Wal Mart gets political

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Think Wal Mart is going to use thier new political buying power to help thier employees? Yeah Baby! Goldman Sachs! (Holy Sheet!) combines with WalMart..thats 2.6 milion compared to labors 1.7 mil. (don't know SBC). Who's gonna get the legislation they want?? Who's your daddy?


Wal-Mart widens political reach, giving primarily to GOP
By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY
Wal-Mart (WMT), the USA's biggest company, is beefing up in a new area: politics.

Wal-Mart is No. 2 among top campaign givers in the 2004 federal elections.
By Robert E. Klein, AP

It has rocketed to No. 2 among top campaign givers in the 2004 federal elections. Four years ago, it didn't rank in the top 100, says the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group.

BIG SPENDERS
The five biggest campaign donors in the 2004 elections1:

Goldman Sachs — $1,598,230

Wal-Mart — $1,014,600

Laborers union — $875,230

SBC — $852,071

Machinists/aerospace workers union — $810,700

1 — As of Nov. 1, 2003
Source: Center for Responsive Politics

Republican candidates are the big winners in this year's election. They received about 85% of the company's contributions, including those of its political action committee, employees and children of founder Sam Walton.

Wal-Mart's rise is significant because of the impact it might have on congressional debates about health care, labor and other hot-button regulatory issues, says Larry Noble, the center's executive director. "They're clearly making a move," he says.

The company has more than $250 billion in annual revenue. (No. 2 is General Motors, with $187 billion in annual revenue.) Wal-Mart is also the USA's biggest private employer, with 1.2 million workers.

But unions say Wal-Mart's push to keep costs low is driving thousands of factory jobs overseas. It's facing a potentially costly sex discrimination lawsuit from female workers. Plus, a federal grand jury is investigating claims that Wal-Mart cleaning companies used illegal immigrants.

Wal-Mart denies the sex discrimination claims. It says it is innocent in the case of illegal immigrants. Still, the growing criticism has tarnished the company's image, and helped spur its leap into Washington. "Our voice wasn't there to be heard," says company spokesman Jay Allen.

It's now being heard through:

•Campaign donations. Wal-Mart's political action committee and employees have given about $1 million in the 2004 elections so far — almost entirely to congressional candidates. Just $5,000 went to President Bush, and none to Democrats seeking the White House — a trend underscored Monday in campaign finance data released by the center. Bush's No. 1 donor to date: Merrill Lynch's (MER) PAC and employees. They gave $432,104 of the $132 million Bush raised. Wal-Mart gives to pro-business candidates, without expectations, Allen says. "There are no quid pro quos," he says.

Walton's children are big givers, too. Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton last year gave $25,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. His brother, John Walton, gave more than $150,000 to Republican causes since 2000. Their sister, Alice Walton, gave more than $100,000 in the same period.

•Lobbying. Wal-Mart has five staff lobbyists in Washington — up from one when it opened its office there in 1999.

 

[DoinTime]

Great....even our guberment is going to become Walmartized.

 

[Capt. Tex]

Wal-mart can't be the largest retailer in the world unless they have a republican administration in place that will make sure that their employees will never have the right or the opportunity to organize you know.

 

[Dubya]

Do you know the best time to shop at Wal Mart?
During a Nascar race. (or WWE Smackdown)

 

[FN FAL]

I heard that walmart white box 9MM is relatively cheap in quantity purchases, but there is an issue with using it through your suppressors. Seems the ammo causes baffle erosion.

I suppose a democrat wouldn't have those problems.

 

[DoinTime]

Do you know the best time to shop at Wal Mart?
During a Nascar race. (or WWE Smackdown)

Or a Republican campaign rally.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Wal-mart can't be the largest retailer in the world unless they have a republican administration in place that will make sure that their employees will never have the right or the opportunity to organize you know.

CaptTex, what state is home to Walmart HQ? Arkansas is the answer. Also, who was the guv during Wally's rise to the number one retailer? Answer Bill Clinton. What "prominent" senator has close association with Walmart? Answer, King Hillary. Need to add some truth to your objectivity.

Wonder how many union members shop at Wal-Mart to save a buck?

Yes, there is some truth to the NASCAR joke. Also think Jerry Springer recruits the customers. I loathe Wal-mart because of their bully tactics and their peddling of Chinese, et.al. merchandise. Target isn't much better as far as the merchandise they peddle but they don't seem to bully the vendors and the local folks as bad. Wal-Mart is "successful" because we, the consumer, allow them to be. No different than drugs or porn being popular. There has to be someone willing to give them the business. If there wasn't then these things would fade away.

Bottom line is both parties are anti labor just in different ways. Neither care about the American worker except to extract tax money to feed their unsatiable appetite for power and control.

 

[merikeyegro]

...

