Bigger impact from 1969

[Balta1701]

Wait, I thought Democrats want the Government to provide health care for everyone.

Certainly do. We just want Walmart paying their fair share.

[CrimsonWeltall]

You can live without WalMart; just try going two weeks without an ATM.

 

That's a lot of trips from 9am to 5pm to a bank.

 

I'm 25 and have never used an ATM in my life. I go to the bank maybe once every 6 weeks on a Saturday afternoon if I need some more cash.

Edited July 19, 2009 by CrimsonWeltall

[Texsox]

Certainly do. We just want Walmart paying their fair share.

 

The programs that Walmart employees use are the same programs available to the working poor of other companies. Which is a more humane company policy:

 

1. Alerting employees to government programs they qualify for
2. Ignoring those programs and not helping employees find them
3. or suggesting employees call

[Balta1701]

The programs that Walmart employees use are the same programs available to the working poor of other companies. Which is a more humane company policy:

Have them pay a tax if they're going to have the government providing health care services to their employees.

[Texsox]

Have them pay a tax if they're going to have the government providing health care services to their employees.

 

Just Walmart or the thousands of small, medium, and large businesses whose employees qualify? Basically you are asking employers to pay an additional tax on wages beyond what they are already spending.

 

Which IMHO, will hurt small business a lot more than Walmart and the other large companies that employ minimum wage employees.

[Balta1701]

Just Walmart or the thousands of small, medium, and large businesses whose employees qualify? Basically you are asking employers to pay an additional tax on wages beyond what they are already spending.

 

Which IMHO, will hurt small business a lot more than Walmart and the other large companies that employ minimum wage employees.

Of course, the bill as written excludes legit small businesses. Probably more generously than it should. But here's the real small business counterpoint; small businesses already can't afford health care costs anyway, and they get charged more than a big company because they're small and have less negotiating power. This prevents small businesses from being able to hire the best people because they can't offer health care benefits, and also prevents people from starting up small businesses because they can't afford to lose their own personal health care or afford to go out and buy insurance on the individual market.

[Texsox]

Of course, the bill as written excludes legit small businesses. Probably more generously than it should. But here's the real small business counterpoint; small businesses already can't afford health care costs anyway, and they get charged more than a big company because they're small and have less negotiating power. This prevents small businesses from being able to hire the best people because they can't offer health care benefits, and also prevents people from starting up small businesses because they can't afford to lose their own personal health care or afford to go out and buy insurance on the individual market.

 

But at the core, are the programs that offer health benefits to working poor bad?

[Balta1701]

But at the core, are the programs that offer health benefits to working poor bad?

They are if they're done poorly, because they can be abused by businesses. Like Walmart does.

[clyons]

I think the lasting impact of Apollo is vastly undervalued today, particularly its contributions to computer advances. People also forget that it employed 400,000 people, and was, in a sense, its own form of "economic stimulus," in the form of a unique partnership between public and private concerns.

 

Also, I've heard some interesting theories lately about how the Apollo program indirectly effected the Cold War and helped insure peace with the Soviets; the basic theory being that it not only increased American prestige at a time we were "competing" with them for influence over developing nations, but also got the USSR thinking that if we had the technological and finanical ability to land men on the moon, we must also be developing/have developed some bad ass secret weaponry. This not only helped deter potential Soviet aggression against us, but forced them to spend more of their money on guns than butter, similar to the tactics employed by Reagan just prior to the USSR's ultimate downfall.

 

Besides, the space program just totally kicked ass.

[Milkman delivers]

I think the lasting impact of Apollo is vastly undervalued today, particularly its contributions to computer advances. People also forget that it employed 400,000 people, and was, in a sense, its own form of "economic stimulus," in the form of a unique partnership between public and private concerns.

 

Also, I've heard some interesting theories lately about how the Apollo program indirectly effected the Cold War and helped insure peace with the Soviets; the basic theory being that it not only increased American prestige at a time we were "competing" with them for influence over developing nations, but also got the USSR thinking that if we had the technological and finanical ability to land men on the moon, we must also be developing/have developed some bad ass secret weaponry. This not only helped deter potential Soviet aggression against us, but forced them to spend more of their money on guns than butter, similar to the tactics employed by Reagan just prior to the USSR's ultimate downfall.

 

Besides, the space program just totally kicked ass.

 

For some reason, I thought Russia eventually landed someone on the moon. I just looked into it, and there have been 14 people to walk on the moon, and all were Americans.

[Texsox]

They are if they're done poorly, because they can be abused by businesses. Like Walmart does.

 

And how does Walmart abuse the system? The only thing I have ever read that WalMart does is publicize the programs that their employees qualify for.