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

[BluesLegend]

Without corporations the workers would be fighting in the streets over food scraps. Workers are free to grow a pair and start their own corporations, have at it.

========

Without workers the Waltons would be unloading trucks and stocking shelves of their ONE store in Mena, Arkansas and they would not be filthy rich.

Corporations need workers just as much as workers need the corporations.

According to theory of capitalism, it is a partnership between capital and labor ... but it has been perverted in America so that all the rewards go to capital and none to labor.

Some, more or less honorable companies have profit sharing and give employees at least a small piece of the profits over and above the wages.

It should be the law that at least 30% of profits go to the workers. Capital would still be handsomely rewarded but so would the workers.

30% that's a nice round number did you just pull that arbitrary number out of your ass? Since you are clueless I'll take pity on you and explain how things work. Workers already gobble up a HUGE portion of the revenue in salary, benefits, and retirement. The profits are divided up between the stock holders and rightly so. Since stock holders include millions of middle class people who's pension funds are invested in these corporations your proposal is kind of stupid.

 

[bedowin62]

Without corporations the workers would be fighting in the streets over food scraps. Workers are free to grow a pair and start their own corporations, have at it.

========

Without workers the Waltons would be unloading trucks and stocking shelves of their ONE store in Mena, Arkansas and they would not be filthy rich.

Corporations need workers just as much as workers need the corporations.

According to theory of capitalism, it is a partnership between capital and labor ... but it has been perverted in America so that all the rewards go to capital and none to labor.

Some, more or less honorable companies have profit sharing and give employees at least a small piece of the profits over and above the wages.

It should be the law that at least 30% of profits go to the workers. Capital would still be handsomely rewarded but so would the workers.

NOT REALLY YOU MINDLESS MORON; workers need the corporation a lot more than the corporation needs the workers; as you so-called forwar-thinking left-wing idiots will soon see when these stores are more automated.

 

[bedowin62]

Some, more or less honorable companies have profit sharing and give employees at least a small piece of the profits over and above the wages.

It should be the law that at least 30% of profits go to the workers. Capital would still be handsomely rewarded but so would the workers.
Click to expand...
What principle of morality is this 30% figure based on? Workers already receive a wage they agreed to. Why should they be entitled to anything more than that?

You can produce no justification for workers recieving any share of the profits other than your hatred of capitalism.

If workers get a share of the profits, do they also take a share of the losses? Aren't they responsible for the losses?
Click to expand...
========
Where did I say anything about morality?

Capitalism, in theory, is a PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR.
But only one side reaps the profits in America. Capital gets 100% of the profits.


you really DID imply that workers dont get paid LEFT-WING IDIOT

why do you crybabies say stupid shit then try to deny it when it's right there???

it is what it is; and you're not man enough to admit what you wrote is what you said is exactly what you meant.

 

[RWNJ]

Without corporations the workers would be fighting in the streets over food scraps. Workers are free to grow a pair and start their own corporations, have at it.

========

Without workers the Waltons would be unloading trucks and stocking shelves of their ONE store in Mena, Arkansas and they would not be filthy rich.

Corporations need workers just as much as workers need the corporations.

According to theory of capitalism, it is a partnership between capital and labor ... but it has been perverted in America so that all the rewards go to capital and none to labor.

Some, more or less honorable companies have profit sharing and give employees at least a small piece of the profits over and above the wages.

It should be the law that at least 30% of profits go to the workers. Capital would still be handsomely rewarded but so would the workers.

What principle of morality is this 30% figure based on? Workers already receive a wage they agreed to. Why should they be entitled to anything more than that?

You can produce no justification for workers recieving any share of the profits other than your hatred of capitalism.

If workers get a share of the profits, do they also take a share of the losses? Aren't they responsible for the losses?

========
Where did I say anything about morality?

Capitalism, in theory, is a PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR.
But only one side reaps the profits in America. Capital gets 100% of the profits.

Under which principle of YOUR morality does 100% of the profits go to only one side of a partnership?
Yes workers receive wages AND SO DOES MANAGEMENT / OWNERSHIP.

