Walmart Women Employee's bare it all for Playboy wow
Playboy: Women of Wal-Mart EmployeesThe Girls Who worked at Wal-Mart (2004 Video) | |||
| Elizabeth Beanblossom | |||
| Tesha Mullen | |||
| Deborah Moss | |||
| Suzan Battaglia | |||
| Kathryn McKee | |||
| Tiffany Stephens | |||
| Kristi Jones | |||
| Eden Orfanos | |||
 |
|||
Wednesday, Nov 20, 2013 08:21 AM PST
Ashton Kutcher vs. Wal-Mart: Epic Twitter clash rages over poverty wagesKutcher slams retailer: “You should be proud of your associates but I’m not sure if they should be proud of you”
Topics:
Wal-Mart,
Ashton Kutcher,
Unions,
The Labor Movement,
Poverty,
Thanksgiving,
Twitter,
Social Media,
wages,
Editor's Picks, Media News, Business News, News, Politics News
 Ashton Kutcher (Credit: AP/Dan Hallman)Kutcher (@aplusk) kicked off the dust-up by tweeting about the news that an Ohio Wal-Mart took up an employee-to-employee food charity collection “so Associates in Need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner.” He wrote, “Walmart is your profit margin so important you can’t Pay Your Employees enough to be above the poverty line?” Fourteen minutes later, the company’s @WalmartNewsroom account, echoing its replies to others on the topic, tweeted back at Kutcher, “It’s unfortunate that an act of human kindness has been taken so out of context. We’re proud of our associates in Canton.” After 10 minutes, Kutcher shot back, “you should be proud of your associates but I’m not sure if they should be proud of you.” Wal-Mart then offered Kutcher a video on “Opportunity and Benefits at Walmart,” saying, “We know you believe in opportunity like we do & we’d love to talk to you more about it.” Kutcher quickly countered, “you had 17 billion in profits last year. You’re a 260 billion$ company. What are we missing?” That set off a trio of tweets from Wal-Mart, starting with, “We think you’re missing a few things,” and then touting that “The majority of our workforce is full-time and makes more than $25,000/year”; that “about 75% of our store management teams started as hourly associates”; and that “every year, we promote about 160,000 people…” Kutcher told Wal-Mart the company “does a lot of great things but it needs to be a leader on this issue as well.” In its final tweet to Kutcher – so far — Wal-Mart answered, “We know we can always get better as a company. This year we’ve made providing more opportunities for our associates a top priority.” Kutcher returned to the topic an hour later, linking a blog post on a study estimating the cost of Wal-Mart workers’ use of public assistance, and saying “Walmart should be the leaders not the low water mark.” Cruz: Democrats Want to Pack D.C. Court To Save Obamacare
Friday, 22 Nov 2013 10:25 AM
The White House is trying to save Obamacare by packing the U.S.
Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., with judges who will rubber stamp
its "lawless behavior," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says.
Senate Democrats, according to Cruz, enacted "the nuclear option" to prevent filibusters against appellate court nominees in order to make it difficult for Republicans to repeal the disastrous Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature healthcare legislation, The Hill reported. Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll "The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit (court) because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama administration implementing Obamacare," said Cruz, a leading force in the government shutdown last month in a confrontation over the Affordable Care Act. "President Obama and the administration refuse to follow the plain text of the law, and the D.C. Circuit is the court of appeals that has been holding the administration accountable." Cruz said the change in the filibuster rule, passed by the Senate on Thursday, was designed purely "to pack that court with judges that they believe will be a rubber stamp" to Democratic policy. The D.C. court has a quota of 11 seats. Three have been vacant. Of the current judges, four were appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats. Obama has nominated Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Robert Wilkins, but their nominations were being filibustered by Republicans who worried a shifting balance of power. The court is particularly important because it deals with decisions made by federal agencies and the White House, reports The Washington Post. Cruz was echoing the sentiments of numerous Republicans, including Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who told Newsmax that the real reason for the "dangerous" ploy was "to create a controversy so they can escape criticism for Obamacare, which is wrecking the country." Hatch claimed that Obama will use the D.C. court to pass legislation that he can't get through Congress. Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana said that the "nuclear option" was intended by Democrats as a "distraction" from the failed launch of the Affordable Care Act and its website HealthCare.gov. Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, declared that the fate of Obamacare may rest in the hands of the D.C. court. "Lawsuits affecting the healthcare law will go through this court, and if the president is able to pack this court, it’s his effort to try to defend a law the American people don’t like and believe they can’t afford," he said. Meanwhile, during an appearance on Bloomberg TV Thursday, Cruz suggested that he might use the expected budget crisis in January as a means of having the healthcare law repealed. "There will be plenty of time to worry about the specific text," he said of the possibility of linking budget legislation to the removal of the Affordable Care Act. "What I think is critical is that we keep focus on Obamacare and on fixing things. I think what we need to do is repeal in its entirety. I don’t know (if I can do that in January). I hope so." Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Cruz-court-pack-Obamacare/2013/11/22/id/538131?ns_mail_uid=24044319#ixzz2lPlA5GoD Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now! 
