Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 59

Thread: Wal-Mart Billion dollars scam!

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    the problem with walmart is that they sell so cheap that it drives everyone else in the town out of business. You also want walmart to pay higher wages but the only way you can mandate that is by a higher minimum wage which.... also drives everyone else in town out of business.

    Interesting.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    34,339
    Thanks
    3,500
    Thanked 11,608 Times in 9,279 Posts
    Groans
    632
    Groaned 1,405 Times in 1,371 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    Why single out Walmart?

    https://www.vox.com/2018/5/3/1730709...lley-self-help

    Do you think any right winger would ever support this:

    https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/176830...m-corporations
    You're right,I'm a Socialist,end big capitalism

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mazon View Post
    Bill Clinton was President 18 years ago,so you and your post are ridiculous!
    Are you saying welfare fraud started after Bill was President?

    Let me guess, you're claiming welfare fraud started January 20, 2001, stopped on January 20, 2009, and started again on January 20, 2017?

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mazon View Post
    I've been behind several of those welfare frauds in Walmart. They use their EBT, something that should be called OPM, to buy things they claim to be unable to afford to buy for themselves and their kids. Magically, as soon as OPM has purchased those things, they have cash money to buy the things they are able to afford to buy themselves such as beer and cigarettes.

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    Every Walmart employee is eligible to enroll in their health insurance program. Unions who hate Walmart had themselves exempted from Obamacare. Ban Walmart from taking food stamps. You won't be hurting anybody but the poor who would pay more for less food. If Walmart refused to take EBT, you would bitch about that

    I don't see him bitching that those using EBT, what I prefer to call OPM, not paying the taxes that fund what they use.

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Mazon View Post
    I know Wal-Mart is the victim!
    I know you think everyone using EBT has somehow been cheated by another entity and that's why they can't afford their own food. That's what happens when your mindset is that of the zero sum game.

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    Why don't you post something that supports your usual bull shit rather then your "opinion"?
    Is it your opinion that someone having less does so because someone else took advantage of them?

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
    the problem with walmart is that they sell so cheap that it drives everyone else in the town out of business. You also want walmart to pay higher wages but the only way you can mandate that is by a higher minimum wage which.... also drives everyone else in town out of business.

    Interesting.
    Those that support things like the mandated higher minimum wage don't realize that those they're trying to help are the ones they actually hurt the most. When their outlook is to punish the ones they hate, they overlook what will happen to the ones they claim to love. When the latter suffers, instead of acknowledging what they supported did them, they twist themselves into a pretzel trying to again blame the ones the hate despite everything they wanted them having been done.

    Walmart, and anyone else in business, could be forced to pay a higher minimum wage if a mandate was put in place. Walmart, because of its size, could adapt to it financially by doing things financially no one would notice while the little guy the bleeding hearts claimed to want to help would no longer be in business because doing the same things Walmart could do would be felt by everyone that used that business. At least until the little guy went out of business.

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8,490
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,180 Times in 2,409 Posts
    Groans
    376
    Groaned 244 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
    the problem with walmart is that they sell so cheap that it drives everyone else in the town out of business. You also want walmart to pay higher wages but the only way you can mandate that is by a higher minimum wage which.... also drives everyone else in town out of business.

    Interesting.
    That's not the real problem with Walmart, though that is the democratic position in a nutshell. Walmart is essentially a distributor. It is a huge distributor of goods. It passes its savings onto consumers in part and despite the leftist claims otherwise, it does operate at a very low profit margin on sales, relying on volume. That said, the damage is that they force suppliers to make irrational decisions in order to maintain marketshare by being on Walmart shelves. Of course they could say no, but market share is a huge metric in retail. My sister's employer is forced to supply Walmart their product at basically cost. In so doing, they constrain that employer from being able to profit unless they charge their other customers more which then drives up cost at competitor stores which then makes Walmart's deals seem even that much more of a deal. Walmart will not stock your products on their shelves no matter how much the consumer wants your product unless you meet their price demand. In addition, you have to be able to supply their volume demands which has bankrupted smaller suppliers who borrow to expand just to get on their shelves only to be cut off and swamped in debt. They are a shark of a company to have to deal with, but their greatest success is in that they have somehow become the Godfather of distribution. Personally, if I were a supplier and they made those demands of me, I'd tell them to pound sand, but unfortunately too many do not and the cycle continues.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Irish Exit For This Post:

    Bigdog (08-20-2018)

