Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[PredFan]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

You have anything to back that up? If not then your opinion is moot.

 

[bripat9643]

If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to work elsewhere, so how are the being "hosed?" Wal-Mart is not their legal guardian and neither is the government. Neither has any legal or moral obligation to provide them with some minimum standard of living.

Your claim is pure communist horseshit.

Then you don't live in reality. We vote in this country. If the employer doesn't provide for them the government will. The only way to smaller gov is through employers providing better. Every full time employed person should make enough to not be on welfare. Only then will gov dependence shrink.

Voting isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that a mob can impose its will on a minority.

I vote too, moron, and I will vote against anyone who thinks Walmart is required to pay them anything more than what the market will bear.

Yes and like other conservatives you have believed the same foolishness for decades no doubt. How is that small government coming? Either the employer or the government provides for the people. Small government people like me think it should be the employer. You obviously like government dependence and big government.

"Foolishness" would be thinking that you can bring about any change you desire simply by having the government pass a law mandating it. That foolishness has been going on since the beginning of government.

Well republicans have been saying the same thing for decades and all we get is more big government. At some point you need to realize you are wrong.

Republicans don't control the media, academia or the courts. Furthermore, too many Republicans are RINOs like Boehner. You can't blame your failed economic policies on people who want to cut government. When has it ever been cut?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

NO, it's not questionable. To "earn" something means to acquire it through voluntary exchange. The Waltons have earned every penny they have.

 

[Brain357]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

You have anything to back that up? If not then your opinion is moot.

Well currently none hold a position with the company, so they don't work.

 

[bripat9643]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

NO, they get a check from the government because fools like you voted to give it to them. However you rationalize that decision is beside the point. The way you get small government is by voting for it. Unfortunately there are too many ticks sucking on the ass of society to make that immediately feasible.

 

[Brain357]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

NO, it's not questionable. To "earn" something means to acquire it through voluntary exchange. The Waltons have earned every penny they have.

Yes they were born like the rest of us. Yippee.

 

[Brain357]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

NO, they get a check from the government because fools like you voted to give it to them. However you rationalize that decision is beside the point. The way you get small government is by voting for it. Unfortunately there are too many ticks sucking on the ass of society to make that immediately feasible.

Immediately feasible? That is never feasible as long as employers keep cutting pay, benefits, and retirement. Those rich people you worship are moving us farther away each year.

 

[the_human_being]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

So? They had a business plan that worked. It's good to see such success in America. That's what America is all about. Burn Me is a Socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

NO, it's not questionable. To "earn" something means to acquire it through voluntary exchange. The Waltons have earned every penny they have.

Yes they were born like the rest of us. Yippee.

Did they take their money from anyone as welfare parasites like you do?

 

[PredFan]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

You have anything to back that up? If not then your opinion is moot.

Well currently none hold a position with the company, so they don't work.

The own it, nit wit. That means they earned it. Your insipid opinion is moot.

 

[Brain357]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

NO, it's not questionable. To "earn" something means to acquire it through voluntary exchange. The Waltons have earned every penny they have.

Yes they were born like the rest of us. Yippee.

Did they take their money from anyone as welfare parasites like you do?

I have never collected welfare. I guess I should be a billionaire too, I've been born and don't take welfare.

 

[Brain357]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

You have anything to back that up? If not then your opinion is moot.

Well currently none hold a position with the company, so they don't work.

The own it, nit wit. That means they earned it. Your insipid opinion is moot.

Yes they earned it by being born. You may be so easily impressed, but I am not.

 

[bripat9643]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

NO, they get a check from the government because fools like you voted to give it to them. However you rationalize that decision is beside the point. The way you get small government is by voting for it. Unfortunately there are too many ticks sucking on the ass of society to make that immediately feasible.

Immediately feasible? That is never feasible as long as employers keep cutting pay, benefits, and retirement. Those rich people you worship are moving us farther away each year.

It's easily feasible. As I've noted numerous times, employers are not the legal guardians of their employees. They aren't legally obligated to provide them with food, clothing or housing. That's purely a fetish of commies like you.

 

[bripat9643]

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

NO, it's not questionable. To "earn" something means to acquire it through voluntary exchange. The Waltons have earned every penny they have.

Yes they were born like the rest of us. Yippee.

Did they take their money from anyone as welfare parasites like you do?

I have never collected welfare. I guess I should be a billionaire too, I've been born and don't take welfare.

I'll bet you or a family member is getting a check from the government. Your kind almost always does.

 

[PredFan]

It's theirs and they earned it. More power to them.

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

You have anything to back that up? If not then your opinion is moot.

Well currently none hold a position with the company, so they don't work.

The own it, nit wit. That means they earned it. Your insipid opinion is moot.

Yes they earned it by being born. You may be so easily impressed, but I am not.

As I said, your insipid opinion is moot.

