remember

The slogan "Bring it home to the USA" trying to make believe that they bought made in the USA whenever possible?  Now that was a sham given to consumers.  Close to 85% of their goods are made outside of the US, often in sweatshops.

How about "Always the Low Price" that the Better Business Bureau forced them to discontinue.  Next time you're in Walmart, take care.  They are not always the lower price.

Or when they bought out Woolco and advertised "Wal-Mart is a Canadian company."

Remember,

How substantiated are the many discrimination suits filed against them?  Remeber them not allowing Girl Scouts to sell cookies or making Santa stand outside?

Walmart critics say they often open stores to saturate the market and drive out competitors, then close the stores and leave an empty shell in a community.  :dunno:

Most employees wages keep them below the poverty level.  

The national average for employer cosponsored health care plans are 68%, but Walmart's average is only 38% forcing many of their employees to seek federal assistance.

They say that for every two employees Walmart hires, three local jobs are eliminated.

Their refusal to allow union formation.  Walmart's statement: "At Wal-Mart, we respect the individual rights of our associates and encourage them to express their ideas, comments and concerns. Because we believe in maintaining an environment of open communications, we do not believe there is a need for third-party representation."  

I am not a firm believer in most unions, but Walmarts stance against them is every reason they should unionize.

The next time you walk into a Walmart, stop and think of what your downtown business district was like before they came to town.

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Aug. 23 2011,11:35 am
Walmart is very competitive on a wide range products, however many of the finest products are not available there. Take simple Epoxy for example. One the finest brands is PC and they don't do Walmart. They even told me Walmart sucks! lol

The products we see at Walmart are from vendors who gave in to Walmart demands and sold it to them cheap.

Still, all in all it is very good one stop shopping but not always the best value. I do all my grocery at Wally World. Lately I'm liking the 97% lean ground beef. Almost no fat, solid red.

Just so you guys know we are in deep chit and food prices are slated to double in the next few years from todays prices.

Posted by Expatriate on Aug. 23 2011,11:36 am
@ Maddog, Careful they'll label you a Liberal... :D
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 23 2011,4:05 pm

(Expatriate @ Aug. 23 2011,11:36 am)
QUOTE
@ Maddog, Careful they'll label you a Liberal... :D

It was just the union thing....wasn't it?  :oops:
Posted by Santorini on Aug. 23 2011,10:01 pm

(MADDOG @ Aug. 23 2011,11:06 am)
QUOTE
Sam Walton may have tried to appear a humble man, but records do show he was not always that way.

Do you remember

The slogan "Bring it home to the USA" trying to make believe that they bought made in the USA whenever possible?  Now that was a sham given to consumers.  Close to 85% of their goods are made outside of the US, often in sweatshops.

How about "Always the Low Price" that the Better Business Bureau forced them to discontinue.  Next time you're in Walmart, take care.  They are not always the lower price.

Or when they bought out Woolco and advertised "Wal-Mart is a Canadian company."

Remember,

How substantiated are the many discrimination suits filed against them?  Remeber them not allowing Girl Scouts to sell cookies or making Santa stand outside?

Walmart critics say they often open stores to saturate the market and drive out competitors, then close the stores and leave an empty shell in a community.  :dunno:

Most employees wages keep them below the poverty level.  

The national average for employer cosponsored health care plans are 68%, but Walmart's average is only 38% forcing many of their employees to seek federal assistance.

They say that for every two employees Walmart hires, three local jobs are eliminated.

Their refusal to allow union formation.  Walmart's statement: "At Wal-Mart, we respect the individual rights of our associates and encourage them to express their ideas, comments and concerns. Because we believe in maintaining an environment of open communications, we do not believe there is a need for third-party representation."  

I am not a firm believer in most unions, but Walmarts stance against them is every reason they should unionize.

The next time you walk into a Walmart, stop and think of what your downtown business district was like before they came to town.

Mr. Walton was a humble man!  It is what the operation has turned into that is really offensive.
You are right about the made-in-America,  but many of the products were made in the US at that time, (I am talking late 80s), and some was not.  Typical of todays product standards.  Cars that claim are made in America for example...parts are made in other countries; computers for cars in other countries etc., BUT it is put together here!  So it is not a USA product!  Same with NIKE.  We refused to puchase NIKE product when we found out they were also made in sweat shops with Kids working in them.  Same with K-Mart Jaclyn Smith lines of clothes being made in sweat shops...the list goes on and on.  
The always the low price thing meant at the time they would meet any competitors price!  I cannot speak of todays Wal-Mart...only from the 80s when Walton was still alive.  I worked in mgmt. and was compensated well.  
And I know many people become outraged that Wal-Mart has had a negative effect on other small-town businesses...BUT we need to remember that Malls had the same effect!  Malls have virtually turned most down-towns into ghost towns!  Down towns used to be vibrant and flourish with business until the invention of one-stop-shopping...voila the Mall!! one did not have to be out in the rain or snow anymore...the convenience of shopping in one building!  
You are also right...Wal-Mart is NOT the cheapest!!!!

Posted by Stone-Magnon on Aug. 23 2011,10:12 pm
For me it's Wally World for toothpaste and mouthwash and food. Ebay and Amazon for most everything else.

I'm liking Ebay alot, but you've gotta know how to shop there.

Posted by busybee on Aug. 23 2011,11:41 pm
Nothing can help "save" any county in the U.S. of A. including in MN or any other county in any other State of the U.S.A. as long as some people/businesses/government are motivitated by something more than financial greed.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 24 2011,8:47 am
Yes, having things manufactured overseas or in Mexico increases profits. Everybody knows that.

But it's still a choice, one that ultimately hurts the economy, and everybody knows that.

Creating tax policies that favor businesses that DON'T invest in America is a choice, too.

If we're going to bash Welfare as an impediment to the American economy, let's be clear on which Welfare we're talking about. The government doles out both kinds.

Posted by Santorini on Aug. 24 2011,9:56 am

(busybee @ Aug. 23 2011,11:41 pm)
QUOTE
Nothing can help "save" any county in the U.S. of A. including in MN or any other county in any other State of the U.S.A. as long as some people/businesses/government are motivitated by something more than financial greed.

Busybee why would someone go into business if NOT to make $$$$  ??
Is that greed or economics?

Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.5 © 2006 Ikonboard