Wal-Mart Sales Worst in 28 Years

Wal-Mart blamed bad weather last month...

That’s the job I want. Executive vice president in Charge of Excuses. It was too hot. It was too cold. It rained too much. The drought hurt sales. Then there weren’t as many days between Thanksgiving and Christmas as usual and Easter pushed sales into the next month. And my favorite; gas prices!

When gas prices went up Wal-Mart whined it was hurting sales when, in fact, it should have helped Wal-Mart’s one-stop shopping approach. But it didn’t.  Then when gas prices went down it didn’t help sales either.

Now boys and girls, get your popcorn and take a seat. The Nick & Mary Show is about to begin. Today the numerical duo will explain to us why -3.5% monthly sales figure is a good thing!

Ken,

Forget the numbers spin - here’s a little lesson in reality for you, and the rest…

Those same excuses, along with a new one for your quoting convenience, “people in arrears/default on their sub-prime mortgages”, were the reasons for low sales at the following retailers besides Wal-Mart:

<LI>BJ’s Wholesale Club off 2.1 %

<LI>Dollar General off 2.4 %

<LI>Family Dollar off 4.9 %

<LI>Target off 6.1 %

And, surprisingly…

<LI>Whole Foods Market off 11%

The only one in the group who posted an increase was Costco, who was up 7% (most likely because Costco, unlike the other general merchandise retailers mentioned, tends to cater to households that earn at least $50K per year).

Also, just to play fair in bringing the facts to everyone, Whole Foods’ loss was due largely to expansion costs as well as new competition from both WM and Safeway on the organics side.

Sorry, you don’t get a pass from me, this time…

JB

P.S.

The Kmart side of Sears Holdings was down 4.7%

JB

Ken

Jim just A-Bombed your pitiful “argument”. I will address Wal-Mart’s sales decline just as soon as you address the downward trend for the great majority of the retail market. Remember that we were still getting winter weather and snow when stores traditonally stock spring items. And, for once, address the facts, please.

Did Jim ruin your day?

That’s all well and good, Jim, but as you so frequently point out, Wal-Mart is in a league of their own.  When the rest of the retail sector is up, Wal-Mart is down. When the retail sector is down, so is Wal-Mart.

I like it.

I’m glad you didn’t try to persuade us that the -3.5% is meaningless. Leave Nick and Mary a scrap.

Try ..... <u>If this is what you were going for?

Ken,

You know full well I never said anything like that—I have always stated that the “peer group” was Target and Kmart (OK, Whole Foods and the two dollar chains I mentioned might be worthy of debate).

Now, that (and my HTML goof) aside, how about addressing the fact middle-class America was taking all that “easy money” the mortgage companies were passing-out (and the ultimate price that came with it).  If memory serves me correctly, a couple of sub-prime lenders even went bankrupt.
Fasicinating…

So, tell me...how does it feel to get “two pains in the patootie for the price of one”? ;-)

JB

P.S.  Thanks, Nick.

Ken V,

Today, on CNBC, Jim Cramer said that much as he hates to say it, Wal-Mart is starting to move into favor with him!!

From Jim Bunch’s website:
In case you “blog-hoppers” stopped over here before going to “Watching Wal-Mart” by our good buddy “Someone in U.S.A.”, don’t bother…

It seems that sometime, this morning, he made a final post titled “Calling it Quits”...nothing further…

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse.
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Alex,

And what the hell does that have to do with the subject at hand on this thread?

ANSWER:  Nothing!

You’re a real piece of work…

JB

There’s no need to fret, Alex. I may no longer be updating my blog, but I’m not going anywhere. Where else can I go to end my day with a laugh?

And what the hell does that have to do with the subject at hand on this thread?

ANSWER:  Nothing!

Kinda like veering off the subject (negative same store sales at Wal-Mart) and onto Costco or Kroger or “sub-prime lenders”?

Today, on CNBC, Jim Cramer said that much as he hates to say it, Wal-Mart is starting to move into favor with him!!

