Bill Maher "Rich" Threads (Merged)

[Synthaholic]

Bill Maher was forced to admit on his own show that he is not a Libertarian. He is a Marxist who believes rules should be imposed on the citizens by Elitist like him. That is the prims behind his New Rules Segment that hos drones applaud every show.

Only brainwashed idiots believe anything that asshole had to say.

And you're a fucking liar. He did NOT admit to being a Marxist. You just pulled that out of you're ass, like a typical asshat Regressive, and I just called you on it, like an ethically superior Liberal should.

 

[Synthaholic]

Walmart loses money in the United States. All of its profits come from other countries. It is like we are getting paid to have Walmart stores in this country. Other countries subsidize our Walmart shopping habit & you are getting more than you pay for. Walmart brings money back into this country & that money creates jobs here.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[Madeline]

Walmart loses money in the United States. All of its profits come from other countries. It is like we are getting paid to have Walmart stores in this country. Other countries subsidize our Walmart shopping habit & you are getting more than you pay for. Walmart brings money back into this country & that money creates jobs here.

You're a fucking idiot.

No, he just made a mistake, Synthaholic. KissMy posted a correction.

 

[Valerie]

Maybe we need to stop thinking of it as capitalism vs socialism and frame it differently as based in freedom with practical compromise for the common good.

 

[Valerie]

* MOSTLY ACCURATE
snopes.com: How Big Is Wal-Mart?





This should boggle your mind!! And scare you as well!



1. At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 5.8133333% margin

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing transactions will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.


Origins: No doubt, Wal-Mart is the behemoth of the retail business world. In November 2008, as many other retailers were retrenching while experiencing plummeting sales figures amidst a severe economic downturn, Wal-Mart's same-stores sales actually exceeded its expectations, increasing by 3.4 percent over the previous year. The figures cited above attempt to place the scale of Wal-Mart's operations in context, demonstrating how truly large it is even in comparison with the other top retails chains in the U.S.


At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

So, what's the part that should "... scare you as well"?

Those aren't actually my words, it's from Snopes...But I guess it's the ultimate power that scares people.

 

[MikeK]

I'm going to suggest that the discussion could go beyond economics, into the direction that you indicate, "...as much in the field of psychology as in that of sociology."

The envy entered into the realm of greed when the work ethic dissolved...

The following from Malanga's "What Happened to the Work Ethic?"

Thanks for posting the excerpts. I'm glad we agree that much of the current problem with the creation and distribution of wealth in America has roots in the collective psyche of our population. I believe Malanga is correct in focusing on the early 60s as the point in time when our ethical orientation went astray, carrying with it much of the traditional values and inhibitions which had for decades shaped our national character.

The basic principles of FDR's New Deal amounted to a repudiation of the financial practices which gave rise to the Gilded Age. In addition to the rigidly repressive attitudes affecting sexual behavior and the use of recreational drugs, etc., those who are old enough will recall the rigid sense of ethics attending the banking business and the Stock Market of the 50s, because no banker or Wall Streeter wanted to be associated in any way with the memory of the despised Robber Barons. But that ethical spirit seems to have gone the way of the prohibitive attitudes about sex, drugs and rock & roll.

Today the attitude clearly is make as much money as you can and do it any way you can, just don't get caught bending the rules. Because, as Gordon Gecko said, greed is good.

 

[loosecannon]

Thankfully, it is not up to you or your ilk to "determine" what wealth is "excessive."

and unthankfully for you that wasn't even the topic of discussion that you responded to.

The discussion was about what wealth was "earned".

You must be a very Proud Liberal.

 

[Synthaholic]

It was 100% earned by the wealthy person.

The wealthy person uses his own factory, hires his own workers, purchases his own raw materials, advertises using his own money, markets with his own mail, phone and internet and sales-force, distributes with his own trucks (or pays to lease those of others) and pays for the gas, bridges and tolls along the way, too.

[...]

When you begin with a significant deviation of angle you end up completely off the track. So let's go back to the beginning and adjust: What "factory" does the CEO of a mortgage bank who takes home a $300 million annual bonus use? What trucks does he use? And what tolls does he pay?

To shorten what could be a redundant exchange of economic theory and political philosophy, the fact is no one arguing here is opposed to wealth which is ethically and honestly created. What is opposed here is the kind of excessive wealth which is accumulated via usury and deviously unethical means.

Using a factory to create wealth is good. Using money to exploit people who have none is not good.

Exploitation is very different from creative effort. The argument is not against wealth but the means by which it is accumulated.

