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

[Brain357]

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.

Every source I see says Costco pays far more.

 

[Brain357]

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.

The commie seems to be you. You support the corporate welfare which grows government dependence.

 

[kaz]

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.

Government taking money and giving it to people who didn't earn it is no different than forcing companies to pay people money they didn't earn. Either way, it's still welfare, Holmes

The reality though is we don't pay money they didn't earn, we fire them. So in the end all you did was hurt the people you set out to help.

Nice job...

 

[paulitician]

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.

Oh yeah, greedy white Republican dudes better get used to it. They're not gonna be allowed to have their slaves. They simply can't be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be monitored. And if they don't like that, they could always leave.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, you support wages set by the government irrespective of the value of the labor performed, and you project what you WISH I believed onto me because it's easier for you to argue against your own delusional straw men than it is to argue against my actual words.

Go ahead, link to any post I've ever put up supporting "corporate welfare". Or develop some integrity and admit that you're attributing a position to me that I've never espoused. I dare you.

 

[Brain357]

I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?

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.

Government taking money and giving it to people who didn't earn it is no different than forcing companies to pay people money they didn't earn. Either way, it's still welfare, Holmes

The reality though is we don't pay money they didn't earn, we fire them. So in the end all you did was hurt the people you set out to help.

Nice job...

So you prefer to filter through efficient government rather than direct to the people. You are big government.

History doesn't support your claim.

 

[Brain357]

I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?

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.

No, you support wages set by the government irrespective of the value of the labor performed, and you project what you WISH I believed onto me because it's easier for you to argue against your own delusional straw men than it is to argue against my actual words.

Go ahead, link to any post I've ever put up supporting "corporate welfare". Or develop some integrity and admit that you're attributing a position to me that I've never espoused. I dare you.

You are here now supporting walmarts corporate welfare.

 

[kaz]

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.

Government taking money and giving it to people who didn't earn it is no different than forcing companies to pay people money they didn't earn. Either way, it's still welfare, Holmes

The reality though is we don't pay money they didn't earn, we fire them. So in the end all you did was hurt the people you set out to help.

Nice job...

So you prefer to filter through efficient government rather than direct to the people. You are big government.

History doesn't support your claim.

yes, I'm big government. You're a complete and utter fucking retard

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Every source I see says Costco pays far more.

Really? Show us these sources that say Costco pays "far more" than Sam's Club. Because you gotta know that, "Brain says so" is a virtual guarantee that something will be regarded as bullshit.

 

[Programmer]

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

The waltons have fallen significantly. Just a few years ago 4 or 5 were on the Forbes global 500.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh yeah, greedy white Republican dudes better get used to it. They're not gonna be allowed to have their slaves. They simply can't be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be monitored. And if they don't like that, they could always leave.

Have I mentioned how much I've missed seeing your meaningless drivel littering the board? There's a reason I haven't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, you support wages set by the government irrespective of the value of the labor performed, and you project what you WISH I believed onto me because it's easier for you to argue against your own delusional straw men than it is to argue against my actual words.

Go ahead, link to any post I've ever put up supporting "corporate welfare". Or develop some integrity and admit that you're attributing a position to me that I've never espoused. I dare you.

You are here now supporting walmarts corporate welfare.

No, shitforbrains, I'm here supporting WalMart's right to negotiate employment contracts with their own laborers without the interference of a bunch of twats who aren't qualified to be hired by WalMart (that would be you). Whatever positions you want to attribute to me based on my "unforgivable sin" of thinking you're an ignorant, meddling putz are irrelevant.

I didn't ask you to restate your assertion, fucknut. I TOLD you to prove it. Do so, or admit that you can't. Your next post to me will be one or the other, whether you like it or not. Sack up, or surrender, dipshit. I'm waiting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

The waltons have fallen significantly. Just a few years ago 4 or 5 were on the Forbes global 500.

Probably in part because they're all retired and concentrating on charitable work.

 

[paulitician]

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.

Oh yeah, greedy white Republican dudes better get used to it. They're not gonna be allowed to have their slaves. They simply can't be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be monitored. And if they don't like that, they could always leave.

