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

[Arianrhod]

I couldn't give a crap about their charitable contributions.

So noted.

 

[Arianrhod]

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?

Not to me, but you're the one who introduced that factoid, so it must mean something to you.

What would be of interest to me would be the kind of link that I've provided for the Gates Foundation anytime someone's asked.

But I can understand why you wouldn't be arsed to provide that.

 

[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 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.

Or maybe we do know the petty pointless you are hoping to "spring" on us -- as if what they give (known or unknown) is any of your fucking business or is relevant to the whole point of addressing their accumulated family wealth.

Perhaps we just don't share your enthusiasm for the attack on them to make some vapid liberal point on a matter that is actually not your concern.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

Not to me, but you're the one who introduced that factoid, so it must mean something to you.

What would be of interest to me would be the kind of link that I've provided for the Gates Foundation anytime someone's asked.

But I can understand why you wouldn't be arsed to provide that.

Wrong. I RESPONDED to a point. I didn't introduce it.

Nice try though, arayanbrotherhood.

 

[Arianrhod]

Or maybe we do know the petty pointless you are hoping to "spring" on us...

Is there something to spring on you? Is that why you'll spend the next three pages playing "Pay no attention to that Walton behind the curtain?"

 

[Arianrhod]

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?

Not to me, but you're the one who introduced that factoid, so it must mean something to you.

What would be of interest to me would be the kind of link that I've provided for the Gates Foundation anytime someone's asked.

But I can understand why you wouldn't be arsed to provide that.

Wrong. I RESPONDED to a point. I didn't introduce it.

You introduced the factoid about its being started a long time ago.

It's almost as if you're trying to avoid something more pertinent about the Walton charitable contributions...I wonder what it could be...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Or maybe we do know the petty pointless you are hoping to "spring" on us...

Is there something to spring on you? Is that why you'll spend the next three pages playing "Pay no attention to that Walton behind the curtain?"

In fact, silly twit, I already posted what there is to know.

there Is an orchestrated attack against the Walton family by socialist union(s) and part of that campaign is to do the whole 1% malarkey.

My response is because i long go called bullshit on the entire construct of the liberal divide and conquer strategy of envy and class and us vs them.

You idiots of the far left wingnut end of the political spectrum have never articulated (coherently) anything that doesn't smack of pure unadulterated ugly jealousy concerning the topic of income inequality.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

Not to me, but you're the one who introduced that factoid, so it must mean something to you.

What would be of interest to me would be the kind of link that I've provided for the Gates Foundation anytime someone's asked.

But I can understand why you wouldn't be arsed to provide that.

Wrong. I RESPONDED to a point. I didn't introduce it.

You introduced the factoid about its being started a long time ago.

It's almost as if you're trying to avoid something more pertinent about the Walton charitable contributions...I wonder what it could be...

Wassa mattah? Did it deflate the balloon you were hoping to pop before you had the chance?



You do remain obvious, plodding and utterly unconvincing.

But no. I did not introduce the factoid. I mentioned it IN RESPONSE to another would-be jab offered by you and your ilk. Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." | Page 128 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum It is not my fault that you swing and miss so wildly.

 

[Arianrhod]

Walton Family Foundation

Newsflash: "Walmart's Biggest 'Defenders' Refuse to Link to the Walton Family Foundation."

 

[Brain357]

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.

You talk a lot without saying anything of value, you should be a politician. You have said you would cut welfare. That would be a disaster in our current economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

 

[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.

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You talk a lot without saying anything of value, you should be a politician. You have said you would cut welfare. That would be a disaster in our current economy.

How so?....

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's laughable is that liberals cannot comprehend that absolutely nobody is required to buy anything from Walmart. In second place is their failure to comprehend that nobody is compelled to work for Walmart.

But still they quietly shop there because liberals are, above all else, cheap bastards who want to pay the least possible.

The problem is that Walmart type jobs are mostly all we have now with the decline in unions. Walmart is the largest private employer in the country after all.

