If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Trib)   Has Wal-Mart become a welfare queen after revealing it is dependent on food stamps?   (chicagotribune.com) divider line 512
    More: Interesting, Walmart, welfare queen, Michael Hiltzik, median household income, welfare programs, Barry Ritholtz  
•       •       •

16512 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:33 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



512 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-25 09:17:13 AM  
that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-25 09:17:17 AM  
We'll find out when Obama decrees any business accepting food stamps has to pay its workers $15 per hour plus a free rainbow flag on Harvey Milk's birthday. If they go along, they're addicted to welfare.
 
2014-03-25 09:18:04 AM  
Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?
 
2014-03-25 09:23:27 AM  
1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.
 
2014-03-25 09:32:37 AM  

ZAZ: any business accepting food stamps has to pay its workers $15 per hour


Huh.  I'm sure there are many unintended consequences that will be pointed out to me, but at first glance, I'd support that businesses accepting food stamps should pay $10.10.
 
2014-03-25 10:13:18 AM  
I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.
 
2014-03-25 10:27:53 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


None of this is as sexy as 'mudslide: the muddening' or 'airplane 3: disappered?' or 'crimea river, ukraine too much russia'

You are asking for real change.
 
2014-03-25 10:35:34 AM  
Is Walmart Black and poor?
 
2014-03-25 10:35:39 AM  
Y-you mean the Republicans cunning plan to starve the country is coming back to bite the ass of one of it's bigger benefactors?

www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-03-25 10:35:47 AM  
Always low expectations

/Always
 
2014-03-25 10:36:03 AM  
Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.
 
2014-03-25 10:36:40 AM  
Don't know if Walmart is,   but 1 in 6 Americans are dependent on food stamps.

And then there are those on private charities and food banks.
 
2014-03-25 10:36:41 AM  

SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?


Just their employees.
 
2014-03-25 10:37:01 AM  
More proof liberal policies are really the corporate welfare.
 
2014-03-25 10:38:09 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


yeah but all that money comes from the taxpayer anyway.
 
2014-03-25 10:38:58 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Junior enlisted paygrades are low in pay because they're expected to be trainees.  When you enlist with a few kids, or enlist and then knock up the first girl that bats her eyes at you in an off-base bar you're going to struggle.  However, advancement is fairly regular early on and there are always time-in-service pay raises.  Furthermore, military families get free healthcare, subsidized groceries, tax-free housing and subsistence allowances, or they get base housing.  Yes some junior enlisted personnel with kids end up using SNAP, but they are not the general case unlike Wal-Mart.
 
2014-03-25 10:39:06 AM  
Clearly, the solution is to give the super-rich tax cuts.

The Waltons could then continue with their job creation duties. They won't do that, though, unless we cut their taxes even more, because we're hostage to their whims or something.
 
2014-03-25 10:40:07 AM  
MaoMart: We exploit cheap, communist (according to CIA.gov) chinese labor so you don't have to!!


God, stockholders do love Freedom!
 
2014-03-25 10:40:17 AM  
They pay their employees too little to live to they have to live off food stamps at taxpayer expense then these same employees go and purchase food from walmart with the food stamps so they get a double benefit, slave wage labor that wouldn't exist without taxpayer subsidizing them and the food stamps themselves.
 
2014-03-25 10:40:39 AM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?
 
2014-03-25 10:40:51 AM  
Much of this problem would be solved if some of these people would choose to stop being poor.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:08 AM  

doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.
 
2014-03-25 10:41:40 AM  
It's sort of like a national version of the company store. You get your food stamps from the government because Walmart doesn't pay you enough to eat, and then you spend your food stamps at Walmart because they drove out all the other grocers because they don't pay people enough to eat.
 
2014-03-25 10:42:01 AM  
If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages you're also in favor of your tax dollars going towards welfare to fill in the gap between those wages and a living wage, whether or notyou are smart enough to understand it or honest enough to admit it.  Well the third option is you're a sociopath who says "f*ck em" but one usually hopes that sociopaths don't get to drive policy.
 
2014-03-25 10:42:14 AM  

MFAWG: SovietCanuckistan: Is Walmart Black and poor?

Just their employees.


Zing
 
2014-03-25 10:43:11 AM  

doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.


Haven't you ever loved anything so much you crippled it so it couldn't get away to be with anyone else?
 
2014-03-25 10:44:12 AM  
Is this where we say; Oh SNAP
 
2014-03-25 10:45:08 AM  
WalMart: we've reached a new low in unbridled crony capitalism in 'murica.


you're welcome!
 
2014-03-25 10:46:14 AM  

Hobodeluxe: that should be an embarrassment to every American. That our largest corporations and our richest family is on welfare.


Mrs.Sharpier: Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?


Lots of win right at the start of this thread...good job guys :)
 
2014-03-25 10:46:39 AM  

SevenizGud: Eliminate food stamps.

Problem solved.


Brilliant!   throw the baby out with the bathwater.  as long as its not your baby.   i smell a republican again.  well done!
 
2014-03-25 10:46:41 AM  

archichris: But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-25 10:46:54 AM  
Become?
 
2014-03-25 10:47:14 AM  

Rwa2play: Y-you mean the Republicans cunning plan to starve the country is coming back to bite the ass of one of it's bigger benefactors?


Yes. Without doubling of the foid stamp program under obama, americans were going to starve to death. A 4% cut after an 80% growth is certain death. Ignore the fact that fraud and abuse was larger than the estimated cuts, starvation would be the result.