Have I mentioned how much I've missed seeing your meaningless drivel littering the board? There's a reason I haven't.

Ha, i love messin with y'all angry greedy white Republican dudes. You get so damn pissed off when you're told you can't have your slaves. It really burns y'all's asses.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Government taking money and giving it to people who didn't earn it is no different than forcing companies to pay people money they didn't earn. Either way, it's still welfare, Holmes

The reality though is we don't pay money they didn't earn, we fire them. So in the end all you did was hurt the people you set out to help.

Nice job...

So you prefer to filter through efficient government rather than direct to the people. You are big government.

History doesn't support your claim.

yes, I'm big government. You're a complete and utter fucking retard

You are a retard if you think the largest employer in the country can pay so little employees are on welfare and that doesn't increase government dependence. Your support for that shows you are big government.

 

[kaz]

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.

Government taking money and giving it to people who didn't earn it is no different than forcing companies to pay people money they didn't earn. Either way, it's still welfare, Holmes

The reality though is we don't pay money they didn't earn, we fire them. So in the end all you did was hurt the people you set out to help.

Nice job...

So you prefer to filter through efficient government rather than direct to the people. You are big government.

History doesn't support your claim.

yes, I'm big government. You're a complete and utter fucking retard

You are a retard if you think the largest employer in the country can pay so little employees are on welfare and that doesn't increase government dependence. Your support for that shows you are big government.

you forgot the rimshot

 

[Brain357]

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.

Every source I see says Costco pays far more.

Really? Show us these sources that say Costco pays "far more" than Sam's Club. Because you gotta know that, "Brain says so" is a virtual guarantee that something will be regarded as bullshit.

Business Week reported in June that Costco pays its hourly workers an average of $20.89 an hour, not including overtime, while Wal-Mart/Sam's Club's average wage for full-time employees in the U.S. is $12.67 an hour. Eighty-eight percent of Costco employees have company-sponsored health insurance while Wal-Mart said that "more than half" of its do.

Sam's Club vs Costco: Do Lower Prices Trump Employee Happiness? -- The Motley Fool

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh yeah, greedy white Republican dudes better get used to it. They're not gonna be allowed to have their slaves. They simply can't be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be monitored. And if they don't like that, they could always leave.

Have I mentioned how much I've missed seeing your meaningless drivel littering the board? There's a reason I haven't.

Ha, i love messin with y'all angry greedy white Republican dudes. You get so damn pissed off when you're told you can't have your slaves. It really burns y'all's asses.

"Messing with y'all" = "being the posting equivalent of a noisy toddler". Hey, if your idea of a meaningful hobby is the verbal version of reaching into your diaper and smearing the contents on the wall, have at. I'll spend a second or two pitying you before I ignore your existence.

 

[Programmer]

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.

Oh yeah, greedy white Republican dudes better get used to it. They're not gonna be allowed to have their slaves. They simply can't be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be monitored. And if they don't like that, they could always leave.

Have I mentioned how much I've missed seeing your meaningless drivel littering the board? There's a reason I haven't.

Ha, i love messin with y'all angry greedy white Republican dudes. You get so damn pissed off when you're told you can't have your slaves. It really burns y'all's asses.

It's greedy to demand more money for minimum wage jobs just because the company makes good money. I know someone making six figures with wally's. They don't do work that anyone off the street can do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh yeah, greedy white Republican dudes better get used to it. They're not gonna be allowed to have their slaves. They simply can't be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be monitored. And if they don't like that, they could always leave.

Have I mentioned how much I've missed seeing your meaningless drivel littering the board? There's a reason I haven't.

Ha, i love messin with y'all angry greedy white Republican dudes. You get so damn pissed off when you're told you can't have your slaves. It really burns y'all's asses.

It's greedy to demand more money for minimum wage jobs just because the company makes good money. I know someone making six figures with wally's. They don't do work that anyone off the street can do.

That's the thing. The lowest-level jobs at WalMart ARE minimum-wage jobs, but WalMart generally DOESN'T pay minimum wage. They are usually the employer unskilled workers move up to after having spent some time getting actual minimum wage.