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

[bedowin62]

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?

You're irritated that your taxes go to their workers? Then why do you keep voting for more and more taxes to be redistributed to people?

You blame everyone except yourself and your leftist butt-buddies.

THE Left just wont be happy until Walmart finds a way to automate their stores and the subsidized workers need ALL THEIR NEEDS MET by the government.

 

[bedowin62]

And yet y'all can't stop talking about him.

Bernie is fun to talk about, a crazy old Bolshevik. Plus he forced Hilliary to show her Marxist roots.

And Hillary isn't exactly far to the right of ol' Bernie. Politically, she's so close to him, they're holding hands.

both of their other wrinkled hands are reaching into people's pockets for their wallets

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I already did, fuckstain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Maybe you're just too fucking stupid to understand English. Or too much of a dickless weasel to acknowledge things that don't agree with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They blackmail companies into spending far more for labor than it's worth, while causing untold damage to the community at large . . . which is why they're so out-of-favor. Not only that, they hobble and enslave their own members far more than the employers would ever dream of doing.

I briefly worked for a union paint shop in NYC....When I had to go to the union hall to apply for my "book", I was reading some of the union literature which was more like propaganda. One of the pieces I read was a list of all the products the union members were advised to not purchase and businesses to not patronize. The reasons given were mind boggling. Mostly for some kind of insult to the union "brotherhood".....It reminded my of the stupid little spats my neighbors got into over petty nonsense.
It was then I decided to quit that painting job and head back to NJ and work there. Unencumbered by labor collectives....

I'm extremely glad I live in a "right-to-work" state, and unions barely exist here. They're annoying even as it is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Of course. IN any mainstream business, the largest percentage of the cost is labor. And labor is the easiest cost to control.

Don't wanna hire and pay workers a decent wage? STFU and do the work yourself. Problem solved.

Asshats don't get to determine what is a "decent wage" unless they own the company.

See how that works?

Then do the work yourself. Otherwise, STFU and pay up. You can't have your slaves. Deal with it.

You're not in charge of determining what people are paid, or whether or not people will work for the wage offered. Deal with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't wanna hire and pay workers a decent wage? STFU and do the work yourself. Problem solved.

Asshats don't get to determine what is a "decent wage" unless they own the company. See how that works?

Then do the work yourself. Otherwise, STFU and pay up. You can't have your slaves. Deal with it.

I did plenty of the work and those who worked for me (I'm retired) were not forced to do so. We had an agreed upon wage/work arrangement and when either party was dissatisfied with it we simply parted ways. I had no obligation to them beyond our arrangement and they had none to me.

Whiny, sniveling, idiots had no say in how I ran my businesses and none in any employee's decision to work for me.

Ah, you just want your slaves. But you can't have em. Too bad for you. You don't wanna pay fellow Americans a decent wage, just shut up and do the work yourself. Problem solved.

Better idea: YOU mind your own fucking business, and don't try to tell other people how much of THEIR money they "have" to pay, or how much or little they can sell their labor for. Problem solved.

At no point in the "employment contract" process has anyone asked you, or given you a say in the matter.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Wrong. What I have said is that one of the possible fixes might include cutting welfare (which is not the same as eliminating it).

YOUR mindless reiteration of your unsupported contention does nothing to support what you say. Again.

And FIXING what's obviously wrong with our budgetary process (and economy) could save us all, including those on the dole.

By very stark contrast, refusing to even consider such a fix is a fast route to bankruptcy which serves to save -- nobody.

Are you a politician?

 

[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?

You're irritated that your taxes go to their workers? Then why do you keep voting for more and more taxes to be redistributed to people?

You blame everyone except yourself and your leftist butt-buddies.

Oh, and who am I voting for then? We have only two options and neither are fiscally responsible.

 

[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?

You're irritated that your taxes go to their workers? Then why do you keep voting for more and more taxes to be redistributed to people?

You blame everyone except yourself and your leftist butt-buddies.

THE Left just wont be happy until Walmart finds a way to automate their stores and the subsidized workers need ALL THEIR NEEDS MET by the government.

Given their workers are also a big customer base, that would cost them a lot of sales.

 

[Arianrhod]

What type of a fucked up individual like BS can hate the Waltons?

It's amazing that no one came up with this earlier. However:

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

Kill the Kulaks!!

Bad example. There's a discussion of the Gates Foundation here: Then Why Don't You Start - | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

that you might find interesting.

I'm sure devotees of the Waltons can produce a similar record of their contributions to something other than their own offshore accounts.

Already did, shitforbrains. Try to keep up.

You did mention the Foundation in Post 1074, but you might have helped Frank out instead of insulting him. A little more detail would have been nice.

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.

All men wear pants in nations with strong middle classes.

Not true.

 

[GWV5903]

I don't see how anyone can justify this.
Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tweeted a startling statistic to his followers on July 22, 2012: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth? We decided to check it out.

