• Go to page :
  • 1234 5
  • Text Only
brettdoyle said:   If you read the declaration of independence, it clearly states you have the right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It does not say that you are guaranteed happiness... only that you have the right to pursuit it.

You cannot come up with a list of things that would make McDonald's employees happy, and then stick someone else with a bill to make them happy via high taxes. That would infringe on others Americans ability to pursuit happiness. An entitlement to one person is an obligation to another.


So for the moment, I'll play along with you in the notion that in the 21st century we should be making decisions on fairness based on documents a bunch of racist sexist slaveholding men made in the 18th century. What exactly do you consider the pursuit of happiness? Isn't denying somebody from birth the right to an equal education denying them the pursuit of happiness. If starting them from birth with an inferior education, denying them based on the color of their skin, and only opening up career opportunities where you must work 70 hour weeks just to scrape by isn't denying them the pursuit of happiness, then I'd like to know what is.

And Dus, if we are going with the Martin incident, I guess you would agree with me that Martin had every right to take a gun and shoot Zimmerman when he noticed he was stalking him, threatening him (after all Zimmerman might be trigger happy and have a gun) and taking away his liberty, right? As far as my comments on slavery, it was only in reference to minimum wage laws being governed purely by supply and demand. It's a ridiculous notion that I easily swatted away, by referencing a time in our country when people worked for $0. I'm not referencing the other components of slavery, because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You can be angry white men as much as you want, but until you've truly had your liberty taken away, you'll probably just think it means waiting in a supermarket checkout line that's too long. And when you red my comment talking about liberty of religion and sexual orientation, it only further proves that you are concerned solely with your liberty, not that of others.

I went to HS with a girl who at 22 yr old and in the early 1990s was making >$50k at McD with all the free food she and her family could eat. I think that she got her $ worth of the free food part more so than the salary. She worked for a nice franchisee owner--I gather that some corporate and franshisee owners are more tight with the $$. Mickie3 said:   

Do you have any idea of what those poor managers were paid? Most make well into the 6 figure range, not exactly slave labor, is it?

Make the argument simpler. When Martin realized a gun was pointed at his side, he had the right to defend himself and grab the gun and...defend himself. I think Charles Barkley's comments on such subject are correct. dbl118 said:   
And Dus, if we are going with the Martin incident, I guess you would agree with me that Martin had every right to take a gun and shoot Zimmerman when he noticed he was stalking him, threatening him (after all Zimmerman might be trigger happy and have a gun) and taking away his liberty, right?

JonnyRock said:   I really do not see 55 hours per week as being the hardship that authors appear to believe.
That would be only 8 hours per day for 7 days a week, or 9 hours per day with one day off.
I bet the average salaried restaurant manager works at least that.


Not sure why you got so much red. 55 hours a week is considered a reasonable schedule for food service managers. In some restaurant companies 70 hour, 6 day weeks are normal for managers. Should you be so unfortunate as to 'own your own' and expect it to succeed plan on living it 24/7.

Dus10 said:   Honestly how can you say our taxes are at historically low rates? Taxes, as a percentage of GDP are at historically high rates. Why? Because taxes are historically high.

Please explain what you mean. As you can see, federal revenue as a percent of GDP certainly isn't. Maybe you mean something else?

Dus10 said:   
No, it is not a weak argument at all. If you actually make folks responsible for their healthcare, I dunno, by making them pay their healthcare bills, then they will make better decisions. Here is an idea... instead of making folks buy health insurance or get fined, how about you let them not buy health insurance and if they have a medical bill, they can't discharge it in bankruptcy? Sure, there are going to be situations where folks can't pay for health insurance, so we address that separately instead of trying to shift to single-payer through a series of steps (which is what the current law is designed to do, despite their lies to the contrary).


Say what? How would not allowing medical bills through bankruptcy fix any problems at all. There is a saying, you can't get blood from a stone. Not allowing medical bankruptcies wouldn't make those people that were faced with bankruptcy suddenly be able to afford their medical bills they got while being allowed to be uninsured. They still pay what they could(or not pay and it'd end up a charge off) and the cost for the services they obtained would still raise the cost of medical care for everyone else, because they couldn't be denied life saving treatment either way. Unless you think we should let people die on the streets outside of hospitals the only real solutions to the free loader uninsured problem are single-payer or forced insurance.

