Black Rifle versus Starbucks: Veterans versus Refugees

Not sure if anyone was aware...Starbucks have caused an uproar by announcing as a result of Trump's moretorium on Refugees until better vetting is implemented, they vowed to hire 10.000 refugees over our our of work Americans.

So now, as a response to that disgraceful snub* (Starbucks have already cut back hours of some of its workers, whom believe is to accommodate refugees) ..

Black Rifle stepped forward to combat Starbucks ( no pun)..

***********

Black Rifle Coffee Company Takes on Starbucks: We're Hiring 10,000 Veterans
Katie Pavlich | February 02, 2017



Black Rifle Coffee Company, founded by veteran Evan Hafer, is responding to Starbuck's CEO Howard Schultz' pledge to hire 10,000 refugees. Schultz' announcement came last weekend in response to President Trump's recent executive order temporarily barring refugees and visa holders from seven terror ridden countries.

"We want to shift the conversation away from foreign policy to domestic issues that hit closer to home. We need to keep in mind that the four things we care about at BRCC are Family, Business, Veterans and country," the company posted on its Instagram page. "And when we say 'country', the taxpayers. Everyone else can take a hike!"

Mic drop.

"I started Black Rifle Coffee Company to provide a high-quality, roast-to-order, coffee to the pro 2A and veteran communities. Between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I was working to refine both my coffee roasting skills and my firearms skills," Hafer says about the company. "I have spent over a decade researching coffee, refining my roast profiles and (of course) drinking what I roast. Black Rifle Coffee is quite literally the combination of my two favorite passions. I take pride in the coffee we roast, the veterans we employ and the causes we support."
Careers@blackriflecoffee.com.

*************

*Starbucks responded that they already have hired Vets and their spouse's since 2013, and are asking Vets to please stay or return as customers.

 

Starbucks isn't hiring refugees over Americans and this pledge from Starbucks in no way affects their dedication to veterans. In 2013 Starbucks vowed to hire 10,000 veterans by 2018. By 2015 they had already exceeded the halfway mark of that goal. They also offer extended free continuing education benefits to their veteran employees (beyond what they offer all their employees). They have programs throughout the US to help veterans as well as donations to active duty military.

This ridiculous outrage at Starbucks' heartfelt vow to welcome and encourage refugees and their ability to "live the american dream" is outright disgusting. People want to stand up now and say "we need to help "our own people" instead of taking in these refugees"...where the fuck was the concern for "our own people" all these years? Bullshit patriotism being used as a guise for selfishness and hate, that's what this all boils down to.

I've always loved me some Starbucks but I loved them a hell of a lot more after seeing their support for refugees.

 

Knee-jerk reactions to imagined attacks on American exceptionalism is something we've seen before. Remember freedom fries?

I applaud anyone taking care of our veterans but caring for people isn't a zero sum equation. Standing opposed to immigrants isn't patriotic it's jingoistic

 

So far, Starbucks has hired over 8,000 veterans to work in their stores and like @RaiderLL said, they're way ahead of schedule. If Evan Hafler wants to start his own coffee company then more power to him. Stupid nonsense like this makes me roll my eyes.

Plus, Starbucks' pledge to hire refugees isn't limited to it's stores in the U.S. They plan to hire refugees to work at their stores in 75 different countries.

 

I'm honestly so tired of conservatives pushing this bullshit mentality the moment anyone even voices a desire to help foreigners. Seriously, are we that selfish and closed minded a society to refuse even the idea that we could spread a little of the help around? Its infuriating. Conservatives have no desire to help anyone so their outrage that some companies can see beyond just our borders when it comes to the needs of human beings in general, is laughable. Such absolute hypocrites.

 

Very interesting to express being "so tired".
Do you have a job?
Guess what. Tens of thousands of Vets DONT!
There are homeless Vets. Conservatives want to employ Americans. What's with your desire to give that job to a non- American?