What utter ignorance.
 
2014-03-25 10:48:34 AM  

Carn: If you're in favor of large corporations paying sub-standard wages you're also in favor of your tax dollars going towards welfare to fill in the gap between those wages and a living wage, whether or notyou are smart enough to understand it or honest enough to admit it.  Well the third option is you're a sociopath who says "f*ck em" but one usually hopes that sociopaths don't get to drive policy.


You've never heard of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or FOX News, have you?
 
2014-03-25 10:48:52 AM  
There is nothing more communist than capitalist America. I first noticed this when McDonald's was handing out uniforms and stars to employees in the seventies and enforced sameness across locations, outfits and product. it hasn't changed since then.
American capitalists are the big equalizers: We are all the same just not before the government but before our corporate gods.
 
2014-03-25 10:48:58 AM  
Finally we figured out what is trickling down...food stamps.

Reaganomics is a success!
 
2014-03-25 10:49:16 AM  

MyRandomName: More proof liberal policies are really the corporate welfare.



yea, when i think of huge mega corporations in 'murica who own (because they can afford it) our  Legislators, i think of Liberal policies.   brilliant!  no one can fool you!
 
2014-03-25 10:49:16 AM  

archichris: doublesecretprobation: 1) drive wages so low your employees qualify for food stamps
2) profit

/welcome to wal-mart, i love you.

Walmarts wages are above minimum. Typically 50 people show up to apply for every position.

The Other thing is that if that money were not being taxed or borrowed out of the economy, it would still exist....and it would still create economic activity. The fact that Obama is trying to funnel as much of the economy through the Government as possible to create dependence is the real topic here.

Perhaps some of those people could find jobs if we didnt have 38 Trillion dollars per year in Economic activity being prevented by regulation. Wages for the bottom 30% of Americas workforce represent something like a Trillion dollars of the GDP....so merely reducing targeted regulation by 3% could double those workers wages through normal economic forces like supply and demand.

But liberals wont do that because it is more important for them to have control than it is for the lower class to double its wealth.


Is this satire?
 
2014-03-25 10:49:27 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


My other love is that the mention of "walmart is often the largest private employer with the most employees on government assistance" in these articles. What's usually left out, state employees are number 1 in many cases. But, state employees make too much, right?
 
2014-03-25 10:50:19 AM  

Hobodeluxe: yeah I mean what kind of problems could 60 million hungry people cause?


60 million people to get a job and not be bums?
 
2014-03-25 10:50:20 AM  
Walmart and the US Military: A match made in heaven.
 
2014-03-25 10:50:43 AM  

what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.


Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.
 
2014-03-25 10:50:51 AM  
I will accept both Welfare & EBT cards with great pride. Thank you.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:17 AM  
We've known this for a while.

Just wait.  The farmers will start complaining next.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:23 AM  
How about instead of you the taxpayer paying to support Walmart workers, Walmart does.
 
2014-03-25 10:51:35 AM  

hinten: There is nothing more communist than capitalist America. I first noticed this when McDonald's was handing out uniforms and stars to employees in the seventies and enforced sameness across locations, outfits and product. it hasn't changed since then.
American capitalists are the big equalizers: We are all the same just not before the government but before our corporate gods.



Under a capitalist system, man exploits man.
under a communist one, its just the opposite.  --renowned american economist john kenneth gabraith.
 
2014-03-25 10:52:26 AM  
Mmmm...food stamps...

rlv.zcache.com
 
2014-03-25 10:52:52 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: How about instead of you the taxpayer paying to support Walmart workers, Walmart does.


but that's un'murican!   that's unfreemarket capitalism!
 
2014-03-25 10:52:56 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: Wal-Mart CEOs, Presidents and Board of Directors should have to undergo drug tests every month. Also, they shouldn't spend their billions on lobster, cigarettes or soda.

Rep Paul Ryan is going to have a field day going after Wal-Mart! Right?



Hillary Clinton was the first woman on the Board of Directors.   She was integral to the growth and direction of Walmart... and helped make it what it is today.      We should be glad to have such a successful company that grew from humble beginnings in the South.    With a little help from some key politicians.
 
2014-03-25 10:53:36 AM  

LazyMedia: what_now: I love that we're picking on Wal Mart and not that other huge employer who's employees are often on food stamps because the pay is so low: The US Armed Forces.

Welcome to America. Pretty much all service member's wives work, like everyone else in the working class, and when they get laid off, they wind up on food stamps. The pay structure is set up for new recruits who are 18 and single; married service members with dependents get some additional bennies like a housing allowance, but it's not enough to make up for the additional expense.

Still, an E-1 makes more than $18,000 a year in base pay alone; that's the equivalent of $9 per hour. Not bad money for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, and if you make your expected promotions, you can retire in 20 years when you'll be making over $50k per year in base pay. And if you're married and living, say, in Mobile, AL, you get an extra $1,000 a month as an E-1 for housing. So that's $30k per year, or the equivalent of $15 an hour. The housing allowance goes up with rank, just like pay, and promotion up to E-3 is basically automatic.

America's troops are not underpaid, but some of them have more expenses than they can afford on one fairly decent wage.


I dunno, I think we should pay those guys a bit more than that.  I know they get hazard pay (they do get hazard pay right?!?!?) when deployed, but they should be getting a bit more given the risk they are assumed to be taking.

It might save us money in the long run to pay them more.  The increase in GDP might be worth it all by itself.

I'd take a reduction in forces too, but a guy can dream.
 
Displayed 50 of 512 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report