Jim’s given me a host of gloriously anti Wal-Mart quotes in the past. I’d be interested to see what he feels has changed.  I guess going over a month without a colossal blunder coming out of Bentonville could be considered a good sign.

“There’s no need to fret, Alex. I may no longer be updating my blog, but I’m not going anywhere. Where else can I go to end my day with a laugh?”

Someone in USA
Friday, May 11 at 02:34 AM

Problem is Someone, while you are laughing, others have been in shock because of your disregard for family and life.
You care about big buisiness period.

One of your pearls from the past:

“How exactly does one become a single mother?  It couldn’t be by choosing to lie on her back, could it?  Even then, what’s stopping her from terminating the pregnancy or putting the baby up for adoption?”

“Oh! Silly me! I forgot that Wal-Mart is responsible for unplanned pregnancies. It’s all part of their conspiracy to keep the little people of the world down.”

Someone in USA
Monday, August 28 at 11:00 PM

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Alex,

“How exactly does one become a single mother?  It couldn’t be by choosing to lie on her back, could it?”

If this is not true, how does it happen?  Maybe in Canada, people use different positions!!  There have not been that many emaculate conceptions here in the USA!!  What is important here, is that Wal-Mart had NOTHING to do with that woman becoming a single mother, so why should they be held responsible for rectifying the situation?  Don’t forget, for every single mother, there is a father out there (unless the father died), therefore, it is the responsibility of those two people to raise that child or children, not Wal-Marts!!  It has nothing to do with being family friendly or disregarding family and life, it has to do with putting the burdon where it belongs.  How many single women (not related to you), do you support?  If you say “none”, then where is your respect for family and life?

Bob,

More than anything, the responsibility needs to go back on those thousands of deadbeat dads, out there—it’s all fun and games when these “men” go for a quick roll in the hay, but when the reality hits that a son or daughter is coming in about 7 to 8 months, all of a sudden, daddy won’t touch mommy with a 10-foot pole!

As for Alex, everyone who has been around here a while knows full well that he simply just doesn’t “get it"…

Speaking of those who don’t “get it” (this one’s for you, Ken!), my post, yesterday was underscored by a piece on ABC News, this morning, stating that retailers of ALL stripes suffered from poor sales during the month of April.  And, yes, mortgages did figure-in prominently…

JB

“......what’s stopping her from terminating the pregnancy or putting the baby up for adoption?” ~Someone in the USA

So you are in agreement with Someone?

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse.

Alex has a ‘new’ theory, It’s alright to PLAY, as long as you make Wal-Mart PAY!!  We always thought it was ‘If you play, YOU pay’!!

The point here, is, Wal-Mart did not make that single mom pregnant and should not be held accountable to support her and her bambino!!  Even if she got pregnant in the stockroom, they didn’t have any responsibility for it, in fact, she should then pay them for rent of the store room and getting paid to Screw around, instead of working!!

Let’s see, could it be that you are one of those dad’s that have to pay child support and wish Wal-Mart would pay the mother more so you can feel better when you become a “dead beat” dad?

Bob

Alex is just angry because Canada’s government doesn’t play daddy like our government here in the US. Our socialist government bureaucrats stepped in to replace fathers a long time ago. With abortion on demand, the rise of feminism (feminazis), PC rules, cowardly behavior and the emasculation of men, why do we even need fathers? Men have been shoved aside in favor of the State. What we really need to do is tell people who make babies “you are responsible for this child. You will raise this child and you will support it. You made the decision, now live with the consequences”. No more should taxpayers continue to finance the lazy deadbeats who currently collect welfare. Get a job like other decent people. Oh, there are no jobs? Why, then, does the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have 12 pages of jobs every Sunday? Pittsburgh is not exactly an economic boom town and, yet, 12 pages of jobs. Go get one.

As to you deadbeat dads-take care of your kids. Parents who simply produce a child are not parents. They are sperm and egg donors. It takes a parent to raise a child. You made this child. Now be an adult and take care of it.

