Walmart subsidizes the U.S. government's welfare program to a tune of. $15,080 per employee a year

[Ray From Cleveland]

Don't support something you hate. Don't give the Waltons your money. I hear people complaining about Walmart all the time. But most of those same people continue to spend their money there. I don't care for Walmart for various reasons. So i don't give it my money.

Money is the only thing Big Corps care about. If it effects their bottom line adversely, they'll begin to listen. But they sure aren't gonna listen if they're making $600 Billion, like Walmart is. Many people feel they have to shop at Walmart. And that's very sad. But i suggest people venture out and shop at other stores. Walmart isn't the only game in town.

It is depending on what you need.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh, guy, "conservative leadership" is what put them out of work. The Labor Participation rate started dropping in - wait for it - 2001, when your Boy Bush came along.

We had nearly full employment under Clinton. To the point where companies had to offer above minimum wage to teens. The One Percenters hated that. Even though they were making obscene amounts of money, the very fact they had to share some of htat with the wage slaves horrified them.

Again, guy, stop being a battered wife conservative.

It never dropped so badly until DumBama and his bag of goodies came riding into the white house. I showed you the chart. Need me to post it again?

 

[Muhammed]

$7;25×40×52=15,080

According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None


So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.

Wonder if Hilary help set that deal up back in the day when she sat on the board!

I dunno, but the Clintons have a long history with Walmart.
While Crooked Hillary was Secretary of State, Bubba was co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. And it just so happens that Bubba could pick and choose what projects to fund. All he needed was approval from the State Department. So the Clintons apparently decided to loot the Haitian earthquake relief funds.

Walmart made out like a bandit in the Caracol industrial park deal in Haiti that was built with the relief funds. And Alice Walton's $340,000 donation to the Clinton campaign is no doubt a kickback.

Haitians Protest Outside Hillary Clinton’s Office Over ‘Billions Stolen’ by Clinton Foundation - Golden Age of Gaia

. You know, here I am a hard working American citizen, and can you imagine how all this stuff just drives me crazy when reading about all this fleecing of America by these corrupt, crooked politicians ? Never have I got anything for free, (always worked), so seeing all the crooked scoundrels out of their boxes is pretty amazing to me. When I want anything I have to work for it, and when I want a break or help on something, then I get a run around by the very people who are crooks from hell. I guess they protect their own, so if an American who deserves his or her fair shake in society, only needs just that, (but nothing for free mind you), then forget it because there's to much being stolen at or near the top to trickle back down to the middle or the bottom. You might get something for your vote, but after that those voters are soon forgotten, and the fleecing game continues.

Actually I was wrong about the amount of the donation. It's actually $353,400. That's even more suspicious. Like they had an agreement that Walton would kickback a percentage of the amount she benefited. And it went to Clinton's Victory fund. Most of it goes to Clinton and the rest goes to Democrats up and down the ticket.

Hear that Democrats? Your candidates are funded by Walmart. Betcha didn't know that.

 

[JoeB131]

It never dropped so badly until DumBama and his bag of goodies came riding into the white house. I showed you the chart. Need me to post it again?

So you can prove you don't know how to read charts or interpret data.

Um, guy, 2010 was when the first baby boomers started retiring. Combine that with Bush giving us the worst recession in 80 years, and yeah, you are going to see that whopping 2% shift.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you can prove you don't know how to read charts or interpret data.

Um, guy, 2010 was when the first baby boomers started retiring. Combine that with Bush giving us the worst recession in 80 years, and yeah, you are going to see that whopping 2% shift.

Oh, so I don't know how to read a chart? Okay Joe, tell me where I'm going wrong with the labor participation chart below:

How about that? Look at that drop after about six months or so after DumBama took office. Boy people sure got old fast.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, so I don't know how to read a chart? Okay Joe, tell me where I'm going wrong with the labor participation chart below:

Uh, I just explained that to you. Again. And again.

Okay- one more time. Labor Participation reached a high of 67.4% under the wonderful Bill Clinton who ran the country so well that the absolute worst thing we all had to worry about was whether he was lying about a blow job. When the worst thing you have to worry about is whether someone islying about something that isn't any of your business, things are pretty good.

Then along comes your Boy Bush- who crashes the fucking economy with his two recessions and his two wars, and he brings it down to 64.5%.

Now along comes Obama, who does a pretty good job of fixing Bush's mess. Unemployment goes from a high of 10% to 5% now, which is pretty much considered full employment. Mitt Romney said if he got it down to 6% by 2016, he would be doing good.

So if you a racist douchebag who just hates the black guy so much he'll support a fucking Nazi Hairpiece, what do you have left to complain about? I know, the 'Labor Participation Rate. One that includes all adults.

You just ignore the fact that the number of people over 65 has increased as a percertage of that number.

