Carol Platt Liebau: A Different View of Wal-Mart

Thursday, December 15, 2005

A Different View of Wal-Mart

According to this Pew poll, a lot of Americans seem to like Wal-Mart just fine.

Any comment, John Zogby?

12 Comments:

Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Facile.

Still wondering why you never address the issues of the working poor, of the increasing difficulties they face while their employers "opt out" of providing health coverage and other benefits, their government opts out of assisting them via Medicaid and food stamps, and you and others opt out of heeding the voice in your head that says, 'This is wrong.'

Why do you avoid the central issue, Carol, while busily flitting around its edges, tapping away with that tiny chisel of yours?

9:56 PM  
Blogger Goat said...

I'm as everday american as it gets and Walmart generally has everything I need in one stop, a guy bonus. For special needs we get to go to our toy stores and drool for a while while getting what we need to finish that chore list. The campaign against Walmart is a union driven effort and noting more than that.

10:23 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Not sure if convenience makes everything OK. The institution of slavery used to be a one-stop shop for employers too.

10:35 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

They are hiring at Wal-Mart! Men with shotguns are forcing passers-by into the store to sign on. Quick, Duke, call out Ted, Hillary, and John and all the other leftwing heros to save the unwashed masses from this evil giant!

No, wait - how was it written in the best seller, "Do As I Say?" - about Michael, Al, Nancy, and company who scream for 'equality' and then don't hire or pay union scale? Shoot their movies in Canada to escape our pay requirements? "Do As I Say, Not As I Do!" Yeah, that's the ticket!

You're right, goat, it is a union (socialist) driven plot to defeat capitalism. Perhaps the company should be doing more for the employees for their devotion, but no one is forcing them to work there - and they know the conditions of employment when they apply. (That's why I refused the job when looking there.) If WalMart couldn't hire anyone because of the low wages, they would be forced to raise pay to get employees to come to work there. DUH!

6:41 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

All hail the plutocracy! Let us bow and kiss the hands of the magnanimous Waltons without whom our economy would collapse.

7:42 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

duke-stir:

Do you believe the "working poor" have any responsibility whatsoever for themselves?

Do you think the answer to everything is government mandatated and/or paid for benefits?

That's not the American dream, that's the communist/socialist fantasy!

7:42 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Of course the working poor have responsibilities for their own well-being.

Tell me, Greg, how you would meet all of your responsibilities with the $10,700 (gross) you got paid for a full year at full-time. Sure, the cost of living is less in the heartland where the minimum wage is more prevalent. But gas, transportation, and healthcare cost pretty much the same everywhere.

Again, the Republican Congress continues to refuse to increase the minimum wage in their usual deference to corporations (more sacred than any cow in India). "We can't hurt businesses! They can't afford it! People will lose their jobs!" Blah, blah, blah. None of that ever comes to fruition, of course.

So what does the single mother do? Huh? Do you care? I'm sure it's all her fault for being uneducated or for having kids. Let's just ignore it; it'll go away.

Oh, and here you go Walton family, here's that tax cut we promised.

8:23 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

I'm not surprised you don't understand, Duke, most socialists don't.

And, yes, the minimum wage increases will hurt business, especially the small mom n pop businesses that cannot afford your exorbinent union scales. More of them go out of business every time the minimum wage is raised. That equates to more on the unemployment line and more taxes we have to pay to support them. On the bright side, you'll then be able to blame Bush for a sagging economy.

And not to sound unfeeling, but how about some of your unwed mothers saying "NO". If you can't afford children, maybe you should put off sex until you can, or have a husband to help support them.

Blah, blah, the divorce rate is atrocious and that is one reason for single moms, I know. Probably Bush's fault also! But there is child support, etc, and there are training programs that can be attended to get better jobs. Problem is today more people want others to provide rather than to provide for themselves. They're intellectually, and physically LAZY. Socialists cannot get it thru their head that when you have give aways, you get more who want the freebys. Look no further than the Massachusetts Bay colony that tried the socialist method - they almost starved to death! But you wouldn't know about that, would you, duke. You want cradle to grave government intervention. Shouldn't you have been born in Communist Russia?

8:56 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Shouldn't you have been born in Nazi Germany? Then you could haul all of the non-productive riff-raff off to be gased or deported.

I know in your perfect world everyone is able to swim, and if they can't then they should sink and drown and be off your hands. Out of sight, out of mind.

And as for my view, you can call it socialism if you like (that's the way you pinheads like to frame things, in the most extreme terms possible), but it beats the 90/10 rule, like in Mexico, where 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth, and vice versa. That's where we're inexorably headed with the greedy plutocracy Uncle Toms like you are slavingly devoted to defending.

12:03 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

Ah, duke, your true nature surfaces by name calling. Your view of government can't be defended logically so you call names and avoid the issues. Oh, wait! You address the issues with your emotions. Emotions always work over reality. And if not, call names. That's the intellectually lazy method.

Actually, you are in the extreme, wanting to keep the poor on welfare without a hope of rising above. Maybe you one of the warfare poor? Is that why you want fedguv to provide more?

And BTW, we're in America, not Mexico. A little geography lesson here. Our government is SUPPOSED to be a republic, (government by law and restriction - not majority) not a democracy - which our founders knew would bring on the chaos we have today, and worse if we don't wake up!

12:29 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

"Actually, you are in the extreme, wanting to keep the poor on welfare without a hope of rising above. Maybe you one of the warfare poor?"

(First of all, what is the "warfare poor"? How Freudian.)

I have said nothing about keeping the poor on welfare, Pete. That's your selective hearing kicking in. What I am talking about -- and have been talking about -- is EITHER government enforcing a LIVING wage OR stepping up to help fill the gap between their income and the basic things that we all need.

Again, you and others continue to skirt the issue (and call names, like "socialist") while ignoring the not-so-rhetorical question of how you would manage to pay for transportation, housing, utilities, clothing, food -- CHRISTMAS GIFTS? Are those allowed for the poor? -- with $5.15 and hour?

But you don't care. Just as I predicted, it's the single mother's problem for not saying 'No' to the father whose birthright it is to put it wherever he wants and then walk away. Very telling.

Oh, and thanks for the geography lesson and the intellectually lazy avoidance of my point that the gap between the richest and poorest Americans is growing exponentially.

1:05 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

Talk about twisting what is said, duke - you're a champ! Ideed, REALLY good! Like where did I EVER say the the father has a "birth right" to walk away from responsibility? Talk about selective hearing!

I must apologize for the delay in response to your latest attack - but I have been searching diligently through our Constitution trying to find where it says it is fedguv's responsibility to insure you eat or even have a place to stay! THAT, my friend, is socialist thinking. You do know the difference between "promote" and "provide", don't you? Just in case your education was in a government school, "promote" means to encourage (no financial requirement here), "provide" means to use financial resources for a purpose (like national defense).

Therefore, "promoting" the general welfare is diferent then "providing" for the national defense. Hope that doesn't hurt the brain too much. No one wants anyone to go hungry or without basic necessities - that is what charity is all about, and, of course, personal responsibility. Charity used to be able to care for the down and out much better than guv-givaways. That was long ago before the bleeding hearts took over. Now the only solution offerred by your kind is more money.

We see how good that works in our educational field. Since the 60's, we have spent billions on the system and it only gets worse and we have more functional illiterates than ever! It doesn't help that we have also taken God out of the equation! Yeah I know, separation of church and state!

Your assignment, Mr. duke, IF you chose to accept it, is to show me where in the Constitution the "Wall of Separation" is identified. Please. And good luck!

5:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google