Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
Sorry, but he's right, PoliticalChic. The syndrome he describes is called "price gouging" and it is illegal. It is a violation of law for a firm to undercut the competition on price to create a monopoly and then raise prices (or not...creating monopoly is itself illegal). If the DOJ had any balls, Wal-Mart's would be made to adhere to the law, but they don't.
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....
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....
I am not into protecting outmoded industries. Talk to me about the oil industry in the Gulf and you'll see...if you have skills no longer in demand, retrain, don't look for government to protect your market against the march of time. I also appreciate the compliment on my brains...New York is where I grew up and I still believe, the epicenter of the universe. It cheers me no end to hear there are no Wal-Marts there.
Now...back to our argument. My friend George owns a small stationary and office supply store in Small Town, WV. He makes a modest living and employs two people, feeds another five families with his supplier purchases. There are 15 stores in the business district of this town, ranging from a barber to a clothing store to a grocery.
Wal-Mart's opens and within a year, mebbe six months, all 15 small businesses are closed. Why? Well, we can discuss small town sociological patterns all day but the fact is, they are closed because Wal-Mart's undercut their prices.
Tell me, PoliticalChic, do you really believe George and his neighbors are better off? Will $900 a year compensate any of them for their lost businesses, livelihoods or way of life? No one stopped buying office supplies...they just stopped buying them from George. This slash-and-burn mentality is illegal and unAmerican, and should not be viewed as a "triumph of capitalism".
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.
ANDREW BREITBART: So you're, you're officially not a Libertarian anymore, right? I mean, this position...
MAHER: Well..
BREITBART: ...has run so far from the Libertarian position. Is this, so you admit that you have more of a, you know, European socialist leaning perspective on this issue?
(AUDIENCE LAUGHTER)
BREITBART: Why is that funny?
(The look on Maher's face at this moment said it all)
MAHER: I'm, I'm not afraid, it's not, I'm not afraid to say European socialism works.
FireGod wrote in part:
Possibly, I would like to hear why this is not a good idea though from those who have objections. The only thing that comes to mind is the cost of living would go up across the board, therefore those who are just barley scrapping by now would probably go under.Originally Posted by Liability
However, I will say this much. EVERY person should be "invested" in the Republic and its economy (economies). So, a national sales tax on consumption seems most fair to me. IF I am a rich person (or, to the liberals, one of the evil, greedy "class") then the more I consume, the more I pay. Those who have less, consume less and thus "pay" less in terms of taxation. So there you have it. The "rich" pay more because they consume more and the less affluent pay far less because they consume far less. What could be more fair?
A national sales tax, however it is ultimately structured, also becomes easy to quantify for such things as analyzing the cost of production.
No rational tax pundit supports a regressive tax as a substitute for the income tax, FireGod. A tax is considered regressive when a poor person will pay an effective rate (percent of total income) that exceeds the effective rate paid by a wealthy person. Any form of sales taxation is considered to be regressive.
As a second objection, though much less severe, a consumption tax would be far too easy to avoid merely by buying overseas.
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.
I agree with PoliticalChic. There's not much doubt conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do, presumably because they believe in the good works and liberals tend to see the solution as governmental.
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.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
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.
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,
I made no attempt to counter whatever you wrote because I haven't read it! I'm not going to read 15 paragraphs of mind-farting, trying to discern whatever point you imagine you are making.
This is a message board, not the book-of-the-month club.
and I am easily able to prove that the right actually believes in charity and helping the less fortunate.
Dismissed.
Who gives a fuck? This thread isn't about charitable giving, numbnut.
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.
I agree with PoliticalChic. There's not much doubt conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do, presumably because they believe in the good works and liberals tend to see the solution as governmental.
"liberals tend to see the solution as governmental. "
And this just in, showing just how effective that governmental solution is:
"Rebuilding money is promised but hasnt arrived in Haiti
The Associated Press
More News
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti | Nearly nine months after the earthquake, more than a million Haitians still live on the streets between piles of rubble.
One reason: Not a cent of the $1.15 billion the U.S. promised for rebuilding has arrived.
The money was pledged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March for use this year in rebuilding. The U.S. has already spent more than $1.1 billion on post-quake relief, but without long-term funds, the reconstruction of the wrecked capital cannot begin.
On March 24, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $2.8 billion in emergency aid to Haiti. The heart of the request was $1.15 billion in new reconstruction funds.
A week later, Clinton touted that figure at the U.N. secretariat, the president of Haiti at her side.
If the effort to rebuild is slow or insufficient, if it is marked by conflict, lack of coordination or lack of transparency, then the challenges that have plagued Haiti for years could erupt with regional and global consequences, Clinton said.
That was nearly six months ago."
Read more: Rebuilding money is promised but hasn’t arrived in Haiti - KansasCity.com
FireGod wrote in part:
Possibly, I would like to hear why this is not a good idea though from those who have objections. The only thing that comes to mind is the cost of living would go up across the board, therefore those who are just barley scrapping by now would probably go under.
No rational tax pundit supports a regressive tax as a substitute for the income tax, FireGod. A tax is considered regressive when a poor person will pay an effective rate (percent of total income) that exceeds the effective rate paid by a wealthy person. Any form of sales taxation is considered to be regressive.