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    That's not the real problem with Walmart, though that is the democratic position in a nutshell. Walmart is essentially a distributor. It is a huge distributor of goods. It passes its savings onto consumers in part and despite the leftist claims otherwise, it does operate at a very low profit margin on sales, relying on volume. That said, the damage is that they force suppliers to make irrational decisions in order to maintain marketshare by being on Walmart shelves. Of course they could say no, but market share is a huge metric in retail. My sister's employer is forced to supply Walmart their product at basically cost. In so doing, they constrain that employer from being able to profit unless they charge their other customers more which then drives up cost at competitor stores which then makes Walmart's deals seem even that much more of a deal. Walmart will not stock your products on their shelves no matter how much the consumer wants your product unless you meet their price demand. In addition, you have to be able to supply their volume demands which has bankrupted smaller suppliers who borrow to expand just to get on their shelves only to be cut off and swamped in debt. They are a shark of a company to have to deal with, but their greatest success is in that they have somehow become the Godfather of distribution. Personally, if I were a supplier and they made those demands of me, I'd tell them to pound sand, but unfortunately too many do not and the cycle continues.
    you mention their main problem is that market share lets them get away with stuff essentially. They got that marketshare by killing of everyone else which is the point i mentioned.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8,490
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,180 Times in 2,409 Posts
    Groans
    376
    Groaned 244 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsuke View Post
    you mention their main problem is that market share lets them get away with stuff essentially. They got that marketshare by killing of everyone else which is the point i mentioned.
    Not really. They got that marketshare by selling cheap crap even cheaper, off-brands, etc, until they had a sufficient footprint to do what they have done. They have been quite innovative in their time in designing the modern inventory and delivery systems by which cash registers determine when restocks are ordered. They continue to grow by continuing to experiment. Innovation drives success.

  13. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    23,264
    Thanks
    6,282
    Thanked 16,527 Times in 11,565 Posts
    Groans
    1,236
    Groaned 513 Times in 483 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    "Myth Busted: Taxpayers Are Not Subsidizing Wal-Mart's Low Wages

    Wages: It's tax season, which means that union groups are once again out in force claiming that because Wal-Mart (WMT) doesn't pay its workers enough, taxpayers are forced to make up the difference. This is, to put it politely, pure poppycock.
    The latest to make this claim is Lonnie Sheppard of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, who says that "every American taxpayer is paying a tax they never heard of: the Wal-Mart Tax."
    "What is the Wal-Mart Tax?" Sheppard asks. Wal-Mart pays so little that "thousands of Wal-Mart employees are forced to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. Programs funded by American taxpayers."
    Sheppard goes on to write that "According to a 2014 report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Wal-Mart receives an estimated $6.2 billion in subsidies every year, primarily from the Federal Government." If Wal-Mart would only pay its workers more, the argument goes, taxpayers would save all this money.
    USA Today's editors apparently didn't bother to look into that ATF report before publishing this piece, so we did. The ATF — a coalition of union and liberal advocacy groups — based its findings on a 2013 report written by Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. In other words, none of these sources is objective by any means.
    House Democrats based their findings on data from one state — Wisconsin. They found that 3,216 Wal-Mart workers were enrolled in the state's Medicaid program. Based on this number, the report calculates that a Wal-Mart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.7 million a year.
    To get that number, Democrats assumed that everyone enrolled in Medicaid is also enrolled in every other public program available for low-income families — including food stamps, subsidized housing, child care subsidies, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and more — which accounted for 72% of the supposed taxpayer costs.
    Plus, the report admits that "extrapolating taxpayer costs for Wal-Mart stores in other states based on the Wisconsin data is difficult" in large part because the state had looser rules for who could enroll in Medicaid.
    No matter. Americans for Tax Fairness simply took this already grossly inflated number and applied it to the rest of the nation. And voila, it came up with its $6.2 billion "Wal-Mart Tax."
    (By the way, Wal-Mart actually paid $6.2 billion in federal income taxes in 2014.)
    Even if some Wal-Mart employees are collecting government benefits, that doesn't mean taxpayers are subsidizing Wal-Mart. Many of those government aid programs are designed specifically to supplement wage income. In fact, Democrats are constantly pushing to expand eligibility for these programs so more working families can collect government benefits. Blaming Wal-Mart because some do makes no sense.
    What's more, if the government forced Wal-Mart to raise its wages — which is the entire point of these union-backed "studies" — that would likely cost taxpayers more. Why? Because Wal-Mart would hire fewer workers, leaving still more people dependent on government programs. Or it would be forced to raise prices, which would hurt lower-income families hardest.
    Tax time is taxing enough without having to deal with misleading union propaganda masquerading as research."

    https://www.investors.com/politics/e...rts-low-wages/

  14. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    La Pine, Oregon
    Posts
    5,218
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 1,548 Times in 1,137 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 215 Times in 201 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CFM View Post
    Is it your opinion that someone having less does so because someone else took advantage of them?
    In the majority of the cases yes as did Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Noah Webster, and even Christ.

    https://www.economist.com/lexingtons...ke-it-with-you

    If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

    With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

    The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

    Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
    "2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"

  15. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    57,638
    Thanks
    563
    Thanked 10,010 Times in 8,569 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 498 Times in 487 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    In the majority of the cases yes as did Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Noah Webster, and even Christ.

    https://www.economist.com/lexingtons...ke-it-with-you

    If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

    With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

    The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

    Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
    None of that indicates someone with less has less because another person took advantage of them.

  16. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,245 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Trapper View Post
    In the majority of the cases yes as did Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Noah Webster, and even Christ.

    https://www.economist.com/lexingtons...ke-it-with-you

    If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

    If the intent of the FF's was to abolish the right of inheritance, they would have put it in the Constitution.

    I assume you will be donating all your worldly possessions to the State, upon your death, right?


    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

Similar Threads

  1. Izrael to spend your $8 billion dollars on missiles.
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2018, 09:49 AM
  2. Ghaddafi had over 200 billion dollars spirited away
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 02:06 PM
  3. I need a billion dollars
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 06:02 PM
  4. 8.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money gone
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-15-2009, 01:33 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 09:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •