Comments on: Running Against Wal-Mart

By: Chander Balakrishnan

Chander Balakrishnan — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:01:14 +0000

Mr. Griswold’s comments are correct generically, that increasing wages at Wal-Mart would impact the cost of the products sold by Wal-Mart. That said, I wonder how much of the total cost of the products sold at Wal-Mart can be attributed to the wages paid to its workers by Wal-Mart.I have read in some places that it is as little as 2.5 cents on the dollar. Perhaps Mr. Griswold can comment on that.

Assuming that the increase is indeed 2.5%, I doubt seriously that pragmatic Americans would resent paying that much more to support a living wage for their fellow citizens.

By: A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Haste — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 01:18:37 +0000

Terrorists, Wal-Mart, Whatever…

We must defeat the enemy!Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, delivered a 15-minute, blistering attack to warm ap…

By: David

David — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:33:57 +0000

Makes perfect sense to me that the Dems’d be running against WallyWorld.

1.) WallyWorld is the perfect example of trade with some of the Dems’ fav people: commies in China, Muslims in Pakistan, etc.
2.) Wally World is doing AT LEAST as good a job on national security as Homeland (in)Security (wnna buy some tracphones?)
3.) WallyWorld is safe to attack (it has more power and is more secure than the Democratic Party, but will not use it against the Dems in any substantive manner… as long as the Dems are still losing and are insincere/impotent in their attacks on WallyWorld)

….and a host of other reasons, mainly hinging on the fundamental fact that NOTHING the Democratic Party says or does is based on any principle other than short-sighted election tactics based on rigged polling.