Walmart helps this poor country boy save over one  hundred USD per month.  
Walmart employees who have taken advantage of WMT  stock purchase options and 
matches have perhaps done far better than  Nieman Marcus employees.  I 
personally know WMT employees who have amassed  between one and four million 
dollars 
within 20 years of  employment.  That doesn't include employee discounts on 
food 
and such.  On the other hand, Walmart sucks in obvious ways.  
 
J.
 
 

Nieman Marcus pays it's employees, Wal Mart doesn't. The people at  the
top of Nieman contribute to the poor, the Wall family does not.  etc.

On Dec 14, 8:12 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]>  wrote:
> Hi y'all - I think we've been down this road before about what  the
> "poor" do with their money. I don't for one moment believe we have  a
> fair system - life is not fair. Nevertheless, a poor person's  vote
> counts just as much as a wealthy one in the polling booth. Of  course a
> wealthy person voting with a wallet has more effect on  companies that
> go bust or surivie and this was the root of the debate.  In the present
> economic environment Nieman Marcus is feeling the  pinch. Wal Mart are
> doing very nicely thank you.
>
> On  Dec 14, 9:54 am, "Liz Purkrabek" <[email protected]>  wrote:
>
>
>
> > No.  It's not as small as you  think, and even if it is small, how is it a
> > fair system when  those most likely to benefit from enforcing a change in 
the
> >  system are the least able to effect such a change? The neighborhood I  
grew
> > up in is typical of thousands of others across this country,  and I don't
> > like the idea that it is somehow not significant that  because their 
wallets
> > are empty, they are powerless to "vote"  with them.
>
> > liz
>
> > -----Original  Message-----
> > From:  [email protected]
>
> >  [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of  
Clogtowner
> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:40 AM
> >  To: Memphis Freethought Alliance
> > Subject: Re: WASHINGTON MUST  BAILOUT RETAIL SECTOR
>
> > Hi y'all - I'd like to see an  accurate figure for the percentage of
> > the population who have no  money and are therefore unable to vote with
> > their wallets. I  suspect it would be rather small and entirely
> >  inaccurate.
>
> > On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, ornamentalmind  <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "... For me this is  true democracy. I vote with my wallet. ..." - clog
>
> > >  Typical...equating economics with governance! I know the media keep
>  > > pummeling us with this notion, but, of course, they are two  entirely
> > > different things. IF one even takes one second to  consider the people
> > > who have no money, this becomes  painfully clear. Of course, it is all
> > > too common to ignore  or rationalize this truth.
>
> > > On Dec 12, 10:10 am,  Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >  Hi y'all - yes I do like Wall St. and millions of stock holders. For
>  > > > me this is true democracy. I vote with my wallet. If I don't  like a
> > > > company (or a CEO) I'll sell the stock and if  others do likewise the
> > > > value of the company will be  diminished (unlike the Govt.) If we had
> > > > more stock  holders, we'd have more democracy, and no, it doesn't cost
> > >  > a lot - I can buy or sell any amount of stock for $7. There are
>  > > > brokers who help small investors get started by offering $4  trades 
and
> > > > they will deal in fractions of a  share.
>
> > > > On Dec 11, 9:00 pm, ornamentalmind  <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >  “…If Govt. becomes involved in a business it necessarily sets up a
>  > > > > huge bureaucracy in its own image to
> > >  > > run it. I've seen these grow from nothing - layer upon layer.  It
> > > > > drains the economy slowly and exhaustively.  I've never seen one
> > > > > function efficiently in the  long term…” – clog
>
> > > > > Yeh, sorta like Wall  Street and millions of stock holders. Talk 
about
> > > > > a  huge bureaucracy! And, the government claims to regulate all of 
this
>  > > > > too!!! Capitalism bureaucracy built in it’s own image for  sure.
> > > > > Clearly, the ‘economy’, whatever anyone  wants to mean by the 
term, is
> > > > > drained fully by  CEO’s with BILLIONS of dollars in stock and 
having to
> > > >  > give additional profits to the stock holders. Anyone who wants to  
buy
> > > > > stuff has to pay so much more because of this  grossly inefficient, 
top
> > > > > heavy and greedy  system.
>
> > > > > On Dec 11, 7:12 am,  Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >  > > Hi y'all - "First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in  any
> > business
> > > > > > ‘we’ want
>  > > > > > to be in. ‘We’ set it up that way. There is no  ‘should’ about 
it.
> > > > > > And, ‘we’ in fact have  little to no control over spending. At 
least
> > > > > >  not directly. Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes to
> >  such
> > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this  will become obvious. And, as
> > > > > > contradictory as  it looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘us
’
> > to
> >  > > > > turn a profit! Strange! "
>
> > > >  > > Indeed I have only been in this country for 21 years but I  have
> > > > > > studied the effect of Govt. ovwnership  of business in the Eastern
> > > > > > Bloc, and I've  seen the results. If Govt. becomes involved in a
> > > > >  > business it necessarily sets up a huge bureaucracy in its own  
image
> > to
> > > > > > run it. I've seen these  grow from nothing - layer upon layer. It
> > > > > >  drains the economy slowly and exhaustively. I've never seen one
