Re: Wal-Mart


GOLDENMIKE4393@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Wal-Mart
The liberals have it all wrong
By George Will


Wal-Mart
and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing
such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the
earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion).


Just what is Will saying here? It seems he is justifying WalMart low
wages get supplemented by welfare payments. (ie; the public saves
$200b, so it's okay if we have to spend $63.2b to help out their
employees). But isn't that public subsidation of this company?
Therefore not a real "free market". That is money we are giving to
Walmart.


Before they went on their bender of indignation about Wal-Mart
(customers per week: 127 million), liberals had drummed McDonald's
(customers per week: 175 million) out of civilized society because it
is making us fat, or something.

I think the very public complaints about McDonald's food did people
some good. It certainly made me question the amount of food I ate at
MickeyD's. I never ate that much there, but now I don't eat there at
all. I do visit to drink their coffee. Better than Starbucks,
depending on who's working the counter.

So, what next? Which preferences of
ordinary Americans will liberals, in their role as national scolds,
next disapprove? Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?
No. The current issue of The American Prospect, an impeccably
progressive magazine, carries a full-page advertisement denouncing
something responsible for ``lies, deception, immorality, corruption,
and widespread labor, human rights and environmental abuses'' and of
having brought ``great hardship and despair to people and communities
throughout the world.''

What is this focus of evil in the modern world? North Korea? The Bush
administration? Fox News Channel? No, it is Coca-Cola (number of
servings to Americans of the company's products each week: 2.5
billion).

I don't know of any big political campaign against Coke. I don't think
the Democrats can be soley pointed to for the McDonald's complaints.
Oh, wait: is this the "liberals"? doing all of this? I think Will has
a case to make about any particular sector getting into this debate. I
know Clinton takes a side in this because Clinton cares about childhood
obesity. (I suppose you think it's because he wanted Monica a little
slimmer). I think that is a legitimate health concern. I don't think
you should regard children as making "free and informed choices in a
free market place". The advertising is going to unduly influence them.

Their parents buy them coke and McDonald's crap because they want their
kids to think they are "good parents". Parents need to be more aware
of what they are doing.
So, I disagree with Georgie Boy. I think GWs problem is that he can't
talk about liberals dissenting on Iraq anymore. Even he knows Iraq is a
fiasco. (Took him long enough). So, of course, he has to turn his
sights elsewhere to point a finger at "liberals". But, WalMart and
McDonald's and Coke should not be put on the same playing fields: two
different issues altogether. Will's problem is he sees it all as an
attack on "american values". I'm surprised he is still not defending
american slavery.

When liberals' presidential nominees consistently fail to carry Kansas,
liberals do not rush to read a book titled ``What's the Matter with
Liberals Nominees?'' No, the book they turned into a best-seller is
titled ``What's the Matter With Kansas?'' Notice a pattern here?

Yes, and the Bush administration is telling Americans that they are
'confused'. In other words, "What's the Matter with Americans?".
Notice a pattern here?

.

Quantcast