Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?[W:1258]

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I was just making a point about conservatives loving to blame the poor for being takers but not those getting rich by not paying a living wage and who get tax breaks and who are bigger takers by far that food stamp people.

Rich people can't be takers. You are only a scum bag worthless scum taker if you impact 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the budget.

If you can rob 10% of the government's budget then you are cool.

It's kind of like throwing someone in prison for 20 years for stealing a paper clip but giving a pass to a bank executive who embezzles jillions.

A nice suit makes all the difference in the world. Maybe food stamp recipients should be required to wear an Armani suit. It isn't the nice car that makes the difference between "bumming off" of the government and "just business". Cadillac drivers still get shamed when benefitting from the government. It has to be the clothes. Otherwise I don't know the difference between bumming off of the government and bumming off of the government.

Are their any retarded conservatives in here that would like to explain the difference?

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

So, you're not really pissed off about Walmart getting subsidies. You are just being pissy about conservatives. Your thread title is misleading and appears to be dishonest.

Reagan Conservatives (AKA retarded morons) advocate bumming off of the government but shame people for bumming off of the government.

I am sure you understand how frustrating it is to see massive hypocrisy. Don't you find it annoying when people complain about people bumming off of the government yet they work for the government?

This is sort of the same concept. I think that is what he was getting at.

BTW: Do you work for the government? or receive money from the government in some way shape of form? I can tell that you do by the way you complain about worthless bums taking from the government. Only valuable bums look down on worthless bums. Personally I think all bums need to be shamed and harrassed equally.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

How about the government not collect and waste trillions of dollars of taxpayer money that would allow many more people to prosper? Doesn't that make more sense than government confiscating what it wants from those who have rightfully earned it? How about everybody just keep what they earn and give them more opportunity to earn as much as they can?

Do you advocate ending the income tax and printing the money to pay our bills?

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Pisses me off to no end.

Did it make you so mad that you stopped buying from Walmart? :lamo

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

And there was no government assistance for anybody at that time.

Why do you think that changed?

 

[Conservative]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Hey, As long as you 'say' it's true, it must be true that McD's "Most of those company owned stores are in areas that require much higher wages than the minimum wage'"


NO CREDIBLE LINKS REQUIRED. *Shaking head*

ONE policy the CONservatives have EVER been on the right side of history on in the US? They were the Torries who stood with King George in 1776, the CONfederates, the isolationists during both WW's, fought labor laws, union rights, civil rights,. SS, Medicare, etc


HOW ABOUT JUST ONE GOP POLICY THE PAST 40 YEARS THAT WORKED? As promised? lol

You made some wild accusations based upon limited information and knowledge of the subject and then ran from the reality. You did no research and believe that All McDonalds pay minimum wage and that simply isn't true. I posted a link to North Dakota and cited personal experience to prove you wrong. You cannot blame McDonalds for what a private franchisee pays their workers but that doesn't stop you from broadbrushing the issue.

As for GOP policies that work, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts worked but needed to be reinforced. Reagan created 17 million jobs. Bush created 7 million jobs before the financial crisis created the high unemployment and recession. You seem to not understand the role of the govt. and it shouldn't be a 3.9 trillion dollar one. The best economic policies are conservative policies that require accepting personal responsibility and the consequences of making the wrong choices. Providing incentive and then getting out of the way is conservative economic policies that work

 

[Conservative]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble


He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Bush persuaded Congress to spend as much as $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for government insured mortgages with no money down


Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street : NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI — Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

I am not going to divert from the thread topic to other threads that have totally debunked your opinions and cherry picked data. You want to get the true facts go to the other forum threads on the topic but like far too many you believe the 2008 housing crisis was created by GW Bush and that simply is a lie. There is enough blame to go around but you want to blame Bush. Seek some help and place the blame on Congress, Carter, Clinton, Bush, and of course the lending institutions. It is always easier to place blame than accepting responsibility. This issue for someone like you who has so much time and effort invested in misinformation and Bush hatred is a waste of time.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Reagan Conservatives (AKA retarded morons) advocate bumming off of the government but shame people for bumming off of the government.

