Walmart:11-21-06 Wal-Mart slashes food prices in half ahead of Thanksgiving

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And how do you determine the government will actually do it for the public good.

Look at the track record of your favorite Federal government officials.

You're absolutely right, but I also look at the corporate track record and am equally unimpressed.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: bctbct
Reblublicans can spin this however they want, but here are the facts.

"The bill requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state?s Medicaid fund. Of the state?s large employers, only Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care."


Just because Walmart is the only employer that happens to be effected by this law only further illustrates how lousy they are.

Who wins? TAXPAYERS

Walmart provides low income jobs and the state provides healthcare for them.

Shameful that a company can make 10 billion in profits and suck of the teat of the govt.

If they want to make 10 billion I support that, time to raise prices and quit undercutting the competetion.

It would be 15 billion except a 1/3 goes toward taxes, and after everything is said and done, they only net about 3.6% profit. Thats a little less then 3 1/2 cents on the dollar.

They aren't "sucking off the teat" the people whom they higher are. I guess if the state doesn't want to pay for people's health care they don't have to. I just feel the government shouldn't be mandating companies to provide services.

There are things we can change and things we cannot change.

Children and most adults need coverage otherwise the hospitals do not get paid, then they tack it onto your next bill.

We cannot change that they need it, but we can change who must provide it.

You want Walmart to profit off your tax dollars, fine by me, I say we vote because I dont want them to profit off me.

Like i said if you dont' want wal-mart profiting of taxpayers - then take those people of the government dollar. Walmart pays taxes too, 5.5 billion worth - that is a pretty big taxpayer.

In the long run any regulations, restriction, tax will be passed on to the customer.

 

[Jadow]

This interference with the free market is a joke, the state of Maryland has no right telling Wal Mart what their private employee's benefits should be.

If I was Wal Mart, I would take a two pronged approach.

1. Try to fight this in court.

2. If #1 fails, then do some consolidation, close some stores, fire people at other stores, and get below 10,000 people in Maryland. Then let the voters decide how they like paying for unemployment for 7000 workers, AND paying higher prices for food and clothing!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Jadow
This interference with the free market is a joke, the state of Maryland has no right telling Wal Mart what their private employee's benefits should be.

If I was Wal Mart, I would take a two pronged approach.

1. Try to fight this in court.

2. If #1 fails, then do some consolidation, close some stores, fire people at other stores, and get below 10,000 people in Maryland. Then let the voters decide how they like paying for unemployment for 7000 workers, AND paying higher prices for food and clothing!

That's what they will do. Big government schemes rarely work.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The principle of the thing of a state dictating to a company on how they do business in the state.

Wal-Mart should threaten to close those stores within the state and build new ones just across the state lines if the bill stands.

Once the state dictates healthcare to one company; they will get into the mode to do for all companies and then demand additioanl benefits.

Sounds like the Federal method of issuing unfunded mandates to the states.

Agreed.

As much as I despise Wal-Mart, the gov't should be able to tell a business how much they should spend. This is atrocious.

So, I take it that you're opposed to OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, and other government agencies which tell business how to run and where to spend their money. Am I right? Or are you just opposed to business health care spending?

Wow...

So where do YOU draw the line?

I don't really draw a line. I'm all for government regulating business for the public good.

LOL!

What public good? The gov't can now tell the public what they spend. I don't know about you but I've never heard of someone who was forced to work at Wal-Mart. When people are forced to work where they are, let me know, then I'll probably agree with you.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The principle of the thing of a state dictating to a company on how they do business in the state.

Wal-Mart should threaten to close those stores within the state and build new ones just across the state lines if the bill stands.

Once the state dictates healthcare to one company; they will get into the mode to do for all companies and then demand additioanl benefits.

Sounds like the Federal method of issuing unfunded mandates to the states.

Agreed.

As much as I despise Wal-Mart, the gov't should be able to tell a business how much they should spend. This is atrocious.

So, I take it that you're opposed to OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, and other government agencies which tell business how to run and where to spend their money. Am I right? Or are you just opposed to business health care spending?

Wow...

So where do YOU draw the line?

I don't really draw a line. I'm all for government regulating business for the public good.

LOL!

What public good? The gov't can now tell the public what they spend. I don't know about you but I've never heard of someone who was forced to work at Wal-Mart. When people are forced to work where they are, let me know, then I'll probably agree with you.