...the difference is that Democrats at least have the stones to advocate taxes. The Republicans need the money to fund their thristy spending programs but don't want to be labeled as the tax-and-spend party. So, they just lie and say that they're "conservative" and babble on about reform and workers and blah blah blah. They've become a party of lies.

I'm a libertarian and a registered Democrat. Anyone see the problem with this? I do. That's how (#%$(#&$ up the Republican party has become. I'm supposed to be a conservative.

It's a sad day when Dems advocate balanced budgets and Republicans are advocating higher spending...Yay, GWB!!!

 

[Dubya]

Gimme a break

The Dems advocate a balanced budget! and they don't lie, sure sure Ralphie. That is funny stuff. This people in this country are taxed enough. The Dems want to create more govt. programs, more handouts, and tax the snot out of us. The only way they come close to balancing the budget is with magical pens. The republicans and their thirsty spending programs? Are you serious? Put down the crack pipe and step away.

 

[avbug]

Unless you're using titanium or carbon fiber, everything causes baffle erosion...and that goes for the titanium if you use it long enough, too. Clean and wet. Clean and wet.

Walmart white box is Winchester, and it seems that for cycling reliability, it's always been bottom of the barrel, literally. That, and the UMC spinoff.

 

[bart]

It's a sad day when Dems advocate balanced budgets :

Boy that is rich, are you stupid enough to believe it?

They advocate it, but have they ever done it? When they controlled the Congress and the White House, they invented deficit spending. It is only when Newt Gingrich was leading the House that we had a balanced budget in our lifetimes. Though the liar in Chief took credit for it, his budget proposal would have caused plenty of red ink, Newt killed it.

I think the JFK tax cuts may have brought about a balanced budget as well, I will research it and let you know.

In the meantime, read your history.

 

[DoinTime]

A little bit of trivia

They advocate it, but have they ever done it?

A gold star goes to the FlightInfo member that can name the only President to present a balanced budget to Congress since 1969.

or

Name the only President to have back to back yearly budget surpluses since 1957.

 

[avbug]

Dave, played by Kevin Kline. If he ever runs for top dog, he has my vote.

The only real president to present a balanced budget was William Cohen Abarnathy Jr., President and CEO of Jamison Bakery on South Lewesky Street, Chicago, 1978. It wasn't enough, as the bakery folded the following winter during the Great Flour Strike of 79.

Back then we had to grind up pencil lead and old, hard donuts to get our flour. And we were grateful...

 

[merikeyegro]

...

...and I suppose your boy wonder GWB will balance the budget? Who has created the greatest expansion of federal bureaucracy since Johnson? Yup, your boy wonder. As I said, I can resepct the fact that at least Reagan TRIED to shrink gov't (while still spending too much). GWB hasn't even given it a shot. Clinton brought in more than he spent along with, yes, a Republican Congress. They got it right. This president, along with his Republican Congress, has managed to plunge us into debt by INCREASING SPENDING by 8% per year. Hell, I read a book awhile back that said, globally, federal budgets tend to increase 10% per DECADE when under the control of a liberal congress. This comes from places like France, Sweden, Canada, and Germany. Woudn't you think that the GOP, with their unforgiving propensity to cut spending and taxes, would cut us to profitability? I find the paradox quite astounding.

Take care.

 

[DoinTime]

....I will research it and let you know.

In the meantime, read your history.

You find the answers yet Bart???

 

[kevdog]

Saddam Hussein and his WMD are sure helping us balance our budget, all we have to do is re-elect dubuya and we will have a surplus by the time he's out.

 

[sqwkvfr]

9/11/2001....3,000+ killed, victims compensation funds, airline bailouts, insurance company protection, tens of thousands of new federal employees (air marshalls, screeners, etc.) Greatly increased military, law enforcement and intelligence needs.

Dot-com bust.....Bubble bursts on hopes of caviar wishes and champange dreams.....many financed with credit cards.

The war on terror.....a new world wherein state sponsored terrorism is becoming far too commonplace....and for the first time EVER, we have a president and the will to hit these monsters head-on.

American economic recession....handed to this administration by one that engineered the largest tax increase in the history of the USA.

And the ever-present fear of being on the receiving end of a frivolous lawsuit...something that certainly WON'T go away if a Democrat gets elected this time around.

President Bush's "record deficit" had nothing to do with these things, right?

 

[kevdog]

VOTE PEROT 2004!

 

[Timebuilder]

...the difference is that Democrats at least have the stones to advocate taxes. The Republicans need the money to fund their thristy spending programs but don't want to be labeled as the tax-and-spend party. So, they just lie and say that they're "conservative" and babble on about reform and workers and blah blah blah. They've become a party of lies.

That's because republicans don't have the tax and spend party.