I think Alex is opposed to this sort of thing because his behavior could be characterized as less than grown up. As an adult with a child’s entitlement mentality, perhaps he feels unduly burdened with the responsibility of being a parent. Of course, I’m simply guessing here.......

Wow, you people need to get a life.

So Nick you are in favour of abortion or adoption vs. Walmart paying to support a family?

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Alex,

How the hell are you??  Still needling everyone, I see…

Get yourself a new life...you’ve “worn-out your welcome” in this one!

JB

Alex,

“So Nick you are in favour of abortion or adoption vs. Walmart paying to support a family?”

Did you not read Nick’s post?  He said that PARENTS should RAISE their children, he said NOTHING about abortion or adoption!!  How hard a concept is that to understand?  If you buy a car, would you expect your employer to pay for it?  If you buy a house, would you expect your employer to pay for it?  Then why would you create a child and then expect your employer to pay for it?

Like I’ve said before, it’s way over your head and intelligence level to understand these simple concepts!!  I have the feeling your brain is living in LA LA LAND!!  Is your mommy and daddy still paying your way through life?

retailers of ALL stripes suffered from poor sales during the month of April.

Yeah, it looks pretty grim for retailers in general. Price Waterhouse sees it like this:

Retail & consumer companies are constrained in their ability to grow and maintain profit margins as a result of a deflationary operating environment, market saturation, slowing population growth, and more discerning but less loyal consumers.

Perhaps one of you business buffs could explain “deflationary operating environment” for me. We know who to blame for “market saturation” and “more discerning but less loyal consumers” could be laid at Bentonville’s doorstep as well.

”......what’s stopping her from terminating the pregnancy or putting the baby up for adoption?” ~Someone in the USA

So you are in agreement with Someone [asked to Nick]?

he said NOTHING about abortion or adoption!!  How hard a concept is that to understand?  [Bob]

Follow the program Bob.....if you are able.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Alex,

“Follow the program Bob.....if you are able.”

What program is that, the LA LA LAND rationallity program, where there are only 3 choices, 1. abortion, 2. adoption or 3. have ‘Walmart paying to support a family?’!!  What about, not getting pregnant in the first place, if you can’t afford to raise a child or at least making the choice to figure out how to support that child if you do have it?  I think that Someone and Nick were both saying that there are other ways of handling problems other than dumping them off on Wal-Mart.

BTW: When are you going to explain how that ‘living wage’ thing works!!  Or does that only exist in you Fantasy Land, too?

Hey Bob, I will put the Wikipedia ‘living wage’ explaination on this opinion board a hundred thousand times if you are that stupid. Other than that, your are not worth a persons energy.
You can try all you want, but I will be on this board way after you have moved on.  Sorry about your luck.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse.

Alex,

“Hey Bob, I will put the Wikipedia ‘living wage’ explaination on this opinion board a hundred thousand times if you are that stupid.”

You have already told us what a ‘living wage’ IS, what everyone needs to know is how to IMPLEMENT it!!  HOW WOULD IT WORK IN ‘REAL LIFE’?  You can’t tell us, because it is easy to SAY something, but much harder to put it into action!!  For example, I could SAY that the USA should explore the inside of a ‘black hole’ and, I could even tell you what a ‘black hole’ is, but that doesn’t make it easy or even reasonable to do it!!

Bob is getting frustrated again because he is not in control.
No one cares about your homework assignments. If you want to explore your Black Hole Bob, no one really cares. You are not that important.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Bob is getting frustrated again because he is not in control.
No one cares about your homework assignments. If you want to explore your Black Hole Bob, no one really cares. You are not that important.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Wikipedia??????????

Gheez—you just shot yourself in the foot as what little of your remaining credibility goes, Alex!

Enough said.

JB

Alex,

“Bob is getting frustrated again because he is not in control.”

What I’m getting frustrated with is the fact. that YOU bring something up and then refuse to defend your position.  When you don’t back up your statements, it shows that you don’t really know what you are talking about.