You don't need you no facts. You just need an excuse to hate on the black guy.

 

[beagle9]

Oh, so I don't know how to read a chart? Okay Joe, tell me where I'm going wrong with the labor participation chart below:

Uh, I just explained that to you. Again. And again.

Okay- one more time. Labor Participation reached a high of 67.4% under the wonderful Bill Clinton who ran the country so well that the absolute worst thing we all had to worry about was whether he was lying about a blow job. When the worst thing you have to worry about is whether someone islying about something that isn't any of your business, things are pretty good.

Then along comes your Boy Bush- who crashes the fucking economy with his two recessions and his two wars, and he brings it down to 64.5%.

Now along comes Obama, who does a pretty good job of fixing Bush's mess. Unemployment goes from a high of 10% to 5% now, which is pretty much considered full employment. Mitt Romney said if he got it down to 6% by 2016, he would be doing good.

So if you a racist douchebag who just hates the black guy so much he'll support a fucking Nazi Hairpiece, what do you have left to complain about? I know, the 'Labor Participation Rate. One that includes all adults.

You just ignore the fact that the number of people over 65 has increased as a percertage of that number.

You don't need you no facts. You just need an excuse to hate on the black guy.

. Did Bush fight those wars because he just Willy nilly wanted to or was it because the nation was attacked shortly after he became the President ? Who was the enabler of the housing bubble that crashed the economy ? The Democrat's were that's who. Yes the Republicans made money off the idiocy in which the Dems created, but can you blame them ? Who supported the Intel, and went into Iraq with Bush ? You know who. Bill Clintons use of tax payers money,
and his liberal use of government came home to roost finally, but he was gone just long enough to blame it on somebody else when the crap hit the fan.

 

[Dragonlady]

It never dropped so badly until DumBama and his bag of goodies came riding into the white house. I showed you the chart. Need me to post it again?

So you can prove you don't know how to read charts or interpret data.

Um, guy, 2010 was when the first baby boomers started retiring. Combine that with Bush giving us the worst recession in 80 years, and yeah, you are going to see that whopping 2% shift.

Joe, the Baby Boomers started retiring in 2005, when they hit 60. Not the big numbers that started in 2010 when the first of us hit age 65, but enough that the numbers began increasing steadily.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh, I just explained that to you. Again. And again.

Okay- one more time. Labor Participation reached a high of 67.4% under the wonderful Bill Clinton who ran the country so well that the absolute worst thing we all had to worry about was whether he was lying about a blow job. When the worst thing you have to worry about is whether someone islying about something that isn't any of your business, things are pretty good.

Then along comes your Boy Bush- who crashes the fucking economy with his two recessions and his two wars, and he brings it down to 64.5%.

Now along comes Obama, who does a pretty good job of fixing Bush's mess. Unemployment goes from a high of 10% to 5% now, which is pretty much considered full employment. Mitt Romney said if he got it down to 6% by 2016, he would be doing good.

So if you a racist douchebag who just hates the black guy so much he'll support a fucking Nazi Hairpiece, what do you have left to complain about? I know, the 'Labor Participation Rate. One that includes all adults.

You just ignore the fact that the number of people over 65 has increased as a percertage of that number.

The only thing you explained is that you don't want to face facts. Fact one is that the reason DumBama's unemployment numbers are so low IS BECAUSE OF THE PARTICIPATION RATE!

You see, when people who are not working claim they are not looking for work either, the BLS doesn't consider them unemployed. Given the fact that's over 1/3 of our working population, of course the unemployment numbers are going to drop even though these people are not employed.

As for people retiring, if you click on the BLS link below, and scroll down to the senior participation rates, you'll notice the percentage of those 65 and older have been going up, and expected to go up even more by the year 2024.

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, gender, race, and ethnicity

 

[Dragonlady]

As for people retiring, if you click on the BLS link below, and scroll down to the senior participation rates, you'll notice the percentage of those 65 and older have been going up, and expected to go up even more by the year 2024.

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, gender, race, and ethnicity

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

 

[Brain357]

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay.

Damn Brian the government makes the rules on welfare, why don't you get that?

The market calls the shots, that's why you had people being hired on at walmart in some places in the Dakota's at $17 bucks an hour.

 

[beagle9]

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay.

Damn Brian the government makes the rules on welfare, why don't you get that?

The market calls the shots, that's why you had people being hired on at walmart in some places in the Dakota's at $17 bucks an hour.