As a second objection, though much less severe, a consumption tax would be far too easy to avoid merely by buying overseas.
The second objection while valid has little merit with those that live a distance from a border IMO.
My original premise is also regressive to the nth degree however that in itself does not make it wrong. On the premise that capitalism is the best model bar none then regressive taxation no matter the form is a good thing as it seems that most feel that taxation is a good motivational tool for economic stability for the individual and those who run the economy.
I agree with PoliticalChic. There's not much doubt conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do, presumably because they believe in the good works and liberals tend to see the solution as governmental.
"liberals tend to see the solution as governmental. "
And this just in, showing just how effective that governmental solution is:
"Rebuilding money is promised but hasnt arrived in Haiti
The Associated Press
More News
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti | Nearly nine months after the earthquake, more than a million Haitians still live on the streets between piles of rubble.
One reason: Not a cent of the $1.15 billion the U.S. promised for rebuilding has arrived.
The money was pledged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March for use this year in rebuilding. The U.S. has already spent more than $1.1 billion on post-quake relief, but without long-term funds, the reconstruction of the wrecked capital cannot begin.
On March 24, President Barack Obama asked Congress for $2.8 billion in emergency aid to Haiti. The heart of the request was $1.15 billion in new reconstruction funds.
A week later, Clinton touted that figure at the U.N. secretariat, the president of Haiti at her side.
If the effort to rebuild is slow or insufficient, if it is marked by conflict, lack of coordination or lack of transparency, then the challenges that have plagued Haiti for years could erupt with regional and global consequences, Clinton said.
That was nearly six months ago."
Read more: Rebuilding money is promised but hasn’t arrived in Haiti - KansasCity.com
Did we annex Haiti whilst I was out?
The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda known as flooding, which consists of burying the voters in an avalanche of bogus information which appears to be factual. This technique is effective because the average person has neither time nor inclination to closely examine the individual components of these overhelming chunks of misinformation in an effort to find the revealing flaws.[...]That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity.[...]
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.
Obviously you are an idiot with reading disabilities or are twisting my post. I did not say he said he was a Marxist, I said he is a Marxist & loves to tell us the new rules he wishes to impose weekly on us. What a fucking disaster it would be for people to live under that kind of ever changing dictatorship. Yet you idiots applaud it every time.
Bill Maher: Not a Libertarian but European Socialist. Here is the VIDEO
ANDREW BREITBART: So you're, you're officially not a Libertarian anymore, right? I mean, this position...
MAHER: Well..
BREITBART: ...has run so far from the Libertarian position. Is this, so you admit that you have more of a, you know, European socialist leaning perspective on this issue?
(AUDIENCE LAUGHTER)
BREITBART: Why is that funny?
(The look on Maher's face at this moment said it all)
MAHER: I'm, I'm not afraid, it's not, I'm not afraid to say European socialism works.
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.
The most effective weapon in the right wing's arsenal is the technique of disseminating deceptive propaganda known as flooding, which consists of burying the voters in an avalanche of bogus information which appears to be factual. This technique is effective because the average person has neither time nor inclination to closely examine the individual components of these overhelming chunks of misinformation in an effort to find the revealing flaws.[...]That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity.[...]
Normally the prospect of dissecting the multiple elements of your often imposing presentations is a discouraging challenge, which you might perceive as relative success. Perhaps sufficient success to cause you to think you could get away with portraying a diabolical scoundrel like Dick Cheney as a generously charitable humanitarian. But in this rather audacious attempt to score a point you have over-shot your mark and have succeeded only in completely blowing your credibility.
Dick Cheney -- a good and charitable man? I'm sure even you must agree that is taking it a bit too far:
"Cheney's shady charitable contributions net $2 million refund.
Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:54:45 AM PDT
Last week, ***** Cheney released his 2005 tax return, and while this type of thing doesn't generally make waves in the news unless it is a Democrat who is releasing the return, there was something that jumped out at me which prompted me to do a bit of digging, where I found this snippet that led me to do a bit more digging.
Being the tax geek that I am, I noticed something that caught my eye as, shall we say, "interesting." Charitable contributions in excess of $6,800,000 on income of just under $9,000,000? For those who are not familiar with tax rules, let's just say that this is a very high -- an unusually high number.
While this is not illegal, by exploiting a loophole in the Katrina tax relief laws passed regarding charitable donations, Dead Eye Dick was able to obtain a refund of at least $1,000,000 MORE than he would be able to get in any other year.
The best part? None of the charities were Katrina related at all."
More below:
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
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.
You probably long for the days when AT&T/Ma Bell controlled all the telephone communications, and it cost an arm and a leg to make a long distance call.
Although, the more I (attempt to) read your posts, the more I come to believing that you weren't even alive until the cellphone age, and think Ma Bell was a person.
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.
You're funny.
And you buy the spin, buy it like was on sale...just not at Wal-Mart.
Oh, I do plenty of shopping at Wal*Mart, and used to do even more before Costco came to town. But they have had a detrimental effect on our freedom of choice, along with contributing to unemployment and lower wages by hurting small business.
