America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,011 comments
  • 1,485,977 views
Danoff
I didn't mean to imply that debt is bad. Cheap money is cheap money.

Anyway, if you're 70 (and I'm kinda recalling this from previous conversations), aren't you supposed to start worrying a little more about future generations than your personal property? Maybe you've got some family that your irradiated property comments were directed to? You figured you'd get wiped out but the real bummer is that your kids don't have anything valuable handed down because it's been wasted by nuclear fallout? I'm trying to help you out here.

Anyway, nobody can take you up on that beer now that we know you're about to get nuked by North Korea. ;)
Click to expand...
And I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't concerned about my neighbors and family. Of course I am. I am a good, responsible citizen in good standing with both family and community. I am very, very fortunate. For which I am grateful.

I want to repeat I'm good for a free beer and tour for any GTP member willing to swing by. You wouldn't even have to agree with my politics or have seen a UFO. :D
 
Johnnypenso
What does this mean exactly?
Click to expand...

That it has been my observation that people who own significant wealth in assets, property or otherwise, earned or inherited, tend to have a somewhat different view of the value of those things compared to the value of other more intangible things like peace, cooperation and support, or human lives.

Obviously when it comes to individuals one can buck the trend, but as a group that's been my experience. If someone were to then express concern over say, the value of their property over the lives of a group of people, then that would tend to support that.

In a similar fashion, those people tend to view their success in life as justifying the authority of their opinions. They did well using what they think is correct, so it must be and doesn't need objective scrutiny. Again, individuals can buck the trend, but that's been my experience.

For reference, see Trump, Donald J.
 
Donald Trump Boosts Minimum Wage for New Walmart Hires and Secures Staff a $1000 Bonus

Walmart (WMT), the nation’s largest employer, will let over a million of its employees share in the benefits of the largest sweeping tax reform in three decades.

The retailer is boosting starting hourly wages to $11 an hour. Additionally, the retailer will give one-time $1,000 bonus payments to workers, depending on length of service at the company. It is also extending maternity and parental benefits. The changes take place in February.
Click to expand...
AT&T (T), Comcast (CMCSA), Boeing (BA) and Bank of America (BAC) are among the companies that have rolled out extra perks and payouts in recent weeks all tied to tax reform benefits.
Click to expand...
Details

Okay so it isn't Trump personally, but they do directly credit the recent tax reform bill directly for these positive changes for Walmart and other employees. :sly:
 
Johnnypenso
Donald Trump Boosts Minimum Wage for New Walmart Hires and Secures Staff a $1000 Bonus


Details

Okay so it isn't Trump personally, but they do directly credit the recent tax reform bill directly for these positive changes for Walmart and other employees. :sly:
Click to expand...

That's really odd. That's objectively a poor business decision, as if there wasn't reasons to justify the payments beforehand then there wouldn't be after either.

I'd be interested to know what the real story going on is, whether these companies see an opportunity for a relatively cost-neutral form of image promotion, or whether there's links to the Trump government and a desire to make the tax reform look like something it wasn't.
 
Johnnypenso
Okay so it isn't Trump personally, but they do directly credit the recent tax reform bill directly for these positive changes for Walmart and other employees.
Click to expand...

"Positive changes."

I'd say Imari hit the nail on the head here:

Imari
I'd be interested to know what the real story going on is, whether these companies see an opportunity for a relatively cost-neutral form of image promotion, or whether there's links to the Trump government and a desire to make the tax reform look like something it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Also interesting to note the details on this:

foxbusiness.com
Walmart (WMT), the nation’s largest employer, will let over a million of its employees share in the benefits of the largest sweeping tax reform in three decades.

The retailer is boosting starting hourly wages to $11 an hour. Additionally, the retailer will give one-time $1,000 bonus payments to workers, depending on length of service at the company. It is also extending maternity and parental benefits. The changes take place in February.
Click to expand...

To qualify for the $1,000 amount that Walmart is so loudly boasting about, employees need to have at least twenty years with Walmart. I'm not that impressed with giving somebody $50 per year while also laying off thousands.

And it's not just Walmart; Comcast and AT&T have also made a lot of noise about giving bonuses while quietly laying off hundreds of employees.

Not sure any of this adds up to the economic victory Team Trump wants us to believe it is.
 
huskeR32
"Positive changes."

I'd say Imari hit the nail on the head here:



Also interesting to note the details on this:



To qualify for the $1,000 amount that Walmart is so loudly boasting about, employees need to have at least twenty years with Walmart. I'm not that impressed with giving somebody $50 per year while also laying off thousands.

And it's not just Walmart; Comcast and AT&T have also made a lot of noise about giving bonuses while quietly laying off hundreds of employees.