Wal-mart's benefts policy of leeching off public aid is a waste of public resources. That's the problem.

From the way you talk, a Wallyworld employee is infinitely employable and should have no problem marketing their tremendous skillset to all sorts of other employers. Newsflash: Wal-mart workers work there because they're low end blue-collar workers. Maybe 40 years ago, pre-global wage arbitage, they would have worked at a factory, but now Wal-mart and other crappy service jobs are all they have left.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The principle of the thing of a state dictating to a company on how they do business in the state.

Wal-Mart should threaten to close those stores within the state and build new ones just across the state lines if the bill stands.

Once the state dictates healthcare to one company; they will get into the mode to do for all companies and then demand additioanl benefits.

Sounds like the Federal method of issuing unfunded mandates to the states.

Agreed.

As much as I despise Wal-Mart, the gov't should be able to tell a business how much they should spend. This is atrocious.

So, I take it that you're opposed to OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, and other government agencies which tell business how to run and where to spend their money. Am I right? Or are you just opposed to business health care spending?

Wow...

So where do YOU draw the line?

I don't really draw a line. I'm all for government regulating business for the public good.

LOL!

What public good? The gov't can now tell the public what they spend. I don't know about you but I've never heard of someone who was forced to work at Wal-Mart. When people are forced to work where they are, let me know, then I'll probably agree with you.

Wal-mart's benefts policy of leeching off public aid is a waste of public resources. That's the problem. From the way you talk, a Wallyworld employee is infinitely employable and should have no problem marketing their tremendous skillset to all sorts of other employers. Newsflash: Wal-mart workers work there because they're low end blue-collar workers. Maybe 40 years ago, pre-global wage arbitage, they would have worked at a factory, but now Wal-mart and other crappy service jobs are all they have left.

Sniff sniff...

I smell an incentive to do better somewhere but I just can't find it. /sarcasm

Oh well, let's just leech off the gov't tit. Better yet, let's get the gov't to FORCE them to provide for us, all the while still sucking on the gov't tit. That sounds like a plan!

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The principle of the thing of a state dictating to a company on how they do business in the state.

Wal-Mart should threaten to close those stores within the state and build new ones just across the state lines if the bill stands.

Once the state dictates healthcare to one company; they will get into the mode to do for all companies and then demand additioanl benefits.

Sounds like the Federal method of issuing unfunded mandates to the states.

Agreed.

As much as I despise Wal-Mart, the gov't should be able to tell a business how much they should spend. This is atrocious.

So, I take it that you're opposed to OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, and other government agencies which tell business how to run and where to spend their money. Am I right? Or are you just opposed to business health care spending?

Wow...

So where do YOU draw the line?

I don't really draw a line. I'm all for government regulating business for the public good.

LOL!

What public good? The gov't can now tell the public what they spend. I don't know about you but I've never heard of someone who was forced to work at Wal-Mart. When people are forced to work where they are, let me know, then I'll probably agree with you.

Wal-mart's benefts policy of leeching off public aid is a waste of public resources. That's the problem. From the way you talk, a Wallyworld employee is infinitely employable and should have no problem marketing their tremendous skillset to all sorts of other employers. Newsflash: Wal-mart workers work there because they're low end blue-collar workers. Maybe 40 years ago, pre-global wage arbitage, they would have worked at a factory, but now Wal-mart and other crappy service jobs are all they have left.

Sniff sniff...

I smell an incentive to do better somewhere but I just can't find it. /sarcasm

Oh well, let's just leech off the gov't tit. Better yet, let's get the gov't to FORCE them to provide for us, all the while still sucking on the gov't tit. That sounds like a plan!

Good to know you have such a low opinion of blue collar workers. Make sure you let the plumber know how you feel about him when he comes to unclog your toliet. Also, tell the tow truck driver how you like "his kind" when he comes to tow your car if you get in a wreck.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: bctbct
Reblublicans can spin this however they want, but here are the facts.

"The bill requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state?s Medicaid fund. Of the state?s large employers, only Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care."


Just because Walmart is the only employer that happens to be effected by this law only further illustrates how lousy they are.

Who wins? TAXPAYERS

Walmart provides low income jobs and the state provides healthcare for them.

Shameful that a company can make 10 billion in profits and suck of the teat of the govt.