I am sure you understand how frustrating it is to see massive hypocrisy. Don't you find it annoying when people complain about people bumming off of the government yet they work for the government?

This is sort of the same concept. I think that is what he was getting at.

BTW: Do you work for the government? or receive money from the government in some way shape of form? I can tell that you do by the way you complain about worthless bums taking from the government. Only valuable bums look down on worthless bums. Personally I think all bums need to be shamed and harrassed equally.

What a bunch of BS, do you believe collecting SS and Medicare is taking money from the govt? Both are contributory programs forced on the taxpayer by a liberal in FDR and perpetuated by Congress over the years as they used the slush fund created for their own personal gain. Conservatives were not for SS and Medicare or anything else run by the govt. but that doesn't stop people like you from making the claims

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Do you advocate ending the income tax and printing the money to pay our bills?

I advocate a flat tax that everybody pays and the government collecting only what it absolutely has to have to fulfill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and not one penny more.

 

[Conservative]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I advocate a flat tax that everybody pays and the government collecting only what it absolutely has to have to fulfill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and not one penny more.

Isn't it amazing what so many young people today believe is the Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Govt. even though most have never read the Constitution and yet interpret the way they want? Amazing how Promoting the General Welfare has now been changed by politicians to Provide for the Domestic Welfare all to keep politicians employed and people dependent

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Why do you think that changed?

Because those in government found that they could gain power, prestige, influence, and greatly increase their own personal wealth by taking money from the people and returning a portion of it to them. The Founders warned us that could be the case and to be wary of it. But nobody heeded the warning more than a hundred years later. And the government was successful in creating a 'progressive' mentality that allowed it license to do anything to anybody it wanted to do.

So now we have people who really think Wal-mart does not deserve their profits and that the government should force Wal-mart to operate as a welfare agency, but have been brainwashed into thinking the government is good and noble and above criticism in how they use our money. In fact such people don't even really believe in private property but see it all as a great piggy bank owned by the collective. And that, along with destruction of the basic traditional values that have always sustained America, will be what will destroy her greatness.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Because those in government found that they could gain power, prestige, influence, and greatly increase their own personal wealth by taking money from the people and returning a portion of it to them. The Founders warned us that could be the case and to be wary of it. But nobody heeded the warning more than a hundred years later. And the government was successful in creating a 'progressive' mentality that allowed it license to do anything to anybody it wanted to do.

So now we have people who really think Wal-mart does not deserve their profits and that the government should force Wal-mart to operate as a welfare agency, but have been brainwashed into thinking the government is good and noble and above criticism in how they use our money. In fact such people don't even really believe in private property but see it all as a great piggy bank owned by the collective. And that, along with destruction of the basic traditional values that have always sustained America, will be what will destroy her greatness.

Eliminate the government programs in question. We are talking about subsidized wages through food stamps, Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit and stuff like that. We should eliminate all of them. That way Walmart isn't benefitting from government laws. This would also prevent the working poor from benefitting from the government.

I think that is what the OP is advocating.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Isn't it amazing what so many young people today believe is the Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Govt. even though most have never read the Constitution and yet interpret the way they want? Amazing how Promoting the General Welfare has now been changed by politicians to Provide for the Domestic Welfare all to keep politicians employed and people dependent

And I think that is why I feel compelled to get on threads like this. To defend the Wal-marts and similar entities of the world because they really are the last hope for us to retain our freedoms and American spirit of can do. As long as enough of us retain the basic concept of what liberty and self governance is, we have at least a glimmer of hope to prevent the collective mentality from overtaking us entirely and we might have an opportunity to turn it around.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

And I think that is why I feel compelled to get on threads like this. To defend the Wal-marts and similar entities of the world because they really are the last hope for us to retain our freedoms and American spirit of can do. As long as enough of us retain the basic concept of what liberty and self governance is, we have at least a glimmer of hope to prevent the collective mentality from overtaking us entirely and we might have an opportunity to turn it around.