“No one cares about your homework assignments.”

What homework assignments, all I have asked you to do, is answer a SIMPLE question, to illustrate that you actually know of what you speak.  When you refuse to answer or try to divert things back at me, all it does, is show that you really DON’T know what you are talking about and have no concept of the reality of things!!

Just remember this, it is the responsibility of the poser to back up his comments, not the one being posed to!!  You are the one who looks like an idiot, if you can’t back up your posts!!

Sorry you couldn’t get my example, just another one of those things that went over your head, I guess!!

Enough said.

Alex, along with the rest of us, know Wikipedia information should be taken with a grain of salt, but if I’m not mistaken, Jim, you’ve referenced it a time or two.

“Let’s see, could it be that you are one of those dad’s that have to pay child support and wish Wal-Mart would pay the mother more so you can feel better when you become a “dead beat” dad?”

Bob in
Friday, May 11 at 02:34 PM

“Just remember this, it is the responsibility of the poser to back up his comments, not the one being posed to!!  You are the one who looks like an idiot, if you can’t back up your posts!!

Bob in
Sunday, May 13 at 02:00 AM

Now is your chance Bob. Back up your comment.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Alex,

“Now is your chance Bob. Back up your comment.”

“Let’s see, could it be....?”, is a Question, not a Comment, I would think the Question Mark at the end, would be a clue of this!!

Okay, YOUR turn, tell us how the ‘living wage’ system would work in the “Real World”!!!

To Joe in Oakland

You are so correct Joe as most of these posters need a life.

Every thread is the same-0, same-0, very little new substance.  Nick, Ken V, Bob, Alex, JB, SDV; one knows their post before it is written.  It goes on and on and no
one changes.  I honestly believe that is why more readers
do not post. 

Is that a fair assessment??  I don’t read the majority of the posts. 

As some know, Wal-Mart publishes their monthly propaganda magazine, called “Wal-Mart World”.  Thus if
we quote WMW on this site: Is it Wal Mart Watch or is
it Wal Mart World.  Interesting acronym!

“Let’s see, could it be....?”, is a Question, not a Comment, I would think the Question Mark at the end, would be a clue of this!!”

Bob in
Sunday, May 13 at 09:08 AM

There is a lot of question marks behind you Bob.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Alex,

Well, I guess we all know now, that you are nothing but “HOT AIR”, no substance and when cornered for a explanation of your comments you are at a loss, because you really have no explanation!!  So, now I know, that that ‘living wage’ thing is not reasonable and nothing but big a joke that is unworkable in any real life situation!!

Bob is slower than most. Sometimes you have to play the message a few times till he understands:

Hey Bob, I will put the Wikipedia ‘living wage’ explaination on this opinion board a hundred thousand times if you are that stupid. Other than that, your are not worth a persons energy.
You can try all you want, but I will be on this board way after you have moved on.  Sorry about your luck.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse.

Alex,

You keep repeating yourself, but still are not saying anthing.  As I have said, a Wikipedia ‘living wage’ explaination, is a definition, not an explaination of how to impliment it.  You need to spend more time in the ‘real world’!!

Bob is slower than most. Sometimes you have to play the message a few times till he understands:

Hey Bob, I will put the Wikipedia ‘living wage’ explaination on this opinion board a hundred thousand times if you are that stupid. Other than that, your are not worth a persons energy.
You can try all you want, but I will be on this board way after you have moved on.  Sorry about your luck.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse.

Alex

You’ve been challenged on the “living wage” issue. Yes, you can provide a Wikipedia definition. But how helpful is that? I can go on Wikipedia and claim a “living wage” is a wage at which you earn enough to buy a McDonald’s Happy Meal each day. Wikipedia is USER maintained.

Why don’t you provide factual evidence that such a system, if implemented, would be fair to all the concerned parties? Why do you believe in this system?

