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

[Arianrhod]

Capitalism, sure helps bring out natural selection does it not??

It sure does. Point out to one segment of the population that they're underwriting the wealthy and their response is to make that little speech about how the only people who work for Walmart are people with no skills.

Rinse, repeat.

No one is holding anybody back except for themselves.

And if I asked you why you aren't at least a millionaire (I mean, not everyone can be as "hard-working" as your heroes the Waltons and the CEOs of the corporations that pay -0- taxes), you'll either claim you are or you'll say "because taxes take all my money," right?

If you live within your means financially speaking, life is very easy...

Could you live on $7.32-8.00 an hour?

 

[Rustic]

Capitalism, sure helps bring out natural selection does it not??

It sure does. Point out to one segment of the population that they're underwriting the wealthy and their response is to make that little speech about how the only people who work for Walmart are people with no skills.

Rinse, repeat.

No one is holding anybody back except for themselves.

And if I asked you why you aren't at least a millionaire (I mean, not everyone can be as "hard-working" as your heroes the Waltons and the CEOs of the corporations that pay -0- taxes), you'll either claim you are or you'll say "because taxes take all my money," right?

If you live within your means financially speaking, life is very easy...

Could you live on $7.32-8.00 an hour?

If I chose to do that job instead of what I'm doing, yeah I could live off of that.

 

[Rustic]

It's really easy spend less than you make...

 

[Cecilie1200]

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

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 they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

 

[Arianrhod]

It sure does. Point out to one segment of the population that they're underwriting the wealthy and their response is to make that little speech about how the only people who work for Walmart are people with no skills.

Rinse, repeat.

No one is holding anybody back except for themselves.

And if I asked you why you aren't at least a millionaire (I mean, not everyone can be as "hard-working" as your heroes the Waltons and the CEOs of the corporations that pay -0- taxes), you'll either claim you are or you'll say "because taxes take all my money," right?

If you live within your means financially speaking, life is very easy...

Could you live on $7.32-8.00 an hour?

If I chose to do that job instead of what I'm doing, yeah I could live off of that.

I suppose you could if you were single and had no dependents or housing costs. If not, you'd have to convince me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What's questionable is why you leftists have latched onto the word "earned", and think you can demand that people prove to you that they "deserve" their own property through meeting some arbitrary definition of "earned".

They built and maintained a relationship with their father, such that he chose to give them his property. YOU, on the other hand, didn't even do that much. So I think we can safely say the Walton children did more to "earn" what they have than YOU did. Or the government did. Or anyone who doesn't actually own the money did.

No actually I do far more than the Waltons, none of them even have a position with the company. They don't work at all. I work quite a lot.

Clearly, what you "do" doesn't involve reading comprehension.

Doesn't matter how much you work, in this context, because the question is what they versus you did to deserve that money. And your work entitles you to absolutely not one red cent of the money their father amassed. If it had, he'd have left it to you.

 

[Arianrhod]

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

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 they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

How many times do you have to repeat this before it even remotely resembles the actuality?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

You must be against the part where the government gets cut out and money goes direct from employer to employee. You think it is more efficient to funnel it through the government obviously.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

He thinks if you raise the MW nationally, the welfare limit won't be raised and people will get off welfare


Wishful thinking, like the welfare rate was never raised before. He don't understand no matter what the MW would be raised to they would still be poor and need welfare..

Leftist tend to think their tinkering will be the only thing that changes, and everything else will remain static. It has no relation to economics, human nature, or logic, but it just sounds so NICE.

 

[Arianrhod]

Doesn't matter how much you work, in this context, because the question is what they versus you did to deserve that money.

That's not the question at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For one thing, if they raise their wage costs, they reduce their profit, and they automatically pay lower taxes as a result. Your plan would have to provide a substantially better incentive in taxes than the cost of the additional wages, and you couldn't do that even if you dropped corporate taxes to zero. For another, if most companies paid out their entire profit additional wages, it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on wages. Third, reducing company profits means reducing economic growth because profits are the fuel for growth.

So then companies now don't pay much in taxes you are saying?

It's a small fraction of what they pay in wages.

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 they do a job that doesn't command a better paycheck. Blaming others for not paying you huge amounts to do a job a middle-schooler could manage is just part and parcel of why one doesn't have a better life.

Neither the government nor their employer "needs to provide for them", nor does anyone else.. THEY need to stop thinking like children, and provide for themselves. THAT is the only answer, and it isn't hard to understand, unless you're a lazy parasite.

Really? Cause in the example of Walmart the workers are making the waltons billions a year. Sounds pretty valuable to me.

To the extent that the Walton family still derives income from WalMart, it's their investment in same which makes them money. The workers are trading their labor for compensation, and if they don't think that compensation is fair, they're welcome to sell their labor elsewhere.

Furthermore, there is nothing one-sided about the arrangement, no matter what you think, since the monetary investments of the shareholders ALSO provides the employees with the opportunity to sell their labor to the company.

This ludicrous notion that only the rank-and-file, I-could-train-a-child-to-do-this-job workers are contributing any work or value to the company is the worst sort of simplistic, puerile thinking.

How many times do you have to repeat this before it even remotely resembles the actuality?