And if Starbucks really gave a shit, why decide to do it now because Trump suspended Refugees from 7 terror-cell active countries?
Where the hell were they when one million Christian Sudanes and Chadians were slaughtered by the Janjaweed? It's political posturing. And you bought it.

Want to know what Refugees get upon arrival here?
$2,700
An apartment.
Rent paid for three months
A job
Full benefits.

Now tell me again how an unemployed homeless Vet should feel about a country they fought for that let's them sleep in the street?.

Starbucks should employ 20,000 unemployed Vets first.

This unconstrained influx must have LIMITS.
This isn't 1923.
In the age of automation and outsourcing, we don't NEED to bring in more people when we have unemployed people desperate to work. When we have homeless shelter TURNING AWAY people because they are at full capacity.
Housing Vouchers that are depleted because the Housing Authority has maxed out occupancy.

But instead, you'd rather chant to bring in people from across the world? That's lunacy. Let their neighbors take care of them for once.

 

Here here. Didn't see them defending "our" people when cops were murdering black people on tape and no convictions

 

Lmao the same conservatives who go extra hard cutting food stamps and subsidized housing?
Omg stop it lol.
You ain't got to lie to kick it boo

 

But that's the only way to keep lazy ass black, brown and off white colored folks from abusing a system designed to help honest white folks...er ..I mean real Amerikkkans...

 

Tell me why you oppose this?

In 2013, House Republican leaders tried to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad work requirements as part of the last farm bill. The House bill also included drug testing for recipients.

And why do you want to give food stamps to illegal immigrants if you are so worried about Americans having their good stamps reduced?

 

Here...
The pros and cons, from pbs.org...

House Republicans plan to overhaul nation's food stamps program
BY MARY CLARE JALONICK, ASSOCIATED PRESS December 07, 2016 at 12:07 PM EST



WASHINGTON — House Republicans are laying the groundwork for a fresh effort to overhaul the food stamp program during Donald Trump's presidency, with the possibility of new work and eligibility requirements for millions of people.

The GOP majority on the House Agriculture Committee released a two-year review of the program on Wednesday that stops short of making specific policy recommendations, but hints at areas where Republicans could focus: strengthening work requirements and perhaps issuing new ones, tightening some eligibility requirements or providing new incentives to encourage food stamp recipients to buy healthier foods.

"There's nothing off the table when it comes to looking at solutions around these areas where we think improvements need to be made," the committee chairman, Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

He noted there is nothing in the review that suggests "gutting" or getting rid of the program, which he said serves a critical mission.

The food stamp program, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program now serves about 43.6 million people and cost $74 billion in 2015. Participation in the program rose sharply as the country suffered a recession.
The food stamp program, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) now serves about 43.6 million people and cost $74 billion in 2015. Participation in the program rose sharply as the country suffered a recession. The program now costs roughly twice what it did in 2008.

The report, based on 16 hearings by the committee, recommends better enforcement of some SNAP work programs in certain states, and finds that 42 states use broad eligibility standards that some Republicans have criticized as too loose. It encourages more incentives to get people to buy healthy food with their food stamp dollars, addressing criticism that recipients use public money for junk foods. The report cites Agriculture Department data showing that 10 percent of foods typically purchased by SNAP households are sweetened beverages.

It's unclear how or when an overhaul could happen.

Food stamp policy is included in a wide-ranging farm bill every five years; the next one is due in 2018. It also could be part of a larger effort headed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to tackle a welfare or entitlement overhaul, if that should happen in the next Congress.

Still, food stamp changes always have been a hard sell in Congress.

Democrats almost unilaterally oppose any changes. Some Republicans from poorer districts are also wary. The 1996 welfare law added some new work requirements, but Congress declined to convert federal food stamp dollars into block grants for the states, a move that would cut spending for the program.

In 2013, House Republican leaders tried to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad work requirements as part of the last farm bill. The House bill also included drug testing for recipients.

The then-Democratic Senate balked, though, and the final bill included a much smaller cut and no allowances for drug testing.

