Dirty Rich Mitch McConnell

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#82 Jan 28, 2013
zipyourlip wrote:
<quoted text>Lol, I have never bought a pizza from them, wouldn't know JJ. Papa John Schnatter has done nothing to entice me to buy, and he can keep his free Super Bowl Pizzas, I'll purchase elsewhere. I would boycott Paul's business as well, if I knew what he peddling, lol!
I ain't gonna pick on Paul, he already pays his employees' health care, we've had that discussion. As for Papa....he pays Peyton Manning for his ad campaign...not cheap....he buys prime ad space during NFL games and the Super Bowl....definitely not cheap.....he even has his name all over the University of Louisville's Cardinal Stadium...not to mention the free pizzas him and Peyton have been hawking all season long, but he'll "go broke" if he pays for employee healthcare? Give me a break!

The pizza is at least two dollars higher than everyone else, they charge you for packs of crushed red pepper and parmesean.....everything little thing is an upcharge. The breadsticks, all of it is higher than any other chain, and for what? Nothing that I can tell....they even charge extra for pan crust. Meanwhile, Pizza Hut, Domino's, and Little Ceasar's are all in a price war! Screw Papa John's, they lost my business years ago, now I know why.....
Paul Revere

Mount Vernon, KY

#83 Jan 28, 2013
JumperJuice wrote:
<quoted text>
What about this Paul? Got any answers for me?
I don't know anything about how you allocate your income, what kind of debt you have or what other financial obligations you have. And to be honest, I don't want to know. Those are personal issues. It's part of being an adult. You have to make these tough decisions. I don't want thy govt affecting these decisions and neither should you.
You like to claim to support third party candidates and espouse libertarin ideals but, you want the govt to step in and mandate an outrageous minimum wage? That just doesn't make sense.
Paul Revere

Mount Vernon, KY

#84 Jan 28, 2013
zipyourlip wrote:
<quoted text>.....and at $14.50 an hour, people would be more able to pay for those services or goods. It's the same straw man lies told by oil companies, so they get their tax subsidy windfalls.
No, they wouldn't because inflation would cause their $14.50 to be worth less. Again, sellers of the products you describe would RAISE the prices of their products to cover that extra salary.
You're advocating for burger flippers and grocery clerks to earn the same as those who have some experience and a work history. Those jobs are entry level positions and are great for first jobs but, with experience comes opportunity and advancement. Raising the minumum wage to $14.50 would eliminate many of those jobs as employers just won't hire some snot-nosed kid and pay him/her $15.50 per hour. It ain't gonna happen.
Paul Revere