First, what is wealth?

In economics, wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth, and it’s defined as the value of assets minus liabilities. For someone in the middle class, that could encompass the value of their 401(k) or other retirement accounts, bank savings and personal assets such as jewelry or cars, minus what they owe on a home mortgage, credit cards and a car note.

It does not include income -- what people earn in wages. For that reason, someone who earns a good salary but has little savings and owes a lot of money on their house would have a negative net worth.

In fact, because so many Americans invest in real estate to buy a home, middle-class wealth has been one of the biggest casualties of the housing-driven recession.

From 2007 to 2010, typical families lost 39 percent of their wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, done every three years. In 2007, the median family net worth was $126,400. In 2010, it was $77,300, according to the survey.

Where the Waltons fit in

Six members of the Walton family appear on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. Christy Walton, widow of the late John Walton, leads the clan at No. 6 with a net worth of $25.3 billion as of March 2012. She is also the richest woman in the world for the seventh year in a row, according to Forbes. Here are the other five:

No. 9: Jim Walton, $23.7 billion
No. 10: Alice Walton, $23.3 billion
No. 11: S. Robson Walton, oldest son of Sam Walton, $23.1 billion
No. 103: Ann Walton Kroenke, $3.9 billion
No. 139: Nancy Walton Laurie, $3.4 billion

So let's take it from them, we can put Maxine Waters in charge and that will make it right!

You need to deal with the facts before you shove both of your feet into your mouth, but I am sure you will do it again...

DoNation | Donor Intent | The Philanthropy Roundtable

The 1 percent

High-income households provide an outsized share of all philanthropic giving. Those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (any family making $380,000 or more in 2012) provide about a third of all charitable dollars given in the U.S. When it comes to bequests, the rich are even more important: the wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death, according to one study.

At the top of the income spectrum, charitable giving bumps upward both in dollars and as a fraction of income. The fullest study of wealthy donors is done every two years by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University. The adjoining chart averages findings from three of its recent reports.

The very wealthy, this shows, give away a much larger chunk of their earnings than others. Note, however, that their robust rates of giving are elevated by the extreme generosity of a subset of the rich. While donations to charity are almost universal among wealthy households (more than 97 percent make some annual gift, according to the Indiana data), many of those gifts are comparatively modest. Others are extraordinarily copious—and these push up the donation average.

 

[Arianrhod]

The very wealthy, this shows, give away a much larger chunk of their earnings than others. Note, however, that their robust rates of giving are elevated by the extreme generosity of a subset of the rich. While donations to charity are almost universal among wealthy households (more than 97 percent make some annual gift, according to the Indiana data), many of those gifts are comparatively modest. Others are extraordinarily copious—and these push up the donation average.

This bears repeating, and it's interesting that even the Waltons' Biggest Fans can't do much more than say "Well, there's a foundation, and it gives to charity" without any clarity as to how much or to whom.

Which brings us around to why, if they can donate to charity, they can't pay their workers at the same level as virtually every other big-box retailer.

If someone were to present as a hypothetical: There are three companies, all in the same line of business: Company A, Company B, and Company C. Company A and Company B pay their workers a decent wage plus benefits and consistently show a profit plus growth year-over-year. The third company pays its workers minimum wage and no benefits, and has been losing revenue year-over-year. Which company is the worst of the three?

To a wo/man, everyone here would say "Company C! Only a stupid fucking libtard wouldn't know that!"

Reveal Company A to be Costco, Company B to be WinCo, and Company C to be Walmart, and brace yourself for the shitstorm...

 

[bripat9643]

The very wealthy, this shows, give away a much larger chunk of their earnings than others. Note, however, that their robust rates of giving are elevated by the extreme generosity of a subset of the rich. While donations to charity are almost universal among wealthy households (more than 97 percent make some annual gift, according to the Indiana data), many of those gifts are comparatively modest. Others are extraordinarily copious—and these push up the donation average.

This bears repeating, and it's interesting that even the Waltons' Biggest Fans can't do much more than say "Well, there's a foundation, and it gives to charity" without any clarity as to how much or to whom.

Which brings us around to why, if they can donate to charity, they can't pay their workers at the same level as virtually every other big-box retailer.

If someone were to present as a hypothetical: There are three companies, all in the same line of business: Company A, Company B, and Company C. Company A and Company B pay their workers a decent wage plus benefits and consistently show a profit plus growth year-over-year. The third company pays its workers minimum wage and no benefits, and has been losing revenue year-over-year. Which company is the worst of the three?

To a wo/man, everyone here would say "Company C! Only a stupid fucking libtard wouldn't know that!"

Reveal Company A to be Costco, Company B to be WinCo, and Company C to be Walmart, and brace yourself for the shitstorm...

Wal-Mart is not "any other big box retailer," whatever "big box retailer" means. Does any other "big box retailer" sell groceries? There's only one other that does that I know of: Target, which is Wal-Mart's principle competitor. Wal-Mart's main marketing advantage is low prices. You don't keep your prices low by paying high wages.

