They sure wouldn't which is why people who've been educated on business principles go to the SEC and pull a company's Form 10-K to see what they've been up to. I had to pull this one last year for a SWAT Analysis on Walmart and it gets even better if you compare it with the corporate site's data and claims.No, a child would pull numbers out of his ass and declare net gain.
Common sense on P&N? That's not allowed!Sure. When Wal-Mart was growing and expanding and building new location after new location it had nothing to do with Trump. It was a reaction to Wal-Marts success in the retail marketplace. And now that the retail marketplace is being shrunk due to online competition retailers are either streamlining or failing completely (Sears, K-Mart, Circuit City, etc) Only the truly pathetic and delusional would view this as anything but a necessary move to adjust to the fact that RETAIL IS DYING. It was dying long before Trump came along and it will continue to die long after he''s gone. Wal-mart is overbuilt in B&M and needs to adapt, cut underperforming locations and move their operations more in the direction of online order fulfillment or they'll wind up like Caldor, Bradlee's and he rest of the defunct businesses that didn't adapt.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
We learned it from watching Obama hate for 8 years. Except we don't make things up.Common sense on P&N? That's not allowed!
Even when most people dislike Trump intensely you're not supposed to be able to pick your battles! Scream and whine "Trump!" over everything, even when it has nothing to do with him. Somewhere... not sure where and with what type of utter loon... that scores points. Supposedly. Somehow.
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding the distinction between a goal and a method to achieve that goal. If the goal was simply to free up money then nobody would be arguing about the effectiveness of the bill. We are arguing about grammar simply because you seem to want to avoid admitting that the bill's goal is to create jobs, not just increase wages. On top of that, you are simply pulling numbers out of your ass and asking us to just accept them as proof that the overall result of the Wal-Mart action is a net gain. I highly doubt that.
No, a child would pull numbers out of his ass and declare net gain.
I did not imply that I believed that. However, the stated goal of the bill is to do both things. Do you think the bill will accomplish its goal?
You are an idiot.
Ad hom without addressing the subject. You are a master debater.You are an idiot.
Says the guy whose provided quote backs up the other guys claim.
Ad hom without addressing the subject. You are a master debater.
Again, you have trouble with your language. Now you have changed to the word "about." I am not trying to be pedantic here, I am just trying to explain the difference to you between what a goal is and what a method to achieve a goal is. They are very different things and I'll explain why.No, and again you misunderstood. I already disproved your points. Calling you an idiot was to let you know I was done. If you think that tax cuts are not about freeing up money for businesses, and you think that increasing wages is not part of the goal after being provided the quote stating just that explicitly, then you are hopeless.
Again, you have trouble with your language. Now you have changed to the word "about." I am not trying to be pedantic here, I am just trying to explain the difference to you between what a goal is and what a method to achieve a goal is. They are very different things and I'll explain why.
If the Republicans tried to sell their bill by saying the goal was to free up money, who would want that? Free up money for what? Their shareholders? So they can buy more yachts and private jets? No. That is not the goal. The public would have been against the bill even more than they already were. So they say the goal is to create jobs or increase pay, to sell it to the public. Now, how is the bill going to achieve that goal?
1) Free up money
2) ???
3) Raise pay and/or create new jobs (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here and adding in the "or" because it doesn't matter even in the slightest)
Democrats say "Fuck you, 1 does not lead to 3, it is going to lead to stock buybacks and shareholders buying more yachts and private jets."
Republicans say "Fuck you, 1 does lead to 3, we just can't explain the mechanism ???, but fuck you anyway we shouldn't have to explain because it is common sense and you are an idiot for not knowing this."
So here we are with Walmart cutting jobs and you say it is to raise pay for everyone else. And here I am saying the bill was supposed to free up money so that they could raise pay (look at that, another gift to you, I'll even stipulate that the bill was only to raise pay because it doesn't matter) so why do they need to cut jobs to raise pay? The bill is supposed to free up an extra $2B/year for Walmart.
Also you have completely mischaracterized my arguments here. I never once said that I "think that increasing wages is not part of the goal," before or after your link. I never said the tax cuts were not "about" freeing up money, I said that was not the goal. So remember this the next time you want to call me an idiot.
I know, I know...You are wasting your time. He is incapable of understanding the difference between a goal and the process for which that goal is supposed to be achieved and he's incapable because conceding the point means he is wrong. Realibrad is never wrong /s.