Conaway said he's open to any of those policies, but suggested that block granting the program — a past priority for Ryan — or drug testing recipients are not his priorities.

"We don't want to be helping folks on drugs, but then again, folks on drugs have children," Conaway said.

On block grants, Conaway said it's not off the table, but not a priority.

"We don't want to be helping folks on drugs, but then again, folks on drugs have children."
He said the report should help lawmakers be "not as knee-jerk reactionary as they have been in the past." The 2013 effort didn't resonate well, he has said, because Republicans didn't spell out why it was necessary.

Part of the calculation will be what Ryan proposes. He strongly supported block granting food stamps as part of his larger plans for welfare reform when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee. But an agenda he released this year after becoming speaker was vaguer, only suggesting that some food aid programs could be consolidated.

As for Trump, he's said little about what he'd want to do with the program. But he has frequently mentioned how the rolls have increased since President Barack Obama took office.

GOP Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, was heavily involved in the 1996 welfare overhaul. He has said his committee will review the food stamp program, but hasn't made any specific proposals.

He says block grants would face significant opposition in the Senate, and he's not sure whether new work requirements would pass muster, either.

"To be determined," he said.

 

What Republicans are really saying "We don't care about homeless vets so you know we really don't give a Damn about refugees."

There fixed it for you.

 

Good try at the distraction. We have enough to subsidize for everyone and instead of this gross overseeing of poor people trying to eat take that same money from taxes rich people are suppose to pay but don't. Hell how about we stop destroying silos worth of food.

 

...and to think that conservatives have the nerve to complain about SJWs whining too much.

The Starbucks initiative was to hire refugees worldwide. How is that a slight against American veterans?

First off, Starbucks already has an initiative to hire US veterans and their family members.





Secondly, Trump's freeze on government hiring actually hurt veterans in America, yet not one word about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/trump-hiring-freeze-veterans-affairs.html?_r=0

Thirdly, funny that I come back from a hiatus to the forum and the first thing I see is purported "independent" Bliss regurgitating the phony right wing outrage de jour.

 

It's so heartbreaking to know how much is wasted in this country while people are literally starving on the streets. The kids and I made tons of chicken noodle soup a few weeks ago when it was really cold and rainy and we packed it in Tupperware with spoons and drove around handing it out to the homeless. To see people struggling so much that a bowl of soup had them in tears, absolutely broke me. I don't know how we've managed to sink so low as a country that the masses are comfortable turning a blind eye to struggling human beings (not just "our people" but ALL people). So many have the capability to help but not the desire to help and I can't figure out for the life of me how we can better that.

 

I'm grateful for every single thing I have in this life and I try every chance I get to share whatever I can. To me, that's being a good american. I couldn't care less who needs the help...they could be american, a vet, an illegal immigrant, an addict, black. white, brown... if they're struggling, I'll help them. You go on and on about who deserves help as if one human life is more valuable than another. That's where you and I will never see eye to eye.

 

Tell me about this destruction of food. I'm interested.

@ the bolded...why do you think people are poor? Could it be no jobs, perhaps?
So let's follow liberal logic- "bring more poor people from all over the world.. And give them jobs".

...That our American poor could use.

Better yet, your Liberal logic says, "Rich people don't pay taxes. Tax them.
Except the rich do pay. And pay the most.

From Pew:
By design, wealthier Americans pay most of the nation’s total individual income taxes.

"In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data.
Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%.

By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%."

(The exception l see is Social Security withholding tax, which applies to wages only up to $118,500. So the wealthier earners get a break with that loophole)

So bottom line -

The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2%
and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

So what say you, Mr. Accountant..?

 

Spot on about the federal hiring freeze. Whoever thinks the conservatives want jobs for veterans, probably believes Frederick Douglas is doing an amazing job.

 

This explains all that you need to know about Bliss.

 

250k is rich to you? Try living in NYC paying 4k a month on rent.
I was talking about millionaires and billionaires who pay nothing homie corporations that pay nothing and get a damn rebate. Try again