So, once again, your argument is an idiocy that ignores all the pertinent facts.

 

[bripat9643]

The very wealthy, this shows, give away a much larger chunk of their earnings than others. Note, however, that their robust rates of giving are elevated by the extreme generosity of a subset of the rich. While donations to charity are almost universal among wealthy households (more than 97 percent make some annual gift, according to the Indiana data), many of those gifts are comparatively modest. Others are extraordinarily copious—and these push up the donation average.

This bears repeating, and it's interesting that even the Waltons' Biggest Fans can't do much more than say "Well, there's a foundation, and it gives to charity" without any clarity as to how much or to whom.

Which brings us around to why, if they can donate to charity, they can't pay their workers at the same level as virtually every other big-box retailer.

If someone were to present as a hypothetical: There are three companies, all in the same line of business: Company A, Company B, and Company C. Company A and Company B pay their workers a decent wage plus benefits and consistently show a profit plus growth year-over-year. The third company pays its workers minimum wage and no benefits, and has been losing revenue year-over-year. Which company is the worst of the three?

To a wo/man, everyone here would say "Company C! Only a stupid fucking libtard wouldn't know that!"

Reveal Company A to be Costco, Company B to be WinCo, and Company C to be Walmart, and brace yourself for the shitstorm...

Costco is not in the same line of business as Wal-Mart, so your syllogism is absurd on its face.

 

[Arianrhod]

Wal-Mart is not "any other big box retailer," whatever "big box retailer" means.

If you don't know what it means, how do you know Walmart isn't one?

 

[bripat9643]

Wal-Mart is not "any other big box retailer," whatever "big box retailer" means.

If you don't know what it means, how do you know Walmart isn't one?

do "big box retailers" sell groceries?

 

[Arianrhod]

Wal-Mart is not "any other big box retailer," whatever "big box retailer" means.

If you don't know what it means, how do you know Walmart isn't one?

do "big box retailers" sell groceries?

Costco and WinCo do. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, WinCo used to be called WinnDixie, but I'd have to check.

 

[bripat9643]

Wal-Mart is not "any other big box retailer," whatever "big box retailer" means.

If you don't know what it means, how do you know Walmart isn't one?

do "big box retailers" sell groceries?

Costco and WinCo do. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, WinCo used to be called WinnDixie, but I'd have to check.

Costco is a membership store, and it sells a lot of items that only upscale shoppers would by - stuff like entire slabs of rib-eye steaks. How is does that make it the same kind of store as Wal-Mart? Is Saks 5th Ave also the same kind of store as Wal-Mart? The term "big box retailer" obviously encompasses a wide variety of stores. The theory that they should all pay the same wages is obviously idiotic. Should a Rolls Royce car dealer pay the same wages as a Volkswagon dealer?

 

[Arianrhod]

Wal-Mart is not "any other big box retailer," whatever "big box retailer" means.

If you don't know what it means, how do you know Walmart isn't one?

do "big box retailers" sell groceries?

Costco and WinCo do. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, WinCo used to be called WinnDixie, but I'd have to check.

Costco is a membership store, and it sells a lot of items that only upscale shoppers would by - stuff like entire slabs of rib-eye steaks. How is does that make it the same kind of store as Wal-Mart? Is Saks 5th Ave also the same kind of store as Wal-Mart? The term "big box retailer" obviously encompasses a wide variety of stores. The theory that they should all pay the same wages is obviously idiotic. Should a Rolls Royce car dealer pay the same wages as a Volkswagon dealer?

You're right about the Costco membership fee, but I guess the inventory varies by region. In cities where I've lived (and that may be the difference - cities, where there are plenty of places to buy groceries within a couple of miles of home, not one store for miles), you can buy ground beef and cold cuts and other low-end stuff in bulk, so it's not all Rolls-Royce level stuff. You can also buy computers, appliances, etc. for about the same price as in a store like Best Buy.

I've never lived in a WinCo market (it is the same as Winn-Dixie, BTW; I looked it up), so I wasn't sure what its price points were, but it's comparable to Walmart:

WinCo Foods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this might be one of the reasons Walmart's losing customers and revenue:

WinCo is Walmart's Newest Nightmare

As for your analogy between a Rolls and a Volkswagen (and I'm not sure you want to compare Walmart with VW, given the trouble VW's currently in), you seem to be saying the quality of the car = the quality of the person selling it.

I'm not sure I follow. Then again, I don't share Cecelie's "Christian" disdain for my fellow man, and yesterday in another thread was the first time outside of Soylent Green I saw people referred to as "product."

To me, the quality of the merchandise sold at a Walmart or a WinCo is a function of the company owner, not the minimum-wage employee scanning things at the register. If I'm missing something, you'll have to point it out, because I'm not seeing it.