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

[Uncensored2008]

Not a Star Trek fan, I take it.

I caught the reference, mine is more appropriate.

Never heard of Prohibition?

Never heard it was part of Wall Street.

Unfamiliar with the term "buying on margin," too.

Maybe we can talk about kittens or something.

So you are claiming that buying on margin was the only cause the crash in 1929? It had nothing to do with capital reserves of financial institutions, or the Dust bowl destroying the futures market in grain and livestock? Nothing to do with the over extension of credit in the housing market? No impact of the quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve diluting the value of an an already unstable dollar? Taft-Hartley protectionism had no impact?

Standard Disclaimer: You would fail my final for Econ-204

 

[kaz]

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

This is a classless nation

Then Brain is in the right place, he's completely classless

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

You are arguing different things.

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I used to be. Of course, prior to that I was a fuzzy headed liberal Democrat (like you). But when I realized that the GOP is a rather pale, milder and less effectual version of the liberal Democrat Parody, I dumped the GOP and registered AS a Conservative.

Secondly, as for unions, I recognize some value in them. However, I also see in them, a lot these days, a self-destructive quality. They are willing to disrupt work places and make demands beyond rational pay and benefit (and job-related safety) issues in such irrational ways that they threaten to kill off the very corporate entities that provide their members the jobs in the first place. Fuckin' idiots should (as a first order of business) keep the adage about not killing the golden goose in mind.

Wages tend to get stagnant periodically. I know you libs hate the economics lessons needed to even begin to fathom the cyclical nature of business, but your lack of willingness to educate yourselves is not a good excuse for your sloppy thinking.

When will YOU admit that you have been totally duped by modern American "liberalism," the sophistry that passes for a political philosophy?

 

[kaz]

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.

Whoa, sure he didn't support his original claim, but he ... repeated ... it. No one messes with repeating a baseless claim, some funky voodoo shit would happen to you. It has to be true since he repeated it

 

[kaz]

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?

OMG, he said it again! Now it has to be true!

 

[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?

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.

Yes it is my business. If we want small government the employer has to provide for employees. The Waltons make billions for their labor, not me. Walmart should be providing, not the tax payer.

 

[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.

Stop making up shit you can't back up

Yes I can. There is no country with a strong middle class and no unions.

 

[kaz]

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

Yes I can. There is no country with a strong middle class and no unions.

You don't mean what backing your argument up means, Holmes

 

[Brain357]

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?

You are arguing different things.

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I used to be. Of course, prior to that I was a fuzzy headed liberal Democrat (like you). But when I realized that the GOP is a rather pale, milder and less effectual version of the liberal Democrat Parody, I dumped the GOP and registered AS a Conservative.

Secondly, as for unions, I recognize some value in them. However, I also see in them, a lot these days, a self-destructive quality. They are willing to disrupt work places and make demands beyond rational pay and benefit (and job-related safety) issues in such irrational ways that they threaten to kill off the very corporate entities that provide their members the jobs in the first place. Fuckin' idiots should (as a first order of business) keep the adage about not killing the golden goose in mind.

Wages tend to get stagnant periodically. I know you libs hate the economics lessons needed to even begin to fathom the cyclical nature of business, but your lack of willingness to educate yourselves is not a good excuse for your sloppy thinking.

When will YOU admit that you have been totally duped by modern American "liberalism," the sophistry that passes for a political philosophy?

I'm an independent. You are the one duped. You claim to want small government, then support Walmart collecting corporate welfare. If you want small government the only answer is employers provide for employees. Otherwise the government will as we have seen.

 

[Brain357]

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

Yes I can. There is no country with a strong middle class and no unions.

You don't mean what backing your argument up means, Holmes

Ok well name a country with a strong middle class and no unions.

 

[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.

Yes it is my business. If we want small government the employer has to provide for employees. The Waltons make billions for their labor, not me. Walmart should be providing, not the tax payer.

that is a matter between "the Waltons" and the employees of Walmart. It remains exactly and precisely NONE of YOUR business.

If we want smaller government, the government should refrain from assuming the obligation to supplement the income of folks who have struck bargains with employers. Again, the ISSUE is that the Government is playing the role of nanny to the people and this was NEVER one of their responsibility or actual authority. This is a Constitutionally-LIMITED Republic.

If we collectively agree that the Government has some Constitutional authority or obligation to provide for the income needs of employees (over and above what they bargain-for with their respective employers), then there ought to be something in the Constitution (not the Preamble, by the way) which grants such authority TO the Federal Government.

Go find it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

You are arguing different things.

