I'm not jealous. I'm irritated my taxes go to their workers. Those workers make the Waltons billions, while not making me anything. The Waltons should be providing for them. All they are doing is increasing the size of government. Why do you worship that?
In actuality, you are FINE that "your" taxes go to help "support" anybody in alleged "need." This is why you and your mindless liberal ilk keep spending massive fortunes of money we and our posterity don't have and likely never will raise to do just that.
The POLICY is what's stupid.
You are trying to hone a silly vapid talking pointless. I realize folks who might be a shade sharper than you are discuss this sophistry at places like the Daily Kos. But just because the jackasses there happen to agree with one another doesn't make their position a worthy one. And a weak sauce proponent such as you lacks any hint of the persuasive powers which would be needed to try to sell that pablum.
Employees at the Walmart stores are called employees BECAUSE they have JOBS. When they get better educations, more training, or more proficient at their jobs (and given some experience and seniority) they can get better jobs AT Walmart or elsewhere. (i.e., Better
paying jobs or however THEY define "better.")
Again, the FACT that the Waltons have made tons of money is none of your freakin' business.
And what the employees at Walmart or at any other job make is THEIR business or their Unions' business (if they are unionized), not your business.
Yes it is my business. If we want small government the employer has to provide for employees. The Waltons make billions for their labor, not me. Walmart should be providing, not the tax payer.
that is a matter between "the Waltons" and the employees of Walmart. It remains exactly and precisely NONE of YOUR business.
If we want smaller government, the government should refrain from assuming the obligation to supplement the income of folks who have struck bargains with employers. Again, the ISSUE is that the Government is playing the role of nanny to the people and this was NEVER one of their responsibility or actual authority. This is a Constitutionally-LIMITED Republic.
If we collectively agree that the Government has some Constitutional authority or obligation to provide for the income needs of employees (over and above what they bargain-for with their respective employers), then there ought to be something in the Constitution (not the Preamble, by the way) which grants such authority TO the Federal Government.
Go find it.
Well we vote in this country. What are you going to do cut welfare? That will tank the economy and next election it would be back. If you want to show people they don't need gov they need to be able to get a good job. Walmart is our largest employer and many of their jobs pay so little workers collect welfare. Our wages are stagnant. If there were great jobs out there waiting to be filled they wouldn't be stagnant.
Notice how the very mention of the prospect of "cutting welfare" is spoken-of, by your ilk, with such horror.
Yes, I think the time has come to address the many significant problems this country has with 'welfare." Corrections are needed. Means testing seems appropriate. CUTTING the amounts doled out --while inducing horror in you --
is another in a laundry list of possible options which should be up for discussion.
The workers at Walmart, for the most part, are not exactly the highest skilled employees in our economy. One might imagine that lots of people having jobs BECAUSE of Walmart would be viewed as being a GOOD thing. But no. To you forever whining libbies, instead we hear endless carping about the low wages.
What part of low skilled work equates in your feeble mind with a right to higher wages, generally?
Have any of you economic illiterates managed yet to grasp that
if "Walmart" were to suddenly (and very artificially) elevate the wages of its MANY employees, then the cost of the goods Walmart provides to the public (i.e., the consumers) would have to also go up? Demand would be expected to then drop. With the lower demand, to remain competitive, Walmart might have to send many of its employees to the unemployment line.
This is a predictable outcome, but its okay with you and your fellow economic illiterate liberal sheep pals as long as Walmart employees derive a temporary benefit of higher wages. [It might not be AS good for the Walmart employees who then lose their jobs BECAUSE YOU imagine YOU have some right to have a say in what THEY make with THEIR employer.]