If they want to make 10 billion I support that, time to raise prices and quit undercutting the competetion.

It would be 15 billion except a 1/3 goes toward taxes, and after everything is said and done, they only net about 3.6% profit. Thats a little less then 3 1/2 cents on the dollar.

They aren't "sucking off the teat" the people whom they higher are. I guess if the state doesn't want to pay for people's health care they don't have to. I just feel the government shouldn't be mandating companies to provide services.

There are things we can change and things we cannot change.

Children and most adults need coverage otherwise the hospitals do not get paid, then they tack it onto your next bill.

We cannot change that they need it, but we can change who must provide it.

You want Walmart to profit off your tax dollars, fine by me, I say we vote because I dont want them to profit off me.

Like i said if you dont' want wal-mart profiting of taxpayers - then take those people of the government dollar. Walmart pays taxes too, 5.5 billion worth - that is a pretty big taxpayer.

In the long run any regulations, restriction, tax will be passed on to the customer.

You dont seem to understand that this is a circle.

Okay cancel all public assistance. The next walmart employee or uninsured family member goes to your local hospital. They have no insurance, they have not public aide and they have no assets. They have an 80K hospital bill that will be divided between the paying customers. YOU

I want this cost passed on to walmart customers. I have nothing to do with Walmart, dont/ wont shop there. The only tie I personally have to walmart? My tax dollars supplement their low payed uninsured employees.

Hospitals will never turn away life threatening injured patients. You and I will pay in taxes or higher medical costs. Time for walmart to be pressured to do what other respectable companies do. Give more afforable insurance to more employees.

Walmart cuts hours so employees are not eligible for insurance to save money! Wake up

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
And how do you determine the government will actually do it for the public good.

Look at the track record of your favorite Federal government officials.

You're absolutely right, but I also look at the corporate track record and am equally unimpressed.

Here is the great thing about the corporate world vs the gov world.

you can choose not to use said corporations product. You can organize a protest and tarnish said corporations image. you can affect said corporations bottom line.

The faceless govt holds the power, you have little choice in the matter.
Exepecting the govt to regulate something for the betterment of society is like execpting Hitler to pardon jews.

 

[raildogg]

Democrats are American heroes now?

Oh right, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Democrats are American heroes now?

Oh right, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.

Republicans are in control so it's "Four legs good, two legs better" now.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Democrats are American heroes now?

Only in Dave's delusional world.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Democrats are American heroes now?

Compared to Republicans, absolutely YES

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: bctbct
Reblublicans can spin this however they want, but here are the facts.

"The bill requires companies with more than 10,000 Maryland employees to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on employee health care or pay the difference into the state?s Medicaid fund. Of the state?s large employers, only Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care."


Just because Walmart is the only employer that happens to be effected by this law only further illustrates how lousy they are.

Who wins? TAXPAYERS

Walmart provides low income jobs and the state provides healthcare for them.

Shameful that a company can make 10 billion in profits and suck of the teat of the govt.

If they want to make 10 billion I support that, time to raise prices and quit undercutting the competetion.

It would be 15 billion except a 1/3 goes toward taxes, and after everything is said and done, they only net about 3.6% profit. Thats a little less then 3 1/2 cents on the dollar.

They aren't "sucking off the teat" the people whom they higher are. I guess if the state doesn't want to pay for people's health care they don't have to. I just feel the government shouldn't be mandating companies to provide services.

There are things we can change and things we cannot change.

Children and most adults need coverage otherwise the hospitals do not get paid, then they tack it onto your next bill.

We cannot change that they need it, but we can change who must provide it.

You want Walmart to profit off your tax dollars, fine by me, I say we vote because I dont want them to profit off me.

Like i said if you dont' want wal-mart profiting of taxpayers - then take those people of the government dollar. Walmart pays taxes too, 5.5 billion worth - that is a pretty big taxpayer.

In the long run any regulations, restriction, tax will be passed on to the customer.

You dont seem to understand that this is a circle.

Okay cancel all public assistance. The next walmart employee or uninsured family member goes to your local hospital. They have no insurance, they have not public aide and they have no assets. They have an 80K hospital bill that will be divided between the paying customers. YOU

I want this cost passed on to walmart customers. I have nothing to do with Walmart, dont/ wont shop there. The only tie I personally have to walmart? My tax dollars supplement their low payed uninsured employees.