I still think that we should eliminate these subsidies for low wage workers. Don't you agree? It might hurt some poor people but it would hurt Walmart more.

We should stop subsidizing wages with government money. It isn't a responsibility of the government.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Sam Walton was not a poor boy--I believe his dad was a banker that allowed him to get a college education--but neither was he a rich man when he, right out of college, went to work for J.C. Penney where he learned retailing. He spent his time in the Armed Forces during WWII, and then in 1945, with his brother, borrowed $25,000 to buy the Ben Franklin retail store chain--15 stores as I recall. And there he honed his business expertise.

In 1962, he sold his interest in the Ben Franklin stores to his brother and went on his own and opened first Wal-mart store in Arkansas and proved he had learned the business well. Fourteen years later in 1976, the business made its first public offering on the stock exchange. By 1985, Forbes magazine named Sam America's wealthiest American, and by 1991 Wal-mart surpassed Sears as America's largest retailer and has been America's largest private sector employer ever since. I think it became the world's largest company in 2010? Working from memory here.

Sam Walton never moved out of the house he and his wife had bought in the 1950's, he drove an old pickup truck, dressed like any other Arkansas folks, and you never would have known he was the richest man in America. And he was one of America's greatest philanthropists. He died of cancer in 1992 and his four children and their children have continued the legacy he left them.

THAT is what can be accomplished by people who have the vision and expertise and willingness to take the risks necessary to prosper in commerce and industry. But the collectivists among us, can't stand that some are more successful than others and really believe it is righteous to take them down. And how sad that is.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Eliminate the government programs in question. We are talking about subsidized wages through food stamps, Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit and stuff like that. We should eliminate all of them. That way Walmart isn't benefitting from government laws. This would also prevent the working poor from benefitting from the government.

I think that is what the OP is advocating.

No...James D Hill would NEVER advocate what you say. He is a far left liberal.

What he advocates is more government control of businesses like Walmart and more government handouts to US citizens.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

For the purposes of understanding what the richest Americans like Sam Walton provide in addition to jobs and economic stimulus:

Speaking of Sam Walton:

In 1987, upon his wife Helen’s encouragement, he put in $1,000 for his family foundation. Upon his death, he bequeathed a trust fund valued at $172 million exclusively for this institution. Wal-Mart Foundations and The Walton Family Foundation are the pioneer organizations, while there are also quite a number of philanthropic commitments that his family has established over the years.​

​

• Sam Walton and his entire family have been the consistent guardians of advocacies for education. One recipient is the Knowledge for Power Program, geared toward public education and exploring financing alternatives for the sector.
• The Walton Family Foundation provides support through PRIs/loans, scholarships to deserving individuals, program and curriculum development, as well as technical assistance.
• Among the highest aid Sam Walton and his empire provided are:
• $3,000,000 – Blue Ridge School in Dyke, Virginia
• $1,177,709 – Center for Education Reform, Washington DC
• $1,270,304 – the International Community Foundation San Diego, California
• $500,000 – National Center for Educational Accountability, Austin, Texas
• $421,500 – Minnesota Association of Charter Schools
• A report by The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy highlighted how the financial donations of the Waltons have indeed become greater than their monetary value as they continue to change the lives of thousands. BusinessWeek named the Walton Family as one of The 50 Top American Givers in 2008.
http://www.facesofphilanthropy.com/sam-walton-philanthropy/
​

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Eliminate the government programs in question. We are talking about subsidized wages through food stamps, Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit and stuff like that. We should eliminate all of them. That way Walmart isn't benefitting from government laws. This would also prevent the working poor from benefitting from the government.

I think that is what the OP is advocating.

The working poor should not be benefitting from the government, most especially in ways that encourage the working poor to stay in that situation lest they lose their government subsidies and benefits. But I sure as hell resent less subsidizing those who are at least working. Maybe you think it would be better if they earned nothing at all which would be the case if Wal-mart closed down all its stores this month.