Alex, let me give you an example. You have a wife and two children and your expenses come to $2,500 per month. Your wife does not work. You earnd $30,000 per year, after taxes. At your job, you produce 100 widgets per hour, at maximum ouput, to take home $30,000 per year. Now, you have a third child, and you need an extra $50 per week for expenses. THEN, your sub-prime mortgage increases from $1,000 per month to $1,200 per month. Okay. Should your employer now raise your pay so that you are taking home an extra $5,000 per year? How can your employer pay you $5,000 more per year if you are already producing the maximum 100 widgets per hour? Did the fact that your expenses went up suddenly make you a more valuable employee? What does the employer gain from paying you on the basis of your expenses on not on your productivity or the comparable wages paid to your co-workers?

You see, Alex, if we paid everyone according to need and not productivity, need would skyrocket and productivity would plummet. It is human nature. Human beings can always find another “need”. They have difficulty producing more. When expenses outweigh revenues, you have losses. Think of the living wages in those terms.

Living wage is a term used by advocates to refer to the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. In the context of developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation. This concept differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and may fail to meet the requirements of a living wage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Wage slavery is a term used to refer to a condition in which a person is legally (de jure) voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave. It is used to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled to work in return for payment of a wage. In colloquial terms, this may refer to people that make a cult of work (the extreme case is death from overwork, known also as karoshi), or those who require one to work to be socially acceptable.

In terms used by critics of capitalism, wage slavery is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer merely to subsist.

Wage Slavery can be described as a lack of rights. The only rights you get are the rights you gain on the labor market. If your children cannot make enough money to survive, they starve.

Your choices consist of the workhouse prison, or the labor market.

The rich receive protection from the government in the form of corporate welfare subsidizing them while the poor and working people have to be subjected to market discipline.
However, since those persons within lower income brackets receive subsidies and welfare which are proportionally much larger than what they pay in the form of taxes, this argument is largely a fallacy ---
(assuming, of course, that the lower income brackets are earning a fair share -as opposed to what the market allows -of the wealth they are producing, i.e. they are not being exploited as a result of lack of empowerment or marginalization by the owners of the means of production).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slave

Try working with the content of the material rather than evading it. The Wikipedia source is excellent and has heavy documentation for backup. But it is the actual content and not the source that must be examined.
Evasive attitudes from a propaganda perspective seeks to ignore and cannot refute offered wikipedia definitions.

Reality

Workers are not being exploited today. Not one worker alive produces more than he consumes. Let’s say you have a carpenter. He doesn’t have the skills, or the time, to grow food, build a house, build transportation, clean his sewage, do his laundry, fix the roads, educate his children, write his local newspaper, generate electricity, etc. He trades his carpentry skills for currency, which he then trades for the goods and services he needs to maintain a decent lifestyle. Money is the medium by which we trade. It is a common denominator. No worker today can possibly produce on his own all that is necessary to maintain his life. Workers are not exploited in a capitalist economy. They have freedom of choice, upward mobility and available resources. They can choose not to make babies they can’t afford. They can choose to use taxpayer subsidies to go to college. They can take advantage of government programs to start their own business and be their own boss. We have choice and personal responsibility. People are, for the most part, responsible for their own situation. That is the beauty of capitalism. You have the freedom to improve your situation or not. Nobody forces anybody to work.

“They can take advantage of government programs to start their own business and be their own boss.”

Cool Nick. All of a sudden government programs [that cost the taxpayer] are good because they are helping the business person. If you want less government then how does this add up?

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse

Alex,

From Wikipedia/living wage:

“Critics argue that basic economic theory suggests a mandated minimum price for labor, a “living wage,” is harmful to low-wage workers and increases unemployment. Artificially fixing a price for labor above the market price causes a decrease in the overall demand for labor, leading to increased unemployment and a deadweight loss. Workers who lose their jobs would not receive the living wage. Furthermore, such wage increases can cause inflation, increasing the cost of living and decreasing the relative buying power of the living wage, which leaves the minimum wage earner no better off.