Thankfully, it is not up to you or your ilk to "determine" what wealth is "excessive."

When you guys attempt to discuss silly notions like an "excess profits tax," the same questions come up. What the fuck is an "excess" profit? Who are you to determine how much is enough or too much? What is the basis for your random calls? Who on earth gave you (or would give you) that kind of authority? Why would they do something silly like that?

Similarly it is not for you or your ilk to determine what wealth is honestly and ethically created. Outside of actual criminal behavior which is subject to the rule of law and evidence and due process safeguards, it really is of ZERO consequence if you happen to object to the manner in which any entrepreneur creates wealth.

Let's apply your first quote to the second quote: who are they to subject you to rules of law and evidence? I believe the answer is the collective society. So why couldn't that same collective society determine how much is too much?

 

[Synthaholic]

That's a very rosey defense of Wal-Mart's, PoliticalChic. And doubtless there's some truth to it. You may know I loathe all the big box stores, especially that one, for a variety of reasons. I don't happen to see them as shining examples of the successes of capitalism; I see them as shining examples of the failure to regulate, outsourcing jobs, slave and child labor, environmental disasters, small business jobs killers, etc.

Many, many more people will be made poor for life by Wal-Mart's than will ever be made rich.

I guess it's all in which end of the lense you have hold of.

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

Would you say the small businesses killed off by Wal-Mart's were "not forced"? The town business centers shuttered? The children and adults overseas whose working conditions to manufacture goods sold at Wal-Marts are inhumane?

As I said, depends on how you view things. I don't need another $900 a year that badly....and I am far from rich.

And that is the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right: money is everything to Regressives. It's their substitute for actual happiness. A regressive who makes $1,000,000 per year would rather sell their children than pay an additional 3% in taxes. IT'S JUST THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM!

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's a very rosey defense of Wal-Mart's, PoliticalChic. And doubtless there's some truth to it. You may know I loathe all the big box stores, especially that one, for a variety of reasons. I don't happen to see them as shining examples of the successes of capitalism; I see them as shining examples of the failure to regulate, outsourcing jobs, slave and child labor, environmental disasters, small business jobs killers, etc.

Many, many more people will be made poor for life by Wal-Mart's than will ever be made rich.

I guess it's all in which end of the lense you have hold of.

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

Would you say the small businesses killed off by Wal-Mart's were "not forced"? The town business centers shuttered? The children and adults overseas whose working conditions to manufacture goods sold at Wal-Marts are inhumane?

As I said, depends on how you view things. I don't need another $900 a year that badly....and I am far from rich.

Am I understanding your posititon as being in support of the buggy whip manufacturers who were 'forced' out of business due to Henry Ford's contraption?

I have too much respect for your intellect to actually believe that you oppose Wal-Mart because they 'forced' the buggy whip makers out of business..

I think we both know your dislike is the opposition to labor unions that Wal-Mart has enforced, and the huge success of capitalism that it represents....I don't see any left-wing hostility to Costco, or Home Depot.

Here in the People's Republic of New York, there are plenty of Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, etc. but no Wal-Mart.

I often wonder why the Sherman Anti-Trust, you know, 'restraint of trade,' isn't applied to the Democrat liberal governments....

 

[Synthaholic]

Walmart loses money in the United States. All of its profits come from other countries. It is like we are getting paid to have Walmart stores in this country. Other countries subsidize our Walmart shopping habit & you are getting more than you pay for. Walmart brings money back into this country & that money creates jobs here.

You're a fucking idiot.

No, he just made a mistake, Synthaholic. KissMy posted a correction.

I've read some of his other posts. I'll stick with my description.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no problem with capitalism but there is something seriously wrong with the kind of laissez faire capitalism which if not brought under control will transform America into a two class society and resurrect the Gilded Age.

Capitalism is fine so long as it is regulated by essential socialist policies. One such policy I believe should be imposed is a limit on the accumulation of personal assets. I believe that no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate more than twenty million dollars in personal assets.

Name-calling and ad hominem nonsense will be ignored but I invite critical arguments against that proposal.

"I have no problem with capitalism ...[but]no American citizen should be permitted to accumulate..."

The logic here is akin to 'I used to drive to work ...but now I bring my lunch.'

I truly appreciate when folks like you reveal their refusal to learn from experienc, i.e. "essential socialist policies."

"For three decades after its independence in 1947, India strove for self-sufficiency instead of the gains of international trade, and gave the state an ever-increasing role in controlling the means of production, says Aiyar:

These policies yielded economic growth of 3.5 percent per year, which was half that of export-oriented Asian countries, and yielded slow progress in social indicators, too.

