Wally said, "You mean programs like Social Security (established in 1935) and Medicare established in 1966)? Those are two of the most successful programs this country has ever known -- both brought to you by the Democratic Party."
You have left out something.
1. The government can reduce the amount owed by simply raising the retirement age. I can now access my ss at age 70. (Use to be 55). Greatly reducing the amount needed to pay out
2. The collapse of the value of a dollar over the past 15 years.
3. No cost of living raise for seniors recently
4. Politicians can confiscate of reduce the amount we receive from ss at anytime.
So yeh, " social security is solvent" is not a total lie. It's just a hopeful Ponzi scheme.
Americans should chose a plan they can own over a non-legally binding governmental promise.
And Obamacare is as useless as a palestinian alarm clock. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X7_0NoRHOEM
Well rep or dem, doesn't matter. I like to generate individual opinion from facts and experience. I don't know how one can talk about the percentage of people who are involuntarily unemployed (laid off or actively seeking employment) without talking about voluntary unemployment (people who may be seeking employment but fall out of the stats after a period of time, disability recipients, and welfare). The only positive thing BHO can take credit for is a booming stock market that the top 2% benefit from. Failures include ACA, Benghazi, aggressive inflation, weaker middle class, 8 tril in debt added to deficit, and the Pinocchio award in 2013
Alp, you are talking about "involuntary unemployment" rate is 6.6%.
A person is unemployed if they are jobless but looking for a job and available for work. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. -wiki
Over 100 million people are not working. Whether you politics like it or not
The VW people voted. They chose wisely
^democratic math. You are saying increasing prices by 1.5% would not affect profits? Not only do you contradict yourself in politics but now economics
Alp said, "A study was done regarding Wal-Mart. A raise in prices across the board of 1.2% would allow every single worker at Wal-Mart to make a minimum of $12.00 an hour, and keep the profits where they are."
There are benefits to having a union.... Everyone i know that works at VW talk about the great wages, retirement plan, insurance, working environment, and open door policy.... Why pay the union 12% of your pay to get what you already have. I wish these libs would pull their head out of their polotics and give me one reason why VW, and only Vw, needs a union. Educate me, please! If not, then stfu
Still no reason why a union should be put in at VW... Just what your politics tell you to say
Youre right Toes.... It is just a pissing contest. Check your "democrat for dummies" book and type someone else's view.
With the debate at hand, i still havent heard one reason that VW should have a union. Im not against unions. My father has been a teamster for 37 years. There are pros and cons. It just doesnt fit here
Alp thinks, "Republicans hate minimum wages, and I am confident that if they were to have their way, there are people out there who would be perfectly content to pay someone a buck and hour, if they could hire someone so desperate."
I think that it's not that reps don't like the min wage. I think they don't like inflation. And, no one is desperate enough to work for $1/hr.... People won't even work for $7.50 now. Live off gubment for more and not work (40%)