The CEO's and other executives get paid fantastic salaries and BONUSES on top even when the company loses money. They are also, very commonly, large stockholders as well and get profits from their stock ( usually ).

While the workers --- THE OTHER HALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP --- get just enough to stay alive to come back to work the next day. They struggle from paycheck to paycheck.

WHAT KIND OF PARTNERSHIP IS THAT?

Capital gets 100% of the profits and Labor gets ZERO percent of the profits.

Just how far do you think a company would go without employees?

It takes BOTH capital AND labor to have a going concern.

Where is the justice in only ONE PARTNER getting the profits?

BTW I don't hate capitalism --- I hate UNREGULATED CAPITALISM.

And it's defenders.

And, no the workers are usually NOT responsible for the losses. Workers don't decide how thick to make the steel in cars. Workers don't decide how much insulation to put in the attics of homes. Workers don't decide what kind of TV screens to use.

MANAGEMENT MAKES THE DECISIONS THAT LOSE COMPANIES MONEY ... NOT LABOR.

Of course, strictly speaking, management IS labor although they don't think of themselves as such.

But in normal conversation when we say workers we mean the people on the assembly lines or nailing boards to make a home or stocking shelves in the grocery store.

So no the workers don't take a share of the losses because THEY DIDN'T CAUSE THEM...MANAGEMENT DID. And when did you ever see an executive get his pay cut because the company lost money last quarter / year? NEVER ... they even get bonuses when the company loses money but the workers get laid off.

Do you have any idea how slim the profit margin is for most businesses? Think about how much employees cost a company. There's the hourly wage, plus insurance and medical benefits. You have to train them. that cost money. If the company sells a product, they have to pay someone else to manufacture it. That costs money too. The price they charge for it includes a modest profit that they use to pay there employees, plus the rental for the property and building they do business in. Some own their stores, but they had to pay to build that too. Then there are utilities...the list goes on. Keep in mind that the owners used their own money to start that business. They should reap the rewards for doing so. There is nothing stopping one of your poor abused employees from starting their own business either. So quit your griping.

 

[BluesLegend]

Without corporations the workers would be fighting in the streets over food scraps. Workers are free to grow a pair and start their own corporations, have at it.

========

Without workers the Waltons would be unloading trucks and stocking shelves of their ONE store in Mena, Arkansas and they would not be filthy rich.

Corporations need workers just as much as workers need the corporations.

According to theory of capitalism, it is a partnership between capital and labor ... but it has been perverted in America so that all the rewards go to capital and none to labor.

Some, more or less honorable companies have profit sharing and give employees at least a small piece of the profits over and above the wages.

It should be the law that at least 30% of profits go to the workers. Capital would still be handsomely rewarded but so would the workers.

What principle of morality is this 30% figure based on? Workers already receive a wage they agreed to. Why should they be entitled to anything more than that?

You can produce no justification for workers recieving any share of the profits other than your hatred of capitalism.

If workers get a share of the profits, do they also take a share of the losses? Aren't they responsible for the losses?

========
Where did I say anything about morality?

Capitalism, in theory, is a PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR.
But only one side reaps the profits in America. Capital gets 100% of the profits.

Under which principle of YOUR morality does 100% of the profits go to only one side of a partnership?
Yes workers receive wages AND SO DOES MANAGEMENT / OWNERSHIP.

The CEO's and other executives get paid fantastic salaries and BONUSES on top even when the company loses money. They are also, very commonly, large stockholders as well and get profits from their stock ( usually ).

While the workers --- THE OTHER HALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP --- get just enough to stay alive to come back to work the next day. They struggle from paycheck to paycheck.

WHAT KIND OF PARTNERSHIP IS THAT?

Capital gets 100% of the profits and Labor gets ZERO percent of the profits.

Just how far do you think a company would go without employees?

It takes BOTH capital AND labor to have a going concern.

Where is the justice in only ONE PARTNER getting the profits?

BTW I don't hate capitalism --- I hate UNREGULATED CAPITALISM.

And it's defenders.

