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

[Arianrhod]

...you just have to not be an idiot...

...to know which thread you're posting in. Good luck, then.

 

[HenryBHough]

As I review this this thread I am struck by the simple fact that most of the negative comments are coming from individuals who obviously would never be hired by Walmart. Indeed, who are so attuned to being on the dole that they are no longer employable even by entities like a state Department of Motor Vehicles.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Stupid, mindless liberal pooh spewed as a "thought" simply won't fly, there, pinky.

You are wrong in a multitude of ways.

Let's start with the fact that if we don't get a handle on the fucking SPENDING we shall go bankrupt. Is there anything in your putrid political joke of a philosophy that might assist the "poor" people once the money is ALL gone and the government collapses and society does too?

Of course not.

A plan to reduce the amounts we dole out (which is not the same thing, exactly, as cutting it out entirely, you alarmist nitwit) MIGHT just have the benefit of SAVING us from bankruptcy and thereby enable the government to keep spending our tax dollars on unearned handouts to a lot of people who won't even attempt to get work.

Whew. That was close. They ALMOST had to work just because they are able to do so and jobs might be available.

Doing what YOU propose WILL inevitably "tank" our economy. It is your proposal which is ultimately quite heartless and foolish.

But you cannot see that and would never admit it anyway because you are a tool, a fool a liberal and you are neither bright nor honest. But I already noted that you are a liberal.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Stupid, mindless liberal pooh spewed as a "thought" simply won't fly, there, pinky.

You are wrong in a multitude of ways.

Let's start with the fact that if we don't get a handle on the fucking SPENDING we shall go bankrupt. Is there anything in your putrid political joke of a philosophy that might assist the "poor" people once the money is ALL gone and the government collapses and society does too?

Of course not.

A plan to reduce the amounts we dole out (which is not the same thing, exactly, as cutting it out entirely, you alarmist nitwit) MIGHT just have the benefit of SAVING us from bankruptcy and thereby enable the government to keep spending our tax dollars on unearned handouts to a lot of people who won't even attempt to get work.

Whew. That was close. They ALMOST had to work just because they are able to do so and jobs might be available.

Doing what YOU propose WILL inevitably "tank" our economy. It is your proposal which is ultimately quite heartless and foolish.

But you cannot see that and would never admit it anyway because you are a tool, a fool a liberal and you are neither bright nor honest. But I already noted that you are a liberal.

I want small government, but live in reality. You can't just cut welfare in an economy wih stagnant wages. You have no viable plan. To get small government we need employers to provide for employees. There is no other option.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Stupid, mindless liberal pooh spewed as a "thought" simply won't fly, there, pinky.

You are wrong in a multitude of ways.

Let's start with the fact that if we don't get a handle on the fucking SPENDING we shall go bankrupt. Is there anything in your putrid political joke of a philosophy that might assist the "poor" people once the money is ALL gone and the government collapses and society does too?

Of course not.

A plan to reduce the amounts we dole out (which is not the same thing, exactly, as cutting it out entirely, you alarmist nitwit) MIGHT just have the benefit of SAVING us from bankruptcy and thereby enable the government to keep spending our tax dollars on unearned handouts to a lot of people who won't even attempt to get work.

Whew. That was close. They ALMOST had to work just because they are able to do so and jobs might be available.

Doing what YOU propose WILL inevitably "tank" our economy. It is your proposal which is ultimately quite heartless and foolish.

But you cannot see that and would never admit it anyway because you are a tool, a fool a liberal and you are neither bright nor honest. But I already noted that you are a liberal.

I want small government, but live in reality. You can't just cut welfare in an economy wih stagnant wages. You have no viable plan. To get small government we need employers to provide for employees. There is no other option.

First of all, pinky, I haven't said anything ABOUT a "plan." So you have exactly and precisely zero factual basis to complain about any alleged lack of a viable plan on my part. I realize that having to have a factual basis to make your idiotic musings gets in the way of your monotonous ranting, but still, you should consider honesty for a refreshing change of pace.

And, stagnant economy or not (the President might not agree with your assessment, but then again, Obumbler is less credible than even you, if that's possible, and sadly it is) -- you also leave unsupported your contention that you can't cut welfare in a stagnant economy. .

And no. To get small government it is NOT necessary that we "get' employers to do anything in particular. That might help, but it is NOT (as you baselessly claim) a necessity or a precondition. It's just you asserting shit without feeling the slightest need to support your claims -- again. I can tell you what IS crucial to get smaller government. Have them (stay with me on this "new" concept) COMPLY with the Constitutional limitations on their power and authority!

There are MANY other options. At a minimum, once again you have simply made a grandiose sounding claim (as though you are merely recapitulating a previously proved law of economics -- which you are not) and failing entirely to provide support for your mere claim.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Oh, and pinky. Where you live and where reality exist are two very different places. You are not in the same area code.

