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

[blackhawk]

Why should anyone have to justify it? Sam Walton started a business built into huge success passed it on to his kids maybe more people should try and duplicate what he did instead of gripping about how successful he was at it.

 

[David_42]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Hell yea

And I'm happy for them

See, libs think "wow we could redistribute all that wealth so everyone has some of it." What they dont understand is that if they tried that no one would get anything. They would simple destroy wealth, not redistribute it.

No one is calling for that, liberals believe in progressive taxation, capital gains tax, raising the SS contribution, taxing Wall Street speculation, etc, etc.. Not seizing wealth. Income inequality has only been getting worse since the late 70's, it's unhealthy for any economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Nope. Not at all. Why do you think so?

 

[hortysir]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Who should have that money?

Should they have just stopped after, say, three locations? Or 3?

 

[The Rabbi]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Hell yea

And I'm happy for them

See, libs think "wow we could redistribute all that wealth so everyone has some of it." What they dont understand is that if they tried that no one would get anything. They would simple destroy wealth, not redistribute it.

No one is calling for that, liberals believe in progressive taxation, capital gains tax, raising the SS contribution, taxing Wall Street speculation, etc, etc.. Not seizing wealth. Income inequality has only been getting worse since the late 70's, it's unhealthy for any economy.

SO instead of calling it "seizing wealth" we'll call it progressive taxation instead. Brilliant.
Income inequality has gotten worse during the Democrats' tenure in Washington because their policies hurt working class people and discourage anyone from working hard to get ahead.

 

[David_42]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Nope. Not at all. Why do you think so?

Plutocracy? The fact that almost all new income has been going to a tiny few when the middle class and the poors incomes have been stagnant? When wealth concentrates into the hands of a few, eventually, it will get so bad, that people will be fed up. OWS was an example of this.

 

[David_42]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Hell yea

And I'm happy for them

See, libs think "wow we could redistribute all that wealth so everyone has some of it." What they dont understand is that if they tried that no one would get anything. They would simple destroy wealth, not redistribute it.

No one is calling for that, liberals believe in progressive taxation, capital gains tax, raising the SS contribution, taxing Wall Street speculation, etc, etc.. Not seizing wealth. Income inequality has only been getting worse since the late 70's, it's unhealthy for any economy.

SO instead of calling it "seizing wealth" we'll call it progressive taxation instead. Brilliant.
Income inequality has gotten worse during the Democrats' tenure in Washington because their policies hurt working class people and discourage anyone from working hard to get ahead.

Taxation on income doesn't seize already owned wealth genius, are you stupid? LOL. Income inequality has been getting worse for decades, democrats have tried to alleviate the problem, no thanks to republicans wanting to worship the plutocrats.. Obama has tried many times to propose solutions, republicans can care less, just like they do about veterans.

 

[bripat9643]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

That's exactly what you're saying, you commie thug.

 

[depotoo]

And we have a winner! Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

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

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

He, like so many, find the low prices make his bucks go farther and besides, think of all the people who might lose their jobs if Walmart takes a hit.

Here's the rub..If Walmart permitted union organization of its workers, yet kept the identical wages that exist now, the libbies would be silent on Walmart.

 

[David_42]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Who should have that money?

Should they have just stopped after, say, three locations? Or 3?

No one is saying Walmart should have stopped, what we really need to recognize is how unhealthy it is for one family to own so much wealth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Nope. Not at all. Why do you think so?

Plutocracy? The fact that almost all new income has been going to a tiny few when the middle class and the poors incomes have been stagnant? When wealth concentrates into the hands of a few, eventually, it will get so bad, that people will be fed up. OWS was an example of this.

OWS was an example of nothing but egotism.
What is "new income"? All income is new. Under Obama everyone except the top earners have seen stagnant income. That's what happens with 2% growth in the economy. Get rid of Democratic economic policies and everyone wll be doing better.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Why should anyone have to justify it? Sam Walton started a business built into huge success passed it on to his kids maybe more people should try and duplicate what he did instead of gripping about how successful he was at it.

And he did it when the big three (Sears, Penny's and Wards) were at their peak and in full stride !
Even a revised Kresges (K Mart) couldn't stop him. He beat them all.

 

[bripat9643]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Nope. Not at all. Why do you think so?