Recommend this article
Pass the Kleenex: Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure. “In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.” In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, and federal regulations, many congressional staffers — designated as “official” aides — were forced to move out of the old heavily subsidized Federal Employees Health Benefits program and into the District of Columbia’s health insurance marketplace exchange. Others designated as “unofficial” were allowed to stay in the FEHB program. Welcome to the Obamacare party, people who helped their bosses foist this monstrosity upon an unwilling public. Many of these legislative aides are now saddled with much higher -- "unacceptable!" -- health costs, now that they're fending for themselves on DC's Obamacare exchange. There's a reason why poll after poll shows the president and his healthcare law plummeting to new lows; it's somewhat comforting to know that at least some people on Capitol Hill aren't insulated from the fallout. That said, it is most unfortunate that Republican staffers are living through the same tribulations thanks to a law they've fought tooth-and-nail from day one. Beyond the spiking costs for individuals and families, taxpayers are on the hook for an avalanche of new government spending because of Obamacare. One item on that list is the cost of fixing the broken websites, which had already cost $1.6 billion by the launch date ($600 billion for Healthcare.gov, and more than $1 billion for the state exchanges). Since 30 to 40 percent of the federal site is still being built, with massive repair efforts underway across the country, that price tag will swell immensely. Government experts can't say how much it will cost just yet, but outside observers are confident it will be a lot: Technology experts say healing what ails the Healthcare.gov website will be a tougher task than the Obama administration acknowledges. "It's going to cost a lot of tax dollars to get this done," says Bill Curtis, senior vice president and chief scientist at CAST, a French software analysis company with offices in the U.S. Curtis says programmers and systems analysts start fixing troubled websites by addressing the glitches they can see. But based on his analysis of the site, he believes the ongoing repairs are likely to reveal even deeper problems, making it tough to predict when all the site's issues will be resolved. In an interesting twist, one of the few elements of Healthcare.gov that was not catastrophically broken was the so-called "anonymous shopper" browsing function, wherein potential consumers could check and compare rates. Obamacare's IT chief testified under oath that this element of the website was scrapped because it failed so terribly in testing that they couldn't in good conscience roll it out to the public (this is the same guy who admitted that at least one-third of the web system still isn't built). But a CNN exclusive reveals that the "anonymous shopper" function actually passed its pre-launch test, raising questions about whether Henry Chao committed perjury. If this portion of the Obamacare web experience was working fine technologically, why would they jettison it? It's pretty simple, really -- sticker shock, and pure politics: The laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs. So, by analyzing your income first, if you qualify for heavy subsidies, the website can advertise those subsidies to you instead of just hitting you with Obamacare’s steep premiums. The premium and out-of-pocket costs were going to look so steep, the administration chose to hide those numbers from the public until after people had logged on and gotten a sense of how much taxpayer assistance they'd receive to help pay for the costly coverage. They tossed out one of the few working elements of their website rollout to spare themselves the humiliation of another major broken promise, then lied about it to Congress. Jim did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?, Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Obama saying the avg family would save $2,500 on their premiums?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs by paying for drugs that abort the unborn?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Violating the rights and sanctity of our Churches?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Spending $634 million on a website that doesn't work?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Obama calling for an increase in our debt when he lambasted Bush for the very same thing?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Obama having NSA spy on 124 Billion Phone Calls in One Month?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Saddling our kids with $17 trillion in debt of which they can never get out of and will not have as good a life as we have?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Bailing out Detroit after decades of corrupt Democratic management?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean voter fraud?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Intentionally trying to hurt Americans during the sequester?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Blocking veterans who secured our freedoms from their monuments but giving the green light for Illegals to use Monument Mall?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Denying school kids the ability to tour the White House but still spending lavishly on his parties?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean Obama saying we can keep our insurance and doctors if we wanted to?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The NSA monitoring foreign diplomats?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean the use of drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?" Bob: "No the other one:. Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?" Bob: "No, the other one Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "You mean Obama spending $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Millions of Americans losing their health care coverage?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Forcing Americans to include coverage in their insurance policies of items they do not want?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Denying Arizona the right to protect its borders?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Providing weapons to Syrian rebels many of whom apparently are Al Queda" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "The President using nearly $1 trillion dollars of stimulus money to fund his cronies?" Bob: "No, the other one" Jim: "You mean Fast & Furious?" Bob: "No, the other one." Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters who don't pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in American history?" | |||
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein
are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove
any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
No comments:
Post a Comment