 

[Arianrhod]

As I review this this thread I am struck by the simple fact that most of the negative comments are coming from individuals who obviously would never be hired by Walmart. Indeed, who are so attuned to being on the dole that they are no longer employable even by entities like a state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Never thought of that, but maybe at least some of those defending Walmart are afraid of losing their jobs...we should try to go easier on them.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As I review this this thread I am struck by the simple fact that most of the negative comments are coming from individuals who obviously would never be hired by Walmart. Indeed, who are so attuned to being on the dole that they are no longer employable even by entities like a state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Never thought of that, but maybe at least some of those defending Walmart are afraid of losing their jobs...

And of course, being a laughable liberal, and a snotty self-important elitist bitch, as you are, you would look down on working people for having a job you find beneath you.

Just like you and your filthy liberal ilk often make elitist snobby condescending shit about folks who may live in a trailer or a trailer park. Fuckwits such as you then scratch your snobby elitist noggins and wonder why you are always so unpersuasive.

 

[Arianrhod]

As I review this this thread I am struck by the simple fact that most of the negative comments are coming from individuals who obviously would never be hired by Walmart. Indeed, who are so attuned to being on the dole that they are no longer employable even by entities like a state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Never thought of that, but maybe at least some of those defending Walmart are afraid of losing their jobs...

And of course, being a laughable liberal, and a snotty self-important elitist bitch...

The fact that the Waltons despise you doesn't mean you have to despise yourself.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As I review this this thread I am struck by the simple fact that most of the negative comments are coming from individuals who obviously would never be hired by Walmart. Indeed, who are so attuned to being on the dole that they are no longer employable even by entities like a state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Never thought of that, but maybe at least some of those defending Walmart are afraid of losing their jobs...

And of course, being a laughable liberal, and a snotty self-important elitist bitch...

The fact that the Waltons despise you doesn't mean you have to despise yourself.

I doubt they despise anyone. You despise those who have jobs with and for them. And you USE those employees as pawns in your hapless form of cheap rhetoric. Thankfully, in the process, you remain utterly unpersuasive, transparent and pretty much revolting.

Just like a powerfully bad smell can warn a person away from trying to dine on meat that has gone bad, so too your own offensive and malodorous condescending elitism warns others from taking you (or your trite redundant tripe) seriously.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This entire thread is another piece in a "class warfare" campaign made by social liberal elitist activists. It involves more of the standard fare of divide and conquer and us vs them. It is aligned with nonsense like that whole 1% malarkey.

The Walmart 1% is not just a stupid name, it is an actual organization. The Walton Family Foundation: How Much Do They Give and To Whom? It is basically organized labor making a hatchet job attack on the Walmart corporation. Making Change at Walmart » About

I kind of wonder if it is endowed by a grant from the likes of Soros.

Meanwhile, despite the biased interests of the author(?) of this thread OP and the ilks of Forbes magazine investigators and the UFCW, I still have to wonder WHO says it is any of their fucking business how much of their vast wealth the Waltons give to their own charitable institution or otherwise to any other charities.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So these folks build a business....
Hire people.....
People shop there and don't seem to have a problem with it.
No one is putting a gun to their heads....

Walmart is a huge success story.....

And Libs have a problem with it.

Why?

View attachment 50627

Seriously? When one family owns more wealth then the bottom 40% of america, there is a problem. This isn't envy.

It is a "problem" because -- uhm -- why again?

I mean other than the silly liberal political philosophy behind modern American liberalism and its socialist heart, it is not being made very clear why and how a disparity in wealth is any of your fucking business.

 

[Arianrhod]

This entire thread is another piece in a "class warfare" campaign made by social liberal elitist activists. It involves more of the standard fare of divide and conquer and us vs them. It is aligned with nonsense like that whole 1% malarkey.

The Walmart 1% is not just a stupid name, it is an actual organization. The Walton Family Foundation: How Much Do They Give and To Whom? It is basically organized labor making a hatchet job attack on the Walmart corporation. Making Change at Walmart » About

I kind of wonder if it is endowed by a grant from the likes of Soros.

Meanwhile, despite the biased interests of the author(?) of this thread OP and the ilks of Forbes magazine investigators and the UFCW, I still have to wonder WHO says it is any of their fucking business how much of their vast wealth the Waltons give to their own charitable institution or otherwise to any other charities.

If someone was really interested in defending the Waltons, they might mention the charity and what it has accomplished. Much more convincing.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Korea.

Furthermore, you've committed the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. All dogs have fleas. That doesn't mean fleas are good for the dog.

Hong Kong has unions. Not sure I should waste time discrediting all your examples.

Hong Kong: Workers Strike in Support of Student Democracy Movement

It has unions, but they are a small segment of the workforce. Furthermore, membership is not compulsory as it is in American unions.

 

[bripat9643]

This entire thread is another piece in a "class warfare" campaign made by social liberal elitist activists. It involves more of the standard fare of divide and conquer and us vs them. It is aligned with nonsense like that whole 1% malarkey.