GodelianKnot said:   Dus10 said:   Honestly how can you say our taxes are at historically low rates? Taxes, as a percentage of GDP are at historically high rates. Why? Because taxes are historically high.

Please explain what you mean. As you can see, federal revenue as a percent of GDP certainly isn't. Maybe you mean something else?


Your chart's no good, buddy. The key isn't there, and the date range is too short... those aren't really "historic" numbers, those are recent numbers. In 1941, federal taxes as percent of GDP shot up and have never gone back down to the old lows. And we are coming out of a recession, and you chart even shows that it is normal for revenues to drop during recession times and then they climb again. We are within a couple of percentage points of having the highest percent of GDP we have ever had.

Shaudius said:   Dus10 said:   
No, it is not a weak argument at all. If you actually make folks responsible for their healthcare, I dunno, by making them pay their healthcare bills, then they will make better decisions. Here is an idea... instead of making folks buy health insurance or get fined, how about you let them not buy health insurance and if they have a medical bill, they can't discharge it in bankruptcy? Sure, there are going to be situations where folks can't pay for health insurance, so we address that separately instead of trying to shift to single-payer through a series of steps (which is what the current law is designed to do, despite their lies to the contrary).


Say what? How would not allowing medical bills through bankruptcy fix any problems at all. There is a saying, you can't get blood from a stone. Not allowing medical bankruptcies wouldn't make those people that were faced with bankruptcy suddenly be able to afford their medical bills they got while being allowed to be uninsured. They still pay what they could(or not pay and it'd end up a charge off) and the cost for the services they obtained would still raise the cost of medical care for everyone else, because they couldn't be denied life saving treatment either way. Unless you think we should let people die on the streets outside of hospitals the only real solutions to the free loader uninsured problem are single-payer or forced insurance.


Did you misread something I wrote? I said that as a penalty for not having insurance when you could have afforded it don't allow the medical bills to be discharged through bankruptcy. I did not say to make it a blanket statement for all medical bills, just those that choose not to get health insurance. It isn't that expensive to just get a catastrophic plan.. not setting the bar very high with my suggestion... This is already done with student loans, and I can understand the logic behind it, regardless of whether I agree with it. The problem is not the lack of discharge for these items, it is fundamental problems that are much lower... but I posit that my suggestion is better than the weak "penalty" for not buying insurance under the ACA.

dbl118 said:   And Dus, if we are going with the Martin incident, I guess you would agree with me that Martin had every right to take a gun and shoot Zimmerman when he noticed he was stalking him, threatening him (after all Zimmerman might be trigger happy and have a gun) and taking away his liberty, right? As far as my comments on slavery, it was only in reference to minimum wage laws being governed purely by supply and demand. It's a ridiculous notion that I easily swatted away, by referencing a time in our country when people worked for $0. I'm not referencing the other components of slavery, because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You can be angry white men as much as you want, but until you've truly had your liberty taken away, you'll probably just think it means waiting in a supermarket checkout line that's too long. And when you red my comment talking about liberty of religion and sexual orientation, it only further proves that you are concerned solely with your liberty, not that of others.


Wow, you keep basing everything you are saying after false assumptions that you keep making... just like your original statements on liberty.

First and foremost, let me address your last comments. I don't give a flipping crap about people's sexual orientation or choice of religion. They are absolutely free to do as they wish there. My red for you had absolutely nothing to do with that... it had to do with your overall flawed premise. I am a libertarian... and I am pretty consistent with my views on liberty. And calling me an angry white man, you have no idea with whom you are speaking, so you shouldn't make assumptions. The founding father's, whom you call old white racists, or something similar, is part of some ridiculous indoctrination you have received. Yes, they owned slaves, but (at least for the parts of Washington and Jefferson) actively tried to eliminate slavery, but the populous wasn't interested... a symptom of mob rule, or the will of the majority, which the founding fathers stated was a problem with democracy (although they envisioned a republic, which has basic governance that restricts mob rule on the most fundamental issues of liberty).