Growth per capita in India was even slower, at 1.49 percent per year.
It accelerated after reforms started tentatively in 1981, and shot up to 6.78 percent per year after reforms deepened in the current decade.

What would the impact on social indicators have been had India commenced economic reform one decade earlier, and enjoyed correspondingly faster economic growth and improvements in human development indicators? In "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform In India," Aiyar seeks to estimate the number of "missing children," "missing literates" and "missing non-poor" resulting from delayed reform, slower economic growth, and hence, slower improvement of social indicators.
He finds that with earlier reform:

14.5 million more children would have survived.
261 million more Indians would have become literate.
109 million more people would have risen above the poverty line.

The delay in economic reform represents an enormous social tragedy, says Aiyar. It drives home the point that India's socialist era, which claimed it would deliver growth with social justice, delivered neither." (emphasis mine)
Source: Swaminathan Aiyar, "Socialism Kills: The Cost of Delayed Economic Reform in India," Cato Institute, October 21, 2009.

Thanks so much, Mikey. Without your posts I might fool myself into believing that adults learn from history.

PoliticalChic, history has taught us an agraian society cannot be industrialized by socialism. It is not a surprise socialism did not work in India. To be successful, socialism has to have a base of capitalism to build upon. No one disputes that capitalism is an excellent economic engine....but we also know, unrestrained capitalism is a failure. Socialized capitalism is the best system available....should we use second-best?

Agree...here is the crux: "unrestrained capitalism is a failure."

But a study of history will explain that the period of the early 20th century dealt with that situation exactly.

1. Reform legislation passed during Roosevelt’s presidency was based not so much on the desire to break trusts up, he had initiated some forty suits, as to regulate them: more against wickedness than big business.

a. A successful antitrust suit against J. P. Morgan’s Northern Securities, which controlled the big western railroads.

b. In 1902 he threatened to intervene in the anthracite coal strike, forcing mine operators to accept arbitration.

c. Put an end to freight rebates by railroads.

d. The Hepburn Act strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission, which authorized the government to set railroad rates.

e. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed (scandals in meatpacking industry).

f. The Employers’ Liability and Safety Appliance Laws limited employees hours…etc.

2. While he didn’t get all he asked for, in 1907 annual message to Congress, he called for income and inheritance taxes, currency reform, the eight-hour day, and control of campaign contributions.

3. Taft brought more anti-trust suits in one term than TR in two, and broke up Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. He got the eight-hour day for government workers, and supported the income tax amendment. Chace, "1912," P. 18

4. Wilson was against labor unionism and the closed shop, declaring that “the right of freedom of contract” was “the most precious of all the possessions of a free people.” John Milton Cooper, Jr, “The warrior and the priest. Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt,” p. 20
Wilson believed that labor unions existed primarily to keep production standards as low as possible. Arthur Link, “Wilson: The Road to the White House.”

5. TR and Taft diverged in the way they flexed their ‘progressive’ muscle toward big business, and trusts. TR, rather than desiring to end trusts, wanted government regulation of same, while Taft invested his love of law, pursued strict enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against every big corporation he could find. Pringle, “The Life and Times of William Howard Taft,” p. 658

a. In the beginning, Taft continued TR’s programs. His administration initiated twice as many anti-trust suits as had TR’s (TR: forty-four in seven years; Taft: ninety in three years).

This was the era during which Progressivism shone.

And the time when the Constituition was still the guiding principle.

Subsequently, the left took the reform principles off the rails, and to this day carps about evils that no longer exist, i.e. "unrestrained capitalism."

"unrestrained capitalism" as applied to conditions today is totally imaginary.


Now, if you wish to blame various evils on 'crony capitalism,' which is the capitalism allowed by big government, see . “The Big Ripoff,” by Tim Carney:
in a supposed free enterprise system, Congress obviates free enterprise by picking winners and loser. While promising to ‘reform’ the healthcare system by reducing costs, this Congress subsidizes drug companies and forbids re-importation of prescription drugs. This is not capitalism.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money

But, alas this is not capitalism, not when President Obama picks winner:
6.Department of Energy Weatherization Boss, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewal
“Swat teams will go down every block and see that every business and building is more energy efficient.” This is Kathy Zoi.
$16.8 billion Stimulus Fund for Green Energy development. Only one window maker is on the list of those given green stimulus funds: Serious Materials- $548, 000
But their windows are no more efficient than Pella, Anderson and Marvin.
Some six times in the last year, the President and the Vice-President have visited the factories of Serious Materials, providing photo ops, and news conferences as to how efficient their product is, how they are creating ‘green jobs.’
Strange according to government watchdog group Freedom Foundation of Minnesota.
This group wonders why Serious merited this largesse; their question is not based on policy issue, but on conflict of interest. Ms. Zoi is the wife of Serious Materials vice-president. The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Conflict of Interest for Obama's Weatherization Czar

 

[Synthaholic]

* MOSTLY ACCURATE
snopes.com: How Big Is Wal-Mart?