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I used to be. Of course, prior to that I was a fuzzy headed liberal Democrat (like you). But when I realized that the GOP is a rather pale, milder and less effectual version of the liberal Democrat Parody, I dumped the GOP and registered AS a Conservative.

Secondly, as for unions, I recognize some value in them. However, I also see in them, a lot these days, a self-destructive quality. They are willing to disrupt work places and make demands beyond rational pay and benefit (and job-related safety) issues in such irrational ways that they threaten to kill off the very corporate entities that provide their members the jobs in the first place. Fuckin' idiots should (as a first order of business) keep the adage about not killing the golden goose in mind.

Wages tend to get stagnant periodically. I know you libs hate the economics lessons needed to even begin to fathom the cyclical nature of business, but your lack of willingness to educate yourselves is not a good excuse for your sloppy thinking.

When will YOU admit that you have been totally duped by modern American "liberalism," the sophistry that passes for a political philosophy?

I'm an independent. You are the one duped. You claim to want small government, then support Walmart collecting corporate welfare. If you want small government the only answer is employers provide for employees. Otherwise the government will as we have seen.

You are no independent. You sound like you swallowed a load of Bernie's jizz.

You are BOUND, utterly bound, by the hapless political philosophy you have been weakly spewing.

I want smaller government and I do not support corporate welfare. See? That was easy. YOU don't get to speak for me especially when you have no clue what you are talking about and are flatly wrong.

If employers don't provide satisfactorily for employees, then the ANSWER is to be found by better bargains (or bargaining) by the employees WITH the employers. The role of the GOVERNMENT in that seems pretty much non existent. At least it does in reality. Strangely, in your pink shaded universe, the 'proper role of government' looms VERY large.

Sad.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Yes it is my business. If we want small government the employer has to provide for employees. The Waltons make billions for their labor, not me. Walmart should be providing, not the tax payer.

that is a matter between "the Waltons" and the employees of Walmart. It remains exactly and precisely NONE of YOUR business.

If we want smaller government, the government should refrain from assuming the obligation to supplement the income of folks who have struck bargains with employers. Again, the ISSUE is that the Government is playing the role of nanny to the people and this was NEVER one of their responsibility or actual authority. This is a Constitutionally-LIMITED Republic.

If we collectively agree that the Government has some Constitutional authority or obligation to provide for the income needs of employees (over and above what they bargain-for with their respective employers), then there ought to be something in the Constitution (not the Preamble, by the way) which grants such authority TO the Federal Government.

Go find it.

Well we vote in this country. What are you going to do cut welfare? That will tank the economy and next election it would be back. If you want to show people they don't need gov they need to be able to get a good job. Walmart is our largest employer and many of their jobs pay so little workers collect welfare. Our wages are stagnant. If there were great jobs out there waiting to be filled they wouldn't be stagnant.

 

[Brain357]

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?

You are arguing different things.

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I used to be. Of course, prior to that I was a fuzzy headed liberal Democrat (like you). But when I realized that the GOP is a rather pale, milder and less effectual version of the liberal Democrat Parody, I dumped the GOP and registered AS a Conservative.

Secondly, as for unions, I recognize some value in them. However, I also see in them, a lot these days, a self-destructive quality. They are willing to disrupt work places and make demands beyond rational pay and benefit (and job-related safety) issues in such irrational ways that they threaten to kill off the very corporate entities that provide their members the jobs in the first place. Fuckin' idiots should (as a first order of business) keep the adage about not killing the golden goose in mind.

Wages tend to get stagnant periodically. I know you libs hate the economics lessons needed to even begin to fathom the cyclical nature of business, but your lack of willingness to educate yourselves is not a good excuse for your sloppy thinking.

When will YOU admit that you have been totally duped by modern American "liberalism," the sophistry that passes for a political philosophy?

I'm an independent. You are the one duped. You claim to want small government, then support Walmart collecting corporate welfare. If you want small government the only answer is employers provide for employees. Otherwise the government will as we have seen.

You are no independent. You sound like you swallowed a load of Bernie's jizz.

You are BOUND, utterly bound, by the hapless political philosophy you have been weakly spewing.

I want smaller government and I do not support corporate welfare. See? That was easy. YOU don't get to speak for me especially when you have no clue what you are talking about and are flatly wrong.

If employers don't provide satisfactorily for employees, then the ANSWER is to be found by better bargains (or bargaining) by the employees WITH the employers. The role of the GOVERNMENT in that seems pretty much non existent. At least it does in reality. Strangely, in your pink shaded universe, the 'proper role of government' looms VERY large.

Sad.