Second, I am not sure where I mentioned he Martin/Zimmerman situation... I know I was thinking about it, but I am not sure I wrote anything... maybe I am wrong on that (not going back and re-reading everything). Anyhow, what you just said, well, it is not very bright. I do not think that Martin would have the right to just shoot Zimmerman just because he thought he was stalking him. He certainly would have the right to some reaction in defense of himself, that is clear, but just assuming that reaction should be deadly force from the beginning? That's just immature and ridiculous. Neither of us were there, as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure that there were only three folks there at any given point, and one of them is dead. So, based on the evidence that was released, the jury made a verdict. That evidence suggested that the situation escalated and that Martin was battering Zimmerman; from that battering alone, Martin could have killed Zimmerman without a gun, and therefore Zimmerman's use of a firearm, given those circumstances, was warranted. And based on relevant information, Zimmerman is as white as President Obama.

This thread needs to get back on topic. How did it go from McDonalds to Obama and Zimmerman?


Dus10 said:   ...those aren't really "historic" numbers, those are recent numbers. In 1941, federal taxes as percent of GDP shot up and have never gone back down to the old lows.
So, what you really meant was that tax receipts (relative to GDP) in the entire modern era of US history are at all time highs. That is clearly true, but relatively worthless as a counterpoint to the other poster's claim of "historically low" taxes (which is also more or less accurate when you consider just the modern era). Unless your point is that we were better off pre-1941 than we are now, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Dus10 said:   We are within a couple of percentage points of having the highest percent of GDP we have ever had.
The entire range spans "a couple of percentage points", so this is a pretty spurious argument. We're currently at ~16%, which is about 3/4's of the all time high of a little under 21%.

burgerwars said:   The real budgets of McDonald's workers.

A couple of those don't really inspire much sympathy.

I don't think there should be an expectation that you can comfortable raise 2 kids on one part-time minimum wage income (example #2).
And spending $210/mo on cable/cell is absurd when you're running a huge deficit (example #3).

While these don't make the advertised McDonald's budget look particularly accurate, they definitely illustrate the need for McDonald's to offer budgeting help and financial counseling to their employees, if the stories in the article are typical.

arch8ngel said:   burgerwars said:   The real budgets of McDonald's workers.

A couple of those don't really inspire much sympathy.

I don't think there should be an expectation that you can comfortable raise 2 kids on one part-time minimum wage income (example #2).
And spending $210/mo on cable/cell is absurd when you're running a huge deficit (example #3).

While these don't make the advertised McDonald's budget look particularly accurate, they definitely illustrate the need for McDonald's to offer budgeting help and financial counseling to their employees, if the stories in the article are typical.


While someone's got to do what they got to do to make ends meet, McDonald's worker #5 should have been looking for another job a long time ago. 21 years at McDonald's netting $610 a month (working at two McDonald's) sure isn't much. Most all the employees at his McDonald's probably weren't born yet when he started. All I can think is he's been in a low end job at McDonald's from the start. Unless there are other issues going on here, hasn't there been any room all this time for a promotion? At least try to be lead employee or shift supervisor. Working the fryer or shake machine isn't a career.

Yeah, basically because of the high turnover, anyone who can follow instructions and play nice with the manager gets promoted quickly. Or, you use the skills at McDonald's and learn additional skills, such as bus driver. Out where I am, they are always hiring bus drivers, primarily from customer service positions because 80% of what you do is dealing with passengers and 20% is actually operating the bus. $14.81 an hour after training, union pension, and although you start part time, you can do charter work over your breaks for $10-$15 an hour.

For an associate's degree in criminal justice, employee #1 should apply for financial aid and use the American Opportunity Credit, which eats up the first $2,000 of tuition per year. For others, like employee #4, Obamacare will reduce the amount paid for prescriptions significantly, and there are free clinics and samples available right now if you are persistent enough.

There is a problem of bringing information to low income and working class people. How many have heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Credit, the FAFSA, food stamps, lifeline phone service, etc.? These programs don't advertise themselves, but could benefit many of these people.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014