This should boggle your mind!! And scare you as well!



1. At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 5.8133333% margin

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing transactions will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.


Origins: No doubt, Wal-Mart is the behemoth of the retail business world. In November 2008, as many other retailers were retrenching while experiencing plummeting sales figures amidst a severe economic downturn, Wal-Mart's same-stores sales actually exceeded its expectations, increasing by 3.4 percent over the previous year. The figures cited above attempt to place the scale of Wal-Mart's operations in context, demonstrating how truly large it is even in comparison with the other top retails chains in the U.S.


At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

So, what's the part that should "... scare you as well"?

In my mid-size city, there are no more Albertsons. They closed their 5 or 6 stores last year. Winn-Dixie closed about 10 stores, and only have 2 or 3 left, all far from the current Wal*Mart Supercenters. All the other stores, like Save-A-Lot, Harvey's, etc. have all closed. The only one left is Publix, which are much higher priced than Wal*Mart.

So Wal*Mart has basically chased away all the competition. And now they have begun dropping name-brand products in favor of their own Great Value brand. Our Wal*Marts no longer carry Mueller's pasta, to give you one example. If you want egg noodles, Wal*Mart gives you one choice: Great Value, unless you want No-Yolk (I don't - who does?). I'm seeing this throughout their stores. They are cutting choice, and they are cutting inventory.

Do you want your freedom of choice curtailed?

What if they decide to start raising their prices in markets where they no longer have competition? Fortunately, I have a Costco, where I do almost all of my shopping. But there aren't that many Costcos outside of California, so that's not an option for the majority of Americans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm going to suggest that the discussion could go beyond economics, into the direction that you indicate, "...as much in the field of psychology as in that of sociology."

The envy entered into the realm of greed when the work ethic dissolved...

The following from Malanga's "What Happened to the Work Ethic?"

Thanks for posting the excerpts. I'm glad we agree that much of the current problem with the creation and distribution of wealth in America has roots in the collective psyche of our population. I believe Malanga is correct in focusing on the early 60s as the point in time when our ethical orientation went astray, carrying with it much of the traditional values and inhibitions which had for decades shaped our national character.

The basic principles of FDR's New Deal amounted to a repudiation of the financial practices which gave rise to the Gilded Age. In addition to the rigidly repressive attitudes affecting sexual behavior and the use of recreational drugs, etc., those who are old enough will recall the rigid sense of ethics attending the banking business and the Stock Market of the 50s, because no banker or Wall Streeter wanted to be associated in any way with the memory of the despised Robber Barons. But that ethical spirit seems to have gone the way of the prohibitive attitudes about sex, drugs and rock & roll.

Today the attitude clearly is make as much money as you can and do it any way you can, just don't get caught bending the rules. Because, as Gordon Gecko said, greed is good.

Actually, it is simpler: rather than " the attitude clearly is make as much money as you can and do it any way you can, just don't get caught bending the rules," just do what you wish as your contacts in big government will either bail you out, or look the other way.

The arrogance of an FDR, that he could control the economy with his regulations is what caused the Depression in American to go longer than in other nations.

"The centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), was perverse. The premises of its codes were ones anyone would reject outright today--the concept that price cutting caused deflation, for example. Everyone, even Roosevelt's own agonized advisers, understood this. The poet Ogden Nash wrote a poem that captured the inanity--its title was "One from One Leaves Two":

Mumblety-pumbledy my red cow
She's cooperating now
At first she didn't understand
That milk production must be planned
She didn't understand at first
She had to either plan or burst

A think tank produced a report of 900 pages in 1935 concluding the NRA "on the whole retarded recovery" (that think tank was the Brookings Institution). Some of the great heroes of the period were the Schechter brothers, kosher butchers who fought the NRA all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Their case was not only jurisprudential but also based on common sense--management from above was killing recovery. The Schechter case is as important to history, as, say, the Gideon case that Anthony Lewis wrote about in his great book about the right to counsel, "Gideon's Trumpet." Where is the "Gideon's Trumpet" for free marketeers?
Articles & Commentary

 

[PoliticalChic]

CNBC regularly shows a one hour special on Wal-Marts, and stats included say the average American saves about $900 bucks a year as a result of the price competition via Wal-Marts.