Hospitals will never turn away life threatening injured patients. You and I will pay in taxes or higher medical costs. Time for walmart to be pressured to do what other respectable companies do. Give more afforable insurance to more employees.

Walmart cuts hours so employees are not eligible for insurance to save money! Wake up

I just prefer the method of being fair. Only business over 10,000 employees? Why just them. Seems like there are a lot more business that employ a smaller number of people - with a greater total then Wal-marts employees. But theyare except from the rule. Don't they put a strain on the medicare system?

Walmart pays taxes, 1/3 of their profit goes toward them. Apparantly they employee people who can't get work else where - and would then be on the governmetn payroll anyway. Or here is an idea, maybe since government provided healthcare is better, the private, especially in low end jobs - people dont' have an incentive to do better? Like i said - quit offering insurance for free and people will be forced to seek it out.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The principle of the thing of a state dictating to a company on how they do business in the state.

Wal-Mart should threaten to close those stores within the state and build new ones just across the state lines if the bill stands.

Once the state dictates healthcare to one company; they will get into the mode to do for all companies and then demand additioanl benefits.

Sounds like the Federal method of issuing unfunded mandates to the states.

Agreed.

As much as I despise Wal-Mart, the gov't should be able to tell a business how much they should spend. This is atrocious.

So, I take it that you're opposed to OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, and other government agencies which tell business how to run and where to spend their money. Am I right? Or are you just opposed to business health care spending?

Wow...

So where do YOU draw the line?

I don't really draw a line. I'm all for government regulating business for the public good.

LOL!

What public good? The gov't can now tell the public what they spend. I don't know about you but I've never heard of someone who was forced to work at Wal-Mart. When people are forced to work where they are, let me know, then I'll probably agree with you.

Wal-mart's benefts policy of leeching off public aid is a waste of public resources. That's the problem. From the way you talk, a Wallyworld employee is infinitely employable and should have no problem marketing their tremendous skillset to all sorts of other employers. Newsflash: Wal-mart workers work there because they're low end blue-collar workers. Maybe 40 years ago, pre-global wage arbitage, they would have worked at a factory, but now Wal-mart and other crappy service jobs are all they have left.

Sniff sniff...

I smell an incentive to do better somewhere but I just can't find it. /sarcasm

Oh well, let's just leech off the gov't tit. Better yet, let's get the gov't to FORCE them to provide for us, all the while still sucking on the gov't tit. That sounds like a plan!

Good to know you have such a low opinion of blue collar workers. Make sure you let the plumber know how you feel about him when he comes to unclog your toliet. Also, tell the tow truck driver how you like "his kind" when he comes to tow your car if you get in a wreck.

First of all, this thread is about Wal-Mart employees. You're the one who referred to blue-collar workers. You're the one who referred to Wally employees' 'skillset'.

All I'm saying is if they think they aren't getting enough healthcare, no one is forcing them to work there. That is their incentive to do better. But no, they'd rather have the gov't come in and save the day.

I made no blanket statements on blue-collar workers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Couple of questions.

1) Can anyone show the ration of ownership of stock in Walmart by Republicans?

2) What will the Country do once Walmart is the only store left in the Country?

2-8-2006Wal-Mart to Open 1,500 New Stores in U.S.

John Menzer, the company's vice chairman and head of its domestic Wal-Mart stores division, said Wal-Mart was on schedule to meet an announced target

Menzer did not specify a timeline for the new stores. He also did not refer to zoning and permit fights that have erupted in some places where Wal-Mart wants to expand, including big markets such as California where the company has fewer locations than in its traditional bases in the South and Midwest.

"We are really focused on opening new stores right now. We see so many opportunities to open new stores that that's where our capital is going first," Menzer said during a Web cast from a financial conference hosted by Citigroup in Miami.

Wal-Mart opened 69 new stores and Sam's Clubs in January, a company record for one month, it announced last week.

 

[silverghost]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2) What will the Country do once Walmart is the only store left in the Country?

Walmart will never be the only store left in the Country. The finally made it to NorthEast about 10-15 years ago, and when the local walmart opened up, it didnt cause everyone else to go out of Business in the area. I'm sure if you live in more Rural areas like the mid-west it will, but not when you have a popluation center of a million or two spread between two counties like where I live, it won't.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Couple of questions.

1) Can anyone show the ration of ownership of stock in Walmart by Republicans?