. Ok, it's probably not going on everywhere, but in the most impoverished areas it could be happening. These super stores are especially able to thrive in some of the most isolated or rural areas, and this could be where they are paying wages not according to overall profit sharing, but instead they are probably paying according to the cost of living or slightly below in such areas. This is probably where the government is fooled into kicking in like it does. I could be wrong, but what ever else could be driving the government to subsidize Walmart employees in some areas ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's because the percentage of people 65 and older is going up. It's called the "Baby Boomer Effect". Our demographic is so large, it's like a cow going through a python. It creates a visible bulge as it moves through the snake. More of us are working past the age of 65, so those numbers are now going up.

In the 50's and 60's, schools were built to accommodate us all. Now they're building retirement communities, assisted care facilities, and nursing homes for us. And really, we're just getting started in terms of retirement. Oh and those schools they built for us - they're closing due to declining enrolment.

My point was that the participation rate is not solely due to retirement. More and more of our retired people are working--some even full time. I work for a small company, and we have two full-time workers that have been retired the last several years.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you have more irresponsible people.

Kids are living with their parents longer than ever before. Government goodies has never been so generous before. People are finding ways not to work because there are alternatives. We don't have a society of work or starve unfortunately. Now we are a society of work if you want, and if not, the taxpayers will work for you.

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay.

Damn Brian the government makes the rules on welfare, why don't you get that?

The market calls the shots, that's why you had people being hired on at walmart in some places in the Dakota's at $17 bucks an hour.

. Ok, it's probably not going on everywhere, but in the most impoverished areas it could be happening. These super stores are especially able to thrive in some of the most isolated or rural areas, and this could be where they are paying wages not according to overall profit sharing, but instead they are probably paying according to the cost of living or slightly below in such areas. This is probably where the government is fooled into kicking in like it does. I could be wrong, but what ever else could be driving the government to subsidize Walmart employees in some areas ?

I think that's the problem, it varys state to state how much they kick in but the federal government wants it's all the same.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay?

Now tell us, why does government have to do anything? Can you point to me one place in the Constitution where it says that our federal government is charged with subsidizing people that don't make enough money?

This is the exact practice our founders were against.

 

[beagle9]

Or work at Walmart and make the Walton's billions while the government has to subsidize the crappy pay?

.

Now tell us, why does government have to do anything? Can you point to me one place in the Constitution where it says that our federal government is charged with subsidizing people that don't make enough money?

This is the exact practice our founders were against.

. If the feds wouldn't have incentivized the childbirth rate in this nation, and built thousands of apartment buildings to house and care for them, well then of course they feel obligated to take care of these people from cradle to grave if it has too. Can you imagine if the Dems didn't support abortions like they do... We would be totally over run in this nation due to what the feds have done. Now why would they have done what they have done is what begs the question ? Did they do it in thought that they would eventually be the main supplier of cheap labor for the major corporations who would need a huge socialist style labor pool to use over time ? Was it a wing of the government who has done this, where as they had a long vision that someday the numbers game would someday overcome, but overcome who or what ?

 

[Dragonlady]

Ok, it's probably not going on everywhere, but in the most impoverished areas it could be happening. These super stores are especially able to thrive in some of the most isolated or rural areas, and this could be where they are paying wages not according to overall profit sharing, but instead they are probably paying according to the cost of living or slightly below in such areas. This is probably where the government is fooled into kicking in like it does. I could be wrong, but what ever else could be driving the government to subsidize Walmart employees in some areas ?

The Dakotas have low populations, and a fracking boom. Where would you work - at Walmart for MW, or for the gas company for real money? So yes, this is an area where the market makes them pay. In most of the US, there is a glut of workers willing to take any job they can get.

The government isn't "kicking in", nor are they fooled. The government sets the federal minimum wage, and they're haven't raised the MW in more than 20 years. People have to apply for assistance, based on their income. In places where people are paid MW, they're going to get benefits. In places like the Dakotas, they get nothing.

 

[initforme]

Maybe we need to encourage young people, working or not, not to have kids? Even ray agrees walmart is a heinous place to work.

 

[beagle9]

Ok, it's probably not going on everywhere, but in the most impoverished areas it could be happening. These super stores are especially able to thrive in some of the most isolated or rural areas, and this could be where they are paying wages not according to overall profit sharing, but instead they are probably paying according to the cost of living or slightly below in such areas. This is probably where the government is fooled into kicking in like it does. I could be wrong, but what ever else could be driving the government to subsidize Walmart employees in some areas ?

The Dakotas have low populations, and a fracking boom. Where would you work - at Walmart for MW, or for the gas company for real money? So yes, this is an area where the market makes them pay. In most of the US, there is a glut of workers willing to take any job they can get.

The government isn't "kicking in", nor are they fooled. The government sets the federal minimum wage, and they're haven't raised the MW in more than 20 years. People have to apply for assistance, based on their income. In places where people are paid MW, they're going to get benefits. In places like the Dakotas, they get nothing.

. What people have a problem with, is corporations making millions or billions in profits, but they are throwing crumbs at their employee's..