Many of their retirees are wealthy due to the stock program.
No one has to shop there, or work there, or buy their stocks....

I kind of like not being forced.

Pretty much the definition of Capitalism.

Would you say the small businesses killed off by Wal-Mart's were "not forced"? The town business centers shuttered? The children and adults overseas whose working conditions to manufacture goods sold at Wal-Marts are inhumane?

As I said, depends on how you view things. I don't need another $900 a year that badly....and I am far from rich.

And that is the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right: money is everything to Regressives. It's their substitute for actual happiness. A regressive who makes $1,000,000 per year would rather sell their children than pay an additional 3% in taxes. IT'S JUST THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM!

Just to show you how easy your dumb comment is to refute,

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." Ann Coulter




The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."


People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”
Who Really Cares? - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

 

[PoliticalChic]

* MOSTLY ACCURATE
snopes.com: How Big Is Wal-Mart?





This should boggle your mind!! And scare you as well!



1. At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute! 5.8133333% margin

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing transactions will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

13. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street.


Origins: No doubt, Wal-Mart is the behemoth of the retail business world. In November 2008, as many other retailers were retrenching while experiencing plummeting sales figures amidst a severe economic downturn, Wal-Mart's same-stores sales actually exceeded its expectations, increasing by 3.4 percent over the previous year. The figures cited above attempt to place the scale of Wal-Mart's operations in context, demonstrating how truly large it is even in comparison with the other top retails chains in the U.S.


At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

So, what's the part that should "... scare you as well"?

In my mid-size city, there are no more Albertsons. They closed their 5 or 6 stores last year. Winn-Dixie closed about 10 stores, and only have 2 or 3 left, all far from the current Wal*Mart Supercenters. All the other stores, like Save-A-Lot, Harvey's, etc. have all closed. The only one left is Publix, which are much higher priced than Wal*Mart.

So Wal*Mart has basically chased away all the competition. And now they have begun dropping name-brand products in favor of their own Great Value brand. Our Wal*Marts no longer carry Mueller's pasta, to give you one example. If you want egg noodles, Wal*Mart gives you one choice: Great Value, unless you want No-Yolk (I don't - who does?). I'm seeing this throughout their stores. They are cutting choice, and they are cutting inventory.

Do you want your freedom of choice curtailed?

What if they decide to start raising their prices in markets where they no longer have competition? Fortunately, I have a Costco, where I do almost all of my shopping. But there aren't that many Costcos outside of California, so that's not an option for the majority of Americans.

And what was the reason that they "basically chased away all the competition"?

Here, let me help you: they do a better job of serving the public.

"How about the criticism that businesses are just in it for money and profits? That's supposed to be an anti-business slam but upon simple examination, it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding. Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. Its 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart's revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world's 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart's products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people."
Townhall.com::Home::About US

 

[Synthaholic]

Would you say the small businesses killed off by Wal-Mart's were "not forced"? The town business centers shuttered? The children and adults overseas whose working conditions to manufacture goods sold at Wal-Marts are inhumane?

As I said, depends on how you view things. I don't need another $900 a year that badly....and I am far from rich.

And that is the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right: money is everything to Regressives. It's their substitute for actual happiness. A regressive who makes $1,000,000 per year would rather sell their children than pay an additional 3% in taxes. IT'S JUST THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM!

Just to show you how easy your dumb comment is to refute,

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." Ann Coulter




The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."


People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”
Who Really Cares? - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

You talk a lot but you don't say anything of importance. Maybe that's your tactic: bombard posters with 15 paragraph posts instead of addressing the topic.

What does charitable giving have to do with Regressives who make $1,00,000 per year bitching about paying 3% more on $750,000 of their money?

 

[Synthaholic]

So, what's the part that should "... scare you as well"?

In my mid-size city, there are no more Albertsons. They closed their 5 or 6 stores last year. Winn-Dixie closed about 10 stores, and only have 2 or 3 left, all far from the current Wal*Mart Supercenters. All the other stores, like Save-A-Lot, Harvey's, etc. have all closed. The only one left is Publix, which are much higher priced than Wal*Mart.