The Walmart 1% is not just a stupid name, it is an actual organization. The Walton Family Foundation: How Much Do They Give and To Whom? It is basically organized labor making a hatchet job attack on the Walmart corporation. Making Change at Walmart » About

I kind of wonder if it is endowed by a grant from the likes of Soros.

Meanwhile, despite the biased interests of the author(?) of this thread OP and the ilks of Forbes magazine investigators and the UFCW, I still have to wonder WHO says it is any of their fucking business how much of their vast wealth the Waltons give to their own charitable institution or otherwise to any other charities.

If someone was really interested in defending the Waltons, they might mention the charity and what it has accomplished. Much more convincing.

The Waltons have done nothing the requires defending.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This entire thread is another piece in a "class warfare" campaign made by social liberal elitist activists. It involves more of the standard fare of divide and conquer and us vs them. It is aligned with nonsense like that whole 1% malarkey.

The Walmart 1% is not just a stupid name, it is an actual organization. The Walton Family Foundation: How Much Do They Give and To Whom? It is basically organized labor making a hatchet job attack on the Walmart corporation. Making Change at Walmart » About

I kind of wonder if it is endowed by a grant from the likes of Soros.

Meanwhile, despite the biased interests of the author(?) of this thread OP and the ilks of Forbes magazine investigators and the UFCW, I still have to wonder WHO says it is any of their fucking business how much of their vast wealth the Waltons give to their own charitable institution or otherwise to any other charities.

If someone was really interested in defending the Waltons, they might mention the charity and what it has accomplished. Much more convincing.

The charity was started long ago.

But who said that the Waltons require "defending?"

They may be getting constantly attacked by liberal idiots, but that doesn't mean that they require defending.

I seriously doubt the musings of idiot liberals on one internet message board -- or even an orchestrated attack on many fronts from some socialist labor type groups -- means a whole lot to them.

 

[Arianrhod]

This entire thread is another piece in a "class warfare" campaign made by social liberal elitist activists. It involves more of the standard fare of divide and conquer and us vs them. It is aligned with nonsense like that whole 1% malarkey.

The Walmart 1% is not just a stupid name, it is an actual organization. The Walton Family Foundation: How Much Do They Give and To Whom? It is basically organized labor making a hatchet job attack on the Walmart corporation. Making Change at Walmart » About

I kind of wonder if it is endowed by a grant from the likes of Soros.

Meanwhile, despite the biased interests of the author(?) of this thread OP and the ilks of Forbes magazine investigators and the UFCW, I still have to wonder WHO says it is any of their fucking business how much of their vast wealth the Waltons give to their own charitable institution or otherwise to any other charities.

If someone was really interested in defending the Waltons, they might mention the charity and what it has accomplished. Much more convincing.

The Waltons have done nothing the requires defending.

And yet y'all have spent pages "defending" them by hurling insults at anyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm.

Maybe you just don't know about their charitable contributions.

 

[Arianrhod]

The charity was started long ago.

And -?

Is this the part where I ask you for information to back your assertion and you play the "you do my homework for me" game?

 

[bripat9643]

This entire thread is another piece in a "class warfare" campaign made by social liberal elitist activists. It involves more of the standard fare of divide and conquer and us vs them. It is aligned with nonsense like that whole 1% malarkey.

The Walmart 1% is not just a stupid name, it is an actual organization. The Walton Family Foundation: How Much Do They Give and To Whom? It is basically organized labor making a hatchet job attack on the Walmart corporation. Making Change at Walmart » About

I kind of wonder if it is endowed by a grant from the likes of Soros.

Meanwhile, despite the biased interests of the author(?) of this thread OP and the ilks of Forbes magazine investigators and the UFCW, I still have to wonder WHO says it is any of their fucking business how much of their vast wealth the Waltons give to their own charitable institution or otherwise to any other charities.

If someone was really interested in defending the Waltons, they might mention the charity and what it has accomplished. Much more convincing.

The Waltons have done nothing the requires defending.

And yet y'all have spent pages "defending" them by hurling insults at anyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm.

Maybe you just don't know about their charitable contributions.

Turds like you attack them, so I respond to your attacks. I couldn't give a crap about their charitable contributions.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The charity was started long ago.

And -?

Is this the part where I ask you for information to back your assertion and you play the "you do my homework for me" game?

I don't know. Is it even in dispute that the Walton's Charitable Foundation was started a long time ago?

And does that factoid make a difference in anything under discussion?

Is there any hope that you might someday offer something that even has the germ-seed of a point to it?

That might make it more interesting for the rest of us.

Meanwhile, YOU are the one who seems to imagine that anything done by the Waltons of Walmart requires any 'defending."

I haven't seen that notion supported by you or your ilk beyond the reiteration of the notable whine, "but they have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans!"

As you would probably put it ...

And -?