Critics of living wage ordinances assert that the government should not intervene in the marketplace because even well intentioned interventions are usually detrimental to the economy as a whole. Living-wage advocates respond that governments intervene in the market to help businesses through subsidies, tax breaks, and other assistance. While this is true, those who oppose government intervention in the marketplace would also oppose government subsidies, tax breaks, and other assistance to business as one bad economic policy should not be used to justify a second bad economic policy.”

There, I did my homework!!  And, I stand by my first assessment of the ‘living wage’, it doesn’t work!!

Here is an example of what the ‘critics’ suggest as an alternative plan from Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In economics, a negative income tax (abbreviated NIT) is a method of tax reform that has been discussed among economists but never fully implemented. It was developed by Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s and later by United States economist Milton Friedman in 1962. Negative income taxes can implement or supplement a guaranteed minimum income system.

A negative income tax would replace the current progressive income tax system used throughout most of the Western world. This would be replaced by a flat tax of, say, 25%, but each taxpayer would also be given $10,000 by the government. Thus a person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes for a net income of $13,000.
$10,000 + $4000 - $1000 = $13,000 net income (Overall, they would receive a net gain of $9,000 from the government.)
A person making $40,000 would be at the break-even point, essentially paying no taxes.
$10,000 + $40,000 - $10,000 = $40,000 net income
A person making $1,000,000 per year would pay close to the full 25% tax.
$10,000 + $1,000,000 - $250,000 = $760,000 net income

So the government would give everyone $10,000.

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.
Never.

Alex,

Sounds good, but, it would never work, because the system would not generate enough taxes to give out the $10,000 in the first place.  There are not enough people earning over $40,000.00 (the break even point) to support the $10,000.00 for the ones making less than $40,000.00.  Also, if a man and his wife both work (Family A), making say $40,000.00 each, they would get $100,000.00 ($20,000.00 + $80,000.00), yet only pay $20,000.00 in taxes, for a net of $80,000 ($80,000 - $20,000.00 + $20,000.00 = $80,000.00) to support their family, while a (Family B) with one wage earning $80,000.00, would get $90,000.00 ($10,000.00 +$80,000.00), yet pay $20,000.00 in taxes, but, would only NET $70,000.00 ($80,000.00 - $20,000.00 + $10,000.00 = $70,000.00), therefore, each family earned $80,000.00, but (Family A) netted $10,000.00 MORE than (Family B), that’s not fair!!

A straight consumption tax or “Fair Tax”, would be better, “You only pay taxes on what you spend, not what you earn”.  Remember, rich people spend a lot more than ‘poor’ people do!!  This would promote saving, which can create wealth!!

Bob

I also favor a consumption tax. The only problem with any tax is that government holds the power of life and death over us. Current GDP is close to $13 trillion and, even if the government could learn to live with a budget of 10% of GDP ($1.3 trillion), this would still be very expensive. If you figure in at least 6% state sales taxes plus local and county taxes and at least 10% for the feds, each item will run you the base cost PLUS at least 16%. That $20,000 car now costs $23,200. And, of course, everyone will pass along the increase so that inflation goes through the roof.

You also have to consider bartering. What’s to stop a medical group from exchanging services with a legal group so that both groups get their necessary services without paying taxes? If we have to have a tax, I say 15% flat tax on everyone, no deductions for anything. Allow 15% rates for corporations and permit them to take capital investments as a 100% depreciation rate in the year in which they made the purchase. This would be an ongoing expense, not a year end deduction. They could use the depreciation amount to reduce their tax liability. We could also start taxing wages for Social Services at 10%, with 2% to go into personal savings accounts, 6.2% to fund current liabilities and 1.8% to go to a deficit reduction fund. With state taxes, no American would pay more than 30% in taxes.

Not perfect but what choices do we have? A $45 trillion unfunded Social Security/Medicare bill makes this choice for us.

Bob,

“If you buy a car, would you expect your employer to pay for it?  If you buy a house, would you expect your employer to pay for it?  Then why would you create a child and then expect your employer to pay for it?”

