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

[Brain357]

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

I am pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough to get the welfare employees off.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We need to do what we did to the robber baron's to all these fucking assholes.

Why are they assholes? Just because they figured out how to build a better mouse trap? Such jealousy..
What the Walton family has in wealth has NOTHING to do with anyone else.
It's all in paper. The stock value is their wealth. People buy Walmart stock. The business succeeds. The stock price rises. The more it rises, the more people invest.
Have you any idea how many pension, 401k and other funds are invested in Blue Chip stocks which include Walmart Corp?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

I am pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough to get the welfare employees off.

So the Walton family and all the millions of others who have invested in the Walmart Co stock should just "give it up"?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

I am pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough to get the welfare employees off.

So you suggesting stealing it? How American of you and what capitol would they have then to buy products, run the stores and build New ones?


Just a quick search in 1984 the poverty level for a family of four was $10,000

In 2012 it is now around $20,000




Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty Level


What are Poverty Thresholds and Poverty Guidelines? | Institute for Research on Poverty | University of Wisconsin–Madison

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder if liberals so dense in economics get that $20,000 in 2012 has the same buying power of $10,000 in 1984... No matter how much you raise the federal MW they will still be poor and require welfare because everything will rise accordingly...

 

[Arianrhod]

Why not? You republicans run around saying our corporations are the most taxed in the world. Are you now saying they aren't? Walmart for instance would have an extra 7.1 billion.

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

Major urban areas like Chicago and New York have far more job opportunities than rural areas, which is one of the reasons there are fewer Walmarts in those areas. Why would anyone apply at Walmart when they can get paid better by a competitor?

The myth that "Walmart people can barely work a cash register and can't work anywhere else" exists mainly in Cecelie's fevered brain.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wal-Mart as 1,000,000 employees. Paying them all an extra $1.00/hr means an additional $20 billion in payroll costs. That's more than their entire profit for the year.

I realize you won't get this because math is hard for leftwing turds.

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

Major urban areas like Chicago and New York have far more job opportunities than rural areas, which is one of the reasons there are fewer Walmarts in those areas. Why would anyone apply at Walmart when they can get paid better by a competitor?

The myth that "Walmart people can barely work a cash register and can't work anywhere else" exists mainly in Cecelie's fevered brain.

Your post reminds me of two things

1. When I lived in the burbs and worked at a mom and pop manufacturing plant in the hood of Chicago back in 1994.

You couldn't find a national or local chain of supermarkets, hard ware stores you had to go for miles.

Everything local around the plant was small mom and pop restaurants and a hard ware store.. Everything super expensive didn't know how the locals could afford it.

2. I remember when D.C. got their first Wal-Mart's a few years ago thousands of people were applying for a few hundred jobs


Damn correction 23,000 people were applying for 600 jobs (just looked it up)

Wal-Mart Receives 23,000 Applications - Business Insider

 

[kaz]

The field of economics are "talking points?"

No, your post was. If asked to prove your opinion with facts, you'd resort to name-calling (you have already in the part of this post I excised).

If you have any facts to support you opinion, I'd encourage you to provide them. In the meantime, the subject of your sentence is "field," singular; therefore the correct predicate form would be "is," not "are."

Even if you thought "economics" was the subject, it's a collective noun, meaning it takes a singular verb. Ergo, still "is," not "are." You're welcome.

No, the voices in your head are right, listen to them

 

[kaz]

I mean not everyone has the freedom to move every time a job market dries up.

Do you have kids in school? Elderly parents? A mortgage on a house you've put hours of work into? Or are you completely self-absorbed?

I have had all three. I rented my house out for 4 years because I moved to another state.

If you don't want to move, that's your decision, but why should anyone else have to pay the consequences of your decisions?

Why, indeed? Yet you continue to pay for SNAP benefits because the Waltons are manipulating you into doing so. Enjoy.

You're a socialist tool. The Waltons are great for America, they let people who aren't worth a "living wage" to earn a partial wage and therefore not be dependent entirely on government. that's your choice, keep them poor and dependent on politicians. You hate people

You've managed to cram all of the talking points into a single post - good for you! To reiterate: You don't need no stinkin' evidence. We can have your cheap Chinese imports when we take them from your cold, dead hands.

Enjoy.

When you post some evidence perhaps we'll pay attention. So far all you done is repeat your commie Democrat talking points.

Here's a clue for you: No one on my side of this issue is swallowing the claim that whatever wage Wal-Mart pays is the cause of welfare. That's commie bullshit propaganda, not a fact. Any argument you post based on that premise will immediately be dismissed.