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

One reason.

Thousands of new government regulations passed each year by Democrats? Crappy trade deals that send our jobs overseas? Obamatard's stubborn refusal to allow the Keystone pipeline to be built which would create thousands of higher paying middle class jobs? Stop me when you have heard enough.

Yes corporations sending jobs overseas and bringing in legal workers are certainly a problem. Keystone? Really? Have you seen the cost of oil?

Yes Keystone the unions were begging for those jobs and Obama and the liberals told them to piss off. Explain it, you can't.

But you people keep saying Walmart employees are lazy and have no skills. Why are you now claiming they'd have been able to work a pipeline?

Your stupidity is rapidly approaching migraine inducing seizure level.

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But you people keep saying Walmart employees are lazy and have no skills. Why are you now claiming they'd have been able to work a pipeline?

If they don't like their wage, work somewhere else.

Is it your perception that if you keep posting that it will magically come true? It won't. But post it again. Your inability to comprehend the nature of the problem is entertaining, in a sad sort of way.

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence for most people, it's up to you to make it better, no one will do that for you.

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Well, make your current job better by working harder and/or being more responsible. There is any number of things that can be done about that.

Leftists also like to plan their economic theories on the assumption that vast numbers of people somehow manage to live totally isolated from population centers, and are trapped there and unable to leave.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it your perception that if you keep posting that it will magically come true? It won't. But post it again. Your inability to comprehend the nature of the problem is entertaining, in a sad sort of way.

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence for most people, it's up to you to make it better, no one will do that for you.

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Well, make your current job better by working harder and/or being more responsible. There is any number of things that can be done about that.

Not if Walmart is your employer.

You mean they can't get a better job somewhere else?

Somehow, they are managing to work for WalMart, and yet live in a place where there are no other jobs and employers to turn to. Not sure how that works, since WalMart doesn't put stores in areas that don't have reasonably-sized population bases, but we're all supposed to pretend it's true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But you people keep saying Walmart employees are lazy and have no skills. Why are you now claiming they'd have been able to work a pipeline?

If they don't like their wage, work somewhere else.

Is it your perception that if you keep posting that it will magically come true? It won't. But post it again. Your inability to comprehend the nature of the problem is entertaining, in a sad sort of way.

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence for most people, it's up to you to make it better, no one will do that for you.

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Unless they are on probation, they most certainly do.

Even if you're on probation, you can move to find yourself a job. They'll work with you, since being employed is a requirement of probation.

 

[Ame®icano]

Bernie just released his first TV ad.



What we had in last four years wasn't change, so he's promising a "real change".

 

[Wyatt earp]

No one is holding anybody back except for themselves.

And if I asked you why you aren't at least a millionaire (I mean, not everyone can be as "hard-working" as your heroes the Waltons and the CEOs of the corporations that pay -0- taxes), you'll either claim you are or you'll say "because taxes take all my money," right?

If you live within your means financially speaking, life is very easy...

Could you live on $7.32-8.00 an hour?

If I chose to do that job instead of what I'm doing, yeah I could live off of that.

I suppose you could if you were single and had no dependents or housing costs. If not, you'd have to convince me.

You could include housing cost if you were single I suppose and what city/town state you lived in. But forget it if you lived in a blue state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is it your perception that if you keep posting that it will magically come true? It won't. But post it again. Your inability to comprehend the nature of the problem is entertaining, in a sad sort of way.

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence for most people, it's up to you to make it better, no one will do that for you.

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Unless they are on probation, they most certainly do.

Do you have kids in school? Elderly parents? A mortgage on a house you've put hours of work into?

You are kidding.....I hope.

People have been moving since the dawn of time. With kids in school and elderly parents. And your mortgage is your business.

Or do you really believe that is an entitlement ?

They clearly think having an easy life with no difficult decisions is somehow an entitlement.

 

[Arianrhod]

And here we have two excellent examples of "How to Post Nothing But Trolls and Get Away with It":

Excuse me, but I was addressing the intelligent, serious people present. If I get bored and want to hear from you, I'll wave a Snausage over your nose and say, "Speak, boy!"

Yet another theory on how Arian became so monumentally ignorant: brain-damaging seizures.

 

[Rustic]

Bernie just released his first TV ad.



What we had in last four years wasn't change, so he's promising a "real change".

The old nut sack should be ignored

 

[Arianrhod]

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence for most people, it's up to you to make it better, no one will do that for you.

Not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Well, make your current job better by working harder and/or being more responsible. There is any number of things that can be done about that.

Not if Walmart is your employer.

You mean they can't get a better job somewhere else?

Somehow, they are managing to work for WalMart, and yet live in a place where there are no other jobs and employers to turn to. Not sure how that works, since WalMart doesn't put stores in areas that don't have reasonably-sized population bases, but we're all supposed to pretend it's true.

As has been explained ad infinitum, ad nauseam, Walmart's business model is to build a store in a suburban or rural area, undercut the prices offered by every small business in the area, and drive them out of business. Many of the Walmart employees you look down your elitist nose at were the owners of those businesses.

People who don't live in basements and who've seen more of this country than the drive between home and church are aware that there's more to it than your little subdivision.