Plutocracy? The fact that almost all new income has been going to a tiny few when the middle class and the poors incomes have been stagnant? When wealth concentrates into the hands of a few, eventually, it will get so bad, that people will be fed up. OWS was an example of this.

All the Walton's wealth is tied up in their company assets. That means its in the form of stores and inventory. What difference does it make to their employees or customers whether they own it or some other loser owns it? How does distributing the ownership among more people make their employees or customers any better off?

 

[The Rabbi]

And that's a good thing?

Hell yea

And I'm happy for them

See, libs think "wow we could redistribute all that wealth so everyone has some of it." What they dont understand is that if they tried that no one would get anything. They would simple destroy wealth, not redistribute it.

No one is calling for that, liberals believe in progressive taxation, capital gains tax, raising the SS contribution, taxing Wall Street speculation, etc, etc.. Not seizing wealth. Income inequality has only been getting worse since the late 70's, it's unhealthy for any economy.

SO instead of calling it "seizing wealth" we'll call it progressive taxation instead. Brilliant.
Income inequality has gotten worse during the Democrats' tenure in Washington because their policies hurt working class people and discourage anyone from working hard to get ahead.

Taxation on income doesn't seize already owned wealth genius, are you stupid? LOL. Income inequality has been getting worse for decades, democrats have tried to alleviate the problem, no thanks to republicans wanting to worship the plutocrats.. Obama has tried many times to propose solutions, republicans can care less, just like they do about veterans.

Moron. Income inequality is much worse since Democrats took control. What part of that have you missed? When you discourage job and business creation that's what happens.
Taxation on income prevents accumulating wealth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Four of the Waltons are among the 20 most wealthiest individuals in the world.
Combined they amass over $160,000,000,000.
They could basically rename planet earth if they wanted to.

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Who should have that money?

Should they have just stopped after, say, three locations? Or 3?

No one is saying Walmart should have stopped, what we really need to recognize is how unhealthy it is for one family to own so much wealth.

Please explain what is unhealthy about it. Libs never can quite articulate the issue here, especially if told they cannot say "South America" because the dynamics are completely different.

 

[The Rabbi]

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Nope. Not at all. Why do you think so?

Plutocracy? The fact that almost all new income has been going to a tiny few when the middle class and the poors incomes have been stagnant? When wealth concentrates into the hands of a few, eventually, it will get so bad, that people will be fed up. OWS was an example of this.

All the Walton's wealth is tied up in their company assets. That means its in the form of stores and inventory. What difference does it make to their employees or customers whether they own it or some other loser owns it? How does distributing the ownership among more people make their employees or customers any better off?

I'm sure they've diversified some but the point is good. Stealing from them will not make anyone else better off, except scumbag Dem politicians.

 

[jasonnfree]

This thread is about a handful of people having more wealth than 40 million people, and, as usual, conservatives rush to defend them. It's all well and proper you lazy liberals. The Walton bunch just work harder and smarter than the rest of you freeloaders And those billions the Waltons have has nothing to do with buying political influence either. If billionaires were buying influence, this would be mentioned on fox, hannity, rush, etc.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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, what's your solution? Shoot them? Steal their wealth?

No, not at all, Bernie has many ideas:

AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL REDUCE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY BY:

1. Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As president, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.
2. Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
3. Putting at least 13 million Americans to work by investing $1 trillion over five years rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railways, airports, public transit systems, ports, dams, wastewater plants, and other infrastructure needs.
4. Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries.
5. Creating 1 million jobs for disadvantaged young Americans by investing $5.5 billion in a youth jobs program. Today, the youth unemployment rate is off the charts. We have got to end this tragedy by making sure teenagers and young adults have the jobs they need to move up the economic ladder.
6. Fighting for pay equity by signing the Paycheck Fairness Act into law. It is an outrage that women earn just 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.
7. Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
8. Expanding Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income above $250,000. At a time when the senior poverty rate is going up, we have got to make sure that every American can retire with dignity and respect.
9. Guaranteeing healthcare as a right of citizenship by enacting a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare system. It’s time for the U.S. to join every major industrialized country on earth and provide universal healthcare to all.
10. Requiring employers to provide at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave; two weeks of paid vacation; and 7 days of paid sick days. Real family values are about making sure that parents have the time they need to bond with their babies and take care of their children and relatives when they get ill.
11. Enacting a universal childcare and prekindergarten program. Every psychologist understands that the most formative years for a human being is from the ages 0-4. We have got to make sure every family in America has the opportunity to send their kids to a high quality childcare and pre-K program.
12. Making it easier for workers to join unions by fighting for the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the most significant reasons for the 40-year decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits have been severely undermined.
13. Breaking up huge financial institutions so that they are no longer too big to fail. Seven years ago, the taxpayers of this country bailed out Wall Street because they were too big to fail. Yet, 3 out of the 4 largest financial institutions are 80 percent bigger today than before we bailed them out. Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to break these banks up. As president, he will fight to sign this legislation into law.