The problem is not Wal-mart. Wal-mart forces nobody to work for them. If Wal-mart did not offer the millions of jobs that it does around the world, do you think all those people would somehow be better off? How about all the people who benefit from the millions of dollars in philanthropy that the Waltons provide year in and year out? Will they be better off if Wal-mart shuts down or is stripped of its profits?

Look to the government that is a job killer, that promotes policies that create economic stagnation, inflation, and recession, that discourages incentive and self-help for your villain in this scenario. If you want to see all those people make better wages, then elect a government that will establish policies that encourage private sector growth and prosperity. When there is full employment, commerce and industry will pay whatever wages they have to pay to get good people to work for them.

The problem is not Wal-mart.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I still think that we should eliminate these subsidies for low wage workers. Don't you agree? It might hurt some poor people but it would hurt Walmart more.

We should stop subsidizing wages with government money. It isn't a responsibility of the government.

It wouldn't hurt Wal-mart at all. It might however, prompt a government to stop the senseless job and wage killing policies that it has implemented the last six years.

But be careful what you wish for, because that would help Wal-mart along with everybody else. OMG!!! We can't have that can we!

But tell me. Why is it you are so gung ho to hurt Wal-mart?

 

[Winchester]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Eliminate the government programs in question. We are talking about subsidized wages through food stamps, Earned Income Credit, Child Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit and stuff like that. We should eliminate all of them. That way Walmart isn't benefitting from government laws. This would also prevent the working poor from benefitting from the government.

I think that is what the OP is advocating.

I'd be curious to see the economic impact this would have on Walmarts bottom line. Their employees wouldn't be able to survive on what is currently paid to them and a huge swath of their customer's disposable income would disappear.

 

[Winchester]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

It wouldn't hurt Wal-mart at all. It might however, prompt a government to stop the senseless job and wage killing policies that it has implemented the last six years.

But be careful what you wish for, because that would help Wal-mart along with everybody else. OMG!!! We can't have that can we!

But tell me. Why is it you are so gung ho to hurt Wal-mart?

Me thinks it would destroy their customer base.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Me thinks it would destroy their customer base.

I don't think so. I think a government as the Founders envisioned it allowed the people much greater opportunity and enormously much greater incentive to work themselves out of poverty.

Now admittedly, if government policy encouraged and allowed people to be more prosperous, it would likely change the culture at Wal-mart. They would likely carry somewhat different products and market in different ways. But they would be just fine.

 

[Winchester]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I don't think so. I think a government as the Founders envisioned it allowed the people much greater opportunity and enormously much greater incentive to work themselves out of poverty.

Now admittedly, if government policy encouraged and allowed people to be more prosperous, it would likely change the culture at Wal-mart. They would likely carry somewhat different products and market in different ways. But they would be just fine.

I'm all for the social experiment to see what happens.

 

[radcen]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

Sorry my friend but that ship does not float. The fact is 64% of people who are on food stamps work. The government is helping those cheap tight wads get rich at tax payer money while destroying the economy by undercutting those who pay better. I too was taught to work for what you get but the damage from losing 10 million manufacturing jobs and forcing those workers into the service field instead which pays less. Not to mention all those jobs lost to the housing bubble bursting. You can not blame the people on food stamps for that whether they are working or not.

What percentage of people who work are on food stamps?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Why should we subsidize Wal-Marts crappy wages?

I'm all for the social experiment to see what happens.

We've already completed the 'social experiment' and it was field tested, with very good results, for something over the first 100 years of our Republic. And during that hundred years, Americans enjoyed an increase in standard of living unimaginable before that 'great experiment' and produced the most creative, innovative, industrious, productive, prosperous, and generous nation the world had ever known.

It was only when government figured out it could transfer power, prestige, influence, and wealth to itself by taking from some citizens and giving some of that money to others that it started breaking down. And the unintended negative consequences have far outweighed any good that they could point to as justification for that.