You do not want small government any more than repub politicians do. It's just something you talk about. We will not have small gov when employers are paying so little while the rich get richer. It just grows corp welfare and the government.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Yes it is my business. If we want small government the employer has to provide for employees. The Waltons make billions for their labor, not me. Walmart should be providing, not the tax payer.

that is a matter between "the Waltons" and the employees of Walmart. It remains exactly and precisely NONE of YOUR business.

If we want smaller government, the government should refrain from assuming the obligation to supplement the income of folks who have struck bargains with employers. Again, the ISSUE is that the Government is playing the role of nanny to the people and this was NEVER one of their responsibility or actual authority. This is a Constitutionally-LIMITED Republic.

If we collectively agree that the Government has some Constitutional authority or obligation to provide for the income needs of employees (over and above what they bargain-for with their respective employers), then there ought to be something in the Constitution (not the Preamble, by the way) which grants such authority TO the Federal Government.

Go find it.

Well we vote in this country. What are you going to do cut welfare? That will tank the economy and next election it would be back. If you want to show people they don't need gov they need to be able to get a good job. Walmart is our largest employer and many of their jobs pay so little workers collect welfare. Our wages are stagnant. If there were great jobs out there waiting to be filled they wouldn't be stagnant.

Notice how the very mention of the prospect of "cutting welfare" is spoken-of, by your ilk, with such horror.



Yes, I think the time has come to address the many significant problems this country has with 'welfare." Corrections are needed. Means testing seems appropriate. CUTTING the amounts doled out --while inducing horror in you -- is another in a laundry list of possible options which should be up for discussion.

The workers at Walmart, for the most part, are not exactly the highest skilled employees in our economy. One might imagine that lots of people having jobs BECAUSE of Walmart would be viewed as being a GOOD thing. But no. To you forever whining libbies, instead we hear endless carping about the low wages.

What part of low skilled work equates in your feeble mind with a right to higher wages, generally?

Have any of you economic illiterates managed yet to grasp that if "Walmart" were to suddenly (and very artificially) elevate the wages of its MANY employees, then the cost of the goods Walmart provides to the public (i.e., the consumers) would have to also go up? Demand would be expected to then drop. With the lower demand, to remain competitive, Walmart might have to send many of its employees to the unemployment line.

This is a predictable outcome, but its okay with you and your fellow economic illiterate liberal sheep pals as long as Walmart employees derive a temporary benefit of higher wages. [It might not be AS good for the Walmart employees who then lose their jobs BECAUSE YOU imagine YOU have some right to have a say in what THEY make with THEIR employer.]

 

[Brain357]

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.

Yes it is my business. If we want small government the employer has to provide for employees. The Waltons make billions for their labor, not me. Walmart should be providing, not the tax payer.

that is a matter between "the Waltons" and the employees of Walmart. It remains exactly and precisely NONE of YOUR business.

If we want smaller government, the government should refrain from assuming the obligation to supplement the income of folks who have struck bargains with employers. Again, the ISSUE is that the Government is playing the role of nanny to the people and this was NEVER one of their responsibility or actual authority. This is a Constitutionally-LIMITED Republic.

If we collectively agree that the Government has some Constitutional authority or obligation to provide for the income needs of employees (over and above what they bargain-for with their respective employers), then there ought to be something in the Constitution (not the Preamble, by the way) which grants such authority TO the Federal Government.

Go find it.

Well we vote in this country. What are you going to do cut welfare? That will tank the economy and next election it would be back. If you want to show people they don't need gov they need to be able to get a good job. Walmart is our largest employer and many of their jobs pay so little workers collect welfare. Our wages are stagnant. If there were great jobs out there waiting to be filled they wouldn't be stagnant.

Notice how the very mention of the prospect of "cutting welfare" is spoken-of, by your ilk, with such horror.



Yes, I think the time has come to address the many significant problems this country has with 'welfare." Corrections are needed. Means testing seems appropriate. CUTTING the amounts doled out --while inducing horror in you -- is another in a laundry list of possible options which should be up for discussion.

The workers at Walmart, for the most part, are not exactly the highest skilled employees in our economy. One might imagine that lots of people having jobs BECAUSE of Walmart would be viewed as being a GOOD thing. But no. To you forever whining libbies, instead we hear endless carping about the low wages.

What part of low skilled work equates in your feeble mind with a right to higher wages, generally?

Have any of you economic illiterates managed yet to grasp that if "Walmart" were to suddenly (and very artificially) elevate the wages of its MANY employees, then the cost of the goods Walmart provides to the public (i.e., the consumers) would have to also go up? Demand would be expected to then drop. With the lower demand, to remain competitive, Walmart might have to send many of its employees to the unemployment line.