So Wal*Mart has basically chased away all the competition. And now they have begun dropping name-brand products in favor of their own Great Value brand. Our Wal*Marts no longer carry Mueller's pasta, to give you one example. If you want egg noodles, Wal*Mart gives you one choice: Great Value, unless you want No-Yolk (I don't - who does?). I'm seeing this throughout their stores. They are cutting choice, and they are cutting inventory.

Do you want your freedom of choice curtailed?

What if they decide to start raising their prices in markets where they no longer have competition? Fortunately, I have a Costco, where I do almost all of my shopping. But there aren't that many Costcos outside of California, so that's not an option for the majority of Americans.

And what was the reason that they "basically chased away all the competition"?

Here, let me help you: they do a better job of serving the public.

"How about the criticism that businesses are just in it for money and profits? That's supposed to be an anti-business slam but upon simple examination, it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding. Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. Its 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart's revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world's 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart's products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people."
Townhall.com::Home::About US

Stop parroting wingnut sites and use your own brain.

They chased away all the competition by using their purchasing muscle to undercut prices. Wal*Mart certainly does not do a better job of 'serving the public'. You obviously do not shop at Wal*Mart. They frequently will have only a handful of registers open, no matter how busy it gets. What is your recourse? When they raise prices, what is your recourse? When they cut selection and choice, what is your recourse? In some areas, there is no recourse.

I thought the wingnut mantra was "competition"? Is that just a talking point for when wingnuts want to get a foothold in a new area? Or when they want to privatize a service that's currently provided by government?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And that is the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right: money is everything to Regressives. It's their substitute for actual happiness. A regressive who makes $1,000,000 per year would rather sell their children than pay an additional 3% in taxes. IT'S JUST THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM!

Just to show you how easy your dumb comment is to refute,

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings.(Sam Stein Huffington Post)

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." Ann Coulter




The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."


People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent.”
Who Really Cares? - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

You talk a lot but you don't say anything of importance. Maybe that's your tactic: bombard posters with 15 paragraph posts instead of addressing the topic.

What does charitable giving have to do with Regressives who make $1,00,000 per year bitching about paying 3% more on $750,000 of their money?

So that means, what...that you cannot deny any of it, huh?

Kind of blows your nonsense out of the water, doesn't it.

Let's review:
You were unable to support your blather, and I am easily able to prove that the right actually believes in charity and helping the less fortunate.

Dismissed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In my mid-size city, there are no more Albertsons. They closed their 5 or 6 stores last year. Winn-Dixie closed about 10 stores, and only have 2 or 3 left, all far from the current Wal*Mart Supercenters. All the other stores, like Save-A-Lot, Harvey's, etc. have all closed. The only one left is Publix, which are much higher priced than Wal*Mart.

So Wal*Mart has basically chased away all the competition. And now they have begun dropping name-brand products in favor of their own Great Value brand. Our Wal*Marts no longer carry Mueller's pasta, to give you one example. If you want egg noodles, Wal*Mart gives you one choice: Great Value, unless you want No-Yolk (I don't - who does?). I'm seeing this throughout their stores. They are cutting choice, and they are cutting inventory.

Do you want your freedom of choice curtailed?

What if they decide to start raising their prices in markets where they no longer have competition? Fortunately, I have a Costco, where I do almost all of my shopping. But there aren't that many Costcos outside of California, so that's not an option for the majority of Americans.

And what was the reason that they "basically chased away all the competition"?

Here, let me help you: they do a better job of serving the public.

"How about the criticism that businesses are just in it for money and profits? That's supposed to be an anti-business slam but upon simple examination, it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding. Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. Its 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart's revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world's 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart's products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people."
Townhall.com::Home::About US

Stop parroting wingnut sites and use your own brain.

They chased away all the competition by using their purchasing muscle to undercut prices. Wal*Mart certainly does not do a better job of 'serving the public'. You obviously do not shop at Wal*Mart. They frequently will have only a handful of registers open, no matter how busy it gets. What is your recourse? When they raise prices, what is your recourse? When they cut selection and choice, what is your recourse? In some areas, there is no recourse.

I thought the wingnut mantra was "competition"? Is that just a talking point for when wingnuts want to get a foothold in a new area? Or when they want to privatize a service that's currently provided by government?

Friend, you are a fine example of the kind of easily-led dolt who fails to see what is right in front of his own eyes: Wal-Mart is the example of the success of competition.

Your masters want to support the unions...which are clearly unpopular with those who think, and know what is best for them, and their families.

And you buy the spin, buy it like was on sale...just not at Wal-Mart.