> >  > > > > function efficiently in the long term.
> > >  > > > We can't say what strings are attached to the Auto deal yet as  
it
> > has
> > > > > > not been completed, but  so far it looks more promising, from a
> > > > > >  taxpayer point of view, than the Bank debacle.
> > > > >  > During the recent collapse of many banks the FDIC (and I don't
>  > > > > > normally praise the Govt.) has done a fine job of  ensuring 
stability
> > > > > > and guaranteeing accounts.  Note the difference in the UK where no
> > FDIC
> > >  > > > existed and we were treated to videos of Building Society  
customers
> > > > > > lined up and screaming for their  money. Eventually the UK Govt. 
were
> > > > > > forced to  step in and offer their version of the FDIC.
>
> > > >  > > On Dec 10, 11:30 pm, ornamentalmind  <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >  > > > > “Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this. Neither the  Govt. 
nor
> > the
> > > > > > > whole  citizenry of this country should be in the car business. 
As
> >  the
> > > > > > > Govt. controls the spending I have  no objections to loans in 
the
> > > > > > > interest  of the country with strings to ensure repayment, and
> > > >  > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt. does a good job of backing up  
our
> > bank
> > > > > > > accounts FDIC (so  far.)
> > > > > > > I do agree about the banks. They  should have been offered the 
same
> > > > > > > deal.”  – clog
>
> > > > > > > Clog, I know you weren’t  born here nor are you old enough to 
know
> > what
> > >  > > > > all has transpired when it comes to such issues here in  the 
US.
> > So, I
> > > > > > > don’t blame  you much for being what appears to be quite naïve.
>
> > >  > > > > First, ‘the Govt.’ (We the people.) can be in any business  ‘
we’
> > want
> > > > > > > to be in. ‘We’  set it up that way. There is no ‘should’ 
about it.
> > > > >  > > And, ‘we’ in fact have little to no control over spending.  At
> > least
> > > > > > > not directly.  Also, there are no real ‘strings’ when it comes 
to
> > such
>  > > > > > > things. If studied long enough, this will become  obvious. 
And, as
> > > > > > > contradictory as it  looks, you now seem to think it is OK for ‘
us’
> > to
> >  > > > > > turn a profit! Strange!
> > > > >  > > Anyway, no, the Govt. (We the people.) do not do a good job  of
> > backing
> > > > > > > up our bank  accounts. Think “Savings and Loan Crisis’. The 
thing
> > that
>  > > > > > > McCain was deeply involved in among  others.
> > > > > > > And, what is ‘common knowledge’  (about the banks) is in fact 
not
> > the
> > > > >  > > reality. IF one reads the 108 pages or so of the first bank
>  > bailout,
> > > > > > > what it said was that the  banks should just take the money and 
buy
> > > > > > >  other banks! It said nothing about helping people and 
businesses
> >  who
> > > > > > > couldn’t get loans. Look it up. Most  of what is presented on
> > corporate
> > > > >  > > TV is half truths at best. At worst, much of it makes the  old
> > USSR’s
> > > > > > > Pravda look like  a comic book!
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 10,  7:25 am, Clogtowner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  > > > > > > > Hi y'all - I can't agree with you on this.  Neither the 
Govt. nor
> > the
> > > > > > >  > whole citizenry of this country should be in the car 
business.
>  > As the
> > > > > > > > Govt. controls the  spending I have no objections to loans in 
the
> > > > > >  > > interest of the country with strings to ensure repayment,  
and
> > > > > > > > hopefully, a profit. The Govt.  does a good job of backing up 
our
> > bank
> > > >  > > > > accounts FDIC (so far.)
> > > > > >  > > I do agree about the banks. They should have been offered  
the
> > same
> > > > > > > >  deal.
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 9,  10:49 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>
> >  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Again, the  notion of nationalization isn't being 
mentioned. I
> > would  be
> > > > > > > > > for that. At least that  way, 'we the people' would get some
> > sort of
> > >  > > > > > > return on our investment. By now, we should own  almost 
every
> > US bank.
>
> > > > > >  > > > On Dec 9, 2:30 pm, Taylor <[email protected]>  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >  <<$70/hr. with no reference to benefits. I >>
>
> >  > > > > > > > > That includes benefits to  *retirees*.
>
> > > > > > > > > >  According to my limited accounting, the benefits that
> > retirees  receive
> > > > > > > > > > should be  expensed as they occurred and not attached to
> > future
> >  > > > > > > > > employees.  I'd like to see this  topic explored in 
greater
> > detail.
>
> > > >  > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2:39 pm, Clogtowner  <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>
> > > > > >  > > > > > Hi y'all - I've just done some further research  on
> > payscales and I've
> > > > > > > >  > > > come up with no solid answer. The UAW (I'd expect them 
 to
> > be biased)
> > > > > > > > >  > > mention $30/hr plus benefits (what do the benefits 
amount
>  > to?) Faux
> > > > > > > > > > > news  and the like mention (I'd expect them to be biased
> > too)  $70/hr.
> > > > > > > > > > > with no  reference to benefits. I suppose the truth is
> > somewhere  in
> > > > > > > > > > > between In any  event, these rates seem rather high to a
> > poor old  Mid
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text  -
>
> - Show quoted text  -


**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Memphis Freethought Alliance" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to