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

[easyt65]

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

I see Bernie is doing his best 'Saul Alynski' impersonation, taking a page out of his book 'Rules for Radicals' in trying to stir up class envy while demonizing those with money.

Instead of doing THAT, why not focus on the existing federal government programs and actions that are designed to KEEP Americans poor, out of work, and dependent on the federal government welfare programs? Oh, but that is NOT what SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders wants at all. He doesn't want to ROB from the Rich AND GIVE TO THE POOR - he just wants to rob from the rich...and the middle class...to buy the votes of more of the poor, and - if lucky - turn some of those middle class into 'the poor'.

 

[Brain357]

Really what years would this be? Link?

You mean to counter your links? which would be ...

No you say we had a strong middle class before unions, what years are you talking about?

Whatever, you know nothing about unions except the marketing pitch

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

 

[kaz]

You mean to counter your links? which would be ...

No you say we had a strong middle class before unions, what years are you talking about?

Whatever, you know nothing about unions except the marketing pitch

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

 

[Brain357]

No you say we had a strong middle class before unions, what years are you talking about?

Whatever, you know nothing about unions except the marketing pitch

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

 

[kaz]

Whatever, you know nothing about unions except the marketing pitch

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

We cannot in fact drag you into the light.

Not if I'm already there. So few posts and you're ready to resort to violence?

ANOTHER post entirely off topic as a rebuttal to the claim that you can't be dragged into saying anything on topic or even marginally useful.

Hahaha. Persuasive aint on the list of your skill set.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

Yes and while they make billions each year we subsidize their workers with welfare. Perfect formula for big government.

So what would you say then, genius? Are you MORE jealous of the Walton wealth or more resentful that they employ lots of people at wages you think is carp worthy?

 

[Brain357]

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

 

[kaz]

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

Repeating an unsupported assertion isn't supporting it, Holmes

 

[Brain357]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

Yes and while they make billions each year we subsidize their workers with welfare. Perfect formula for big government.

So what would you say then, genius? Are you MORE jealous of the Walton wealth or more resentful that they employ lots of people at wages you think is carp worthy?

I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?

 

[Brain357]

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

Repeating an unsupported assertion isn't supporting it, Holmes

You show me a country with no unions and a strong middle class. Till then I am right.

 

[HenryBHough]

Do you think that were Nutty Old Uncle Bernie elected president he might simply nationalize Walmart? Then it would be government abusing all those poor, poor, downtrodden employees and they could be equal. Equal with
Americans hungering for the days when government was by the people (instead of limo-liberal elite) and FOR the people?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

Yes and while they make billions each year we subsidize their workers with welfare. Perfect formula for big government.

So what would you say then, genius? Are you MORE jealous of the Walton wealth or more resentful that they employ lots of people at wages you think is carp worthy?

I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?

Your taxes go to tons of folks who AREN'T working. And it remains the policies of the liberal Democrat Parody that leaves the productive sectors of our national economy sinking -- leading to that kind of unemployment or under employment.

If a portion of "your" taxes go to folks who are employed, then PERHAPS the problem is that WE tend to SPEND far too much of the taxpayers' money on "programs" which are not the proper responsibility of the freakin' Federal Government.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

Repeating an unsupported assertion isn't supporting it, Holmes

You show me a country with no unions and a strong middle class. Till then I am right.

YOur rhetoric is so stale.

This is a classless nation.

I suspect that although your rhetoric is stuck on whatever claptrap you got from our under-performing public education system, what you actually MEAN to say (but don't have the ability to grasp) is that there is a distribution in society of income and wealth levels.

One should avoid using politically incorrect and nonsensical constructs as "class."

 

[Brain357]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

Yes and while they make billions each year we subsidize their workers with welfare. Perfect formula for big government.

So what would you say then, genius? Are you MORE jealous of the Walton wealth or more resentful that they employ lots of people at wages you think is carp worthy?

I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?

Your taxes go to tons of folks who AREN'T working. And it remains the policies of the liberal Democrat Parody that leaves the productive sectors of our national economy sinking -- leading to that kind of unemployment or under employment.

If a portion of "your" taxes go to folks who are employed, then PERHAPS the problem is that WE tend to SPEND far too much of the taxpayers' money on "programs" which are not the proper responsibility of the freakin' Federal Government.

You have to make very little to collect welfare. And the Waltons are making billions not working each year. With stagnant wages it's not like there are lots of great jobs out there. You would cut programs? What do you think that would do to the economy?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

YES! You JUST DID throw out a claim you cannot support.

Good of you to (however inadvertently it was) ADMIT it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

Repeating an unsupported assertion isn't supporting it, Holmes

You show me a country with no unions and a strong middle class. Till then I am right.

Your rhetoric is so stale, pinky.

This is a classless nation.

I suspect that although your rhetoric is stuck on whatever claptrap you got from our under-performing public education system, what you actually MEAN to say (but don't have the ability to grasp) is that there is a distribution in society of income and wealth levels.

One should avoid using politically incorrect and nonsensical constructs as "class."

 

[Brain357]

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

Repeating an unsupported assertion isn't supporting it, Holmes

You show me a country with no unions and a strong middle class. Till then I am right.

YOur rhetoric is so stale.

This is a classless nation.

I suspect that although your rhetoric is stuck on whatever claptrap you got from our under-performing public education system, what you actually MEAN to say (but don't have the ability to grasp) is that there is a distribution in society of income and wealth levels.

One should avoid using politically incorrect and nonsensical constructs as "class."

You have an example of a country with a strong middle class and no unions? Repubs have said unions aren't needed and wages would go up. Well with a decline in unions wages are stagnant. How long till you admit being wrong?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

Yes and while they make billions each year we subsidize their workers with welfare. Perfect formula for big government.

So what would you say then, genius? Are you MORE jealous of the Walton wealth or more resentful that they employ lots of people at wages you think is carp worthy?

I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?

In actuality, you are FINE that "your" taxes go to help "support" anybody in alleged "need." This is why you and your mindless liberal ilk keep spending massive fortunes of money we and our posterity don't have and likely never will raise to do just that.

The POLICY is what's stupid.

You are trying to hone a silly vapid talking pointless. I realize folks who might be a shade sharper than you are discuss this sophistry at places like the Daily Kos. But just because the jackasses there happen to agree with one another doesn't make their position a worthy one. And a weak sauce proponent such as you lacks any hint of the persuasive powers which would be needed to try to sell that pablum.

Employees at the Walmart stores are called employees BECAUSE they have JOBS. When they get better educations, more training, or more proficient at their jobs (and given some experience and seniority) they can get better jobs AT Walmart or elsewhere. (i.e., Better paying jobs or however THEY define "better.")

Again, the FACT that the Waltons have made tons of money is none of your freakin' business.

And what the employees at Walmart or at any other job make is THEIR business or their Unions' business (if they are unionized), not your business.

 

[kaz]

Um...I was disputing a claim you stupidly threw out that you can't back up. Seriously, what is wrong with you? You can stupidly throw out claims you can't back up, but God damn it, no one better question your stupidly thrown out claim you can't back up without being able to back it up.

Pull your dress down, your twat is showing

So like I said, no country has had a strong middle class without unions. Between that and our stagnant wages it is confirmed. We need unions for a strong middle class. The claims we don't have been proven false by stagnant wages. Stop ignoring history.

Really? Then why did you stupidly throw out a claim you can't back up?

I just did.

Repeating an unsupported assertion isn't supporting it, Holmes

You show me a country with no unions and a strong middle class. Till then I am right.

Stop making up shit you can't back up