Right now, they are the party that is responding to the terrorist threat that went unanswered during the entire Clinton administration. The intel community was stripped bare, and the military left to close bases and go begging. Any wonder why we didn't have better intel? It's because democrats HATE the military AND the intel community. All of the decline of these areas can be traced to the democrat controlled congress that was in place for four decades.

Now, we are forced to spend what needed to be spent, yet wasn't. In fact, in order to rise to meet the threat with better security (both here and abroad) we are forced to spend even more.

A party of lies? It must be because you got used to washington run by democrats for forty years. That's who spent the money on failed programs like the war on poverty (far less effective than the war on drugs) and the Great Society, and failed to properly prosecute the war in VietNam. Please, tell me what the "lies" are. If you offer an "opinion" about something being a lie, then please give support to your opinion with a good argument.

I honor men like Kerry and Mc Cain for their service, but their postwar positions are the best argument I have seen for the deleterious effects of post traumatic stress syndrome.

It's a sad day when Dems advocate balanced budgets and Republicans are advocating higher spending...Yay, GWB!!!

Now think for a moment about that statement. Why are the dems advocating a balanced budget? Because they traditionally have used spending to hold their special interest groups under their thumb, and they have lost many of their favorite positions to GW. While I don't like the idea of a governmnet sponsored prescription drug plan, it has really torqued the dems by removing their largest support group. They are advocating lower spending so that they can spend the money themselves later, and try to recover their fractured coalition of disparate special interests. Spending money on their pet groups is the only hope they have of gaining any power whatsoever, and they know it. They are, in a word, "frantic."

Secondly, why are the republicans spending more? We have to spend the money that needs to be spent for our intel, military, and security personell. Frankly, there is no political will from ANY party to avoid the 'prescription drugs for seniors' problem. As a fait de compli, the best result is to rob the democrats of this powerful group that they had relied on for decades.

Clinton brought in more than he spent along with, yes, a Republican Congress. They got it right. This president, along with his Republican Congress, has managed to plunge us into debt by INCREASING SPENDING by 8% per year. Hell, I read a book awhile back that said, globally, federal budgets tend to increase 10% per DECADE when under the control of a liberal congress. This comes from places like France, Sweden, Canada, and Germany. Woudn't you think that the GOP, with their unforgiving propensity to cut spending and taxes, would cut us to profitability? I find the paradox quite astounding.

History has shown that cutting taxes increases revenues to the treasury. The countries that you mention who increase spending 10% per decade are all relying on who? to keep world security? Yes, it must be the Swedish bikini team. Do these countries get foreign aid from the US? Many do. Do they tax their citizens at a very high rate as a connerstone of a socialist system? Yes, they do.

Truly, to compare the spending of what is the greatest country to ever exist on earth during a time of response to terrorism with second rate clubs for socialists who still leech off the US, is curious indeed. I find that astounding.

Saddam Hussein and his WMD are sure helping us balance our budget, all we have to do is re-elect dubuya and we will have a surplus by the time he's out.

Let's ignore the sophomoric sarcasm for a moment and ask ourselves what we have gained by the toppling of Sadaam.

1) We are certain that any remaining WMD's in Iraq are not being moved freely, and the systems that were being developed using French and Chinese technology (which may have been sold to the Chinese by Clinton) are no longer on track.

2) We know that Iraq cannot easily be used as a base for terrorism against the US, or a base of attack against nations who are friendly to the US.

3) We have freed an entire nation, literally millions of people, from a dictator that is the only modern pretender to the "Hitler" title since Pol Pot and Idi Amin.

4) We have helped to create a nation that is on track for representative self-government, which helps to bring stability to the region. The fact that this was tried previously by the British colonialists has no modern relevance. It is interesting history, and that's all it is.

5) We now have a presence in the mideast. This is the presence of the leading free nation in the world, a nation that has the model of freedom that only a representative republic can provide. Our interests are not only the interests of our own people or our own corporations, they are the interests of free people everywhere. That's why people continue to flock to our shores.

President Bush's "record deficit" had nothing to do with these things, right?

The dems must ignore the context of events that have led us to this current set of conditions, so they can shout "record deficit!" and "spending like drunken sailors". Why? Because they have nothing else to say, no better ideas, no better response to terrorism, no better plan for senior's prescriptions, no better way to rebuild intel of the military, no better ideas on increasing US security.

Because they have no better ideas, all they are left with is soundbites about "taking back America" and "sending Bush into retirement."

No ideas. None that they will articulate.

Of course they DO have ideas; ideas so unpopular thay cannot own up to them. Ideas like brining the USA under control of the UN in areas of children, education, private property, ownership of firearms, terrorism, permission for the use of US troops and military hardware, and that's just the short list.

Of course, none of that flies with the American public, so they must use activist judges instead to advance this agenda. No one will run on the platform that the dems believe in.

I know it because I WAS one. I can't give you better cred than that.

 

[mizzouguy]

Walmart sucks