Yep. Walmart is offering low skilled workers a great opportunity. The ones who need a leg up the most can get it. Democrats want to take away that opportunity and smack them down for trying

 

[Vigilante]

Saw this at Walmart....

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

Not true. Rob Walton is the CEO of the company. Most of the others have positions with other companies. They are all on the Walton Family Foundation's board of directors.

Of course it isn't true. Lefties lie, it's what they do.

 

[kaz]

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

Isn't it nice that with all the wealth they turn around and help the bottom 40% with it by providing them opportunity to improve their lives with it? They provide jobs to the lowest skilled workers who need a chance the most. It opens the door for the ones who take advantage of it to improve their lives and keep getting better jobs

 

[PredFan]

When this nation was great, we would see a rich man and think; someday that's going to be me. That kind of thinking made us the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. Now most people look at a rich man and think; we need to take his money away. That kind of thinking has been instrumental in our decline.

 

[kaz]

The field of economics are "talking points?"

No, your post was. If asked to prove your opinion with facts, you'd resort to name-calling (you have already in the part of this post I excised).

If you have any facts to support you opinion, I'd encourage you to provide them. In the meantime, the subject of your sentence is "field," singular; therefore the correct predicate form would be "is," not "are."

Even if you thought "economics" was the subject, it's a collective noun, meaning it takes a singular verb. Ergo, still "is," not "are." You're welcome.

What a classic idiot you are. I went back and read our exchange, you made a snotty comment, then when I responded virtually in kind to your post you whined about a lack of facts (to your post, which had zero facts) and being insulting when you were insulting.

Here's step one to whining about responses, don't do what you are whining about. Here you did it twice in the same post

 

[kaz]

When this nation was great, we would see a rich man and think; someday that's going to be me. That kind of thinking made us the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. Now most people look at a rich man and think; we need to take his money away. That kind of thinking has been instrumental in our decline.

It's all trickle up poverty. The greatest generation unfortunately weren't the greatest parents, they begat the greediest generation, the baby boomers, who are still babies. Unfortunately not with the connotation of innocence, but with the reality of self centered greed and gimme politics. They are bankrupting us

 

[Brain357]

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

I am pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough to get the welfare employees off.

So the Walton family and all the millions of others who have invested in the Walmart Co stock should just "give it up"?

I would think they would be ok with a tax break to pay employees yes. Isn't it better to give it up to employees rather than pay in taxes like they do now?

 

[Brain357]

How many employees they have on welfare?

What difference does that make?

Well we are talking about getting people off welfare. I assume all million employees aren't on welfare. Pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough incentive to get every Walmart employee off welfare.

I wish it was that simple, ok Wal Mart raised their MW up to $10 bucks an hour in 2016 for like 500,000 employees that is livable in places like Alabama and SC but would still need assistance in places like Chicago or New York.

Do you think they wouldn't? I should research how many times the welfare rate was raised.... But probably would take to long and it would very state to state.

I am pretty sure 7.1 billion would be enough to get the welfare employees off.

So you suggesting stealing it? How American of you and what capitol would they have then to buy products, run the stores and build New ones?


Just a quick search in 1984 the poverty level for a family of four was $10,000

In 2012 it is now around $20,000




Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty Level


What are Poverty Thresholds and Poverty Guidelines? | Institute for Research on Poverty | University of Wisconsin–Madison

You seem to be lost. That is their tax bill. I'm suggesting they get a tax break for increased wages. It would cut out the government.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Not true. Rob Walton is the CEO of the company. Most of the others have positions with other companies. They are all on the Walton Family Foundation's board of directors.

Of course it isn't true. Lefties lie, it's what they do.

Rob Walton isn't ceo moron.

 

[Brain357]

When this nation was great, we would see a rich man and think; someday that's going to be me. That kind of thinking made us the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. Now most people look at a rich man and think; we need to take his money away. That kind of thinking has been instrumental in our decline.

That sounds real nice, but that was when we had strong unions and more opportunities. Now wages are stagnant.

 

[bripat9643]

You keep saying that, but you can't quote any examples. Actually, you're the one who equates your opinion with fact, like your theory Wal-Mart's wages require us to pay for food stamps. That's obvious horseshit.

Posted it once. Posting it again:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Bullshit propaganda, in other words. SNP benefits are not a cost imposed by Wal-Mart. They are imposed by idiots like you who vote for them. If you don't want to pay for SNAP benefits, then stop voting for them.