Very nice. Looks great on a campaign poster or electronic media message. And all very much impossible. And why is this? Because there is no way to fund these freebies.
For example. If college is free, who the hell is going to pay all those LIBERAL professors and school administrators?...Who is going to compel these kids ot take these jobs furnished bu the Bernie program? And which businesses will be mandated to participate?.....
The main determining factor in the downward trend in low skill jobs, is the influx of illegal immigrants into the country AND the relatively low unemployment rate.
The other factor is the loss of experienced workers let go during this slow down economy which is replacing higher paid workers with lower paid workers with less experience.
The Employee Free Choice Act or "card check" is never going to come to fruition. Card Check does nothing more than give gestapo type powers to union thugs who would intimidate workers into voting for what the union thugs want.
And let us not forget, business is under no obligation to engage in a business relationship with a union or unions. So what kind of power over business would EFCA have over business? None.
The wealthiest 20% of the country pay over 70% of the total revenue to the US Treasury. Shut up..
$15 per hour min wage is an auto fail...Small businesses would cut back, raise prices or fail.
The federal government which collects nearly Half a trillion dollars from motor fuel taxes, not to mention other taxes and fees...There is PLENTY of revenue which is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure. And that money is siphoned off by powerful DC politicians for things that are unrelated to roads bridges air travel and freight rail.
The so called Paycheck Fairness or Lily Ledbetter Act is just another pile of liberal political tripe.
Most of the disparity in pay between male and female employees is due to many factors.
One, length of time in a position. Women more than men will delay or interrupt their careers for child rearing. While men stay in the workforce to become the sole bread winner.
Women simply take more time off from work than their male counterparts.
Finally legislation such as Lily Ledbetter which places the burden of proof on the defendant in a lawsuit is unconstitutional. The dems know "Lily" would never pass a federal court challenge. But to the Left this is feel good legislation. "See what WE did for YOU"....
12 weeks paid yeah. But not full salary. Full salary would break small business. it's negotiable. BTW such a law would have to include funding which would go towards some type of rebate to the employer because the worker on leave would have to be replaced. The company would in effect have to pay TWO workers for the same position. Men should not be eligible because unless there has been a biological alteration in males, they cannot get pregnant or give birth.

 

[The Rabbi]

This thread is about a handful of people having more wealth than 40 million people, and, as usual, conservatives rush to defend them. It's all well and proper you lazy liberals. The Walton bunch just work harder and smarter than the rest of you freeloaders And those billions the Waltons have has nothing to do with buying political influence either. If billionaires were buying influence, this would be mentioned on fox, hannity, rush, etc.

The Waltons are very lucky people and entitled to that money. You are a poor shmuck who is entitled to a kick in the balls.

 

[David_42]

And that's a good thing?

Why wouldnt it be? What's the alternative?

No one is saying we should take their wealth, but don't you think it's a bit unhealthy for one family to own more then the bottom 40% of Americans?

Who should have that money?

Should they have just stopped after, say, three locations? Or 3?

No one is saying Walmart should have stopped, what we really need to recognize is how unhealthy it is for one family to own so much wealth.

Please explain what is unhealthy about it. Libs never can quite articulate the issue here, especially if told they cannot say "South America" because the dynamics are completely different.

Almost all income goes to the top 1%, wages are stagnant for the middle class and the poor, plutocracy develops, like it is now, see citizens United.. Historically, societies so not succeed when a massive wealth gap exists, emperors, monarchs, feudalism.. People will eventually get fed up, no one is saying the waltons need to have their wealth stolen, the point is, can we really continue along this trend? And don't give me the bullshit about democrats, this shit has been happening for decades. Remember Reagan?