 

[Brain357]

By paying so little their workers are on welfare, the government grows. I think that is a bad thing. You must love big government.

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

NO, they get a check from the government because fools like you voted to give it to them. However you rationalize that decision is beside the point. The way you get small government is by voting for it. Unfortunately there are too many ticks sucking on the ass of society to make that immediately feasible.

Immediately feasible? That is never feasible as long as employers keep cutting pay, benefits, and retirement. Those rich people you worship are moving us farther away each year.

It's easily feasible. As I've noted numerous times, employers are not the legal guardians of their employees. They aren't legally obligated to provide them with food, clothing or housing. That's purely a fetish of commies like you.

If it was feasible it would happen. But even with a republican congress nothing is going to happen. What you want is political suicide and nobody is going to do that. Heck cutting welfare now without creating jobs would quickly tank the economy so its economic suicide too.

 

[Brain357]

While it is theirs certainly, the earned part is questionable. Everyone is born.

You have anything to back that up? If not then your opinion is moot.

Well currently none hold a position with the company, so they don't work.

The own it, nit wit. That means they earned it. Your insipid opinion is moot.

Yes they earned it by being born. You may be so easily impressed, but I am not.

As I said, your insipid opinion is moot.

And you are easily impressed. Everyone is born, not that impressive.

 

[bripat9643]

The government grows because libturds and all the people who get a check from the government (is there a distinction?) want it to grow.

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

NO, they get a check from the government because fools like you voted to give it to them. However you rationalize that decision is beside the point. The way you get small government is by voting for it. Unfortunately there are too many ticks sucking on the ass of society to make that immediately feasible.

Immediately feasible? That is never feasible as long as employers keep cutting pay, benefits, and retirement. Those rich people you worship are moving us farther away each year.

It's easily feasible. As I've noted numerous times, employers are not the legal guardians of their employees. They aren't legally obligated to provide them with food, clothing or housing. That's purely a fetish of commies like you.

If it was feasible it would happen. But even with a republican congress nothing is going to happen. What you want is political suicide and nobody is going to do that. Heck cutting welfare now without creating jobs would quickly tank the economy so its economic suicide too.

It's not politically feasible. It's feasible by any other measure.

What I want is for things to continue as they are now, people freely negotiating a wage with their employers. How is that going to "tank the economy?" If anything, what you are demanding would tank Wal-Mart and any other company that pays less than a "living wage."

Almost everything you post is commie bullshit.

 

[Arianrhod]

Let the waltons be, envy really makes America an ugly place...

Not as ugly as calculated ignorance.

The Waltons aside, why is your side comfortable with the fact that Apple pays no income tax? Why don't you take issue with that? Might have to "boycott" all those Apple products, right? That would be unpleasant for you.

In Detail: What The Top 20 U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes

Apple
Pretax income: $18.5 billion

Provision for taxes: $4.5 billion

Net income $14 billion

Tax rate: 24%

Uh huh. No taxes paid THERE.

Your article is from 2011. The Forbes (same source you used) article showing which companies pay no taxes: Forget Inversions, These 20 Huge, Profitable Companies Already Pay Zero Tax

is from 2014. Figures for 2015 are obviously not available until the new fiscal year, but they'll probably be more similar to last year's figures than those from four years ago.

I would think all you Obama haters would want to go after Apple at least.

Too lazy? Too ignorant? Too attached to your iPad?

 

[Brain357]

And those people get a check from the gov because their employer hoses them. Either the gov or the employers need to provide for them. If you want small gov the only answer is the employer. This isn't so hard to understand.

NO, they get a check from the government because fools like you voted to give it to them. However you rationalize that decision is beside the point. The way you get small government is by voting for it. Unfortunately there are too many ticks sucking on the ass of society to make that immediately feasible.

Immediately feasible? That is never feasible as long as employers keep cutting pay, benefits, and retirement. Those rich people you worship are moving us farther away each year.

It's easily feasible. As I've noted numerous times, employers are not the legal guardians of their employees. They aren't legally obligated to provide them with food, clothing or housing. That's purely a fetish of commies like you.

If it was feasible it would happen. But even with a republican congress nothing is going to happen. What you want is political suicide and nobody is going to do that. Heck cutting welfare now without creating jobs would quickly tank the economy so its economic suicide too.

It's not politically feasible. It's feasible by any other measure.

What I want is for things to continue as they are now, people freely negotiating a wage with their employers. How is that going to "tank the economy?" If anything, what you are demanding would tank Wal-Mart and any other company that pays less than a "living wage."

Almost everything you post is commie bullshit.

Well if we did what I want it wouldn't tank anyone. I would give Walmart tax breaks for paying more. Walmart would use these breaks to pay employees who would then get off welfare. Everyone wins, Walmart pays for increases with tax breaks, employee gets paid more, government pays less welfare and collects more income taxes.

Nobody is suggesting Walmart employees should be rich, just make enough to be off welfare.