Mount Vernon, KY

#85 Jan 28, 2013
zipyourlip wrote:
<quoted text>Lol, I have never bought a pizza from them, wouldn't know JJ. Papa John Schnatter has done nothing to entice me to buy, and he can keep his free Super Bowl Pizzas, I'll purchase elsewhere. I would boycott Paul's business as well, if I knew what he peddling, lol!
Good! That's one less person in line in front of me at Papa Johns this coming Sunday! LOVE their pizzas!
Notice how liberals don't like business owners who speak out against Der Fuhrer? They immediately want to drum up a boycott. Free speech is just fine until you ruffle their feathers with an opposing point of view. They are literally drowning in their own hypocrisy.
It's idiots like Zippy that prevent me from divulging to this board, the nature of my business and the customers I serve. But, trust me Zippo, you've more than likely purchased from my customers and that puts money in my pocket! LOL!
By the way, the author of the anti-Papa John's article Zippy posted...Lorraine Devon Wilke...is a good little liberal at the HuffingPuffing Post. Not surprised she is upset that someone dare speak out against the Organizer in Chief.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#86 Jan 28, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know anything about how you allocate your income, what kind of debt you have or what other financial obligations you have. And to be honest, I don't want to know. Those are personal issues. It's part of being an adult. You have to make these tough decisions. I don't want thy govt affecting these decisions and neither should you.
You like to claim to support third party candidates and espouse libertarin ideals but, you want the govt to step in and mandate an outrageous minimum wage? That just doesn't make sense.
I'm not wanting the government to really do anything.....for now. What I'm wanting is for these mega corporations to get a little less greedy and help their fellow man out some and be better neighbors. I told you my debt: some student loans left (under 4K) and emergency expenses on the credit card, ZERO CAR PAYMENTS, I have furniture from my college days, I'm so frugal.....read the post. If gas is going to continue to be around $4.00 a gallon, which makes EVERYTHING else high....then they are going to have to pay a better wage so people can make it, to, in turn, purchase their goods and services. It's not rocket science. What I'm asking the government to do is to repeal the job killing legislation they have already passed. They can get rid of this NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT bull****, revoke the dumb sh** little George did by letting all of these illegals drive down wages for his rich corporate handlers......things like that. They need to do away with the dumb sh** they have already done, and these corps need to be a little more benevolent. To see a crybaby like Papa John spend millions on getting his name on a football stadium (and I like Louisville Football by the way), then have the audacity to complain about helping his employees out makes me want to vomit. Is Obamacare the answer? More than likely not. Should this Nero-esque egomaniac WANT to help the people who help him build this empire a little bit? Hell yes he should! If these people won't do right on their own....then to hell with them. BOYCOTT and let them trade in China.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#87 Jan 28, 2013
Paul Revere wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they wouldn't because inflation would cause their $14.50 to be worth less. Again, sellers of the products you describe would RAISE the prices of their products to cover that extra salary.
You're advocating for burger flippers and grocery clerks to earn the same as those who have some experience and a work history. Those jobs are entry level positions and are great for first jobs but, with experience comes opportunity and advancement. Raising the minumum wage to $14.50 would eliminate many of those jobs as employers just won't hire some snot-nosed kid and pay him/her $15.50 per hour. It ain't gonna happen.
I don't agree with it either......but paying experienced help $12.00/hr ain't worth a sh** either. You just can't have ANYTHING and make it on that, yet that's exactly what some big businesses and factories try to do.....don't act like they don't. Got to be some common ground. If not, the workers unite, you have communism, anyone want that? I don't. You can't take it with you when you go, pay the people a little more, and you don't wind up giving it to Uncle Sam....pretty simple.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#88 Jan 28, 2013
The only other thing I would like to see some kind of Uncle Sam intervention on is the cost of fuel. I drive a 90's model Honda Civic to work to save money. When it takes you $45 to fill up a Civic, SOMETHING IS WRONG. It's almost $100 to fill up the truck....close to $50 ti fill up a VW! It's bullsh**! You get to write off your fuel consumption Paul? I don't.
zipyourlip

Doniphan, MO

#89 Jan 29, 2013
by Robert Reich

As President Obama said in his inaugural address last week, America “cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”

Yet that continues to be the direction we’re heading in.

A newly-released analysis by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the super-rich have done well in the economic recovery while almost everyone else has done badly. The top 1 percent of earners’ real wages grew 8.2 percent from 2009 to 2011, yet the real annual wages of Americans in the bottom 90 percent have continued to decline in the recovery, eroding by 1.2 percent between 2009 and 2011.

In other words, we’re back to the widening inequality we had before the debt bubble burst in 2008 and the economy crashed.

But the President is exactly right. Not even the very wealthy can continue to succeed without a broader-based prosperity. That’s because 70 percent of economic activity in America is consumer spending. If the bottom 90 percent of Americans are becoming poorer, they’re less able to spend. Without their spending, the economy can’t get out of first gear.

That’s a big reason why the recovery continues to be anemic, and why the International Monetary Fund just lowered its estimate for U.S. growth in 2013 to just 2 percent.

Almost a quarter of all jobs in America now pay wages below the poverty line for a family of four. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 7 out of 10 growth occupations over the next decade will be low-wage — like serving customers at big-box retailers and fast-food chains.

It’s not a zero-sum game. Wealthy Americans would do better with smaller shares of a rapidly-growing economy than with the large shares they now possess of an economy that’s barely moving.

At this rate, who’s going to buy all the goods and services America is capable of producing? We can’t return to the kind of debt-financed consumption that caused the bubble in the first place.

Get it? It’s not a zero-sum game. Wealthy Americans would do better with smaller shares of a rapidly-growing economy than with the large shares they now possess of an economy that’s barely moving.