And, no the workers are usually NOT responsible for the losses. Workers don't decide how thick to make the steel in cars. Workers don't decide how much insulation to put in the attics of homes. Workers don't decide what kind of TV screens to use.

MANAGEMENT MAKES THE DECISIONS THAT LOSE COMPANIES MONEY ... NOT LABOR.

Of course, strictly speaking, management IS labor although they don't think of themselves as such.

But in normal conversation when we say workers we mean the people on the assembly lines or nailing boards to make a home or stocking shelves in the grocery store.

So no the workers don't take a share of the losses because THEY DIDN'T CAUSE THEM...MANAGEMENT DID. And when did you ever see an executive get his pay cut because the company lost money last quarter / year? NEVER ... they even get bonuses when the company loses money but the workers get laid off.

Do you have any idea how slim the profit margin is for most businesses? Think about how much employees cost a company. There's the hourly wage, plus insurance and medical benefits. You have to train them. that cost money. If the company sells a product, they have to pay someone else to manufacture it. That costs money too. The price they charge for it includes a modest profit that they use to pay there employees, plus the rental for the property and building they do business in. Some own their stores, but they had to pay to build that too. Then there are utilities...the list goes on. Keep in mind that the owners used their own money to start that business. They should reap the rewards for doing so. There is nothing stopping one of your poor abused employees from starting their own business either. So quit your griping.

You are wasting your breath on this liberal, he's on the IV liberal Kool-Aid plus morphine.

 

[paulitician]

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.

Pay fellow Americans a decent wage or just do the work yourself. Simple as that.

 

[paulitician]

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.

Nah, we're gonna be all up in your business. Y'all greedy white Republican dudes will be held in check. You're no longer gonna have your slaves. Don't like that? Leave the country. Go somewhere else and have your slaves. Time to start taking care of our workers again.

 

[RWNJ]

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.

Nah, we're gonna be all up in your business. Y'all greedy white Republican dudes will be held in check. You're no longer gonna have your slaves. Don't like that? Leave the country. Go somewhere else and have your slaves. Time to start taking care of our workers again.

I see that you took your stupid pills this morning.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Easy. Stop shopping at wally world. We did that 20 years ago. Stop shopping there and their wealth drops.

The problem is, the walton family has inherited so much of the above, and given the ability walmart has to virtually control prices, and the reliance on cheap goods, I don't see that happening.

So people shouldn't be able to pass their wealth on to their kids?
I would love to see your ideal world, oh utopian socialism, yeah that'll work.

 

[paulitician]

Gotta admit, it is pretty funny watching angry greedy white Republican dude freak out because he can't have his slaves. Like petulant little children. Stampin their feet and shit. Funny stuff.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Nah, we're gonna be all up in your business. Y'all greedy white Republican dudes will be held in check. You're no longer gonna have your slaves. Don't like that? Leave the country. Go somewhere else and have your slaves. Time to start taking care of our workers again.

I see that you took your stupid pills this morning.

Scintillating rebuttal there, Sparky. You sure showed everybody!

Summing up, then, Walmart's "supporters" acknowledge that its business model is to supply cheap goods by means of cheap labor to predominantly poor people (even though the supporters in this thread brag about how they shop there) while the Waltons sit at the top of the pyramid like Smaug on his pile of gold. And we know what happened to Smaug.

What they've missed and will continue to miss is the core message in that one little sound bite that obsesses them.

They claim Sanders is "finished", "doesn't stand a chance," but they can't stop hyperfocusing on - and consequently missing the real message of - that one sentence.

It amuses me.

 

[bedowin62]

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.

Nah, we're gonna be all up in your business. Y'all greedy white Republican dudes will be held in check. You're no longer gonna have your slaves. Don't like that? Leave the country. Go somewhere else and have your slaves. Time to start taking care of our workers again.

I see that you took your stupid pills this morning.

Scintillating rebuttal there, Sparky. You sure showed everybody!

Summing up, then, Walmart's "supporters" acknowledge that its business model is to supply cheap goods by means of cheap labor to predominantly poor people (even though the supporters in this thread brag about how they shop there) while the Waltons sit at the top of the pyramid like Smaug on his pile of gold. And we know what happened to Smaug.