Yes, that is why we have JOBS.  We go to work, the employer pays us for our work, and we use that money to buy houses, cars, ect.  If the employer doesn’t pay enough for it (low wages...) then someone else, the taxpayers, will (government handouts).

Tom,

“Yes, that is why we have JOBS.  We go to work, the employer pays us for our work, and we use that money to buy houses, cars, ect.  If the employer doesn’t pay enough for it (low wages...) then someone else, the taxpayers, will (government handouts).”

But, and I know you are going to find this hard to believe, there are actually people who LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, that means that they only buy things that they can AFFORD.  Those types of people, look at their income and budget according to the amount of money they make, and, if they want MORE, they either get a part time job or seek a higher paying job.  I know, that’s an outdated wacko concept, but, some of us still believe in it!!  Then, there is the ‘new’ concept, that says you can buy whatever you want, no matter how much you earn and then try to get your employer to raise your wages to cover it and if that doesn’t work, run to the welfare office.  I sometimes wonder if most people even know what a BUDGET is anymore!!

As for having children, we believe the same principle applies, if you can’t afford them, don’t have them and if you have them, figure out how you are going to support them, don’t push it off onto others to support your family for you!!

Theres an old saying: “Don’t try to live a champagne lifestyle, on a beer budget”!!

Tom

Your employer pays you for your work. You exchange work for money. Your employer does not care about your expenses or your wants. Your employer pays you for the value of your work and you accept the pay offered by the employer as being acceptable. If you claim that you do not make enough money, you have only yourself to blame. You need to look for another job.

Bob made a really good point. Too many people want instant gratification. That is why we have Payday Check cashing joints and Rent A Centers. If you look at a decent Television, you can get a nice HDTV unit for less than $1,000. If you want one, you should save a little each week until you can afford it. However, Rent A Center caters to the instant gratification crowd (mostly low income-no shock there!). These people sign an agreement to pay $40 per week for 2 years for a TV that would cost them $1,000 at Wal-Mart. They think they’re getting a good deal but they are actually paying twice as much for the TV so they can have it now! I would rather save up, pay for the TV and then not worry about making payments. I can delay my gratification. Too many Americans can’t and so they have to blame someone for their situation-Wal-Mart, rich people, the government, etc.

Regarding the wealthy. Most rich people live below their means. Paris Hilton aside, most wealthy people do not spend more than their incomes. That is how they got rich in the first place. I know quite a few very rich people who do not make the Forbes 400 but, nevertheless, could afford their own jet or yacht. However, they drive 10 year old cars and dress in jeans. You wouldn’t know they were rich because the achivement and the security of wealth are more important to them than flaunting it.

“Theres an old saying: “Don’t try to live a champagne lifestyle, on a beer budget”!”
Bob speak for-

Don’t think you can live life and pay your basic bills and work at WalMart.

WalMart- “living wages” is an evil term from people who don’t understand and accept greed, avarice and exploitation of labor as business principles. If you work at WalMart and live in your car, the Waltons thank you!

SDV,

“"Theres an old saying: “Don’t try to live a champagne lifestyle, on a beer budget”!”
Bob speak for-

Don’t think you can live life and pay your basic bills and work at WalMart.”

This may ring true in California, but not so much in the rest of the country.  After all, things are ‘sky high’ in California, probably because of all those highly paid people out there!!  Take gas for instance, it is about 50 to 75 cents a gallon higher than anywhere else in the country.  And, what about rents and house prices, through the roof!!

Evasive attitudes from a propaganda perspective seeks to ignore and cannot refute offered wikipedia definitions.

Nice turn of phrase, RiE!

If Wal-Mart does not pay you enough, then why work there, there are plenty of other jobs.  Wal-Mart has very competive pay compare to other non union jobs.  If you say Wal-Mart pays bad, check out the other grocery store in your neighborhood and ask them how much they start out at.  Don’t reply with hate blogs, just call your local grocery store and ask them how much they start out at, and then call your local Wal-Mart store and ask them.  You’ll see Wal-Mart pays very competivley for the entry-level retail job