If they were rational, the wealthy would support public investments in education and job-training, a world-class infrastructure (transportation, water and sewage, energy, internet), and basic research – all of which would make the American workforce more productive.

If they were rational they’d even support labor unions – which have proven the best means of giving working people a fair share in the nation’s prosperity.

But labor unions are almost extinct.

The decline of labor unions in America tracks exactly the decline in the bottom 90 percent’s share of total earnings, and shrinkage of the middle class.

In the 1950s, when the U.S. economy was growing faster than 3 percent a year, more than a third of all working people belonged to a union. That gave them enough bargaining clout to get wages that allowed them to buy what the economy was capable of producing.

Since the late 1970s, unions have eroded – as has the purchasing power of most Americans, and not coincidentally, the average annual growth of the economy.

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that as of 2012 only 6.6 percent of workers in the private sector were unionized.(That’s down from 6.9 percent in 2011.) That’s the lowest rate of unionization in almost a century.

What’s to blame? Partly globalization and technological change. Globalization sent many unionized manufacturing plants abroad.

Manufacturing is starting to return to America but it’s returning without many jobs. The old assembly line has been replaced by robotics and numerically-controlled machine tools.

But wait. Other nations subject to the same forces have far higher levels of unionization than America. 28 percent of Canada’s workforce is unionized, as is more than 25 percent of Britain’s, and almost 20 percent of Germany’s.
zipyourlip

Doniphan, MO

#90 Jan 29, 2013
Unions are almost extinct in America because we’ve chosen to make them extinct.

Unlike other rich nations, our labor laws allow employers to replace striking workers. We’ve also made it exceedingly difficult for workers to organize, and we barely penalized companies that violate labor laws.(A worker who’s illegally fired for trying to organize a union may, if lucky, get the job back along with back pay – after years of legal haggling.)

Republicans, in particular, have set out to kill off unions. Union membership dropped 13 percent last year in Wisconsin, which in 2011 curbed the collective bargaining rights of many public employees. And it fell 18 percent last year in Indiana, which last February enacted a right-to-work law (allowing employees at unionized workplaces to get all the benefits of unionization without paying for them). Last month Michigan enacted a similar law.

Don’t blame globalization and technological change for why employees at Walmart, America’s largest employer, still don’t have a union.

The average pay of a Walmart worker is $8.81 an hour. A third of Walmart’s employees work less than 28 hours per week and don’t qualify for benefits.

Walmart is a microcosm of the American economy. It has brazenly fought off unions. But it could easily afford to pay its workers more. It earned $16 billion last year. Much of that sum went to Walmart’s shareholders, including the family of its founder, Sam Walton.

The wealth of the Walton family now exceeds the wealth of the bottom 40 percent of American families combined, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute.

But how can Walmart expect to continue to show fat profits when most of its customers are on a downward economic escalator?

Walmart should be unionized. So should McDonalds. So should every major big-box retailer and fast-food outlet in the nation. So should every hospital in America.

That way, more Americans would have enough money in their pockets to get the economy moving. And everyone – even the very rich – would benefit.

As Obama said, America cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#91 Jan 29, 2013
Kinda what I said in post #86 Zip.....don't know if the unions can get it done without their own corruption though.
zipyourlip

Doniphan, MO

#92 Jan 29, 2013
JumperJuice wrote:
Kinda what I said in post #86 Zip.....don't know if the unions can get it done without their own corruption though.
I would trust the unions more than the likes of Walmart or McDonalds, lol. It's a race to the bottom line with them, and it's not what brought prosperity to this country in the past. Expensive gasoline only makes the problem worse for their shareholders.... they are cutting their own throats.

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#93 Jan 29, 2013
zipyourlip wrote:
<quoted text>I would trust the unions more than the likes of Walmart or McDonalds, lol. It's a race to the bottom line with them, and it's not what brought prosperity to this country in the past. Expensive gasoline only makes the problem worse for their shareholders.... they are cutting their own throats.
As much as it pains me to say this, I gotta agree.....lol!
zipyourlip

Doniphan, MO

#94 Jan 29, 2013
WASHINGTON -- A new poll finds Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) facing pressure from voters of both parties, with few guaranteed supporters for his 2014 reelection and many Republicans unsure if they'll vote for him.