Yeah, it's not a lack of unions that caused that problem. It's too much union activity, as well as too much government meddling, that left us with a retail-and-service-job economy, and all the manufacturing overseas.

Unions are in decline because so many people have seen what useless, vestigial organizations they are.

Useless? Funny how wages are stagnant as unions decline. Not so useless after all.

Wages are not stagnant....To earn higher salaries requires more training and education than in the past.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

If anything, union prevent hiring....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

No..They don't....Unions coerce business with intimidation.
Do you think any business wants a union mucking up the labor market and forcing an employer into paying above market wages leaving that business to non competitive status?
I cite the Stella D'Oro bakery case featured in an HBO special.
The company was getting killed by other bakers paying market wages in other parts of the country.
Teh Stella D'Oro workers were instructed by the union to walk out. The company told the union that the strike would not change anything. Wage and benefit concessions had ot be made or the plant would close. The strike lingered for months. Workers living off strike benefits were struggling. Some interviewed in the special said they wanted to go back to work even if it were for what the company was offering. The more militant workers wanted to continue the job action.....The union took the compnay to court. The judge ruled in the favor of the union. The judge's opinion was the company was not bargaining in good faith and forced the company to accept the union's terms.
Less than a week later, the company sold the plant to another baker which closed the plant. Instead of getting most of the wages they were making, they got nothing.
The company sold the assets of the plant to itself and transferred the Stella D'Oro work to a plant outside NY State.
The union in this case, simply over played it's hand at the expense of the workers. The union basically screwed its own members. The union moved on to fight other battles. The workers got unemployment.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're right. He was Chairman of the Board of Directors of WalMart until this year, at which point I believe he retired.

For purposes of this discussion, though, it's not a huge difference, since the point was that he certainly did work in re: WalMart. And he is involved in the Walton Family Foundation still.

Yes I am. No Waltons currently hold positions with the company.

Ahhh, so now we're supposed to excoriate them because they got old and retired? Or somehow be impressed by your ability to parse words in order to ignore that all of the living Walton children DID work for WalMart?

From the start I said none hold positions with the company. None have ever been ceo. Being a board member isn't even a full time job.

From the start, you have operated from the premise that the Walton family sits back and sucks off of helpless, enslaved employees while doing nothing themselves. Word-parsing, in other words. You've expected to carry your argument of disdain and abuse toward the family on a pretense based on a situation that only pertains right now.

Sorry, Charlie, but their history counts, and so does the history of this thread.

That doesn't change what I have been saying. None of the waltons hold a position with the company. At most they have been part timers at one time or another. I do not dislike them at all.

Invariably, when you libs discuss Walmart, you eventually end up mentioning labor unions.
Why is this?

 

[thereisnospoon]

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

You said they provide "opportunities" for good wages. Companies do that, unions don't

Without unions opportunities have dwindled. Wages are stagnant.

Bullshit..Companies are not reluctant to hire in the absence of unions.
Where unions are present, companies keep their work force numbers as low as possible.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

You said they provide "opportunities" for good wages. Companies do that, unions don't

Without unions opportunities have dwindled. Wages are stagnant.

Since unions don't provide any opportunities, if that's true, maybe it has nothing to do with unions, ya think, Holmes?

I think we wouldn't have a middle class without unions. There is a reason every country with a strong middle class has unions.

That's horseshit.....I have never been a member of a union. Don't ever want to be. And never would.
I think you are using 2015 technology to espouse 1950's ideas.....Look, unions HAD their purpose. Unions are done.
Unions struggle to gain members even in traditionally union heavy occupations.
I cite the VW plant in Chattanooga, TN....The UAW tried at least twice to unionize that plant. Each time the rank and file voted "no" by a wide margin.
The second time the union lost they went to court looking for an injunction and asked the judge to order a "card check" vote...The judge denied the motion....The workers simply did not want to pay the union and see part of their wages siphoned off by a "middle man"

 

[Rustic]

I don't get why progressives think the reason to start a business is to hire people, there only one reason to start a business... To make living off the profits.

If I need to cut costs in my businesses the first thing I do is let employees go.