Not sure any of this adds up to the economic victory Team Trump wants us to believe it is.
Click to expand...
I think Trump could cure cancer in a secret lab at Mar-a-lago and you wouldn't give him any credit for it:lol:
 
Johnnypenso
I think Trump could cure cancer in a secret lab at Mar-a-lago and you wouldn't give him any credit for it:lol:
Click to expand...
In order to be equivalent to this situation he'd only be able to cure people who had cancer for twenty years while quietly killing off hundreds of cancer sufferers. Maybe addressing the objections in @huskeR32's and @Imari's posts might be more helpful than invoking fantasy situations?
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
In order to be equivalent to this situation he'd only be able to cure people who had cancer for twenty years while quietly killing off hundreds of cancer sufferers. Maybe addressing the objections in @huskeR32's and @Imari's posts might be more helpful than invoking fantasy situations?
Click to expand...
There's nothing to address. They gave an opinion, I quoted someone else's opinion, it's all opinions and there's no way to establish any direct cause and effect links even if they existed.
 
Wow.

And to think I've withheld comments regarding attempts to fit a second head up his...

Might be crossing a line with language and the context in which it's used, so I'll stop there.
 
Imari
That's really odd. That's objectively a poor business decision, as if there wasn't reasons to justify the payments beforehand then there wouldn't be after either.

I'd be interested to know what the real story going on is, whether these companies see an opportunity for a relatively cost-neutral form of image promotion, or whether there's links to the Trump government and a desire to make the tax reform look like something it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Between 2000-2014, the Walton family donated about $7.3m, $6m of which went to Republican candidates. That said, they donated about $1m to Hillary's campaign for 2016. I'd imagine it's the Republicans' tax and (particularly) labour law policies which attract them.
 
TexRex
Wow.

And to think I've withheld comments regarding attempts to fit a second head up his...

Might be crossing a line with language and the context in which it's used, so I'll stop there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's all try to work "fellatio" into our posts. It's now open season for oral /anal sex innuendo, thanks to the great example set by Staff Emeritus.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
What it takes to appease conservative Christian voters:

2010



2017

Click to expand...

He should have led the charge about how fake Christmas currently is, then he might have gone down in history as some kind of saviour. Too risky with his fan base, such a sell-out.
 
You know, that comment doesn't even surprise me. And even if it isn't true for some reason, just the fact that most of America can believe it says loads.
 
Johnnypenso
And that has what to do with me?
Click to expand...
Who says I was referring to you with my response to what @Pupik said? I was commenting on the language that was used, not the intended target.

Beyond that, you commented on an inclination to dole out insults, something that I implied [and supported with data] Trump displays with staggering frequency.
 
TexRex
Who says I was referring to you with my response to what @Pupik said? I was commenting on the language that was used, not the intended target.

Beyond that, you commented on an inclination to dole out insults, something that I implied [and supported with data] Trump displays with staggering frequency.
Click to expand...
Of course.
 
Imari
I'd be interested to know what the real story going on is, whether these companies see an opportunity for a relatively cost-neutral form of image promotion, or whether there's links to the Trump government and a desire to make the tax reform look like something it wasn't.
Click to expand...

In 2015 they raised minimum wage to $9, and in 2016 they raised it again to $10. I guess this is just the same trend continuing.

And it's no surprise that they express gratitude towards the tax reform, after all it will save them a ton of money.
 
eran0004
In 2015 they raised minimum wage to $9, and in 2016 they raised it again to $10. I guess this is just the same trend continuing.

And it's no surprise that they express gratitude towards the tax reform, after all it will save them a ton of money.
Click to expand...
There are many large corporations doing the same thing and they are all crediting the change in tax policy for the bonuses and wage increases. But by all means, lets use an anecdotal fallacy to prove them all wrong. I suppose if they start repatriating money and capital investment and credit the tax bill they would have done that too?
 
eran0004
And it's no surprise that they express gratitude towards the tax reform, after all it will save them a ton of money.
Click to expand...

Sortof... not exactly.

What it enables companies to do is build up cash reserves in the US at a lower tax rate. The alternatives were to build up cash reserves outside of the US or to not build them at all and reinvest all money. It does promote corporate stability to have cash reserves, so it does help them. But it's not necessarily an improvement to their bottom line. It'll change how they operate.
 
Johnnypenso
There's nothing to address. They gave an opinion, I quoted someone else's opinion, it's all opinions and there's no way to establish any direct cause and effect links even if they existed.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an opinion that these companies are quietly laying off hundreds or thousands of workers while very loudly patting themselves on the back for giving out a few bonuses. You're far from the first person I've seen trumpeting these bonuses as evidence of Trump's economic prowess, and yet none of you want to talk about the layoffs. Curious, that.
 

Latest Posts

Back