Nice to have you back Dave.

The Waltons are active conservatives and have openly campaigned for tax cuts and other conservative issues but they only own about 1% of the company's stock.
Major Wal-Mart Stockholders
Turns out the major bulk of stock ownership in Wal-Mart is held by average ordinary americans in their mutual funds and 401k plans.

If you don't like Wal-Mart do what I do.... Don't shop there.

 

[raildogg]

I doubt people who support Wal-Mart and shot there and associate with it are all Republicans. But yes, since its a huge corporation, you automatically assume they're Republicans.

Go you.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I doubt people who support Wal-Mart and shot there and associate with it are all Republicans. But yes, since its a huge corporation, you automatically assume they're Republicans.

Go you.

Shot there?

Damn, talk about your hectic Black Friday sales. :laugh:

 

[piasabird]

Just go to the mall and you will see the same stores in every mall. Who cares if walmart opens a store and sells the same things for less? Maybe the other stores are ripping you off anyway!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Couple of questions.

1) Can anyone show the ration of ownership of stock in Walmart by Republicans?

Nice to have you back Dave.

The Waltons are active conservatives and have openly campaigned for tax cuts and other conservative issues but they only own about 1% of the company's stock.
Major Wal-Mart Stockholders
Turns out the major bulk of stock ownership in Wal-Mart is held by average ordinary americans in their mutual funds and 401k plans.

If you don't like Wal-Mart do what I do.... Don't shop there.

Thanks, I'll be offline again for a couple of weeks (No Internet access) again.

You forgot to mention the majority ownership by the Chinese.

So you're saying that east of the Mississppi Walmart cannot dominate like they do west of the Mississppi strictly because of raw population numbers?

They are actively trying to pick California apart.

 

[dmcowen674]

2-23-2006 Wal-Mart Offers Improved Health Benefits Reluctantly

BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., under attack for its health care coverage for its employees, plans improvements that would include expanding the availability of its lowest cost plan and shortening the waiting periods to enroll part-time workers and their children.

At the same time, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Lee Scott said Thursday that employers cannot continue to meet the rising costs of health care

Scott is also expected to renew Wal-Mart's criticism of bills filed in at least 22 states that would force the retailer to spend more on health care. Maryland has become the first state in the nation to require Wal-Mart to spend more on employee health care or pay the difference into the state's Medicaid fund. The Retail Industry Leaders Association has challenged the law in court.

"The soaring cost of health care in America cannot be sustained over the long term by any business that offers health benefits to its employees," Scott said in a statement released ahead of the speech to the National Governors Association.

Wake Up Wal-Mart, one of Wal-Mart's harshest critics, called the retailer's attempts to improve its health care plan as "nothing more than a facade."

"Wal-Mart's proposed changes are clearly designed to try and salvage a faltering public image, rather than make substantial changes to improve health care benefits for its employees," said Paul Blank, campaign director for Wake Up Wal-Mart in a statement.

In fact, the labor-backed group released a report Thursday that showed the health care issue at Wal-Mart is getting worse ? Wal-Mart failed to provide health coverage to over 57 percent of its employees last year, up from 52 percent the previous year.
=================================================
So sad

I'm sure if Wally World had it's way that employees would be executed if they got sick.

Just like the mud pits for making bricks back in the Egyptian days. Enjoy

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think Walmart's just a company that wants to earn a profit for its shareholders and is doing a good job of it. I really don't think it's a particularly evil corporation, just a very large and very high-profile one. Hundreds of other retail businesses ("big box stores") are probably in the exact same boat but are shielded by Walmart's drawing all of the attention to itself.

It isn't Walmart per se that wants Americans to suffer a third world existence. Rather, it's our politicians, news media, economists, and various businessmen. Walmart didn't make the immigration laws. Walmart didn't fail to seal the borders and let millions of illegal aliens pour in. Walmart didn't force America to join the WTO. Walmart didn't eliminate tariffs and trade barriers. Walmart doesn't make the laws that govern health care in this country, nor did Walmart prevent the nation from adopting some form of socialized medicine just like most of the other industrialized first world nations.

For the most part, Walmart just follows the laws and trys to make a profit on the playing field that was marked out by the politicians. Instead, blame our politicians, our politcal pundits, our news media, our economists, and our intellectuals for this mess. Also, blame the American populace in general for allowing all of it.