This is a predictable outcome, but its okay with you and your fellow economic illiterate liberal sheep pals as long as Walmart employees derive a temporary benefit of higher wages. [It might not be AS good for the Walmart employees who then lose their jobs BECAUSE YOU imagine YOU have some right to have a say in what THEY make with THEIR employer.]

So cut welfare in our current economy. That will quickly tank the economy as people have less to spend. Great plan. I want to cut welfare by creating good jobs where employees provide for the employees, not the government. Your plan would tank the economy and be political suicide. Not gonna happen. Get out of fantasy land.

 

[Arianrhod]

ANOTHER post entirely off topic.

Yes, you are still off topic. Were you expecting applause?

Not a Star Trek fan, I take it.

I caught the reference, mine is more appropriate.

Ego. Yours coat-tailed off mine. Without mine, yours would have made no sense. But if it's important to you, you may give yourself a sticker.

Never heard of Prohibition?

Never heard it was part of Wall Street.

Never said it was. (Did you notice the magic word "and" in that sentence? I guess you missed it.)

Unfamiliar with the term "buying on margin," too.

Maybe we can talk about kittens or something.

So you are claiming that buying on margin was the only cause the crash in 1929?

"Only"? No.

See, this is the problem y'all have. Whatever the "enemy" says, you parse it down into binary either/or in order to dismiss it as irrelevant. Throwing the "only" in there is one way of doing it. A little more subtle than most of your peers can manage, but not terribly effective.

That's why your side habitually misreads the sound bite that started this thread. Then some of you will spend hours arguing that something Trump said wasn't what he *really* meant; what he meant was something totally different, but the sun was in his eyes and his hair was mussed and it wasn't his fault.

 

[kaz]

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?

You are arguing different things.

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I used to be. Of course, prior to that I was a fuzzy headed liberal Democrat (like you). But when I realized that the GOP is a rather pale, milder and less effectual version of the liberal Democrat Parody, I dumped the GOP and registered AS a Conservative.

Secondly, as for unions, I recognize some value in them. However, I also see in them, a lot these days, a self-destructive quality. They are willing to disrupt work places and make demands beyond rational pay and benefit (and job-related safety) issues in such irrational ways that they threaten to kill off the very corporate entities that provide their members the jobs in the first place. Fuckin' idiots should (as a first order of business) keep the adage about not killing the golden goose in mind.

Wages tend to get stagnant periodically. I know you libs hate the economics lessons needed to even begin to fathom the cyclical nature of business, but your lack of willingness to educate yourselves is not a good excuse for your sloppy thinking.

When will YOU admit that you have been totally duped by modern American "liberalism," the sophistry that passes for a political philosophy?

I'm an independent. You are the one duped. You claim to want small government, then support Walmart collecting corporate welfare. If you want small government the only answer is employers provide for employees. Otherwise the government will as we have seen.

You're an idiot, you don't know what small government means. You think government dictating wages rather than companies paying market rates and preventing people from working is "small government." You are once again full of shit.

Speaking of your being full of shit, "I'm an independent,"

 

[Brain357]

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?

You are arguing different things.

First of all, I'm not a Republican. I used to be. Of course, prior to that I was a fuzzy headed liberal Democrat (like you). But when I realized that the GOP is a rather pale, milder and less effectual version of the liberal Democrat Parody, I dumped the GOP and registered AS a Conservative.

Secondly, as for unions, I recognize some value in them. However, I also see in them, a lot these days, a self-destructive quality. They are willing to disrupt work places and make demands beyond rational pay and benefit (and job-related safety) issues in such irrational ways that they threaten to kill off the very corporate entities that provide their members the jobs in the first place. Fuckin' idiots should (as a first order of business) keep the adage about not killing the golden goose in mind.

Wages tend to get stagnant periodically. I know you libs hate the economics lessons needed to even begin to fathom the cyclical nature of business, but your lack of willingness to educate yourselves is not a good excuse for your sloppy thinking.

When will YOU admit that you have been totally duped by modern American "liberalism," the sophistry that passes for a political philosophy?

I'm an independent. You are the one duped. You claim to want small government, then support Walmart collecting corporate welfare. If you want small government the only answer is employers provide for employees. Otherwise the government will as we have seen.

You're an idiot, you don't know what small government means. You think government dictating wages rather than companies paying market rates and preventing people from working is "small government." You are once again full of shit.

Speaking of your being full of shit, "I'm an independent,"

It might be you who doesn't know. You think we can get there with lots of corporate welfare it seems.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Bill and Melinda gates Foundation owns more wealth than the bottom, er, idk, 20%?!

Kill the Kulaks!!