Do those findings portend electoral doom for the Senate minority leader? Not necessarily. While McConnell appears vulnerable to a primary challenge, a Huffington Post review of other incumbents that polled similarly poorly shows they went on to win reelection.

The unusual question on a new Courier-Journal/SurveyUSA Bluegrass poll released on Monday asked Kentucky voters if they would vote for or against McConnell "no matter who runs against him."

More than a third (34 percent) of the 609 registered voters surveyed said they would vote against McConnell, twice as many as the 17 percent who say he already has their vote. However, nearly half (44 percent) opted for a third choice: "I will need to see who runs against McConnell before I know how I will vote."

The Bluegrass poll provides some of the first non-partisan data on Kentucky's 2014 Senate race, following an earlier survey from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling and an internal poll from the McConnell campaign.

The former, taken in December, gave McConnell the worst favorable rating of any senator in the country, with more than half of voters disapproving.
zipyourlip

London, KY

#96 Jan 30, 2013
Labor
Viewpoint: The Decline of Unions Is Your Problem Too
By Eric LiuJan. 29, 201371 Comments

inShare11

A group of Union members picketing
MPI / Getty Images

What happened to American labor unions?



Last week came news that the share of America’s workforce that’s unionized hit a 97-year low. A mere 11.3% of workers now belong to a union, and a great chunk of those are in the shrinking public sector. In the private sector, unionization fell to an abysmal 6.6%, down from a peak of 35% during the 1950s.
After all, most Americans aren’t in a union. It’s a vicious cycle: as unions decline, fewer people see their fates as bound up with unions, which just accelerates the decline.

But on another level, America’s non-reaction is striking. We remain in the wake of the Great Recession. Inequality and wealth concentration are at levels not seen since just before the Great Depression. This would seem as ripe a time in modern memory for a revival of organized labor. Instead, a basic assumption now shapes most Americans’ mindset about labor: the belief that the death of unions isn’t my problem because I’m not in a union. That assumption is wrong in two critical ways.

First, the fact is that when unions are stronger the economy as a whole does better. Unions restore demand to an economy by raising wages for their members and putting more purchasing power to work, enabling more hiring. On the flip side, when labor is weak and capital unconstrained, corporations hoard, hiring slows, and inequality deepens. Thus we have today both record highs in corporate profits and record lows in wages.

Second, unions lift wages for non-union members too by creating a higher prevailing wage. Even if you aren’t a member your pay is influenced by the strength or weakness of organized labor. The presence of unions sets off a wage race to the top. Their absence sets off a race to the bottom.

Unfortunately, the relegation of organized labor to tiny minority status and the fact that the public sector is the last remaining stronghold for unions have led many Americans to see them as special interests seeking special privileges, often on the taxpayer’s dime. This thinking is as upside-down as our economy.

This country has gotten to today’s level of inequality because, ironically, those who work for a living think like atomized individuals while those who hire for a living organize collectively to rig policy in their favor. Today’s 97-year low is the result of decades of efforts to squeeze unions and disperse their power.

To be sure, unions bear part of the blame for their own decline. Some of the work rules they’ve achieved through bargaining made their companies and their own unions less adaptive to change. That’s why a few national labor leaders, from Service Employees International Union and elsewhere, have launched a “Labor 3.0&#8243; project to reimagine unions. And it’s significant that innovative forms of worker organizing are now emerging, like Coworker.org or the National Domestic Workers Alliance, that bypass traditional union structures altogether.

Whatever form it takes, though, organized labor keeps an economy healthy. Some conservatives now argue for a higher federal minimum wage on the notion that when companies pay their employees enough to live, the employees will rely less on government assistance and participate more in economic life. Precisely the same case can be made for unions. Consider that workers at non-unionized Walmart constitute in many states the largest bloc of food stamp and Medicaid recipients.