What they've missed and will continue to miss is the core message in that one little sound bite that obsesses them.

They claim Sanders is "finished", "doesn't stand a chance," but they can't stop hyperfocusing on - and consequently missing the real message of - that one sentence.

It amuses me.

babbling, incoherent idiot.

because a store's target buyer is at the low end that means only those people can shop there? that's what you imply idiot. i love seeing self-impressed morons make fools of themselves.

now who the phuk but petty losers cares who is at the "top of the pile" when making a purchase???

do you wrack yourself with this everytime you need to go shopping? do you stand outside the entrace shivering and mumbling to yourself about Smaug???

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You flatter yourself that I give a furry rat's ass which of your crap-ass candidates you vote for.

The operative point is that you invariably support social spending and increases in the welfare state. The only time you complain about them is to attack designated targets like WalMart, and even then, your solution is NEVER to decrease welfare spending. It's to take more control over other people's lives and punish them for not knuckling under to your program.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

In re: your orders about what I should and shouldn't post:

We are sorry for the inconvenience, but the fuck you requested is currently out of stock, and not anticipated to be restocked in the near future. Therefore, we are regretfully unable to give you the aforementioned fuck. Should any fucks become available to give you, we will notify you immediately.

Thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Nah, we're gonna be all up in your business. Y'all greedy white Republican dudes will be held in check. You're no longer gonna have your slaves. Don't like that? Leave the country. Go somewhere else and have your slaves. Time to start taking care of our workers again.

Yes, we know. Leftists live to be up other people's asses, trying to run their lives. And conservatives live to tell you to get your own fucking lives, your opinions are not wanted, needed, or respected.

Thank you for being honest about your nosiness.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Which big box retailer pays more on average than Walmart?

Now don't lie and say Costco, they are are club store. Further, the Walmart owned Sam's Club pays virtually the same as Costco - they compete for the same talent.

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...

See, you DID have to lie. How did I know you would? Because you are reciting a script from the Soros hate sites.

If lies are the equivalent of truth, you have a point - but if we stick to facts, then you are spewing Soros bullshit.

Costco is a bulk item club store.

WinCo is a grocery store - WHO YOUR OWNER SAVAGES for paying less than Union fucked grocery chains like Safeway and Albertsons in other Soros hate memes.

So you fail in showing "Big Box" retailers paying more.

Kohls?
Target?
Sears?
Kmart?

Of course not, because you are lying - such is the nature of demagoguery - you are here to slander and libel the enemy of your owner, not to discuss facts.

Why do you think George Soros has you mindless fools attacking Walmart? Has it ever crossed your pheromone receptors (the closest thing leftist drones have to a mind) that he has a stake in a competitor and is manipulating you to further his own greed?

Think Obamacare and majority stock owned by Soros Blue Cross - were you drones mobilized because Fascistcare actually helps the peasants, (by raising rates 90%)? Your owner plays you for a fool.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

The Costco lie is one the Soros drones recite as a mantra.

Costco competes against Sam's club. The two bulk club stores pay virtually identical wages.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

WinCo is a grocery store.

The Soros lie you are reciting is absurd. Go try to buy a lawnmower at WinCo.

 

[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?

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.

You flatter yourself that I give a furry rat's ass which of your crap-ass candidates you vote for.

The operative point is that you invariably support social spending and increases in the welfare state. The only time you complain about them is to attack designated targets like WalMart, and even then, your solution is NEVER to decrease welfare spending. It's to take more control over other people's lives and punish them for not knuckling under to your program.

No, I support good wages for people so they can get off welfare. You support corporate welfare which increases government dependence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I support good wages for people so they can get off welfare. You support corporate welfare which increases government dependence.

You support good wages for people so they can get off welfare? What is the name of your business, and how much do you offer as starting pay for unskilled labor?

Or are you just lying, as Communists tend to do? Are you just sticking your nose into the affairs of others and demanding that things you have no stake in be done as you order?

Fucking commie blowhard.