The propagandized version of every topic is what is being fed to the radical conservative base because they eat that shit up. And if you think it's so absurd, point out ONE of the things I mentioned, and I will find you multiple Republican politicians who said the exact same thing. You're either handwaving that sad fact away or haven't been listening close enough.
You've never taken an econ class.
I have eyes.. But hey, feel free to explain your expertise.
And this is somehow different and worse than simply referring to them as "the rich" (something you and this inane subreddit does perpetually)?
Calling them the rich is calling them what they are. They are, by all objective measure, the rich, wealthy class in society. Calling them job creators is an artful political reframing to make them appear to actually be our wonderful benefactors. This should be blatantly obvious, and as such a perfect example of the deception so interwoven in political discourse that is specifically designed to get people to think and vote a certain way.
And would the workers be better off or worse off without walmart? Would the taxpayers be better or worse off without walmart? Is walmart preventing these workers from earning more money? No. What exactly are you proposing?
Walmart is a poster child of corporate welfare. The 6 person Walton family has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans combined. Meanwhile, they cost taxpayers over $6 billion a year because they do not give enough hours and pay for a living wage. Because of the size of their operations and volume, they get the cheapest prices possible. If a Walmart appears in a shithole neighborhood that has no vibrant local business, it will help. If, like the vast majority, Walmart appears in a small town locale with a variety of small businesses, it will be able to undercut those businesses, and never really have to worry because of it's massive capital to rely on until competition dies. So yes, it would hurt workers by killing jobs or making them low-pay with high turnover. I side with FDR when he said "...no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. ...by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
Given to them by the government. Yet here you are arguing in support of someone who wants to, wait for it, increase government powers.
Telecom or utility monopolies are given in exchange for heavy regulation. And monopolies are regional, not national. If that weren't the case, the Bell System wouldn't have been broken up in 1982. The stipulations that many of the telecom companies now face, like expanding infrastructure in exchange for subsidies, hasn't happened. Well, taking the subsidies happened. Why bother building when you can just pay for lobbying.
As well they should be, its called diligence...
Yes it's called due diligence for welfare recipients, and no diligence for tax loopholes for companies or the very wealthy. Where were the regulators who kept telecoms like AT&T and Verizon from taking subsidies and then not expanding infrastructure? What about the regulations that are supposed to make sure big banks don't skewer the economy again? Because it seems more like those entities are having an easier time using their own lawyers to draft bills before hanging them to Congress to actually pass it. Let's not forget the state level, where attorney generals are regularly courted by lobbyists as well to guard against legal exposure.
Also, to go back to Walmart, there are some nice tax loopholes their absurdly overpaid executives make use of to the tune of $104 million. For chrissakes, Romney, who declared 47% of Americans to be takers, uses a tax haven in the Caymens.
But hey, since you think it's the "Welfare queens" that need to taken to task because that hundred dollars in SNAP funds a month is just exorbitant. You must love this graphic. But I'm the one who only knows the propagandized version, and that's not biased or exaggerated at all, amirite?
his has been hyperbolized by the left but by all means continue.
Hyperbolized by the left? Why don't you look at these videos and tell me where the hyperbole is coming from. Because it's pretty damn obvious.
That's not the issue at all.
It is the issue, because it's more bullshit.