If we want a better economy, then, we need a better story about how the economy works, in which a union worker is not a cost but a customer. The weakness of labor is everyone’s problem — and its revival everyone’s opportunity.
Got It

Somerset, KY

#97 Jan 30, 2013
JumperJuice wrote:
The only other thing I would like to see some kind of Uncle Sam intervention on is the cost of fuel. I drive a 90's model Honda Civic to work to save money. When it takes you $45 to fill up a Civic, SOMETHING IS WRONG. It's almost $100 to fill up the truck....close to $50 ti fill up a VW! It's bullsh**! You get to write off your fuel consumption Paul? I don't.
So, you're all for government intervention when it benefits you personally, but not when it benefits someone else. Got it!

“Boogie Chill'un”

Level 6

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98 Jan 30, 2013
Got It wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're all for government intervention when it benefits you personally, but not when it benefits someone else. Got it!
So, you like the $4 a gallon gas? Funny, I thought I was speaking for everyone. Why don't you pay extra, so the rest of us can get some relief?
zipyourlip

London, KY

#99 Jan 30, 2013
Did President Obama Launch War On Fox News? Yes, And They Took The Bait
2013/01/29
By Egberto Willies

President calls out Fox NewsFox News is getting completely frazzled and defensive because Barack Obama stated a well-known fact: That Fox News’ intent from the beginning of his presidency was not to report news or challenge his presidency, but to destroy it.

What started this new battle? In an interview with The New Republic Obama said the following about Fox News:

“One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

Fox News did not take the statement lightly. In a back and forth with Brian Kilmeade and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. during “Fox & Friends,” they chided the president by pointing out a few instances where the president — justifiably — called out Fox News for attacking him, and accused him of attempting to stifle the debate.

Brit Hume then jumped on the bandwagon with a commentary, while disregarding the reporting amongst the mainstream media which creates false equivalances between misinformation from the right and minor issues on the left. They do this to create an impression of impartiality even at the detriment of truth and the well-being of the American democracy.

Fox News generates so much false, silly, and misleading information that comedians regularly seek it as great fodder for their shows. Back in July, Jon Stewart did a segment on his Daily Show to illustrate the extent to which Fox News demonizes and mischaracterizes our president’s words. One should ask why it the President’s “war on Fox News” is not even more pronounced.

One would think that Fox News would try to stay quiet on this issue. Videos last forever. The constant attacks on the president day in and day out without offering plausible alternatives to his policies is out there for all to see.

Placing the president’s calling out of Fox News before their own viewers may be exactly what the president wants. Obama clearly seeks to de-legitimize them with their own base. Fox News has been broadcasting false impressions for so long that its viewers were taken completely by surprise after the 2012 election — not only because Obama won, but because he won by such a wide margin. Perhaps this time, the president’s words will reach more receptive ears.

The president is launching a war on Fox News and they cannot help but take the bait.
Got It

Somerset, KY

#100 Jan 30, 2013
JumperJuice wrote:
<quoted text>So, you like the $4 a gallon gas? Funny, I thought I was speaking for everyone. Why don't you pay extra, so the rest of us can get some relief?
It's not about the price of gas. It's about pseudo libertarians who complain about too much government, but at the same time want government to intervene on issues of interest to them. Got it!
Paul Revere

Mount Vernon, KY

#101 Jan 30, 2013
Zippo must have stock in the HuffingPuffingPost. Every single post is a direct lift from an article posted on their site. I didn't bother to read any of it, just searched the authors. I'm sure it all paints the Organizer in Cheif in an angelic light. But, what media bias, right?
And Robert Reich???? Good Grief!
Paul Revere

Mount Vernon, KY

#102 Jan 30, 2013
zipyourlip wrote:
<quoted text>I would trust the unions more than the likes of Walmart or McDonalds, lol.
Of course you would. All good little liberal fascists are big fans of unions. They're primary money launderers...uh, funding source...for the Democrat Party.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Adult fun 1 min butter88 37
Mr. John Whang please read. 26 min Tuna 7
Friday night pilgrims!!!! 33 min John whang 18
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr eebie 169,898
Bourne street this am 1 hr Paul Harvey Hungwell 5
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 4 hr Hatti_Hollerand 37,822
Scott Foster (Aug '08) 5 hr BobbieKloo 66

Somerset Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Somerset Mortgages